"Incident" @ Taco Bell...

[sraacke]

So, let me see if I have this right....
Suspicious person enters and has everyone, including you, take notice becuase he's dressed in gansta' style. Instead of sitting across the resturant and keeping an eye on him to see what he may do and not draw attention to youself, you got up, approached him and even walked past him. Then you let him out of your sight. You turned your back on a potiential thread. By the time you were finshed getting your drink he could have attacked you and attempted a gun grab but instead chose to exit the resturant. Damn. I could stop right here and ask just What The Frack were you thinking or even IF you were thinking? Instead I'll just say...FAIL!

 

[marshaul]

Authentic Mexican taco meat is not beef. Just as the chicken in real Chinese food is not chicken.

stay safe.

Exactly.

 

[Jack House]

I had this guy come through my line in the winter while it was freaking cold outside. He was clearly drunk and very much high. He had tats all over. He was a big dude, looked strong and was tall. Standing next to him was one of my coworkers. He was taller than the drunk man, and was probably stronger to boot.

The drunk man turned to my friend and said "Damn it is cold, it's made my nipples all hard. Here, touch my nipples, see how hard they are."

At the time, I was worried about my friend getting into a fight with this guy, I could see his hand make a fist and saw the anger in his eyes. Fortunately nothing happened and the drunk dude left without incident. There were a few other coworkers that whitnessed the incident and for weeks we all mocked him in the break room.

Anyway, that's my non-incident story. :lol:

 

[CharleyCherokee]

Maybe. On the other hand, who gets in line to rob the place?

Who produces ID to the clerk when robbing a liquor store because the clerk tells said robber they can't legally give it to them unless they know they're over 21? Criminals aren't exactly known for scoring high on their ACT. I do, however, agree it evidences he wasn't there for nefarious purposes. It doesn't disprove it either.

 

[Evil Tyler Durden]

Actions speak louder than words. I guarantee you that he was going to try to rob the place but changed his mind when he found out someone was carrying. Hence his running away, criminals don't like a fair field of play and hence don't try to mess with anyone that has the balls to open-carry a gun.

Either that or "bob" is afraid of white people with confidence. :banana::shocker:

 

[silver]

No no no no... you guys have it all wrong.... bob was standing in line and all of sudden realized "awww sh** i forgot my belt. No wonder my pants are hanging off my ass". see bob just went to get a belt, and did so as quickly as possible so nobody would see the new color of his boxers.

 

[ixtow]

As far as conclusions go, the only one I can come up with is that Bob is a palindrome.

I would like to add that, if he and his friend Neil were introduced simultaneously to me, I would snicker.

Chicken Heads...

 

[ixtow]

Oh, also, I woke up with a boner this morning.

 

[Aknazer]

Oh, also, I woke up with a boner this morning.

Morning wood can be so annoying at times! Oh and NARBs.

 

[mousegurl]

I'm new here and I don't know how much we are expected to muzzle our cyber mouths in furtherance of the pretensive doctrine of political correctness.

So I'm just gonna say this: I've cross referenced crime stats with demographics more times than I can count. Political correctness may lie but the crime stats don't. Instead they've always led me to the same conclusion. Members of some demographic groups (one in particular) commit a heck of a lot more crime than members of other demographic groups. That's reality!

Knowing that, I think it would be suicidally foolish to not take that into account. Especially if the subject is dressed in what members of his own group call thug or gangsta attire.

There are plenty of other (and more PC) factors I would also take into account:
How nervous is he/she acting?
Are they waiting for the customers to leave?
Do they have a friend waiting outside in a car with the motor running when the place has a drive thru?

The list goes on and on. But I'm not gonna discount anything because it will get me points for being PC. That could get me killed!

I'd rather be politically incorrect and alive than PC and dead!

 

[eye95]

I'm new here and I don't know how much we are expected to muzzle our cyber mouths in furtherance of the pretensive doctrine of political correctness.

So I'm just gonna say this: I've cross referenced crime stats with demographics more times than I can count. Political correctness may lie but the crime stats don't. Instead they've always led me to the same conclusion. Members of some demographic groups (one in particular) commit a heck of a lot more crime than members of other demographic groups. That's reality!

Knowing that, I think it would be suicidally foolish to not take that into account. Especially if the subject is dressed in what members of his own group call thug or gangsta attire.

There are plenty of other (and more PC) factors I would also take into account:
How nervous is he/she acting?
Are they waiting for the customers to leave?
Do they have a friend waiting outside in a car with the motor running when the place has a drive thru?

The list goes on and on. But I'm not gonna discount anything because it will get me points for being PC. That could get me killed!

I'd rather be politically incorrect and alive than PC and dead!

