Which, honestly, is understandable assuming they also take away the person’s franchise rights. I doubt corporate policy is to have people remove hijabs.
“Oh, an employee took a shit in the deep fryer? We the McDonald’s corporation will write a strong letter denouncing shitting in the fryer and will forward it to the franchise owner. Now go and eat our other shit.”
That’s a bit of a stretch. Really, the gun evidence is what cinched it. Good job by the prosecution, because that DNA evidence wasn’t great when it could have been from his kids.
Conservatives did this. U.S. conservatives wrecked all agreements and progress being made for non-proliferation in Iran while Iranian conservatives pushed toward nuclear armament.
Conservatism’s primary function is to end life on planet earth. Every single thing a conservative does results in inching us all closer to an early end. They are a plague long overdue for a cure.
Well if the world doesn’t end, how else is a zombie going to float down from the sky to pick them up in their lifetime?
Evangelicalism is the largest doomsday cult in history, and I suspect a significant aspect of what’s going on that’s really not talked about enough because it would offend too many people believing similar things.
I honestly don’t understand how banning books is constitutional. Like, I definitely don’t want it to go before the SC any time soon, but books should be protected speech.
The books are free to purchase, own, and sell by the general public. The books are not banned.
What they are talking about is selecting what reading material is to be taught and available at schools. Such has been a thing since schools have been a thing. Schools do not have infinite time to teach nor infinite space to house books, selection criteria necessarily exists.
They are absolutely being banned. Universal bans and not allowing things to be published or sold at all is not the sole definition of banning things. That’s not the only way to define banning. It can be small, local, regional, or unilateral. There are many different places or ways a ban can take effect. The books are being banned from schools and libraries in some cases.
If I ban something from my house, it’s still a ban. If it’s banned from the neighborhood, that’s a ban. If it’s banned from only my kid’s school, that’s a ban.
I don’t get why some people think a national ban against the publish and sale of books is the only definition of a ban.
Teddy Roosevelt was on one of his speech tours when a girl offered him a badger. He said yes, named it Josiah, and would often sic it on congresspeople who were running late or being otherwise annoying.
The inability to get out of them and enforcement mechanisms make “not paying” a bad plan if you’re staying in the country. IBR and riding it out until it’s forgiven seems better, even though it’s shitty.
The situation is shameful, but it’s wishful thinking that such actions will end in any other way than interest accruing, making the inevitable repayment even more expensive and difficult. The system is set up so you can’t run away from it.
Up to 15-25% of disposable pay depending on the loan (federal or private).
Student loans are pretty much the worst type of loan you can have. They can garnish your wages, they can sue you, they can take any tax refunds and social security benefits you might eventually be paid and there isn’t really a way to make them disappear.
I have some left and have no plans to pay. Let them sue me. I want them to take me to court, hire a lawyer, spend a week, and deal with collections for the few thousand they claim I owe.
You can’t kill what is already dead. I keep emergency funds around, enough that I could buy a brand new economy car at any time. Have a single credit card with a 5,000 dollar limit and charge a cup of coffee on it once a month to verify it still works.
Assuming you are employed, they will just garnish your wages. They don’t have to sue for it, federal loans don’t even need a court order to do it. Private loans do, but they are also able to take more money out of your check.
Which I can appeal and if it really came down to it I can switch over to an independent contractor in about a week. But it won’t come down to it because before that happens I will just setup a 5 dollar monthly payment.
He’s still needing to fight the charge for shooting into an occupied dwelling - judge is hearing arguments in October. He’s also been in police custody since the incident 6 months ago. I hope he wins though. I think the gun was too far, but the increase in lethality in any situation where someone has a gun is well known and documented, and comes down to a policy issue rather than his own personal failing imo.
This is a perfect example of gun laws not making common sense. You can have your shooting ruled justified and still get a felony on the fact of where it happened. Like you had a choice.
