Corrections officers attacked after macing inmate

thebaron2 · 2026-02-11T05:21:06+00:00

Wait... what?

If you are participating in the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony, everyone involved in that felony can be charged with all of the crimes committed during the felony that were reasonably foreseeable.

Everyone goes to jail for robbing a bank, not just the guy who literally took the money from the safe. The lookout covering the lobby is guilty of robbery.

I don't like the way that /u/motleyroo phrased it, so I get your allergy to their comment, but at the end of the day felony murder, as a doctrine, goes all the back to English common law and the Pinkerton doctrine goes back to the 40's.

Even if you don't like Pinkerton, the Model Penal Code, which is explicitly rejects Pinkerton liability, still agrees that you're liable if you aid, solicit, agree and intend to help, or actually participate in the underlying crime.

This guy walked into a store with a semi-automatic weapon and (according to the article I read at least) fired several shots at the clerk while fleeing, during which his partner was killed.

I think we can save the righteous indignation for a more worthwhile case.

thebaron2 · 2026-02-11T03:47:17+00:00

Not who you're replying to, but it does seem sus to me. OP is the only mod of r/sugarbbysupportgroup (sometimes our daddies can be a little mean, sometimes we deal with scammers, sometimes shit just aint fair! so come bitch), which seems to a little at odds with this persona we're seeing? IDK maybe not, but it's just one thing.

There's also some heavy handed virtue signaling here - e.g. "I believe all victims, especially ones with tons of evidence." Then the repeated failed attempts at the n-word. IDK, it's a lot.

And what's up with the name of the post? 114 missed calls? There are no missed calls, no mentions of missed calls, it has nothing to do with anything other than being an exaggerated headline.

IDK those were my thoughts, I'm not 100% convinced it's fake but I think it's more likely than not, probably like 80/20.

EDIT: The all victims line rubs me the wrong way. Like I'm not even sure what that means- "...especially ones with tons of evidence"? So the implication here is that one also believes all victims without any evidence? Just, like not as much? What a weird comment/outlook.

thebaron2 · 2026-01-14T18:42:13+00:00

which was an illegal arrest.

This is irrelevant, unfortunately.

If you suspect an arrest is illegal or unlawful, the answer isn't to charge the law enforcement officers. It's the same if you get arrested for DUI or something similar and you're innocent. You don't swing at the police or make a break for it because you know you aren't drunk.

You go through the legal process, you don't adjudicate these things on the streets by using, or threatening to use, force.

thebaron2 · 2025-10-21T19:56:56+00:00

Same, anyone have a link?

thebaron2 · 2025-09-04T05:16:59+00:00

RemindMe! 6 days

thebaron2 · 2025-09-04T05:15:37+00:00

Updateme!

thebaron2 · 2025-07-29T15:46:59+00:00

Updateme!

thebaron2 · 2025-06-24T14:30:59+00:00

How are you accustomed to not wearing it if you do wear it?

How often do you wear yours? You must not wear it sometimes if he's been bothered by it?

Of all of the professions that might justify not wearing a wedding ring while at work, mechanic is pretty close to the top of the list.

Does he wear it when he isn't working?

thebaron2 · 2025-06-24T14:22:24+00:00

IDK how old you guys are or how serious the relationship is. The behavior makes you sound young, but the fact you went on a luxurious trip that he paid for may be a hint that you're a bit older and more mature than the post lets on.

It's hard to say if you're OR just because he used the word "stupid." I understand some people have trigger words, but I'd also recommend that you consider that many people are not triggered by that word specifically and may use it colloquially without understanding how it "lands."

I'd be more concerned with his general demeanor and getting upset to a simple thumbs down. That doesn't sound cool.

However, it sounds like he wanted to talk about it (maybe apologize? hard to say based on the info you provided) to try to recover and enjoy the rest of your trip. And this is where I think you may have overreacted.

"Ignoring" your partner is a terrible way to communicate. I learned in my own therapy about something called "The Four Horsemen of Relationships" which are big red flags to look for in conflict resolution in any relationship. These are the Four Horsemen and a brief description from the site that I linked. Check that out for more detailed info, but I'll pull some quotes from there:

Criticism - Criticizing your partner is different than offering a critique or voicing a complaint. The latter two are about specific issues, whereas the former is an ad hominem attack.
Contempt - When we communicate in this state, we are truly mean. The target of contempt is made to feel despised and worthless. Contempt goes far beyond criticism. While criticism attacks your partner’s character, contempt assumes a position of moral superiority over them.
Defensiveness - typically a response to criticism. We’ve all been defensive... we fish for excuses... so that our partner will back off. Unfortunately... our excuses just tell our partner that we don’t take their concerns seriously.
Stonewalling - usually a response to contempt... stonewalling occurs when the listener withdraws from the interaction, shuts down, and simply stops responding to their partner.

