It's not even April 1st yet. This is retarded. Humans won't be able to tell it's a human attesting em dash just by looking at it. And LLMs will just use it to trick people.
My grandparents had my parents. My parents had me. I had my children. Hopefully they will have theirs.
Even if we can't remember, we know they were there. They succeeded in carrying on the species. We can wonder about them and what their lives were like.
"Lo, now, do I see my fathers and my fathers' fathers back to the beginning!"
"I go now to join my fathers, in whose mighty company I shall no longer feel ashamed."
If you’re happy to pay ~$380k per kid (not including daycare and college) over their 0-18 journey (£250k-£300k in the UK) and whatever it costs to help them survive in adulthood for the experience, help yourself. That’s certainly a choice. The future will not be as welcoming and prosperous as the past.
Incest laws weren't given to Israel until Moses and the Exodus.
As for meaning:
Lot was date raped by his daughters. It shows the moral corruption of Sodom had affected his family.
It's also a historical and genealogical account of how the nations of Moab and Ammon began. Abraham's nephew Lot, and his daughters, though originally close family to Abraham, became the progenitors of nations that later oppressed the nation of Israel.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Whatever their age was, they were betrothed to be married to men who didn't evacuate when warned:
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
Trying to flee is famously not a justification for murder, if anything it's the opposite. You're literally kicking someone while they're down. Or, uh, shooting them. Obviously a fleeing person is not a threat to your life, which is the ONLY justification for a shooting.
It's not relevant because neither are justications for a shooting.
Why did George Floyd counterfeit a 20 or whatever? I don't know, but I do know he deserved due process, not a public execution. Regardless of your political affiliation.
Also, nobody tried to run anyone over. That's just straight up not true and I won't humor it, so don't bother.
There is a video of the woman either doing a getaway or a runover. I don't quite get why would you do that while you are being stopped by law enforcement. And it's also apparently dangerous.
You're missing the point. None of this matters. You're purposefully not addressing the underlying problem - extrajudicial executions - because the conclusion must make you uncomfortable.
Today, the punishment for fleeing is not execution. The conversation ends there. Everything else is just noise, and you know that, so stop.
So anytime an officer kills a person with a gun, that is now justified?
Despite the fact that the man in question that was killed had a legal permit for said gun AND 1 of the ICE agent even took his gun away and despite this was shot to death while lying on the ground?
So where is the urgency? Not enough KDA ratio to score high enough on the scoreboard?
Your version seems to be that they randomly opened fire. Another version is that a gun went off, not all of the officers knew where the victims gun was, they had also heard someone yell "gun", so after the first shot they opened fire.
It's not that you can be shot at by law enforcement when you are carrying a gun, but that you can be shot at when there is an apparent reason that you are firing at them with it. I'm sure ICE isn't happy about how the events turned out either. But for the protesters: just don't bring a gun!
Sure you have, but carrying a gun also comes with both responsibility, and also may be interpreted that you would use the weapon. To be clear, I'm not arguing the point that it's illegal to carry a gun to a protest, but that it's just not wise.
And this video is not a video showcasing a clear analysis of what happen as the man in the video is biased against the victim considering his political background and views.
So sure lying is an opinion you are correct about that, if I say you're a pedophile because you hugged a kid that is just stating a opinion.
If you have the right to bear arms, but law enforcement officers can shoot you if they spot that gun, then you don't actually have the right to bear arms.
You do have the right to bear arms but bearing arms conveys a meaning, that you'd see a reason to use it, so if you have a gun at an event where there are ample amounts of law enforcement present, against who would you be protecting yourself?
You should elaborate, because if this is the sentence you want, it's no different: Cops can kill at will if they have reason to believe that the other will kill.
They can kill when they have a reasonable basis for assuming they are facing an imminent threat to their lives or addressing a threat to public safety (but NOT to prevent criminal activity that isn't life threatening). That isn't the same thing as a license to kill, and they are accountable for charges like murder when they don't meet a "reasonable officer on the scene" standard. I don't consider that to be "at will" (likened to "at will employment") so much as "at their discretion."
Interesting. When people who stormed the Capitol openly carried assault rifles, MAGA had no problem with it. They called them patriots and peaceful protesters.
It's not about people carrying a gun at all, it's that should you carry a gun to a protest and should you engage in resisting to law enforcement while doing that. Had this person been perfectly still, he'd be still alive. (And also, had he not had that gun, but still resisted, he'd likely would have also been alive.)
> Had this person been perfectly still, he'd be still alive.
Again, I'd like to see you stay perfectly still after getting peppersprayed in the face without any reason. At no point was he threatening and attacking ICE agents. He was trying to help another woman who had just been assaulted by agents. They created the very situation that led to this tragedy.
There was a reason if you watched the video, it was the "help" of putting his hands on one of the officers. And bringing a gun into a situation like this.
There was a lot of whistlers, but I think the woman being helped was one of them, so this was what started the chain of events.
