This directive seemed like a trap from Schumer which invited Republicans and conservative Democrats to show off how out-of-touch they are with millennials and Gen Z. Looks like they fell for it.
We're in Manhattan right now and have been trying to get an Uber/Lyft/Taxi home to Brooklyn for over an hour now. Any train that would get us close is suspended. $80... ouch
These are the types of people who don't understand consent. They shove a camera six inches from your face, say nonsensical bullshit, keep following you when you back up, don't listen when you repeatedly say No and Stop, yet are all shocked Pikachu when someone finally has enough. Fuck these "pranksters". I hope his next injury is worse, because we all know this literal warning shot wasn't enough and he's going to continue.
Whats the guy supposed to do, just shoot up in the air? Or maybe carefully aim and shot by his foot just enough threaten him? Or maybe just show the gun to this much bigger guy whos already harrassing him? Any of those situations could either result in a bystander getting hit, or the victim getting killed when his assualter pulls his own gun out.
He did the right thing to protect himself. However he should not have been placed into this situation, all the fault should fall on the aggressor. But instead this victim is being held in jail and might be charged a felony for protecting himself from some deranged youtube asshole, WHO IS PROFITTING FROM THIS CRIME. The victim wouldve been better off if he had got a kill shot.
Back away, run away, call 911, get a mall cop to help, throw a punch…
Literally just about anything other than try to kill another guy.
I mean you actually admitted it yourself without meaning to: “guy whos already harrassing him”. Harassing isn’t threatening. It’s annoying, but it doesn’t make you fear for your life. The other guy didn’t have a weapon, didn’t make physical contact, didn’t threaten him, he just aggressively harassed him. Nobody should die in that situation.
Naw the victim was assualted, the jury already decided that. But thats besides the point. None of what you suggested is a viable option when you are face to face with a deranged person. We’re not going to see eye to eye, so i wont be resppnding even if ypu reply.
None of what you suggested is a viable option when you are face to face with a deranged person
Of course it is. A possibly deranged person who isn’t violent, who hasn’t attacked, or even touched you. That’s no excuse to use lethal force. You’re not going to respond because you know you’ve lost the argument. When you admitted it was harassment you knew that it wasn’t suitable for killing, but you want to pretend that it is, because you like the idea of being able to kill someone who annoys you.
I know! He was supposed to go all Yosemite Sam on his ass and yell ‘dance, partner!’ while discharging his firearm at the assailant’s feet very quickly. Hillarity would have surely ensued! /s
If you are in imminent enough danger to be discharging your firearm, It should be discharged into the danger.
By firing warning shots, you are showing that you are not in imminent threat, because if you were, you wouldnt be wasting time shooting into the air or off to the side, both of which has a decent probability of ruining some innocent persons good day.
I didn’t watch Steve-o’s own show but were there any Jackass skits where they accosted sometime who wasn’t in their crew? Some of them happened in public but they were still members of the crew being stupid and filming the publics reaction from afar.
This is such a bad ruling. Not only does that jackass get off with no punishment he is even being rewarded for his crimes! Setting the precedence for other pranksters to assault people more and more, and when they fuck around and find out, all they’ll be finding is more viewers and more money.
Should dude had shot him? Thats not my place to say, but if he did indeed feel threatened, which the jury agreed, then he should not be punished for reacting to being assaulted like this.
Its like some people online want the victim to get in trouble for simply owning and carrying a gun, its ridiculous! The victim was being assualted full stop! Not his fault for using what his legally own gun is meant for.
Uh… the guy who shot the YouTuber isn’t being punished; they found him not guilty. The YouTuber isn’t being punished because this case wasn’t about his actions, it was about the dude who shot him. He’s not being rewarded, though.
The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.
The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.
The original three charges (I don't know if any were modified later) were "aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building". In Virginia, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony acts as a multiplier charge for malicious wounding. My guess is that he was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and convicted of discharging a firearm inside a building.
The victim is being punished! He is recieving a felony for protecting himself just because it took place in a building. And that dumb youtuber was rewarded by having his followers almost double after the fact, which equates to more money, while the victim is sitting in jail.
While the “30 years” claim is bullshit, it’s great to see work done on this. The paper was released 7 years ago though! My cats are 13 years old and started showing kidney problems over a year ago, but it was caught early and with special diet their numbers are back to normal levels. Get your cats checked with bloodwork, it’s relatively cheap! The special diet not so much, it probably tripled my pet food costs, but mine are worth it and I’m sure I’ve extended their lifespan by years just by catching this early. I will ask my vet about this research on my next visit.
Mine is 19. Nearly lost him a few weeks ago to kidney disease. He’s on special diet now and doing better. I can’t help feeling like we would have caught it earlier with regular checkups. He’s old, deaf, and has an insatiable appetite, I just hope the quality of life he has in his final years are worth it to him.
I wonder what plans NYC has in place as sea levels continue to rise and weather becomes more hostile. Where will all these people migrate to if the city ever becomes uninhabitable?
These people don’t know what the country needs and they don’t care. They spend their time and our money making it illegal for people to dress in a way that makes them unhappy. Absolutely fucking useless.
What’s this person being trans got to do with it anyway you might ask? Well, the article has you covered:
“It is arguable that the medical professionals involved in [Wong’s] gender transition should have exercised greater oversight and provided more guidance to this, at the time, young woman about the potential biological interactions of testosterone and [her] genetic disorder”wrote attorneys for the defendant.
This person’s lawyers are arguing that the transition hormones caused them to rape children. So, transphiles, do you want to defend this person? Does transitioning make someone a pedophile? Or are they born that way? Should this person have been denied gender affirming care on the grounds that being trans might turn you into a child molester?
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.