The article, where they say the cops rammed him off the road, that he was shot in the back of the head and that the subsequent investigation found no weapons

because I’d “like” to “know”. Some people use them to communicate dubiousness, some people use them to indicate they’re actually quoting someone, some “people” use them for emphasis.

I’d love to know what “recently linked to a firearms incident” actually means, especially given that it seems to have been flagged by an automated system and that “firearms incident” was seen as justification to ram a car off the road and then shoot the occupant in the back before any actual threat was verified.

It’s only a stupid judicial precedent if you assume the police are there to enforce the law and help people.

Okay but no one says “shot dead black man”. It would be “shot black man dead”.

Why is she in quotes?

Are they wrong to do this? I believe so, and I can’t comment on UK law but US law agrees with me. But can I tell you why they do this? 18 years in foodservice and one of my most common complaints was coffee or tea that isn’t hot enough. Sometimes it was that I poured a cup and then had to go do something else before I dropped it off, but a lot of times it was just done brewing and I had walked the pot straight to the table only for someone to send it back and tell me to microwave it until it boiled.

People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they’re absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I’ve often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he’s a big “gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits” guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I’m a big “frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights” guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like “Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?” Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was “suing them for giving her what she asked for”, the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.

Okay.

What good does this really do south africa though? Id more expect his loyalty to be to himself and his own profit than any country regardless of where he’s native.

deleted by creator

Below this comment is Harvard medical school contradicting you and saying that citric acid is effective in preventing kidney stones. Do you stand by your uneducated guess?

Then define the balance. How many seconds of efficiency is worth sacrificing 1 gram of edible potato?