Jump to content


Member Since 24 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 03:41 AM

#3142358 So I bought my first suit...

Posted by lightsout on 18 December 2014 - 10:45 PM

I graduated from my Basic Law Enforcement Training program today (yay me), and needed to wear a suit. Totally out of my element, since the only time I've worn anything like it was a tux in a wedding in high school and my two proms, so I had no idea what I was getting. I figured, "Well, I'm sure I'll need a suit for various things from this point on, so I might as well buy rather than rent". Since I was told to get said suit kind of last minute, I didn't have time to get it tailored or anything.

So I go to Belk. Figured they have holiday sales, maybe I get lucky. As I'm looking, I notice a big blue and white sign on the wall. "MADE" with "Newton" written into the letters. Yep, Cam's clothing line. So, I figure I HAVE to at least try on a coat. I do, and it's fuging perfect. Then I figure it HAS to be pricey, even on a sale.....nope. $170 for the pants and coat. Figure I'd spend about that much renting anything quality from somewhere, so I go with it. Very happy I did. Got a LOT of compliments on it, and it is a damn near perfect fit (sleeves need to be tailored a bit, but otherwise, it's good).

Might post a pic of me in it later if anybody is interested. I definitely suggest it to anybody looking for a suit though. Very happy with my purchase.

TL;DR, I didn't have a suit, so I bought one of Cam's suits and it is awesome. Go buy one.

#3139287 Cam Newton is no longer a starter in the NFL (not serious)

Posted by lightsout on 16 December 2014 - 01:34 PM

Day late, dollar short, etc.

#3139263 Nestrasil to IR, Shugg Recalled

Posted by lightsout on 16 December 2014 - 01:19 PM

I can't wait until we have a good team.....should occur when my son is 7.

Important note: my girlfriend isn't even pregnant right now. -_-

#3133074 Just saying.... EXACT same situation as last year

Posted by lightsout on 14 December 2014 - 12:53 PM

It's exactly the same guys. Just ignore all of the ways in which it is entirely different.

#3132738 The End of Cam Newton

Posted by lightsout on 14 December 2014 - 12:58 AM

1. Cam's reference to god means as little to me as 99% of all players' similar statements. I couldn't care less. I get and can appreciate what they're saying even though I'm an atheist and thus, don't share that belief system. The Golden Calf of Bristol didn't get drummed out of the league by atheists. The Golden Calf of Bristol got drummed out of the league through his inability to throw passes accurately and read defenses. This was verified by 3 team's coaching staffs deciding to let him go.

2. Some atheists are morons. Some Christians are morons. Being one does not necessarily imply the other for either.

3. Anytime a dissenting opinion comes across, people will get defensive. This is especially true concerning religion, and that is especially true concerning religion in the southern states.

4. Yes, atheists here (meaning atheists in the south, as I assume most here are either current residents or former residents of NC/SC) often have a lot to say about Christianity. Why? Well, here's a short list:

- Christians opposing equality based on absolutely nothing but their religion, which is unconstitutional and ridiculous
- Christians opposing comprehensive sexual education in favor of ignoring the reality that teenagers are going to have sex and just saying "don't have sex", which is ridiculous, dangerous, and ignorant.
- Christians opposing women having a choice of whether or not they are to be slaves to their bodies and biology, which is overbearing and ridiculous
- Christians yearly fabricating the "war on Christmas" out of whole-cloth, which is ridiculous, yet hilarious.
- Christians constantly looking down on atheists and refusing to even associate with us...or sending death-threats....or saying we deserve eternal torture.
- Christians constant need to have their religion imposed on children in public schools
- Christians denying actual science and wanting pseudo-science taught in public schools because they think creationism is somehow more than a hypothesis and misrepresent/misunderstand what a scientific theory actually is
- Being disowned by family due to not being Christian
- A lot of atheists feel like they've lived a lie and voice their anger due to that, as well

So, yes, atheists talk a lot about Christianity. The day Judaism or Islam or literally any other religion is pushed as hard in American society and law-making, you'll see us talking about that more. The day any other religion is the majority of the population and that creates social division on the scale that Christianity currently does, you'll see us talking about that more (though, my generation has taken great leaps towards defeating that division through the ease of access of information and the apparent need for generation to know things and to seek equality and understanding between people.

