Retail theft isn’t really increasing or that high. This is the excuse companies give to close stores in underserved (poor) areas do they can focus on opening stores where they can make more money.
It’s not necessarily the amount of theft taking place that most concerns the industry, but rather the increased violence associated with it.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported more violence associated with organized retail crime than a year ago. In the last survey, 81% reported an increase in violence.
Meanwhile, 45% of retailers in the survey said they have reduced specific store hours to deal with crime and violence, nearly 30% said they somehow changed store product selection, and 28% reported closing a specific location because of crime.
No one was murdered. What “sins” were committed here? “Love your neighbor,” which gets violated everywhere every day. We live in a stupid, decadent, vapid capitalist culture. A worker, making way less than he should so a company can call him an independent contractor, carries a gun so he doesn’t lose his little bit of money, and a twat making peoples lives miserable for money…capitalism is the common culprit. This isn’t “society” rotting. This is your economic system inflicting it’s dominating principles, coldly, on everyone.
When we’re just casually disregarding pesky things like definitions, how can you actually expect any form of genuine conversation to take place? You’re playing pretend from the start.
Yes I am using my definition. Are you saying speech is violence? This was playing audio next to someone. Nothing physical. You’d have to argue that playing audio is some kind of violence that justifies killing
I’m just gonna take a different approach here. That’s not a definition. That’s just a statement. You actually have to give a description of the criteria for what constitutes as “Assault” to make a definition. Why isn’t it assault?
Nobody died. You’ve been told this several times, yet continue insisting on using language like “deadly” and “fatal”. You seem to have trouble reading.
Played google translate near his ear and looked “menacing” lol come the fuck on. Not like he was throwing any haymakers or even kicks. Playing audio on your phone and having resting bitch face isn’t a justifiable reason to shoot someone in most places for a reason. Its insane to think it would be
One time at Halloween this kid jumped out of the bushes and screamed Book! But I shot him and another kid that I thought was with him. Jury found me not guilty so its all good.
No, he shot a very large stranger that came up behind him and started aggressively shoving their phone at his head abs kept following him as he backed away. It’s completely reasonable to feel threatened in that situation.
Not life threatening. Completely reasonable to feel threatened in many safe situations. Which is why walking around armed leads to this negligence and the devaluing of human life to justify it.
You weren’t in the situation, so you have no idea how Cook felt. It’s easy to look back after the fact and say that things should have been done differently.
How he felt is objective and not as relevant as the facts which are these kids did not actually pose a threat let alone one that was life threatening. A jury in america would think he was not guilty. Because the culture in many place in America does not value life.
Ignoring being told to stop multiple times and continue if to advance, while your friend is behind them also attempting to box you in is a whole lot more than just playing audio and looking menacing.
If you’re going to sound like an idiot, at least get your facts straight
There’s no requirement for them to have hands on for it to classify as assault. Battery requires physical contact, not assault. That’s why there’s 2 separate charges.
As a small person and a minority, if someone like this is advancing after being told to back off and had someone coming in from behind I’d be 100% sure I’m about to be the victim of a hate crime. If you wait till they’re hands on you’re likely going to be dead or severely beaten. At which point it is a threat to his life.
That’s not all that happened, of course. But you have no problem twisting the story to suit your narrative. The fact is, the victim was assaulted and used a legally justified amount of force in self-defense. Those are the facts, whether you like it, or not, and no amount of your twisting the facts will change that.
No, how he felt is the only thing that’s relevant.
Again, you’re playing Captain Hindsight. Of course he knows now that the moron wasn’t a threat, but when you’re in the situation you don’t get that luxury.
If I lacked empathy, I would agree shooting an unarmed youngish person acting stupid was justified. But I have empathy and expect anybody carrying a firearm be held to higher expectations than just random guessing
You lack the ability to put yourself in Cooks shoes to try to understand the circumstances that led to the shooting. Or, you’re purposefully ignoring it to push your agenda.
They said that tall people are intimidating, which is absolutely true. As another 6'5" dude, I try to be careful how I walk up on somebody, because it is easy to accidentally scare the shit out of people.
in the cases where people are killed you're gonna be conveniently absent from discussion. And believe me, there will be many, many more cases of people being killed thanks to people like you.
I look forward to seeing more level headed discussion from the beacon of truth you must be to be so confident that you’re correct yet so incapable of adequately describing why to a convincing degree.
Since you feel so comfortable predicting the future, why weren’t you there to tell this YouTuber that assaulting this man would get him shot?
Or maybe you just prefer to deflect attention from the fact that you peddle is disinformation and bad-faith arguments in order to push and agenda. Either way, considering the facts in the case, what we have is a person legally justified in defending themselves from assault, whether you like it or not. No amount of your hypotheticals, attempts at prognostication, or casting aspersions while refusing to accept the truth will ever change those facts.
If that person is using the cell phone to assault you and threaten your life, which is the case in this instance, then, yes, they would be legally justified in doing so.
