daile1bm

I live in a highly populated metro area, where people have been lax about covid protocols for probably going on a year and a half and I don't know one person that died from it. Lots I've known who have been "infected" but everyone had a day or two of cold/mild flu symptoms and got over it. It's time to admit this was the biggest globalist government psy-op experiment that has ever been conducted. Lockdowns did nothing. Masks did nothing. Jabs did nothing. We were had and lives & economies were ruined with the draconian measures our governments imposed on us.

If I'm not mistaken, the House didn't deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate until after the new congress started, with Democrat control. I doubt McConnel would've rushed it through if it was up to him still, though.

6 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

And these people if/when they get the virus should not be allowed any hospital care. Why take care away from someone who really needs it.

Do you think the obese, the drug dependent, and people with STD's, for example, shouldn't be allowed health care as well? Those people also tend to bring illness upon themselves which takes care away from others that also really need it. Also often borne from stupid, selfish behaviors. We have to conform to dummies who don't give a shit in a lot more areas than just covid when it comes to medical treatment. Not to the same levels as covid (with the exception of obesity), but they're still a strain on finite resources, which can be avoided in most cases.

7 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

PMed

Just listened and really dig it. Thanks again!

On 11/1/2020 at 3:20 PM, ZoSoRose said:

Just saw he recently (2017) did "In The Light", and it is awesome! Totally reworked and has violins and some bluesy guitars. Dude is brilliant

Got a link by chance? That's probably a top 5 Zeppelin song for me. Such a strange/eerie composition, but has tons of balls and all the light and shade Jones and Page were famous for.

Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Robin Trower, some late Dio Sabbath stuff, Deep Purple, Nugent, lots of old 50s-70s blues records, SRV, Van Halen, Sammy Hagar, Chicago. I have his whole LP collection now. Can't remember it all, but those are the heavy hitters in it that come to memory. It's in line with a lot of stuff I still listen to.

CD collection is a bunch of Black Crowes, Prince, Jimmy Buffett, Elvis, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Steely Dan, Van Morrison in his CD collection.

oh and lots of Journey... 

On 11/17/2020 at 11:48 PM, marlingrl03 said:

My dad loved Tom Jones. Loved! 

My dad used to torture me on car rides listening to Tom Jones. I would complain and complain and he would just crank it louder lol. I never understood how he liked him so much, considering his other music tastes.

22 minutes ago, jonah said:

Slash is butchering pretty much every solo. Doesn’t matter if he wrote it or not. Ex. ISE was my favourite solo and his noodling of it now ruins it for me

I can't say I disagree.

Didn't he say it's partly because he gets a dry signal mix in his in-ear monitors now, so he can't hear how his effects are shaping the sound? So now that he doesn't have the benefit of hearing the feedback/FX/etc, he noodles more to compensate or something?

Anyone see Duff's latest Instagram post promoting 2021 dates with the original AFD cross with Izzy and Steven?? I know I'm probably looking into it too much, but a guy can hope lol

Edit: Looks like the GnR IG account used the same graphic too...

Edit 2; already discussed in its own topic lol. Whoops 

13 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I think he said he wrote the opening fill that leads into the beat (but not the beat itself), that was after playing it a bunch of times and then he decided to add the fill for a laugh and the guys told him to keep it.

 

Matt's own version of SCOM lol

First i've ever heard of the Mates rehearsal reading back through this thread. Would love to hear what's on that.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

We have to disagree on that one I mean, the police could have disengaged and they would only have been in danger if he had a handgun in the car. And "ifs" don't factor into being in imminent danger as far as I am concerned. There were alternatives that would most likely have resulted in peaceful resolution, but instead they shot to kill. Disgraceful. 

For better or worse, "ifs" usually do factor into imminent danger, so i believe your concern may be invalid. I see where you're coming from on the point, so I won't contest it further. I think we've gone as far as this will go, so I'll leave it here. Hope you enjoy the upcoming weekend

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you arguing that it is okay because it happens? My argument is that the police shouldn't shoot people unless they or others are in imminent danger with no other options. 

