Andrew R's page

The situation in Ferguson is quite complex and cannot be dismissed by calling the locals 'animals' nor by accusing every individual policeman of malice or wrongdoing. It's best to start from positions of common ground.

Police are entrusted with the use of lethal force to keep the peace. They should and must be judicious in its use and held accountable. Their mandate is to protect and serve the communities that pay them - everyone in the community.

Looting and destruction is wrong and criminal and those who did it should be arrested and prosecuted.

Peaceful assembly and petition to redress grievances is lawful and proper, as is the exercise of a free press.
** spoiler omitted **

Police should be responsive to their constituency and disclose information as appropriate, particularly in cases of lethal force.

In addition to the above, realize that a significant portion of the population is sociopathic, with no empathy towards their fellows.

So, in any large group (like a police force or crowd of generally peacable protestors), you'll get a portion who have no regard for their fellows - at all. They will happily do whatever they can get away with to benefit themselves, as long as they feel they can get away with it.

If they are in a position of power, they will misuse it if they can. If they are in a confused crowd at night, they will grab what they get for themselves. This does NOT mean that the majority of police are bad, evil, racist, or psychopathic. Nor does it mean that the majority of the protestors are looking to destroy their own community. It means there are bad people who need to be dealt with, lawfully. Painting police...

I mostly agree. However some will always resent the law for effecting their groups and event the most even handed police would have to face a backlash of violence against them. They work in a world that involves split second decisions that can get them killed daily. They live with something we cannot understand unless we have been there.

Krensky wrote:

Unsurprisingly, Andrew's solution "kill more black people".

To be fair to Andrew, it's more of "kill more people." Race doesn't really factor into it.

More accurately " kill more criminals that have it coming" and race is not a factor, only actions. Not sure why some cannot separate black and criminal.

Also, what should you do when riots start to get violent? Let them?

Andrew R wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's also quite likely that a better police response to the initial protests, one that didn't feature armored vehicles, faceless riot police, rubber bullets and snipers, might well have avoided the looting entirely.

It's when the protest was broken by military style force, that it turned violent.

That's not to condone the burning and looting, but to suggest that the "Miami Model" increases, not decreases the chance of it.

There is NO ONE to blame but those that chose to steal and destroy. Some few might have tried to BS that it was "justice" but most just saw a chance and took it to have fun and get stuff. No amount of "evil riot police" made them do anything. The criminal minded took advantage. nothing more nothing less

I'm not saying it was justice or that those who did so should be excused or whatever else you think I'm saying.

I'm saying that there are tactics that work to defuse this kind of situation and there are tactics that make it worse. Heavy militarized police presence breaking up the protests make it worse. If you don't want the burning and looting, don't do that.

I do not think that really mattered. People saw that this was an excuse to go nuts and they did. I do not think ANY tactics would have stopped the looting other than more armed store owners standing against it

Grand Magus wrote:

Since, increasing the Minimum Wage would increase Unemployment...

Not seeing this.

"Since increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth would cause an increasing number of clones of Justin Bieber to appear, we should..."

You are not seeing it because you do not understand how businesses think. to raise wages they need to raise prices, lose money or lay off workers and get more out of those that are left. If you think very many would choose options one or two i got a bridge to sell you

Andrew R wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

[

By and large they WERE peaceful protests, unless you count people violently fleeing tear gas and rubber bullets.

Or the looters, the arson, the destruction of police cruisers, rocks thrown at police, the shots fired.

destruction of police cruisers? When and where was this? I'm going to need proof on that one. Rioting and fires i buy.

http://koin.com/2014/08/14/missouri-troopers-to-take-over-ferguson-security /

"County Police Chief Jon Belmar said his officers have responded with “an incredible amount of restraint” as they’ve had rocks and bottles thrown at them, been shot at and had two dozen patrol vehicles destroyed."

two dozen patrol vehicles destroyed? I think someone's exaggerating here. These people would have to have LAWS to do that kind of damage. I'd buy half a dozen at best. This is a small town, not nyc.

That is the claim, seen it on many sites. Not hard at all, bricks in windows, baseball bats, guns, fire. They were more damaged seriously than made into tiny shrapnel but still the fact the so many were attacked is a huge issue

According to the police

Quote:

Without revealing what led to the dispute, Belmar said the preliminary investigation showed that the Ferguson officer tried to exit his vehicle, but Brown pushed him back into the car, "where he physically assaulted the police officer" and struggled over the officer's weapon, Belmar said.

