[Q&A] Questions you want answered (D&D Edition)

Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.

People are so used to seeing white people get the Rittenhouse treatment for terrorism that they get all bug eyed when something negative happens.

And I have to stop and roundly mock the people yarping about double standards. If Ashlii Babbitt had been murdered with a cop’s knee in her neck and George Floyd had stormed the capitol, do they think I would suddenly don a MAGA hat?

…..actually they do think that. They’re so obsessed with the white genocide myth that that’s all they see in this situation.

Reaper81 wrote:
Seth wrote:

She deserved to die, I’m glad she’s dead, and I relish the crocodile tears of the universally white crowds to whom she is a martyr. She was the snake who bit America, and America bit back.

If the people whining about double standards want to join the fight against police brutality, I welcome them to put their money where their filthy mouths are.

As I have gotten older, I am less likely to say whether or not I think a person "deserves" to die or not.

In this case, her death is neither surprising nor unreasonable given the circumstances in which it occurred.

Again, having watched the video, the crowd immediately stopped their assault once she was shot dead.

As the youth say, "f*ck around, find out."

This is how I feel too, though Reaper you might be the best person to probably answer this. I argued that if this was an outpost in Afghanistan where the VP was visiting and a bunch of suspected insurgents tried to breach the perimeter, deadly force would be authorized. I then got the “well actually” counterpoint that the latest use of force restrictions would have required other de-escalation tactics first. So am I wrong here? Granted I was out before Iraq/Afghanistan and my rules of engagement on the Korean DMZ were a lot more, shall we say relaxed against anyone trying to come across.

jdzappa wrote:

With the Ashli Babbitt case back in the news (Air Force vet shot at Capitol), my conservative circle are hassling me about double standards in police response and accountability. So here are my two questions. One - should the cops have first tried non-lethal force given her size and the fact she was visibly unarmed? The argument on the other side is there were dozens of officers and one could easily have tackled and restrained her.

My bigger question though is why the secrecy in who fired the round? I personally feel it’s important to have police shooters named in all cases, though wasn’t sure if DC rules are different.

Have you or any of your friends actually watched the video of her shooting?

If you had you'd know that there were four or five cops/security guards standing between a barricaded set of doors leading into the House Chamber and an entire corridor filled with slavering red hats who were chanting "break it down!" and telling the cops/guards that they they didn't want to hurt them, but they would if they had to.

There was no way those cops/guards could have tackled or restrained Babbitt because the crowd of insurrectionists would have attacked and overwhelmed them just like happened with cops outside.

The cops/guards knew they were absolutely outnumbered and f*cked because the video shows them abandoning the barricaded door and getting the f*ck out of there. Then the crowd immediately set to smashing the doors down. There were even fewer cops/guards on the other side of barricade door and that corridor lead straight to the House Chamber.

That's when a single round was fired by a cop/guard on the other side of the barricade and Babbitt was killed.

Given what we know about every other police killing of civilians that cop/guard had some serious training because when cops typically shoot someone they empty their weapons. Had the cops/guards at the Capitol responded how cops typically respond there should have been a sh*tload more insurgents who were shot. But they were white, so they got a single bullet vs., say Breonna Taylor, who got 32.

As for identifying the officer, this isn't an normal police shooting. This is a hyper-politicized event where naming the officer would immediately put a target on their heads and the heads of their family and friends. And we know that that conservatives are unhinged, purposefully uniformed, and armed enough to try something.

It's bad enough that the right is trying to make Babbitt into a martyr for her complete abandonment of the oath she swore when she enlisted. Now we have the former guy straight up lying and saying the cop/guard worked for a senior Democrat, something that's designed to increase conservative rage by putting forward the idea that a senior Democratic member of the House ordered a cop/guard to shoot one of the brave patriots who where just there to protect democracy (by preventing a legal and clean election from being certified as required by the Constitution).

Reaper81 wrote:

As a former Air Force officer, she knew that trespassing on federal property is against the law, she knew what she was doing illegal, and she knew that the possible results of her actions included the use of force, to include lethal force.

She was a senior airman, not an officer. More importantly she was a senior security forces airman.

She absolutely knew that her actions were illegal and that she'd likely get lit the f*ck up for trying to storm a secured federal location. If a mob was trying to smash down the gate at a facility she was tasked with guarding she would have opened fire as well.

jdzappa wrote:

This is how I feel too, though Reaper you might be the best person to probably answer this. I argued that if this was an outpost in Afghanistan where the VP was visiting and a bunch of suspected insurgents tried to breach the perimeter, deadly force would be authorized. I then got the “well actually” counterpoint that the latest use of force restrictions would have required other de-escalation tactics first. So am I wrong here? Granted I was out before Iraq/Afghanistan and my rules of engagement on the Korean DMZ were a lot more, shall we say relaxed against anyone trying to come across.

