Bay 12 Games Forum

I had no idea that it was disrespectful in China to nap before meeting with someone.

Oh wait. Even if is in China, this is America where it is not, so his behavior in this says nothing about his nap habits before he meets with a Chinese diplomat.

Actually cript, what Gingrich did is kinda' disrespectful in the states, at least from what I've ran in to so far. If you want a similar scenario, take someone passing out in class on the day of a presentation; person gets woken up by someone else, manages to give their presentation well, but forgets a small part of the assignment.

It wouldn't be a grade breaker, exactly, but that student would be losing some points off their presentation -- and yeah, it's a little insulting to the people they're presenting to. When you know you've got a presentation to give, it's pretty much on you to be awake, alert, and on top of the material. Screwing up a little isn't the end of the world, but it doesn't look too good either

It's fairly minor though, yeah. If you want to dropkick Gingrich over something, there's plenty of bigger targets to apply your heel to.

Yes, in a sense. Then again, assuming you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, you pretty much deserve what you get.

This specifically is (at least part of) what you're being questioned on, MC. If you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, but genuinely did nothing of the sort, you still "deserve what you get?" There's been plenty of cases where actually innocent -- not just claiming to be, but literally unconnected with the crime they're suspected off -- people have been pulled down as suspects. These people deserve to be harassed, arrested, etc.?

No, they cannot. Reasonable suspicion can cause an officer to stop you. If they cannot find anything overt (or you pass a sobriety test), you are free to go.

Reasonable according to whom, MC? What measure are they being held to? You are free to go afterward, yes, but until that point if you screw up -- trip, make an unfortunate movement due to the stress of the situation -- it can end up terribly for you. That's worrying.

I'm not going to say it's what you're saying, but what I'm hearing here is that any officer at any time can stop you for any reason, so long as they can justify it after the fact as "reasonable." It doesn't actually have to be -- and in some areas the states, at least, "reasonable suspicion" doesn't actually have to exist -- reasonable. The cop just has to be vetted as being reasonable, probably by someone who you'll never see face-to-face and doesn't, themselves, have to justify their reasons for giving the police officer that suspects you a by.

A white-collar criminal who goes quietly is going to get a lot better treatment than say, a drug dealer who takes a couple shots at the police. The girl fits in the grey in-between the extremes.

I'm guessing you realize how this line bothers people who have committed no crime but fit into often harassed categories.

You're saying to me, a long-haired fellow, that if a cop pulls me over on the road (which, in my state, they can do with literally no justification), arrests me on probable cause (Not telling to me at the time, of course, and asking would have a disturbing chance of getting me assaulted. Sure, that'd probably get thrown out of a courtroom, but until then...?), and throws me in jail until morning, I should just... go quietly. That the situation as described above is how things should work, and is a good thing.

Certainly, if I don't want to get beaten and possibly shot, then yes, I should go quietly... but gods alive, that's a terrible situation. It's also the situation the states are currently in.

That's a bit of a slippery slope, eh? Nonetheless, while officers are human and do make mistakes and/or can be corrupted, you're acting as if being shot for doing an everyday thing in an everyday manner is non-trivial. This is simply not the case.

The police officer in the tasing incident apparently got off with absolutely no repercussion. We've seen many cases, a few mentioned in this thread, where police committed similar acts and... nothing happened to them. There was no responsibility for their actions on the part of the police officer. It would seem that, even if being shot (or beaten, or what have you) for doing an everyday thing may not be an everyday thing, the message being told to the public is that it's definitely trivial.

You're also insinuating that every police officer is going to be "reckless" all the time, and that even when "reckless" things happen, policy isn't changed to account for issues in the future: this is also not the case.

Salmon's insinuating that every police officer has a chance (and a disturbingly high one, even if the absolute numbers are still quite low) of being "reckless" -- and that that is sufficient reason to treat every encounter with law enforcement as potentially life threatening.

Policy being changed for the future doesn't help you when you're bleeding out or you had your skull cracked open 

For the case we're discussing, could there have been a better outcome? Yes, of course. Are such outcomes going to happen the majority of the time, or even with a significant enough minority that we should worry in our daily lives? No. Most likely, the use of tasers in general will come under much more scrutiny, but it's not something that every person in the country needs to lose sleep over.

Yeah, that's not exactly what's being worried about here. It's the general trend, that something like what occurred is something that people don't blink an eye at and police officers suffer no repercussions for. That's terrifying when you project that trend into the future, yanno'?

Somewhat later edit: MC, no intention to come off a little harsh -- I understand where you're coming from, really, but it seems more and more like the amount of faith you're suggesting we place in our law enforcement is either misplaced or only applicable to certain subsets of our population. We're being shown time and time again that, for at least part of our population -- not even the criminals, mind, but simply portions that don't fall in or around the middle-class (or above) WASP category -- that level of faith is being abused.

Of the things to call... anything, really, FUBAR isn't what I'd expect someone to name... whatever that is. I didn't click on the link. Fubar is FUBAR, I guess.

Y'know, I may know the .gif you're referring to on that one... though it's more wailord on skitty than the other way around.

Also, it's not as horrible as it sounds. Statics out before anything, uh, happens.

Yeah, I've had to leave rooms oversaturated with febreeze in order to be able to breath before. Mind you, it's the same for just about any gas (E: Or... whatever the hell febreeze is. Perfume, cig smoke, strong cleaning materials, whatever.) short of the normal oxygen+ stuff that air is supposed to be, but yeah, febreeze has triggered it.

I'm not even sure if it helps any True, but most of the times I've seen "trap" used it's for a very specific fetish that doesn't have anything at all to do with transgendered individuals (though definitely has to do with crossdressers, quite often). Usually the kick seems to be from them being male, self identifying as male, but looking (and sometimes acting, to varying degrees) very much not. And then being buggered with varying degrees of consensuality (Which doesn't seem to be a word. Dibs!) but that's not particularly my kink so the details escape meee. Then again, I mostly run into it in relation to illustrated stuff, so it's probably got a slightly different taste to it in those circles.

The ackbar thing definitely went memetic, though, yeah.

Thanks Red, that was exactly th'clarification I was looking for. Definitely doesn't look like the horrific restriction of religious practice it seems to be getting spun as