The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Kyle Rittenhouse Thread In Which We Take As a Given That Kyle Was Wrong and Stupid

1235712

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    Thanks, I must have missed that one. Hell, I'm still pissed they co-opted fucking "OK."

    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • This content has been removed.

  • This content has been removed.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Doesn't the upside down OK symbol just mean "bling" in Japan

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    As a Canadian who obliquely works with American law enforcement on occasion, “Run/Hide/Fight” is familiar, with addendums that it’s not without other views/stances.

    Basically, my company runs commercial and retail real estate, and while active shooters are rare (in the country in general, and our properties specifically), it’s not unheard of.

    So I wouldn’t dream of saying “Canada does it this way too”, but that sequence definitely exists in some “dear *deity* I hope we never need to enact this” contingency planning binders/files.

    I wouldn’t call it universal, but it’s not unheard of either.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Doesn't the upside down OK symbol just mean "bling" in Japan

    I dunno but in the states it means I get to punch you in the arm.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    In the context of who it is and who they're with

    It is willfully ignorant to say that he is just doing the ok hand sign.

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    I might be missing something. What's going on in those jpg links?

    It’s just pictures of Kyle making the 3 percenter sign. Which is white supremacist adjacent.

    It’s not a 3 preventer sign. Several year ago, 4-Chan tried to convince people that it was a hand sign meaning, “white power.” Because irony is dead, that convinced white supremacist groups (like the Proud Boys) to actually start using it as such, mostly to, “trigger the libs.”
    That is the origins, true, but the 3 percenters have adopted it. So if they are predominately using it, is it a 3 percenter hand signal a proud boys signal a hoax or yes?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Doesn't the upside down OK symbol just mean "bling" in Japan

    I dunno but in the states it means I get to punch you in the arm.

    I guess don't punch japanese tourists (unless they deserve it)

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Thanks, I must have missed that one. Hell, I'm still pissed they co-opted fucking "OK."

    Imagine how scuba divers must feel

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Doesn't the upside down OK symbol just mean "bling" in Japan

    I dunno but in the states it means I get to punch you in the arm.

    I guess don't punch japanese tourists (unless they deserve it)

    Need to respond in a way that is familiar to them...kancho!

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    Honestly, I am not from the US but I have never heard that expression myself. I was always taught, including when I did any self-defense or martial arts, that you attempted to deescalate, flee, hide and as a last resort when you feel there was no other option to fight. I don't think I ever had anyone tell me to narc on an attacker attempting to murder me in a place I couldn't leave.

    Yeah culture that grows up around living in a place where being prepared for some asshole with an AR15 trying to set a new high score in a school, workplace, church, nightclub, grocery store, or really anywhere is just part of life leads to some unique stuff.

    The point with a mass shooter is they are going to kill as many people as they can until they either get killed by the cops, or kill themselves when they get boxed in. So it basically becomes some perverted race where you get out completely, you make yourself a less attractive target than someone else by barricading a position (hide), or you fight (or just die, there is no deescalation). And everything is buying time for SWAT to get there and box them in enough they decide they lost and pop themselves.

    In the open, if you think Rittenhouse is an active shooter as Americans are trained to expect anywhere at any time, running might work unless he is already singling you out to shoot you in the back, there is nowhere to hide, and if you are in the open and have no alternative you go after them with all possible violence. And let's face it, other than popping himself at the end Rittenhouse fits the mass shooter profile to a T.

  • This content has been removed.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    He's not a violent white supremacist, he just hangs out with violent white supremacists and has white supremacist camera crews imbedded into his house during his trial where he admitted to shooting people at an anti-white supremacy protest.

  • ArcTangentArcTangent Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    Thanks, I must have missed that one. Hell, I'm still pissed they co-opted fucking "OK."

    Imagine how scuba divers must feel

    Imagine how Mac Tonight feels.

    https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/moon-man

    ztrEPtD.gif
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    edited November 2021
    zepherin wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    I might be missing something. What's going on in those jpg links?

