For a while the Soyuz spacecraft was the only way to get up to the ISS, so I’m sure NASA and ESA were helping them any way they could to keep those working.
We all played with the new toy and found it terribly flawed and boring.
That, plus I don’t need Bing to pretend to be a person and give me an organic answer loaded with hallucinations. We all know how to google stuff and parse the raw results.
His ruling on so-called line-warming allowed the ban to still be enforced in what he dubbed the “buffer zone” around a polling place, within 150 feet of the building where ballots are being cast. But he paused enforcement of the ban in the “supplemental zone,” or additional areas that are within 25 feet of a voter standing in line.
If I understand it, should allow relief to a really long line. Stupid that money is free speech but passing out sandwiches sometimes isn’t. Step in the right direction I guess?
Now they will just make the voting line snake around the building within the 150 ft 🙄
The problem is that campaigns will use snacks and water to campaign as close to polling places as possible. That’s what the law is trying to prevent, so that there aren’t 15 10’X10’ tents with names emblazoned on top just to garner more votes.
How you solve for that is: No branding or signage beyond “Free Water” or “Free Refreshments” and workers are not allowed to speak to anyone. Just place things on a table. Campaigns can setup tents, refreshments outside of a new buffer, 300 ft. Or, OR, just ban campaigns from setting up tents. If it’s found, they forfeit the election.
But, we all know that legislatures aren’t about making common sense laws.
Update: I appreciate all of the responses. I’ve read up more on this law, and ya’ll are right. The way it’s written, and how it’s communicated are different. I’m leaving my original comment up for clarity. Discourse is good and I appreciate the softer approaches along with some of the more angry of you.
But you already weren’t allowed to campaign within 150ft of a poling place or 25ft of a voter standing in line. So, that would have already been a solved issue.
This is from the 2010 GA code.
O.C.G.A. 21-2-414 (2010)
(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign literature, newspaper, booklet, pamphlet, card, sign, paraphernalia, or any other written or printed matter of any kind, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition or conduct any exit poll or public opinion poll with voters on any day in which ballots are being cast:
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
Edit: I personally believe that the food and water restriction was to make people not want to stick out waiting 2+ hours in line. Unfortunately people seem to have to wait multiple hours every election.
There won’t be lines where the white voters are a majority
This is the biggest reason that compulsory voting like we have in Australia is so good.
It’s not a violation of free speech at all. You can always choose to just hand in a blank or deliberately-spoilt ballot.
But what it does mean is that the Government is forced to provide adequate resources to polling places to ensure that everyone is able to conveniently vote. You can’t get away with nearly as much voter suppression when everyone has to vote.
I can’t help but feel this is an optimistic view. There’s plenty of things everyone has to do in America that are still much more convenient or differently funded in rich or white areas. For example, going to school or getting government ID.
If you’re legally required to vote but voting is made into a very painful experience, who are you going to vote for? The guy that made it very difficult?
If the voting experience is sufficiently onerous, people will still not vote and pay the penalty (or go to jail). Then it’ll be just another tax/burdon on people in disadvantaged areas.
Looks like Western Australia charges $50 for repeated failure to vote. $50 Australian ($31 USD) to not take off work to stand in line for 3 hours getting sunburnt? That’s less than minimum wage in my state. It would make financial sense to just go to work and pay the penalty, ignoring the less tangible potential long-term benefit of effecting change in favor of paying rent.
Except voting day in Australia is on a weekend, not during the week. And there are also pre polling centres, where if you plan to be away on vacation or working on voting day, you can go along to a pre poll centre and vote weeks in advance. Australia also has mail in and even telephone voting for those unable to visit these centres.
Some would, for sure. But some would stick it out. And even in many areas thought of as deeply red, the margin required to flip the result is not that much. If you have a previous voter turnout of 2/3, and just 1/4 of the previous non-voters end up voting because it’s mandatory, that’s an 8 point swing. That would have been enough to swing 4 more states in 2020, as well as Maine’s 2nd district. Or if it were the Democrats responsible for attempted voter suppression, those same stats would see 7 states plus Nevada’s 2nd flip to Republican. That’s looking at the presidential race because the stats were easiest to find and compare, but it’s likely even more pertinent in congressional races. Enough of the races would be close enough to basically guarantee the side supporting people’s democratic rights will win a majority of seats.
Yeah, I don’t see this working at all. If it does for you guys, that’s great, but we’re talking places where voting rights are already protected. None of these laws actually prevent people from voting, but can discourage enough to make a difference. Even if it’s partisan, the results skew quite racist. It’s only a few places in the US where officials think they can get away with this, but it’s definitely huge news.
Fr a specific example, I believe there was something in Texas like one place to drop off mail in votes per county. Maybe that’s even reasonable in most counties, but not when one county is the city of Houston. Do you really think a measly fine would make people endure that wait?
