Rivalarrival

joined 2 years ago
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 14 points 1 day ago

The AI that replaced the management is looking. They are the one instructing the transcription AI to add Dorian to every third summary, to ensure the human worker is actually reviewing the work.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Like sticking an alcohol drenched tampon in your booty hole.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago

"The Pope came to celebrate my birthday"

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Should have done it in Baltimore.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

I have it on good authority that there is no spoon. Get bent, OP.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Go ask a criminal attorney if there’s a self defense claim

If you had ever followed that advice, you wouldn't be repeating this nonsense. You would have learned the 6 general criteria required for a self defense claim, and that none of those criteria require the defender to be less-well-armed than the attacker.

This subject is too serious for your uninformed opinion. PM me your zip code, and I would be happy to find you a class on the laws regulating self defense.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.

This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. "Being armed" does not negate your claim.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.

Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.

An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.

The jury doesn't seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don't repeat that nonsense that it can't.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 16 points 1 day ago

You claim the postal worker attacked the woman. I'm not finding any information about that. What was the nature of this "attack"?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

which meaning special dispensation and that usually comes with a shitload of cultural information.

Which would have been known to her commander in a normal assignment, sure. But the very beginning of this episode made it clear that Riker and Picard were not aware she was coming aboard until she requested to beam aboard.

Picard literally states he read about Bajor as a child, the naming convention was a huge gaffe.

My grandfather fought in Korea, and told me stories when I was a child. I watched MASH into my teens. I had classroom lessons on the background of the Korean war. Yet, I didn't learn about Korea's surname-first naming convention until I was almost 19 and studying the language. This was not at all a gaffe.

The federation is not supposed to be punitive. She served time for the Garon II mission, and the fact she still had any position in Starfleet means that should have been the end of it.

She didn't complete her sentence. She received a conditional pardon, ostensibly contingent on her assistance in tracking down "terrorists". Her return to duty was supposed to be temporary. The only reason she was out of the stockade was because Starfleet supposedly needed her.

I feel like you ignored my Derek Chauvin analogy when you referred to Ro as a "troublemaker". Riker wouldn't refer to Chauvin as a "troublemaker". Riker would call Chauvin a complete bastard. Justifiably.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Picard addressed her as "Ensign Laren", her given name, rather than "Ensign Ro', her surname. This indicates that even command level officers were not aware of Bajoran customs.

We were not aware the earring was religious iconography either: AFAIK, she was the first Bajoran we had seen on screen, and she only had one line before Riker ordered her to remove the earring. All we knew about her was that she was criminally responsible for the deaths of 8 Starfleet officers, and she appeared in the transporter room wearing an ostentatious earring.

Given his knowledge at the time, Riker's actions were not unreasonable in these specific circumstances.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago

Reading the article, it seems that they were traveling together, and that the "woman" was most likely his mom.

If I had talked that way to my mom, my jaw would still be wired shut.

view more: ‹ prev next ›