KillingTimeItself

are you give me an actual reason or?

are you arguing that cops aren't people?

Even that article is wrong bcs there are plenty videos where the public see this dupe get on the roof 30 minutes before, not just “one kid”.

i didn't say one kid saw him? And getting up there 20 minutes before the rally is not "a long time" that's 20 minutes. Should they have known about it? Yes, did they? Yes. Did the ground police do anything about it? No, because they didn't have functional communication.

No way this would happen in reality.

i mean this is literally the one valid explanation for why this managed to happen at all, the only other option is that it was a complete conspiracy, and i've seen no evidence to support that, and given the fact that police, and secret service, are two different entities, i'm going to align with the former.

Reporting he was “shot trough the ear” and not having any sign of any wound 4 days later in 4K close ups is not possible.

he wasn't "shot through the ear" the reporting is just wrong. It's evident from the video, from the bleeding, and from the wound, he simply wasn't "shot in the ear" he was grazed by a bullet at best, cut his ear on the way down at worst.

Extended healthcare can’t do miracles. What a laughable excuse.

for a minor injury? Yeah it can. I've seen 2nd degree burns go away in a couple of days from ointment. Shits wack when you have the right tools for the job.

Sure, do you actually believe the potocol is no to take into account a second shooter?

that's possible, but are there are any good circumstances for this to be the case? Even when he did stand up, SS was crowded around him, it would be very difficult to take a good shot from that point, at which point SS are likely watching like a hawk.

And you admit he got up after this.

i mean yeah... If you watch the video, he literally does this. The most famous image of that year was literally him standing. Like idk why you're acting like this is WITHOUT A DOUBT proof that it's conspiracy, it's evident that it happened.

Standing there wanting to get his shoes and then having his planned photo.

not everybody thinks clearly in situations like this, especially old people, the job of the SS is to protect him, if they deemed it unimportant, they would've carted him off sooner.

The SS stood somewhat around him, in no way were they ‘piled up’ on his as they should be constantly.

you can literally watch the video, the center mass of his body is very clearly blocked, the head is not a particularly good target, as evidenced by the fact that he fucking missed.

Shinzo Abe or other events are irrelevant.

I mean yeah, to this particular event, but do you think his killing was a conspiracy?

OC attempts can happen, but here nothing adds up and you can’t but laugh at this pathetic spectacle or the fools believing it.

i mean, it's literally just weird at best, i've seen weirder, look at any shooting through history. They're all weird as fuck.

yeah that's technically true, but they've done basically everything they already can, nothing happening today is "new" it's old news. That's what i mean when i say "lame duck"

And technically, from the perspective of nearly no consequences, this is literally a lame duck president all the way through, but that's not really a fully accurate telling.

you don't need to tell me what this administration is bad at, trust me, i know.

yeah im not even touching that, because honestly, i have no idea what the numbers look like, but i'd guess that's the case for the majority of violence in most places (cities especially)

if we're talking gravity physics, the earth, by basically every possible kilogram of mass imaginable to the human mind. But this goes without saying, because you stick to the earth, the earth doesn't stick to you, so.

Of course technically, the force is applied to both objects, but considering the scale mismatch, one of these things is not like the other.

fuck it, get shot, why not fuck up their lives.

that's actually a better argument for me ironically.

Europe is more densely populated, among a smaller landmass (if we explicitly refer to western europe) making it MORE likely that any mass violence events hurt more random people.

Where as the US has LESS people, across MORE space, making it even more unlikely for you to be involved in these attacks, because people are simply less likely to be in those places, at the time of the attack.

Of course the US has disproportionately more acts of violence against other people, than somewhere like europe, but there are a variety of reasons this could be the case, but it's questionable whether this makes you "significantly" more likely to experience an attack, considering you also spend "considerably less" time around other people in general.

Also to be clear, it's literally just true, america is a huge fucking country. If you include eastern europe, which i don't think is a fair comparison given that eastern europe is historically and demographically different from western europe (the usual examples provided) The entire continent is slightly bigger than the continental US including alaska. If you remove all of eastern europe, it shrinks considerably. (and this may include part of russia? I can't find solid numbers)

And looking at wikipedia, seems to imply that a portion of russia is included, so if that calculates into the landmass, that's substantially throwing it off. I mean to be clear, you would comparing the population and landmass of the european continent against the US, which is not the entire north american continent, that is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the US is alone.

Classic American exceptionalism.

maybe research your point better before yapping.

the people who say "violence isnt the option" imply that the issue is that violence never fully solves issues, because it doesnt. That's true. It only gives you power, which is a useful tool in asserting control, which is ultimately what leads to solutions.

The people who are on the other side, are arguing that this is an absolutist statement, and therefore, must literally mean "violence is not the answer" i.e. you should fuck each other until a solution arises. Which is obviously a facetious argument.

"violence is never the answer" is not a particularly good phrase, but when commonly understand my the broad population, it's not as problematic. Though it is sort of poetically true.

neither did you apparently lol

this would also be correct lmao

you would be correct lmao