Having said all of that, I've sort of gotten past the need to debate/have deep conversations about religion. Mostly because it's often fruitless and tiring, and I frankly just don't give a poo anymore. I still don't believe and I've convinced very few people to even really investigate their beliefs, let alone change them. And there are more important things to do and talk about, like football, science, the weather, sex, etc.

#3123220 Could 7-8-1 actually win the division?

Posted by lightsout on 07 December 2014 - 04:46 PM

Just saying, it would be poetic as fug if we won out, made the playoffs, and made it to at least the NFC Championship game. 

NOBODY would see that coming.

#3117972 New Atheism, Old Empire

Posted by lightsout on 04 December 2014 - 07:13 AM

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have all said incredibly stupid things. I disagree with a lot of what they say. I agree with some of what they say. I think the only "problem" with "new" atheism is that you have armchair intellectuals who don't know how to form an original thought and the aforementioned names are easy to copy and paste quotes from. That's why you see some of their more ridiculous quotes about Islam everywhere on Facebook (depending on which Facebook groups and pages you see, I guess).

#3112706 Season 5: The Walking Dead

Posted by lightsout on 30 November 2014 - 10:26 PM

I thought it was well done. The point here wasn't to go out with a bang so much as setup the group to come back together again. Setting up for February. I'll take it.

Loved the opening sequence. Rick is not fuging around with any bullshit. This was the Rick I was BEGGING for during season 3 and 4. They definitely should have went with Rick's plan of going in and just killing them all. They had the upper-hand in every way. They would have already had up to 5 of the officers out of the way (if they faked the plan up to the point of Rick meeting with those other two to discuss the trade). They could have sneaked in without much issue, especially having Noah alive and him knowing the layout.

Loved how they brought Abraham and co. back to Michonne and Carl, and then left for DC.

Loved the Beth sequence by the elevator. I'm still not sure who the evil is in that hospital. Either the cops left at the end of the episode are crazy or that other chick was. Maybe it was just a microcosm of Woodbury though. No matter who was in charge, that setting creates a God complex, so corruption within that hospital is just inevitable. The strong taking advantage of the weak, who are depending on them to stay alive.

My only gripe with the episode was Beth at the end. I'm still not sure what she meant by "I get it now" nor why she stabbed her when she could have just left. I doubt the group would actually leave without Noah at that point. Rick and Daryl were objectionable enough that I think they would have went out, turned back around, and went in guns blazing. It just seemed a bit odd. Did catch me off guard though, so that was good.

Now...the long wait to February.

#3111080 He is Darren Wilson

Posted by lightsout on 30 November 2014 - 03:40 PM

No, actually, he is Kenneth Caplan. Easy mistake to make. Names are fairly similar.

#3108458 Hardy Coming Back?

Posted by lightsout on 29 November 2014 - 05:30 PM


Is he hinting at something here?


@JakobNarbei jump on a broom and hit my zoom #sackcity coming sooooooon


Kilt it. No spoon.

#3108447 Hardy Coming Back?

Posted by lightsout on 29 November 2014 - 05:15 PM

What's the connection between his tweets and being reinstated?

Him being on social media again means that he may have been told that he doesn't have to be as careful, which COULD mean he is going to be reinstated. 

Or it could mean that he asked if it was cool as long as he kept his nose clean on it.

#3108332 12-year-old in Cleveland with a BB gun shot by cop

Posted by lightsout on 29 November 2014 - 03:23 PM

SEATTLE (AP) — The grand jury that declined to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was focused on whether he might have acted in self-defense when he shot and killed unarmed, 18-year-old Michael Brown.

But the case raises another question: Could Wilson have avoided getting into a spot where he had to make that split-second, life-or-death decision?

Departments around the country have in recent years stepped up their training in "de-escalation" — the art of defusing a tense situation with a word or a gesture instead of being confrontational or reaching for a weapon.

