Updated last night with no issues.

Oh yes I’m aware. I’m clearly missing, or at least have a reduced expression of, that gene. I play soccer multiple times a week, meanwhile I couldn’t possibly care less about watching soccer; or any sport for that matter.

Oh yes I’m aware. I’m clearly missing, or at least have a reduced expression of, that gene. I play soccer multiple times a week, meanwhile I couldn’t possibly care less about watching soccer; or any sport for that matter.

So literally every single above average sports fan?

The pathological need to be part of a group so bad it overwhelmes all reason is a feature I have yet to understand. And I say that as someone who can recognize in myself those moments when I feel the pull to be part of an in group.

Yup, all fair points and why I was asking hoping OP or someone else might have insights. Thanks.

Avoiding the obvious hot button issue, I’ll just say I was assuming the observation could have pre-dated the current war AND there are other non-jews in Israel than just Palestinians.

[sigh] I’ll never understand this world.

Is there any chance the ones making all the ruckus and disrespect were non-Jewish Israelis? That’s not an excuse but it makes it make more sense than actual Jews being so disrespectful. And if it is young Jews doing it, can you make it make sense? Do you have some sense for why / how they might be thinking?

Keeping in mind just being bad tourists doesn’t quite explain it. Kids groups tend to be shite tourists no matter where they are from. But even I knew as a 10yo not to act stupid when visiting some of the more somber locations I went to in the US; no less as a 21yo when I visited Dachau as a non-Jew.

I know I had at least one shot as a baby/child/whenever it was appropriate in the 70’s. Then the Air Force gave me the MMR vax before deploying in the '00s just for good measure. Much appreciated now.

Nope, not until they lose their own, and maybe not even then. I love a great FAFO face eating story as much as the next, but you simply canNOT exaggerate the levels of cognitive dissonance these people are capable of enduring before their heads explode.

I have accepted that two things can be trust at once: I can be sad for her and amused at the leopard eating her face. I have no problem containing both of those emotions at the same time without hating myself one ounce.

jumper

Update: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youtube-prankster-shot-tanner-cook_n_65172885e4b0a69113b4c9ce

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youtube-prankster-shot-tanner-cook_n_65172885e4b0a69113b4c9ce

That’ll be for a jury to decide.

[shrug] I guess not. Then again, you can be shot in many parts of the body, recover, and live normally. But a solid crack(s) to the head can fuck you up for life, or just kill you. Same for stabbing. Get suck in the right place, “ouch”, get stuck in the wrong place and you bleed out in pretty easy. Read up on the stabs to the abdominal descending aorta. Or don’t, you might be more freaked out hahaha

Bottom line, I’ll pass on them all thank you very much

Yup, you figured out the math. That’s what we’re all saying.

Wrap it up everyone, we’ve been outed.

Or maybe, and I know I’m a broken record at this point, but maybe it’s one threat for one attempt to eliminate that threat.

You REALLY need to stop focusing on the intent of the fucktard prankster and put yourself in the shoes of the victim threatened with assault.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

ASSAULT

Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

“Intention” in the context of assault, means that the act is not accidental, but motive is immaterial.
    It does not matter if the goal of the tortfeasor was merely to scare the victim or if the act was meant as a joke.
    The tortfeasor need not have intended for the contact to be harmful or offensive, only to have intended the actual contact.
“Reasonable apprehension” in the context of assault, refers to the victim’s reasonable belief that the act will lead to imminent harmful or offensive contact.
    The victim does not need to prove fear, only that they were aware that such a contact might occur. If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.
    If the victim and tortfeasor have special knowledge of each other, this special knowledge may be considered when determining whether the victim’s apprehension was reasonable.
“Imminent” in the context of assault, means the threatened harmful or offensive contact must be certain or likely to occur very soon.
“Harmful or offensive” in the context of assault, is an objective standard referring to touching that is likely to or capable of causing harm or offending a reasonable person by violating prevailing social standards of acceptable touching.
    However, an otherwise inoffensive contact may be deemed offensive if the tortfeasor knew the victim was unusually averse to such a contact.
    There is some disagreement among jurisdictions in regard to the role of consent.

haha [shrug] yeah I dunno. it was an interesting diversion I guess. But really the problem is pistol whipping means staying close to the target; it puts you at risk of losing your weapon to your attacker. It is, to put it bluntly, counter to good advice and training. If you pull your weapon you’re escalating the situation. You pull it, you better be prepared to use it. And you better put distance between yourself and the target to avoid them grappling and putting you at risk of being shot. You simply do not pull a gun out with the intent to swing it at the threat. It isn’t a baseball bat.

If we’re talking “ideal” situations here, an argument could be made to pull your weapon while backing away and warning your attacker to stay back. The problem is that requires a LOT of training to stay calm enough to do that. For most people it’s just going to be, “fuck fuck fuck fuck BANG fuck fuck fuck fuck” and assuming the threat was reasonable (I’m talking generally now and not debating this situation) then it would be understandable and defensible. Someone turning around in your driveway is NOT “fuck fuck fuck fuck” defensible in my own personal opinion. If someone’s THAT scared of the world, they don’t need a gun, they need therapy.

Nope, 51yo average sized male with a military career and enough life experience to know it doesn’t take very long for things to escalate very quickly. 30 seconds is an ETERNITY if you feel threatened.

He isn’t annoying, he’s threatening. Big matters because it amplifies the threat. If Cook was 5’ 70lb 16yo female that would be an entirely different dynamic. Of course if a 5’ 70lb person had their own weapon then we wouldn’t be talking about their size we’d be talking about their weapon. In this case being 6’5" is it’s own potential weapon in the eyes of someone who feels threatened.

I guess I do need this explained to me. I need it explained to me how you don’t understand “phone in your face” is not all that happened. Cook was told to stop, didn’t. Cook was retreated from, for THIRTY FEET (from the news video), and continued to approach Colie. How do YOU not get that can be very threatening to someone? Cook’s own admission that his goal is to “confuse” people is an admission that Colie could have been confused about what was happening and what Cook’s intent was. At that point self-defense = what’s needed to eliminate the threat.

Yes any reasonable person can feel threatened by a 6’5" adult male approaching them, being told to stop, not stopping, and continuing to be pursued while trying to back away from the situation.

But here’s the good news. You and I clearly disagree about what can reasonably be considered a threat that warrants self-defense to eliminate the threat*. And it doesn’t matter. A judge and Jury will get to decide which one of us has the more cogent argument.

• note that I am intentionally not naming the method used to eliminate the threat. The fact that a gun was used is actually not the point here. If Colie picked up a baseball bat sitting on the floor and beat Cook to death with multiple strikes while he lay on the ground I’d be agreeing it was excessive force and might need a closer look. Just like if he had taken a 2nd shot while Cook lay on the ground. But he didn’t. He fired one shot to eliminate the threat. That might not have been a rational thought in his mind at the time, but it’s what happened. Odds are he scared himself from the actual shot; but I don’t know.

Yes he was.

replace “pistol whipped” with “used whatever means available to neutralize the threat” and the answer would be “yes, legal”

I don’t know if there are laws that say striking someone in self-defense with a hunk of metal fashioned into a gun is less allowable than the nearest heavy object. But I could be wrong, maybe there really is a weird law that says you can’t legally hit someone with your gun when you could have otherwise legally hit them with something else in self-defense.

“but they had a gun, how threatened could they have felt?” would fail to recognize the scenario when someone is clearly being threatened and then has a choice to pull their weapon and fire or swing. But I also think that’s just so much hollywood, pulling out your gun and then pistol whipping someone with it. That would also go against any gun training.