PSA: If you even have the notion of a feeling that a food truck outside the building could decide the person you vote for, please never vote in politics.
Youre fucking sad if you think there aren’t civic minded people that would pass out food and water just to make sure people get a chance to exercise their rights. The fact that you cant conceive of helping people without personal gain is just you telling on yourself. It is not a reflection on the people who support and uphold our democracy by helping people vote.
The “bribery” talking point is clear bullshit anyway. This law is 100% designed to get people in cities, where there are long lines to vote unlike rural areas, to give up on voting, because they tend to vote against the people passing these laws. Its direct and blatant voter suppression. No one is buying the made up issue of “buying votes with water bottles” that is not happening, and has never happened.
If only these states would make voting free, easy and accessible so lines wouldn’t get so long that people need food and water to survive while waiting to fucking vote? But nope. Clinging to power is more important than the survival of humanity.
That’s the thing which seems so barbaric to me. I’m in a state with 100% mail-in ballots, and I’ve never stood in a line to vote. Neither has anyone else in my state since mail-in became the standard.
When turnout is really, really high, there might be, like, four people ahead of me if I’ve procrastinated and missed the mail-in date and have to use a ballot drop-box.
It’s duckspeak, and the fact that it’s so effective is horrifying. They go around making literally meaningless word-like noises - not one of them could coherently define either “woke” or “communist” if you offered them a million dollars to do it - and yet they squawk both words endlessly.
And I’m in a state where I never really waited in line even before mail in voting was expanded.
My voting place has always been the nearby elementary school, and I usually go at peak time, on my way to or from work. Yes, admittedly I’ve had to wait outside the classroom for a minute or two, but that’s not the kind of line we’re talking about
Actually, it’s always been so easy to vote, that I usually Fido t bother with all the effort to find the mail in ballot and take it all the way to a mailbox
This is the deceit of these laws. They pretend to be about a genuine “problem”, giving a degree of plausibility, just like you are doing now. But we should not be fooled. The real motivation is to deter voting by non GOP groups.
In this case, consider which areas have long lines and which don’t. You’re not sure? Look at which areas have had the number of voting places reduced. Look at which groups find it difficult to vote during weekday working hours, and who is limiting weekend voting and early/late voting hours.
It’s always been illegal to campaign within X feet of a polling place. Banning water and snacks is irrelevant to that. You could never just set up campaigning tents anywhere you wanted. Was there really an epidemic of lawless tent-weilding water and snacks givers before this law? “How do you solve for that?” You don’t because it’s not a real problem, the law is simply designed to make it difficult to stay in line in mainly non GOP overloaded voting places, to make people give up and go home.
I was gonna try to explain it, but @lolcatnip said it more succinctly than I would. I’ll just chime in to say that this is disingenuous:
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said in a statement that the decision “should have limited effect.”
“Due to the good work that both the state and county election officials have done to ensure short lines for voters, this decision should have limited effect,” he said. “I am grateful that the ban on giving things of value to voters remains in place within 150 feet of the polling place. All voters should have the right to cast their vote in peace without being subject to potentially unwanted solicitations.”
As if anyone standing in line hasn’t already made up their mind. “Oh, a bottle of water when I’ve been in line for an hour? Guess I’ll vote for your guy because I’m a thoughtless idiot.”
Due to the good work that both the state and county election officials have done to ensure short lines for voters
Of course this is the real answer, if it is true. It’s not just suffering in the heat that would make people disinclined to vote, but the line itself. Somehow I doubt they’ve really shortened the lines in places where “those people” vote.
I’ve never in my life had to wait in a line long enough to matter, since I live where we encourage people to vote. Of course it’s also a mostly white suburb, so I could be totally off-base
Yep, I travel very light anyway and I don’t trust the baggage handlers and TSA not to lose or outright take my shit. I can fit toiletries, a few days’ clothes, my laptop, and any chargers in my backpack. If you treat air travel as a particularly inconvenient bus line, it goes a bit smoother in my experience.
Yes, even if your aren’t skip lagging it’s really easy to travel without checking a bag. 40L backpacks fit five days of clothes and toiletries while still meeting most airline carry on requirements.
You simply cannot have checked bags. If you’re traveling for less than a week and don’t need large liquids, this is usually pretty easy to do. You can have a wheely carry-on and a backpack as your personal item, which gives you a ton of storage. I don’t need checked bags for the vast majority of travel I do and prefer to avoid it by all means possible, as it just slows me down and has the potential for the airline to lose my bag.
Two one-ways. Your origin would have to be the city you want to fly from, as missing an earlier flight generally means your ticket gets cancelled.
This can be a little difficult flying from, for example, Denver to Albuquerque. There probably won’t be many cheaper flights if you add Albuquerque to Los Angeles or Houston or something, but Albuquerque to Denver may be cheaper if you had a connection to Las Vegas or something.
