Punishing drunk drivers is well-deserved, but as long as car-dependent infrastructure encourages drunk driving, it is considerably more difficult to actually decrease the rate of it. Taking a taxi is expensive and being a DD is no fun, so people take stupid risks. If you know you can take public transit home, there’s no reason to take such a risk at all.
People can enjoy a drink responsibly, but you shouldn’t drive even if you’ve only had a couple of drinks. Even a small amount of impairment is unacceptable when you’re controlling a machine that could easily kill other people by mistake.
I’d argue anyone drinking and getting behind the wheel is making a conscious enough decision to make it murder. And I hope that more cases end up going that route of prosecution
That’s an interesting take, that going drinking without a plan to get home without driving drunk would considered premeditation. I don’t think I agree with it exactly, but it certainly should be an enhancement to manslaughter.
There’s actually precedent, like they’ve actually convicted someone of murder for drunk driving before. Maybe a few times, but I’m sure it’s exceedingly rare.
A little philosophical, but the drunk person who decides to drive is a different person than the sober person who decided to drink in the first place. Punishing the sober person for the decisions made by the drunk version of themselves is maybe misguided, except for as a deterrent that says “don’t turn into a drunk person that can make stupid decisions”
I’m not sure what the right answer is to this problem. Just some food for thought
I’ve thought about that before, personally, drunk driving is SO UNTHINKABLE to me, it’s never even occurred to me at any level of drunk. All the way down to near blackout drunk.
If the thought of killing someone doesn’t deter you that much, then maybe definitely ruining the rest of your life will have that effect. And if you really can’t trust your drunk self, if drunk you is so much more stupid, then yeah, society needs to scare you out of drinking in the first place.
The crux of the issue is they think they won’t hurt anyone. They give 0 thought to the idea they would hurt some. That’s how this happens. Any person who thinks they might hurt someone won’t drive. They gain false confidence by drive many times without incident.
I don’t think a single drink drive ever considered that they would hurt some or get hurt.
Yeah, exactly. It’s the same reason why punishment is only a deterrent to crime to certain extent, and it doesn’t work absolutely.
You could make the punishment for shoplifting be summary execution, and it would still happen on a regular basis. Because people think they won’t get caught, even with evidence of lots of people having been caught before.
That’s just about the least convincing take I’ve ever heard. You can absolutely punish the person who made the decision to impair themselves beyond the ability to make rational decisions. They came from the same decision to get drunk by the sober person. A person who has a propensity to get drunk and drive is a danger to everyone and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
I think you missed my point. My point is that the crime the sober person makes is deciding to become impaired. That’s different from saying the sober person made a decision to drive drunk - the drunk person made that decision, not the sober person. There are 2 different people here in this scenario. Whether the law should treat it that way is a separate discussion. It would have some similarities with a “temporary insanity” defense.
I did not miss your point. I thought it was entirely unconvincing. The other person is the same person just with the disadvantage of being fucked up.
Edit. Furthermore, I believe that the drunk self is just an amplified version of the sober self. My theory is that if your drunk self is capable of doing bad, so is your sober self.
You’re of course free do disagree, but I’ve the sense that you haven’t really considered the issue.
I also disagree with the oft-repeated sentiment that the drunk self is an amplified version of the sober self. I think the simple reality is that alcohol changes our behaviors and judgments.
Then I believe you’re an enabler and should probably rethink what you’re willing to tolerate
Do you really think I haven’t considered your idea? It is utterly unconvincing. Dementia and drunkenness are not the same thing, and I’d say if a person can’t remember doing something heinous, that is not a compelling reason either.
I think dementia and acts committed while drunk have some similarities when it comes to assigning responsibility (and punishment), but yes they’re not the same. One is involuntary, and the other is voluntary. The voluntary act to get drunk is what I called out in my first post. But after that initial act, I think the 2 scenarios are more alike than they are different.
I don’t drink, but I’ve known plenty of people that can have a potent margarita, hangout for an hour or two, and then hop on one foot or do a cartwheel just fine.
I have serious doubts those folks are any more of a danger to anyone than the average driver or the average tired or emotional driver.
