Registered bored user

jayme21 wrote:
gohikineko generally self defence has to immediate threat. I threaten to kill you next week you cant kill me tomorrow in self defence as you're afraid. Im afraid that teen in a hoodie will stab me i cant just shoot them and say afraid. It needs to be a reaction to an immediate threat.

 The immediate threat had passed. He had his gun pointed on him. He could have told him to back away and give room to get up, call for police any number of things. He chose to shoot. Its that choice which makes the self defence fail. If McGlockton moved towards him, pulls for a gun etc. And the reaction is to shoot thats self defence. 

What you can see is he was aggressivly shoved. He drops to the ground, McGlockton is over him, He pulls his firearm mcGlockton backs away. He doesn't have someone over him, he has enough distance, he has a weapon on McGlockton. He processes the situation, steadies his aim and fires. Its  that time between thats the important thing.  As he fired after the processing time the immediate threat had passed. Before that pause or after a further threatening action itd be self defence regardless of who started it. But its not. This is manslaughter/murder. He took a decision to shoot a man, not reacted to a threat by shooting. Its not that muddied or unclear.  Its being politicised as the Trayon case was. 
jayme21 wrote:
gohikineko youre wrong on this one. See my previous comments i said was not stand your ground but self defence law. 

Self defence generally is on instinct/adrenaline. If he'd dropped, pulled and fired its self defence. But he drops pulls gun pauses then fires. He had time to process as DA says he steadies his hands. Thats time to process no threat, guy jas backed away not moving forward.  Baring any movement from McGlockton to create immediate threat its manslaughter. 

Nothing else really matters. 
jayme21 wrote:
I find every major tourist attraction usually sucks and is a tick box visit. Where as usually small places and nature win out. 

Pisa and cinque terre are terrible. I feel sorry for anyone who lives there.

Just spent some time in Salzburg best stuff was outside the city. 
jayme21 wrote:
LordJim i feel sorry for the cyclists who get there and thats what they're greeted to a torusit trap anf shsun the sheep cinema. 
jayme21 wrote:
lockner01 i do remember him calling people who disagree sock puppets ( became very fashional circa 5cats expulsion) but i dont remember a campaign by him following people who didnt engage sock puppets.

Regardless that action is now already covered by rules. If i remember correctly 1 point is about referring to others as puppets. We dont need new rules until we've tried enforcing our current ones. 

If certian people stopped replaying same somg with monk. If he followed them anyway other rules woild hit him. 

Im not ssying dont punish im ssying dont make a rule that lets unpopular opinions result in banning.   
jayme21 wrote:
squrlz4ever as i said above I dont like his postings. I engaged once or twice and no more. I find it annoying seeing a 80 reply thread 70 is monk and others insulting each other. 

But just saying majority dont like something it gets removed is a bad precedent. Ive seen it when ive posted relatively neutral Trump stuff no real engagement just a barage not reading whats posted.    
I didnt say no moderation and moderating the submissions that are repetitive would be a far better rule. If people insulting monk had some chatisment with the knock it off like you said theyd be less engagement less hijacking. Current rules are sufficient with that. Especially what happens in 1 thread stays in that thread.  
jayme21 wrote:
holygod monk may be trolling. I dont like the crap either. I click into a thread that looks interesting by comment count and see 90% is weird  nonsensical theological babel. But half the comments are from others. Same people same back and forth different thread. 

Take 5cats at his worst and the ban squirlz quitting you still kept civil and could have a convo. Others couldnt resist replaying the same argumet.

I think the majority users risk makig IAB more insular. Its not needed to combat Monk and sould make people like 5cats less likely not more to be around. 
jayme21 wrote:
kalron i know i specifically mentioned you as someone i had engaged well enough with. 
jayme21 wrote:
Dont have much sympathy for Robinson. He wasnt convicted for questioning 'Islamic rape gangs' he was convicted for screaming 'muslim peadophole' at defendents outside a ongoing court trial. He was not exposing they were already at trial. He was not reporting as he would have been on the same reporting restrictions. 

He was merely messing with an active trial makig a risk he could affect the jury and create an unsafe conviction. He had been warned by a judge previously on another trial and given a suspended punishment for it . 

All he had to do was wait until defendents were convicted then could scream at them to his hearts content.
jayme21 wrote:
Bit late to the forum (hiking/camping in the Austrian Alps) but i think this is a bad trend
It follows that no one should be doing things that are pissing off large numbers of people on a regular basis. 

Also, trolling is a bannable offense -- life's too short to have a perfectly good thread ruined by a troll.

