This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
3 submissions to Linux
3 submissions to videos
2 submissions to archlinux
2 submissions to AskVoat
2 submissions to raspberrypi
This user has so far shared a total of 6 links, started a total of 11 discussions and submitted a total of 1910 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 2798 and downvoted 434 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 1914 and downvoted 1316 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
Are we going to condone voat manipulation? , submitted: 6/19/2015 5:16:38 PM, 138 points (+145|-7)
Anybody notice the manhood101 spam today? , submitted: 6/18/2015 8:02:54 PM, 22 points (+22|-0)
Checking the `shred` status from another terminal -- Is this possible?, submitted: 7/14/2016 1:21:36 AM, 20 points (+21|-1)
Does `man` have an equivalent to VIM`s `scrolloff` command?, submitted: 8/9/2016 12:51:04 PM, 19 points (+20|-1)
New Raspberry PiZero, submitted: 11/26/2015 7:03:56 PM, 7 points (+7|-0)
5 lowest rated submissions:
Anybody else notice that most of the hands do nothing?, submitted: 6/12/2016 6:31:59 AM, -1 points (+1|-2)
Is /v/ModernPowers going too far?, submitted: 4/11/2016 12:20:21 AM, 0 points (+8|-8)
Bigger Voat button, submitted: 6/18/2015 4:27:01 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
What version of Windows are you running and which updates to you "ignore?", submitted: 8/12/2015 7:00:51 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Ethan Couch (affluenza Texas teen) and his mother apprehended in Mexico, challenge deportation, submitted: 12/31/2015 5:25:41 AM, 2 points (+4|-2)
3 highest rated comments:
2716057 22 points 104 points 126 points (+126|-22) ago
I'm probably going to get downvoated out of existence for this, but there was a TON wrong with this video:
Let's preface this by saying that unholstering his weapon was not the correct action by the cop. That shouldn't have happened for this scenario. He was in the wrong, but that doesn't mean the guy behind the camera was in the right...
The cop stopped, saw a guy filming, and ran the truck's plates. This is all within the cop's standard duty, and he's free and clear to run any plates he wants, and to stop wherever he wants, and talk to anyone he wants... just like the guy is free to film whoever he wants, and say whatever he wants to the cop.
The cop was also in the right to ask the guy to remove his hand from his pocket. This, again, is SOP for when addressing a person. It's for the cop's safety, as well as the safety of the guy behind the camera. You don't want something going wrong and either the cop or the camera guy getting wrongfully shot.
This is when the cop puts his hand on his sidearm and disengages the retention. Again, this is correct and the cop is still in the right. When the camera guy refuses to remove his hand from his pocket, he is perceived to be a threat, and the officer acted appropriately.
Then the cop removes his sidearm and, even though he never points it at the guy behind the camera, falls squarely into the wrong. There was no observable threat of deadly force, and therefore the officer is, at this point, not authorized to use deadly force... and the drawing of a deadly weapon is tantamount to the use of deadly force.
To put that last sentence into perspective, if the camera guy pulled a weapon on the cop, he has displayed the use of deadly force and the cop has every right to draw his own sidearm and shoot the camera guy. But this door swings both ways: since the civilian didn't show signs of using deadly force, the cop wasn't authorized to do the same. The officer can rest his hand on his sidearm, and he may disengage the retention, but he may not remove it from the holster until he is authorized to used deadly force.
TL;DR: The cop was wrong for unholstering his weapon. The camera guy was wrong for not removing his hand from his pocket. The cop was doing everything right until he removed his sidearm... even putting his hand on the grip and disengaging the retention.
2716057 7 points 53 points 60 points (+60|-7) ago
You're trending dangerous water there.
When you say you want to "block" something like that, I hear the word "censor."
2716057 2 points 48 points 50 points (+50|-2) ago
She is a liar. Plain and simple.
She says she cares for Will and isn't a gold digger, but she was willing to break up with him when she thought he was penniless, and now she sounds like she wants some sort of reparation from Will.
She didn't care for Will or his lifestyle, which is why she broke up with him. She spent 2/3 of the post explaining why she didn't like Will and the way he lived, and trying to justify why she broke up with him. She didn't like his frugalness, his quiet lifestyle, and his desire to keep life simple.
The only reason that is a problem now is because she knows he has a lot of money. She's pissed because he didn't spend every penny on her, and she wants others to tell her she's justified. She feels CHEATED because she ate potato soup... Soup he made for her... Instead of steak and lobster.
I say good riddance. She deserves to be alone and penniless... And Will deserves someone who cares for him, not his money.
3 lowest rated comments:
2716057 6 points -5 points 1 points (+1|-6) ago
It's not just about the money, it's about hardware limitations.
When you have a game that's pushing the limits of your machine in single player, imagine what it would have to do for two "cameras" in two "screens" with two points of view, simultaneously. You're literally doubling the system load when you add another "screen" to the game.
Old games used to actually "cut" performance from single player parts, to match the co-op levels. Today, people are busy complaining about the grass in Witcher 3, so if you cut ANY performance, your game will tank... even if it's performance in co-op.
So, it's not always about screen size or money.
2716057 5 points -5 points 0 points (+0|-5) ago
I wonder if anyone has rubbed one out to this.
I think it's been done, already.
2716057 8 points -4 points 4 points (+4|-8) ago
You're right. And it's sad. The officer simply asked him to remove his hand from his pocket, and was met with immediate hostility.
This is reason to be suspicious, and even grip your sidearm, but not to draw it.
This camera man set out to create a viral anti-cop video, and he succeeded. He acted stupid, and risked his life to prove the point that police will be suspicious of you if you act suspicious and confrontational, and the only thing that will come out of this is punishment for the officer.
Not trying to justify the officer's actions, but punishment would send a bad message to the other officers. Yes, it'll get the point across that brandishing your weapon like that is wrong, but it'll also deter officers from questioning suspicious people like this.
This man appeared to be pacing and nervous about the officer's presence at the very start of the video, which would be cause for suspicion. The officer stopped due to that suspicion. He justly requested the suspicious man to take his hand out of his pocket. And he made a mistake.
Just like nobody will pay attention to the camera man's actions, the other members of the police force will not pay attention to the mistake as much as they'll pay attention to the cause-and-effect: this officer stopped because of suspicious activity, and he got punished. The other officers may likely become wary of stopping like this in the future, which will inherently endanger the neighborhood.
This camera man doesn't know it yet, but he's ultimately hurting himself and his neighborhood.