Posts by Anthony Kim18

I don't get this thread!

Edward Gonzalez said:

drunk, "dangerous" teenagers!

Are you actually suggesting he wasn't intoxicated?
Do you even have children?

If that kid had struck him first...
Would you be making excuses for this kind of behavior then? Or would you be out there attacking the police for failing to react properly?

I mean, look at Naples, Italy—they have peaceful protests where people see God in those teenagers, yet they don't deal with armed robberies like we do here. I read about "long guns" being pulled on the streets in Washington, D.C. every single day...
If your police force didn't resort to such heavy-handed tactics, maybe these problems wouldn't exist. Otherwise, things are just going to keep getting worse and worse...

No robberies in New York City? 😂

Look, if they were speeding, just pull them over, write a ticket, and move on.
If they're just being verbally abusive, take them to the station to sober up.
If they actually get physical, arrest them and charge them...

And that's pretty much it...

Edward Gonzalez said:Quincy:

Of course I’d defend her, but it’s not like I’d be swinging my fists or elbows wildly. There are much more effective ways to handle things. Besides, given that I outweigh him by about 60 pounds and have a good four inches on these "attackers," it wouldn't take much effort to de-escalate the situation properly.

The strike always goes for the chin because that’s what immediately incapacitates someone. You learn that during your very first self-defense training session in the police academy. Having worked with the LAPD, I know how it works.

Quincy:

Look, man, I’m just going to say it: you are being an absolute idiot.

Care to explain exactly how you reached that conclusion?

Quincy:

I don't think I am, actually. I come from similar professional circles where we understand there are various ways to resolve a conflict without anyone getting hurt. And honestly, I find it hard to believe that some guy who's 5'9" and maybe 150 pounds—especially while intoxicated—could pose any real threat to my girlfriend, let alone a trained officer standing 6'3" and weighing over 220 pounds.

Based on what I know and what’s been reported, he’s a highway patrol officer. He pulled over a vehicle that was doing 100 mph on a slick road, and the driver was drunk... it's a textbook scenario.

If that's what they taught you at the academy, they did a lousy job.
Leverage is actually the most effective method—and the safest—if you know how to apply it.
When you use leverage, you control every single nerve in their body because that joint pain just shuts down their brain.
He'll be completely paralyzed.
Then you just take them to the ground, face down, keeping control of that leverage until the handcuffs go on...

Sarah Wilson75 said:How would you even react if someone just blindsided you with a punch? You can't exactly control that surge of pure rage. It doesn't matter if they were actually a threat or not; you just can't have people attacking or disrespecting a police officer.
Look, I'm not taking sides here.
I'm just firmly on the side of heavy fines.

So how do we punish a cop who snaps and starts swinging? Or worse, what if they kill someone in a fit of rage?

Is it okay for a driver to lose their cool in traffic, slam the gas, and veer off the road?
And they're putting their own passengers at risk too.
Or what about a driver tossing a passenger out of a moving car just because they didn't have a ticket? Is that justifiable too?

What about a doctor injecting something they shouldn't into a rude patient because they lost their temper?

Edward Gonzalez said:Quincy:

I think the kid is dead. Look, there are plenty of ways an officer can defend themselves without resorting to physical strikes, but it seems like some American officers just don't have those de-escalation tactics down. That officer should have read the room and assessed the situation differently, but clearly, his judgment was flawed, and we're all seeing the tragic result of that mistake right now.

The kid died. He made the right call in how he assessed the scene. What was he supposed to do, just stand there and take a beating? He didn't have any other options; he evaluated the threat. The rule is to use the minimum amount of force necessary, but you can't exactly defend yourself more easily by refusing to use your own strength. He can't use a baton, and he can't reach for handcuffs if he's actively being attacked... Honestly, at this rate, it feels like they'd rather just shoot him so everyone can stop worrying. I think you've got it wrong.

You're totally tripping.
He could've easily used leverage to get the cuffs on him.
No striking required.

Assuming the kid actually attacked him in the first place.
I'm not buying that part.
A friend of the deceased says the cop just laid him out for no reason.

And plenty of locals have come forward saying this officer has a habit of beating people up for nothing.

Edward Gonzalez said:Personally, after I finished my time at the seminary, I spent some time out in the Netherlands and ended up filing a report with their local police. They don't mess around. People there are actually intimidated by the cops. I honestly don't get why that officer would go through all that trouble if he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Wait, do they just start shooting people for no reason in the Netherlands too?
Like, what if you just try to exercise your rights?

