Not entirely sure why they waited nearly 50 years to ask for help. Wish them luck on finding it though. Hopefully things didn’t change that much in the region and its easier to locate.
BTK was only arrested in 2005 and the Osage County Sheriff only got the drawings in question from Kansas police in January this year when his office opened the investigation.
There have been other investigations into cold cases around the area since he was arrested but none have turned up any links. This case is just the evidence finally making its way around to this office so they can investigate.
They also found more new evidence last month which is what has led to this announcement.
I'm really proud of Minnesota's current leadership. From my perspective, they've been more receptive and thoughtful to the Native Nations in our borders.
They have released thousands of acres of land back to their rightful custody in the last few years alone, and are recognizing native heritage by returning the official names of places and lakes that are historically significant.
Not a surprise. No one took it seriously the first time which meant we were doomed. Now all I’m hearing from people are how this variant is “even less deadly than the not deadly covid”. Guess I didn’t lose family to covid after all.
yeah I didnt watch my mother’s funeral on a monitor. I’m sorry for your losses. I lost a cousin, additionally. Wife and I got it in early August, and we both still get very tired if we exert ourselves too much (like clean the bathroom)
so I got out of the woods pretty fast. I was symptomatic on friday, tested positive on saturday. I was asymptomatic by Tuessay and testing negative on Wednesday.
I also have a high amount of vaccinations, and was using NONS (Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray) from the day I got infected through the entire infection.
My wife, who wasn’t going into risky places like I was, wasn’t usung the NONS until I tested positive, so probably two days post infection.
Her illness took about 5 days longer to subside, and she was testing positive at 12 days from first positive test. She couldnt read at one point, saying the words on her phone were all jumbled together. It was really frightening. She’s still unable to do much, and winds up wiped out after walking maybe 100-150m and needs a short rest.
Its steadily improving, but she’s very concerned about it.
Yep. So short sighted. Wait till we discover that in fifty years kids who got Covid are going to have XYZ health issues. Think chicken pox - only adults who had it as a kid can get shingles later in life.
We don’t know shit about the impact of this virus yet.
P.S. I’m sorry you lost family to this. I would be so angry 😠
That’s why I kind of prefer news about convictions and sentences rather than the crimes committed. In 9 years when and if they are finally convicted I will at least know if justice was served and what the final context was.
The cop was in the front corner of the car, so I imagine it will be dismissed for self defense easily in these kinds of scenarios since the cop had a risk of being run over? Haven’t seen how other cases involving potential hits turn out in the US
Wage increases are getting blown out of the water by inflation and cost of living. Everyone is really starting to feel that pinch. So naturally now is when the feds decide to unfreeze school loans. Really telling of how out of touch our government is
Cherry-picking stats that show people earning more doesn’t not even begin to describe the economic hardships so many people are facing. Yes, it is possible to live frugally if one wants to live only to survive. But the things in life that bring us just a bit of joy are more expensive than ever. For many, they are completely out of reach.
What’s the comparable number in 2019? What percentage in poverty before the pandemic vs. now? If you don’t have the answers to these questions, you’re not actually contributing to the conversation
Numbers are pointless, as may be explaining myself further. There is no use in trying to counter numbers with numbers as many of these statistics are disingenuous already.
Jesus dude, maybe take a minute from your Facebook level “research” and look around at the people you’re claiming are doing SO MUCH BETTER struggling to rent a 1 bedroom because “hurr number higher!” Than people who bought homes and had yearly vacations on a single income with an entire family just decades prior. Get a grip, man.
Just the fact she has to shoplift probably also means she has very little money or is struggling to get buy on her sallery. She’s getting a baby soon and is maybe trying to save up because the US has no proper help to offer. Being shot and murdered by the police for a relatively harmles crime is beyond crazy for a society to accept. The policeman should be arrested for murder and abuse of power and Final put behind bars
Just the fact she has to shoplift probably also means she has very little money or is struggling to get buy on her sallery.
As much as I don’t think this woman should’ve been shot, shoplifting isn’t usually done by people who “need/have” to and it’s also usually items that aren’t necessities. Ask anyone who works at an Ulta or makeup section of a department store. In fact, I watched a lady run out of an Ulta into a car that sped off who, according to employees, stole a bunch of perfume and they told me and my girlfriend they were likely going to resell the perfume online.