Correlation does not mean causation. If variable A and B are correlated, there are at least four possibilities.

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. Another factor, C is at play. One of the three causes, directly or indirectly, the other two.
4. Coincidence.

Once a correlation is determined, one has to look beyond the numbers to see which one of the four (or something else) is at play.

Very commonly the third is at play. By way of an example, let us assume A is "commits a crime" and B is "is a member of a certain group." The common assumption (1) is that membership in the group causes an increased probability of committing a crime. The second possibility seems ludicrous; committing a crime causes one to be a member of the group. If the sample is sufficiently large, the fourth possibility can be ruled out.

That leaves us number 3 to deal with. Researchers deal with this by "controlling" for other variables. They examine subsets of the data that contain another variable in common, for example, poverty. If we stratify the data based upon socio-economic status, does it change the correlation between membership in the group and criminality? Is it poverty that actually causes the increased propensity to commit crime? A disproportionate level of poverty among members of a certain group, combined with poverty increasing the propensity to commit crime, can create the impression the membership in a certain group increases the chance of one's becoming a criminal.

That is not to say that we should ignore the correlation. We should just not assume that it means causation. The correlation is an appropriate explanation of (and a justification for) a disproportionate number of members of a certain group being incarcerated.

 

[Badger Johnson]

I have been doing Weight Watchers for six months now and have lost 32.5 pounds. There are two fast food restaurants that offer food that does not require prior planning on my part because they offer menu items that do not bust my point budget: Subway and Taco Bell.

How much protein are you getting per day eating there? What's your current belt size and height if you don't mind saying?

Be aware that you are still provoking an insulin spike and increasing your insulin resistance eating fast food which is a large proportion of fat and carbs.

Myself, I prefer a lower carb, higher protein regime, lots of fish, fruit, dark green veggies. It's much easier to sustain when you reach goal. I've managed to keep at about 190lbs, 33" waist at 5'9 for more than 2 years that way.

Good luck on your plan.

 

[eye95]

How much protein are you getting per day eating there? What's your current belt size and height if you don't mind saying?

Be aware that you are still provoking an insulin spike and increasing your insulin resistance eating fast food which is a large proportion of fat and carbs.

Myself, I prefer a lower carb, higher protein regime, lots of fish, fruit, dark green veggies. It's much easier to sustain when you reach goal. I've managed to keep at about 190lbs, 33" waist at 5'9 for more than 2 years that way.

Good luck on your plan.

I am currently at 53.5 pounds lost, 248 to 194.5. 5'10". Belt size down from 44 to 36. I eat eggs (actually, the wife, who also has lost about 50 pounds, and I split an egg mixed with two egg whites) for breakfast everyday. Lunch and dinner almost always include 2 to 4 oz. of meat. I also eat a lot of beans. Protein is no problem.

The plan is to lose another 21.5 pounds, putting myself into the "ideal" range. I would not have thought this possible, but having so steadily lost what I have, while not damaging (actually improving) my health, I am now confident that, by the time I go on my trans-Atlantic cruise, I will be a svelte 173.

Good to hear you have maintained for two years. I have lost weight before (nowhere near this much) and can testify that maintenance is the tougher battle.

Good luck to you!

 

[3fgburner]

(SNIP) I will however tell you that I have lost count of the number of times I have been accused of being an LEO when I was wearing a uniform - of a different color and style entirely that the local LEOs, with a different patch, carrying scissors instead of a gun - while working as a Paramedic. I have also been mistaken for a store clerk. Go figure.

I got asked once, if I worked at the jail. I was wearing brown cargo pants, fanny pack / batbelt, and gun, with my usual vest. Apparently they figured same color pants as a deputy, = deputy.

 

[MR Redenck]

Maybe Bob saw your gun and thought he might like to open carry, so he went home to get his.
Could it be Bob had warrants and thought you were a cop since you were open carrying? " Time to split"
Im thinking Bob could have been a Libtard and and pee'd his pants when he saw your gun. So that why he was in a hurry to get home and change his pants.
I could be wrong, but Bob might have thought you were the bad guy and was about to rob the place, so he decides to split. :uhoh:
Last but not least, maybe Bob forgot to wear his belt and got tired of his pants falling down so he went home to get one. :banana:

 

[Jack House]

Maybe Bob forgot his money.

 

[ixtow]

Correlation does not mean causation. If variable A and B are correlated, there are at least four possibilities.

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. Another factor, C is at play. One of the three causes, directly or indirectly, the other two.
4. Coincidence.

Once a correlation is determined, one has to look beyond the numbers to see which one of the four (or something else) is at play.