I saw it happen with 5cats he got ganged up on and like a trapped animal just kept getting provoked. When he lashed out he got in trouble no one else who called him a paedophile etc. did. When he left you then had attention shift. Appears to have mainly gone to monk and dm2754

As Holygood said on another recent quittage post. IAB is becoming an echo chamber. Anyone who disagrees with a certian opinion set gets rounded on. I didnt see the specific instance with monk a fee days ago but ive been seeing monk get engaged with and insulted for months. He posts his 4 words so what? ignore it and move on, but people want to engage provoke and then call for use of power against him. Ive seen some far more inflammatory stuff from sone others than ive ever seen from monk with no backlash.

Some users who think they're not part of the problem are.

I come here less and less. I like to dicuss politics and other subjects. Open to changing mind and seeing other evidence( HG on Palins Russia long time ago, Kalron on a recent shooting). But i found disagree with the recieved wisdom and generally be ignored as a troll or insulted. Seems to be a misunderstanding people can look at same info but have different priorities on values to interpret.  Don't see it worth being the effort to engage most of the time.

Back to this rule, just seems a license for a regular user clique to continue to target any opposing thought. If its continued to be used will make iAB less diverse a simpke echo chamber for a dedicated group.
jayme21 wrote:
dm2754 know what meta studies are? They take as many studies on a topic then remove obvious bias and see if across all studies you get an outcome. This one for instance removed a vunch which showed bias in favour.


Medicinal marijuana does show positives signs of treating certian conditions. Just not as much as often claimed. Broadly nausea and headaches and aids and cancer pain. For the cancer it has a double affect of getting patients hunger back as cancer patients lose appetite.

That being said the concurrent affect on crime and social is different evidence and matter. Ive seen stuff on that and there are fenerally 2 theories. 1 its inexplicably linked to weed. 2 its because onky one area is legalising so its a magnet to all abusers rather than them being spread out. So the argument goes if you do it nationally and restrict drug tourism you shouldnt get the problems. Im doubtful as ive not seen an example yet. So all eyes on Canada.
jayme21 wrote:
"Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory " - This isn't some made up hocus-pocus fairytale. Its fact. 

Start off I agree canabis can be used medically. Although in general its vastly overstated, but thay doesnt mean its not worth using it. 

And just because your correcting someones scientific ignorance doesnt mean you can replace it with other flawd.

But, just because something works in a closed system petri dish doesnt mean it works in a complex open system that is the human body. This is where spurious claims like vitamin c will cure cancer etc comes from dodgy alt medicine folk. 

Why isn't there so much more funding into this? because Cancer care makes people lots of money, this would stop said people making money.

 Frankly bullshit there is funding but lets play by your logic of money motive. 

Roughly 1 in 2 people in the UK will get cancet. Around 2% of the population yearly. That's just UK alone. Massive market for a cure, high cost can charge crazy amounts for a cure. Why would a drug company not want that money? Why would say save it back so that pallative care companied and hospitals get the money? Any company findd a univetssl cure for cancer (ignoring the fact that cancer is vatious diseases so wont have a universsl cure) theyd instantly become the wealthiest company on the planet. 

jayme21 wrote:
@ generally agree with what you wrote. But the previouse harassment or even the threat to shoot someone over a previouse parking dispute being reported are irrelevant to this case. If you're i  danger you're in danger regardless of how you got there. 
jayme21 wrote:
kalron thanks,  as i said the immediate threat had passed. Unless witnesses or alternative camera angles show otherwise i doubt he will win if the state prosecutes. Problem is burden shifts to prove it doesn't apply. 

As I understand it they need to prove there was no longer was a threat not that he couldn't retreat. Barring counter evidence i think that could be proven as he had backed away and there was a pause and time to think becore firing. If hed shot as soon as he grabbed his gun from ground itd be different its the time to process the change in situation. 
jayme21 wrote:
The video stops before he fires. If McGlockton started moving towards him again shooting is justified under the law. If he was staying away and continues to back away it wont be as the Gun did its job threat to safety perceived or otherwise had passed. 

Trial by media is stupid we dont have the witnesees full footage or audio. This should be put into the justice system. Problem is politically charged now so whatever outcome will be viewed as wrong by interest groups.

That being said in law there is the egg shell skull principle. You take your victim as you find them as you never know about a stranger if they die because they're skull is especially weak and you hit them not knowing tough. Same thing with anyone. You dont know a stranger. In the US you have guns lots of guns (UK you have knives) i aint starting anything physical or verbal with a stranger I dont have to. You dont know who you are dealing with what they're carrying. 

 McGlockton  walking out and shoving a stranger before he even knew what was going on is an idot. 
jayme21 wrote:
faustsshadow Its amazing you can read someones post and then ignore whats written

but you should know better than to assume that just because someone looks able-bodied, it does not mean that they are.