"We haven't taught officers to just walk away," said Cambridge, Massachusetts, Police Commissioner Robert Haas. "But if the only reason a person is acting up is because you're standing there ... isn't that a viable approach?"

Proponents, including the Justice Department, say the approach can improve trust and understanding between police and residents, curtail the unnecessary use of force, and improve the safety of officers and civilians alike.

In practice, de-escalation can take many forms, said Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb. Sometimes it means that multiple officers respond rather than one, because the larger presence can make excitable subjects realize they're outnumbered.

But for an officer, it can also mean calmly introducing yourself, listening to what someone is saying and simply relating to the person. The use of body-worn cameras can also help, experts say, because both officers and civilians tend to behave better when they know they're being recorded.

"If we can use language and presence to get people to comply with lawful orders, we can consider that a win," Whitcomb said.


That's another thing. Once they started mouthing off at Wilson, I'm not sure throwing it in reverse and attempting to speak with them further is going to help. You're trained to not take things personally. People don't see you. People see the uniform and the badge. I think a better approach, from the start, by Wilson would have been to say "OK, y'all be safe" and drive up JUST a little, keeping them in the rear view. Watch them until they're out of the street to ensure they don't cause a wreck, as they're walking in the middle of the street, and to see that they go to the destination they claimed they were going to. That would have been the ideal approach to it, I think.

I get why Wilson stated he wanted to get them out of the street, and thus approached them. But is arguing in the street going to help anything? Why not get to the side of the road and ask them to come over and just chat? If they won't, you don't have anything to charge them with. Sure, you can cut them a jaywalking ticket if that's in your state's statutes, but the DA will laugh at you and call you an idiot and toss that out, and now you've just wasted their time, your time, and part of your day off going to court for a BS charge that you didn't HAVE to cite them for (sort of like cutting a citation for not having a license plate light. You can do it...but do you really want to be THAT guy?). Or, sure, he could have made a case for RDO (resist, delay, obstruct). Again though...do you want to be THAT guy who has 15 RDOs in a month appear in court?

The more stuff like this is brought up...the more I think Wilson really is just an idiot. Still doesn't justify Brown assaulting him in the car...but the WHOLE situation could have been avoided, really.

#3108278 12-year-old in Cleveland with a BB gun shot by cop

Posted by lightsout on 29 November 2014 - 02:33 PM

Couple notes.


1) I don't think cops are all bullies.  At all.  I do think they are subject to biases normal people are, and sometimes more extreme bias due to experiences shaping perception.  I think some cops are bullies... and perhaps the profession attracts bullies in some cases, but I think most cops are just trying to protect people. 

2) The numbers he cited are quoted in a bunch of places, but 400 justifiable police shootings a year is something the DOJ has put out before, and 2012 had 42 police deaths due to firearms .  But you're right- sources are important.  So I'm giving you a couple.  2013 had 26 officers die in the line of duty due to firearms (http://www.fbi.gov/n...d-and-assaulted), while there were 458 justifiable firearm-related police homicides reported (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2009-2013.xls).


Based on the article I just linked, though, these statistics may not be reliable due to voluntary reporting.


Trust me, law enforcement doesn't always attract the best types of people. I'm a witness to that fact. The best the good of us can hope for is that the bad dig their own grave and don't get hired anywhere.

It's hard to get a good read on good shoots vs bad shoots simply because yeah, some departments look after their own and don't keep track of the bad (sometimes to protect the officer, sometimes to protect the reputation of the department, sometimes both). They handle it in-house, and the really bad agencies do absolutely nothing in-house. That's an issue for another thread though.

I think a lot of people misread what the numbers represent. Cops are trained more with their weapon, so of course they're going to come out on top of more shootouts, leading to lower deaths by firearm. Crazy criminals in large firefights with law enforcement isn't commonplace for any agency, even if it's more prevalent in certain areas over history. Most cops will never see that scenario. Some people just really don't like the idea of a cop having to shoot any criminal. They think "protect and serve" means never harming anybody, and that simply isn't true.