If someone were to follow me around while blowing a whistle then that would be quite irritating. What would you do in this situation?
Alex seemed to put hands on an officer. Whether this was well meaning in his head, it might have not seemed so to the officer. (Keep in mind that he had a constant whistle in his ear!)
Follow the protocol. If you lose your nerves because of people blowing a whistle, you're in the wrong job.
> Alex seemed to put hands on an officer
Where do you see that? All I see is that he raised his left hand in a protective manner, likely to keep the agent at a distance and protect himself from the pepper spray. After that gesture he turns away from the agent to help the woman on the ground. That's when they grapple him from behind and wrestle him to the ground. At no point did Alex behave in a threatening way or physically attack an agent. The DHS report does not mention any threating behavior either.
Clearly you're not on the wrong job. Find me some info materials on how cops need to be resistant to either mental or physical violence.
I'm sure we'll get a longer investigation into this matter. But it just doesn't seem like a pre-planned killing because they could get away with it, but a tragic sequence of events that you so much wish to bend your way.
I'm not claiming that this was a pre-planned killing. But it was more than just a tragic sequence of events because the agents were very much at fault here. They behaved aggressively and obviously did not know how to properly deal with an ordinary protestor (who clearly was no threat to the agents at any point).
Alex had a gun with him. If he wanted to appear non-threatening he simply shouldn't have brought it to the event.
I do maintain that this was an unfortunate sequence of events, but I think as this is investigated further, the guilt found on the officers will be small to none.
> This is the ordinary protestor a little over a week before the event
Wow, he kicked an ICE agent's car. The agents must have felt extremely threatened as they didn't even bother to arrest him...
How is this relevant to the shooting again?
> If he wanted to appear non-threatening he simply shouldn't have brought it to the event.
Carrying a gun in a state that allows conceiled carrying cannot be considered a thread in itself. Alex did not behave in a threatening way at any point during that whole situation.
Say officers report that Alex was aggressive on the day he died but there is no video material. The events from a week ago support those statements, as clearly Alex is a man that is quite worked up and capable of physical aggression.
Well, the larger sequence of events goes back to the group of people interfering with police work, including the woman whistling along with an officer. She got pushed which was where Alex entered. (Alex had already had a brief contact with the officers minutes before the fatal sequence of events.) Alex also had a gun with him. This eventually led him to being shot.
The researched why will surface likely soon. But as of now, carrying a gun to a protest isn't something that helps with looking harmless.
No one, absolutely zero people, voted for giving the president the power to ignore all checks and balances, taking a dump on the democracy you’re so fond of.
We know for certain no people voted for it, because the option was never on a ballot.
The same should apply to all the laws ICE 'agents' are breaking in their "enforcement".
What, do you think they should not be punished, or should be immune from following the law? The laws passed by the representatives and president of the democracy you're so keen on?
If you think they are following the law, you sound crazy, because you are.
Based on seeing the video, it seems an officer standing in front of the decedent is the one who drew/disarmed the weapon from the decedent's holster. This was under the arching body of another agent who was holding the decedent down. The man who shot him was standing behind him.
Despite all the outraged rhetoric on here, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the officer simply decided to murder the man out of anger, spite, bloodlust, and perceived immunity.
Rather, a dispassionate analysis of the scenario might suggest that the shooter only saw the weapon be drawn by an unknown hand, and not discerning that it was one of his fellow officers disarming the struggling man, instead believed that the struggling man had managed to draw his own weapon and was preparing to fire.
Given the facing of the struggling man and the shooting officer, it seems unlikely that his first fear was for his own life but rather for the lives of his comrades, and so he fired his weapon to remove the perceived threat to his fellow officers lives.
This explains exactly why he fired almost immediately after he saw the gun drawn. Not an extrajudicial execution as some are recklessly calling it, but a tragic example of having to make life and death decisions with an imperfect view of the ... battlefield for lack of a better term ... and the foolishness of getting in the way of armed men.
I tell my kids they have the right of way at the crosswalk but right of way is not going to save their life if the car doesn't see them, so look both ways and make sure cars are slowing down.
The same sense of caution should be used when deciding to get in the way of men, even good and lawful men, with guns.
It made sense to protest the Vietnam war or Iraq or Afghanistan in America, not in the war zone.
We have freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but do that from the sidewalk, in court, or before Congress, not in the line of fire of a police action. And I don't believe we have the right to block roads, scream in the faces of law enforcement or military personnel, or impede them in the fulfillment of their lawful duties which these immigration enforcement actions are.
He wasn’t impeding. He was filming which until recently was a 1A right in America.
The officer walked up to him and the woman with the backpack and started an altercation.
Using your right of way analogy the officer drove up on the sidewalk to take out your kids, no crosswalk involved.
If you’re going to defend this with a “well look at what she was wearing” type defense then you’re just ok with government agents executing citizens whenever they feel like it.
