But is that the only action people could take? What if some of these private jets just happened to catch fire in the middle of the night when no one is around?
Yup. Trans or not a girl should be allowed to wear a suit or a dress. So should a boy. As long as it qualifies as “formal” for either group it ought to qualify for the other.
I would go even harder and say the formal/semi-formal/business/casual folkways are outdated and I wish those expectations or requirements didn’t exist. My work dress policy for the office doesn’t allow sweatpants or yoga pants, but jeans and khakis are fine if you aren’t “client-facing.” Fine, but in jeans or khakis I will be adjusting far more often and imo that’s less professional than just wearing more comfortable clothes.
They take money away from education and remove laws/rules about lying. We’re at the top of a mountain of shit built by conservatives and we’re going to start sinking.
As a student who has never been allowed to discharge his student loan debts…
Why the fuck aren’t there laws in place for specifically shit like this, when rich people turn to bankruptcy to avoid paying bills? My student loans can’t be discharged in bankruptcy, but this kind of shit can?
Fuck that shit, bring back debtors prison for rich assholes like this.
Alex Jones had a lot of people helping him hide his money, so it’s tangled up a lot more than with Giuliani. Also, Giuliani is under a hell of a lot more scrutiny than Alex Jones was or is. And the judges in John’s case didn’t seem to be moving as quickly as with Giuliani, who also only has the single case and single judge. I seriously doubt that Giuliani will be able to stall like Jones has been able to. I think it’s fair to say that Giuliani is far more fucked than Jones at this point.
Unrelated fun fact on child tax credits: There is a section of the internal revenue code that states if your child has been kidnapped, you can still claim the dependent.
This means that at some point in time, somebody lost a child, and their priority was maintaining that sweet, sweet credit to the point that they went to court to argue the matter.
You’re making it sound like it’s definitely the parent who is somehow being cruddy.
Lawsuits over tax interpretation don’t happen until years after the fact and they’re initiated by the IRS.
Alternative explanation: someone’s kid was kidnapped, so they took their taxes to a tax prep person and told them to deal with it. Tax prep person checked the boxes for the credit and submitted the taxes.
Later, the IRS says you can’t claim them as a dependent and that they don’t live in your house without providing an alternative address.
The IRS sues HR block as the agent of the taxpayer and five years later a judge says that you actually can, so the code is updated and a new checkbox added.
Nah, I’m pretty sure it was the parent of a kidnapping victim who lobbied their congressperson to make sure their missing kid didn’t increase their tax burden.
I mean, if the kid hadn’t been so obsessed with free candy, it wouldn’t have even been an issue.
It says in there kidnapped by somebody who is not a family matter, so that’s probably not the origin.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to legal citators anymore, so I don’t think I’ve got the resources to find the true origins. I haven’t thought about this in years, and now I’m super curious.
So where in his Scooby Doo story do we pull off his mask and reveal the raging homosexual that he is…not that there’s anything wrong with that….just wanna see the hypocrisy on full display
Yeah, it’s a good distinction to make purely because this may help their backwards narrative. I mean, this guy is a horrible human being. Wouldn’t it be convenient for those who agree with him to label him as the thing he’s attacking?
Still… There are some indoctrinated, self-hating gay people out there. The people who push the message he’s pushing are really good at ruining vulnerable individuals. It’s horribly sad, and unquestionably awful.
This is why the “good guy with the gun” BS needs to die. The real world isn’t a movie: there are no designated heroes and villains. Everyone’s a good guy in their own mind until they point a gun at a 6 year old.
I’ve always wondered how people thought the “good guy with a gun” would work in a chaotic real world situation. Suppose you’re armed and there’s a mass shooting event. You pull out your gun and keep a look out for the shooter as you hear gunfire getting closer. Then you spot a guy holding a gun. You quickly take aim and fire…
… And hit another “good guy with a gun” who was trying to take out the mass shooter the same as you.
Oh, but then you get shot by a third “good guy with a gun” who thought YOU were the mass shooter.
Arming everyone and telling them to be “good guys with guns” just seems, at best, like it would lead to MORE injuries and deaths.