Sure, sell it to be able to afford some meager amount of groceries for her and her baby. Meanwhile the fat cat cop, who probably ate a breakfast before work, is out there looking for some breakfastless person to shoot to justify the need for him to keep his job.
I think the cop should absolutely be fired prosecuted, but I don’t think police shootings are to “justify the need” for police officers to keep their jobs.
That doesn’t even make sense: police officers involved in shootings are likely to be investigated by IA, which is compounded stress ontop of a job that probably already sucks, who’s possibly even pushed out of the force by IA, and if the shooting an officer was involved in was in fact justified (not this one) you’re left with an officer who’s unfit mentally and will likely feel some guilt for the rest of their lives.
In the world you think we live in, encouraging police shootings because it “justifies” a need for police leaves you with a bunch of underperforming and mentally unstable bunch of police officers and a forever staggering rate of total police officers and their presence in neighborhoods where they’re actually needed; as people will resign and no new officers will replace them.
Excuse me, fired? They should be prosecuted. They murdered someone for no reason. That is a murder. Murder is not allowed. Killing someone in self defense isn’t a murder, but this clearly was.
This police officer deserves to be reprimanded the way any citizen would be for shooting and killing someone without just cause.
But then they bought more perfumes with that money. Since it was a significant amount, they got a discount but then sold those perfumes for MRP. They kept doing this over and over and before you know it Bob’s your uncle and they started a chain of perfume shops globally. Now they are the fatcat CEOs of Global Perfumes Inc. and spend considerable resources per annum to make sure people don’t shoplift from their stores.
The car the lady was driven off in was like decent looking ~2020 model car. Maybe it happens the way you say it does, I don’t know. I’d like to see data that shows if either how you what you say is true or not, but generally when I’ve personally witnessed shoplifting it’s not done by people who seem like they’re truly struggling.
The reasons for shop lifting are many, but it usually boils down to needing money because their daily job isn’t enough to get by and live a happy life. Or they can’t get a job at all for one reason or another. Desperate people do desperate things.
True point. The whole scenario is written in such a bad way in the article its completely glossed over, and even I missed that fact. It just makes the whole mess even worse. It could have been anyone that got shot here just for being scared by threatening police officers who are escalating the situation
The big picture: 29 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted a total of 70 laws expanding voting rights this year, while 16 states have enacted 29 laws to restrict voting, according to data and analysis by the nonprofit Voting Rights Lab (VRL).
Yes, but the point is that there have been more expansions of voting rights than restrictions nationwide in part due to the blowback against restrictions largely in red states. This is all state level stuff so its just highly dependent on where you live as to whether you are seeing expansions or restrictions personally.
I don’t think that’s a valid conclusion based on your quote.
If all 70 of those laws made tiny, incremental changes, they have a small impact. If all 29 of the restrictions caused massive restrictions and reorganization of voting practices, they’d be incredibly disruptive. You can’t just look at the number of laws passed.
According to previously unreported details that police released about the incident Wednesday, Donofrio repeatedly knocked, banged and kicked on the front door “while manipulating the door handle” while trying to enter the home.
A female resident of the home called 911 as Donofrio kicked the door, while a male resident went to retrieve a firearm elsewhere in the home, the news release states. The homeowner owned the gun legally, “for the purpose of personal and home protection,” according to police.
While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,” at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window that struck Donofrio in his upper body, according to police.
Under those circumstances, I don’t blame the homeowner for using a gun to defend himself and the other female resident. This guy was literally breaking into their home. If it had been me, I would have been terrified and very thankful to have a gun on hand for defense. I’m sure a lot of people here will protest to the shooting, but I would urge them to really think about what they would have done in such a situation. I don’t know what Donofrio’s reasons were for trying to break into the home, but they hardly matter; the fact is, he did try, and the residents of the home had every reason to think they were in danger. If we had multi-shot stun guns that could reliably incapacitate an intruder, I’d say he should have used that rather than a lethal weapon, but current stun guns aren’t that reliable and only fire once before needing to be reloaded. That a life was lost is sad, but I agree that no criminal charges should be filed in this instance. However, I’m not saying that I entirely agree with the Castle doctrine on which this is based, as I’m not intimately familiar with it, but the general notion of being able to use lethal force to defend oneself against a home intruder I do agree with on principle.
The guy at the door was not an immediate threat to life or limb, save his own. Firing a gun was not justified without threat, IMO. But I guess in the USA you can murder people to save your property (not your life).
Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,”
How much more “immediate” do you need? A complete stranger is trying to break into your home to do god knows what is the epitome of a clear and immediate danger to me.
What would you have done? Opened the door and welcomed them in?
Opening the door may have saved everyone in this case.
Did they try to communicate with the person? Look through the widow to see whether the person is armed? Flee? Get a non lethal weapon like a bat, knife, pepper spray? Hide? There was time for the home owner to go get a gun before the window broke. I assume, since this is USA, that it was already loaded (😂) so I’m sure it didn’t take too long, but did they try ANY of those things? Unlikely, and that’s unfortunate.
Which is why if you attack someone with those (and don’t kill them, if you do it’s just murder) you get charged with assault with a deadly weapon, friend? See how that plays out for you in court.
Though you are right even if you were far off base from my point, it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than a bat or a knife.
Again, you’re wrong. It’s easier to kill people with a gun than a bat or a knife. My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text) because other avenues for dealing with the situation existed and were possible. In that case, I’d rather be charged with assault than murder.
No, read it again, I believe you’ll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.
My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text)
Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say “you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him,” like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it’s a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don’t force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn’t be charged with either for defending his home.
And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don’t applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That’s what I’m saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you’d meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.
So declare your firearm and say fuck off or I will shoot, don’t just shoot. As a gun owner myself I would NEVER fire without trying to give verbal commands. I couldn’t see anywhere in the article any reference to discussion between the door window breaking and firing.
Idk man, I’m liberal as hell and even I have problems with that line of logic. Man’s smashing up their house, putting myself in the invadees shoes I’d be worried about warning the home invader(s) and making them use their weapons.
I’m not saying I think everything is fine and dandy in this situation, mfs are using guns way to much in America. But since the occupants had a gun for self defense AND their home was being broken into, I find it hard to blame them for defending themselves.
Same, progressive who believes people have the right to defend their house once someone is clearly trying to force their way in.
I’m uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you’ll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger’s for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
That’s wack as shit, and I have to wonder how police would determine a frame-up if that particular trashbag had broken the window to make it seem like the lady was breaking in.
Only solution that comes to mind is a ring-like device which only records to local storage.
Absolutely, I think there should be certain objective things that have to happen before “fearing for your life” is a valid defence.
Someone breaking your window after trying to enter forcefully through your door is where I start thinking it’s okay to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself.
Someone knocking on your door (regardless of the time of day) is not a reasonable situation to fear for your life, at least to the extent where you attack the person.
I’m uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you’ll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger’s for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
I don’t know the specific case you’re talking about, but that isn’t actually the law, that is a failure of our justice system, the shooter could have gotten convicted for that (based off your description I should add, if I’m missing details that would exhonerate the homeowner, like an outside gate already having been breached, then that’s another matter). In my area, you are required to have signs of forced entry before you can defend yourself in this manner, and if someone shot through the door my DA would certainly try the case, but then the jury can decide if “guilty or not guilty,” and that’s how you end up with both false convictions and “false releases” like the one you mentioned. Unfortunately however I’m unaware of a more fair system than the one we have, but I’m open to ideas.
Could have been avoided? Maybe. But at some point the onus is on the person breaking into your house to…idk, not do that? Like there’s a spectrum between what you can do, what you should do and what you have to do and asking some questions first is certainly something you can do. Maybe even something you should do, but protecting your family from someone who is breaking into your house is something you have to do. This isn’t Ralph Yarl who got popped twice for standing on the porch, or those girls who were still in the car and backing out of someone’s driveway when they got clipped. Dude tried to break into the house by kicking the door in, that didn’t work, so he tried a different way of breaking into the house which would have worked had he been left to it.
I’m usually pretty firmly against preemptive violence as self defense but this seems rather cut and dry to me. I would have done the exact same thing the homeowner did here, and I think that it’s doubly good that the homeowner wasn’t charged.
Ya, he “surely” could have rationally had a conversation with a black out drunk that’s been trying to kick a door in, smash the glass and open it from the inside, because that’s what sane people do when they think they’re at their own house…right?
I mean I’m not in the camp of thinking the homeowners were necessarily in the wrong, but have you seriously never heard of someone breaking their own window to get back into their own property when they were locked out? Also, yea it is possible to communicate with a blackout drunk person, or at least try to warn them.
