kevin-john
Kevin
kevin-john

You’re arguing against points I haven’t made, and I don’t know why. I said very clearly; the actor doesn’t need to be indistinguishable. I also never said they should hire an actor who couldn’t play the part well. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

The image was of the “young” Jeff Bridges from Tron. It was to

Disney has literally solved that exact problem before:

I believe you that it’s not as important to you as it might be to others that the actor looks the part. I don’t believe that if they came out and said Maggie Smith would be playing Han Solo you would think that was a good idea, despite her amazing talent. There is a valid reason that the movie business is allowed to

I don’t see why they don’t just get this guy back to play a younger version of a Harrison Ford character:

I never heard of The Gunslinger, so I have no feelings about it. Regardless, I don’t accept your argument as being earnest. With a character as iconic as Han Solo, people are going to expect continuity with the existing story-line; and that continuity will be degraded if the character doesn’t look the part. It’s not

By that logic: lets cast Donald Glover. He looks nothing like Harrison Ford, but he’s playing the character Han Solo.

If nothing else, I would be excited about this movie just for the use of stunning practical effects.

Not to mention, the ROM approach is questionably legal at best, where as buying this console seems to be 100% legit.

This is a great product that Nintendo absolutely needed to make; but I feel like they are missing the boat a little bit on the games. They would have to be butt-fucking insane not to do their godamndest to release their entire catalog of 713 games. There are so many ways they could go on that.

They could just go

I hate when people try to use quantum mechanics to solve their problems. Unless your problem is an overabundance of cats and a vested interest in not knowing if they survive; quantum mechanics isn’t going to be your savior. Simon Peg, take a note and make a copy of it for Deepak Chopra.

Have the announced what’s going to happen to Star Tours once this new park opens? Is it going to be the one out of place Star Wars attraction? Will they rebuild it in the new park? Are they going to close it?

A good, you’ve yet to say anything important, I’m glad you’ve decided to stop.

Obviously your argument doesn’t hold up to five seconds of scrutiny. The remoteness of the tool is its only reason for existing. If it didn’t remove the officers from danger, they wouldn’t use it.

Both the cases you presented clearly support my argument.

GvC - A standard of objective reasonableness would clearly need

So, what you’re saying is: every time a veteran commits a crime, it’s a warzone? Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

While your assertions lack supporting citations, I will admit that they are also bereft of logical underpinnings.

Seriously, I am eager to see you actually demonstrate that there are existing laws that specifically deal with police using remotely operated deadly force.

Anyone who considers law enforcement dealing with a single shooter a “warzone” is dumb.

Anyone who doesn’t see remotely operated combat systems as the definitive trend in 21st century militaries is ignorant.

Well, by that kind of 5th grade logic, you’ll also find that “crime” and “police” are not contained in the definition, which was kind of my point in the first place. By no conceivable stretch of the imagination is this a war, and as such, by no conceivable stretch of the imagination is police militarization called

If they had shot him, it would mean they were physically present at his location. They would also have been in danger, and their shooting of a suspect could reasonably be called self defense. The fact that the technology allowed the police to distance themselves from potential harm means they have a less justification

You said it was a warzone. Wars are fought by the military, wars are not fought by police.

You’re leaving out something very important in your argument: due process. There’s a reason that the alleged shooters is referred to as “the suspect.” Until he has a trial, you can’t sentence him to death for what you think he did.