Or, as has actually happened before, a good guy with a gun kills the bad guy and then gets shot by the cops who arrive thinking the guy with the gun is the bad guy:
Yup, this is how it goes down in my head, and why I don’t carry a gun. I think there’s a decent chance that I could take down an active shooter (not sure if I have the guts to, but that’s beside the point) because I have the element of surprise on my side, but there’s an even bigger chance I get shot either in the crossfire or by the police. Most of the time it’ll be a single shooter, but I have no guarantee that’s the case, so I’d need to be ready for a second shooter.
I’ve run through a few options, and I just don’t see a clear way to distinguish myself from an active shooter.
Of course, the other option is just say “please no don’t do it I have a wife and 47 kids!”
You could also try running, yes, or hiding, but “carrying a gun” and “trying to get to an exit or shelter in place and only using said gun if he blocks the exit or finds your hiding spot” are not exactly mutually exclusive, you can do both, you don’t have to “run towards the sound of gunfire” like some marine. In fact that would be the much smarter way to do it, “camping” isn’t frowned upon in real life, this isn’t COD. As for identifying who the shooter is “it’s usually the guy shooting unarmed people,” but failing that, “better to be sure and confirm your target,” unfortunately this puts you at a disadvantage but he’s willing to shoot random people and you aren’t (I hope), so what’re ya gonna do.
Unfortunately from a realistic standpoint even with gun control laws this will not be an impossibility, though they may reduce the frequency. There’s already upwards of 600,000,000 guns in 50% of the populations hands (and women won’t stop buying them, they’re the fastest growing group of new gun owners. More specifically black women followed by all women), even if you ban them they’ll be out there.
And unfortunately Rittenhouse was textbook self defense, he only shot the guy who grabbed for his gun, and then the guy who hit him with a skateboard and grabbed for his gun, and then the guy who pointed a gun at him, not any of the people who retreated or didn’t attack. I know, he lived in a different state and commuted 20 min to kenosha for work every day where his friends and dad lived, but the gun was kept at Dominic Black’s house and never “crossed state lines” (also, even if it did, it is legal to cross state lines with a gun so long as it is legal in the state, and WI is far more permissive than IL, any gun legal in IL is legal in WI by far.) Also it is legal for a 17yo to have a gun in WI for some reason. Unfortunately even if we agree with his political opinions we currently can’t put him in jail for that, he didn’t actually break any laws.
But he was allowed to show up with a gun in case someone attacked him, can’t arrest him for defending himself if he’s allowed to do it, as unfortunate as that is. Sorry, I’ve never met him, you must have me confused with someone else.
Well if you plan on defending yourself if necessary, it isn’t very much help to you if you leave it at home. Also idk how he can “plan” to be attacked, unless he’s on the spice with the prescience. And naw never met him, sorry dude, you’re definitely thinking of someone else.
Yeah but the thing about that is “he is allowed to leave his home, with a gun, and then defend himself against being attacked.”
I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this but you’re severely delusional. Not only have I never met him, I’ve never met you, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
I’m not worried about me identifying the shooter, I’m worried about the police identifying me as the shooter or hostage taker if I somehow shoot the perp but don’t kill them.
Best case scenario, I shoot someone and risk getting shot by the police, worst case scenario I get shot by the perp (and even worse, they use my gun to kill people), and average case scenario, I get out alive without using the gun. I just don’t see a lot of good things coming out of it. My area is incredibly safe, so the chances of needing it are extremely small, the chances of it helping are even smaller, and the chances of my kids finding it are much higher than I’m comfortable with.
If I was commuting through a bad neighborhood, I could see it being useful. I live and work in safe neighborhoods, so it’s not an issue.
Well that’s why CCW training tells you to put your gun away if you’re sure it’s now a safe area, and if it isn’t now a safe area (possible other shooters for instance) to GTFO and call the cops and your lawyer. Also why you should give a description of the active shooter if you call it in, so they know “oh this dude in a T shirt may be a defender, we recieved a call about a guy in tac gear.” Of course, most often the shooters specifically target gun free zones because you can’t have one there, so you technically likely shouldn’t have one anyway, so makes sense the cops wouldn’t expect a defender in those cases either.
Yeah it’s something that everyone needs to decide for themselves (my issue is when people like to decide things for others.) It definitely can be helpful in a specific scenario, like a hammer to a nail, but it is also a responsibility and if you aren’t able or willing to, you shouldn’t, that simple. Especially if as you say you are you’re priviledged enough to live in a good area, in contrast to pizza delivery drivers (well, “ex”) who live in bad neighborhoods who may need them.