I dont know the whole situation, but if they didn’t make any effort to communicate or warn the guy before they shot him, I do think that’s cold hearted. If they did try to communicate and were ignored, then I think they didn’t do anything wrong.
Legally speaking they are obviously in the clear. I just dont know if this was acceptable from a moral perspective to me without knowing the full details yet.
I’m upvoting you simply because I think you’re debating in good faith and even though I don’t agree with you, I think you’re adding something real to the conversation.
While I do think the situation would likely have ended better if the homeowner had tried to engage the invader in reasonable conversation before pulling the trigger, I don’t think he should be legally required to do so. Remember: it was the home invader’s actions that caused this whole situation. People keep winging about the homeowner’s responsibility to take action to *protect *the invader of his home, but no one is acknowledging that the invader could have prevented all of this by simply not invading the home. People who behave this way have problems, but they’re virtually always not the people they are harming with their actions. They need help, surely, but they also need to be isolated from the general population and punished for the harm they do to others.
And for those who chime in to object to the fact that I said people should be punished for their crimes, just know that I’m all for prison reforms that make prisons safer and help people begin new lives after they’ve served their time, but that I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DEMANDthey serve their fucking time. I have no use for people that can’t wrap their pathetic brains around the notion that crime and punishment are inextricably linked. It’s not about vengeance. The entire reason we have a justice system is so that we can punish criminals in a more objective, humane way than victims can with their tendency towards revenge rather than justice.
I completely agree with you that there should be no legal requirement to warn an intruder before utilizing self defense. I just feel that its nuanced, and in this particular case, if I was the homeowner I would be screaming my head off warning the intruder that they are about to die in not such a polite way. I just would feel morally obligated to do everything I could to divert the situation, and I would hope most others would do the same before making the decision to end a life.
Wow you’re telling me the tidal wave of liberal shitposting on Reddit was wrong about this and they should have waited for the actual facts? I don’t believe it!!
I agree with you, I do. It should be legal to protect your property. The problem is when you have a gun, everything looks like a shooting. If you didn’t have a gun, how would you handle the situation? You could leave. You could lock yourself in an interior room and wait for the cops. You could fight them Kevin style. All of those options, at the end of the day, would give you a better chance of not killing somebody.
It’s not about protection of property to me. I don’t care about that. I care about people having the right to use all reasonable options for defending themselves against violent attackers. And to your point, might this person’s death have been avoided if the occupants of the home had fled or hid somewhere? Certainly. But should they be legally required to do so? No, not in my opinion. Reason being, I don’t think the impetus should be on victims to take their attackers’ well-being into account when it’s the attackers that are creating the problem in the first place. Telling a person who is scared for their life that they need to fight the impulse coming from their amygdala to fight back against a violent attacker is totally unreasonable. If a person is coming at me with their fists and I have a gun, I don’t think I should have to refrain from firing my weapon and take the hits my attacker is throwing, just to make sure he doesn’t die. What if I die? What if I lose an eye or get my face scarred up? What if he takes my gun and shoots me? No. No, fuck that, if someone is attacking me, they’ve given me permission to defend myself in whatever way seems reasonable to me, and I’m not risking my own life or even just serious injury because someone else has anger management problems. They’re the problem; they’re the threat to society; if they die, yeah that sucks, but it’s their fucking fault, not mine for defending myself against their violent behavior.
I’m so sick of people having all this empathy for violent criminals, and way too little for their victims. You want to tell other people to react in a calm, collected, pacifist manner when they’re being attacked, to risk their own lives and wellbeing for the sake of their attacker’s? Tell you what, you get yourself attacked somehow when you’re not expecting it and demonstrate how cool, calm, and pacifist you are under fire; you show the rest of us how easy that is. You do that, and maybe I’ll consider what you have to say, but until then, you’re just a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching bystander who has their priorities messed up and doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
That’s fine but where’s the line. If someone pulls up in your driveway, is it OK to shoot them? If they knock on your door? What if you have an argument and they throw popcorn at you? The last one was deemed reasonable in Florida. If you have a legitimate conflict with someone, is it just a matter of who kills who first? If someone breaks into your home, this case, he broke the glass and was trying to open the door. Can you shoot them? Do you need to warn them first? What if they were just outside walking around creepily. Is it OK to kill them? Can i provoke someone then when thry come at me, can i kill them? Where’s the line? This is a real question because right now the rules don’t make sense.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.