top 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 146 points 1 year ago (34 children)
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    In the video from last weekend of the Australian reporter being shot in the back, you can clearly see the police officer behind her raise and aim straight at her. Clearly there's no repercussions for misusing these weapons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Different victim but here's what a shot to the back can do:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think he was hit with some kind of grenade the police fired. There seems to be a huge hole in the center. How is he not paralyzed??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • IIRC, rubber "bullets" are somewhere around 30mm, which isn't that far off from the size of the rounds grenade launchers commonly use - I think those are usually 30-40mm. I saw somebody recently say that they're the size of 8 or even 4-gauge shotgun slugs, and an 8-gauge is 25% larger than a 12-gauge.

    They're also not rubber like people think of when they hear the name. They're a metal slug wrapped in a layer of rubber or foam.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I had a similar bruise from a less-lethal bullet on my butt, and I've seen a kid get hit with one in his head, that was scary. This was a long time ago though, but the bullets then were steel core and rubber around it. Not sure if they use different ones in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Clearly there’s no repercussions for misusing these weapons.

    Maybe in countries where police accountability isn't a punchline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Maybe in countries where police accountability isn’t a punchline.

    Name one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The real punchline is always in the replies... 😁

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Seriously, though. Name one in which you think police accountability isn't a joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Don’t tell me the Nordic countries are unserious about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well I got tortured in a cell for three days and can't get a single Finnish person to even accept that it happened.

    They won't talk about it either. They'll just shut down, completely.

    Just like your systems, theyre good on paper.

    But do tell me how a person could feasibly manage to hurt themselves and write a fucking novel with their own blood on the cell walls while under constant supervision for "his safety"?

    Afterwards when I tried getting the video of that with lawyers, it's "vanished", despite them originally trying to say I "vandalised the cell" by going crazy and drawing with blood.

    They denied me my prescription medication, personal rights are honestly a fucking joke in Finland. We're so bureaucratic it's gone authoritarian.

    It's ludicrous.

    I also didn't have the mattress or the blanket, they took hose away too. Three days, lights on constantly, no explanation how long I would be here for, no medication, I didn't eat.

    Yeah, police accountability is a complete joke in Finland, much more so than in the US. There may be more overall abuses in the US, our cops generally play nice on the street. But behind closes doors?

    Hell, Finnish people literally don't understand that we actually have rights.

    At one point they turned of my water in the cell. That's literally against international laws.

    I've tried complaining to officials and journalists and even my own family don't believe me. My mom fucking victim blamed me for it.

    In the US I would've definitely found a lawyer willing to fight such clear injustice (as in a golden case). I'd be a fucking millionaire for the compensations.

    But here, even when I do manage a small win like

    https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html

    That, actually the supreme court of Finland deciding I was in the right and my rights were violated? Zero compensation. Fuck, no-one even let me know, I learned it from the news.

    So yeah. Police accountability here is a goddamn joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The worst part wasn't the experience itself. Hell — I've had trips that felt scarier.

    The worst part is people questioning that it ever happened and straight up ignoring it.

    So you've helped me more to deal with that particular trauma than my mom, who went "well I couldn't know what happened there" as in implying "perhaps you did something to deserve it", actually causing most of the related trauma.

    So yeah. Thank you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    We've had a couple cases in Norway in recent years where police were investigated for some thing or other. Based on the evidence I've seen, they're definitely held accountable when they over-step.

    To name a specific case (where the cop was found not guilty), there was a huge case when a cop punched a guy in the face while he was on the ground. After several rounds in court, it was decided that he was using reasonable force, because the guy was wrestling him, and he noticed that the guy had a knife on him.

    The point is that a policeman punching someone at all became a huge court case with national coverage, so I would say they're held accountable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is this kind of thing that made me decide to ignore my city's municipal codes regarding protest gear. It outlaws the wearing of bulletproof vests, helmets, protective visors, hearing protection, gas masks, and so on. To say the least, I cannot respect a law that is designed to permit bullies to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    how is it legal to stop people from wearing bulletproof vests in public!? Why aren't 2nd amendment mfs screaming about this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    "See, the second amendment specifically says you have a right to bear arms, and that means any kind of gun I want to buy should be legal."

    "However, there is no amendment saying you have a right to wear armor. So being protected isn't a constitutional right".

    "Oh? This supressor I want to put on my gun? That should be allowed by the second amendment. Wait, what do you mean there is no constitutional right to gun accessories?!"

    It usually goes something like that. I'd like to point out here that there isn't a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • It usually goes something like that. I’d like to point out here that there isn’t a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.

    One could similarly say that the right to wield violence does not mean that you have the right for that violence to actually succeed. Some situations allow for the legal use of deadly force, but that still does not mean the explicit right to kill. If a threat is neutralized and they survive, you can't "make sure" that they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Hundreds have been permanently blinded.

