Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Generally those examples given in the article are examples of them expressing dissatisfaction towards the president. Some of them in quite distasteful ways. None of them however were explicitly directing people to do violence towards the president. Hence their speech should be covered by the first amendment
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The act of terrorizing isn't predicated on law. You can terrorize someone in an anarchic state. What matters is how the laws of a particular state has defined a terrorist threat
In this specific instance
A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation
This part is absolutely undeniable as he caused an evacuation of the Walmart because he disregarded the impact and perception of his gear and attire.
and knowingly:(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
This part is also absolutely undeniable. Because as we have discussed, his gear and attire created a condition which prompted false fear in regards to the possibility of him being a shooter
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Look, obviously we just have a different understanding of what might be terrorising to an average person.
Me, I think if you're unprepared to see a person who is combat ready in a place you would not expect to see such a person and it just so happens that such a person is correlated with mass shooting events, you would probably feel terrorized.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Perhaps you should be a lawyer then. You seem to take issue with these laws.
The fact remains. There was no situation in which justified him terrorizing people.
It's really as simple as that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How might one investigate such things in a systematic and objective manner?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How would you objectively measure how corrupt an administration is then? You seem content to say that both democrat and go
administrations are equally corrupt but you haven't really justified it in an objective manner.
administrations are equally corrupt but you haven't really justified it in an objective manner.
When I show you objective data, your answer essentially boils down to "Lol no that doesn't count"
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This particular clause is pretty unambiguous. If his reason for causing terror was in a good faith attempt to prevent harm, he is protected. There was no harm for him to prevent so he is not protected by this clause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Try this one then
Or just google "democrat vs republican administration convictions" or something along those lines
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, left wing presidents have been just as corrupt as right wing. Trump's scandals were all a big nothing burger,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think your racism is showing
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
However the wording of "purpose to prevent harm" is not.
Shall we just drop this topic and reconvene when the outcome of this silly boy's fate has been decided?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You mean this? His purpose wasn't to prevent harm, it was to test whether walmart would honour the second amendment. Apart from this he wasn't acting in good faith. Even if we pretend he was ignorant of the panic he would cause, his family/girlfriend advised him otherwise. He acted far beyond the scope of what he claimed was his objective.No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It looks like what he's actually being charged with is 574.120 RSMo
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
isn't it about ar-15? isn't that one of the main reasons he looked so scary? I'm under the impression that you found him threatening because of the ar-15 even without the body armor or am I mistaken?
Not at all. I wasn't even aware that the dude specifically had an AR-15. I doubt most people are able to identify specific gun models at a distance so it's irrelevant to this conversation
what makes someone "combat ready"?
When your attire and gear are more suitable for combat than for typical civilian activity I suppose
I don't see camo clothing as being very useful in Walmart
Did you have a point here?
doing something you can legally do can't be considered terrorizing others afaik
That's why it wasn't something he could legally do. I cited the relevant law earlier
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, but discussing the ar-15 isn't relevant here
We aren't discussing open carry in general. We aren't discussing body armour. This situation is a package deal. If you want to open carry, go ahead. If you want to wear body armour go ahead. If your actions do not disturb or harm others, knock yourself out. But this person does not have the right to terrorize other people simply by invoking the 2a and evidently the law agrees with me.
I have no idea what their reaction would've been. A business suit isn't typically what a shooter would wear and combat armour/a firearm isn't typically what a businessman would go shopping in. However ultimately I'd hope that people would still recognise that someone who is combat ready does not belong in a Walmart unless that person intends for there to be combat and that their lives are worth more than the groceries that they are carrying
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you do know that ar-15 are used in less than 1% of murders right? I know people think they are scary looking but there's a much greater chance of being killed with many other things.
I only used the ar-15 because you brought it up as the example. I'm happy to replace it with any other firearm
so your only objections are to ar-15's and the body armor?if he was just wearing the camo and had an opened carried handgun that would be acceptable?
