From what I understand there was a rather significant window of time between being submerged and the car filling up with water. I am willing to bet she drained whatever she had on her in that timeframe after giving up on the window and her life.
I don’t think it is, but if this is all a PR stunt to get someone like me, who doesn’t care about sports, to take an interest in baseball… well played.
I don't trust the judicial system to handle systemic racism. Also, I can't say I fully understand this case. Intersectionality is a great analysis tool to use in situations like this, no matter what the outcome of the trial will be.
Intersectionality as a concept started by Crenshaw. She noticed a court case where a black woman sued a factory for not giving her a secretary job du to racism. The judge said that it could not be due to racism since the factory had employees that were black, and dismissed the case or ruled against it. Crenshaw spotted that the judge had not taken into consideration that all black employees were male working in the production line and all the secretary positions were taken by white females, so the judicial system can be ineffective when people are found in the intersection of different inequalities/etc, which by themselves are addressed. Or supposed to be addressed, but that's another topic.
For the case in the article I think this is an analysis tool that could help us understand both sides. Of course with more info than the ones provided here.
You know how in the USA you’re supposedly innocent until PROVEN guilty? Yeah well being shot to death in your own house while being innocent in accordance of the law says you have no rights at all.
He could have been guilty. We don’t know. He was never tried. He was executed in cold blood as an innocent man.
I am usually against gun violence in general but it’s hard to sympathise when you’re the first one to shoot someone. At least that has been the report so far and from what little his family had shared, it is likely the truth. He wasn’t executed but died to his own stupidity based on what we know as of now.
Rednecks fought for the right to shoot an intruder in your house. It doesn’t matter if he was stupid or guilty. He shot someone breaking into his house with his legally acquired weapons while a completely innocent man.
If that’s no longer allowed then let’s make it law. Because now, it’s just hypocrisy
The ATF said that people at Waco and Ruby Ridge shot first too, turns out that was a lie.
We shouldn’t believe a word they say about this case yet, wait for an investigation to take place. For some ungodly reason, they have a track record of fabricating gun charges against people, surrounding their home with armed men, and claiming they were shot at first when stories like this hit the news.
That’s why I said as far as we know for now in multiple places. I am not saying I believe them either, quite the opposite actually. I don’t believe then but I wouldn’t disbelieve them and assume the victim is telling the truth. There are examples of both being wrong but some often make up their mind and blindly trust one party over other. You should always base it on the available information and change your opinion when something new comes to light.
Did Breonna Taylor die for her boyfriends “stupidity”? Police raids are often indistinguishable from a criminal invasion to a groggy target. “What we know right now” doesn’t tell us anything about the actions of the cops leading up to the shooting…
The conversion of this country to electric vehicles could be the largest public works project in generations and make billions for US businesses but small minded people afraid of change are holding us all back.
Just wanna point out to the thread in general that this isn’t just surveying a bunch of people asking “on a scale of 1-10 how happy are you?”
The World Happiness Report uses six factors as predictors of life evaluation: GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and corruption.
Edit: the video linked actually doesn’t make much mention of the survey mentioned in the headline.
Do banks in USA still have money? Banks here haven’t had money for more than a decade now. And I can’t remember when we last had a bank robbery in Denmark. ( Country of 6 mil. people )
PS: I looked up the stats:
We used to statistically have about one a week, until about 2012. Then it dropped to only about 5 per year, and now it’s almost completely gone, probably only people who are mentally ill, and don’t have a clue about anything in general, maybe people with dementia? Because they are AFAIK 100% sure to get nothing.
PPS: If you want to withdraw money, you use the ATM inside the bank, and it’s practically illegal to withdraw or deposit more than the equivalent of $7000 USD, if you do, it will be investigated for possible money laundering.
No it’s not that, cash is so marginally used today, that any greater amount of cash is de-facto suspect, and potentially illegal.
Even most old people and teens use electronic payments.
We got universal electronic/card payments in the 80’s that quickly became dominant, because it was a cooperation between state and banks, so trust was high, and price was zero, because banks paid the cost through administrative savings. Now there’s a small fee per transaction paid by the shop. Private as in personal transactions are free.
We simply don’t need cash for anything anywhere. So most people don’t even bother with cash at all anymore.
Apart from the cash restrictions that were introduced a few years back, we have very liberal money/investment regulation.
Ironically all shops have to still accept cash, because is still legal payment. But you can’t for buying a car, because that’s above the legal amount for a dealer to receive. I have no idea how that’s supposed to work legally, because I’m not a lawyer, and cash is almost obsolete here anyway.
I think it’s people who by “control”, mean able to hide where their money is coming from, or ion other words mean control is the ability to cheat.
It’s 100% because they want it to be traceable. I’m not sure, but I think I’m OK with that. Although it will make it hard to hide away a bit of money for a rainy day, when you are on social benefits. As it is, if you have more than $12k USD, you have to spend the above first, before getting any benefits.
That may be a factor too, making it harder to cheat on social benefits. 12k doesn’t get you far if you need a roof repaired. But at least the value of a house isn’t counted.
It’s 100% because they want it to be traceable. I’m not sure, but I think I’m OK with that.
Yes criminals use cash because it’s private, but criminals also use:
E2E encryption
VPNs
Private operating systems (Linux, Android ROMs)
Criminals use private technology because they need to hide from the police. That does not mean we need to ban or heavily restrict (current state of cash in parts of the world, such as the USA or the EU) private options and private technologies just because “criminals use them” if you accept a ban on privacy and an increase in surveillance in order to counter criminality, you will receive an omnipotent government and corporations spying on you with a mandate.