    Just think about how that could even happen. You put any of us in their shoes, we would obviously aim low, to prevent permanent damage.

    It's like police are overgrown toddlers, mad that they're forced to use less lethal rounds... So they take it out on civilians and aim for the face. Can you imagine being as hate-filled as these fucking orcs that you would want to blind the people you "serve" for the rest of their lives (if you don't kill them)!? Absolute monsters...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    'Qualified immunity' is unique to the USA. Never should have been made law and it should surprise no-one that it came about during push-back to the civil rights movement. It enables all of this bullshit by making police behaviour untouchable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You expect me to believe that cops are supposed to 360 no scope trick shots? I don't think they took, much less passed, geometry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're supposed to be shooting at a dangerous crowd, not an individual. You don't need to accurately get the right angle you just need to generally aim in the right direction, but at the ground, and I'll bounce and hit someone. The fact they're choosing not to do this either indicates poor training or malice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    One of the things I've learned in life is that one should minimize reliance on behaviorial safeguards throught the use of mechanical safeguards. You shouldn't rely on people to do the right thing. As such, removing opportunities for them to fuck up is key.

    The design and production of rubber bullets, as they are here, is pure negligence. That they kill 3% of their victims (per your graphic) is enough that I would wager that they would be considered a lethal weapon in other contexts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 133 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    You shouldn’t have to wear safety rated glasses to protest, but I wouldn’t go to one without them at this point. If you normally wear glasses and they’re not rated an impact can shatter them and cause even more damage than not wearing them at all would have.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    If you have glasses buy safety glasses that go over top of them. Doesn’t matter if your glasses are rated for it, use the safety glasses. Glasses are expensive and safety glasses can be bought for fairly cheap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

    If you can’t afford them, check if there is a robotics event going on near you. Then check if they have open access to the pits, if they do then they will have safety glasses stations that you can pick up a pair at. They won’t hound you for then back really, the people working those stations are usually volunteers. At those kinds of events they also expect a lot of those pairs to get taken, whether accidentally or on purpose. So you taking a pair will go unnoticed.

    Edit: Not everyone has a few dollars that can be spared for a pair of safety glasses. Stealing from a store is more risky than taking them from an event where they aren’t expecting them back. Remember that jails are filled with people who can’t afford to pay their bails. I’m not here to price gatekeep people going to protests, get a pair however you can. I want you to be safe, not keep you out.

    If you can afford multiple pairs buy extras for others. Be selfless rather than be an asshole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Lol wat? Why go through all that to steal from volunteer event supplies? If you really, seriously, need to steal a pair go to home depot, grab a pair and walk out. Take from corpos not science nerds.

    Edit- I'm not condoning stealing from anyone, but if that's where your heads at, choose better targets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I’ve worked as a volunteer at robotics events, pairs can be donated by large corporations. And the events aren’t expecting the pairs back anyways. Stores might give more of a shit, probably not but it’s safer for the people who can’t afford them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you walk up and ask for a pair you can keep because yours were broken, they'll give you them. Don't have to steal. Just be kind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    This seems like a lot of work to save two dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Safety glasses that are actually safety glasses aren't two dollars

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You’re right, if you check Amazon you can get a box of 10 ANSI certified safety glasses for 16.99. So actually less than two dollars.

    I originally pulled that number out of thin air, but how much do you think the ones they give out for these robotics events cost? If you tour a manufacturing facility and they pass out OSHA required safety glasses, how much do you think they cost? Probably also less than two dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yes glad you understand the concept of bulk buying!! Maybe you’d also understand that the events are buying in even larger amounts and they get their money (or even the safety glasses themselves) from sponsors who aren’t it back anyways. Maybe you also might understand that the people who run these events don’t really care if they are returned or not. That they care more about people being safe than about a piece of plastic being brought back.

    I volunteer at events and have spoken with organizers of said events. They aren’t bothered by pairs going missing, they are bothered by people not wearing them.

    Another you should consider is that not everyone has the 16.99, plus shipping, plus tax, to buy that 10 pair on a discount. Remember that roughly half of all people in this country survive paycheck to paycheck. Money can be tight and even cheap things can be expensive to others. Be understanding of where others are, rather than assume your position is the default. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and you’ll see things differently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Single glasses are also $2 in local retail stores.

    I actually prefer the clear $2 glasses to the fancier padded $8 ones. They last longer and the rubber on the fancy ones will eventually get sticky and fall off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Look at this condescending ass motherfucker who was telling everyone to go find a robotics event somewhere to snag some free glasses on their way to a protest to save two five dollars. You can get a single pair at Home Depot for five bucks.

