A shutdown could cause a rapid loss of food benefits for nearly 7 million low-income women and children on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infacts and Children, or WIC, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
But don’t worry, the Pentagon is exempting Ukraine operations from the government shutdown.
This is constitutionally required as per the 27th Amendment.
The optics are gross, admittedly, but it would literally violate the Constitution to suspend their pay. It also does neuter a potential strategy of a coalition of wealthy Congress critters simply doing nothing as an intentional effort to cut off their opponents' income and pressure their direct personal finances.
This probably wasn't a consideration during the drafting of the amendment, but it's not as if we're going to be touching the Constitution any time soon, so here we are.
The entire thing is stupid, but there's one party that's squarely responsible for this. Go ask the House GOP why they don't care about halting SNAP payments, but I don't see how enabling Russia to slaughter more Ukrainians would be better.
Your impressive lack of ability to have a conversation with any amount of good faith is pretty entertaining, yes.
Speaking of the poor starving, while you're talking to McCarthy, hop over the to Senate and ask the Republicans (and Manchin and Sinema as well, but also 50 Republicans), why they ended Biden's child tax credit that caused significant measurable reductions in child poverty and food insecurity?
You know, since you seem to care so much about these things.
But why do you refuse to acknowledge that this is a structural problem with America’s government? This is the only country where the government is structured so it can “shut down” while not causing snap elections and all the politicians still get their paychecks. What the fuck?
Why the fuck is the government structured so it can continue to funnel money into a foreign war completely unrelated to the defense of the homeland, but it can’t do the same to the hungry at home? Why is the government structured in a way so one of the only two parties is literally anti-government?
You’re blinding yourself to fundamental problems with America’s government by only blaming Republicans. Republicans are just taking advantage of a badly structured polity.
You're absolutely correct, it is a massive structural problem. It's incredibly stupid and causes an obscene amount of pain every year or so because the structure of government enables a few children causing a tantrum to grind everything to a halt.
But once you'd identified that, what next? This is one of the many downsides of being stuck with one of the oldest active constitutions in the world that was envisioning a very different environment than what we have now. The simple fact of the matter is that we're not going to see a Constitutional Convention anytime remotely soon (and given how disastrous that could be, probably for the best). So, what is the point of spending energy being angry about these structural issues when that won't actually accomplish anything?
Believe me, everyone involved in government right now knows that this is incredibly stupid. It's not as if no one has ever considered this before. The problem is, no matter how frustrating it is, being angry at these structural issues doesn't actually do anything, because we're stuck with them. While I do think it is absolutely important to raise some awareness about those issues, that doesn't really help the acute situation right now.
So yes, it is horrific that welfare payments will get halted by this, I completely agree. I don't see where I ever "refused to acknowledge" the structural issues that caused this. They're not a secret; everyone vaguely knowledgeable about politics knows them.
So yes, it is horrific that welfare payments will get halted by this, I completely agree. I don’t see where I ever “refused to acknowledge” the structural issues that caused this. They’re not a secret; everyone vaguely knowledgeable about politics knows them.
Your first response was to dismiss my criticism of America’s government by creating a false dilemma between funding war and feeding the poor. Then followed that up by dismissing my criticism by telling me to only blame McCarthy. Then followed that by mocking me and the very concept of government critique as pie-in-the-sky revolutionary idealism.
Over and over you deflect from America’s structural problems.
Worrell had been on house arrest after court records show he complained about the treatment at the Washington D.C. jail. The federal judge allowed him to await sentencing while on house arrest.
Maybe stop treating right-wing terrorist extremists with kid-gloves?
The cops moved barricades for these terrorists. They took selfies with the terrorists. The cops held the hands of terrorists who were leaving the capital so that they didn’t fall while they were going down the stairs.
During the BLM protests in Pittsburgh we were on our knees with our hands in the air when the cops started shooting.
The reason the system didn’t support Trump’s overthrow of democracy is that in Biden they saw someone who was competent enough to get us through the pandemic and back to working for the masters but would never give us any sort of actual power. Trump was bad for business unless you were in his inner circle.