The criminals will just go even more underground. They always adapt, they always had and always will.
We must not sacrify privacy in exchange for “safety”
You are 100% right in principle, but this is a privacy basically nobody chose to have anyway, there’s a huge difference IMO between this and if they ban for instance encryption, which has huge legitimate significance for privacy, whether it’s secret love letters, or million dollar patent development. If there isn’t a legitimate reason to want privacy, the argument is void as I see it.
So is there a legitimate reason to want to be able to use large amounts of cash. Remember you can still use cash for your daily tasks if you want, and that option is even protected by law.
I was as you describe against it initially, but I fail to think of a legitimate reason.
I have never heard anyone put forward any complaint about anything it prevented them from doing. People simply don’t use cash for large amounts anymore anyway.
We just bought a house a few years ago, and everything was buttery smooth, because electronic communication signatures and payments were instant. Including transfer of large amounts, that would have been insane to do with cash.
So is there a legitimate reason to want to be able to use large amounts of cash
Before answering this question we should define “a large amount” as it stands today, I, a private citizen with no criminal record, who hasn’t ever been investigated by fiscal authorities in my life, can’t spend more than €2000 in cash or else I’ll face a huge fine and I’ll be automatically considered a “money launderer” and a “financial criminal”
Now, to answer your question: personal data is digital gold, it’s only natural people don’t want their banks to track every thing they buy, your data won’t just be sold to the highest bidder. It will be sold and shared to the “1683 partners” you see on the cookie banners. Not wanting your financial and spending data to be sold and shared with thousands of (sometimes really malicious) entities. Not wanting the prostitution of your data, and, to the maximum possible extent not participating in this coercitive datamining system (you don’t really have a choice, every bank does this to some often cryptically disclosed if disclosed extent) is the legitimate reason I believe cash is a payment method that, when possible, should be used.
To clarify my position: I don’t oppose limitations on cash transactions necessarily because I want to buy something like a car with cash, buying a car still requires extensive paperwork and as such most privacy benefits from paying cash vanish instantly. I oppose the marginalization of cash because it’s leading to a bankized societiy, we are seeing it with our very eyes.
At least where I live you:
can’t get your paycheck in cash
can’t withdraw more than an undisclosed amount, else you’re suspicious and may be investigated, without your knowledge (oh, and the burden of proof is on you!)
Can’t receive many welfare benefits without a bank account
A bank account is nothing short of mandatory, yet there’s not national bank you can open an account in. School is mandatory, public schools exist.
Private banks offer many benefits such as:
Investing in fossil fuel companies.
Not ensuring a single cent of the money they should keep safe, a national fund ensures up to €100k,but if it was for the banks id let you guess.
Offering subpar and overpriced investment products with ludicrous fees to unsuspecting and financially illiterate but often hard-working people, eroding their life savings.
Seeing the above points, I tend to look with distrust at laws, regulations etc that aim at pushing people into banks. People should be able to live their entire life without opening a bank account if they want, and without being judged as criminals.
It’s not like this is impossible, there are places with way less financial crime than my country, than the USA or other countries who restrict cash who don’t marginalize cash as much, countries such as Japan or Germany.
but this is a privacy basically nobody chose to have anyway
If there wasn’t a societal unspoken obligation to have a bank account, many people would have ditched theirs a long time ago, me very much included, people are just coerced into accepting it. Not saying we should live like financial hermits, just that we should stop accepting the status quo, and that many people only use their bank account to receive their salary and withdraw it later, maybe put something away if they can afford it. That shouldn’t require your data to be mined.
can’t spend more than €2000 in cash or else I’ll face a huge fine and I’ll be automatically considered a “money launderer” and a “financial criminal”
That’s not quite the case, you are not automatically considered a money launderer and criminal, but considered potentially a money launderer,it will be investigated, and you have to be able to document where the money is from.
personal data is digital gold, <snip> It will be sold and shared
No that’s illegal without consent. And sneaky attempts of achieving consent through hidden terms or default selected options are illegal too.
A bank account is nothing short of mandatory, yet there’s not national bank you can open an account in.
Same here, but there is regulation that the mandatory basic account called “nem konto” is heavily regulated and has to be free of charge for mandatory functionality, so you can pick any bank you like and not get screwed, except our bank charges $1-2 per account for a yearly account statement which cannot be avoided. I’m not sure that is entirely legal, but maybe it is because we have other services?
Offering subpar and overpriced investment products
Haha yes so true, it’s ridiculous to a degree that it’s almost hilarious LOL,
If there wasn’t a societal unspoken obligation to have a bank account, many people would have ditched theirs a long time ago, me very much included, people are just coerced into accepting it.
I understand what you mean, but that would not be the case here. Even homeless people depend on electronic transactions, and use “mobile pay” which is a free payment service where you can easily transfer money from your bank account to anyone who also has it, which everybody do. Even my father who is 86 is very happy with this functionality on his phone. This is possible in part because of “nem konto”, which means everybody has a bank account which is a requirement for the service.
Denmark is one of the countries in the world with the highest confidence in government, where we trust the government actually works for the benefit of the people. Personally I’m against our current government, because IMO they do to little on education/healthcare and social security, a typical right wing government IMO. But at least they are not batshit crazy. And at least they remain financially responsible.
I think to people in many countries this is a strange concept, but even the right wing agree that many of our social institutions represent core values for our country.
Interesting. I’m college age with a clean record and I have a motorcycle that I’m insuring for $210/year. Granted, it’s a 2006 Suzuki GZ250, not exactly a fast motorcycle, but I’ve looked at the rates for other bikes with my provider and even a new literbike is around $400/year.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.