    It’s just pictures of Kyle making the 3 percenter sign. Which is white supremacist adjacent.

    It’s not a 3 preventer sign. Several year ago, 4-Chan tried to convince people that it was a hand sign meaning, “white power.” Because irony is dead, that convinced white supremacist groups (like the Proud Boys) to actually start using it as such, mostly to, “trigger the libs.”
    That is the origins, true, but the 3 percenters have adopted it. So if they are predominately using it, is it a 3 percenter hand signal a proud boys signal a hoax or yes?

    Depends on context, but when used by the alt-right, it's not white supremacist adjacent; it's full-on white supremacist. If the 3 percenters adopted it, it was due to that usage popularizing it among the ultra and alt-right.

    The whole thing is very frustrating as someone who keeps catching myself using the OK signal as an actual OK signal as I always have, and then beating myself up about it when I remember this new meaning after the fact.

    LostNinja on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    Hell, I'm still pissed they co-opted fucking "OK."

    That’s what he’s doing.

    Okay, I see it now.

    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • This content has been removed.

  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    One officer shot her because *reasons*.

    The officer was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 12.5y in 2019, but has since appealed and it's been reduced to less than 5.

    *Reasons* being he was spooked by the noise she made approaching the police car, and so he shot her.



  • This content has been removed.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I really hope that this doesn't lead to future protests being armed with counter protesters turning up with AR-15s. Feels like that's a one way ticket to a NI Troubles kind of situation where clashes between armed wings of various political entities become a factor of life in certain parts of the country.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    I really hope that this doesn't lead to future protests being armed with counter protesters turning up with AR-15s. Feels like that's a one way ticket to a NI Troubles kind of situation where clashes between armed wings of various political entities become a factor of life in certain parts of the country.

    I mean the judge has basically said it’s fine so like I said earlier it’s only reasonable for everyone to start going around strapped at all times.

  • This content has been removed.

  • This content has been removed.

  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style He/Him | Warning: Mothership Reporting Kennewick, WARegistered User regular
    a
    MorganV wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    One officer shot her because *reasons*.

    The officer was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 12.5y in 2019, but has since appealed and it's been reduced to less than 5.

    *Reasons* being he was spooked by the noise she made approaching the police car, and so he shot her.

    I was aware of the stated reason. It's just bullshit that either someone that jumpy was allowed to be a cop, or that's an acceptable standard for cops.

    Neither is a sufficient reason for shooting someone.

    To be fair, they were convicted for it, which feels basically impossible for a cop these days.

    Stabbity_Style.png
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited November 2021
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • This content has been removed.

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

    The whole thing seems like pretty good training for an active shooter.
    Not much use against active shooters, but that clearly wasn't the intention.

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.
    So...I knew 4 members (out of the 12 people that worked out of there) of the office that packed heat at all times conceal carry.

    It wasn't a super big office, for that division.

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    Wow! I literally uttered "holy fuck" as I read your post.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

    The whole thing seems like pretty good training for an active shooter.
    Not much use against active shooters, but that clearly wasn't the intention.

    This was implanting the idea that you dont have to worry about shooters, someone will be armed and save you if it does happen. So gun violence can't be a problem, good guys with guns exist!

    steam_sig.png
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

    I'm picturing a ridiculous scenario where the loud sound of a gun going off in the office makes a series of life-preserving guns drop from the ceiling like oxygen devices in an airplane.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

    The whole thing seems like pretty good training for an active shooter.
    Not much use against active shooters, but that clearly wasn't the intention.

    This was implanting the idea that you dont have to worry about shooters, someone will be armed and save you if it does happen. So gun violence can't be a problem, good guys with guns exist!

    Sounds more like it was someone using the company checkbook to go have a 'fun day at the range' and pretend it was some sort of meaningful training / teambuilding activity.

    I doubt there was really much more thought to it than that. Someone got to spend $X and decided to indulge the thing they thought would be fun.

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    Wow! I literally uttered "holy fuck" as I read your post.

