Like, if they some how manage to keep 2 kids from ever seeing members of the opposite sex from ever meeting, nevermind learning about sex until their wedding day… they’re going to be fucking the moment they’re alone together.
Maybe even before that.
It’ll probably be the worst sex ever, but it’ll still be enough to get young women/girls preggo - and really what they want. That and to ruin lives.
So fucking terrible. Lest we forget, wealthy mainlanders have been displacing Hawaiians and other locals long long before this wildfire. Pacific islanders are a far too often forgotten victim of US colonialism and I hope everyone on Maui gets the chance to heal from this without fear of losing there home
Man fuck these comments. He explicitly said he wanted to ruin the rest of her life. He intentionally posted them with her full name and address, endangering her. And to ruin her chance at getting/keeping a job. Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life, at least there's a cap on UNLIKE WHAT HE TRIED TO DO TO HER!
Most of the disgusting comments are at least being criticized directly. Can’t silence the fuckheads, but you can appreciate other people dunking on them, at least
Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life
I agree.
However, if he made 100k a year and had to pay all of that, his life would have to last 12 million years. Just seems like some of the maths here is a bit off. But maybe I just don’t understand the American justice system.
I mean we do multiple life sentences or life + so many years so I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply when the penalty is monetary. It's a super high number to ensure he's paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It's intended as a warning.
I mean how much money can you put on the price of someone's life, safety, or missed future potential earnings? I think it was just a huge number to "ruin the rest of his life" as he attempted to do.
For example, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The coffee was so hot it melted that lady's skin together. And this was an ongoing issue that McDonald's had been warned of several times and didn't listen. So while the lady was just trying to get her medical costs covered, the jury awarded an additional $2.7m in punitive damages because McDonald's didn't listen. Punitive damages are literally money as punishment.
It’s a super high number to ensure he’s paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It’s intended as a warning.
Yes, I get that. Still I find it a very strange, even macabre. I made the point in a couple of other comments, but got no useful replies so far.
It seems to me this guy was basically convicted to living at “minimum wage” or at least some minimum that can’t be taken from him, so he can cover his basic needs.
So he is convicted to being poor. Nothing else. But, like there is actual poor people with a very similar standard of living, that did nothing wrong. It just doesn’t seem fair. How shitty must it be, as a poor person, that your neighbour is there only because he was convited to have your shitty live?
Also, what if he was already super poor before that and he won’t come into any fortune. What money are you even gonna take from him? Does that mean if you’re already poor you can just publish revengeporn, because what are they gonna take from you?
Like, if you’re poor … what is the “warning”? That they make sure you gonna be poor forever? Chances are that would be the case anyway.
Also, what incentive does this guy now have to actually contribute to society by doing anything more than the minimum he needs to afford?
I don't disagree. Income inequality is an overarching issue in the US. As is charging monetary damages that will never be paid out. My mom was injured in a car accident by someone driving under the influence, and she had to cover all her medical bills out of pocket despite winning in court because the dude wasn't even working and had no money to garnish.
I was more talking about how it fits in with the current system, as flawed as it may be. I don't have a good solution aside from overhauling the massive income inequality in this country. People working minimum wage jobs (which are usually jobs we need for society to function!) should not be living the same lifestyle as this dude.
So why no Prison for this dude? Like, I don’t want to sound like the typical anti-US European, but you send so many people to prison! The most in the world, by capita.
He deserves a couple of years and she deserves a reasonable amount of money that this guy can actually cough up. And then maybe things can move on.
Then again, from popular media I’m made to believe that US prisons are actually quite horrid, so maybe you don’t deserve that easily.
I just have the cynical feeling this guy actually got off lightly and the big number is just there to make for big media coverage with no real meaning.
Would the situation be any materially different if he had been convicted for $100.000, short of winning the lottery or inheriting a large sum? The fact that he made it his mission to ruin an ex’s life then didn’t show up to court tells me he’s not exactly the kind to have a legal high-paying job. Regardless of the exact monetary amount the consequences would have been the exact same, the difference is purely symbolic.