They probably don’t mean with lead. The cops had a fondness for pepper spray balls, which incidentally they also shot at peoples faces when they’re supposed to shoot the ground. Many people lost eyes or other things to police violence during those protests.
I’m so glad there is a ‘block this person’ option on jerboa. It’s no use trying to reason with these people, just block and let them talk to the void forever.
It looks like she hunts with a bow, which may have been a factor if it was conductive. There have been scattered storms in FL this week as well. Lightning can travel over a mile from where it’s storm is to where it touches down so even in clear skies it can strike you. Florida is also the lightning capital of america.
Metal does not attracts lighting. The danger is elevation. The bolt stroke a tree and she was likely shocked because the ground itself became conductive. In a thunderstorm don’t stand near trees, don’t lay down, you get the fuck out and find shelter or a non-elevated area away from trees and elevated structures.
My dad died when I was 16 and that’s not great either.
But looking at that smile reminds me of my 1 year old daughter’s smile. I live to make her smile. I can’t imagine looking at that smile every day for 16 years and then one day I can’t.
That was my assumption. Not breathing for an unknown amount of time following a lightning strike. I imagine it would be noteworthy for the article if she regained consciousness and later died.
Hunting may seem a little cruel but depending on the circumstances very necessary. Some animals overpopulate and hunting can keep animal populations manageable, in check, and overall much healthier.
Okay, their name is actually offensive, because that is easily the LEAST menacing YT street interview video I’ve ever seen. I’m not being hyperbolic at all, it’s not even close. Even for Mormons, they were polite. POLITE BY MORMON STANDARDS.
I feel like every person in this thread that cannot fathom how he feared for his life has never had personal experience dealing with someone with severe mental illness, in their family or in public or something. Direct experience, though, of interacting with a large, loud, mentally ill person.
If you think you can just assume a stranger you encounter who shoves a phone in your face is mentally healthy, you’re missing some facts of life.
Can you then not empathize with how this delivery driver was afraid for his life? Not necessarily taking his time and thinking through his options, but reasonably in an actual state of irrational fear?
That’s fine. But it does mean there was no malice, as the jury eventually decided as well. He could have reasonably been afraid for his life, as he had no way to know if this 6’5" individual was sane or very much not.
I mentioned this in another thread but I keep thinking about Trayvon Martin and how upset I was that Zimmerman was released and got his gun back. I feel like our country is increasingly more acceptable of gun violence as a fact of life. How could precedents like this be applied to future cases? I’m not claiming to have all the answers I’m just not convinced that this is the best decision. I could be wrong though. It wouldn’t be the first time.
… I think you’re right, we are becoming a little more accustomed to gun violence, of the large-scale type especially. While I think we’ve always had a lot of gun violence in general, especially if you include gang/organized crime activity, the 24/7 unending stream of news makes exposure to stories of it a lot more consistent and even.
Regarding how the precedent could influence things into the future, I’m not sure.
The issue in that case if memory serves is that nobody actually knew and could testify as to what happened during the confrontation.
The privilege of self defense can be gained and lost in the course of an altercation. If an initial aggressor says “sorry, I’m outta here” and starts walking away, the initial victim’s privilege ends. If you shoot them in the back while they leave, it’s a crime. I didn’t believe a word that Zimmerman fuck said but the burden of proof was on the state. All Zimmerman had to do in the criminal case was say nothing, which is what he did. In the Martin family’s wrongful death suit against the homeowners association, I believe the association’s insurer settled for seven figures or more. Guess they thought Zimmerman wouldn’t make a very credible witness when he’d be required to testify in civil court. They knew why was he was hastling Martin in the first place, knew Zimmerman’s story had gaping holes in it.
The right to remain silent and the reasonable doubt standard rightly freed Zimmerman, in my view.
In the story above, there were numerous witnesses and video. I didn’t follow the trial, though.
So theoretically if someone shot someone else and there weren’t any witnesses or video and the shooter said exactly what happened in this case happened in this hypothetical situation do you think it would be equally justified?
It’s not a great fit because of two factors the food court patron knew there were others around and saw the YouTuber’s posse standing there with cell phone cameras. If I were on the jury, that would make it less reasonable for the patron to claim he was in fear for his life. He had no reason to assume the YouTuber was armed, and with that evidence of so people around and it being so open and public, and again, no weapon, patron was at best about to catch a beating, which I think even is a stretch because there was no verbal threats or display of intent to do violence.