I guess what I’m saying is… it’s idealistic to never be impaired and always be at 100% but there’s a tolerable amount of impairment where realistically it’s not going to have an impact, and I think the law takes that into account appropriately as is; so as to say driving after a drink is not the same thing as driving while drunk. It’s not the folks genuinely having one or two, it’s the folks that had “one or two” (12) barely made it to their car and then went down the road.
I have serious doubts those folks are any more of a danger to anyone than the average driver or the average tired or emotional driver.
I think I agree with that except that I think that that is equally a problem. I don’t think people should be trusted to drive, en masse, out of necessity. There are too many things that make it dangerous when people really don’t have a lot of choice in the matter, and may have to drive when they’re not actually feeling up to it.
That’s valid. There are definitely a lot of people I bump into that I go “man how did that person get a license!?” Granted, everybody makes mistakes.
We really need to crack down on tailgating in the US though, it’s out of control. It doesn’t get you anywhere faster and it ensures everyone on the road is less safe.
There’s something about driving that innately dehumanizes - I swear I’ve actually seen studies about this. When people are behind the wheel, they don’t relate to the world around them as personally, empathy kind of disappears, it all becomes something like a game, and everything between them and their destination is just an obstacle to be overcome.
That isn’t what I said and you know it. Drinking is not something a person should have to justify to anyone but themselves. This is not an endorsement of drunk driving and no one assuming good faith would have assumed I was making one.
You have a right to put a chemical into your own body. It only becomes an issue for those around you when A leads to B and B is other people either getting hurt or very nearly getting hurt.
Well, I didn’t get what you were saying. In this context, I don’t why tf anyone is even talking about infrastructure.
And then your statement seemed like a non sequitur. So, I was just saying what my read of your statement was.
I don’t think people normally say things like what I said, legitimately accusing the other of saying that. But as a hyperbolic expression, for the sake of highlighting a misunderstanding.
I don’t why tf anyone is even talking about infrastructure.
A non-zero number of people hate cars. The original comment that started this thread was insinuating that the existence of cars and public roads encourages drunk driving. It’s a brain dead, dumb-ass opinion. People can take prescription pills, get behind the wheel, and kill someone. The infrastructure doesn’t encourage or discourage any of these things. They want to demonize the infrastructure so they can justify ripping it out and making my bike to work when it’s 0 degrees and snowing.
Yeah. “One more lane” is something that a lot of people unironically think, it’s not just a meme, so trying to ensure that everybody knows how silly that is and how much harm it causes is one of the main ways that that line of thinking can be destroyed
I deal with this issue, the big bus station and my house are divided by a highway. So me and my buddies go out it either has to be very local or I have to take a rideshare for a five minute drive home.
I live in a city where taking an Uber or Lyft a few miles is like $25, maybe $50 at the last call surge. Unfortunately ride-sharing is a lot more expensive in cities that don’t also have good transit, so I keep getting reminded that $25 is cheap for a ride share across any distance.
Back when I used to go out drinking, catching the last train home or taking an Uber was my go-to choice. I don’t drink much nowadays, but the rush home in an area without good transit infrastructure is still something I think about a lot.
You have to design around stupid, because this is the real world. People can only expected to be rational sometimes, and in aggregate, you need systems that expect people to take whatever is the most obvious or easy choice available to them, whether it’s actually a good idea or not.
“To defend against intruders!” they’ll enthusiastically exclaim, thinking it makes them some badass… except it significantly increases the likelihood you will, in your adrenaline-fueled and panicked response, accidentally shoot yourself or another family member (or beloved pet) while mistaking them for an intruder— not to mention all of the other statistically higher chances of half a dozen other gun-related tragedies happening simply because a gun is present in the home.
“But we keep it locked up!” These people will claim. Great, but that only lowers the danger somewhat; it doesn’t eliminate it. Kids are very clever. They can find keys. They have intimate knowledge of you and can guess combinations. They can get access to those locked-up guns if they’re determined, and kids are determined. And a locked-up gun isn’t much use when an intruder breaks into your home and you have mere seconds to fumble around in the dark with a key or combination amidst that adrenaline-fueled panic, half-awake, trying to unlock the lock-box and load the gun while trying not to accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one.
And no matter how much time you spend at the shooting range, shooting at a well-lit, stationary, paper target, that won’t prepare you for shooting at a moving, human target in the dark. When faced with the prospect of shooting a living person, many people will freeze, and in that moment, an intruder who may have had no intention of using their weapon may suddenly decide that they now have no choice and pull the trigger. And they very likely have more experience than you.