The other objection would be how the AR-15 is carried ie strapped to the front rather than slung over the shoulder
If by camo you mean body armour, then it wouldn't be acceptable to me because the body armour in tandem with the handgun still screams to me that the person is ready for a fight. And my next thought would be, what fight is that person ready for in a Walmart if it's not the one he's about to create?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
and in an open carry state the vast majority of people who open carry do not commit crimes either they just want a chance to defend themselves if the situation arises, you see same thing.
Great. But we aren't talking about people who open carry in general. We are talking about people who open carry, who wear bodyarmour and who enter into public spaces. The vast majority of open carries do not do this.
let me ask you if any or all of these examples you would view the same way as the guy we are talking about
Personally, I view any scenario in which the person has an AR-15 strapped to his front, or is wearing combat armour and is armed who walks into a walmart as similar situations. Being armed and wearing combat armour or having the AR-15 strapped to the chest is a strong indicator that the person is either primed for violence or has chosen to wear such gear despite knowing that people will perceive it as you being primed for violence. Either the person is crazy or stupid but neither makes a good combination with guns.
Of course the caveat here is that I don't represent American consensus, nor does it represent all places in America.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
No I don't see the issue. That's why I added in the word justifiably. There's no reason to suspect that a black man who walks into a store is going to harm you, because in the vast majority of cases a black man walking into a store indicates that the man wishes to go shopping.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
whether it's common or not is irrelevant, if what he was doing was legal and within his rights then that is that case closed.
Of course it's relevant. It's the determining factor as to whether people justifiably felt threatened which is the basis of whether he broke a law or not. Imagine if everyone in Walmart wore combat armour and carried a gun. If someone walked in who also wore combat armour and carried a gun, I imagine no one would bat an eye. In which case, he wouldn't have broken any law.
I take it from your reaction that no, this is not the case. It is indeed threatening for most people when someone walks into walmart wearing combat armour and carrying a gun. Hence, case closed. People were justifiably threatened and what he did was against that particular law.
does anyone who carries a gun give you the prospect of being shot? if not does it depend on what they look like? or what is the criteria we should go by?
I mean an obvious criteria is setting. If I were at a gun show, I would expect to see people carrying guns around. Combat armour might be a bit excessive sure but I probably wouldn't notice it too much.
Now at the opposite end of the spectrum, if I were chaperoning at a childrens party I would be extremely concerned if I saw a person walk into the event wearing a combat vest and carrying a gun because that person invariably is there to cause either panic or harm.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
did he do that? can you describe what he did that fits angry or threatening manner? pushing a shopping cart doesn't seem to fit imo
I suppose it depends. Do you commonly have people walking around shops in combat armour and bearing a gun in the US? Because if you don't, the next most probable expectation is likely to be a shootout.
I imagine the prospect of being shot is threatening to most people.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The dude was in body armour with the gun strapped to his chest. If someone like that doesn't scream threat when he walks into a room, evolution has failed you.you can't pull a gun on someone who is not a threat, if he was within his constitutional rights to open carry then yes the firefighter was in the wrong and broke the law, he's not a cop but a wanna be.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What about this statute then?
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; o
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Alec
My Mom doesn't want me having a gun because of my autism.
Your mom wants the best for you, and that's certainly a consideration to take when deciding to buy a gun. However ultimately it's your life, so it's your decision whether to get a gun and not hers.
the retired firefighter who pulled a gun on him should be charged. while what the gun did going into wal-mart like he did was dumb it doesn't appear he actually broke any laws, moreover he didn't have any of the guns in his hand or acting in anyway that the retired gun could have felt immediately threatened, I mean the gun was pushing a shopping cart, shopping, the retired gun wanted to be a hero imo and should have to pay the consequences for breaking the laws as he did. if he had a concealed licence, not sure if he needed one, but if you are going to carry it's your responsibility to know wtf you are doing and what you can't do.
