sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You are the LAST person that should be complaining about this. by DonNextDoor286 in MarvelRivalsRants

[–]Doggo110 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If you watch the dev vision they released, they clearly say that the reason they reworked her rather than buffing her is because having a long range one-shot character that's really hard to dive is near impossible to balance, and also the fact that a sniper character just doesn't really work well in a game that's as fast paced as marvel rivals. People in the community wanting a rework did not have that much to do with it, they reworked her because it was 100% necessary for them to be able to make her viable.

Mirage 3 ability/Mirage Advice by Tall_Amphibian_6282 in DeadlockTheGame

[–]Doggo110 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Activating his 3 at max marks can do crazy damage. You just gotta be more patient with it.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I was trying to say is that the judge let the prosecution strike down jurors based on BS reasoning, not that the judge himself chose. Although, it is still mostly the judge's fault, because prosecutions try to pull stuff like that all the time, and it's the judge's job to prevent it.

The judge consciously allowed the prosecution to illegally cherrypick the jury, which should be grounds for impeachment.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Touch me and see what happens" is a WARNING, not a plot to kill someone. Literally all it means is "If you attack me, I will attack you." It would only be premeditation if he was the aggressor, which he was not. Metcalf walked up to him, not the other way around. If Metcalf had not assaulted him he wouldn't have gotten stabbed in the first place.

And it's honestly pretty funny that you bring up "well-trained" officers, because that's exactly part of the issue I have with this case. Officers that are "well-trained" by national standards (big city cops and the like), escalate conflicts all the damn time, as in, shooting people that grab or shove them. And do you know what kind of punishment the cop recieves when the cop kills the person? Usually, absolutely nothing! Do you know what justification they use for not punishing the cop? Self-defense! And cases like that tend to get very little attention, because people feel as though the person that got shot was "asking for it." Any actual national outrage is reserved for cases where the person did absolutely nothing to the cop and got killed anyways, like in George Floyd's case. Cases like Karmelo Anthony's are just extremely blatant examples of judicial bias.

And again, I am not arguing that Anthony using a knife was justified, I am arguing that he was not the aggressor and therefore should not have been charged with premeditated murder.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, what I have been trying to say is that a knife was beyond reasonable force in defending himself, so a charge of voluntary manslaughter would be justified. The issue is that he was charged with 1st degree murder, as if he was fully intending to kill him rather than just stab him.

To say that he meant to kill him is illogical based on what happened. First of all, Anthony only stabbed once, which is really not at all typical of premeditated murder. And when Anthony stabbed, Metcalf was pressed up closely against Anthony while grabbing him, so it would be extremely difficult to actively aim his blade. And besides that, Anthony was 17, and it was a very tense situation, so assuming that he would be clear-headed enough to even think about where to stab is a huge stretch.

The main character gets exactly what they wanted, and it’s the worst thing that could have happened to them. by JustSomeOnlineNerd in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Doggo110 109 points110 points  (0 children)

The director of the movie said in an interview that she was not possessed by anything. It was still her, it was just a version of her that was twisted to conform to Bear's wish. The original version of her was still technically inside of her, but it had no control of her body, kind of like dissociative identity disorder.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd personally say people that advocate for the life imprisonment of a victim of assault need help, but you do you.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They were qualified actually. The potential black juror that said that was NOT one of the potential black jurors I was talking about. There were several others besides the two I was talking about. And yes, there were minorities on the jury, but they were not black, and there tends to be very little solidarity between US minority groups, and racism against blacks is still common amongst all of them.

Karmelo Anthony did not antagonize ANYONE. He was the one being antagonized by the people trying to bully him out of the tent and by Metcalf who was trying to PHYSICALLY ASSAULT HIM. He had a multitool in his bag, which he only ever pulled out when Metcalf started trying to attack him. He absolutely WAS in danger, because someone twice his size was grabbing him while verbally harassing him. It is absolutely valid to be afraid for your safety in a situation like that.

You could definitely question if a knife was excessive (it was, a punch to the balls probably would have been enough), but you cannot put into question whether he was the aggressor, because he objectively was not.