A knife or a baseball bat is far more effective in a close-quarters confrontation, not to mention far more survivable should the target be a mistaken one. You’re no badass. Just call 911 and try to keep your family out of danger. You don’t have the years of training that the professionals do. Don’t risk the lives of yourself and your family just because you fear losing control.
I don't generally disagree with your point, but I'm not sure why you're making it here.
Lets not pretend like this was anything but intentional use of a firearm by a family annihilator, and that the problem in this case is gendered violence, not gun safety.
And I just pointed out that their long spiel about gun safety is irrelevant because this wasn't a case that could have been prevented with gun safety. This man wanted to kill his family, and he did.
Again, they were replying to someone else’s comment about the safety of having a gun in the home. If they’d made a top-level comment saying this, maybe you’d have an argument, but currently all you’re doing is trying to derail the the discussion with irrelevant details.
It’s not like these were the first people to die of gun violence so who cares whether a tangential discussion applies in this specific instance?
If you can't see the connection between gendered violence and what happened here, it’s because you don’t want to.
(also gun safety, which I literally started my previous reply saying I agree with, had nothing to do with this case, you are just derailing the conversation from the real issue - an epidemic of deadly misogyny. It wasn't the gun being there that made him kill them)
Insinuating gender issues into this when there no evidence of that as a motivation (no suicide note, no knowledge of the motivations) is simply you projecting an agenda.
As a matter of gun safety, it’s obvious: the best way to keep a home safe from gun violence is to not have a gun in the home.
The article is short. It names all the members of the family. Based on the names, there appear to be:
One adult male
One adult female
Two teen females (yeah, I'm calling 12 a teen)
One male child
There is no information in the article about which one of the above was the shooter, and all of them are old enough to be able to handle a firearm (although it's less likely that the male child, aged 9, would have been the shooter).
Your comments refer to "him" and "this man," so you must be referring to the adult male. Unless you have some information about this incident that is not stated in the article, you are assuming that you know who the shooter was, where there is no information to support that claim.
It seems that you want to believe that it must have been the man, because you believe that men are intrinsically violent. Is it more statistically likely, based on past history? Sure. But you cannot apply statistics that way to come to a correct conclusion about an individual incident.
If you bother to watch the video, it states several times that the father was the shooter. How else would he have shot everyone else than himself otherwise?
I’m operating based on the facts given, not some social agenda or implicit biases. Get your facts straight. 
And, no, it’s not easy to say. This comes at the hand of decades of research and real-world observations by thousands of people and agencies and the data they’ve collected. What’s easy is to just think that having a gun will solve all of your problems and make you safe. What hard is to acknowledge the facts: it statistically will make your home far more dangerous.
If the true goal of organizations advocating against civilian gun ownership (and publishing statistics you cite) were to save lives then educators, in recognition of the fact that about half of households own at least one firearm, would actually ensure children could at least make a gun safe (properly unload) instead of the abstinence approach that is taught today in every school.
I have advised several people AGAINST buying firearms for self defense, Knowing they would not train adequately to become proficient. Guns are not a blanket solution, but a baseball bat or knife? By any unskilled user? Like two 200-300 pound dudes breaking down the door of a 100 pound person whose never received martial arts training would be better off with a bat? That is hilarious and absurd. With that being said it’s a much lower bar to get proficient enough with a firearm that one can handle it safely and stand a good chance of defending themselves against even multiple attackers. As for the statistical dangers yes but two things: zero guns obviously means zero gun suicides, and if your objective is to produce quickly communicable punch lines, it’s easy to manipulate statistics to suit your aims - virtually every number used by people who favor complete civilian disarmament is cherry picked once you dig down into to sources and see what is included and excluded from those figures.
What share of U.S. gun deaths are murders and what share are suicides?
Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were accidental (549), involved law enforcement (537) or had undetermined circumstances (458).
So who is it who’s “manipulating statistics” by acting like preventing/massively reducing the 54% of gun deaths (26k+ and trending upward) is not something we should be trying to accomplish?
And the professionals might also mistake you for the intruder. Or they might shoot you by accident or because you were “mentally ill”, “uncooperative”, or “black”. Or they might shoot you for fun. So, you know, choose your risk carefully.