    Thanks for the tip buddy. I’m sure it will help exactly zero people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    You’d get it if you know people in the actual lowest rungs of society, if you’ve been there yourself, you’d get it. You’d get it if you knew what barely having enough for just rent, electricity and water bills. You’d get it if you knew what skipping medicine doses because you need to stretch it out is like. You’d get it if you knew what stretching out already cheap meals is like. You’d get it if you knew what skipping meals because you can’t afford to have a place to live if you ate. You’d get it if you knew what looking for the cheapest gas because it’s the only way to make it through the month was. You’d get it if you knew what not having a car in a country build for to because it’s too expensive is like.

    I could go on with ways you don’t get it, but hopefully my point lands with you this time. When you are at that level of struggle, or near it, risk calculations matter more. Taking from a store is riskier because they will be more likely to care. Even if just a few bucks. Pointing out an option to give them something that will help them isn’t evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    It's such a bizarre piece of "advice", as if robotics events are as common as grocery stores or something.

    It would cost me more than the price of the safety glasses to attend such and event, after accounting for transportation costs and (very likely) admission fee.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I wonder if it would help to frame the suggestion as a “questionably ethical, depending, life pro tip“.

    Then explain you might be able to have some fun checking out a robotics event and—especially if you are able to make a little connection with one of the organizers—you should explain your financial situation and ask if one of the pairs went missing if they could forgive you for it.

    And for some two-dollar item when it’s a question they probably never get asked, they’re probably gonna say “sure!“ and be able to feel good about helping a near stranger.

    (As it stood, it had vibes like “your local library might leave their late fee coin jar unlocked!” which I know was notttt anything like your perspective cuz you’ve been to those events! This is a risky parenthetical, not accusing you of nuthin’ pls :) )

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why steal things that you can buy for $5?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This! Look for "Z87" somewhere on the frame of the glasses to know if they're impact rated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think z87 are strong enough for rubber bullets, especially if they're taking a direct shot like this. Looking around the internet you need to jump up to MIL-PRF-32432 for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I looked it up, and take this how you will as it's from safetyglassesusa.com and they say, "Yes, safety glasses & goggles can stop a rubber bullet, provided the correct type of safety eyewear is used. Industrial-rated ANSI Z87.1+ safety eyewear is specifically designed to protect your eyes from work-related hazards. Ballistic-rated eyewear is designed and tested to protect your eyes from higher-velocity projectiles and debris typically found in combat environments."

    So you're right. Z87 may not cut it, but still it's probably going to be fine except in extreme circumstances. Still better safe than sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    I hope they recover their vision. As someone who lost sight in one eye I can attest that going from binocular to monocular vision is life altering AND not considered a disability under the law Social Security requirements but typically is covered by ADA.

    Edit: clarification.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    How is losing 50% of your eyesight not a disability?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Because you still have eyesight in the other eye, so in social security's mind there's jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT) you could still perform, and if there's three jobs you could perform despite your impairment you aren't disabled. Also, if you're under 50 you almost certainly aren't disabled for some reason. It's maddening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A lot of states don't even care if you've only got so-so vision in one eye and are completely blind in the other. No stereopsis, no problem! Here's a driver's license. Good luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My dude, teeth are considered luxury bones in this country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    It’s protected by ADA

    IOW - work from home (assuming job duties can be done remotely) due to being unable to safely operate a 2-ton vehicle. Of course you would need to actually relinquish driving altogether and not just use it to skip the commute.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Unfortunately no. Not only does monocular vision not automatically disqualify you from driving but you can still get a commercial drivers license with vision in only one eye.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Regardless, I would still stop driving and seek ADA accommodation with assistance from a medical professional. It should be noted that my driving skills are marginal (but passable) as it is.

    Even if some can pull it off doesn't mean that I personally can. Some can run a mile under 6 minutes. I cannot.

    Edit: Incidentally, I do not find it comforting that someone with significantly impaired vision would be allowed a CDL and able to drive a semi. But then given the standards for driving in the U.S., I suppose I shouldn't find it particularly surprising. We don't take automobile safety nearly as seriously as we should.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's not how reasonable accommodation works under ADA. If you were applying for a job that required you to be in office they could just refuse to hire.

    If you tried to force working from home at a job you already had a reasonable accommodation would be adjusting your schedule so you could utilize public transportation.

    It would be nice if people could dictate the terms but that's not what ADA protects under "reasonable accommodation".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    That’s not how reasonable accommodation works under ADA. If you were applying for a job that required you to be in office they could just refuse to hire.

    It's what it is, and I would have no choice but to keep looking. Fortunately companies and employers are not a monolith, and some are more reasonable than others regarding things like this and may not challenge it. Particularly if you have in-demand skills.

    could utilize public transportation.

    This would certainly be a viable in some parts of the U.S. Indeed, loss of vision would very likely push me to relocate to somewhere with better accessibility for non-drivers.

    Despite my misgivings regarding their technological viability, this is one of many reasons why I am a big promoter of self-driving vehicles. But I still think working models available to consumers are a minimum decade or more off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 113 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago

    They trying to make those rubber bullets letal.

  • source
  • [+] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›