GBU_28

@GBU_28@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

GBU_28,

If they pull up on you, just flash the steel! Ez win no consequences

GBU_28,

Huh?

  • Woman commits crime.
  • Babby is formed.
  • Woman is convicted of crime, is pregnante. Goes to jail/prison.
  • gregrant women has baby during sentence duration.
GBU_28,

I can’t believe the blade would do that and let the whole helicopter down like that

GBU_28,

No but I’m not sure where I would consume such content. Is that Facebook or something?

GBU_28,

This guy is very brave, but everyone taking about the embassy security drawing weapons when they arrive. Of course they would. They don’t know what was planned, if it was a suicide bombing gone wrong, our whatever else. I’m not pro cop but I don’t understand why people are surprised by this. They are security

GBU_28,

You made an objective point, then a subjective one.

The objective one: “it’s very telling that this will assuredly get almost no coverage on big news networks like abc, cbs, fox, etc.” They addressed the objective one with their links.

The subjective one cannot be addressed yet, as it’s so soon after the event. You will probably end up correct that this event will not visibly persist, but you can’t know for sure, time will tell.

GBU_28,

Shoot the suicide bomber before a bigger boom. What if there was another person? Another thing? We can’t know, they can’t know. We know now, due to hindsight.

They are security. They secure scenes. They aren’t paramedics.

I am not making pro cop statements here, but all the comments about “ohhh the cop arrived to a dangerous scene with a weapon drawn!” Is like saying “the garbage man picked up the garbage bin when he drove past my house!” Duh!

GBU_28,

If your job is to secure the embassy/ site/ scene you work down a list. They clearly followed the list.

We now know that he was no risk, but they couldn’t.

They aren’t equipped with fire extinguishers (aside from the guy who got one), so are you assuming they should jump on him? Smother a fuel fire with their bodies? Does that secure the site? No. It’s also not realistic.

Seems like securing the site then 1 person getting a fire extinguisher is a completely responsible response.

GBU_28,

This is not the acorn thing at all. They are trained to secure the embassy and they did that.

GBU_28,

I ignored it because it’s irrelevant. You’re applying a subjective value assessment to professionals following training. It’s ugly, but it’s not meant to be “nice” or compassionate. They are there to protect the embassy

GBU_28,

Unfortunately for everyone here, the security staff do not care. That’s the reality and the hard stop. There’s nothing else.

Everyone is applying subjective value judgements, and hindsight evaluations on this. They don’t apply.

GBU_28,

They don’t know what they’re walking into. We know after the fact what they had.

GBU_28,

The embassy security secures the embassy. Whodathunk

GBU_28,

They are security staff. They approach anything and secure it. Everything else is subjective

GBU_28,

I mean, same to you?

You don’t like the behavior of security staff who have one very cold, very unfriendly goal: keep the embassy safe. I doubt they have specific training on self immolation so obviously they used standard procedure.

They don’t give a fuck about public perception, the feelings of the involved individuals, etc.

Everyone keeps asking " why weren’t they this or that or the other thing". There’s one root answer weather folks like it or not.

GBU_28,

The actual answer is truly that these professional security types don’t care. They go guns ready for anything that is remotely threatening to the embassy. A dude on fire on the perimeter apparently counts, no matter what we think of that.

GBU_28,

You know that now due to hindsight

GBU_28, (edited )

Time to shelve retarded as an insult. I used it too in the past, but it’s best not to use it any more.

Intellectually handicapped folks can’t help it and didn’t choose it.

GBU_28, (edited )

Uh, ok? It’s bigoted language, it’s outdated and no longer used in the medical fields. Intellectually disabled is the accepted, appropriate term. This isn’t my opinion or idea, it’s the standard now as determined by both professionals, and those who would have formerly been labeled as that word.

Similar to saying someone is “spazzing out” or is a “skitzo”. Or saying some inconvenience is “gay”. It’s not appropriate.

You do you, but it’s a slur now. you can SELF DESCRIBE as whatever you like and use whatever labels or descriptors for yourself you see fit. No one can police that. But it is bigoted speech to use slurs about things like disabilities, orientations or similar for other people.

To help you relate: it would not be appropriate to “make fun of” someone by saying they have autism or ADHD

GBU_28,

It is yeah. Ml does that

GBU_28,

I do not have to agree with someone who uses slurs about disabled people, that’s correct.

Next you’ll justify using the n word

GBU_28,

Not sure what you mean. How does the experience of the first responder, and their responsibilities on a call, relate to political or other border patrol concerns?

GBU_28,

Right but why is this being discussed related to an article about their mental health? They had nothing to do with creating the barrier. The top comment implies the terrible border is some surprise detail, or that they are involved with that. They are just trying to help people

Specifically the “nothing to do with” as if it’s a gotcha statement.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • HellsKitchen
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Durango
  • rhentai
  • magazineikmin
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • normalnudes
  • osvaldo12
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • khanakhh
  • tester
  • thenastyranch
  • Leos
  • lostlight
  • cisconetworking
  • relationshipadvice
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines