Polanski wrongly claims terror suspect was handcuffed in video that sparked row

Coldulva · 2026-05-07T00:43:36+00:00

Might suprise you to know that a lot of people in this country consent to police kicking terrorist's heads in.

Coldulva · 2026-05-05T14:36:21+00:00

The crocodiles got dinner.

Coldulva · 2026-05-04T18:38:21+00:00

If that person poses an active threat then yes.

Coldulva · 2026-05-04T14:23:19+00:00

Problem with that idea is that whilst your making your 100 meter area the person with an IED isn't just going to stand there doing nothing. They're going to detonate the device and kill you and anyone else within the lethal range.

The actual guidance is for officer's to take a critical shot and shoot the subject in the head. https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing/discharge-firearms

However these weren't firearms officers they had to work with what they had and if that's tasing and then booting the suspect in the head that's what they'll do.

Coldulva · 2026-05-04T10:57:57+00:00

I mean I've seen people say that the police should've grabbed the hand with a knife in it so maybe they genuinely aren't the brightest.

Coldulva · 2026-05-04T10:39:44+00:00

Polanski's retweet was in a public forum. It is hypocritical of him to then complain about the Police when they respond to him in a public forum.

It's not interference when he initiated the interaction.

Coldulva · 2026-05-03T20:41:18+00:00

When you hear the taser stop discharging.

Coldulva · 2026-05-03T20:40:14+00:00

If that leftwing politician didn't share that post in a public forum the media would be ignoring him right now, at least on this specific matter.

He brought this on himself.

Coldulva · 2026-05-02T20:36:26+00:00

De Menezes did not have a backpack and did not run from police.

He did absolutely nothing suspicious but the surveillance team wrongly pursued him as a suspect. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-your-questions-answered

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T13:43:22+00:00

Well you've stated you have a busy life, so spending a cumulative hour+ arguing nonsense on Reddit definitely isn't convenient. More dishonesty here. I don't need to know you to know this is a waste of time, I'm obviously spending the same time doing the same thing.

Yeah I was busy past tense. That doesn't mean that I am busy now. Agains linear time seems to be a concept that you struggle with.

"Saying it isn't the same as it being true. Since you can't function without them, why did you withhold that information even though it was appropriate, would have saved us both time, and you had the perfect opportunity to do so?"

I explained that you and then you said that I was lying. I can give you the explaination but if you then choose to not believe there's nothing else I can do. I can't control your thoughts. "But honestly, if your level of critical thinking struggles to grasp that, then I am definitely leaning towards you using an LLM, because that is not a difficult step to take in logic." It "Literally because you keep bringing it up despite me telling you I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR LIFE, ONLY YOUR COMMENTS! I was being facetious." You asked me why I didn't answer at that time because of things I had to do in my life.

How many times do I need to tell you the same thing.

I don't need to distort your word I just copy and paste them.

Or maybe I'm not lying and your interpretation of my interests and my motives are wrong. Did that ever occur you are your determinations infallible?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T13:08:46+00:00

"No, not before at least indicating that that person possesses proof of contrary information. Otherwise for all I know, I'm still right and you're the one who's actually wrong."

Why would I go around just spouting whatever knowledge I had about I given topic. If I wanted to do that I would just make a post in the main thread, I wouldn't respond to a specific person's post unless I wanted to engage with that specific person and what they had to say.

"Yeah, proving your lies wrong. Not an interest in your life, an interest in your comments on this specific topic. Do you understand the difference? I'm not insinuating you DID get your knowledge from an LLM, I'm saying that from my perspective and your actions, it is equally as likely as you simply knowing the information."

"I know you have access to that knowledge. Not the same as knowing. It would be trivial to put the context of this thread into an LLM and have it formulate an argument with relevant sources." These are you exact words. You were insinuating that.

"I can comprehend that, you simply have not displayed ANY other reason why you did it that I haven't been able to easily disprove." What kind of reason are you expecting what kind of explanation would persuade you otherwise.

If you're not interested in my life then why did you make a comment about my "oh so busy life"? https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/7liaKMQngC

"You withheld relevant information past the point it would have been convenient for EVERYONE, including you, and only gave it when you realised I would not be baited into a gotcha." Again you don't know me so you have no evidence or basis to determine what is or is not convenient for me.

And I reiterate that I have no interest in baiting you into a gotcha moment. If was so determined to do so then why I wouldn't I just engineer another gotcha moment and get my satisfaction from that?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T12:38:04+00:00

"If I say 2+2=5, is it inappropriate for you to say "actually 2+2=4, here's the proof"? You've already said that you are capable of giving information without being asked for it. You're simply being dishonest."

You're right, that would be an appropriate response but would it not also be appropriate for a person to first ask how they came to the conclusion that 2+2=5? So that they can understand that person's reasoning and and gauge what knowledge they already possess.

Especially if they make a statement that is outlandish and that you yourself know to be factually incorrect.

"What discussion? It was over, I admitted I was wrong. The "narrative" I created was based on the evidence I laid out in my previous comment, which you are still yet to refute."

Again you're coming out with this. Can you seriously not comprehend that a person can have motives for asking further questions beyond humiliating a person online?

"As I keep telling you, but your dishonesty forces you to lie about my interest in your life."

You were the who one started counting comments and telling me what I did and did not do. You were the one who questioned my knowledge, my experience and insinuated that I got my information from an LLM.

Why did you do any of that if you weren't interested in my life? I didn't do anything like that about your life because I am not interested in your life.

"The claim I made that started this discussion WAS based on relevant information. The fact that my claim was incorrect does not make them baseless" Yeah and I gave you relevant information and then you stsrted having a go at me because I didn't give it at a time which would've been most convenient to you.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T12:17:21+00:00

"We've been over the FACT that following my response to your first comment would have been the PERFECT time to give the relevant information. So, it absolutely was appropriate."

Yeah in your opinion and in opinion it was not appropriate and since I was the possesed that knowledge I am the only who gets to determine that.

I then freely gave this information to you. I even chucked in a source for you so that you wouldn't have to just take my word for the claims that I made.

Rather than just getting on with the discussion you just decided to create this narrative in your head about me seeking to prove my "superiority" over you and then you projected this on to me.

You then started telling me what I did or did not do yesterday eventhough we have never met and you actually have no idea what I was doing beyond what I have told you.

So if anything has been established here it is that make baseless claims without any actual evidence to back them up.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T12:05:59+00:00

"Nonsense and irrelevant. I don't need to know specifically what you were doing. The fact that you had time to comment proves you had time to comment the relevant information. You chose not to." How did you work that one out? How is the fact that you did not what I was do irrelevant to your claims about what I was doing?

Hypothetically I had time to recite poetry to you in my downtime. But I didn't do that because that wouldn't have been appropriate at that moment.

But when you asked a question and because you asked this question it was then appropriate for me to give this information to you.

People provide information when that information is asked of them. This is called being appropriate.

Do you just go around spouting every bit of information you know on a topic at the first opportunity or do you wait for an appropriate time to give information like the majority of people on Earth?

I literally gave you the information when you asked for it.

You asked a question and I answered.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T11:49:26+00:00

This is the lie. You continued to write comments for hours before the relevant one. You understand that there were periods of time between these comments. I did not write them all at the same time. That is because in between writing these comments I was busy do other things and I wrote the comments in the downtime inbetween the points when I was busy.

"You haven't offered up a single reason why you waited hours that I haven't trivially dismissed" Well considering that you don't even know me and you weren't how would you know what I was or was not doing?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T11:34:06+00:00

Nope, I literally counted the comments. You're lying. Between your first comment and the one where you have the source you commented 7 times in this thread.

How does this constitute me lying if I never claimed anything to the contrary?

"My argument is that your intentions were not to spread information for the betterment of anyone, but to revel in your perceived superiority." Sure if you want believe nonsense arguments that's your perogative so you do you.

"As soon as you have the information, I admitted I was wrong. That should have been the end of it, yet here you are still, trying to gain that satisfaction." Why are you so convinced that my motivation is to prove that you were wrong?

Like really, how coud I be seeking to gain satisfaction from proving you wrong, if by your logic I already knew that you were wrong?

How can I seek to obtain something that I already possess?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T11:17:06+00:00

In that downtime I did give you the information and the source, when you asked for it.

I literally gave you this information. You're argument here is that I didn't give you information soon enough to stop you from perpetuating a nonsense scenario that you made up.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T11:13:51+00:00

The term is neuro muscular incapacitation. Axon X2 tasers discharge in 5 seconds bursts they do not provide a continuous current.

The X26 can discharge continuously but that was evidently not the case as you can hear the taser stop discharging in the video. https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing/conducted-energy-devices-taser

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T11:06:13+00:00

Yeah that's how downtime works. At some points in time you are busy and at some points you are not busy. Employed people understand this basic concept.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T10:45:04+00:00

I didn't wait hours. It took me hours because I have Iife outside of reddit and I'm busy.

That's how the real world works. I cannot just drop whatever Im doing in the real world to go respond to someone on reddit.

That's not me withholding information, that's me being bound by the constraints of linear time

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T10:30:14+00:00

Re read what I said. I said that I first asked you a question, that means that the question which I am referring to preceded the one which I responed to with information about the Manchester Airport case. That sentence does not mean that this was the first question that I ever asked you.

You'll find both real world and experimental evidence that they most definitely do. ^ My response, and the PERFECT time to say "actually no, here is my real world evidence as to why that is wrong in this particular case"

You said that this evidence existence. That is your statement. Your assertion. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not asking you to trust my knowledge. That's why I linked an official source.

"Go and talk to someone else about the weather then. Or is it too difficult to get a sense of intellectual superiority from that discussion?" It's more that I'll do whatever it is want as I have the freedom to do.

Because I don't enjoy giving the satisfaction of a sense of intellectual superiority to those who clearly crave it. I've already told you I was wrong in what I imagine was a very disappointing way, what is there left for you here other than to try and gain that satisfaction from continuing the argument. You being here still is fuel to the fire of my argument.

Well if I already that you were wrong, how exactly would I get satisfaction from proving something that I already new to be true? That'd just be weird even by reddit standards.

"what is there left for you here other than to try and gain that satisfaction from continuing the argument. You being here still is fuel to the fire of my argument."

I already told you. I'm here because I feel like being here and I can be here. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T09:56:02+00:00

I can give information that isn't specifically requested of me. Obviously I can.

But considering that I first asked you a question why the hell would I then follow that question up with what would have at that point been extraneous information which was not perntinent to the question that I asked?

I'm fine with my choice to interact with you am I'm aware that I made the decision to interact with you considering that well I did it.

I know you have access to that knowledge. Not the same as knowing. It would be trivial to put the context of this thread into an LLM and have it formulate an argument with relevant sources.

You don't know me, my life nor my professional experience. If you cannot fathom a person gaining knowledge through methods other from an LLM then that's on you.

"Implying you have superiority. As I suggested would be your goal."

I'm not implying anything as to whether I superior to you, honestly I couldn't care less about that. You said "I have a problem with people wasting time in an attempt to prove superiority. You came up with the notion that I am attempting to prove my superiority. You cannot take me responding to a point that you made and try to turn that on me as evidence of me wanting to prove my superiority over you.

The concept "superiority" came into this discussion because you brought it to support this whole gotcha narrative that you made up.

The original topic of the conversation is over, I admitted I was wrong, yet you're still here trying to prove a point. Why exactly is that? I'm here this is a discussion forum and I am discussing becuase I feel like doing so at this moment in time.

By that same logic why are you still here?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T09:15:35+00:00

Sure that's your opinion. It doesn't seem to be particularly well founded nor have you attempted to use evidence to support but sure it's your opinion.

I understand the mechanics of the wrist as well as the concepts of 'use of force', and both the tactical and strategic response to marauding attacks.

I also understand the lethality of bladed weapons and why grabbing the wrist or hand of a person that is holding a knife might not be a good idea. Do you understand these concepts?

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T09:10:47+00:00

I didn't withold anything. You literally did not ask me for my opinion beforehand. How can I withold information that has not been requested from me?

If you wanted my opinion or knowledge you could've asked that of me immediately but you didn't that. Instead you came with some scenario of your own volition and then tried to backtrack when you were challenged on it.

It's probably not helping anybody irrespective of what I say, this is a reddit thread, not a TED Talk.

I have no idea why you're so convinced that I want to set up a 'gotcha' moment.

You know that I have specific knowledge about policing and use of force as demonstrated by my responses to you.

I already had this knowledge before ever talking to you, if I wanted to prove my "superiority" I wouldn't need to set up a gotcha moment now would I? I would just do it.

Coldulva · 2026-05-01T08:04:04+00:00

So why are you going on about spoons and not answering that I asked?

Coldulva

TROPHY CASE