As much as I love to laugh at candidates, I wish the republican party had just ONE serious candidate. Just one. Not a "I'm against everything liberals are for" type. Not a hard right-wing extreme type. Just a republican candidate that actually made me have to think who I'm voting for. One where I actually have something to consider.
Largely because, with superhero stories (comics or movies), the villain has to be connected to the hero in some way. If the hero uses a serum to make them powerful, the villain also has a serum. If the hero is a god, the villain is also a god. If the hero utilizes a technology to fight, the villain will also.
I don't think while they were making it, they were even subconsciously thinking "we'll follow the Iron Man model". I think it's just how the hero/villain dichotomy has to work.
This is why, as much as I love Marvel, DC does a better job with villains and mixing things up.
I swear to god, if you people don't stop with the "Ant-Man is a ripoff of Iron Man" crap, I'm going to lose it.
Hank Pym (aka Ant-Man, Giant Man, Goliath, etc) was introduced over a year before Iron Man.
Sure, the movie release makes it seem like a knockoff....but if anything is a knock off, Iron Man is technically a ripoff of Ant-Man. But he's not even really. Hank Pym and the Starks don't have a great relationship...hence Ant-Man's role/side in Civil War.
Jesus people. If you're gonna nerd, nerd correctly.
I genuinely think if I started a thread about bunny rabbits and butterflies, somebody in the TB would make it a racial discussion at some point. Racism is a very real problem in this country that needs to be discussed for sure, but jesus.
Graham v Connor. Some officers are well aware, some are not. In all use of force decisions, it's important to remember. I think that will be my stock post from now on in all police threads in the TB. Just a link to that case law. It's appropriate no matter what.
I played sports starting at 5 years old. I didn't get a participation trophy until middle school. I hated it. My mom still has all my trophies in a box somewhere, I'm sure, but I know that that one participation trophy isn't in there. It got chucked as soon as I left the banquet. We won 2 games all year.
I'm a firm believer in teaching the importance of losing. Sure, don't make them feel like their effort is for nothing whenever they lose, but emphasize the importance of overcoming adversity, of bouncing back, of training harder, of maintaining better focus, etc. And, a tactic that always resonated with me (particularly in high school, as my high school football coach was amazing), be the first person you place blame on. Don't guilt the kids with it, but say something to the effect of "well, guys, we gotta do better. I didn't do enough to prepare you before this game, and I'm going to do better with that. I'm going to do my best to put you in a position to win." Leading by example. Some kids won't get it, but some will. Seeing their adult leader admitting their failure, even if they didn't, will fuel certain kids to strive for success just a bit harder on top of making them look at themselves and their own failures and accepting them. This is important for adult life, as most of us should know by now.
Subtlety is the key to teaching sometimes.
I say trophies are stupid outside of the big prize, like a championship or superlative trophy. I DO think something should be done for participating. Have a big pizza party with games and stuff. Do something that isn't about the competition, but the fraternity for being an athlete. Reward the participation with something like that.
While I can appreciate the idea of finding a new way to do things...people here are just different. The culture and system here have created this natural hostility and exacerbated it to a dangerous level.
Until you've asked somebody, several times, to put their hands behind their back and turn around and then have them refuse, you just won't get it. And I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I'm just saying when a guy has hit his wife several times and then tied a cord around his neck for auto-erotic purposes, then refuses to turn around and put his hands behind his back, and then pulls away from you and says he's going to start harming you....there's no way you are going to go "sir, you're under arrest for assault and I need you to please turn around and comply with my commands" and get a desirable result. And you don't have time to call a magistrate and get a warrant for "forcible arrest" while you're in the single wide trailer this guy lives in, with very little room to move. It's a distraction you can't afford in that moment. This guy literally makes you throw him on the ground in order to arrest him, then still exclaims that he has done nothing wrong (as they always do) and how all cops are terrible.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that recognizing a cigarette as a weapon was ridiculous. I mean, all it can do is burn your skin, or get flicked/pushed in your eye, which can cause at least partial blindness. I wasn't even saying "she had a weapon, so it's OK". I'm explaining the demand he made for her to put it out and how she had no business getting mouthy about being "in her car". You're still seized. The cop runs the show at that point. Cop asks, nicely, for you to put your cigarette out until he is finished, then you do it. But no, let's just demonize the career and treat every subject as innocent victims. Because that is working out so well.
That cigarette can be used as a weapon. She is agitated, has a hot object in her hands. She could easily burn him, flick it in his face, etc. He asked her to put it out so he could do his job. She was seized. She, at that point, does what she is told. That is how the interaction works. Instead, she refuses and gets an attitude. He asks her to step out of the car, she refuses. Now she is guilty of obstructing/delaying, which is an offense that gets you arrested.
This is where I start to agree/disagree with the officer.
No need for the taser. At all. If you can't get her out of the car, wait on backup. She doesn't pose a threat, but she is obstructing your investigation and refusing to do reasonable things expected of anybody during an interaction with the police (not like he's asking her to strip and do the hokey pokey).
Once she is out of the car, get her cuffed faster than you did. The whole "Stand here...wait, stand here....no, stand here" crap just slows you down and emboldens her, if she were violent, to make a move to hurt/kill/escape. Oh, and for those in the "he purposefully drove her off camera to take her down" camp...what if he had her between the two cars, on the ground, attempting to arrest, and a semi-truck hits his patrol car, sending it forward, and killing them both? You always take suspects to the side of the road, away from traffic hazards like oncoming traffic.
Once you take her down, just shut up and get her controlled. No need to jaw at her and make yourself look like an angry guy when she dug her own grave by visibly pulling away from you while you were attempting to arrest her.
So was this a flawless stop? No. I don't know Texas DPS policy, but I'm sure if there was a violation of procedure, it was pulling the taser. The cop was pretty patient, repeatedly asked her to get out of the car, then told her to, then made her. That is what happens when you delay.
All that being said, he should have just handed her the warning ticket and gone about his business. You're going to get cussed and bad mouthed by people on this job. It's just what happens. Develop thicker skin, hand her the warning, and say "have a very nice day, ma'am". He didn't HAVE to take it the route he did...but that doesn't mean he COULDN'T. This isn't a black and white thing. He made the choice to investigate her agitation rather than looking at face value and assuming "she's angry about the traffic stop". She allowed him enough reasonable suspicion to investigate further the second she lit the cigarette and refused to put it out.
I don't know what some of you expect. Only enforce the violent crimes harshly, otherwise try to get subjects to listen and comply, and if they don't, just get back in the car and say "oh well, guess we can't enforce the laws of this state and uphold the constitution of this state like I swore to do today. That guy just refuses, and I can't use the authority which I've been granted to effect enforcement of the laws or I'm a 'pig' and 'part of the problem' according to the Tinderbox"? (I'm well aware we're going to focus on the "unarmed female" and "power hungry cop" tropes here).
That's fair. I just thought Peppers and Jenkins complimented each other a bit more than did Rucker and Peppers. Jenkins drawing to to his side, Buckner and Peppers are left one on one on the other side if you don't have a TE to Peppers' side. But that whole DL during that time was unstoppable. Those were 4 men that every OL feared facing, because you KNEW that they were going to get to your QB at least a few times. It was a forgone conclusion.