There has almost certainly already been a chilling effect from similar laws in Florida. Teachers cannot take chances: If they are fired for cause, they often have to move to another state to remain employable in their profession.
I read something about how the uncertainty in banning vague topics is actually more harmful than a list of banned material. It’s left up to the teachers discretion and they end up overly cautious because they want to keep their jobs.
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
You’re not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn’t the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that’s ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I’m talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There’s enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
That’s basically how it’s been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we’ll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it’ll be downhill from there.
Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn’t even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
In yesterday’s society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today’s society it’s because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday’s Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.
Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they’ll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal “Red Flag” law? They don’t care as they know it’ll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won’t be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.
What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of “Gun Crime”, however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.
In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew…all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain’t the number of guns in circulation.
It’s a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn’t there must have been another factor.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
You’re more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.
Only at today’s death rate. Prior to malaria being cured it would have taken 4 years to 40. PS. They’ve been at it for 250,000 years the death toll isn’t even close. You’re arguing in bad faith.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they’re not strapped. That’s so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
And you’re evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.
It’s higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It’s actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.
But let’s say what you want to believe is right – that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
You’re arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn’t have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches – literally.
It doesn’t matter that it is very much worse than death – in fact, that’s what you’re gonna argue next, because you don’t care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.
And no sane person thinks like you.
You’re sick.
[citation needed]
Resisting against rapists works:
When confronted with a sexual attacker, women are often extremely concerned with avoiding rape completion. While narrative reviews typically suggest that the victim resistance is linked to rape avoidance, much of the existing literature relies on overlapping samples from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current meta-analysis examines whether victim resistance is related to a greater likelihood of avoiding rape completion. Results from a systematic literature search across 25 databases supplemented by a search of the gray literature resulted in 4,581 hits of which seven studies met eligibility criteria for the review. Findings suggest that women who resist their attacker are significantly more likely than nonresisters to avoid rape completion. This finding held across analyses for physical resistance, verbal resistance, or resistance of any kind. Limitations of the analysis and policy implications are discussed, with particular focus on other research findings that resistance may be linked to greater victim injury.
Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.
Resisting rapists doesn’t actually result in greater physical injury:
The impact of victim resistance on rape completion and injury was examined utilizing a large probability sample of sexual assault incidents, derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-2002), and taking into account whether harm to the victim followed or preceded self-protection (SP) actions. Additional injuries besides rape, particularly serious injuries, following victim resistance are rare. Results indicate that most SP actions, both forceful and nonforceful, reduce the risk of rape completion, and do not significantly affect the risk of additional injury.
Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.
Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:
Women’s resistance strategies to rape were examined using police reports and the court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped by subsequently incarcerated sex offenders. The sequence of behaviors in the offender-victim interaction was analyzed to determine whether women who resist rape with physical force are, as some have suggested, exacerbating the potential for physical injury or are simply responding to the severity of the offender’s physical attack. The results indicated that 85% of the women in the study who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s initiated violence. The remaining 15% who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s verbal aggression. Moreover, those women who responded with physical aggression to the offender’s violent physical attack were more likely to avoid rape than were women who did not resist such force. Also, the potential for physical injury was no greater for these women than for those who used other resistance strategies or who offered no resistance. These analyses suggest that the frequently found correlation between physical resistance and injury of the woman might be the result of the initial level of the offender’s violence and should not be used to discourage women from physically resisting rape.
ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003
Guns allow for more effective resistance:
What are the consequences when rape victims resist rapists? Analysis of a nationally representative sample of rape incidents reported in the National Crime Surveys for 1979 to 1985 yields the following findings: (1) Victims who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims, a pattern generally apparent regardless of the specific form of resistance: (2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon: (3) Most forms of resistance are not significantly associated with higher rates of victim injury. The exceptions are unarmed forceful resistance and threatening or arguing with the rapist: (4) Even these two forms of resistance probably do not generally provoke rapists to injure their victims, as ancillary evidence concerning assaults and robberies indicates that resistance rarely precedes injury. Attack against the victim appears to provoke victim resistance, rather than the reverse: (V Only about three percent of rape incidents involve some additional injury that could be described as serious. Thus it is the rape itself that is nearly always the most serious injury the victim suffers. Consequently, refraining from resistance in order to avoid injury in addition to the rape is a questionable tradeoff.
Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist
You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.
Yes you’ve made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
You’ve made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you’re not anyone that should be taken seriously.
It’s higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show.
Yeah, you didn’t answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.
And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.
But let’s say what you want to believe is right – that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn’t make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evilevil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄
Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.
No they wouldn’t. Our military doesn’t even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn’t even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.
All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.
I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.
I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”
In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.
Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.