A shot was fired inside the police car, and Brown was eventually shot about 35 feet away from the vehicle, Belmar said.

It's going to have to be some very creative FACTSthat have the officer firing once while they struggled in the vehicle and then remaining in danger sufficient to justify deadly force while his unarmed assailant moves 35' away.

Fair enough and i won't dispute that it looks bad. That said the local businesses that took the brunt of the "justice" are also victims that so many feel was ok to attack. And there is NO ambiguity in what happened to them

Andrew R wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

[

By and large they WERE peaceful protests, unless you count people violently fleeing tear gas and rubber bullets.

Or the looters, the arson, the destruction of police cruisers, rocks thrown at police, the shots fired.

destruction of police cruisers? When and where was this? I'm going to need proof on that one. Rioting and fires i buy.

http://koin.com/2014/08/14/missouri-troopers-to-take-over-ferguson-security /

"County Police Chief Jon Belmar said his officers have responded with “an incredible amount of restraint” as they’ve had rocks and bottles thrown at them, been shot at and had two dozen patrol vehicles destroyed."

ShinHakkaider wrote:

"animal" rioters? Yeah I've seen this narrative from people like you before Andrew.

Of course "animals" is part of the police approach here. He's not pulling it out of the blue.

Quote:

A White Ferguson police offer was captured on video aggressively taunting the Black protestors who decry the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown.

“Bring it, all you f–king animals! Bring it!” the officer said during the tense volleying of threats and insults.

No racial implications there at all.

The police chief apparently has a Confederate flag displayed in his living room, but I'm sure that's just about pride in his southern heritage, again with no racial implications.

Not everyone who loves the south is a racist but it is certainly possable and not a good sign. Need a bit more proof than that theat he is indeed a racist. of course all of the race hate being thrown at the cops is just fine i see.

And before we get to the rest of the White Right Playbook. Yes Black on Black crime is a problem. But the POLICE are supposed to be in service to the PUBLIC not just hard working God fearing white folk. So it's a problem when the the people there to serve the public trust? Start arbitrarily murdering the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

How do you want them to adress that crime if they are not allowed to arrest the criminals? they are the bad guys when they do and god forbid they actually have to fight a resisting criminal, then they are just hurting blacks for fun, right?

Andrew R wrote:

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Some links.

Huffington Post 1

Washington Post

Amnesty International

Andrew,
btw, if you want us to wait for proof, how about you wait for some before accusing the teenager of assaulting the cop when that's not any more proven, and directly contradicted by multiple eyewitness statements? Oh, right, that fits your narrative so it's obviously true without evidence needed.

Multiple? So far we have heard his friend and the cops. i am not aware of any other witness stories. We will have to wait and see but i tend to trust the cop more than the friend, especially given what was said. true that he could be lying but we will have to see. The animal rioters and looters getting hurt is just plain fine by me though

"animal" rioters? Yeah I've seen this narrative from people like you before Andrew.

There are TWO witnesses who have basically come forward with pretty much the same story. The friend and another young woman who was there on the street who saw the whole thing and was about to take a video but then the bullets started flying and saw the rest from under cover.

But she's black too. So I'm pretty sure that you'll discount what she says as a lie as well.

looting burning businesses and shooting at cops is about as animal as you can get. THEY acted that way, there is no "narrative"

Have seen nothing yet about a witness not actually involved. Their color is not important nor is the cops.

Of course not because there is no racial problem with...

it might have something also to do with a massive disproportionate amount of crimes being commited by blacks and them much more often resisting but nah must just be whitey getting bored and doing this for fun right.

Aranna wrote:

Well this is a total mess. People should calm down until the FBI gets to the truth. Riots turn your side into the bad guys... mass peaceful protests would have done the job much better.

Personally I have heard so far that the black criminal attempted to take the white officers weapon in the car injuring the officer in a non-life threatening way and then the officer fired at the black teen in the car at least once and after the black teen fled on foot he fired at least twice at the fleeing felon. Witnesses say the teen then tried to surrender but that the policeman gunned him down anyway.

{IF all of this is true; that is a big IF since this is racially charged and people are probably lying on both sides to a greater or lesser degree.} Then the policeman should either be arrested for aggravated murder. Since up until the point the teen surrendered the officer was within his rights, but NOT after he surrendered. OR if the witnesses are lying and the boy was shot to death either in the car or while trying to flee then the officer should go on desk duty till people calm down.

The officer's innocence will be determined by the FBI. My prayers go out to those who are suffering on both sides right now.

"Black Criminal"?!?! WTF?!?

He WASNT A CRIMINAL. He was literally walking in the street with his friend on the way home when the altercation on the street started.

it started with them being told to get out of the street and them refusing according to the friend.

Andrew R wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Some links.

Huffington Post 1

Washington Post

Amnesty International

Andrew,
btw, if you want us to wait for proof, how about you wait for some before accusing the teenager of assaulting the cop when that's not any more proven, and directly contradicted by multiple eyewitness statements? Oh, right, that fits your narrative so it's obviously true without evidence needed.

Multiple? So far we have heard his friend and the cops. i am not aware of any other witness stories. We will have to wait and see but i tend to trust the cop more than the friend, especially given what was said. true that he could be lying but we will have to see. The animal rioters and looters getting hurt is just plain fine by me though

"animal" rioters? Yeah I've seen this narrative from people like you before Andrew.

There are TWO witnesses who have basically come forward with pretty much the same story. The friend and another young woman who was there on the street who saw the whole thing and was about to take a video but then the bullets started flying and saw the rest from under cover.

But she's black too. So I'm pretty sure that you'll discount what she says as a lie as well.

looting burning businesses and shooting at cops is about as animal as you can get. THEY acted that way, there is no "narrative"

Have seen nothing yet about a witness not actually involved. Their color is not important nor is the cops.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/total-breakdown-in-less-than-24-hours -images-and-videos-of-missouri-riots-and-looting_08112014

Some videos of the peaceful protesters

Some links.

Huffington Post 1

Washington Post

Amnesty International

Andrew,
btw, if you want us to wait for proof, how about you wait for some before accusing the teenager of assaulting the cop when that's not any more proven, and directly contradicted by multiple eyewitness statements? Oh, right, that fits your narrative so it's obviously true without evidence needed.

Multiple? So far we have heard his friend and the cops. i am not aware of any other witness stories. We will have to wait and see but i tend to trust the cop more than the friend, especially given what was said. true that he could be lying but we will have to see. The animal rioters and looters getting hurt is just plain fine by me though

Aranna wrote:

Well this is a total mess. People should calm down until the FBI gets to the truth. Riots turn your side into the bad guys... mass peaceful protests would have done the job much better.

Personally I have heard so far that the black criminal attempted to take the white officers weapon in the car injuring the officer in a non-life threatening way and then the officer fired at the black teen in the car at least once and after the black teen fled on foot he fired at least twice at the fleeing felon. Witnesses say the teen then tried to surrender but that the policeman gunned him down anyway.

{IF all of this is true; that is a big IF since this is racially charged and people are probably lying on both sides to a greater or lesser degree.} Then the policeman should either be arrested for aggravated murder. Since up until the point the teen surrendered the officer was within his rights, but NOT after he surrendered. OR if the witnesses are lying and the boy was shot to death either in the car or while trying to flee then the officer should go on desk duty till people calm down.

The officer's innocence will be determined by the FBI. My prayers go out to those who are suffering on both sides right now.

And that's the cop's story. That's his defense. That's the absolute best it gets for the defense. "He grabbed for my gun, so I shot him, then shot him

and killed him while he was running away."
Even if that's true, it's completely unjustified. Shooting an unarmed, fleeing individual is not within the officer's rights.

BTW, can we not start with "black criminal", when the person in question has no criminal record and wasn't engaged in criminal activity other than the alleged assault on the officer. Which is disputed at best.

No one is a criminal until they are. Maybe he was having a bad day or something and made a very stupid choice. you do NOT assault a cop if you do not want shot

Also waiting for PROOF of what happened. we do not know what happened so we need to stop speculating and judging based on that until we know the FACTS.

Andrew R wrote:

Well get mad at white cops and take it out on innocent business owners, way to show the police you are such a bunch of innocent people.

You want "justice" you wait for the facts to come out. You want blood and and excuse to act like an animal you get Ferguson.

Wonder if they PROVE the cop acted appropriately in self defense if any of these "protesters" will apologize.....

nope. If my source is to be believed, a lot of the people rioting and acting stupid have been from outside of the area. There have been issues with the police for years in and out of Ferguson, and people came from out of town to fight back against any perceived injustice, bringing bad apples with them. The militarized amongst the police were looking for an excuse to play with their toys.

"excuses" like people throwing stuff at them? Do not throw things at the police, dumb idea at best. Reason to get teargassed or shot potentially too. In a lot of areas the "problems with the police" is they are mad that their criminal family members getting caught.

Well get mad at white cops and take it out on innocent business owners, way to show the police you are such a bunch of innocent people.
You want "justice" you wait for the facts to come out. You want blood and and excuse to act like an animal you get Ferguson.

Wonder if they PROVE the cop acted appropriately in self defense if any of these "protesters" will apologize.....

Side question. Do the prerequisites mean that BAB AND monk level or is it that BAB OR monk level

.

Both backwards. This is great news, it means their shareholder's have
more wealth; and profits only get taxed once, at the personal level, not twice as usual.

.

Wrong, the courts have said that the company is an entity so it gets taxed, no different than a large cash gift gets taxed by the one receiving it even though the giver was taxed to earn it

Yet never do the rules say that. you can be a crusader for good without loving or caring about those you save....

What you describe is also not good. It's Lawful Neutral. They're following the rules because the rules are the rules and rules are there to be followed because they are rules because that is what you do with rules not because it's the right fracking thing to do.

But if evil acts make you evil regardless of why then good acts make you good regardless of why. Alignments are like this to many. Unless you would argue that "evil acts' do not make you evil...

We need to close the loopholes. Temporary tax credits to get something out of a company are one thing but they need to pay same as people do

Well folks like to say evil actions make you evil so good actions make you good. even if you are emotionless but someone taught you to do good things you would indeed be good by the standards of many on this board.

And the answers is all and none depending on what version of the character and how we each define the alignments differently

Still waiting for my carrion crown group to realize my barbarian is gay. No real opportunity to really even hint at it since it is so plot driven

Brings up another interesting question: Could one marry one's eidolon? Talk about having a bride/groom tailor-made to your desires.

My character most likely will marry her. Not sure if they can have kids but enough of my characters end up adopting something.

Andrew R wrote:

For me i will not play females with high strength. Not that a woman cannot have it, just that i accept reality that a woman of that strength would be just as big and muscled as a man, not the 130 lbs or less that we think of as feminine. To the flip side of that (mostly thanks to tv) i envision almost all high dex concepts as female

Sometimes it's fun to invert expectations. Personally, I really love the idea of a very petite, feminine, young woman with Kryptonian level super strength and toughness. (This works best for a superhero game, obviously.)

Only if there is a mechanic to explain it. otherwise it feels wrong to have a tiny girl with massive str just as much as a 600 lbs sumo with 20 dex and max stealth is just wrong.

Exactly my point, without explicitly linking to the dwarven/gnomish strip club thread and a post that made for much enjoyment and unexpected awkwardness for some.

it is not the race/ size that gets squicky it is the ones that specifically look childlike.

Late to the reply, but I will note that, for me, people have a hard time grokking me playing a female character BECAUSE of my voice. I'm very much so cis-male. I would basically be causing all my characters to have a case of Doctor Girlfriend, or should I say Dr. Mrs. The Monarch?

Yes, I know some find that hot.

A buddy of mine had a female friend like that. behind her back a bunch of people referred to her as Man-voice. Of course in that circle of friends we all had fairly unflattering names for each other.

Did the Eidolon get the title or the puppet?

Technically both. people do not know what she really is yet

people say pervert like its a bad thing...

Schrodinger's wizard always wins.

Unfortunately, he never shows up to "real" campaigns.

Yet some players seem to have schrodinger's spell list......

Mostly theorycrafters running numbers and saying they win. Of course this is a group game and the wizards would be dead or slagging along without the rest of the roles. Sure enough magic CAN copy much of the stuff others do but the rogue can stealth all day, the warrior types swing a sword all day. If you do not have a 15 minute workday caster stop looking so shiny

And that really is the best reason to play anything.

Definitely sexist. it is women only

I've always run it that resist cold 5, or resist fire 5 automatically meant that they were immune to cold or hot climate respectively. It's not RAW, but it makes sense to me that beings who can resist the literally damaging extremes can resist the less harmful effects of temperature.