You weren’t there, buddy. As I have said before, it’s really easy to look back after the fact and say there wasn’t any threat, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how Cook felt during the altercation.
There are a ton of reasons that someone might have trauma and react strongly to something that triggers it. That’s the reason it’s generally ill advised to assault random strangers.
The fact is a guy shot negligently at a kid for playing a speaker at him. Its like speaking to a 1900 Arab whose saying it’s justified to cut a criminals hands off because his legal system deemed it so. The country is beyond reasonable and as I said is fairly evil when it comes to valuing life. You’re using a broken measuring stick to measure
Except that’s not what happened. Your entire argument hinges on your persistent mischaracterization of events, yet you accuse me of using a “broken measuring stick”. Even you can’t meet your own silly standards, lol.
Manipulating the story to suit your narrative is hardly as honest as you claim it is. Your “version” of events is as irrelevant as how you feel. The facts of this case are all that matter, and you still can’t seem to get that right.
Facts are facts. There was no threat to his life. Only in a violent country can you be not guilty for attempting to murder someone who looked menacing while playing audio on their phone. Those are facts
You’re hiding behind the word assaulted since just being assaulted doesn’t justify anything since clearly sounds is an assault. Should you shoot up a comedy club because the comedian assaults you with a joke. Words are violence now
The fact that a man was assaulted by the YouTuber, legally justifies the use of force, which was used in this instance, just because you don’t like that, doesn’t change the fact that it was legally justified. And no matter how much you twist words around or ignore the facts of the case, The facts, again, remain the facts in this case. A person was assaulted and defended themselves with a legally justified use of force.
You’re attempts to change the subject to sex with minors is a straw man and comparing self defense to sex with minors is a a false equivalence.
The fact remains, despite your logically fallacious arguments, that the use of force in this case was a legally justified self-defense against assault, whether you like it or not. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Its not a false equivalency. You’re saying he’s legally justified as the justification. I’m showing you that isnt enough. If you can’t answer honestly then thats more than enough to conclude your argument is badly formed.
Legal force was not justified since the threat was not proportional to the threat
Sex with minors is not the same thing as a person defending themself from assault. That is clearly a false equivalence. And changing the subject from self-defense to sex with minors is clearly a strawman. Don’t blame me because you simply cannot make your point without using logical fallacies, and don’t blame me for pointing out the facts.
As someone who is incapable of making an argument without using multiple logical fallacies, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of a badly formed argument.
Not to mention that I find it rather curious that you’re suddenly so fixated on sex with minors…
What might happen in other countries is irrelevant. It happened here and was a legally justified response to assault, no matter how much you don’t like it.
I’m not going to defend the shooting, but I think you’re taking the idea of being approached by two strangers (one of whom is behind you) way too lightly.
Without seeing the video it’s hard to say, but the situation sounds absolutely terrifying.
Thanks for the input, but maybe you need to take a breather for a minute, try to understand the perspective of others, and then you can find better arguments to suit what you want to say? I assure you that accusing people of mental illness is not actually an argument in your favour or even against you, nor does mental illness actually prevent someone from having reasonable and subjectively correct opinions on various matters.
Refusing to acknowledge reality and the very real facts of this case while constantly attempting to change the subject away from accountability for such are what psychologists refer to “denial” and “deflection”.
Everyone who’s ever approached me in the manner of this “prank” has either attempted or done me harm. The dude didn’t know this was a prank. He told them several times to stop and they didn’t. His only safe bet was that the situation would continue to escalate.
“approached” - you seem to be performing Olympic-tier stretching to reduce this aggressive harassment and intimidation to “approached”.
This is incredibly disingenuous - it’s hard to take anything you say seriously through such. It’s also clear you aren’t actually here for any form of conversation, aren’t here to understand what happened as shown by video and conclude from that, and are instead here to just shill your anti-firearm point of view.
A murderous society is as you described. Life isn’t valued. Delivery drivers feel they should be armed. Shooting kids because they annoyed you is permitted. Everybody is on edge. The sin is attempting to murder, not in defense and having the culture so rotting that there’s no guilt in it. Blame whatever you got to. It is what it is. Its a society that’s so far gone that life is devalued that this happens
In every other western country a teenage prank usually does not result in attempted murder.
Capitalism may make someone desperate enough to lash out, American gun insanity has evidently lead most of the people in this thread to think that lashing out by shooting someone with a fucking gun is a justifiable response to an annoying prank.
I’m sure fox news is just blaming the white house for this cluster. I’m sure no trumpy grumpy will get their news from a legit outlet. In their mind I’m sure they blame the white house and not the actual cause.
They are governing exactly is there a rich welfare queen corporate citizens are paying them to with lobbying dollars: to spend everyone else’s money and fuck everyone else in the ass.
”Only those minors who have shown “a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria” would be allowed to start puberty blocking or hormone treatment, and only under a set of guidelines to be drafted by the state’s newly appointed chief medical officer, Dr. Timothy Tesmer.”
