FourFans

Excluding what you've seen online, how many, specifically, is "MANY"? I'm encountering and increasing number of individuals (specifically boomers and older x'ers) who conflate what they see online with "personal experience" and deriving personal beliefs and stereotypes that are actually based on exceptions and AI generated clickbate. The repository of stupid that's recorded online represents a tiny fraction of the law enforcement encounters. I try very hard to base my opinions on factual reality, not the exceptional cases that get lots of attention. I've been carrying in some form or fashion for 20 years now. I've had roughly 20 experiences with law enforcement of international, federal, state, local, civilian and military varieties that included detentions, warnings, breaking up civil disputes, traffic stops etc. Day to day type events. I've personally witnessed all of zero events where a police officer handled a situation poorly enough to call it "stupid". Overly cautious? Yes. Decisions I disagreed with? Yes. Stupid? No. So I'm curious to hear about these storied you have that resulted in your readiness to call a random police officer a "dumb fuck" by reflex, as you just did. Please elaborate for us if you will.

TL/DR: It depends entirely on the situation, but regardless I'm ready to be disarmed by a LEO. I'll fight it in court, not in the moment. It's about managing my own expectations and it all boils down to the officer and his/her assessment of the situation. If I talk to the sheriff in church as I walk by, I'm fine. She knows I'm armed. If I am the first responder who engages an active shooter in that same church, I fully expect that same sheriff to disarm me afterwards. A: the situation is over and shootings result in frayed nerves and shaking hands. B: evidence. The reason doesn't matter, I've decided before it all happens that I'm submitting to the proper authority. If the officer deems according policy/judgment that disarming me is advisable, I'm not resisting in the slightest. It might be a complete BS reason. There also might be a factor I don't know about. If I feel like my rights are getting trampled, that specific moment is NOT the time to take a stand. I must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The officer is not required to reciprocate. In fact, the officer literally stays alive by NOT automatically giving people the benefit of the doubt. If it was wrong and/or illegal, we can figure that out in court...later...when loaded weapons aren't in play. I'm also of the opinion and experience that simply acting as described above will relieve any tension and most likely the officer will not escalate to disarming me. It's about expectations. If I act like I am superior with better legal knowledge than this officer, they can smell it, it's a red flag for them, and it does nothing to help the situation, regardless of how right I am. To use an analogy: I treat every police officer the same way I treat the range safety officer I've never met: With absolute deference to the authority they hold in that moment. Yes, some that suck. Most don't. But every single one should be treated with respect. If they prove undeserving, I bring it up with management later, not on the range.

There's always at least two sides to every story. What I see is the product of someone who wasn't raise right nor trained in concealed carry correctly meeting what appear to be either poorly trained or poorly disciplined law enforcement agents. One of the things that was hammered into me in the multiple carry trainings I've done is that the first interaction you have with a law enforcement officer in the wild is stating "I'm concealed carrying" with a full description of where the weapon is while making no threatening movements. In short order I'd fully expecting to be disarmed and possibly restrained depending on the situation. I'm perfectly ok with being disarmed as it's for everyone's safety. We're on the same team: defending public safety. This guy was carrying, while recording, and then actively stepped between the police and someone they were interacting with. Wrong on so many levels. On the opposite side, 7 v 1 with one guy disarming the individual while not effectively communicating that he's done so all in the span of seconds with heated words and actions is a hell of a chaotic situation. It did not look like a well led and organized response to what had been a non-lethal event. But non-lethal goes lethal real fast. That's the end of my speculation with one caveat. I had the opportunity to do shoot/don't shoot live role playing training with sims. I failed all 5 scenarios, which is, according to the instructor, absolutely normal for a normal dude off the street. I came away knowing I needed more training. Use of force events are messy, complicated, confusing events with split-second decision making bearing life-long consequences for all involved. It convinced me that I have no place critiquing cops in shooting events. I am, however, fully convinced this is exactly the kind of event the extreme left agitators have been wanting out of all this so they can beat the drum of tyranny, get a political win by twisting the media narrative, then press their advantage once political leadership caves. It's all straight out of "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, which is the baseline organizers/agitator playbook. It's a disgusting abuse of ignorant, but largely innocent, protestors in the streets. The article from the marine highlighting that this is well organized and more of an insurgency than activism seems to fit the more I learn.