Statistically speaking, the odds of that are far far lower than what might happen when you have a gun in the home.  The cops are certainly more likely to mistake you for intruder if you’re holding a gun. 
Yes, choose your risk carefully. But don’t base it on bravado and fear. 
Proclaiming that people who keep a weapon for self defense all think “it makes them some badass” is insulting language that will keep some people from being interested in what are some otherwise good points.
I’m a dude that agrees with the sentiment that a baseball bat coupled with bear spray is much better than a gun. The bear spray can be used at a distance of up to 50ft and while it will effectively immobilize someone, it won’t do permanent harm if you mistakenly target someone you care about. Baseball bat or knife is definitely a good option, but I can understand a smaller person’s concern that both have a need to be very close to a person to be effective and there’s a fear of being disarmed. A gun may let them defend themselves from a distance, and any shot, even a bad one or in the air from a distance is a great warning and potential deterence.
An assailant with a weapon themselves may feel provoked to use it if you come after them with a knife or baseball bat too, so it’s not unreasonable to opt for a gun in that circumstance too.
A gun itself does bring risk, and like I said I recommend bear spray as that stuff is way more effective than pepper spray, works at a distance and isn’t going to kill anyone by mistake. I still however understand why somebody might have more peace of mind knowing they have a gun handy vs just a baseball bat or knife. They’ll likely never need either or have an accident, but I won’t discount they might feel more secure with a means to defend themselves from a distance.
Owning a car increases your chance of dying in a car accident too. Owning a table saw increases your chance of losing a finger. Owning a boat increases your chance of drowning. Etc.
Do I think people should be walking around with military-grade weapons? No. Do I think people should be allowed a shotgun to hunt with or whatever? Sure. Do I think there should be background checks and all that to help make sure they’re used in a responsible manner? Hell yes. Do I wish guns had never been invented? Yes.
But come on. This guy apparently went room to room in his house and systematically murdered everyone in it. It wasn’t an accident, which is what generally drives the statistic you mentioned. Who knows what was going through his mind at the time. But I’m guessing that, while the gun probably made the act easier, the gun wasn’t the enabler nor catalyst here. Given what happened, I’m guessing he would have found another tool to use if he had no gun on hand. I’m not going to be morbid and name all the things within reach at the average house you could use to murder a 9 year old, but it’s a lot of things.
You’ve made a sound argument against owning cars and table saws and boats, not one in favor of owning guns or that they’re safe to have in the home, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence.
And what you think is irrelevant; the facts speak for themselves. All you’re saying is that you’re choosing to ignore the facts, ignore reality, because you think you somehow know better. And regardless of your attempts at rationalization, it doesn’t take much to figure out that, without a gun in the home, this person would have found it far more difficult to so quickly and instantly murder his whole family and then himself, and family members would have had a much higher chance of survival and/or escape.
Even faced with the prospect of the much more difficult task of killing his whole family by other means would have greatly reduced the likelihood of him following through with his plan at all. With a gun, it’s all so easy. Using some other means makes it more difficult a task and is enough to give a person pause— often just enough to change a mind, to create an opportunity to seek help, etc.
But you’re not even willing to consider any of that. Because of boats and cars and table saws…
BTW, getting a license to drive a car/boat is much more difficult in most states than getting a gun license. And I don’t know of any stories of families being mass-murdered or schools or nightclubs having everyone inside them being slaughtered by table saws.
Let's also not forget that cars and boats and table saws, while they can certainly be dangerous, have intended purposes which are not harmful, and are actually beneficial.
The only purpose for a firearm is to put a destructive and deadly hole in the thing you point it at. Hunting, sure, is beneficial to the hunter. Handguns are not used for hunting. Absent the odd "defending yourself from a bear or moose with a large caliber handgun," handguns are for killing people. Essentially all handgun usage is harmful by definition.
But you’re not even willing to consider any of that. Because of boats and cars and table saws…
Sigh. I’m anti-gun, if you couldn’t tell from my post. But sure, put words in my mouth.
BTW, getting a license to drive a car/boat is much more difficult in most states than getting a gun license.