Sounds fairly reasonable to me. We are not the smartest as teens nor do we have the capacity to make life lasting decisions. In my opinion minors should be treated as minors.
Legislating how people use their bodies is wholly wrong. It is not the place of any government to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, especially when I’m heeding the medical advice of a doctor.
It is just as wrong to tell me I have to, or can’t, get pregnant. Those decisions belong to me and me alone, and that goes for the other 8 billion people in this world.
You should be vociferously defending that right for yourself.
Like the other guy said. If a doctor said my child was far more likely to commit suicide without a tattoo, and they could live their fullest and truest lives as themselves tatted up, you bet your ass I’d take that kid to get a tattoo.
In this case not making a choice is still a life changing decision. One benefit of puberty blockers I always thought is that allows you to make a decision about it when you’re more mature. It’s the closest thing to not making a life changing decision.
Everybody should have a right for birth control and abortion without any age limits. I dont really see how thats related to permanently life altering changes being made underaged.
This overall bullshit of doing opt-out fucking sucks. Opt-IN! Pissing off people and the. going “oh well there’s an opt-out” is so stupid. New experimental features that don’t directly benefit the user should be that they must have to opt-in manually. Off by default.
He earned entry to law school, won elected office in San Francisco and was featured in sympathetic coverage by national media outlets including ABC and USA Today, who allowed him to explain how his life was nearly ruined due to women making false allegations against him
It's not enough that we don't believe women, but then instead platform potential sex pests (at the very least) for being accused of sex crimes. The epitome of rape culture, that leads to the deaths and abuse of countless women.
E: while my initial comment stands, the more I read about this guy, the worse it gets - he had stalked an ex (and was abusing his wife who he later murdered), and was barred from campus, but at least one of the women he claimed falsely accused him leading to the expulsion didn't even know what he was talking about.
He's basically fighting windmills of his own making in an attempt to deflect from his own behaviour, like so many abusers do, but he definitely took it to the next level with a publicity tour and being poster boy for MRAs.
The sad reality is that Rachel might have been saved if we didn't exist in a world that ignores all of the warning signs of gendered violence.
I’m glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, “shooting in an occupied dwelling” shouldn’t be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.^[newsio.com/…/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-pran…]
Also, dude’s now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life? He’s already been punished, and yet he’s still presumed innocent.
The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall.
Quick correction, he was found guilty of discharging a firearm in a building, the other charge “use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding” was one of the two the jury found him not guilty on.
To be clear, the court has already said he was perfectly justified from the self-defense perspective. I look forward to it clearing him of the “firing indoors” nonsense.
The same charge pending judge review due to its inconsistency with having acted in self-defense?
Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self-defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.
As we’ve covered, the same charge I look forward to the court clearing him of next month. If you’re still having trouble with the concept beyond this, I’m going to leave it to you to figure out.
It sounds like we both are saying that he was found guilty but both are looking forward to what the court says, I’m not sure why you’re being disagreeable.
That’s why in most places only hollow point bullets are legal for self defence. They are designed to mushroom out and break up when they hit something. This makes them ideal self defence rounds for 2 reasons. They have a ton more stopping power against an unarmored tarket (odds are your mugger isn’t wearing kevlar). Aditionally they usually don’t really survive going through walls. Even just sheet rock walls are usually enough to completely kill the momentum of any fragments that might make it though. If you use FMJ rounds for self defence then you’re going to catch a completely different charge.
More that the nature of the indoors location had an increased likelihood of hitting a innocent bystander.
Maybe you’re more justified in somebody if it’s a 2-on-1 situation and you feel like your life is threatened, but pull out a gun and start blasting and you also put the lives of anyone within a certain distance around your target in danger.
Given the lack of apparent weapons on the “assailants”, drawing on them might have been sufficient to disengage and assess without actually needing to fire the weapon at all
If some random idiot wants to try and fuck with me and I don’t know them and I TEL THEM TO STOP and they persist. They get whatever I give them. If I have my kids they get no warning. I don’t fucking play and I don’t care about them. My safety and that of my kids is first. Do NOT FUCK WITH STRANGERS. PERIOD.
No man. Just doing fucking mess with people. End of the story. You want to act like a loon go for it. Those actions have consequences. I’m under no obligation to make sure you aren’t hurt for acting a fool neither is anyone else in this world. Stop acting like a cunt because people don’t want to or will not put up with being harassed. My first instinct isn’t to harm someone and least of all kill them. However I won’t fuck around if my safety or children’s safety is potentially at risk.
Just because a 21 year old YouTube prankster has the mental and emotional capacity of a teenager, does not make them a teenager. They should know better.
Yup. Every company will follow the same model. Why wouldn’t they when it was clearly successful. Not everyone accepted it, I canceled Netflix, more because of a lack of content that didn’t justify the price if I couldn’t share it.
Slowly more and more will be raising the black flag and soon some new service will come out, and the cycle will repeat itself.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.