Feel free to lie to yourself all you want. I’m done here.

The lack of it being mentioned by the police is a good reason to believe that Tazers and Pepper Spray were not used. Otherwise they would have lead with that when talking about this case. On top of that, the officer in question shot this man in the back. Three times. And I’m supposed to believe that all non-lethal means to stop this man were exhausted? I highly doubt it.

And just because a person does wrong and deserves punishment does not mean they deserve to be murdered by the state. This person had the potential to be dangerous. That doesn’t mean that he gets an automatic death sentence because some cop decided so. And I’d very much argue unloading a gun in a population center is far more dangerous then any agitated man with a knife.

I may not have been there personally, but you weren’t either. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just as valid to be critical of the police in question as I have been. After all: you’ve been doing essentially the exact same thing by defending the police’s actions without any evidence that they exhausted all other non-lethal means.

I am not sure how pepper spray is supposed to stop someone from wildly slashing around.

Blinding someone takes out a lot of their capabilities. It’s hard to hit a target you can’t see. And the vast majority of people with pepper spray in their eyes are going to grab at their eyes first from the pain/discomfort. I’m surprised I have to point this out.

Been many times proven to be unreliable: Highly depends on what the attacker is wearing or which mental state he is in.

The vast majority of people tend to tense up when tazed. Some people handle it better than others, but most people are getting stopped by a tazer. And again, pepper spray is another option if the tazer failed. The gun should have only been a last resort if no other options worked and the suspect was still trying to stab someone.

Guess we should task you with the investigation, since you appear to know a lot more than the rest of us.

They literally shot the man in the back three times, but K.

Do cops in Germany not have Pepper Spray? Do they not have tazers? It seems like there were plenty of options to deal with the threat at hand without killing them. But the cop decided to take the US approach of shoot first ask questions later.

K

You’re being pedantic. The original point is referring to how indoctrinating the pledge of allegiance can be. If you’re being made to do something since you’re a very young kid and risk being scolded when you don’t do it: you’re essentially being forced.

You do realize fixing the water supply doesn’t address the health issues caused from lead exposure automatically, Right? The water supply may be better comparatively. But the issues that it causes in Flint, Michigan are far from resolved.

Legally, schools and teachers can’t force a student to perform the pledge of allegiance. But it’s also taught so early in school that most students don’t even question it as something to do.

Anectdotally: I was regularly performing the pledge of allegiance (literally said every morning of school) since kindergarten in the US. Also anecdotally: I’ve literally seen a teacher scold student(s) for not performing the pledge of allegiance. The latter case may not be as common; but the former definitely is common in the US.

There is no beef, legally speaking at least. Khalil is a legal US resident with a green card who was illegally arrested for taking part in pro-palestinian protests on Columbia campus when he was a student in 2024.

He was illegally arrested and now illegally detained as a result of the Trump administration’s push against immigration. It is also retaliatory action against pro-palestinian protestors at large. Or even just the campuses where the protests happened. This also occurred after Columbia University had federal funding cut because of theses protests.

This move was also a retaliatory action by the Trump administration: despite Columbia University acting harshly against protestors in 2024 when they took place.

But what advantage do women without a vagina have versus one that does? What if they didn’t go through cis puberty? How do we knows trans woman have an innate advantage instead of being effectively handicapped by their hormone treatment? This is my entire point. People want to ban Trans women specifically because of a reactionary feeling of “its not fair” while having zero evidence. There are like 2 cases where a trans athlete outperformed their cis peers. Yet the way some people (not you specifically) act you’d think trans women are sweeping every sports competition.

In my opinion, it comes down more to being exclusionary towards trans woman. More-so then it ever was about “protecting women’s sports”. I don’t think that everyone that wants to bar trans women thinks this way. But people like Charlie Kirk 100% do and will abuse that at every turn. This is the same man that calls June “Groomer month”.

All trans women/trans athletes should be banned from sports competition because 2 happened to out-perform their cis peers? What a pathetically reactionary argument. This comment right here perfectly exemplifies the transphobic mindset.

Here’s an idea: why don’t you post actual peer-reviewed studies and evidence of trans athletes outperforming their peers on average due to being trans? Oh wait, you can’t. Because there’s literally zero empirical evidence of that being the case.

And the fact that you pivoted so quickly away from Phelps for some reactionary anecdote says it all.

I’ve never seen people care this much about Micheal Phelps biological atheletic advantage. That alone tells me that this argument is disingenuous and a way to be transphobic in a public way.

There are actual verified cases of olympic tier athletes winning because of their biological make-up. And yet the only time biological advantage is brought up is to shill tranphobic talking points. You don’t even have to be trans to be accused of being trans. These same people claiming to be advocates of women’s sport are the same people who will falsely accuse biological women of being biological men

Hard disagree. Those who didn’t vote said exactly what they stood for. Dems had the power, and completely ignored it and didn’t get voted in as a result.

If you’re blaming non-voters you’re just causing unnecessary division amongst the left. The US has been fascist for a long time. And everything happening has been a long time coming. Trump is a symptom, not the cause.

Oh, I see. It only matters now because something actually effects you. You can ignore genocide when it happens elsewhere easily enough, but it’s too close for your comfort now, huh?

Please keep going about how voting was going to save us from something the Republican party has been trying to do since Reagan. Gonna block you now since I have more important stuff to do and you’ve already taken up too much of my time. Have fun seething!

I love how you act like you know me. You don’t, but it’s cute.

I’m actively donating to causes and keeping updated/reporting ICE raids as they happen in the area. What about you?

I’m saying that not supporting genocide is a principled choice. You not agreeing with that is your problem.

Like you’ve been doing this entire thread? Lmao

I’ll actually be with my community and fighting along side them when it happens. Not putting some paper in a box and expecting a fascist to disappear forever like you.

Imagine thinking voting was an available avenue against fascism.

You believe voting works against fascism. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.