I’m not trying to make a strawman argument with this comment, I would simply like to state the misfortune that some countries prohibit the use of pepper spray for self-defence. Canada is one such example that is known to me.
If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn’t provided sufficiently by the state, I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don’t personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.
I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
freedom is a practice.
I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:
[…] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government […] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don’t think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day.
Freedom is accomplished through practice 😉.
If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it.
You don’t think that fighting for one’s freedom is righteous?
But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
What do you mean? I don’t understand how this statement ties in with what you were previously talking about.
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc.
I would argue that malicious compliance would be one’s best form of resistance in the case where one is not subject to absolute despotism. There is also something called “Jury Nullification” which can be a boon for making these sorts of changes.
I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
If disobedience carried no risk, then we would not live in a civil society.
Correct, people shouldn’t go around shooting people that they don’t like, but that isn’t what happened here – Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.
Sure defending oneself with firearms may be appropriate in some circumstances, simply walking away might be appropriate in other circumstances.
Some would argue the latter was more appropriate in this circumstance, and others would argue the former, but we can probably both agree there would be more people arguing the former in the US than in most other countries.
Have you seen the video? The shooter getting “pranked” had both hands occupied carrying a paper bag and was being followed and harassed for over 10 seconds while repeatedly telling the prankster to stop.
It does seem like an overreaction to shoot immediately instead of trying to threaten first but I’m not sure.
I would’ve fully sided with the shooter if they’re weren’t in a mall with other people around and probably security right around the corner, because then he would’ve been much more at risk if he doesn’t shoot and the prankster tries to rob him or w/e.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life.
It entirely depends on context.
youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior
For one, YouTube isn’t directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.
even if it means repealling section 250
Do you mean Section 230…?
On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok.
That is a rather reductive statement – you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.
Hm, one must be careful with such lines of thinking. Self-defense should be protected, and upheld based on principle, and not simply because it was used against someone who may socially detestable.
I always wonder how I would feel in this scenario as other than viewing it as some form of terrible lottery winning, it just all seems even worse. There was no justice for what occurred and anyone that says government entities need to pay for when they do something like this, I’m not sure why you think anyone other than the taxpayers are footing this bill.
It just seems like a “better than nothing” scenario where the government pays victims off with the victims’ own money to go away.
Taxpayers need to be forced to pay for the consequences of the decisions of voters. The taxpayer is not a victim here.
The victim is a little girl and her family that will be forever shattered and never made whole.
The taxpayer let this happen by hiring incompetent goons and then not punishing them properly when they fuck up. If the taxpayer feels like this shouldn’t happen then maybe the taxpayer should do something about the actual problem rather than complain about the cost of cleaning it up.
I think we’re all open to ideas on how we can help, please share if you have any.
I’ve heard police needing they’re own insurance and a database of the shitty ones, but I haven’t heard anything else. Throwing around that it’s the taxpayer’s fault is ridiculous. The police did this.
Severely narrowing qualified immunity would allow officers to be directly sued for much more of their misconduct. You could then make them carry malpractice insurance, leveraging the indefatigable might of the insurance industry to bring some form of accountability tracking to prospective officers.
Removing internal affairs departments from police departments and making them civilian managed has proven to work very effectively provided the civilian review board has any power to punish the officers without the consent of the police.
Prosecuting law enforcement corruption with specific prejudice should be the model going forward. They should not get reduced time or extra consideration for wearing the badge, that badge should disqualify them from any presumption of acting in good faith when they have broken the law.
The taxpayer and more directly the voter has an obligation to demand politicians that are willing to reform the police. Until the taxpayer is willing to vote for somebody who thinks the need for police oversight is more important than broken windows policing the taxpayer is on the hook for the consequences of that very poor decision.
I think it sucks that ee have to pay so much extra because so many of our compatriots are boot licking shitheads, but the alternative is to not have any corrective measure to punish the party that has agency to make a change.
They need to take these settlements out of the police budgets, or better yet, police pensions. I bet once their money is threatened, they’ll get themselves in line.