I think chicken did

but i'm an adult and realize that not every handicap is physical, so i restrain myself.  

jayme21 wrote:
Once again the lack of a definition for a terrorist comes into play.

Whoever wrote the blurb on iab should have added context, this is written sameway dailymail articles are. Strictly true but giving a different story via framing. 
jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson do you even know anyone whos country lived under the soviet sphere of influence? Russsia took the countries as spoils of war defeating Germany. Those nations joined NATO to try and stop Russia controlling them again. Warsaw pact was forced on the countries. Go to Tallin see the KGB cells speak with the natives youll see how stupid your comments are. Or any other baltic/eastern European country. Ask polish people what it would have been like. But youd probably be in the same mould as the leftists who attacked poles in the UK after WW2 for being traitors not going back to glorious soviet communism. 

And this false narrstive about USA being most dangerous in Europe. Name countries which have expanded territory since world war 2 annexed other nations lots if Russian examples no US examples. 
jayme21 wrote:
Personally i have found this embarrassing. We should take the same view of as the French, many may not like Trump (some do). But he is the elected head of the United States. That is their decision UK doesnt vote. He shoupd be afforded the respect a foreign visitor should. Even if he did break royal protocol. 

The hypocrisy of people has been astounding. Khan who has blocked adverts for hurting peoples feelings ("get your beach body")  talking about free speech even if it hurts feelings by allowong the baby blimp. You're a Mayor criticise Trump for not fitting the stature of offics but dont act like a child you lose the argument. Lets help annoy a close foriegn head of state which helps keep the UK secure with security cooperation and intel. 

Erdogan visited recently and nothing. No problems for any number of countries our gov is forced to deal woth for practicality(and the fact the US is being grouped with them is a bit insulting)

And UK is in a bit of a tumultuous time. Remainers dont seem to realise the EU doesnt want to gice us any favours they want to string us along for as much time and money they can get and then brexit means brexit. The UK should not be needlessy attacking other nations. A state visit gold carriage Trump would have lapped that up. Good feelings positive motiom elsewhere. Just look at the Macron bromance from having a military parade. We do have stupid people who dont realise just some little play acting things would benefit us. 
jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson home nation. We're all part of the UK.
jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson it never ceases to amaze me the hatred you show towards your own country. Not because the ambulance etc didn't happen (and those people are in the wrong and ahould be punished) but the one sidedness and inaccuracies of your overall view. You seem to take such visceral pleasure in attacking your own country and the team which is a long way removed from the "golden generation " of Rooney etc. So much hate and anger in you. 
jayme21 wrote:
This is bad and should be better funded. 

But concept of innate human rights are logically problematic. 
Passive rights can make sense. Ones which dont require money or resourced from someone. E.g right to free speech, right to own stuff, right to not be discriminated against, fair trial etc. They dont involve anyone doing anything specifically for you. 

Active rights like right to water, right to housing or right to education are bullshit. A democracy can agree to pay taxes and give people that. But you dont have a right to it. Who has to provide it? What if they cant afford it? What standard? Laws can answer these questions definitively  on arguments of cost benefits, calls to a innate human right cant argument falls flat.
jayme21 wrote:
Super also said Kovach’s ex-wife told police in an April 17 interview that she did not know what Facebook post her ex-husband was referring to but that she believed he was trying to be a father and did “not want him to lose everything” as both “she and John have concerns about the relationship” between their daughter and Coleman.

Kovach told Super he had received a phone call from his ex-wife the week before that she had come home to find Coleman and their daughter engaged in sexual conduct and when Coleman was asked to leave, he threatened her.

Kovach said when he spoke with his daughter on the phone she said “If I can’t be with him, I don’t want to be here anymore,” which he took to be a suicidal threat, according to the firing paperwork.

Disclosure didnt watch video , i read the article. Have no doubt he abused his power. But why does everything have to be about race? Dont have to be racist to not like a guy youve heard rumours like that about,  think back to Rachel Bruno those videos are still online. Its not like it couldn't happen. 
jayme21 wrote:
Its going to get worse. As more companies actors etc get involved in politics using their platforms from their work to promote their ideology. You then open yourself to attack at the same places. As Kanye has learnt you cant just turn the public on and off when you want. 
jayme21 wrote:
So you admit this was a lie 

By the Year 2000. there were 7 countries left that had ownership of their central banking system.

When you concede
It was privately owned until 1948. 

You didnt. I assumed you were invoking that conspiracy theory via your choice of countries who own central banks.

Who owns all the banks then? Can you provide evidence?