schupac33
Schupac
schupac33

Makes sense. That’s definitely how the constitution works. Having committed any crime of any kind in the past gives “probable cause” to search and seizure. I can’t find the amendment that says when threated with undue physical violence you have no right to flee, but I’m sure it is in there. I believe it was John Adams

I’m sorry, I try to understand you liberals, but if he had just complied this wouldn’t be a problem. Look, sometimes a cop needs to pull you over for a non-violent meaningless infraction and question you for 10 minutes. This armed police officer who can kill you may ask why you are nervous, this is normal. Don’t

Alright so obviously race played a HUGE component here.

I disagree just because I think CT has aged so well. The graphics are certainly blockier than a modern sprite based RPG like Octopath, but they don’t look bad. The combat and music still stands up. I think the odds of F’ing it up are greater than improving it with a game like that.

I prefer to focus on the PS1 era of

These two cops aren’t qualified to have power over a pair of hampsters let alone fellow citizens. They behaved like lunatics, and used the kind of bullying behavior you only see when someone believes they are completely immune from consequences.  They should be relived of duty, banned from ever possessing fire arms,

To be fair (To me!) I did not, and am not, getting into any debate about whether or not the image is offensive to trans people. Kotaku is a gaming and culture website and I’m down with giving a disproportionately large voice to people who historically were given a disproportionately small one.

Yes! ESPN came to mind immediately. It’s a self-sustaining “news” ecosystem where the hot take of a commentator at 2pm is worth reporting on at 5pm.

It also reminds me of a pet peeve I have with cable news of both conservative and liberal bent - when they start a segment with “People on Twitter are saying...” OK? So?

Honestly I typed a snarky, short response at first then I remembered that no faceless shmucks on the internet get to critique MY job.

I appreciate your candor and putting it into a professional context, because we (I?) often don’t remember that journalism is a job. There are days you write stories that surprise, illuminate, or give a new perspective... and there are days you just report on whats going on and log off on time.

The part that seems

OKOKOK bear with me.... male business guy here, I sometimes do this. For me it’s entirely a learned response from women going in for the hug on me. Like, it made me uncomfortable the first 10-20 times, then I adapted to it and rather than come across as an awkward lump who just gets hugged, I often just go for the hug

It does raise a concern about the slippery slope of manufacturing news stories. You rightfully acknowledge you can’t assign ill intent because you don’t know the context. Does writing an article that boils down to “people assume someone meant something, they responded they didn’t mean that, and no one has context to

I came here to make a point you already made, but you made it better. We dismissed his unorthodox campaign as stupid in 2015/2016 and look what it got us. The man is a spiteful moron with an innate ability to win the hearts of some slice of the population and with enough chaos (say, 2-3 democratic candidates for

THere’s valid reasons to load it early but just as importantly “leaked” footage ends up being a boon for a game/tv show/movie more often than not. 

Yeah, as someone who doesn’t drink soda or juice - not for health reasons but because it’s too damn sweet - Lacroix is my drink of choice for non-caffeine or alcohol. It DID make me feel a little bit wasteful at the price but my local grocery started selling it 2 for $7, a whopping $1 more than the next cheapest

See my response to RobNYC. Saying it’s ridiculous, to me at least, means it is demonstrably wrong, not just lacking firm evidence.

In regards to the law suit, it is seeking monetary compensation for harm done to their son, but the family states he was a known alcoholic. They did not seek some legal injunction to

Thank you!  I found that less believable than a CGI dragonwolf. 

I’m sorry not trying to be that internet semantic guy but (no offense) you seem up for it - you already changed the subject by talking about how hard it is to help solve addiction - when AddaDaDaD’s comment was about the family’s intent, not their success.

It would be ridiculous to believe that. But you just said “you can’t make someone stop drinking if they don’t want to”. But you can sue them for failing, right?

Assuming the family did try - and fail - to help him, wouldn’t they understand you can’t place the blame on someone else for his death if he already proved

Eh. AddaDaDaDa had no background to believe they DID or DIDN’T try to help him, so not that ridiculous a statement.  All we know about this family - from this article at least - is they they seem to be entering into a money grubbing law suit, which doesn’t speak to their moral character in helping their son. 

Because he wasn’t helped.  Pithy, reductive, but sound logic.