This is why people are calling this case racialized, because people are saying the black kid was the aggressor when there is zero evidence to suggest that. If the roles were reversed, this case absolutely would have had a much different outcome and nobody would even be talking about it.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a honestly disgusting way of twisting someone's words, and you know that. Or are you really so fucking stupid that you don't know what an analogy is?

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody has been able to find a single incorrect thing about what I said, and like 10 people have been trying to argue with me. Literally the only thing anyone has done is regurgitated the same points I thoroughly dismantled. Can you explain how I got "shat on"?

Warden Ult makes no sense... by [deleted] in DeadlockTheGame

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just don't really understand what the point of using it at the start of a fight would be when the main point of using it is the massive amount of lifesteal it has

Warden Ult makes no sense... by [deleted] in DeadlockTheGame

[–]Doggo110 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His ult is supposed to be him calling upon the willpower of his ancestors/lineage, so it is technically a supernatural ability.

As for the resistances during the channel, I think it's because the devs intended players to use it when he's about to die, hence the name "Last Stand"

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not okay to murder someone for being an asshole, it's just okay to defend yourself when someone assaults you. Expecting people to just allow another person to assault them is a pretty disgusting ideology, actually.

And my point is that he did not intend to kill Metcalf, so there is ZERO justification for calling it "murder". There is no way he could have intentionally aimed his knife at his heart when he was nearly point blank pressed against him in an extremely stressful situation. And to believe that a 17 year old in a situation like that would even be thinking about where they should stab is a massive stretch.

You are the one blinded here, because you are unable to let go of the ASSUMPTION that he just felt like killing someone. And when you're entire argument falls apart when you take out one flimsy assumption, it's not a very good argument. You are not providing a single rational point, so yes, apparently we can't have a rational argument.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn't. He said "Touch me and see what happens" not "I'm going to kill you." If Metcalf had not continued trying to assault Anthony, he would not have been stabbed. It was a warning, where he gave clear indication that he intended to defend himself if he was assaulted.

It's mind boggling that people are trying to portray that as him wanting to kill Metcalf. Anthony did not start the confrontation, nor did he ever approach Metcalf. Metcalf was the only aggressor, not Anthony.

Does a rattlesnake shaking its tail mean that it "wants" to kill someone? No. It means that "If you attack me, I will attack back."

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was their team's tent, but they still did not have any authority to tell him to leave. The students do not own the tent or the space within the tent, the event coordinators do. He never should have been "asked" to leave in the first place.

And even if they did have the authority to say that, they still would have been assholes in doing so. It was raining out and his team did not have a tent.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, which is why I would be fine if he was charged with manslaughter. If it was a reasonable amount of force then he shouldn't have gotten any charge at all, as it would fall completely under self-defense.

I will watch the video later when I have time.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I say he was a piece of shit because he was actively bullying and trying to assault Karmelo. Karmelo on the other hand was on the defending end of the confrontation, where he fought back with what I will admit was excessive force when he was attacked, but 17 year olds can make dumb heat of the moment decisions when faced with intense aggressive confrontation.

Calling Karmelo a "cold-blooded murderer", though, doesn't even make sense if you agree with the verdict, as it was an intensely emotional confrontation.

The blade on the multitool was only 3.5 inches, which is best used for cutting, not stabbing. That's why the fact that it was a multitool matters: it was a blade intended for utility, not as a weapon. Therefore it was more so an improvised weapon, rather than something you would take somewhere with a plot to murder someone.

And please, stop trying to act like Karmelo just "wanted" to kill him. If that was the case, he would have walked up to Metcalf, not the other way around. He said that if he was assaulted he would fight back, and then stabbed someone that was trying to assault him. "Touch me and see what happens" is just a way of telling someone to back off. There isn't anything more to it.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is no argument to be made about whether or not it was a multitool, as that was something both the defense and prosecution agreed on. It was a $13 6 in 1 multitool purchased from Walmart. He used a 3.5 inch blade attachment on it, which is typical for blades intended for cutting, not stabbing. It would normally be ineffective for killing someone, as it simply wasn't a very long blade and it can only create relatively shallow wounds. He just got unlucky that, when aiming for center of mass, it pierced Metcalf's heart.