I know back in the States, if you start running, they might just open fire with an AR-15...

Edward Gonzalez said:I was recently watching some footage of a police officer striking a young man—and since I’m not currently in the States, I don't have all the granular details. The kid falls, hits his head on the concrete, and dies, leaving everyone pointing fingers at the officer for overstepping his bounds. Now, I’m not looking to assign blame here; I’m just curious about the narrative being spun. Is it just me, or is nobody mentioning that the kid was intoxicated? Or that he was reportedly speeding down an icy road at 100 mph? No one seems to bring up the fact that he was being verbally abusive, aggressive, and actually initiated the physical confrontation. It makes sense that the officer defended himself. My guess is he went for the jaw—that's where you typically strike to neutralize a threat quickly. He wasn't going to play games; he had to incapacitate him. And let's be honest: the cause of death was the impact with the pavement, not the strike itself.
Look at what happens during those massive protests in cities like Chicago or New York, where special units might get aggressive with protesters. You see kids getting hit with batons or knees to the ribs, yet the headlines immediately scream "police brutality" and "excess of power." If one of those kids ends up on the ground after a pursuit, suddenly the fault lies entirely with the officers for failing to stop them sooner. It seems to be a pattern. At the end of the day, I respect our law enforcement and believe they are doing their jobs under incredibly difficult circumstances.

First off, the guy who died wasn't even the driver.
Second, nobody would ever blame the cops here, because that's just not how things work in America.

Tell me, do the cops over there dig up sidewalks in broad daylight or anything?

I mean, who’s actually crazy enough to buy that?
It’s really just a matter of when they decide to bring it back!

Edward Gonzalez said:I was recently watching some footage of a police officer striking a young man—and since I’m not currently in the States, I don't have all the granular details. The kid falls, hits his head on the concrete, and dies, leaving everyone pointing fingers at the officer for overstepping his bounds. Now, I’m not looking to assign blame here; I’m just curious about the narrative being spun. Is it just me, or is nobody mentioning that the kid was intoxicated? Or that he was reportedly speeding down an icy road at 100 mph? No one seems to bring up the fact that he was being verbally abusive, aggressive, and actually initiated the physical confrontation. It makes sense that the officer defended himself. My guess is he went for the jaw—that's where you typically strike to neutralize a threat quickly. He wasn't going to play games; he had to incapacitate him. And let's be honest: the cause of death was the impact with the pavement, not the strike itself.
Look at what happens during those massive protests in cities like Chicago or New York, where special units might get aggressive with protesters. You see kids getting hit with batons or knees to the ribs, yet the headlines immediately scream "police brutality" and "excess of power." If one of those kids ends up on the ground after a pursuit, suddenly the fault lies entirely with the officers for failing to stop them sooner. It seems to be a pattern. At the end of the day, I respect our law enforcement and believe they are doing their jobs under incredibly difficult circumstances.

Around here, those cops are the police, the prosecutors, the judges, and the enforcers all at once.
It's all in one package
and it happens in a heartbeat!

So, why is a lip piercing way more risky than an ear piercing?

Maybe he isn't a bad actor, but his roles always feel kind of the same.
I don't mean he just plays an Italian American one minute and then some "English" guy the next, or flips between being the hero and the villain,
it's more that every single time he's playing this intense, strong-willed character with a massive attitude—and let's be real, he's always incredibly sexy...

It’s like you’ve got two different versions of Al Pacino playing the exact same guy.

Wait a sec, what was that show called again?

Nah, the real move is just quitting and finding a decent job.

Man, Rade Šerbedžija was my biggest letdown.
The guy is a total genius when it comes to character acting.
He could nail any complex role with zero effort.
But then he hits Hollywood and ends up stuck playing minor parts? Or worse, just straight-up stereotypes.
He should be in the big leagues with Michael York and Anthony Hopkins, yet he's out here taking roles on par with Paris Hilton and Ivan Višnjić.

ambertinker77 said:Leonardo DiCaprio, Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher... in every single one of their movies

How could they ever disappoint?
I mean, those guys are total trash anyway, right?

What's up?

Hey there!

I don't know, that movie felt kind of transparent to me.
A bit thin on substance too, you know?

Total pro.
Anyone can try to act the part, right?