Jump to content
Carolina Huddle


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lightsout last won the day on September 19 2010

lightsout had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,240 Awesome

About lightsout

  • Rank
    Watch 'Canes Hockey
  • Birthday 12/03/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Mostly just John Forslund saying "that's hockey, baby!"

Social Stuff

  • Twitter Handle
  • Twitter

Recent Profile Visitors

13,869 profile views
  1. As a gamer, you can bet a segment of them will absolutely not show up but respond to their friends via text "yeah bro, be there in like an hour" and then as it starts "man something came up, tomorrow though for sure"
  2. At the end of the day, the league will go with the option that brings in money. Now if we're fantasizing about what will bring a better product and something that benefits the talent and pushes for more competitiveness amongst rosters? 11 game regular season. This COULD mean a league restructure. Four divisions within two conferences is a possibility. Would make your schedule 8 in division, 3 out. Or keep current structure, play 8 out of division, 3 in. This would make divisional games VERY meaningful, but could be more chaotic for playoff seeding if you have two identical records within the same division (tie breakers would be simple enough but would leave bad tastes in mouths). Regardless of fantasies, 18 games is too damn much for football.
  3. Oh dear God not this crap again. If Luke was more athletic, we'd call him more athletic. He's not. He's smarter than most guys in the league regardless of position. That's the point.
  4. Or maybe I just believe it's wrong when some right wing nut job does it too. I'm in no way saying that it's fine for one to do and not the other. They're both equally fuging dumb. It doesn't matter that right wingers have more historical events of doing heinous poo. You can't excuse one until it's balanced. You condemn it across the board or accept that you support it if it suits you. At the end of the day, people are allowed to be racist pieces of poo. It's America. It's what freedom is. They're free to believe anything. Actions are the issue. That's where racists can not belong, acting on their racism in the form of intimidation, assault, etc. You know, the very things antifa does with ideological opponents. Being pissed at the proud boys is plenty reasonable, and if they come around bringing literal physical violence, then yeah fug them up. But short of that, them saying ignorant poo for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of leftists isn't cause for taking bike locks to the heads of people wearing Trump's stupid propaganda hats or sucker punching people for a disagreement. These things are happening, they're not a hoax like the cement milkshakes. Antifa as an idea (anti-fascism), cool. Fascism sucks. Antifa in reality has at least large groups within it willing to damage property and assault people because they disagree with them or they're angry that they get to hold public gatherings. It's an inescapable truth. And on the "the cops protect the proud boys" bullshit, you realize that they have to be there, between the two right? And it's always going to be the counter protestors notorious for committing crimes when they gather in large numbers that peace keepers will be concerned with over the group of idiots spouting nonsense in a park. It's not illegal to say stupid, racist poo. It is illegal to set fires because you disagree or hate the speech. Alt-right loons have weapons confiscated and criminals arrested within their ranks as well at these large rallies. Antifa got their rep. Take away law enforcement and you know what happens? Antifa instigating a large brawl with the proud boys because they gave those morons an audience to piss off. It's what the proud boys do. Their entire mission statement is "piss off liberals, bait a fight" and they get exactly that over and over. Optics matter. It makes the left look more violent and like free speech oppressors. Which riles up the right, which leads to Trump getting elected. And one last note, if we're talking cowardice, literally every video I've seen of antifa punching Nazis or being "righteously violent" is some coward too afraid to show his face (with literally one exception where you had a coordinated effort of a person distracting while a second delivers a sucker punch), sucker punching somebody, then running away immediately. Not even the balls to stand and own it. That's well documented as well and one reason why I don't think anybody should support it or take it seriously.
  5. Antifa has been caught sucker punching people, bear macing people, throwing rocks and shooting marbles with slingshots at people, and destroying property. Gets supported by people who think use of force by cops against resisting criminals is bad. Also, if you think that calling antifa, a bunch of nerds who think they're somehow "fighting the good fight", a violent group is somehow stating support for the alt-right, you may be stupid. See a doctor for help.
  6. Except that's not what is happening. Antifa isnt hanging out near proud boys and defending the weak from them after the proud boys punch them. I'm talking about the actions of the people within the groups. Both are violent, both cause a similar issue for the public in that they endanger people often. The biggest difference in their actions is at least antifa has a segment that just shows up to peacefully protest and not set things on fire and fight people. Personal opinion is one thing. Punching anybody who believes that anything resembling Nazism is great is commendable to me, but let's not act like the larger gathering of several antifa members to have what is essentially a gang fight is anything other than stupid.