    Yeah...That was a really weird day at work. But shooting guns at the range is a lot of fun. Also one of the employees brought his AR-15 to the range and I got to squeeze off 30 rounds, but he had 3D printed a custom drum magazine, and it kept jamming so I went back to the 1911 that was rented for me.

  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.

    The whole thing seems like pretty good training for an active shooter.
    Not much use against active shooters, but that clearly wasn't the intention.

    This was implanting the idea that you dont have to worry about shooters, someone will be armed and save you if it does happen. So gun violence can't be a problem, good guys with guns exist!

    While just debating the Rittenhouse verdict with a conservative family member they tried to justify Rittenhouse shooting of Grosskreutz due to Grosskreutz pointing a gun at him. I pointed out that that was because Rittenhouse was an active shooter at that point and if anything their argument should prove the lie of “good guy with a gun”. They replied that Grosskreutz should have called 911 if he thought Rittenhouse was a threat.

    The mental gymnastics is infuriating.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I forgot I still had a few old high school friends who are right wing nuts on Instagram because I barely use it.

    I guess the play now is calling out the prosecution for doing the gun thing and saying all of this was a media smokescreen to obfuscate from the Maxwell trial and how come there isn't video coverage of that (federal criminal) trial huh?

    My lord these people are exhausting

    getting some blaming the victim too of 'why would you run at someone with a gun pointed at you'

    like, do I want to get shot in the front or the back?

    I mean that's the basics of active shooter training.

    Run, hide, fight.

    If you can't run, and you can't hide, you fight as dirty and hard as you can for your life. In an parking lot when someone's pointing an assault rifle at you, the first two are off the table and even if you can't stop them maybe you can slow them down or distract them enough everyone else can get away or get an opening to attack.

    Just wanted to point out that Run, Hide, Fight is a strictly American concept and this is taught elsewhere as Run, Hide, Tell Someone.

    I've had it taught to me in the context of workplace shootings where the "fight" comes in when you're basically boxed into a room with no escape and the dude is coming at you. If "run" isn't an option and "hide" isn't an option, your choices are "fight" and "stand there and stare blankly", in which case yeah, may as well fight. "Tell someone" in that context is nonsensical.

    I don't necessarily disagree. The way our legal dept explained it to me (I work for one of the world's largest global software companies) when I was building this training was that they cannot emphasize fight as an option in most countries for legal reasons. The US was literally the only version of the training that was localized to add "fight" into the mix.

    I think the idea that, if you're cornered, yes you should fight for your life is supposed to be considered common sense but should not be emphasized - as the most desirable outcome of the situation is just removing yourself from it. So it's not an "or" statement. It's an "and" statement.

    Not saying it isn't silly mind you but I do think it's an interesting thing how the concept is addressed across geos.
    I once did an active shooter training in Kansas City, and it was absolute insanity by comparison.

    They went through the scenarios, and then gave us a light gun to shoot back. And instead of Run Hide Fight, it was Be aware, Run, Pull your gun and shoot back. I'm not making this up.

    And then afterwards that entire branch of the company went to the gun range (attached to the training area) and got to squeeze off 100 rounds.

    So...um...did they equip every employee with a gun to keep at their desk? Because that seems like kind of pointless training if you're not going to actually be armed and have a gun handy if / when a shooter comes in.

    And on the flip side, if you're actually going to arm everyone in the office at all times, that sounds fucking utterly insane.
    So...I knew 4 members (out of the 12 people that worked out of there) of the office that packed heat at all times conceal carry.

    It wasn't a super big office, for that division.

    Sounds about right for certain classes of business and services around here.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2021
    They replied that Grosskreutz should have called 911 if he thought Rittenhouse was a threat.

    It's always comical how close those people get to the hard reality behind an event without ever realizing it. There was no 911 to call because the Kenosha police basically declared it a purge zone for the night and sat back to let the white supremacists have some fun.

    Dark_Side on
Sign In or Register to comment.