The American Justice System is broken, yes, but this particular case is hardly the best example of it. As an outsider looking in, I find it more troubling that you still have the death penalty, the whole “plead guilty or don’t get fair representation from your public defender” thing, over-incarceration, for-profit prisons, etc.
How shitty must it be, as a poor person, that your neighbour is there only because he was convited to have your shitty live?
Speaking as a poor person who learned why he is poor like me: fuck this guy. He deserved it. Literally tried to ruin her life and you expect us to feel bad he got punished for it? Like please.
Part of the reason we have issues with the police force and their policing is that they aren’t treated like professionals and held to professional standards. We need to pay them like the professionals too, even if that means we hire less.
Politicians should have the same income as they did before becominh politicians
This means they to get out and get a real job before going into politics. Seeing how things work.preventing dumb career politicians from having no clue how people live.
A lot of them come from money’d backgrounds. Would be easy to just get hired on a high salary from their own company or a family members company. Heck companies could use that to lobby even harder. Hire them on for a year at super high rate and then they get them in politics.
Or maybe the income for politicians should be on-par with any other civil servant. Post workers, trash collection truck drivers, state court clerks, natural park management, it’s all civil services.
They argue that being a politician requires having tons of connections and being a “people-person,” but that’s only because they’ve made it that way over the past 50 or so years. There’s nothing about being a politician that is so essentially different than any other way to serve a government or to help a government serve its people.
Politicians should have their assets placed in a trust for the duration of their term, to encourage them to not run repeated terms. Then the politician should have to live on the median income for their district - to encourage them to improve the entire district and not just their own interests.
If we demand higher police pay, we better be raising EMT, social work, and teacher salaries too.
And yes, I know this is whataboutism, but it feels wrong to fund police while some of the support system workers that prevent crime in the first place would be thrilled to be making the hourly rate these cops were.
Oh, I definitely think we need to raise those too. These systems are all needed and aren’t attracting the minds they should because we aren’t paying them.
The posted article complains they were offering $22/hr when similar towns are offering $30/hr. Here’s another article (from 3 years ago) that ranks average police salary in Minnesota as pretty high, just behind Massachusetts, which has a much higher cost of living. seems reasonable to complain is pay much lower than state average or typical of their peers
Source? Is this really a common enough thing, or just an edge case? How much overtime is required? What about the $20-something/hour mentioned in the article?
This is a problem in Massachusetts, because we require officers for every road construction project, instead of flaggers, but I also thought this was an exception
They would probably do better to invite tourists and use the money that comes in to build desalination plants. Israel has more than proven that any country with a coastline can have all the water they need, ten years ago everyone was predicting they’d be in water wars but now they’ve got such a good supply they’re selling it to neighbours. Even easier for a state with so much available geothermal.
Now the conflict includes opponents who do not want water to be used to fight fires, the governor said.
The opinions and desires of these ‘opponents’ is entirely irrelevant when it comes to emergency resources. The lives of those in immediate danger are far far more important than you getting to water your god damn plants.
CATO backed the suit and their board of directors is about half bankers or former bankers. This isn’t even the first time they tried this, back October last year.
They couldn’t win in public opinion, they couldn’t win by lobbying, so they tried it in court. They failed completely to demonstrate that they had any standing to bring this case.
They also claim to be libertarian. Just something to remember the next time people tell you that there is a difference between the two.
Yeah I admit I don’t understand the law very well but it’s weird how offended observer no longer counts for church separation laws. That web design event planner was especially interesting since no one gay had actually asked about it. Seems the lawyers just made it up.
It was very strange. Most lawyers expected the supreme court to toss it due to lack of standing. The fact that they didn’t means that they’re more of a legislative branch now. It’s not a good precedent to set.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.