Anyway, to your question, assuming the jury is going to disregard the public location and cameras everywhere, if the patron gave the exact same story, I think it would remain unjustified. The shooter claimed that, given the circumstances, he drew the inference that his life was in danger, a danger of serious bodily injury. That’s the standard.
I think there the facts support only an inference of a threat to bodily injury. The shooter could have safely waited before escalating to shooting. Shooting a YouTuber in the chest was disproportionate to the facts, in my view. The proportion has to be objectively reasonable, such proportion as society is willing to accept. I think, if everyone shot in this sort of situation, nobody would like it, and there would be many, many more deaths by gun violence.
Sure he did. He could have pulled out the gun so the aggressor saw it. Could have said “stop or I’ll fucking kill you.” All while continuing to walk backwards and creating space.
If the person keeps coming after you’ve said that, that’s what you can hang your hat on at trial: you knew your life was in danger because the assailant had no fear of death. You could at least say you feared the guy wanted to take your gun and kill you with it. Evidence was that the guy in the article shot immediately upon drawing and didn’t give any sort of warning. He apparently took a few steps backwards, said stop three times, and then drew and instantly fired.
I think the fact that the police arrested the guy, the prosecutors put the case on, the judge didn’t dismiss the it after close of evidence, and the jury was nearly deadlocked, show, that the charges were reasonable in this case. Certainly the jury is in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law.
The thing that may have saved him is that he fired only one shot and the aggressor lived. You’ll notice he was not charged with attempted murder but rather wounding in the commission of a felony, or something like that.
I wonder if the aggressor will pursue a civil lawsuit for assault. Sort of how OJ was acquitted in criminal court but then found civil liable; the criminal standard is one of reasonable doubt, the civil one of preponderance of evidence. Certainly both parties could be found liable under negligence, if the parties sue each other.
Not a very good idea when you’re already inside grappling range. A handgun becomes useless if a much stronger person seizes the hand that you are using to hold the gun. Additionally, if your first few shots fail to stop him, perhaps he’s on powerful drugs and you have a bad angle, then he can kinda just rip your face off anyway, since he’s already there. Or he could attack with a hidden knife, that’d be unpleasant.
This tells me you have no actual personal firearms training, no one with any training (and sense I suppose) would advocate for threatening an unknown assailant with a point blank gun.
The question becomes, could it reasonably have been perceived as an assailant. And that is a subjective question, a matter of opinion. Answering these questions is the job of juries, and they did so.
Also, I have at no point argued the charges were unreasonable. The charges were reasonable, this was not a clear-cut case. The verdict was also understandable and reasonable, that’s all.
Oh, and if you “fuck around”, you might “find out”. This is an important life lesson in general, that almost everyone learns at some point in their teens to 20s. If they make it that long, without getting shot by a doordash driver for a dumb prank.
You’re changing the hypothetical and added mere possibilities. Anything is possible. That’s why self defense is considered an imperfect legal remedy, and it’s one reason why it is said “the law abhors self help.”
When the qualified privilege to use reasonable force in defense of yourself or others proves insufficient, the perfect remedy is in a civil action for wrongful death.
What matters in evaluating the use of force, the privilege only exists where these hypotheticals are reasonably probable.
What fact would you hang your hat on here, to tell the judge and jury that you probably had absolutely no choice but to try and kill, especially when, as here, you are proved to have been mistakes, and were not in physical danger and the putative aggressor was unarmed?
That an assumption that any putative aggressor actually is unarmed is flawed. That is not determinable in a short span of time, and an inappropriate assumption for a person to make.
You don’t get to kill based on mere possibility. And you would not like living in a world where you could.
The patron had plenty of room to retreat. Plenty of time to give a better warning, such as “stop or I’ll fucking kill you.” If a person keeps coming after that sort of warning, that’s a fact from which the inference a threat to life is more reasonable; a person with no fear of death.
This dude had a phone in his hands. Didn’t take a swing at the guy. Didn’t persist with no apparent fear of death. The patron pulled out the gun and fired instantly after merely saying “stop” three times.