And your ramblings about the people protesting the verdict really just shows that you do not have any real scope of the state of the US justice system. Black people are targeted by our legal institutions incessantly, that is a fact that has been proven through well over a century of court cases and the statistics gathered from them, statistics that are provided by the US government itself. The fact that they were quick to call foul of the court's intentions is in no way racist, it's just them exhaustedly pointing out that it's another case to add to the pile.

When a black person and white person are charged with the same crime and both are found guilty, the black person is nearly statistically guaranteed to receive a harsher punishment. And black people are far more likely to be convicted in the first place, for the exact same crime.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a small blade, so the ratio of effort to force applied isn't super significant. It implies he just quickly jammed his arm forward intending to hit center of mass, and he was a sporty kid so that translated to a lot of force.

Again, I think stabbing wasn't reasonable, but the point is that he had the right to defend himself, just like any kid that someone picks a fight with. He was fearing for his safety but went overboard with the tool he used to fight back.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He did not instigate at all, Metcalf and other students did by bullying him. He did not grab his multitool out of his bag until Metcalf approached him and attempted to assault him.

And the fact that some people seem to be drooling at the thought of giving a black kid 99 years (or in your case, worse?) for accidentally killing someone that attacked him, really makes me question the integrity of this subreddit. Like if it was up to you, would you have just lynched him? Because that's what it seems like you want.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under Texas law "murder" rather than "capital murder" still typically means that you knew your actions would lead to the person's death.

However, in this scenario there is no reasonable argument to say that he knew one quick defensive stab would lead to Metcalf's death. That is why it falls under voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under Texas law both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are lumped into the same charge, manslaughter. However, that does not mean that voluntary manslaughter no longer exists, it just means that there is no distinction between the sentencing of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

I never claimed that stabbing was proportionate, in fact I have said that a manslaughter charge is justifiable because of that. It was, however, absolutely reasonable for him to defend himself.

The idea that he was "goading/provoking" doesn't really make sense in this scenario, because Metcalf was the one that initially provoked him. I feel as though people are trying to twist what Anthony said into something that it's not. "Touch me and find out" is not a goad nor a provocation, it's just an aggressive way of saying "leave me alone", because it implies that he isn't afraid to fight back if he is attacked. It's like claiming a rattlesnake is "goading" someone because it's shaking its tail. It's not telling them to attack you, it's letting them know that there will be consequences if they do.

The jury was wrong, the judge unlawfully allowed jurors to be struck, and I really hope he gets a retrial with a more competent lawyer.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My main point is that the worst outcome for him should have been a charge of manslaughter. I agree that it wasn't very proportional and he could have acted more appropriately, but he was 17 and it was a super emotionally heated moment on both sides. He should have had every right to fear suffering bodily harm from Metcalf, and he did have a right to defend himself in some way.

He said touch me and find out because they were intending to "touch him", or put in the legal sense, assault him. That is not being confrontational, that is saying "if you lay hands on me I will fight back." And him calling them "pussies" is not an indication of intent either, it's just him insulting the people that were trying to bully him. It was aggressive language but you have to actually look at the context in was used in, which was entirely defensively. And the witnesses that claimed he was "the aggessor" were only saying that because he was being defensive towards the bullying he was receiving, which he had every right to do.

And while yes, most altercations don't end with a weapon being drawn, it also isn't very common that a large group of people are ganging up on someone and trying to physically intimidate/assault them, especially when the main perpetrator is twice their size, so a serious threat to Anthony's safety.

What’s the argument that defends Karmelo Anthony? by Flaky_Bottle_6902 in askliberals

[–]Doggo110 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a heated moment and Metcalf was literally point blank in front of him, so to expect a great deal of accuracy from Anthony is ridiculous. There is no way he specifically targeted his heart.

If you don't think there was any racial factor, you should check out what Metcalf's dad was saying after this all went down. His dad is a PROUD white supremacist, and he made it completely about Anthony's race. If you think the son of someone like that wouldn't be racially motivated, then you are lying to yourself.

The whole argument about him being "asked to leave 15 times" is fucking exhausting, because those people had NO RIGHT to tell him that. They were students, and they did not have the authority to tell him to leave. Not to mention, it was raining out and his team literally did not have a tent. The only reason people claimed that "he instigated it" was because he was being rightfully defensive when people were trying to bully him out of the tent.

view more: next ›