I believe the relevant law is
Open display of firearm permitted, when. — Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.[1]
He was not carrying the firearm in a concealed manner
His display to "the ordinary sight of another person" was not brief
His display of the firearm was not in necessary self defense
And to reasonable interpretation, the firearm was intentionally displayed in a threatening manner
Created:
-->
@Alec
Two points
1. I imagine part of the reason for the mental illness restriction is the predisposition for certain types of behaviours. It's not enough to examine what a person thinks they'll do with a gun, but also to examine how likely they are to "fly off the handle" at any given moment for any set of factors. And this is something that I doubt the mentally ill can recognise in themselves until it's already happened and it's too late, if even at all.
2. I'm about 99.99% sure that just having some sort of high functioning autism in and of itself doesn't prevent anyone from owning a gun. I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise but it's simply not true.
Created:
-->
@Alec
If they were already diagnosed with a mental illness, then it was just a case of background check failure I suppose. That, and there are a handful of cases where you can be exempted from a background check.
If they weren't diagnosed with a mental illness beforehand, then there would be nothing to show on a background check in the first place. And there's really nothing you can do about this except for some sort of mental screening as part of the purchasing process.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Most amendments have later supreme court decisions that "refine" the original amendment text. For example, speech that incites violence is not protected by the 1st amendment, despite the 1st amendment not stating this.
In the case of the 2nd amendment, the Heller decision explicitly states that the federal laws that prevent felons and mentally ill from bearing arms are permissible despite the 2nd amendment.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
The 2nd amendment does not give unlimited rights. You can argue you think that the law he broke falls foul of the 2nd amendment, however under your countries current legal framework, he was not protected by the 2nd amendment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
Brain size, level of testosterone, how long it takes to reach puberty, etc.
In regards to these differences, do you have any thoughts on policies that you feel should be implemented or removed in order to better take these factors into account?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
As an extension to
It's 100 percent certain that there are significant differences between the races, and this means that our society is built on a giant lie.
What are some of the examples of these significant differences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No. My faith in God. I find your cynicism offensive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Again, rude and presumptuous. I don't know whether BrotherDThomas is a fraud. I, however take my faith very seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No. That's very presumptuous and rude. The authors of that article are clearly shills. The fact that you buy into that pseudo-scientific nonsense without critically analyzing it in respect to your faith makes me think that you don't take your faith very seriously
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That article is fake science, perpetuated by satan worshipping pseudo-scientists and funded by big corporations. You profess to be religious, but your reliance on such heretical material clearly indicates you are nothing more than an atheist under a thin veneer of insincere piety. I will pray for your soul
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You don't have DNA when you die. There is no contradiction
Created:
I vaguely read somewhere that the problem isn't with food. Globally we already produce enough food to feed everyone. The issue is getting the food to where it needs to be.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
A closet racist who wishes to keep a veneer of civility?What would you call someone who wants to keep America as White as possible, but without deporting any citizens?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You've given reasons why South Korea would/US should. Have you considered any of the reasons why South Korea would not/US should not?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What definition are you using? The definition used to claim the ~250 number is incidents where 4 or more people are shot in a single shooting spreeA mass shooting is more than two deaths in one incident. So a murder suicide is a mass shooting. Seems to be a number padding system.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The first one is entirely possible. It's a question of reducing inflow of guns and increasing outflow of guns such that the outflow exceeds inflow. Over time this will result in less guns. Knowing this, does this change your answer?Obviously, I'd like to target the second one seeing as the 1st one is impossible considering the scope of how many guns are already in the country.. Trump's pledge to strengthen red-flag laws is a step in the right direction provided he can build a coalition to refine the policy.
As for your question, I'd go with the media just because it seems to me there is a rather straightforward solution while the solution for a disjointed family is far more nebulous. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the issue is with sensationalism for false narratives. It's a simple issue of covering stories and monkey see monkey do. As for how I'd go about it, I would make it illegal to publish any sort of details on the perpetrator or videos of the act.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
While having an excessive amount of guns in the country or the ability to access those guns alone probably does not breed many mass shooters, the MIXTURE of those 2 things is most certainly sufficient enough to account for most abused and neglected people to become shooters. Which of those 2 national political problems would you like to see tackled and how?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I believe the stock reply to that particular point would be "These people are mentally ill outliers who do not represent our values". Unfortunately when it comes to some people, facts aren't the magic bullet that they should be
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a rather vague statement. Which medias are actively driving the narrative that there is notoriety in death? How do you know that they are doing this intentionally from a profit motivated angle?