First of all, I already said I’m for more regulation on guns. Second of all, I’ll basically invite further downvotes and say “good”. That actually makes sense to me. I’ve long believed that people don’t give driving the respect it deserves. You’re literally driving a ton of metal and explosive liquid 70+ miles an hour in the dark with a lot of people around doing the same thing, houses scant yards away, all while you simultaneously talk to your friends, check your phone for messages, and adjust the radio. It’s insane when you think about it. Realistically? I’d say the capacity for mass destruction is higher for driving than guns, but I’ll accept the fact that’s perhaps mostly due to the commonality of vehicles.
I can respect your angle here with the facts vs feelings take, but nobody lives their life like that. No one runs the numbers and considers the outliers or statistical averages as legitimate possibilities when they decide whether or not to buy a gun. It is always an emotional decision.
Imagine you got a wife and two young kids at home alone at night and you work second shift. You’re not going to give your wife a gun and a chance at defending herself against someone cuz of some statistical average? Yeah ok.
Chris watts (? Not 100% on the name) killed a pregnant adult and two children with his bare hands I believe. I do believe having a gun to hand makes killing quicker and easier than another weapon, but ultimately once someone snaps to this extent, there’s little that will stop them.
Cherry-picking single, isolated incident does not change mountains upon mountains and decades, upon decades of statistical data that proves you wrong. This one man may have been capable of killing a person with his bare hands, but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone is capable of killing another person (and themselves) instantly with a gun. 
I always find it, particularly strange when someone claims to know the mind of someone who has “snapped to this extent“both claiming to know what they think, while simultaneously, claiming that you can’t know what they might do. 
The fact is, you can’t claim to know what another person thinks. But the statistical data shows that when taking a gun out of the situation, it’s far far far less likely that the murderous act would be carried through simply because it’s no longer as easy. 
No, I agree. I’m British so pretty anti gun. I just thought the guy I was replying to had a point and honestly I don’t think I’ve ever heard a reasonable point defending guns. But you’re right, it was just one recent-ish example that sprung to mind. It doesn’t change the fact that millions of Americans would be safer if you adopted gun laws like the UK, Oz or other similar countries.
I will gladly acknowledge that there are outliers that don’t fit the pattern. That literally always happens with any form of data analysis. It does not, however, change the facts of the matter that having a gun in your home dramatically increases the likelihood that someone in the home will be injured by or killed by that gun. 
One common misunderstanding in the argument against guns in the home and other similar arguments as such is that the goal is to eliminate gun violence altogether. That’s not really possible in this context. The goal, of course, is to dramatically reduce the incidence of gun violence. Opponents to gun control like to treat the argument as though eliminating gun violence altogether is impossible, therefore, we shouldn’t even bother trying. Because of this false narrative, their arguments will always be empty. Not to mention that they always ignore the overwhelming evidence.
One of the biggest studies to date tracked nearly 600,000 Californians and found that your odds of being killed by firearm are 8 in 100,000 and increase to 12 in 100,000 if you keep a gun in your house (source: theguardian.com/…/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-k…). That means that keeping a gun in your house increases your chances for dying to gunshot by 4 in 100,000 chances.
The average Californian dies from automobile accidents at a rate of 9.1 in 100,000. That’s more than double the death rate that keeping a gun in your house contributes. (Source: eastonlawoffices.com/…/odds-of-dying-in-a-car-cra…. )
So you can’t understand why people still keep guns? It’s because they don’t perceive it as a significant threat. And statistically, it isn’t. At least not as big a threat as many other common behaviors that are accepted as normal.
The takeaway is that if you are paranoid about dying from statistically small things, then ceasing doing a lot of other activities (like driving) is going to be statistically more impactful than not having a gun in your house.
You’re saying there’s a small danger to keeping a gun in your house, what’s the benefit? Shouldn’t we also look at how many people don’t get murdered because they have a gun in their house?
It is the same benefit as carrying insurance (auto insurance, home insurance, medical insurance, etc). Most people pay into insurance and never use it, and you hope you never have to use it, so you might ask them why they need it and why they keep paying into it. The answer is that you have insurance because if you need it, and you don’t have it, it’s already too late to get it, and your life can be ruined.
Shouldn’t we also look at how many people don’t get murdered because they have a gun in their house
There was enough info published in my original citation to derive that.