I accept the jury was in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law. The dude was charged, stood trial, and was only partially aquitted. I rest my case.
Possibility is irrelevant. Their instruction is to find beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all conceivable doubt. These would be two different things.
No this is exactly where carrying a weapon is bad. The guy had reason to act in self-defense, however potentially lethal force is a harder sell, and boasting away in a crowded place is wrong. If the guy didn’t have the gun, or otherwise defended himself without it, we’d all be cheering and justice would be swift
If the guy didn’t have the gun, or otherwise defended himself without it, we’d all be cheering and justice would be swift
Where’d you buy your crystal ball that shows the outcome of unknown hypotheticals? I’d love to not only see that, but risk my life with it as well, I’m sure you would do the same…
You dont need to have dealt with mental illness to have that feeling… you just have to had trauma in the past. I have been jumped 2 times in the past by gang members, and you bet your fucking ass I get absolutely anxious if some stranger gets up to my face… good times
Gut/nut punch to get them to double over, THEN headbutt. Or even just pull them into you by their shirt. It’s not overly difficult once you know what you’re doing, but don’t celebrate your ignorance of hand to hand combat like it’s actual knowledge.
This shit ain’t Hollywood. You aren’t doubling someone over unless you’ve trained pretty hard. And even then it’s not guaranteed. Your mugging will not be choreographed.
Funny. I’m not saying I’m any kind of in shape these days, just that I once was. But I was in some glasgow pubs earlier this year. Maybe you had a specific one in mind? All the ones I saw were really welcoming to a couple Americans.
did I? or did I just make the logical conclusion feom thwir words, he just said lthat you can’t assume someone is mentally healthy when he approaches you and puts a phone in your face, he said many people don’t understand the trauma of dealing with mentally ill people and feeling threatened thus justifying the actions of the person who shot the youtuber.
I really did not, what else is there to interpret from his words?
as long as you feel threatened and you have past trauma with mentally ill people, you can shoot them in a public place and call it self-defense, it’s just how the US works.
How is that a ridiculous when OP was defending a guy who shot someone by saying “every person in this thread that cannot fathom how he feared for his life has never had personal experience dealing with someone with severe mental illness” and “If you think you can just assume a stranger you encounter who shoves a phone in your face is mentally healthy, you’re missing some facts of life”.
What in the world else do you think that could have meant other than that it’s okay to fear for your life and defend yourself with deadly force because someone is acting mentally ill?
At what point in that small reply do you see him saying that?
The entire comment. The topic is fearing for one’s life and defending oneself with a gun, and this guy basically says that it’s right to fear for your life because someone might be mentally ill. Comment again so you don’t have to scroll up:
I feel like every person in this thread that cannot fathom how he feared for his life has never had personal experience dealing with someone with severe mental illness, in their family or in public or something. Direct experience, though, of interacting with a large, loud, mentally ill person.
If you think you can just assume a stranger you encounter who shoves a phone in your face is mentally healthy, you’re missing some facts of life.
The entire comment. The topic is fearing for one’s life and defending oneself with a gun, and this guy basically says that it’s right to fear for your life because someone might be mentally ill. Comment again so you don’t have to scroll up:
Directly quote the part that makes the claim that at any level the point in which you fear for your life is correlated with the idea that they “might be mentally ill”. That was never said, nor would it matter if it was, because fearing grave injury or death is the determining factor, not any other.
The youtuber is 6 foot 5. Someone that tall is going to be intimidating if they get in your face and will not fuck off when asked regardless of what your prior experiences are. This guy knows he scares people. Thats the point of his channel. I mean the dude calls himself the goon squad. He knows hes being an asshole. He gets into peoples’ faces, scares the shit out of them and films the reaction.
Great to hear people are helping each other in the worst of times!
“When one of our own is hurting, when one of our own is in need, this community, this county, this town rallies around people like I’ve never seen before,” McKinnon said.
“They discovered the 52-year-old unconscious and immediately provided medical attention,” the release said. “Worrell was transferred to an area hospital where he remains at this time.”
Sounds like he tried to commit suicide. I'm glad he was found.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.