We need better community policing in most places and a better understanding of the job given to the general public. They have to understand the job, what it entails, what the risks are, and SOP for violent situations. Once that understanding is finally given, we'll see less knee-jerk reaction to cops, I think/hope.

Getting back to the initial point of bad shoots though, yes, they happen. Sometimes they're accidental, sometimes they're due to lack of good training, sometimes they're due to bad judgment (either on the officer's part or the suspect/victim. For instance, the old man who reached for his cane out of the back of his truck at night that looked a LOT like a rifle, given the lighting and all. I've watched that video a million times, and it's hard to blame that officer too much). And yes, sometimes they are just due to bad cops who get trigger happy. I just have a hard time seeing how bad shootings can be so much more prevalent than good ones.

#3108256 Unarmed White Teen Gunned Down By...wait for it.

Posted by lightsout on 29 November 2014 - 02:00 PM

no one has suggested otherwise



this is debatable, based on wilson's grand jury testimony and what we know about the superhumanization bias in whites' perceptions of blacks. wilson claimed that he, a 6'4" trained LEO, felt like a helpless 5 year old in the hands of a fat, 6'4" teenager. he literally said "it looked like a demonic hulk hogan," managing to both dehumanize and superhumanize the teen (but most importantly, otherize brown to the grand jury to the point that the only apparent human involved in the shooting was of course the brave officer wilson). to say that there is "nothing to suggest" race as a factor ignores both the cop's testimony and greater social context.



this is either a general misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument put forth by those who would like to see wilson stand trial for his actions but to me the only people who have brought that "assumption" to the discussion are reactionaries attempting to smear those who put forth their very valid concerns (see every "but what about that time a white kid got killed by a cop was that racist too huh huh huh??" as if the very fact that the two parties failed to share the same race was ever the foundational argument advanced by those who would argue that race was a contributing factor to wilson's actions)



for more on the superhumanization of black ppl, look to the past:












now tell me the difference between "giant *****" and "demonic hulk hogan" other than the fact that race is only implied in the second rather than directly stated. this is consistent with the change in racism over the past ~4 decades, beginning with the southern strategy and ending in a time in which the only way to call someone racist and get away with it is if the target of your accusation freely admits to it, wears klan garb, or calls a white man racist (we'll call this the KT rule)

I think it's implied by some that if a cop of one race shoots an individual of another, it's racist. Not saying it always isn't, simply stating it isn't always necessarily the case and pointing out the obvious for those who like to throw that accusation out there immediately.

The more I have thought about it, an indictment would have at least given a chance to iron out details and get him on the stand. Wilson's description is a bit above and beyond and the dehumanization is what triggered me to dig deeper and look up some of the documents presented to the grand jury. I'm not sold that it was necessarily racism on his part, but if it wasn't, the only thing that makes sense is he tried to make it seem more dramatic to draw the sympathy from the public. Those are the only two options for it, and both are equally viable (as I said, he may well be racist. I don't know the guy).

#3106388 12-year-old in Cleveland with a BB gun shot by cop

Posted by lightsout on 26 November 2014 - 10:23 PM

Nobody in immediate danger? From what the cops know, there's a guy with a gun. They see the gun and see it get picked up by the kid, so instead of parking at the curb and walking over to investigate, they get closer so that they can use their car for cover. Tactically there's nothing the cops really did wrong here. Could it have been better? Always, but that doesn't mean they were wrong or acted hastily.

Cops want to go home at the end of each shift. That's the goal every single day. Go home. They are responding to a person with a gun call. They approach and give commands for the kid to put his hands up and he reaches for a gun. The kid didn't deserve to be shot (his parents failed him and that is the cause here), but he did earn the shots by his actions. I understand that may seem nonsensical, and if you don't get what I'm saying there, I'll try to explain it better. I don't think the kid was necessarily malicious or a bad person. He's a kid playing with a toy gun and not understanding the implications of doing that in public and what a gun signifies, toy or not. However, that's not the way ANY cop does or should view it. You drop your guard and say "oh, it's just a kid" and that kid ends up shooting you with a real gun, then what?

There's literally no version of this case where the cops were wrong. Yet, people will say they were. It boggles the mind.

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com