That's not an accurate comparison, though.

An accurate comparison would have been the insurgents had breached and overrun the base's perimeter, penetrated well inside, and were massing up to breach the last barrier that led directly into the command facility where the VP was located.

Once the insurgents breached the base's perimeter their hostile intentions were made clear and deadly force would have been authorized.

Once the insurrectionists broke into the Capitol building their hostile intentions were also made clear.

@OG - apologies for the mistake. That's what I get for looking at reddit.

@jdzappa - it's not a great setup for a hypothetical but, yes, 100% the perimeter guard force would shoot to kill with a VIP on post.

The ROE and EOF in Iraq was straight-forward. Nothing in the ROE limited you from using lethal force to prevent loss of life, limb, or eyesight.

The EOF represented a best case scenario in which you are able to safely move through all 5 stages. Most cases in which the EOF was personally utilized by me or my unit started at Shout and immediately ended at Shoot.

Spoiler:

The Five S's. Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot, Shoot-to-kill.

Shout - Verbally warn intruders / aggressors that you are armed and have lethal means to defend yourself.

Show - Make sure your weapons are in full display.

Shove - Utilize non-lethal combatives if possible.

Shoot - Warning shots if possible.

Shoot-to-kill. Center mass and cease firing when all threats are eliminated.

I know some friends who were in Afghanistan (with the Canadian military) and their description of the rules of engagement were very similar. The number of steps that military members have IN AN ACTIVE F*CKING COMBAT ZONE between IDing a potential threat and killing the threat is astonishing when you consider that many police officers are allowed to shoot you if you are not melatonin deficient.

Reaper81 wrote:

@OG - apologies for the mistake. That's what I get for looking at reddit.

@jdzappa - it's not a great setup for a hypothetical but, yes, 100% the perimeter guard force would shoot to kill with a VIP on post.

The ROE and EOF in Iraq was straight-forward. Nothing in the ROE limited you from using lethal force to prevent loss of life, limb, or eyesight.

The EOF represented a best case scenario in which you are able to safely move through all 5 stages. Most cases in which the EOF was personally utilized by me or my unit started at Shout and immediately ended at Shoot.

Spoiler:

The Five S's. Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot, Shoot-to-kill.

Shout - Verbally warn intruders / aggressors that you are armed and have lethal means to defend yourself.

Show - Make sure your weapons are in full display.

Shove - Utilize non-lethal combatives if possible.

Shoot - Warning shots if possible.

Shoot-to-kill. Center mass and cease firing when all threats are eliminated.

Thanks Reaper and OG for the feedback. It’s obvious that there’s misinformation being shared in this case on conservative media. Starting with reports there were a dozen plus officers behind the barricades when obviously that’s not true.

For the record, I feel cops shoot unarmed suspects way too often when less lethal force could have been used. So I just wanted to reassess this situation accordingly.

jdzappa wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

@OG - apologies for the mistake. That's what I get for looking at reddit.

@jdzappa - it's not a great setup for a hypothetical but, yes, 100% the perimeter guard force would shoot to kill with a VIP on post.

The ROE and EOF in Iraq was straight-forward. Nothing in the ROE limited you from using lethal force to prevent loss of life, limb, or eyesight.

The EOF represented a best case scenario in which you are able to safely move through all 5 stages. Most cases in which the EOF was personally utilized by me or my unit started at Shout and immediately ended at Shoot.

Spoiler:

The Five S's. Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot, Shoot-to-kill.

Shout - Verbally warn intruders / aggressors that you are armed and have lethal means to defend yourself.

Show - Make sure your weapons are in full display.

Shove - Utilize non-lethal combatives if possible.

Shoot - Warning shots if possible.

Shoot-to-kill. Center mass and cease firing when all threats are eliminated.

Thanks Reaper and OG for the feedback. It’s obvious that there’s misinformation being shared in this case on conservative media. Starting with reports there were a dozen plus officers behind the barricades when obviously that’s not true.

For the record, I feel cops shoot unarmed suspects way too often when less lethal force could have been used. So I just wanted to reassess this situation accordingly.

Indeed, this is a great reason to support open and honest Congressional Inquiries to 1/6 to make sure that all the misinformation is dispelled and those responsible are brought to justice.

And I feel like your conservative friends must be looking for justice. Why else bring it up?

jdzappa wrote:

It’s obvious that there’s misinformation being shared in this case on conservative media. Starting with reports there were a dozen plus officers behind the barricades when obviously that’s not true.

Not throwing shade at you, but it should be exceptionally clear by now that conservative media exists to fabricate and spread misinformation. There's no "in this case." It's "all the time."

jdzappa wrote:

With the Ashli Babbitt case back in the news (Air Force vet shot at Capitol), my conservative circle are hassling me about double standards in police response and accountability. So here are my two questions. One - should the cops have first tried non-lethal force given her size and the fact she was visibly unarmed? The argument on the other side is there were dozens of officers and one could easily have tackled and restrained her.