Very commonly the third is at play. By way of an example, let us assume A is "commits a crime" and B is "is a member of a certain group." The common assumption (1) is that membership in the group causes an increased probability of committing a crime. The second possibility seems ludicrous; committing a crime causes one to be a member of the group. If the sample is sufficiently large, the fourth possibility can be ruled out.

That leaves us number 3 to deal with. Researchers deal with this by "controlling" for other variables. They examine subsets of the data that contain another variable in common, for example, poverty. If we stratify the data based upon socio-economic status, does it change the correlation between membership in the group and criminality? Is it poverty that actually causes the increased propensity to commit crime? A disproportionate level of poverty among members of a certain group, combined with poverty increasing the propensity to commit crime, can create the impression the membership in a certain group increases the chance of one's becoming a criminal.

That is not to say that we should ignore the correlation. We should just not assume that it means causation. The correlation is an appropriate explanation of (and a justification for) a disproportionate number of members of a certain group being incarcerated.

I like to add 5.

5. Is this crime really a bad thing, or just something that controlling politicians use as an excuse to criminalize citizens.

I feel this is increasingly important and equally neglected. It is fer too easy to become a 'criminal' and getting worse. Without having done anything that is actually bad or wrong. I know these terms are subjective, but that's the point. Law, Lawmakers, and Law enforcers are way, way, way out of control these days. Just because someone breaks a law doesn't make them a bad or harmful person. It just means their demographic has been targeted as possibly in opposition to Statism, and this the State desires to Felonize them so they cannot vote against the State's interest of growing larger and more powerful.

I'll spare you the Niemoller quote. While they may be tacky and uneducated, many of the thug type are just very confused and frustrated patriots. I wish they would pull up their pants an read a book, but in essence, they are fighting the same fight that we are.

Lets drop the pretense. Who created the civil rights movement? Did they do it by preaching to the choir? Boot licking? Operating within the broken system? Who is being taxed to death to pay for everything now?

If you obey laws that are wrong, you won't be fixing them. Repeal of bloated government does not come from submitting to it. It never has and it never will. Until us 'law-abiding gun owners' wake up and smell the centuries of historical fact, we will continue to be screwed. Being 'law-abiding' is never going to get our rights back. It has never worked. It never will work.

 

[eye95]

Your number 5 may be a valid statement in its own right, but it has no place on the list I created. My list provides possible explanations for correlations between variables, of which committing a crime might or might not be one.

The list is abstract, not specific.

 

[RetiredOC]

Bob probably walked in, looked at the menu and the cleanliness of the facilities and decided that taco bell was not a nice enough place for him to be seen in, let alone to dine there.

 

[mousegurl]

Correlation does not mean causation. If variable A and B are correlated, there are at least four possibilities.

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. Another factor, C is at play. One of the three causes, directly or indirectly, the other two.
4. Coincidence.

Once a correlation is determined, one has to look beyond the numbers to see which one of the four (or something else) is at play.

Very commonly the third is at play. By way of an example, let us assume A is "commits a crime" and B is "is a member of a certain group." The common assumption (1) is that membership in the group causes an increased probability of committing a crime. The second possibility seems ludicrous; committing a crime causes one to be a member of the group. If the sample is sufficiently large, the fourth possibility can be ruled out.

That leaves us number 3 to deal with. Researchers deal with this by "controlling" for other variables. They examine subsets of the data that contain another variable in common, for example, poverty. If we stratify the data based upon socio-economic status, does it change the correlation between membership in the group and criminality? Is it poverty that actually causes the increased propensity to commit crime? A disproportionate level of poverty among members of a certain group, combined with poverty increasing the propensity to commit crime, can create the impression the membership in a certain group increases the chance of one's becoming a criminal.

That is not to say that we should ignore the correlation. We should just not assume that it means causation. The correlation is an appropriate explanation of (and a justification for) a disproportionate number of members of a certain group being incarcerated.

You raise many good points eye95. Your post ended well in saying we should not ignore the correlation.

If some bad guy/gal approaches me on the street or invades my home, I'm not gonna have time to be concerned with causation. I'm just gonna do what I need to do to survive.

My main point was/is that knowing the track record of certain groups can be a valuable part of your early warning system.

As for the causation, members from other groups also have to deal with poverty, lack of higher education, etc. - but they don't commit crimes and/or attack others in anything remotely close to the percentages attached to one particular group (which shall remain nameless).

Perhaps other factors are collective group values, culture and IQ. I wish I'd been offered a college scholarship based on nothing more than membership in my group. My education was pretty modest, so my job opportunities are limited. Still, I work hard with good ethics - and I'd never consider acting like so many members of that nameless group that commits amounts of crime that are insanely disproportionate to their small percent of the population. And to be perfectly honest, I'm on edge anytime they're around. The crime stats justify it.