If we can only be so lucky.

I agree with you there. Unfortunately...or fortunately...I still can't figure it out...he somehow has been managing to turn situations that are clearly look like blunders and somehow extracting benefits for our country. It makes no sense. Like all our tariff policies. No economist ever looks at what he's doing, but somehow he's managed to get multiple countries to cave using that tactics. TBD if it's good for our economy in the long game...I'm not hopeful. Still, he (and we as a country) comes off looking like and idiot, but the end state comes out better than I expected. My gut tells me that he, or his staff, is having behind the scenes conversations for the real negotiations and all the stuff in front of the cameras is pure theater. I hate it, but if this administration extracts some positives out of the situation, good for us I guess. I'll hold my judgment til his term is over.

Literally no one is doing that. In fact the answers to the realpolitik question are arguing against it. Did I miss something in the middle there? I am arguing in good faith. I bring up two different scenarios because of the way the people responded to them. It's not about Biden. It's about different yard sticks being used to measure the actions of different presidents while people declare they are being objective. Allow me to rephrase these two situations more circumspectly: - The US president, with no prior warning, unilaterally re-establishes US foreign policy concerning it's defense of a non-treaty nation against the US's biggest military rival on the planet in a moment when that rival is making political and physical threats that it will finally do what it's been claiming it would do since the 50's and retain Taiwan. All while China's president Xi is known to respond very poorly to threats that may make him appear to lose face. Moreover this is all happening at a moment when that nation is military very active and the USA has finally completely it's withdrawal from Afghanistan and is decidedly not ready for military action in that venue yet has military forces in and around the area and has for a very long time. - The US president makes brazen claims about wanting to have control over a semi-autonomous allied country/landmass that belongs to another allied country who has already set the precedent of selling the US land in the Atlantic/Caribbean. All while the US has no real reason to threaten this because Denmark has historically been very amiable and arguably one of the US's most steady allies, even going so far as to pay for infrastructure changes that the US requests. This blustery idiotic exchanges is set in a military environment where the neither country has much military footprint involved, and the US has neither the political, military, or legal justification or capacity to invade/occupy Greenland. Both are poor situations. I'm not addressing the follow-up on either situation. We do not need NATO. We have a vested interest in a peaceful Asia. Which is worse for the USA? My personal analysis is that people are putting the current exchange about Greenland on the top tier of existential problems while they simultaneously downplayed an event that literally could have led to a conventional exchange of arms over the Taiwan straits. To me, Taiwan was us poking a bully nation that was/is looking for any excuse to respond. Greenland in political theater the likes of which almost every president has conducted and amounts to siblings fighting with no real threat of actions. More to it, this is Trump's MO, and has been for his whole political life. I was in a NATO staff when he threatened to pull the US out if the allies didn't pay what they said they would. It was a bluff and everyone knew it. All the nations in that stuff literally laughed about it. Most countries didn't pay and the US is still in NATO. This is how Trump operates. I disagree with it. I think it's detrimental to his purposed. I think it's not how nations should interact, but I can't change it. I can just recognize what it is and what it isn't. We're not going to invade Greenland, so maybe people should stop acting like it's the end of the world that the USA is finally acting like a superpower again and demanding to be treated as such. (sidebar, i'll be curious to know what's happening in the background right now that no-one is paying attention to because of the Greenland noise...that's ALSO Trump's MO)

Yes. Were you as concerned when Biden openly said that yes, the USA would would defend Taiwan if China attacks it...even though it has literally been US policy for decades to specifically not say that? This space is messy. There is no room for double standards based on emotional responses to the assclowns in charge. Are you sure you're using the same yard stick with Trump that you did with other presidents?

Actually deploying troops to invade and occupy a nation without the approval of congress. Ordering our departure from NATO without the approval of the Senate. Unprovoked sanctioned assassination of one of our major enemy's heads of state. Everything else is just that: realpolitik. International relations are messy and gross, but necessary. Soft power is worthless unless it's backed by hard power.