Agreed, and I’ll always defend the right to carry, for those who choose to. I think we should have some extra restrictions, like maybe a CCW for concealable firearms (and subsequent training), plus proof of secure storage in some manner if you have kids.
The only place I’d carry is at work, and it’s against company policy to carry. So I don’t, it’s just not worth the risk and the likelihood that I’d need it is so remote.
Well a CCW is already required in most states to carry except for those recently lightening restrictions. Secure storage is iffy, because the supreme court already ruled it invalidates the right to self defense (most home invaders aren’t kind enough to wait until you get your safe open to duel you, they typically just steal the guns from your safe after forcing you to open it at gunpoint when you ask if they’ll hold up a sec, and then use those in subseqent crimes.)
And yeah I hear that, unfortunately the fact that your work bans guns even with a CCW means that if you ever do need it, it’ll probably be there, gun free zones being the typical targets, and disgruntled employees and all. But I totally understand that it becomes not worth the risk then, you’d either have to risk being found out and fired or keep it in the car which while sometimes necessary because “gun free zone” always feels like you’re forced to leave a gun where it can be (and they often are) easily stolen.
Secure storage is mostly for people with kids or at-risk individuals at home.
Secure storage against burglary doesn’t exist; if they want your guns, they’ll just grind their way in or steal the safe to grind later. Expecting home owners to protect against that absolutely just isn’t practical, the goal should be keeping curious (or determined) kids from getting in, and deterring theft from burglary should be a nice side-effect. Unfortunately, most gun locks fail that standard.
keep it in the car
Yeah, I’m not going to escape a building with an active shooter to retrieve a gun and go back in. If I know I need it and it’s in my car, it might as well be at home. And keeping it in the car is just asking for trouble from an officer, they seem to be easily spooked by such things. Fortunately, I’m white, so I’ll probably get the benefit of the doubt, but it’s just not something I’m interested in testing.
But if there was an incident in my office, I’d be screwed. There are three exits:
emergency exit near my workspace - would sound an alarm (not ideal)
main door - glass doorway that opens into the entryway and looks into my hallway (terrible)
back door - need to pass a glass door to the lobby, and another to the lunch room; it opens up onto a balcony (long drop, would need to cross lots of windows either direction)
So basically, my options aren’t great. Yet I still think I’m net better off not carrying.
As a kid who notoriously defeated locks and found hidden items: good luck. My parents didn’t have guns to find but my uncle taught me about them when I was like 10 so tbh they were never really some mystical artifact to play with to me, I’d already shot a few, knew how to use them safely and not to do so without an adult, etc. Conversely nobody educated me about alcohol instead figuring locks would work, hehe. Surprise!
Yeah, I’m not going to escape a building with an active shooter to retrieve a gun and go back in
No lol you said work banned them, so people who work there and carry outside of work (maybe they have a life [sorry lol you seem cool but it was too perfect]) have to leave their gun in the car and put it in their pants at 5:00, so, were you to carry, you’d have to also do that. That is what I meant. Problem being, that rule makes for a good scenario for a gun thief. If there were an active shooter and you get out, fuck your coworkers that’s their problem, take your gun and go home (unless you wanted to help them because you like them or they’re humans or something, point being you aren’t obligated to.) As for cops, if you are following the laws (and yeah white helps, but that is another issue that needs to be fixed) they actually seem to think you’re on their side because “gun and following laws,” oddly they started treating me with some semblance of respect, it was kinda weird.
emergency exit near my workspace - would sound an alarm (not ideal)
Exactly ideal tbh, egress and alarm with one action? AND close? Sounds great.
main door - glass doorway that opens into the entryway and looks into my hallway (terrible)
Also a likely point of entry for the shooter, definitely terrible.
back door - need to pass a glass door to the lobby, and another to the lunch room; it opens up onto a balcony (long drop, would need to cross lots of windows either direction)
Kinda having trouble visualizing this but it doesn’t sound great, best bet is the emergency or shelter in place, but SIP is hampered by lack of last ditch weapon. I’d push it out that door.