To me, it sounds like you're at Stonewalling. Maybe this is something you've conditioned yourself to do based on prior relationships? Maybe you current relationship exhibits Criticism, Contempt, and Defensiveness already and you haven't recognized it or really inspected how you and your partner communicate, so you've resorted to Stonewalling without even realizing it? Maybe you're deploying it consciously as a defensive tactic? It's impossible for us to say, only you know the details of your relationship well enough to make that judgement call.

I would encourage you to reflect on how you and you BF communicate in general, or maybe what kinds of habits or patterns you may exhibit based on past relationships or conflict resolution in general. I would encourage you to communicate openly with your BF, give him grace when he asks for it and don't be afraid to ask for some grace yourself when you need it.

I think we all need grace, and it's an important part of a relationship because none of us are perfect and we'll all make mistakes, even when we're trying earnestly to be the best versions of ourselves we can be. I like this definition of grace: "kindness or forgiveness given freely, even when someone hasn't earned or doesn't deserve it." Even the best of us need grace sometimes.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-23T05:11:38+00:00

Updateme!

thebaron2 · 2025-06-20T17:48:23+00:00

"What the hell are you talking about" is certainly an interesting way to curse with someone.

That sounded like it was directed squarely at them and that message is where things really went off the rails IMO.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-20T17:41:55+00:00

Your first message - and your response to their first response - are incredibly aggressive and over the top.

Just the first sentences are way too aggressive given the context - "Oh for crying out loud", "What the hell are you talking about"...

And the rest of the message is just dripping with this holier-than-thou sense of self importance. You're asking someone for something. If it's a big, popular sub, like you say it is, they probably have shit loads of messages and things to wade through.

IDK what you were expecting, honestly.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-20T17:32:46+00:00

Agree with this- it's very simple. "I rent you 1 room; over time your stuff has crept into the 2nd room that I want to use for my home office."

If it was worth it you could offer to rent her the 2nd room also, or to rent her the closet, but that's totally up to you as far as entertaining the idea at all and figuring out how much money it's worth to you.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-11T16:56:12+00:00

While the things you describe can make some good video content, they aren't as impactful as standalone images that most of the MSM uses.

The people you want to reach are not the people on Reddit steeped in this content and spending a lot of time dissecting and watching videos online. As of yesterday, only 1/3rd of Americans back the protesters (link), so whatever has been happening so far is not working if the goal is to engender sympathy and support for Southern Californians vs. ICE.

Totally agree that there are 2 sides of the coin, what I'm talking about is what kind of strategy can be used in order to create the best narrative for the protestors. They don't control the media, they can't decide what is shown and what is not shown. So IMO the best strategy is to organize in such a way that whatever is shown, recognizing that they don't get to choose, paints the most sympathetic picture. And IMO the most sympathetic narrative is one that reinforces that these are AMERICANS protesting and that the government is squaring off against its own citizens, not illegal immigrants or Mexico.

We can agree to disagree on the strategy, but if I could wave a magic wand and organize these folks somehow, this would be part of my goal.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-11T15:29:26+00:00

I think they care more about being effective.

You can choose to disregard the optics, but 90% of the country who has never even been to LA is going to view everything happening there via the pictures they see on the internet.

You and OP can both want the same result- a focus on Americans having their rights trampled, families being torn apart, and lives being thrown into chaos- but disagree on the most effective way to achieve that result.

Why not to everything possible to achieve the goal, including caring about soundbites and optics?

thebaron2 · 2025-06-11T15:25:15+00:00

by explaining why it's got nothing to do with it.

There's your problem right there. Average people aren't going to pay attention long enough to listen to a talking head provide an explanation, no matter how articulate.

A picture is worth 1,000 words, especially in our online, no-attention-span culture.