6 would make you immune at any rate since environmental damage is 1d6

Subtle threats are intimidating, too, but a hulking madman is no less intimidating as a consequence. Leatherface, from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, probably had a low Charisma score, but when he's whirling a chainsaw around and cutting your friends apart, he's pretty damned intimidating.

he is not intimidating, you are just perceptive enough to see what he does. Being scary and using intimidation are not the same

Well, if you play with a bunch of 13 year olds...

just like evil. requires maturity to not end badly

DrDeth wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Depends on the player. many groups restrict paladins for the same reason

Never seen that.

Truthfully, I could see restricting Paladins for the same reason as the TET.

If a player lacks the maturity to do it right, it will end badly. More likely with the Paladin than the TET, because Lawful Stupid is easy, and because you can attempt to drag the rest of the party with you on the basis of your "Code".

Lawful stupid and the control freaks of alignment...

I've never worried about how I play either male or female npcs, I just assume I am correct in my belief that women behave just like men, when men are not around, and men behave just like women, when women are not around.

close to the truth enough

What about when Mongo smashes something and then says, "Next me smash you"? Still not intimidating?

Not really. A horse can kill you. easily. we all know it. People are not scared of the horse. They fear the rat that might bite them, might get them sick. Acknowledging what he can do is not the same as being scared into submission. It is a reasoning issue not intimidation.

I imagine that only oracles will make use of Divine Protection, after all what other divine caster would have a charisma of 14+?

Every cleric i have seen in PF

Regarding an earlier comment on the value of the dollar.

The US Dollar ($) has value because the global oil trade is conducted in US Dollars. When that stops the US Dollar will be worth considerably less than it is now.

Bitcoins are worth something because:
1) They are a transparently delimited "resource", and
2) The users of the Bitcoin contractually agree that it has value.

There are other factors in play but they mostly affect the two just listed. For example, (illegally) mining Bitcoin via cloud computing or, a general distrust of governments the world over or, certain shady enterprises that benefit inordinately from a relatively poorly understood/regulated means of barter, etc.

The bitcoin has value ONLY because someone says it does and someone willing to take them agrees.

the cows protect you?

"mongo smash" you can tell that mongo the simpleton can indeed break things. You might still think he has no intention to do anything to you.
Dr. Lecter can pleasantly say something only vaguely threatening and have you wet yourself.

Depends on the player. many groups restrict paladins for the same reason

I still say any bank "too big to let it fail" is just too big to exist.

Andrew R wrote:

Googleshng wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

just that i accept reality that a woman of that strength would be just as big and muscled as a man, not the 130 lbs or less that we think of as feminine. To the flip side of that (mostly thanks to tv) i envision almost all high dex concepts as female

Why not just play the occasional big burly gal or svelte little wiry guy then, to mix it up?

Arguably, the whole point in varying up your male and female characters is to promote some variety, so hey, vary it up. Don't match a particular class type with a particular gender, try some variety with ethnicity and body types and family histories, try the elven barbarian or the dwarf wizard, etc.etc.

I love the idea of unusual class/race combos but if the stats and abilities are too much of a penalty why do it?

For variety's sake. Although really, having less than optimal racial stats isn't really as big a deal as most people make it out, unless you're playing a class/using a stat method where you're really desperately scraping for every point you can.

I say my next character should be a halfling swashbuckler just to have a non-penalized small front line fighter

I've played seven characters or so in my time as a RPGer, and of those, three have been female. I just kind of start with an idea- a personality, a class, a race, a build, whatever- and just let the character develop naturally from there, male, female, whatever. Roleplaying is an opportunity for us to get away from ourselves if we want to, so as long as the player's comfortable, why not? Also, two of the five players in my Pathfinder group IRL are female, and both of them have played as male characters before. No major problems aside from the other players occasionally using the wrong set of pronouns. I could see this being an issue if you're playing with certain types of people, but in my group, it's never been a problem.

I think it's probably easier to get into the idea of playing the opposite gender if you've GMed before, since you'll almost certainly have to portray an NPC of said opposite sex sooner or later. I tend to divide things pretty evenly down the gender line when it comes to planning NPCs, so it's no big deal for me.

My group is 3 men, 3 women. All of the women have played male characters from time to time, i am the only male to ever cross that line even though not specifically with this group (living campaigns we were all in)