That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?
So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.
What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?
There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.
That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.
Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action
Funny how these murder-babies are never from the north east
New York State isn’t in the North East? I seem to remember a really bad day at a grocery store in Buffalo, a deli getting blasted in NYC, a subway getting shot to shit in NYC, and recently some psycho on a
Sure am. Why? Do you really think all the BS we endured with the Covid mitigation was worth it? Pretty clear it certainly wasn’t. People losing their jobs due to not getting the “Fauci Ouchy”? Shutting down small businesses while Home Depot and Wally World stayed open all day? Kids sitting home doing nothing for two years versus being in school where they belong so they can develop and learn? Telling us that we can only have six people over for thanksgiving ?
They’re never going to listen. They genuinely don’t think what they did was wrong and they don’t see the nightmarish consequences of their actions, including the rise of Ron Desantis and the massive uptick of violent crime, provoking the right wing to take revenge by banning abortion and revealing the massive extent of regulatory capture they’ve engaged in for the past 50 years, and now we’re on the brink of a civil war.
They’re not listening because all they cared about was limiting their exposure to covid at any cost, even their own families, and they don’t want to consider that what they did is wrong.
And they’re not going to ever be convinced to listen or care because now it’s a partisan issue.
I am just so, so deeply disappointed in humanity because of this fucking decade. 🤦🤦🤦
I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.
Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don’t forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time…
It’s not their job to execute people. It’s their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it’s the perpetrator.
That is why I’m arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done “correctly” by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.
Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.
I guess he should be allowed to shoot whoever he wants and fuck our human right to self defense then. 🤷
I hate cops too but this is one of the few cases where lethal action on their part is justifed. Him shooting at them gives them the right to shoot back, not as cops but as human beings. And how dare you tell human beings that the machinations of an old, decrepit, broken system is more important than their own lives?
From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It’s sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.
Do they ever want to get arrested? That sounds like a poor excuse not to hit him with a bunch of taser darts and take him down that way. Sure, that might kill him too, but at least there would be a chance. Easier for the cop to reach for their gun and “solve” the problem.
You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.
Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)
That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.
I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.
Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!
I don’t care. They can think how they want and you do not have the moral authority to tell them they can’t. Go find something better to do with your free time than exploiting a tragedy to bully other people into adopting your way of thinking.
You ought to listen to yourself there. I am not gonna be quiet because you don’t want me to speak the truth, and the truth is he HAS no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone. He’s just some schmuck like the rest of us, and so are you.
The moral authority to tell someone that their stance that police can shoot anyone they want without due process because it’s cheaper that way is morally wrong?
Yeah, everyone has that.
I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim, nor am I saying it’s sad that the killer got killed himself. But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case, I’ll argue against that. And so should anyone else.
Yes. You have no authority to tell them any moral stance is wrong, especially telling people they can’t kill obvious hateful cultists who are a threat to the community and have proven it by killing actually innocent people. You have NO business saying that in a modern society AT ALL.
No one has the authority to tell someone that. Not even you. And if you claim it I will pit you right back in your place, far below actual decent people, where you belong. You will get what you give and you won’t like it.
I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim,
Well you are, and you make light of countless tragedies both violent and nonviolent across this nation and across this planet when you open your stupid fucking mouth and insinuate something so evil. And until you stop, my stance won’t change.
But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case
The only one who took away his right to due process was him, and he did it of his own volition by being dumb enough to fire at cops. When you shoot at ANYONE unprovoked, you have to accept the very high risk of being killed for your trouble and therefore never seeing a trial because that is how reality works.
Self-defense is a fundamental human right that supercedes any right you claim an aggressor to have.
Final reply, because I feel this not going anywhere.
I, or the person I was defending, was not talking about this specific situation. Of course they have the right to self defense. I explicitly mentioned that before two comments ago.
I’m also not trying to defend the killer or feel sad at all he got killed by the police.
All my replies were aimed at the comment from CoffeeJunkie who apparently was advocating for the police to be judge, jury and executioner because that’s cheaper. That’s a major simplification and I’m sure that’s not what they meant, but that’s how I, and probably others, interpreted it and why I chose to go against it.
Again, I’m done arguing with you. You’re resorting to ad hominem attacks because you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.
We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.
I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.
As much as I will defend my stance that I’m glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I’d be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive
Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!
Am I taking crazy pills or is the dad clearly and obviously the abuser based on the evidence shown in this article alone? Dozens and dozens of mandatory reporters accounts being not just taken non seriously, but completely declining to investigate them? Countless statements from the child himself saying what his dad does, multiple accounts of him fearing his dad. All brushed aside as “his mother is crazy”. What the actual fuck?
no, it's just how the patriarchy works (and it somehow takes it further and uses shit like this to convince men that the system is somehow entirely geared to harm them)
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.