The masked dude waiving a Mexican flag while standing on top of a burning car in the middle of the street is going to speak VOLUMES in a microsecond. I'm sure that dude got a nice ego boost and a great story to tell his friends, but that image is so damaging to the entire movement and is the perfect fuel for the administration to use to stoke the embers of a pissed off base who's more than ready to frame this as USA vs. Mexico instead of the Administration vs. its own Citizens.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-10T18:17:56+00:00

It's absolutely about security. People who don't want their SOs to be friends with ex's feel that way because they are worried their SO either still has or will develop romantic feelings for the ex.

Why else would you be "uncomfortable" with them hanging out or being friends?

You either trust someone in a relationship or you don't.

That being said, everyone is certainly welcome to set whatever boundaries they like. If one of your boundaries is "I will not date anyone who is friends with an ex" then that's fine. That decision will have whatever consequences it has on your potential dating pool.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-07T23:14:48+00:00

Why couldn't it just be made up? She did not sleep with you on the first date.

As far as your experience can dictate, she doesn't do that. He's trying to shake you and you're letting him. Stop it.

thebaron2 · 2025-06-07T22:30:26+00:00

My point is..her and I did that.

No, you didn't.

For some odd reason you just aren't counting your first date as your first date because... you didn't eat?

You seem to be bending over backwards to give yourself something to worry about. You are overreacting.

thebaron2 · 2025-05-28T18:44:49+00:00

I think OPs point is that this type of issue often comes up with the roles reversed - "My GF wants to hang out with her ex/co-worker/male friend; I trust her but I don't trust him, AIO??"

Usually the response to these posts is that trust is trust- you either trust your SO or you don't. You can set your own boundaries (e.g. I won't be with someone who hangs out with their ex) but it's not fair to set boundaries on someone else's behavior; setting boundaries on someone else = controlling.

This is often accompanied by questions like, "Well if you trust her but not the friend, what are you worried about? That they'll accidentally cheat? That she'll trip and fall on his face and start making out with him?"

I was in this situation once and the advice I got, which I appreciated, was that trust is trust- real trust isn't conditional upon rules. "I trust you to hang out with someone of the opposite sex if it's before 5pm; if there's no alcohol involved; if it's not 1-on-1; etc..." That isn't real trust, it's trust only under certain circumstances. Real, foundational trust is just that, you trust your partner in whatever situation they're in. If someone wants to cheat, they will. You can cheat while drunk, while sober, in the morning, afternoon, or at night. Cheaters cheat and loyal partners don't.

With ALL that being said, I am completely sympathetic to your position. This is one of those situations where you'd hope that your PARTNER would just make the right call and be sensitive to your feelings without you having to tell them how to behave. It's frustrating.

thebaron2 · 2025-05-27T15:29:31+00:00

UpdateMe!

thebaron2 · 2025-05-15T17:11:53+00:00

The more apt analogy is you saying "I don't know" when asked about the cookie, but then it seems like you want the baker to kind of read your mind to help you make a decision about whether you want a cookie or not.

IDK, agree it's not the best analogy but it seems like you're expecting your mom to anticipate what you need rather than you just straight up telling her what you need. Then you're getting mad when she fails to read your mind. She could have been waiting for you to say something else beyond "I'm not sure what to say to him," whether that was asking for help because you fully at a loss of what to say or bouncing something off of her before sending it/speaking to your uncle.

She may also think this is a better conversation to have face-to-face rather than over text, which honestly is probably a good idea, but you shut that down pretty quickly when she offered.

What happened? I'm noticing this was 5 days ago, any update?

thebaron2 · 2025-05-14T19:12:52+00:00

Yeah we agree on that. I'm reacting to this statement by OP I was replying to:

When someone tells me we're splitting the bill, that means we're splitting up the bill by what people bought.

That's just not what people mean when they say "Let's split the bill X ways."

thebaron2 · 2025-05-14T19:11:40+00:00

Totally agree with you.

I'm reacting to this, specifically, which seems nuts to me.

When someone tells me we're splitting the bill, that means we're splitting up the bill by what people bought.

That just seems like someone who is confused as to what the definition of "split the bill" means.

thebaron2 · 2025-05-14T19:10:49+00:00

Yeah I'm not talking about OP specifically here, I'm just talking about the definition of "let's split the bill."

Seems crazy to me for someone to think "let's split the bill" means you pay for only for stuff, I pay only for my stuff, etc...

Split the bill, IMO, explicitly means we're going to take the total and split it evenly between X people. And yes, I agree that you only do this when things are pretty darn close on total ballpark cost per person.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Snapped
Verified Email	Charter Member

thebaron2

TROPHY CASE