• Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, my immediate thought was "Melenated people are targets more than ever in my lifetime. I’m the same age as people who still weren’t allowed in designated schools, hospitals, despite federal laws. Yes, one of those states

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

    It’s important, I think, to remember that our nation, and much of civilization chooses to put property rights over human rights. Some nations do not, many of which are the happiest on Earth according to the world happiness index.

    We choose, to be vindictive, petty, murderous monsters, many of which are willing to kill over their pile of crap, and some of which are extremely eager, going by their door signs, to kill over their pile of crap.

    But Freedom to roam countries tend to be societies, whereas we’re more of a burlap sack fillled with turds, Metaphorically speaking.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s been a while, but I do vaguely recall a footnote on the sixth commandment about how it doesn’t count if you really don’t like the person you are killing or something.

      Same people who really insist that the bible and the ten commandments are the immutable word of god and that alone is a justification for things being illegal.

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well the thing is that after the commandment to not kill thing, there come something like three whole books where that same god directly instructs his chosen people to commit one tribal genocide after another after another after another. There’s even a cool story in there where he gives such an instruction and his chosen ones are like, “Nah, they have more people and better resources and we’re going to all die if we try to genocide them.” And that god says, “If you don’t go kill them right now, I’ll just kill you right here and now.” And then within a book or so after that he’s all, “Actually it’s bad to kill again, starting… NOW!” Can’t expect consistency or logic from people who think these are true stories.

    • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Republicans have wanted to hunt people for sport for ages. Also, they don’t see them as “people” so they have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah no, you are an ex food delivery driver. You just don’t know it yet. By that I mean quit. Don’t put yourself at risk for these people’s sake. Tell the company they cannot pay you enough on hazard pay to justify working there anymore

      • MinusPi@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Believe me, I’m gone the instant I can afford to. I’ve been trapped here basically my whole life.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Remember the parable of the man who was beaten on the road to Damascus? In the New Republican Version, it ends with the Samaritan gunning him down from 100yds, just in case.

    • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Scene: The road to Damascus

      Samaritan: laying on the ground, beaten and bloody

      Repub: GET ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GROUND!!!

      Samaritan: lifts head slightly to see who is yelling

      Repub: HE’S COMING RIGHT AT ME!! pew pew pew

      Samaritan: dies

      Repub: you guys all saw that right? He was coming right at me, I had to stand my ground! (from 100 yards away)

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      what’s hilarious about that (OG) parable was… it’s original purpose.

      some cultural context is important there; not rendering aid if it could be rendered was viewed every bit as much as stabbing a dude would have been. It was the only commandant that could have been broken by inaction.

      now the merchant and the pharisee were both seen as righteous men. So as jesus was telling the story; everybody expected him to stop. When the merchant kept going by, everyone thought (more or less,) “oh, the pharisee had it.”

      When the Pharisee kept going… he was literally calling the rich fucks and their puppets (the pharisees) murderers. The point of the parable was that those two were worse than the “unclean” and broadly despised Samaritans. (which were viewed in very similar manner to how Trumpian broke-dicks view migrants seeking asylum, in point of fact.)

  • ____@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wasn’t but a few hours ago that I was telling someone elsewhere in the fediverse that food is a human right and directly causing famine (Palestine) is unacceptable use of human rights as weapons.

    Fortunately, when Israel couldn’t quite be offensive enough at that exact moment, Arizona sat up and said “Hold my beer, y’all!”

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s some nuance here. INAL, but I’m reading that this bill would allow someone to confront a trespasser, far from home, yet on their property, and call it castle doctrine. If that’s the case, I disagree mightily. Fuck around outside? That’s for 911, even if they’re far away. Don’t care what you do outside, I’ll wait on law enforcement. Inside? FAFO.

    If passed, the change of “and” to “or” in state law would give a much broader defense to people who use deadly force, as property would only have to satisfy some of the requirements instead of all of them, said criminal defense attorney Jack Litwak. [emphasis mine]

    “The idea with the Castle Doctrine is that you are supposed to be able to defend house and home,” he said.“This seems to broaden it to say you can shoot someone that’s just on your actual property.”

    On the surface, this doesn’t seem like much of a change. But I’ve seen cases revolve around seemingly minor details. Words have very specific meanings in law. Very specific.

    Remember the guy who shot a YouTube bully who was fucking with him in a food court? And we all cheered him on? Here James Reeves, gun nut and attorney, breaks it down. Yes, being somewhat cheesy is part of his shtick. In any case, he’s expert on both firearms and related law (ex-military and a practicing attorney.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMkL5wlcaM

  • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    When will it extend to 10" from wherever your car happens to be? I mean, why not right? The car is clearly more valuable as long as it isnt a sissy commie electric.

    /s for sadcasm

    • Xrfauxtard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not to ruin your day, but many castle doctrine states consider the car to be an extension of your home for self defense purposes.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    In committee, Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, praised the bill for protecting people who could be accused of using excessive force in these situations.

    “This is a great Second Amendment bill, that is also protecting the rights of the accused to make sure we are taking ambiguity out of our law,” Kolodin said.

    These people are absolute acorns.