Yeah I’d agree, simply since it’d be illegal. Functionally, even if I’m heading for that exit or sheltering, I’d rather have a hail mary even if some situations are a Kobyashi Maru, but since it would be illegal to have in the gun free zone, you don’t have a choice anyway.
I watch LockPickingLawyer on YouTube, and it seems every gun lock/safe has some gaping security issue, and many that I see at stores that haven’t been covered look like they’d have similar issues.
So until I find something that LPL would approve for use around kids, I’m not buying a handgun.
That said, I’ll probably get a small rifle soon (probably 22lr) that I can store in the attic. My kids could find it, it would take a lot of effort and it isn’t that interesting. I mostly want it to teach my kids to shoot “real” guns (they’ve shot BB guns) and maybe go hunt some rabbits. I may also get a 22lr pistol, but that’s a bit higher on the “cool” factor and thus higher risk.
If I find a lock that I can trust, I might pick up a 9mm or .357 for personal use. I’ve taken my wife shooting, and she really liked it, so I’d like to take her out to fed land and shoot sometimes. If I did, I’d get a CCW (unnecessary in my state, but necessary for travel) and carry sometimes when I go out to get comfortable with it. But the lock comes first.
egress and alarm with one action?
Our muster point for most emergencies is right out front of our building, in full view of the front doors and windows where the shooter is likely to be. Our active shooter muster point (blue light alarm) is across the street behind the building in a parking garage (can see from the rear balcony, but there’s a place to hide).
If I trigger the fire alarm, people will go right into the shooter’s path. If someone else pulls it (far more likely), I would go right out front into the shooter’s path. The alarm would also increase the shooter’s stress level, which could be the difference between them shooting and not.
having trouble visualizing
It’s an office building built into a hill. The front is ground level and the rear has a ledge/balcony about 2 floors above the rear ground level that runs the length of the building in either direction. One side of the building has a parking garage, and the other has the truck loading zone down one level. Here’s some crappy ASCII art (top is front, I work bottom right, t is truck loading, p is parking garage, XX is building, and | and - are the railing).
<span style="color:#323232;">t | XX p
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> |---|
</span>
I work near the parking garage, and the no-alarm exit is ~2/3 of the way across the building toward the truck loading zone. From there, I can either run back to the parking garage (lots of windows), or toward the truck loading zone (some windows, drop onto cement).
since it would be illegal
It’s not a gun free zone, it’s merely against company policy and probably landlord policy. There is no posted signage, but I did need to sign something when I started acknowledging that I understand the rules. So violation wouldn’t result in a criminal case, but it could result in my termination and/or official trespass order.
It’s possible some people here carry (constitutional carry state), but given company policy, that number is probably pretty low. I would certainly risk violating that rule if I believed there was an elevated risk, like we fired someone over culture fit reasons (I’d probably just WFH honestly), otherwise I’d comply.
Yeah he’s the best, and you’re right. Be careful btw, .22lr is just as deadly as any other caliber and is also still pretty cool for someone sheltered away from them, that teaching and hunting will likely be more effective and remove the mystery.
Ah yeah that puts a damper on the alarm for sure lol.
Oh ok I can see it now.
And well good there’s no posted signage, likely (depending on state) that means their ban has no teeth and is only actionable by firing which of course still sucks but it’s better than dying. Hell, you’re lucky you can WFH, I’d just do that as often as possible anyway haha.
Yup, WFH is great. Company policy is 3 days in office, but we’re discussing for our department to go back to 2. We also have a department culture of WFH being viable with even a small excuse (e.g. waiting for an important package is sufficient), so something like “I don’t feel safe because worker X got fired” would absolutely be acceptable.
And yeah, I know .22lr is deadly, but it has low enough recoil that I can teach even young kids to use it (three under 10), and basic gun safety should be enough to keep it from becoming lethal (don’t look down the barrel, don’t point at people, etc). Our family gun rules will be very simple: if you touch the gun without permission, you lose shooting privileges. And even if I store it in the attic (they’d need to move a heavy ladder to get to it), I’ll keep it secured with a trigger lock and only store ammo separately in a safe (not very secure, but better than nothing).