My bigger question though is why the secrecy in who fired the round? I personally feel it’s important to have police shooters named in all cases, though wasn’t sure if DC rules are different.

Ask them if now they'll push for MORE accountability for police now

karmajay wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

With the Ashli Babbitt case back in the news (Air Force vet shot at Capitol), my conservative circle are hassling me about double standards in police response and accountability. So here are my two questions. One - should the cops have first tried non-lethal force given her size and the fact she was visibly unarmed? The argument on the other side is there were dozens of officers and one could easily have tackled and restrained her.

My bigger question though is why the secrecy in who fired the round? I personally feel it’s important to have police shooters named in all cases, though wasn’t sure if DC rules are different.

Ask them if now they'll push for MORE accountability for police now

Stop! If I laugh any harder I will die.

karmajay wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

With the Ashli Babbitt case back in the news (Air Force vet shot at Capitol), my conservative circle are hassling me about double standards in police response and accountability. So here are my two questions. One - should the cops have first tried non-lethal force given her size and the fact she was visibly unarmed? The argument on the other side is there were dozens of officers and one could easily have tackled and restrained her.

My bigger question though is why the secrecy in who fired the round? I personally feel it’s important to have police shooters named in all cases, though wasn’t sure if DC rules are different.

Ask them if now they'll push for MORE accountability for police now

No I heard "something something George Floyd put a gun against a pregnant mom's belly" and "something something it was their chance to shoot an American hero and they took it." It's at that point I was done with discussing use of force laws and military regulations.

From the PS5 thread

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Did you buy one? I assume the answer is yes, but ...

More importantly, if you bought one are you going to keep it or scalp it?

I had this image in my head of cutting off the top of the PS5 box to scalp it - which made me think so we need to retire that phrase?

It seems racist since it was just something tied to Native America's in a derogatory way but it does describe a process they did use. Do we stop saying something potentially offensive if it is the proper way to describe an action?

It's the idea that Native Americans were the only groups that practiced scalping that's racist. It's been done by groups all over the world for thousands of years. Trying to get rid of the word because of the racist association it strikes me as being a bit like trying to say no one can fry chicken because of the racist association it has.

Stengah wrote:

It's the idea that Native Americans were the only groups that practiced scalping that's racist. It's been done by groups all over the world for thousands of years. Trying to get rid of the word because of the racist association it strikes me as being a bit like trying to say no one can fry chicken because of the racist association it has.

This is a common refrain from those who aren't impacted by the racist associations of words, and TBH, it's a terrible stance to hold: "You mean I don't get to single-handedly define the cultural meaning of words? HOW DARE YOU!"

The problem with scalping, as you so rightly point out, is that the racist association is SO strong that it's not commonly known that anyone other than Native Americans did it. You can't just pretend that isn't so and carry on using the word with your "well actually...." queued up for when someone calls you on it.

And sorry to say, your analogy is crap - no-one is telling you to stop frying chicken, they are telling you to be aware of the racial connotations of that phrase when you talk about frying chicken.

Jonman wrote:

And sorry to say, your analogy is crap - no-one is telling you to stop frying chicken, they are telling you to be aware of the racial connotations of that word when you talk about frying chicken.

That would not be retiring the phrase though. Retiring the phrase would be asking that no one call it fried chicken anymore, not that they be aware of the racist connotations.

Stengah wrote:

It's the idea that Native Americans were the only groups that practiced scalping that's racist.

The racism here is the association of Native Americans and scalping, like associating Jews and pinching pennies.

“Stengah” wrote:

Trying to get rid of the word because of the racist association it strikes me as being a bit like trying to say no one can fry chicken because of the racist association it has.

I think you’re way off the mark here. Frying chicken isn’t - as far as I’m aware - intrinsically offensive. It’s like no longer using the term “gypped” meaning “ripped off” because of the racist association.

I did a little research and it looks like the description of ticket scalping dates back to the 1860s with unscrupulous middlemen reselling train tickets. They became known as “scalpers” because they were selling a partial round trip ticket for a lot of money, just like animal pelts or human scalps.

I mean I’m not a big fan of trying to find offense at every turn. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t commented on The NY Times article about the American flag.

But in this case it seems the phrase comes directly from murdering people and skinning them for cash, so I’m ok if it gets retired.

Except gypped has an inherently racist etymology. With scalper, it's the assumption that scalping is an inherent part of native culture is what's offensive, not calling ticket reselling scalping. While the practice arose independently in some tribes, it was primarily introduced in the northeast by European colonists and was used against natives more than it was done by them. There are no native groups saying that calling reselling scalping is offensive, just lots of white people trying to be proactively offended on their behalf because they wrongly assume scalping was part of their culture.