Glide

The dude with the rifle was running. That whole argument is fine when someone is draw weapons and making threats, but they shot at someone trying to flee the scene after causing no harm and killed an innocent. Everything else is imaginary justification.

EDIT: Wondering where the hell everyone else got so much more information, I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text, which makes clear that the dude with the rifle pulled his gun into a firing position on the crowd. Fair enough, I was wrong and the citizen was right to have taken the shot. I blame the ad wall for convincing me that the news article was over.

Sorry, how many protesters were shot and killed by law enforcement this weekend?

Listen, I take your point, but the killing of random civilians isn't better.

Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don't just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.

Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They're not trained professionals, and they're definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It's actually fucking despicible.

I did miss that bit in the full article, so fair enough. It certainly could be more clear though: they're burying the lede pretty badly by opening with the wording that insinuates we don't know.

~~No, I am responding based on the whole article.~~

What the fuck does "believed to be" mean in this sentence? Why do we not know? Were they hired protection? Are they a trained professional? Or are they an idiot with a gun who thinks they're an action hero?

The article is very unclear on this front.

EDIT: Ha, no I wasn't. Ad space is pervasive, and I had believed I had read the whole article when I had only read like a fifth of it.

Based response tbh.

While you are overreacting to the accident itself, driving is not for everyone. I strongly disagree with driving being a basic skill everyone should have. This is some North American cultural mythos created to help further push the responsibility of building decent public transit off of our lawmakers and governments.

Driving is a challenging thing to do correctly, and a not small number of people have no idea how to do it, but are on the roads anyway. While I believe you should take an accident like that with a growth mindset, the clear truth is you've never felt comfortable behind the wheel, and your skill set doesn't seem to be built for that. If it's important to you, I suspect you'd be capable of overcoming the unique challenges it presents to you, but it's not. There are ways to live without being a driver, and things you can provide to others in exchange for them being the drivers in your life, and imo, that is fine.

Don't quit driving because you had an accident. Decide if being able to drive matters to you, and decide how you want to live.

I still have the CD in a box somewhere. It was loaned to me by a friend and I never gave it back. Hilariously, I still see that friend, so that might make for a fun conversation.

38% is in fact shockingly high.