One day I hope to carry a handgun because I want to be prepared. But preparedness is more than personal safety, it also includes safety for my job and kids. So either the gun would always be with me (impractical), I need to trust my kids (I don’t), or it needs to be secure (haven’t found a lock I trust). Maybe in a few years.
Yeah they picture it as a very specific scenario with one mass shooter and one retaliatory shooter. Any more than one retaliatory shooter and it all falls apart as OP described though lol.
Yeah, my coworkers said how great it would have been after the Colorado movie theater shooting (Batman movie) if everyone was armed. They just knew the original shooter would have been killed right away.
So,
Dark theater
Smoke filled (by shooter)
Bullets suddenly flying
Who in their right mind thinks basically everyone wouldn’t have been mowed down in a hail of gun fire?
You see, this is why nobody takes sentiments like yours seriously. If you can’t defend yourself, and don’t have others to protect you, then you’ll always be at the mercy of whoever is the strongest.
Something tells me all the ‘guns and cops are bad’ people don’t know how to fight.
I sure as fuck don’t wait around for the cops to show up and decide I’m the threat and kill me while the guy breaking into my house has been gone for 20 minutes.
I’ll defend myself how I see fit and the cops will only be called if it results in death.
Personally, I think if someone broke into my house, it would be dark…I’d have probably just been woken from a dead sleep. There will be dogs barking…possibly kids also just woken from a dead sleep who are now scared and either calling for me or running towards me. There’s no way I can put myself between my family and the bad guys in that situation. If I just start shooting, I’m liable to be shooting in the general direction of a pet or child. Even in the very best scenario, where somehow my kids, my pets, my wife, and my MIL who lives with us all happen to be in my bedroom in the middle of the night I’m still very likely to just shout that we’re armed and the police are on the way. Whether they steal a TV or I shoot a TV still results in me needing a new TV…but I also know that statistically, even me having a gun in my home escalates an already tense situation where I’ll be groggy but hopped up on adrenaline and not be a reliable shot. Even if it played out how folks like to imagine… one shot, one kill, I’ve still taken a life in front of my family. That’ll result in years of therapy for all of us. I’d rather just get a new TV or whatever. We’re more likely to get struck by lightning as a family than have a Richard Ramirez type who broke into the house just to kill us, and it’s more likely still that I’ll get depressed and use the gun on myself than it is that I’ll successfully defend my family with it.
I say all that as someone with military firearms training, family members in the local PD, and as someone who’s been woken up in the middle of the night by an emergency (in that case, our house was on fire).
I don’t recall saying cops are useless. Are you sure you’re replying to the right person?
The police do illustrate over and over again that even trained professionals make bad decisions when issued guns. And of course the solution isn’t to escalate things by raising the threat of officers being shot, but instead in finding ways to have less people with guns, so police aren’t on alert all the time and aren’t as tempted to use their guns as their only solution.
As a thought experiment: If we gave every adult in the world access to fire the entire planet’s nuclear payload and destroy everyone, do you think we’d all be safer? Would the world even last 5 minutes?
The more people you give access to deadly weapons, the more likely you are going to run into someone who is stupid, impulsive, or downright crazy and is going to use that weapon to harm themselves or others.
You should be asking if society is safer if people have guns than if they don’t. Of course, answering this isn’t so simple because which society matters.
I think you’re confusing “rural America” with a movie called “Mad Max”.
Which would have been safer without guns.
In any case, it sounds like what you mean to say is “the lawless hellscapes of the USA need to be civilized by an accountable organisation of some kind”, not “guns fix everything, hyuck”.
I got pulled over for not seeing a stop sign at night in a bad neighborhood. I remember the young cop watching my hands with the flashlight and the light was shaking slightly while I searched for my registration.
That was not an enjoyable experience for me or him and it shouldn’t have to be anything except mildly annoying. He shouldn’t be thinking that I am ready to kill him and I shouldn’t be worried that he will make a mistake and me getting shot.
I’ve been looking at your other comments and have some things to say.
Clearly your your out of your mind defending cops on Lemmy.world, for real when is calling the cops ever not put you the caller in a new type of danger? Fools with guns is bad regardless of the context and I for one cannot trust someone I have never met, especially the armed paramilitary we call police here in America.
Nice 'something tells me comment, always makes someone’s comments feel real sincere.