Or is it simply your argument that reporting acts of gun violence is in itself the driver for the narrative of notoriety in death?
Moreover would this actually be a "fake" news narrative? It is simply a fact that rare events that lead to significant losses of human life are generally news worthy for some period of time, with the perpetrator being a part of that news
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is the fake narrative that the article is describing there?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
I asked if you realize your use of "gun violence" as being violence with a gun was trivial. To put another way when you say you can't have gun violence without a gun, you aren't stating that someone is impeded because they say to themselves "Damn, I'm gunless!" You're just stating that if a massive amounts of violence isn't committed with a gun, that it isn't gun violence. No one cares how a foreign object came to put their parts to leaking.
Oh I see. My intended interpretation of the statement was a bit more like "All these examples of mass shootings could not have occurred if the shooter did not possess a gun and was unable to acquire one" which is closer to your first interpretation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Snoopy
I disagree. Guns are a readily available and effective force multiplier tool. They are a significant factor when discussing indiscriminate life threatening violence.People are talking about indiscriminate life threatening violence. You've got to know "Gun violence" being violence with a gun is trivial, right?
FAKE NARRATIVE NEWS is BAD though...how does society benefit from corporate media profit-driven narratives?Also, feel free to address the fatherless epidemic sometime before you become a grandfather.
I agree that profit-driven narratives aren't particularly helpful. However I'm wary of people screeching it as a vague cover-all for media that they disagree with or don't like. If you are going to use fake narrative news as an excuse, I would like to see more than just "FAKE NEWS BAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To be clear, when I say "What was the news like", I mean how many incidents of gun violence were actually reported and recorded and how would the news of the wild-west differ to modern day news in terms of spurring on acts of gun violence. Not your "WAHHHHHHH FAKE NARRATIVE NEWS BAD" take.
Apart from this, if those things are significant problems then they certainly should be addressed. However they certainly aren't problems unique to America and there's no reason to do them specifically before "disarming" the country.
Finally, no matter how many ancillary reasons you bring up, the fact that no gun violence can occur without possession of guns in the first place is an unassailable truth.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Guns have always been prevalent in the USA for hundreds of years, but these mass shootings and gun violence are relatively new observations in the long history of the USA. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, it was historically extremely rare to die from a gun in the "wild west."
Are they relatively new observations or are they relatively new reported observations? What was the news like back in the wild-west? Would guns of that era have even been reliable enough and/or fast enough and/or deadly enough to consistently commit gun violence/mass shootings? How prevalent were guns in those eras really in comparison to today and what was their distribution like between city to rural folk?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need more than saying there were guns now and guns before but only mass shootings/gun violence now. It's somewhat similar to the so called autism epidemic where the true cause for the uptick in diagnoses is broader definitions and better detection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
As far as I can tell, there haven't been any reported cases of a migrant sneaking in infecting a town and then looking for asylum. Technically, this would be a good thing, because if something like that did happen it would be really bad.However, there have been several cases of illegal aliens finding their way into this country and killing people before getting caught by ICE agents or other officials.These were just a few examples of illegal aliens doing bad things when they should have been deported. How can you still say that "There is no problem"?? Does something like this have to happen to you, to someone you love, or in your area for you to see how bad this is?
So to be clear, there is a distinction between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker who initially crosses the border illegally. We are discussing asylum seekers. Your examples are about illegal immigrants.
The "cost" that you're referring to would be the amount of time, energy, resources, money, and manpower invested into catching and deporting these illegal aliens, processing asylum applications, and securing our border. The reward would be... just that, less illegal aliens to worry about, asylum applications processed, and a more secure border. None of these security measures are absoutely perfect though, and even with all of these safety measures in places, some determined bad guy could still find a way around all of this.