By your argument, the girl’s family are not the victims as they are taxpayers and presumably, voters.
Even if you’re going to blame the voters for not intuiting that their voted official is corrupt and going to do future dastardly deeds or being at fault for a police officer that was hired and not elected, I don’t feel your logic fits here. Unless you just mean that everyone is at fault, always and for everything until they are the unlucky ones at which time they are victims and no longer to blame.
There is also the Cahoots program and others like it (as a category I think it's called "alternative dispatch programs" or similar), which have demonstrated benefits. This, by the way, is IMO what defund the police more or less was intended to communicate, for most non-abolitionists. (In reply to your original question.)
In broad strokes, I don't see any other alternatives that don't start with lots more police killings (edit: to clarify, I mean killings by police) and years of protests.
This kind of blame shifting feels like when oil companies say it's all our individual duties to clean up the planet wide ecological disaster they made by us being good little recyclers. The police problem is a national one and a historical one that doesn't have to do with hiring "bad cops."
Maybe that's your point? Is this a whoosh moment and you're being sarcastic? I can't really fathom your reasoning otherwise.
well I guess in a way the voters elected politicians that allow the oil companies to peddle that bullsit in advertisements. So I think they are advocating for greater voter involvement. Which sounds good on the surface, but has extreme barriers to happening. In the end probably only a revolution can remove the barriers and get a new system in place. But would it be any better? So I guess the logical equivalent is that they are saying we are shouting at the wind.
I think that’s a great way to handle this. The guilty party should have their lives or at the very least, financial wellbeing ruined just as they ruined another family’s.
I think it should get paid out of the police union pension fund. Start doing that and we’ll start to see the alleged good cops getting a lot more aggressive about pushing the “few bad apples” off the force before they do something stupid pretty damn quick.
Especially since the tale has been around so long lots of lottery winners intentionally don’t reveal themselves and do the things that have been being suggested for lottery winners for like twenty fucking years now. (suggestions are usually along the lines of “get a lawyer and get a broker for investing.”)
Way too many folks are comfortable with giving barely-trained average people government-issued guns and authority, but then holding them to LOWER standards than ordinary citizens.
As long as they’re hurting the people I want to see hurt, surely it will never be MY face getting eaten.
The original story tells of how the reason they shot in the first place was that someone else opened fire on a minor (if I didn’t misread). In that situation, it makes sense that the cops would also use deadly force and I’d personally like for them to do so. Anyway, should they have waited until better shots, yes, but it’s not like they were just aiming at children hoping to kill them
No, there was a shooting a block away, the police took out their guns and immediately started opening firing on a random vehicle.
No one of the vehicle was killed, despite the vehicle being targeted by a dozen some odd rounds of ammunition.
The cops just killed that little girl and shot 3 other unrelated people. They caught the kids involved in the other shooting and tried to charge them with her murder. Those charges were dropped because obviously that’s ridiculous. The only injuries were from police bullets.
They are justified in using deadly force when there is a clear threat to them or others. Firing towards a car and a crowd of people just because you heard gunshots somewhere is pretty bad.
This isn’t even an “I thought he was reaching for something so I shot” situation. It’s “hey somebody is shooting a gun somewhere around here… I bet it was those guys over there, waste ‘em!”
Yeah sounds like they heard shots and just started blasting where they thought they heard it from. 25 rounds. Deadly irresponsible for that kind of reaction.
Just a 45 day stopgap and it’s not over, but hopefully Republicans begin to realize, “We can’t function with these people,” and start trying to move away from their hardliners. Doubtful it’ll happen, but one can always dream. That they didn’t actually let it go to a shutdown suggests that there’s Republicans who wanted to avoid a shutdown as much as Democrats and may be willing to compromise and reach a longer term deal, they’re not just trying to burn the whole place down.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand that either. An arrest looked inevitable and when the DOJ announced they weren’t going to arrest him I was dumbstruck.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.