And my argument is that they were in imminent danger 100% caused by Jacob Blake, for being at the scene of a woman who had a restraining order against him for sexual assault, and resisting arrest, and assaulting police while armed, and returning to his vehicle with the reasonable assumption that he would continue to further escalate with something more deadly than a knife, or at the very least flee the scene with hostages.

Edit: And at the point of the shooting there were no other options, aside from letting him drive away. Letting him flee the scene is an unreasonable premise that I won't agree to, and letting him potentially grab a firearm (under the reasonable assumption he had one) in the proximity they were in would have likely led to the death of an officer.

26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, and God forbid the police must deal with people that are armed, violent and dangerous! That's surely not in their job description is it? 

And sometimes when armed, violent, and dangerous people, god forbidding, escalate armed, violent, and dangerous situations that they created, and could have de-escalated themselves, they get shot. Sometimes even 7 times in the back when they're being non-compliant and irrational and armed and violent and dangerous. Is it in the police's job description to get murdered by an armed, violent, and dangerous criminal because they have to wait and see if the armed, violent, and dangerous criminal will turn around with more than a knife after he just got done resisting arrest, assaulting them, and now rooting around in the front seat of their car, with kids in tow?

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

What happened is that the cops failed at an arrest, got themselves in a tricky situation, and solved it by seven shots. Disgrace.

And why did they fail at their arrest? I'm sure the answer won't be that they were dealing with an individual who was armed, violent, and noncompliant...

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

@SoulMonster

How many unarmed black people do you think get shot in the U.S. on an annual basis?

I know you're not asking me, but from the stats I've heard, it was 10 in 2019. 8 of which were either threatening that they had a weapon, or using their vehicle as one. The 2 other cases, the officers were charged.

26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Brandishing a knife and evading arrest is NOT equal to be an imminent threat to others 

In a vacuum when none of the other circumstances of this event are taken into the equation i would agree, but with all the other things Blake did prior to the shooting, it shows intent and willingness to escalate. He also didn't simply "evade arrest" he assaulted officers prior to going back to his car for unknown reasons. So yes, simply brandishing a knife, or simply evading arrest, or simply "touching your door handle" (as downzy mentioned) are typically not cause to believe someone is an imminent threat, if taken on their own. But when you combine all of these factors, along with assaulting arresting officers, recently harassing someone with restraining order for sexual assault against you, and having arrest warrants outstanding, it's not unreasonable to assume this completely noncompliant, violent person will escalate things further by reaching into his vehicle for something, in an effort to avoid further consequences.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But at the moment his life wasn't in danger. He could have retreated back a few meters while the guy possibly entered his car. No danger from any knife then. If the guy then pulled a handgun you would actually be in danger and hence shooting would be justified. 

Blake already showed intent to both cause life threatening danger by brandishing a knife, and do whatever he needed to evade arrest. The officers life was still most certainly in danger. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but it takes fraction of a second to acquire and fire a gun. Since they don't know what he's going for in the car, they don't have time to sit there and wait to see what he may or may not turn around with. IMO, Blake forfeited any right to the benefit of the polices' doubt when he fought with them and brandished a knife.

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

So the threshold for police to use lethal force is for a perpetrator to enter (or attempt to enter) his/her vehicle.  Anyone who who reaches for their car door can be shot down, no questions asked.

Well, I'm thankful you're not a cop then.

I didn't say that was the threshold. This is a complete strawman. Given the circumstances of this encounter, the cops should have every reason to believe this person was willing to use deadly force on them. Many people have concealed firearms in the driver side of their vehicles. Blake was already willing to fight with police, while in possession of a knife. Why would they believe he wouldn't escalate further by reaching down into the floor of his car for an even more deadly weapon. See the video in the earlier post @Basic_GnR_Fan  to see what can happen.