FWIW, nitrogen asphyxiation is one of the methods that’s preferred by advocates of assisted suicide. Done correctly–by which I mean in a way that doesn’t allow a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream–it’s not only painless but gives you a mild high. The proper way to do it is with something like a BiPAP, where the air that’s being piped in is pure nitrogen, and the CO2 is all being removed immediately so you aren’t breathing it back in. Without a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream, your brain doesn’t recognize that you’re suffocating.
Have you ever breathed in helium from a balloon and gotten lightheaded? It’s about like that.
I’m in favor of the death penalty in very, very rare cases–and this is not one where I would support it–and this is one of the surest, least barbaric ways to execute someone.
Inert gas asphyxiation is very much a great way to go, but it’s basically symptomless until after you lose consciousness.
You don’t get high. The “high” people get is when they are choked out. I’m not really sure on the mechanism of that, though. You don’t get lightheaded. The lightheadedness is from the blood oxygen levels increasing.
This is why it’s very dangerous to enter enclosed spaces. You simply don’t know you’re about to die until it’s too late. Plus, people come in to try to rescue you and succumb as well.
Anyway, lots of people have this experience. It’s a common part of training for rebreathers for use in scuba diving.
As far as good ways to die, inert gas asphyxiation is up there with “proper” lethal injection (i.e. with a commercial euthanasia drug), opiate overdose, or just anesthetizing the being and doing whatever gets the job done.
Nitrogen can cause a “high” (aka nitrogen narcosis), but this effect only occurs at high pressures. So it is only a practical concern for divers, because they have to breathe high pressure air. Some divers replace the nitrogen in their tanks with other gases to avoid it.
It is unrelated to asphyxiation, and can occur even when the lungs are properly exchanging oxygen and CO2. It is a poorly understood direct interaction between high pressure nitrogen and the brain that does not occur at atmospheric pressure.
When I did my deep diving certification one of the things they got us to do was try and do maths of varying complexity (compared to previously doing it on the surface). I didn’t feel high at all, but most of us had slower response times and more errors at depth, apparently as a side effect of the increased nitrogen. Pretty wild.
IIRC the hypoxia “high” panic reaction is from an elevated level of CO2 - that’s the evolved mechanism by which humans detect they’re in a bad place for breathing. Not absence of O2.
Edit: Correction: Hypoxia alone gets you high just before you keel over. It’s the CO2 buildup that activates your body’s panic reactions.
When I was ~10 I attended a wedding. Me and the other kids where tasked to fill balloons with helium and we did so without supervision. Naturally, we breathed some helium in and talked in funny voices.
I then had the bright idea to try to breathe as many of these balloons without normal air in between.
After the third of these, I lost conciousness. To me it felt as if I was gone for maybe half an hour. I was basically dreaming weird stuff. Luckily I stayed in my seat during that time and didn’t fall over or something. Noone of the others noticed anything, so it couldn’t have been that long. Maybe a few seconds in reality.
It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though
Hm, it’s one example, while he claimed he never heard of such occurence. Clearly there have been Trump supporters murdered for their allegiance. Can’t say there haven’t been.
President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl, describing it as “retribution”, and claiming to have personally “sent in” the U.S. Marshals to “get” Reinoehl during the first presidential debate with Joe Biden.
That’s especially disturbing considering that it seems more like a political hit job on a left-wing activist. Dude killed somebody allegedly in self-defense, then he was gunned down - why was a fugitive task for necessary when the dude was just chilling at home?
He was executed my a shady task force, probably without ever firing his gun, and then the president boasted about revenge. archive.ph/OFvJi
I’m a teacher. I bought this book for my own children. It’s a book about being true to yourself, even when you don’t feel like you fit in. You don’t have to be “blue” or “pink” if you feel like you fit into both categories.
Yes, it’s a book about being trans, but there are other ways to read the book, especially if your audience is young. Accepting and loving yourself. Inclusion. Tolerance. It’s a sweet book, and so of course people are going to get mad… it teaches kids acceptance, not hate!
He just needed to feed the idea of it to his base. They won’t know or care that it was an imaginary report, and will never hear that the press conference was canceled.
Hardly - he has an SSN. Any job that pays taxes he’ll be garnished. Even if he manages to hide his identity with a fake ssn, his life as it was is ruined. Definitely a form of justice considering he literally was trying to ruin her life through these actions.
Yeah. Sadly, the quote “If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it’s your problem; if you owe them a billion, it’s their problem” applies here too. Hopefully she bleeds him dry and maybe some prison time too.
I wouldn't say he is sentenced to destitution. Wage garnishment is capped at 25% of disposable income. And you keep a minimum of 217.5 per week (30 hours of minimum wage a week).
A 25% pay cut certainly hurts but depending on his income he could still have a decent life.
The amount is ridiculous but even a more reasonable sentence around 500k-5mil would probably not change anything for his situation. Most people wouldn't pay that off in their lifetime at 25% of income.
Iirc the 25% cap really only ends up applying if you have more than one active garnishment. Individual garnishments are generally 10% of gross. Maybe there are exceptions where one can go up to the full 25% of disposable, but it’s rarely the case.
I’m hoping he’s a US citizen so he won’t be able to avoid paying US taxes anywhere he goes without also getting a new identity and going into permanent hiding. As long as his life is destroyed far more comprehensively than his attempt to destroy hers, I’m happy.
Well done that jury. This is not just about a very large settlement, it’s a very newsworthy settlement. It’s impossible to measure the impact on crimes that don’t happen but I reckon there will be a fair few potential perpetrators of this sort of crime who might just manage to get a fucking grip because of this. And a fair few victims who find a way to exact an entirely justified revenge on those who fail to grow the fuck up anyway.
well if he was to leave the US and never return there’s very little risk in not paying the bills. it’s likely little would happen if you came back to visit for the holidays, either
I’m not going to enforce it. It’s entirely possible that the US givt does not enforce it despite requiring it. But they usually only ignore taxes for very rich people, who can dodge them anyway, so I’d expect them to enforce it?
It’s like watching the village bully try to harass the village bull. It’s not like you are friends with the bull but you’re definitely going to watch the aftermath.
Well when you basically have your ass saved in the 80’s by the Lavenderest of musical writers who make the new foundation of your brand narratives of acceptance and love for the outsider with your flagship renaissance peice being a retelling of a Gay man’s obvious pining for acceptance of a forbidden romance and then use that formula for practically every hit princess movie to follow… You are just a tad beholden?
I have zero problems with regulating corporations. I just want those regulations to be for the public good. Yes you will pay your workers properly, no you can’t dump toxic sludge in our water. What Meatball did was attempt to regulate them for his good, not the public. He wanted to enforce his vision. I would be just as upset if he had tried to force them to say include more diversity in their movies. Yes I personally would like Disney to do this, but my personal whims should not have the power of law.
You aren’t really siding with Disney, you are siding against agenda driven regulations. And if that doesn’t make you feel better just remember the ACLU defended Nazis right to freedom of speech.
He now realizes hes a stupid tool for his stupid party and his election campaign is not selling, once he losses that shit, he’ll end up alone eating shit fighting lawsuits from all directions.
“I offered a real date. Dana White (UFC boss) offered to make this a legit competition for charity.
“Elon won’t confirm a date, then says he needs surgery, and now asks to do a practice round in my backyard instead.
“If Elon ever gets serious about a real date and official event, he knows how to reach me. Otherwise, time to move on. I’m going to focus on competing with people who take the sport seriously.”
Linus O’Tech Tips said TMC wanted to bring over Taiwanese work culture, i.e., wageslave 24/7 until you die for low pay but Americans balk at such demands. That’s what is meant by shortage of “skilled” workers.
This creates a significant legal issue - AI generated images have no age, nor is there consent.
The difference in appearance between age 16 and 18 is minimal, but the legal difference is immense. This is based entirely on a concept that cannot apply.
How do you define what’s depicting a fictional child? Especially without including real adults? I’ve met people who believe that preferring a shaved pubic area is pedophilia. This is even though the vast majority of adult women do so. On the flip side, teenagers from the 70s and 80s would be mistaken for 40+ today.
Even the extremes aren’t clear. Adult star “Little Lupe”, who was 18+ in every single appearance, lacked most secondary sex characteristics. Experts testified in court that she could not possibly be an adult. Except she was, and there’s full documentation to prove it. Would AI trained exclusively on her work be producing CSAM?
To paraphrase someone smarter than me, “I’ll know it when I see it.”
But naturally I don’t want to see it. One of the things I miss the least about reddit is the constant image posts of anime characters, who may be whatever age they say but which are clearly representative of very young girls with big tiddies bolted on. It’s gross, but it is also a problem thatsl’s more widespread and nebulous than most people are willing to admit.