  7. Antifa is literally no better than the Proud Boys. Antifa is responsible for assaulting people and destroying property and endangering people via setting things on fire. How is that any different than the Proud Boys beyond the political differences, as one is far-right and the other far-left? Both of these groups are stupid and supporters of both think they're right. They think they're necessary. This is what makes both of them dangerous. It's what put 3 people in the hospital. You have the right to assemble and protest and there are rules set within those rights to not impede other people's rights and to keep everybody safe. Neither side give a damn about that because they think their tactics are necessary. If you can't see that, you are willfully ignorant. Granted, there is a segment (to my understanding) of Antifa that is about peace and not resorting to violence but for self defense...and yet again, herd mentality. All this being said, the Proud Boys tried hard to not be outdone in Charlottesville what with the driving a car into people bit. Don't think Antifa is directly responsible for that level of violence yet, but just wait because it is coming. These things tend to escalate. It's why Florida did their best to have police keep the Proud Boys from going over to the Antifa protest. That's the lone positive of the Portland incident. Maybe now we'll have cops actively working to keep the two sides separated enough to avoid another gigantic brawl. At least until idiots from either side start chucking things across streets at each other and a stampede occurs and more people get hurt and sent to the hospital while people in here attempt to blame the other side.
  8. Seriously? Admitting I oversimplified something for the sake of making a point and recognizing the problem with that is talking out of both sides of my mouth?
  9. You're making a ton of assumptions and completely disregarding the part where I clarify what I said but whatever dude
  10. I hear you and I get it. Nothing is cut and dry. My example is 100% dependent upon a totally normal situation. You can feel these things out fairly easily and use best judgment a lot of times so if you have somebody with something like autism or somebody who suffers from PTSD, you act appropriately. Again, under low stress and in-keeping with the officer's duties to make a lawful arrest, there are usually multiple "good" ways to go about things but no singular "correct" way (though there may be a BEST way, especially with hindsight). There's actual case law in regards to these things (Graham v Connor). So while I may have oversimplified to make a point, you get the point. The "basic" way of going about an arrest is explaining that they are under arrest and using the minimal amount of force necessary to make said arrest. Ideally, everybody is chill and it goes smoothly without any use of force at all needed (and this is usually the case, but because of social media, people have this perception that cops are constantly in combative situations with people and while there may be some cop somewhere fighting somebody, one single cop isn't fighting people every single day unless you're in LA or NY or some other city where you are dealing with a lot more people and therefore, more chance for violent people).
  11. So how much time is reasonable to give a person to decide if they're going to comply or run or grab a weapon and make a situation go from simple to dangerous?
  12. The example isn't immediate. Not at all. You asked them to please submit to being lawfully arrested. They refuse. You tell them that they have to and will. They refuse. You grab them and attempt to take them out of the vehicle and they fight it. How is that "not needed"? If cops can't force compliance from non-compliant people, good look enforcing anything because people will say "all you have to say is no, because cops can't physically lay hands on you to force you into handcuffs when you are being arrested for a warrant or crime".
  13. IDK about that percentage nor how many turn a blind eye to it. If and when it occurs, it's a problem. No reasonable person would disagree with that. As far as how cops act different when they know they're being filmed, again I'm not sure how much of that is indeed the case and how much that is a perception. If a cop always acts appropriately and is then recorded while continuing to act appropriately, it's tough to say "see how much better they act when they're being recorded". With the escalation thing, there's a bit of both sides of this. On one hand, there are cops that need more high stress training or the ability to use better judgment when they have to escalate things and on the other....well, sometimes you have to escalate things. Example: you're going to arrest somebody who is sitting in a car. You ask them to get out. They refuse. You tell them to get out. They refuse again. You grab them out of the car, they resist coming out, you then have to slam them on the ground and wrestle their arms behind their back to cuff them. That isn't a "problem". If you think that is, you're objectively wrong. Now if you're not talking about instances like that but others where you perceive an officer as needlessly escalating things, then it'd be about the facts surrounding it and how and why that occurred. Sometimes it's reasonable, others it's not. So yes, escalating for compliance is a thing within policing because it is necessary and yes, absolutely it is sometimes abused and those things are more often than not dealt with by disciplinary action and/or firing/charges being filed.
  • Create New...