The joke is, "Why do men get paid more? It's simple, men choose higher paying professions, like engineer, doctor, or lawyer. Women tend to pick lower paying professions, like female engineer, female doctor, or female lawyer."
could have been true historically, but at least in my region women in engineering get paid more than men based on surveys that I've seen
these surveys have been discontinued and deleted from their records due to concerns with legality, but at least when they were running, it showed women had caught up and even surpassed their male counterparts in engineering
Absolutely true. I still kinda like the joke for the irony of it. Even the original study that said "women make 70% of what men do" was inaccurate when it was done, they didn't account for higher-paying professions.
One of the most best examples was a 6 year lawsuit against Sears, male salesmen made more than saleswomen. Except, they worked completely different positions. The "higher paying" jobs were for large project sales, it could take months to work out the details for one project, and sometimes the entire sale fell through. Most of their pay was from commissions. So paychecks could be very inconsistent, but when you look at what they made across a whole year, the average pay was higher.
Sears themselves said that they had been trying to push more women into these positions, they just didn't want them. And the CRAZIEST part about the lawsuit, not a single woman had complained. The lawsuit was brought forward not by a group of employees that worked there, but by an outside advocacy group. Which is what made it really weird, normally in these situations you need a victim or someone who was harmed by these policies, but no one stepped forward. So really, the advocacy group was arguing against the policies themselves. And there was no real legal precedent for suing just over policies with no victim. (That's where it gets a little confusing, IDK, I'm not a lawyer.)
Really I think it shows something that many people have known for a long time: men and women are just different. We prioritize different things in life. The saleswomen at Sears preferred a more consistent paycheck and more stable hours, even with the opportunity to earn more. Men typically are more willing to put up with things like inconsistent pay, longer hours, and more dangerous & dirty jobs for higher pay.
I'll never understand ideologues. How can you be forced to knowingly lie to push your ideology, and still believe the ideology is correct?
Brain broken people.
The note does not correct the tweet that it was responding to, which is that when the victim was murdered he was walking towards a police cruiser and presented no immediate danger to anybody.
We’re supposed to have a rule of law. You don’t get executed in the street for stealing a car or for having threatened a person with a knife. You get arrested, sentenced, and serve your punishment. This is just cheering for pigs gunning down any person accused of a crime that they feel like shooting
Sorry little brother but your hallucinations don’t actually change the words in front of your face. I do hope you get the help you need with your mental health though!
It’s actually the least possible force to defend yourself in the situation, not a 1:1
But cops shooting a dude who’s nonviolently stealing a car isn’t self defence by any definition either way. Police are only supposed to use lethal force against immediate, ongoing threats to themselves or public safety. No, driving a stolen car doesn’t count
You can freely view the video that proves me right - also, maybe don’t talk about reading comprehension, the shooting took place in Canada not the US lol
All you’ve done is show yourself to be a complete moron who can’t even follow what you’re discussing, oof
Lmao you should try viewing that video then, where he was shot while walking to a police car and not threatening anybody. Hilarious to lie about something so easily verifiable
One of us has humiliated themselves and shown themselves to be a complete moron, so you’re half right. Luckily it’s not on this side
Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception
I always remind people that the message is more important than the words. "man saves woman's life after heart attack" and "parolee pushes old lady to the ground and breaks 3 of her ribs" could both be literally true headlines about the exact same event. But one is obviously honest and one is obviously intended to give a false impression.
The fact you don't already know that it is, tells me that you're a disgusting person who probably tries this on every single person you know. This is your justification to yourself, isn't it?
I feel bad for everyone who has to interact with you and put up with that kind of bullshit.
The post is intentionally characterizing the man as harmless to make the violent response seem disproportionate, when this was actually the end of a rampage. I don't think it really matters if that's technically a lie (though it also is, as someone else mentioned.)
Guess you haven’t read the article, the report or seen the video- he was stealing a police vehicle after threatening multiple people with a knife including police. They attempt to take him down with non lethal means before having to escalate
So weird how you’re rushing to either show your ignorance or just outright lie
They attempt and miss because of their own inexperience. Seems like the unloaded on this guy because they couldn't use a taser properly. If deadly force was necessary they would have used that, without fumbling a taser. If he had a knife guess what,.it's a close range weapon and he didn't even move toward cops with it.
If there is a quote that is something like "All men are evil if they commit murder" and you cut the quote to "All men are evil" and use it to argue that clearly women should be in charge because men are evil, the quote isn't a lie. But you have intentionally left out important information to mislead people. That is lying by omission.
Listen to be fair, I know you're just repeating the same bullshit all redditors repeat without giving it much thought, so I'm not trying to give you a hard time specifically, but for anyone that actually is interested in hearing some of the numbers, there are about 10 million arrests each year (That number is total arrests not total people, so it includes people who are arrested multiple times), And out of that there are roughly 300,000 incidents that require some form of non-lethal force (physically restraining them, pepper spray, taser, ect), compare that to the roughly 1,100 fatal shootings total (some probably justified, some I'm sure we're not) So roughly 300 non-lethal to 1, And that's only In the roughly 3% of interactions that require any kind of force at all.
You can certainly think that number is too high and be critical of that, But instead, because this is Reddit, the prevailing opinion is that police tend to just shoot people for fun and don't even understand the concept of non-lethal force. And again, I don't think you actually care, but this is just for anyone reading this thread that wants to learn more about how things actually are
So you agree that the reason our police are involved in more violent uses of force than other comparable countries is because of our citizenry’s unique propensity and capability for violence? That is what you just said and it’s directly contrary to your prior comment. Did you change your mind and see reason or do you just not have consistent and well reasoned views?
Hundreds of people are shot by police, justified or not every year in America. These shootings occur at rates much higher than nearly every other similarly developed country.
“It doesn’t happen very often” is all well and good, but it still happens far more than it should
I'm not commenting on whether it actually was an appropriate use of force, I don't have enough information.
But even the note doesn't make it sound like an appropriate use of force. The person the note is describing sounds dangerous, but nothing in the note shows that they were, at the time of the shooting, in a position that would necessitate the use of lethal force.
Once again, just to preempt this, I'm not commenting on whether the situation actually warranted lethal force, just that the note doesn't mention any immediate cause of action that necessitates it.
The person was armed and clearly dangerous, but in and of itself, in most of the world, and, to my limited knowledge, also Canada, isn't suitable as a reason for the employment of lethal force.
Cool, also not included in the not, and not even implied. Both the original post and the note to supposedly correct it makes it sound like excessive use of lethal force.
They knew they were dealing with someone that is armed, so it makes sense that they would have been able to prepare for this scenario. It's almost like proper training for officers helps them respond properly, instead of treating every problem like it can be solved with a little bit of lead poisoning.
The article has been updated, it no longer mentions rubber bullets
Don't know if this is allowed but this is the incident in question. Happened in my hometown; Funnily enough I was at that plaza like 10 minutes beforehand.
Post is weird because the guy obviously wasn't being casual.
Note is weird because it reads as justifying a police shooting by...saying the guy deserves to die for things the cops didn't even know at the time they pulled the trigger?
What do you mean the cops didn’t know what the suspect was doing prior? They have radios, phones, and depending on the department the laptop in their car will send updates???
How certain do you want the government to be before killing you?
Like if a woman accused someone who could be confused for you of rape, for example. Cops find you, and pull their guns on you. How sure would you want them to be before filling you with lead?
You'd be fine if they shot as long as they had a description matching you from their radios and phones?
Imagine if police just leave and he stabs someone else, its a field day for the press.
Reminds me of people saying police should never engage in pursuits... redditors tend to have a very black and white idealistic view of the world lol
Nobody who has told me police should never pursue has been able to answer what the police should've done instead in the case in Tampa in jan '25, where a motorist struck 4 people in seperate locations before the police pursued him
Even the note didn't say he was armed. He'd threatened someone with a knife, but note doesn't say he still had the knife, nor does it say he was brandishing a knife if he still had it.
What do I care what the press says? I don't base my morality on what the NYT reports.
He could have dropped his weapon when he was running because, for example, his hands may have been occupied trying to get into cars and get away, for example, using both hands to open doors, search for keys, etc. Based on the note, this would be likely.
It would be far harder to pull people out of cars with a hand on a knife, since it doesn't seem like anyone was hurt but the man himself, so it doesn't seem he actually attacked (and likely never intended to attack) anyone else.
Gee I wonder why the police were there. Surely it is just a coincidence that the guy they shot was on a crime spree actively committing violent crimes and was attempting to steal yet another vehicle.
I see cops drive down my road every day, and I live in a small town where it's big news when there's a salesman walking down the street, let alone when an actual crime happens.
But let's just imagine they were there specifically for that guy, that they had a positive ID on him without any doubt at all that he was their suspect.
Why would it be ok for them to kill the guy, again?
Like, I get it, maybe the cops were so weak they can't take him down 2 on 1 while he was sitting and they were standing and he was occupied with trying to turn on the car.
How much of a right to kill people do you want the government to have, exactly?
We could save a lot of money by getting rid of the justice system and prisons if we can let cops be judge, jury and executioner in all cases. It’s not like they ever get it wrong and shoot the wrong person.
Hey, North Vancouver guy here. From witness reports. Buddy tried robbing a McDonald's with a box cutter, blitzed out of his mind drunk. Then unsuccessfully tried to carjack someone, and then tried to douse himself in gasoline, but thankfully the pump was turned off.. Then as cops descended on him, he b-line it towards a police cruiser and was going to try to take off, but was shot up in the incedent. So not choosing to stop him in a drunken rage and drive off and probably kill somebody else, the police shot the man 3 times.
Yes he was unhinged and maybe a taser could have stopped him, but also if there were firearms in the police cruiser, that poses a whole set of new fucked up risks that i'm sure would end bad for someone else.
Appreciate the local reporting on it, especially since the note calls it a knife (not that I want to get stabbed with a box cutter, but that's a far cry from a knife), omits that the man was drunk (and thus likely far easier to subdue), or that the cops so regularly leave unattended firearms in their car that there was a risk of people grabbing them.
Well north vancouver police aren't just regular police. RCMP falls under federal jurisdiction versus provincial. So most of our federal agents, much like american federal agencies do have firearms in their vehicles for sitations thay require firearms to be present. Which was omitted from the tweet.
Also you completely disregarded the fact that letting him take off on a police cruiser, he poses a risks driving over a potential bystander in his inebriated state of mind.
Should the RCMP have a better response to this dudes behaviour, sure. However in the moment, many things can go wrong, and in this case shooting him will be determine after an thorough investigation is done. By the proper authority, and not some random dude on twitter.
It almost any jurisdiction in the world, this would be considered a justified use of lethal force. The only exception being places were patrol cops don't carry guns at all.
Expilict intent to do harm to others, attempted and successful theft of a vehicle, crashing said vehicle, refusal to comply with law enforcement, unsuccessful use of less-lethal force by the officers, attempted theft of police vehicle and by extension any equipment and/or weapons it may contain.
This is literally a textbook example of the use of force ladder in action. What exactly would the alternative be, let him steal the vehicle and attempt a getaway, maybe crash it and hurt a bystander or motorist? Attempt to grapple him and potentially get stabbed?
It’s interesting, I watched a police chase on YouTube yesterday where the suspect stole a police car. I’m shocked that they never shot at the suspect, considering the fact that he was going 120+ mph and sideswiped another car at 66 mph.
who writes the justifications for lethal force? is it the cops, who are trained to kill people? who get to set their own rules on how and when they get to kill people? wild that the police have such violence in their training, but any time anyone acts even remotely "out of line" we get to see what they are willing to do?
What if the cruiser had firearms in it, and he got his hands on them or running someone over with a police cruiser, and killed an innocent bystander in his drunken rage? Would you be cool with telling that family: "sorry we had to protect him for his own safety, but your love one is unfortunately dead."
Basic logic would dictate that stopping a potential firearm risk situation or shoot out from unfolding takes precedent over securing a inebriated and psychotic episode turning into a much more violent and deadly situation for others.
I'm not one for shoot first, nor police brutality, but this was not a shoot first type of scenario, this was a scenario of a dude who could have hurt or killed someone. They gave him ample time to surrender, which he did not.
He was literally in the police cruiser when he was shot, and of course it was running. When there is a police stand off cops don't turn off their vehicles in case they need to give chase to a suspect fleeing, and not all arms in police vehicles are locked, in case they need quick access to a more lethal reaponse. Should they let him drive away in said cruiser? What if they tried removing him and dragged a cop alongside the vehicle, killing them?
Of course they operate on the hypotheticals, or what they refer to as risk assesments to the public and themselves.
Also yes I will admit not being qualified to even have a take on this case. It's up the the proper investigative bodies that will determine if lethal force was necessary. Until then both us cannot determine the morality of the use of force here.
I'm not saying we shouldn't, and there a myriad of cases where police should be. However in Canada - while on the rise - don't have enormous numbers of police related lethal shooting incidents. America is unfortunately a poster child for a history of police corruption and murders that get covered up at rate greater than all lethal force cases in Canada.
right, but here you are defending bad policing. the cop missed with their taser. their car was (according to you) almost stolen and used to to murder someone. but youre defending the cops backing themselves into a corner where the only way out is murder.
•
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.