Are you in an age gap relationship? I find that my ID gets checked more if I’m in any kind of age gap, I assume due to curiosity. Do you get carded the same amount if you are alone?
Nope I’m not in a relationship ship at all. This is while out with friends but I’m usually the first one there or with one other dude who is about the same age as me so nothing to speak of there. It happens regardless of if I’m alone or not. I got carded at the grocery store checkout last week and she seemed genuinely shocked at my age.
Sometimes something cant have a perfect definition. What’s the difference between a gulf, a bay, and a channel? Where does the shore line become a beach? When does an arid prairie become a desert? How big does a town have to grow before it becomes a city? At what point does a cult bevota religion?When does a murder become premeditated vs a crime of passion? When does a person become too drunk to give active consent? Human behavior is a million shades of gray, just like everytbing else we do, and the things that don’t fit into our clear definitions are where the law needs to be subjective.
The result is the same, when you are dealing with a legal matter, you need real definitions, or you have laws that are too vague and overly ripe for abuse. It becomes the legal roulette of “is the cup half full or half empty” with someones life and/or future in the balance
Just when trying to guess someone’s age (we’ll assume completely family-friendly and above board), think back to high school. How old did you and your peers look? Now go take a look at high schoolers today. They probably seem a lot younger than you did. The longer it’s been (i.e. the older you are), the younger they look. Which means, “when I see it” depends entirely on the age of the viewer.
This isn’t even just about perception and memory- modern style is based on/influenced heavily by youth. It’s also continuing to move in the direction. This is why actors in their 30s - with carefully managed hair, skin, makeup, and wardrobe - have been able to convincingly portray high schoolers. This means that it’s not just you - teens really are looking younger each year. But they’re still the same age.
Wtf. Style is what makes kids look young or old to us because we have been heavily marketed to and follow trends. That’s why when the mullet/porn stache style came back, those Dahmer kids looked in their 40s.
You’re getting older each year so teens look younger to you.
Name even one actor in their thirties who convincingly played a high schooler. Literally who
If this is all you have to do, then EVERY MEDIA OUTLET should do this. Not even hardball, just “ok can you show me some numbers?”
If that’s all it takes to get this chicken shit weirdo to curl up in a ball, then fucking do it. He gets no airtime then other than his stupid rallies commemorating when he was pitted against an octogenarian.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Not that it’s impossible or anything, but it seems pretty late for this information to come out if it is true, especially after all the admissions of failings from the USSS, etc. You’d think that’s the kind of information that should have been mentioned right away. A month later, it sounds like they’re just making excuses and trying to make themselves sound good.
You wouldn't ever intentionally aim for the gun, you'd aim for the body in every single version of this scenario. If somebody's got a rifle pointed at an ex-president, you're not going for a warning/disarming shot.
If it's true, then all it means is that the USSS sniper also missed his first shot.
You wouldn’t ever intentionally aim for the gun, you’d aim for the body in every single version of this scenario.
In any scenario using firearms. They’re lethal weapons. there’s no way to make them not lethal. (well. Ignoring things like rubber bullets.).
Missing is too easy, and in any case, the only snipers not trained to shoot center mass are pretty much cops; where the ranges are much shorter, and you’re far more likely to have bystanders being held hostage or at risk if a torso-shot doesn’t immediately drop the subject.
Even then, cops are going to go for center mass if they can. For example, Trump would be dead if the shooter had shot for center mass- assuming he wasn’t shooting for center mass.
yep. there’s a reason they very quickly switched to describing them as “less lethal” rather than “non-lethal” Along with basically everything else.
Turns out if it has enough stopping power to actually be useful, it can probably kill you if it’s used improperly and possibly kill you even if it is… funny how that works. sad that they still use them.
The tendency of modern mass shooters to aim for the head seems to be the result of video game culture. So it’s quite likely that video games saved Trump’s life!
The article says it was a police sniper, ie. a local cop who probably doesn’t have the same amount of training. He also wasn’t actually positioned at a place where he could get a shot, so he ran to somewhere where he could actually hit the guy.
A secret service sniper eventually killed him after the first shots were fired. Makes the secret service look even worse IMHO.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.