Most people can’t defend themselves, that’s reality. I’m actually pro gun but anti-idiot, and most people are idiots and that deeply complicates your arguments.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk, I’m not a professional nor frankly good at most things, if you have problems with my arguments please, comment it don’t save it to yourself.
I was hoping they would say more, at least try to argue but they blocked me. I have yet to find a pro copper on Lemmy that has the balls to defend them fully.
I don’t think cops are useless, I think they are a flawed institution that we as a society can fix by reforms. And I don’t even see the big deal in this, nothing is perfect, everything can be made better or more appropriate for the situation. Long run it would be better for police unions to agree to some changes in training, scope, and methods because it would restore and gain more public trust. And the public will benefit as well.
I’ve always thought that the word “marriage” should be removed from all laws since that’s a religious term and constantly quibbled about. Replace it with “civil union” defined as a joining between two consenting adults and leave the definition of “marriage” to the churches.
I am partial to that viewpoint as well. I think it would be easier to explain to people that the legal institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage are not the same thing.
I feel the same way. For the purposes of government business, all marriages are civil unions, since it’s the contractual part the government cares about. As far as marriage goes, that’s up to each religion to determine according to its own standards and definitions, including who is allowed to conduct the ceremony and who is allowed to participate in the ritual.
The government shouldn’t be able to dictate who I choose to share my assets and debts with, as long as they’re legally consenting adults who can sign the contract. And if someone wants to get married to a same sex partner in a church and that church won’t allow it, then they can find a church that better suits their values.
Everyone wins.
However, this is not what the theocrats want, which is why we have to deal with this shit. They want to be able to dictate what secular people do, and use the power of the state to force their religion on people regardless of church membership.
I don’t think we should cede marriage to religion. Marriage predates all modern religions. It has always been about property, a civil matter. Religion can fuck right off laying claim to the institution.
This is of course a non-US view, I’m not sure how different the laws are there. But marriage is a great one-stop shop that lets you get a lot of legal kerfuffles sorted in 20-30 minutes with nothing but a couple signatures. I don’t think it is a stupid reason, the stupidity comes from all the other bullshit people want to dump onto marriage.
“Rationing healthcare” is such a dystopian ideology. It sounds like we’re unable to increase heathcare availability due to force(s) out of our control … which is the exact opposite of what happens.
It also partially excludes those who don’t earn a lot, at least where I live (Ontario, Canada).
You earn around 30k a year? Hey, you get some benefits! Two people earning 50k a year? Well, obviously you don’t need those benefits anymore. In fact, let’s cut your collective returns down by a nice $342.
Nothing changes if you’re just roommates, but they sometimes really want to verify that you’re not secretly common-law. You can get in legal trouble if you get caught.
It was kind of messed up the first year that my partner and I filed taxes together, to be honest. We couldn’t do that until we were living together for 2 years (federal government), and 3 years (provincial government).
They didn’t tell us to both save the entire previous year’s GST, and it ended with us having to pay between $500 and $700. That was a fun birthday suprise. The bad parts of common-law start before any of the benefits, apparently. They also seem to start before you can legally file. I tell everyone who I know is moving in with a partner, because fuck that noise. I wish someone told us earlier. Anyone, really.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
They are opportunists who clung to the the idea of “originalist” when it served them. A much more modern take is they are a religious insurgency trying to legislate morality from the bench.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
He took the plea deal probably because he can’t afford a lengthy legal battle, decline to pay his lawyers, getting court dates shifted, appointing his own judge,… There is an entirely separate US justice system for the rich and powerful.
Or there might have been more than enough evidence to convict him but the prosecutor offered him a deal with less time served in exchange for making the process easier on the courts.
You can fight a case through trial but if you’ve got bad facts you’ve wasted your time and money (unless you’ve got a PD) plus might just end up serving a greater sentence.
That’s not to say that having the capacity to afford serval attorneys on retainer isn’t beneficial, just that there is such a thing as a good plea deal when you’re stuck with bad facts.
Or the cops told him that they had plenty of evidence to convict, scared him with a lengthy prison sentence, and he chose a plea deal because he viewed it as exactly that, a deal for a lesser punishment.
I hope this enforce to the point that all the assholes in my state that have rig thier trucks to do this can go to fucking jail or have their trucks and licenses revoked.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.