If you're pulled over and an officer instructs you to go back to your vehicle then feel free. If they tell you explicitly not to do that, then probably don't do that. Especially after you've just been fighting with them and have a knife.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

And we can't have police officers getting into dangerous situations can we? That's not their job. Their job is to shoot people fleeing from them, seven times, in the back.

If the situation calls for it, yes. If someone is violently and realistically threatening your life, you have the right to defend your life, even if you're a police officer.

And to the shot seven times aspect, I don't know if you've ever fired a gun, but it only takes about 2 or 3 seconds to do that. And anyone with any firearms training is taught that you only fire when you feel like your life is on the line you shoot to kill, since that is the perceived threat to you. Until the threat is neutralized, it is still a threat. To add to that they shoot center mass, as it's the largest target to mitigate the risk of missing and hitting someone else. In this case it was his back.

Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

This is what can happen if you let a suspect get back to his car.

 

Thank you. Was going to try and post a video, but I don't know how.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, in worst case scenario he would be able to kill someone before the police got him under control. But the probability of that happening is extremely low. And you don't shoot someone seven times because there is a very low probability he will kill someone. That's barbaric. Not in civilized countries at least.

You brought up "worst case scenario", not me. I don't think yours was the worst case. I think mine was. I also didn't mean that he was going to kill some random innocent bystander, btw. He would likely (hypothetically) put his sights on the officers that are in close proximity.

5 minutes ago, downzy said:

There was no gun found.  Are you suggesting it's justifiable to fire on someone in the back at point blank range despite there being no gun?  

The cops have no idea what is in the car or what he's going into the car for in the moment. There are multiple examples of people going into their vehicle, grabbing a concealed firearm, and quickly turning around and killing an officer. If it was me, and I was the officer, knowing how this encounter has unfolded so far, with a completely noncompliant  *edit* and violent person, I'm not waiting to find out what he's turning around with. So, yes, I think the officer's actions are 100% justifiable. The whole thing is unfortunate, but I would have handled that aspect of the incident similarly.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, I suppose there is no other option than to shoot him, is there? I mean, now that guy has to die. He got away from the tasing, he has a knife. That fucker deserves to get 7 bullets in his back. Fucking asshole.

No wait, I could, you know, just step back a few meters and try to control the situation together with my police buddies. Worst case he draws a gun and we have to shoot him. Best case we manage to de-escalate the situation, and, you know, no one dies.

Worst case he draws a gun and fires and kills someone else, from a problem he started and is responsible for. Or he drives off with hostages and 4 people may die now instead of one (who's not dead btw). He had every opportunity to de-escalate previously, but now with a weapon in hand, he will surely come to reason. 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I can't wrap my head around the fact that people here try to justify the shooting of the black man because the police had failed at apprehending him, or because he had warrants, or other stuff like that. Really? That's how little a human life is worth to you? 

The justification isn't that they failed to apprehend him or that he had warrants. The justification is that he was noncompliant, violent and belligerent and threatening deadly force on others lives. Are the police offices lives worth less than the person they're trying to apprehend? Are they supposed to wait to get stabbed or shot, but only then be able to defend themselves? I can't wrap my head around that. When would they ever possibly be able to apprehend this person if he's acting the way he was? I have a hard time believing he'd be more agreeable to being arrested the next time they tried, assuming we should just let him drive away this time after fighting with police while armed.

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I find it absolutely perplexing that you think it is okay that police officers can shoot to kill someone simply because they might be getting away. Judge, jury and executioner, after a few months police education. Astounding. 

You have to think about the entire situation, not just pieces at a time. The guy had already fought with police, was tazed without reaction, was in possession of a knife, went back to the car for an unknown reason (potentially getting another weapon, or take off with hostages). All the while, he had warrants out for his arrest. I don't think a person should be shot and killed for simply getting away. I'm trying to tell you that the culmination of all of the actions led to Blake getting shot. You seem to think he should have impunity from these actions.

What do you think the police should have done, from start to finish, in this case? Granted we don't have video of the start of the encounter (or at least I haven't seen it), but if you were an officer, what would you have done, knowing you have a violent criminal with arrest warrants outstanding?