God bless little European Texas

Read my post again, for comprehension this time. I'm trying to help some out there understand the higher math behind the political theater going on. We don't "just leave NATO" That's not happened once yet and I doubt we'll be the first. We're not going to invade Greenland (we don't even need to, Denmark is more than happy to pay for basing changing we ask for), and we're probably not going to leave NATO, even if other do. However, the wide receivers on the team needs to know they're not the O-Line, they're not the TE, and they sure as shit aren't the QB. To those who pay attention to the history of nations, what's happening right now is what that 'define the relationship' conversation looks like between allies. I fully expect some things will change out of this, but stop with the black-and-white good-and-evil right-and-wrong bullshit. Act like an adult who thinks with critical analysis in mind, not just so you can response with your party line. We've already got news anchors doing that, please don't join them. Turn off CNN and/or Fox news and start recognizing that you and I don't hear 1 percent of the high level conversations that occur around these events. More importantly, quit reading your own rhetoric into other peoples statements. You sound like a weepy melodramatic 5th grader trying to tell a sad story while blubbering. It's embarrassing.

I spent an extensive part of my past studying international relations. Rule 1: There is no such thing as international law. Rule 2: International relations is, by definition, countries screwing over other countries. No country has friends, just interests. That's a two way street and a lot Europe forgot that. Just because the USA has acted politely and almost philanthropically in past in no way means that should continue. Is it nice? Nope. "Nice" countries invariably end up as another's vassal. The Dutch guilder used to be the world's reserve currency before the British pound, now where is it? Dwell on that for a second. We've been looking after everyone else's interests for a very long time and have ignored our own back yard at the same time. Not anymore apparently. Regardless how much anyone likes it, the facts are true: No one else will look after our hemisphere with US interests in mind if we don't. From a broader perspective, the USA is finally starting to act like every other country on the planet, and arguable still more benevolently that any other country would if they were given the power that the USA currently wields. Jimmy Carr's comedy bit is rather insightful: - Everyone is a Communist in their own house (I'll selflessly give to my family what I have to what they need) - Socialist in their home community (we will collectively provide for those in our community that are in need) - Capitalist in the international environment (he didn't earn it so screw that guy) Several geopolitical analysts have been predicting the return of a neo-colonial world...and here we are. Don't have to like it to recognize what it is.

Agreed, though I'll call that a false equivalency. This is us pushing back against an organization of countries that have abused the good graces of the USA and acted as though access to our markets and access to use of our military force is their own personal birthright. During my time in NATO that attitude was common, and rather amusing to point out. Denmark really is too poor to buy blanks for it's military, so they point and say 'bang'. I'd guess the UK, some of the Nordic countries, and possibly now Poland are the only EU countries that could actually defend their own boarders...though Germany is on that path finally...(the history buff in me shutters at that). The US and the reputation of our military has kept the EU's Eastern flank secure for so long that the Europeans have forgotten that fact. Now the are being reminded and their calling foul on what should be called truth. Saying we're stealing our sidekick's lunch money is like saying a battered wife who finally defends herself is committed assault (I imagine something like Ronda Rousey being a battered wife for years and then finally realizing, wait, I can kill this guy...). On a technical level it might technically be true. On the truth level it's not. This is isn't bullying. This is the US finally standing up for itself.

Does anyone here actually believe that Trump is going to try and get the US to invade Greenland? If he does do you really think we'd actually do it? This is political theater. We reminded the world that the western hemisphere is ours. Now he's trying (poorly) to remind NATO that they really need us and we don't need them.

I'm in.

He's been in office long enough now for people to notice that he as qualities they don't like...aka he's human and now has a spotlight on him. Some guys apparently bite off on the trope of insider trading, or that he had some big-name somebody perform for free at a party, or that he's has a less than cordial relationship with Shawn Ryan, or something stupid like that. Personally I find it completely asinine when dudes get hugely emotional about their opinions about people whom they've never met, have had no interactions with, and are completely unaffected by. I don't have a problem with the dude, whom I've never met. I listen to his podcast, apply critical thinking, and learn stuff I didn't know before. But hey, adulting is hard. P.S. My guess on the trading is pretty much every congressman just applies to the Pelosi index and prospers. But it's not insider trading as literally every word they say is written down in public record and posted almost immediately on congress.gov. Convenient for me to follow? absolutely not, but illegal? No.