BatWatch's forum posts

#1 Posted by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

For the record, people can bench press over 1,100 pounds, but that's the upper limit and they can't do reps, so your point is still valid.

Also, the guy's who do that look like short, fat dudes. Batman would look ridiculous.

Personally, I like the idea of Batman being limited to actual human abilities. His vulnerability is a key part of what makes him interesting.

#2 Posted by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the last movie I enjoyed from Adam Sandler was The Longest Yard.

I haven't seen the movie, and I don't plan on seeing it. Anything that gets lower than a 6.6 on IMDB is a pass for me. I'm sure that by doing this, I pass up an occasional movie I would enjoy, but it's worth missing a few good ones to avoid sitting through a plethora of bad ones. There's enough quality entertainment on Netflix alone to keep me watching quality films and television for the rest of my life. Why waste time watching something with only a few laughs?

#3 Edited by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

The woman is crazy. I'm glad she was stopped before she castrated the child.

IQ tests for children is bad idea. It's also an eugenicist's idea. Parents with low IQ's can still be good and even great parents. This lady is crazy not dumb.

People do not need to have mental health screenings before having children. People who are mental incompetents should be proven incompetent in a court of law and put in an asylum. If someone has not been proven mentally incompetent, then they have the same rights as anyone else. Screening parents before they have children is ineffective anyway because a parent can have a psychotic break at and point after having children.

If we did agree to the policy that stupid and mentally challenged people cannot have kids, that brings up the question of what to do with their children. Are you advocating forced abortion? Are you planning on sterilizing people you deem unfit for parenting?

I don't understand the desire to give the government more control of people's lives. Government is simple in most ways; you punish the guilty and protect the innocent. You don't assume everyone is guilty and make them prove their innocence before giving them permission to exercise their rights.

#4 Edited by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

If this guy broke the law, then he should be held accountable to the justice system.

If he did not break the law, why should I care that he killed a lion? In addition to hunting being necessary to control the population and a death by bullet being likely quicker and less painful that a natural death for a wild creature through disease, starvation or animal attack, there is also the consideration that LIONS EAT PEOPLE! I know people like the idea of saving the poor defenseless killing machines that travels twice as fast as a tank while devouring all within their path with their razor sharp claws and jaws that can pop a person's head like a grape, but you do realize that these lions roam off their reservations and eat human beings, right?

We've set up a system where first world citizens demand that lions and other extremely dangerous animals be preserved so first world people can feel good about themselves for saving the fuzzy wuzzy animals from extinction, yet we place these dangerous animals on preserves in third world countries right next to aborigines who have virtually no say in the matter when their often corrupt governments which have been bought off by conservationist interests declare it lion feeding time in an area directly adjacent to the homes of natives. I suspect that if those first worlders who want to "Save the lions," had to live right next to a lion preserve themselves, they'd probably reconsider their charity for the man-eaters, but hell, it's just Africans getting eaten, so who cares, right? As long as the lions are safe, that's all that matters.

There is a case to be made for preserving big cats out of concerns for the ecosystem, but any general argument that animals shouldn't be killed for human pleasure is completely hypocritical from anybody who eats meat. If you are saying it's wrong because the ecosystem must be balanced by creatures who will cull the herd of other animal populations, that's a legitimate argument, but realize two points. 1. You are exchanging human lives for your willingness to preserve the ecosystem because those lions you save will kill people. 2. If a hunt is legal, then those in charge of leading the conservation movements in this country have deemed it helpful to the overall conservation effort to cull a few big cats.

#5 Posted by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

Self-defense.

He used a reasonable amount of force to stop an assault. There is no way he should go to jail.

#6 Edited by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

I came out saying that cop is in the wrong, and I stand by that, but after watching the video several times, it is clear the cop was taken ten to fifteen feet down the road by the car.

Look at the car in front of the suspect's video before it accelerates and look at it again when the cop gets up off the ground. The cop was way closer after the shot.

It seems that the cop was trying to hold on to the vehicle though, so I don't think it counted as a threat to his life. He wasn't being dragged against his will. He appeared to be holding on, and he chose to let go as soon as he fired the shot though it's hard to tell.

#7 Edited by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

@sophia89:

“A drunk driver is a danger to others, and the cop had gotten a bottle of gin from the driver.”

Police officers have never had permission to cap someone for driving drunk.

“The driver tried to escape a cop, may have been DUI, had no DL nor anything to proof ownership of the car.”

None of this refutes Lunacyde’s point that the suspect offered no significant threat.

“The cop had no guarantee that the driver was going to go 5 MPH or 70 MPH. All he knew is the car began accelerating.”

The cop had no guarantee that the man wasn’t carrying a biochemical plague. Perhaps he should have set fire to the car just to be on the safe side.

“He already started moving before the cop fired.”

This is true.

“Cars only accelerate if you apply pressure on the gas pedal, unless the cop placed the driver's foot on the gas pedal before firing the driver was already applying pressure.”

It is possible that his foot could have fallen on the accelerator after being shot or he could have hit it through involuntary spasms, but if you watch the video, it is quite clear he accelerates before the shot.

“And as you saw the driver had already started the car and started moving before the cop fired.”

Yep.

“The driver is the one that created the situation. Why did he flee from the cop?

“The cop wasn't being aggressive there was no reason to flee.”

The shooting victim was clearly in the wrong for fleeing, but since he did not pose any threat to the cop’s life, the killing is not justified.

“And had he done nothing he would still be called inept.”

That’s true, but there are things he could have done, specifically, pursuing and calling in backup, which would have been reasonable. It’s not like the only option was shoot or let him get away.

@sog7dc said:

@pooty:

"If the cop can prove he feared for his life then it's not murder"

Does this bother anyone else? All a cop has to do is prove he was scared in order for him/her to get away with killing you? Could you imagine how dangerous the world would be if that logic extended to every citizen?

The standard for justifiable homicide isn't fearing for your life. (if that were the standard, then a paranoid schizophrenic would have carte blanche to kill anyone) The standard is having a credible threat upon your life. If the officer had a legitimate reason to think his life was endangered, then he could use lethal force, and that same standard should apply to everyone, but the victim in this case did nothing to indicate violent intent, so the officer is in the wrong.

@ms-lola said:

@sog7dc: It's already happened. That was all it took for Trayvon Martin's killer to get away with murder.

Having someone beating your head against the ground is a credible threat.

#8 Edited by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

Prices are determined primarily by market value, so the true question is, "How much would you pay to have sex with me?"

#9 Posted by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

@diannah:

The bread and butter of comic books is ripping off characters and concepts from every medium. That's part of what makes comics both insane and insanely fun.

And, despite the fact that I will be thinking of her as the Black Buffy, it's not really all that odd to see a female killing vampires.

#10 Posted by BatWatch (4371 posts) - - Show Bio

It's Black Buffy!