I mean sure, if you mean border security in general. If you mean requiring asylum seekers to go through legal ports of entry then you haven't actually done anything except waste resources.
We want to require asylum seekers to seek asylum at a legal port of entry and actively encourage them to do so. If that involves "endangering" them somehow, then so be it. They shouldn't be coming in illegally anyways. In fact, if we simply allowed them to just cross over without checking in at the port of entry, especially if they simply choose to evade authorities instead of turning themselves over and applying for asylum, and hang out in the country, then wouldn't we be endangering OUR people? Our people should come first, if you ask me, not a bunch of illegal aliens.
Well I don't know if you would be endangering your people. That's for you to argue. My guess would be not, because there is no evidence to suggest that have been endangering your people in the past, or will in the future. My argument is just that human well-being is worth more than baseless feelings.
Why would a genuine asylum seeker have "no choice but to cross over illegally" anyways? Are these asylum seekers being chased from their home country all the way to the United States by some monster that they have to bypass the border wall and border security to escape it? Can't they just go to the darn port of entry? You yourself said that it would be counter intuitive to cross over illegally "and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally". So if you're trying to escape some monster chasing you something, then it would actually make more sense to actually go to the port of entry, rather than come in illegally, get deported, and be sent right back to said monster, right? In that case, we wouldn't be endangering them at all; they would be endangering themselves!
There could be multiple reasons. The most logical reason I can think of is just ignorance. Realistically, how many asylum seekers are familiar with US asylum law really and how many might think that it's just ok to just pop over the border? Are their situations any less deplorable than those who are familiar with asylum law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Whether or not asylum seekers are "a major cause" of these things is irrelevant. The point is that we want to make sure they are safe to come into our country, which we can do when they apply for asylum instead of sneaking in like a ninja turtle or something.
It's entirely relevant. Solutions are created to fix problems. The cost for the solution is justified by the fixing of the problem. There is no problem in this case, therefore your cost for the solution is unjustified.
If the articles that I showed you, about how many of these migrants were found to have all sorts of illnesses and some were also found to be gang members, isn't enough "evidence to suggest" that maybe we should take some safety measures for our country, I don't know what else is.
None of those migrants are "sneaking in like a ninja turtle" so in the context of this discussion, they are irrelevant. If you have evidence of migrants sneaking in, infecting a town and then claiming asylum, by all means bring it forth. I would absolutely consider that relevant evidence. The problem is, you're constructing an argument based upon an imaginary problem without any sort of evidence. I don't find this kind of argument particularly compelling.
The virgin soil effect may not apply today, but it's still an example of what happened to past civilizations that had no border security of any kind. You could argue that we aren't like those past civilizations anymore and that we have developed antibiotics, vaccines, and other cures in case we were to get another outbreak like that, which they did not have access to... so what's wrong with having that extra layer of security, and requiring people to apply for asylum legally instead of illegally?
The point is cost vs reward. What is the reward in this case? What is the cost? Well the reward in the case is pretty minimal. You get to feel better about about the asylum system. The cost in this case is that you are endangering asylum seekers who had no choice but no cross over illegally as well as the associated costs of challenging existing law and allocating resources to account for the enforcement of the law. Also I do believe that Trump's law falls foul of international asylum law, so there's that.
The fact that at least 2000 illegal aliens were supposed to be deported and only like 35 were deported should be enough to show that this is a problem, and that ICE agents are fighting an uphill battle to get these illegal aliens out of our country.
What does this have to do with asylum seeking?
I suppose you're right about the law not assuming that all people will tell the truth, but I'm still nervous that people are looking for ways to exploit our laws however they can, and it would be why we have strict asylum requirements in the first place.
I mean.. this applies to all laws right? In that people are always looking for ways to exploit them. It just so happens that in this case there's no reasonable evidence to suggest that the asylum laws in particular are being exploited. Perhaps you could focus your energy on crusading against laws which are definitely being exploited such as tax law
Created: