OBVIOUSLY I say
― Οὖτις, Friday, 2 October 2015 22:17 (eight years ago) link
it irritates me to no end that the left is really disorganized and/or completely demoralized on this issue, it's ridiculous.
― Οὖτις, Friday, 2 October 2015 22:18 (eight years ago) link
Inevitable baby talk from Democratic Party types "oh the ERA failed so.....we never reintroduced it. Because waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. Because if anything we do loses, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Let's sell out so we never have to lose again."
I apologize for characterizing Democratic Party types as people who emote in long vowels. Anyway:
HEY!!! I'd support "repeal the 2nd amendment." But absolutely nothing less than that. (That is, sure, I'd vote for gun control measures, but I think it's relatively dopey to invest a lot into them.)
When gun control laws get overturned judicially --- and they do --- it means all that investment of effort into making the gun control laws turned out to be a complete waste of time. So why exactly should the left not be "disorganized or demoralized" when this is the true situation?
But yeah. Go big. Go Constitutional Amendment. If you are going to do it, really do it.
― Vic Perry, Friday, 2 October 2015 22:39 (eight years ago) link
The fundamental problem IMO is that the USA is basically flooding the entire world with guns and other weapons. The gov't is cozy as fuck with gun makers so why would they ever shut the party down?
― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 2 October 2015 22:51 (eight years ago) link
Yeah, my endorsing repeal (or) redraw of the 2nd Amendment does not constitute endorsement of fantasy scenario where all the guns are rounded up, because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.
I could easily imagine the first place everybody would go would be minority neighborhoods, while the suburban whites would be left alone. You know, like in the drug war.
― Vic Perry, Friday, 2 October 2015 22:57 (eight years ago) link
because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.
let's have it. All the gun nuts get to live out their fantasies of resistance, the army kills them all. it's a win-win.
― Οὖτις, Friday, 2 October 2015 23:00 (eight years ago) link
even if the 2nd amendment isn't repealed, i think it's important for there to be a powerful voice (lobby) arguing for its repeal, since that establishes one pole of the conversation and would make those advocating for extensive gun control seem like...not the scariest bunch?
of course people will still say "but this reveals that they really want to take away out guns!" ... except that this is /already/ the argument that the NRA et al make, every day.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, 2 October 2015 23:50 (eight years ago) link
repeal or revision, i suppose.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, 2 October 2015 23:51 (eight years ago) link
have we talked about this?: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment
argues (as does my S.O.) that it's not about the 2nd amendment but about its interpretation. i'm a little incredulous at the argument that this radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon, since the antipathy to gun control is pointedly /not/ a recent development.
but i'm not a constitutional scholar. (though i'm a little skeptical of anyone who points to a stevens dissent as the best place to find a legitimate constitutional interpretation. i thought his interpretations were generally thought to be fairly flaky.)
thoughts?
― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, 2 October 2015 23:58 (eight years ago) link
this article makes a similar argument. the idea that the second amendment protects an individual right to a firearm was rejected by most legal scholars until the '70s. the amendment basically means nothing at all anymore since state "militas" are not much of a thing these days.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:06 (eight years ago) link
No, appoint justices who interpret it correctly (as per my former boss - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856).
Predicate: elect Democratic President next year.
The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election... http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.htmlhttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:06 (eight years ago) link
xp
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:07 (eight years ago) link
apparently the author of the politico article wrote an entire book on the second amendment -- anyone read it?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:14 (eight years ago) link
The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election...http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.htmlhttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 7:06 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this reasoning appeals to me more than the "repeal 2nd amendment" argument even if i think the latter should be part of the conversation
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:19 (eight years ago) link
radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan
"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:11 (eight years ago) link
you say "radical move," dripping scornful sarcasm, as if we thought we were proposing anything radical. try playing chess with someone else.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:18 (eight years ago) link
also note your rhetorical move othering "ILXORS" -- as if you aren't one. or i guess you just aren't part of the hive mind, right?
radical!
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:19 (eight years ago) link
radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:11 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:11 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
also...this is not a question of "eventually...maybe." the judges appointed to the supreme court have a direct effect on how laws are interpreted, passed, and enforced. that's been proven... all the time.
i'm not sure what your intimation of superiority is implying.... do you think we think the limit of political activity is voting in a presidential election?
actually i'm not sure you care what we think, so long as you can feel superior to this imagined ILXOR gradualist hivemind.
happy friday!
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:22 (eight years ago) link
actually... why am i bothering to argue with some patronizing dipshit on the internet? sorry folks! off to the movies...
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:25 (eight years ago) link
I feel like part of what's needed is some kind of really hard-edged stigmatizing shame campaign, like enough with the hand-wringing "OH WHEN WILL THE SADNESS END?" attitude. The question is, do you stigmatize ownership or just manufacture -- does stigmatizing ownership backfire, and otoh is stigmatizing manufacture not enough. But some kind of massive pushback on the "brand" of gun ownership is needed.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:31 (eight years ago) link
Juxtapose a guy saying he wants to protect his family with a couple of terrible stories about kids killed by handguns kept in the house, then show the stats.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:32 (eight years ago) link
ok fair points in the first couple posts.....lots of invective in the later posts. You are forgiven. I hope that didn't come off too patronizing.
Just want to say I'm all in favor of REPEALING THE 2nd Amendment and I don't care whether it's hard or not. I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not. It's pathetic for anybody who is not a professional politician to do such things, does anybody get what I mean here or am I just totally out there for this crowd....wait, there are about 20 people logged in right now, this isn't a crowd....
But seriously, you were going to vote for whoever the Dem is anyway, right? If not, say so. I question whether adding "Supreme Court Justice Picking" to that basic default position constitutes "action", whether described sarcastically as "radical" by me or not.
I think voting for President MAINLY on the issue of "who the Supreme Court Justices the P would appoint" is just awful. Talk about low expectations: I'm gonna vote for somebody because maybe they will appoint somebody to some lifetime position where we have no control over them.........
I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject. And you know how cranky I am anyway, so we are talking extra cranky.
No hard feelings? REPEAL!
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:32 (eight years ago) link
Do something to eat away at the "responsible gun ownership" myth. Make people feel more uncomfortable about owning guns.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:33 (eight years ago) link
go hard with TV ads juxtaposing mass gun violence with a politician or NRA spokesman subsequently making a "let's not be hasty"/"we can't cut back on guns"/"banning guns will accomplish nothing" or something similarly tone deaf, show the date, show the number of deaths, show faces, pile one quick segment on top of the previous, show the callousness and just shame them hard.
xpost yeah show the actual FANTASIES bandied about by the right and libertarians about the government taking advantage of a more unarmed populace, or the fantasy of how many "bad guys" have been stopped by "responsible" gun owners. show the reality of the blood on the ground vs the paranoia.
― nomar, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:38 (eight years ago) link
I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not.
there's a difference b/t positions and actions, though. you can think "x" is the best position in the abstract but "y" is the best strategy for achieving something closer to it.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:42 (eight years ago) link
i mean that's just... life. you can't always get what you want, etc. i don't know that to acknowledge this basic truism of life is necessarily to be defeatist or whatever.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:43 (eight years ago) link
I definitely think the left could learn from the right about persistence in just plugging away at a position that seems "unrealistic." I feel like they're a little more adept at moving the center, although maybe I'm not giving the left enough credit for what seem to be recent swings back in the other direction on some issues.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:43 (eight years ago) link
"I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject."
when has it been untrue? and when has it been inconsistent with your choice?
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:45 (eight years ago) link
did the supreme court not give us the george w bush administration?
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:46 (eight years ago) link
Basic truisms of life include "the possibility of losing." For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else.You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read.
With politics, suddenly everybody is a fucking outcomes specialist. Oh dear, this might not work? Let's not then. Hey, let's try something that will slowly crush our souls and make us not want to keep going --- many pundits say it would work though!!!
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:48 (eight years ago) link
was a majority of that court not appointed by reagan, bush pere, and nixon?
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:48 (eight years ago) link
You know, the saddest thing about the lost Gore administration is that VP pick of his, who was that again. He was awesome.
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:49 (eight years ago) link
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:45 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
srsly I'm tempted to go dig out all the 5-4 decisions that went our way that would not have with republican apointees in lieu of Kagan and Sotomayor. Gay marriage is an obvious one that comes to mind but there are probably dozens.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:49 (eight years ago) link
"For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else. You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read."
this is about as applicable as the gop bullshit about balancing your checkbook being equivalent to balancing the budget. you don't get a second option here, the first one goes for 4-8 years, and it has secondary effects that can last for four decades.
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:51 (eight years ago) link
― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 9:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
the saddest thing about this post is... nah, i'm off to the movies too
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:52 (eight years ago) link
― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:48 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Well maybe a better way to think about it is cost/benefit. The political process for amending the constitution is SO difficult in today's political climate to begin with, and until a pretty recent Supreme Court case, the Second Amendment wasn't the main barrier to effective gun control anyway. So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:53 (eight years ago) link
Heller v. DC was only 7 years ago. Our gun problem is much older.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:55 (eight years ago) link
And meanwhile, yes, I literally think it's a better strategy to "sit around waiting" for a majority liberal court, which could easily be within 5-10 years, then to go through the circus of trying to amend the constitution. And if that court does materialize, you don't actually have to then "wait around" for the right case to come along. All that has to happen is a state or municipality passes a law that appears to violate Heller, and some chump takes the bait and challenges it in court.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:57 (eight years ago) link
*than to go through...
"So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!"
Never mind the defeatist first bit.....what do you mean by the second part of the sentence?
Are you saying that gun control measures would have to be implemented by, say, Congress, along with the repeal? I believe President Obama said something to the effect that Congress should be involved in such measures yesterday.
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:58 (eight years ago) link
no shit i will give all my bernie sanders money to this
― big fat rascal (will), Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:14 (eight years ago) link
xp The second part of that sentence was self explanatory. You realize that until 2008, the Second Amendment was effectively neutered, right?
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:14 (eight years ago) link
― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:51 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
You have excessive faith in the principle of safety of supporting the "least offensive candidate," while having excessive fears of what happens when your party doesn't have the presidency. Your party doesn't have the presidency quite often. Well, specifically, half the time, with one 4-year exception quite awhile ago.
But the main terrible thing that happens when your party doesn't run things is a sudden resurgence of interest among all the people who previously didn't really care. This groundswell of energy leads of course to your party running the White House for an....equal length of time.
American politics is a see-saw. Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic. It's a remarkably consistent pattern.
Expecting the Democratic Party to just win all the time and therefore contribute all the people you want to the Supreme Court? This is the big plan?
To use the biggest criticism this way of thinking could produce, this is "not realistic."
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:19 (eight years ago) link
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:24 (eight years ago) link
I'm sleepy too. Yet I don't hide behind it when I'm losing an argument.
G'night.
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:26 (eight years ago) link
also
Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic.
lol this is wrong
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:27 (eight years ago) link
actually sorry it is technically correct, but there was a democratic white house for 20 years straight just prior to the year you arbitrarily chose, and it's not exactly a large statistical sampling.
― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:31 (eight years ago) link
AH HA. I didn't go to sleep. I read a bad article on the Guardian instead. So there!
the surprise year was: 1980. Interestingly, this was one of the more historically significant political shifts ever, so there is that.
How exactly you claim that 60 plus years is "not exactly a large statistical sampling" ... I mean what do you think elections are, flipping coins? We're talking about millions of individual decisions leading up to each election outcome, and still it is almost always....8 years for D, 8 years for R.
Pattern getting more entrenched, rather than less, by the way. We are about to have 24 years with 3 presidents. I'll give you a hint on the last time that happened: one of them was Jefferson.
And this is not to say we couldn't just chuck it in 2016! Beat the pattern. The grass is always greener on the other side. So why not throw away your history and take the ride. (that's a quote......to bring it back to an ILM kind of place where I'd rather be anyway)
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:49 (eight years ago) link
Wow that lyric (from 1983) is apparently so obscure it is not even available via a google search. If there is some kind of prize for being underrated and ignored...
― Vic Perry, Saturday, 3 October 2015 02:57 (eight years ago) link
you know, you can do a lot of things politically. you can have short and long term goals. in the short(er) term, you can think that electing a democrat will potentially allow for shifts in the supreme court that will in turn help to alter the way the constitution is interpreted for the better. hey, it's worked that way before (in that direction, and in reverse). i don't think this obviates some longer-term goals of making democrats more accountable to their base. or at least it doesn't necessarily obviate it. and even if it does... well....
things could always be worse. much worse. through most of human history, in much of the rest of the world, they are much worse. i'm really, really averse to the whole "things are gonna have to get worse so they can eventually get better" argument. for reasons i've explained many, many, many times on this board. above all, history just doesn't work in a predictable fashion. the dynamics of social and political change can't be mapped out decades in advance. we are never guaranteed the outcome we imagine or desire. to think otherwise is... i was going to write "hubris," but i don't think it's quite hubris, it's more just... deluded?
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 3 October 2015 03:21 (eight years ago) link
One of those *responsible gun owners* we always hear about
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 29 June 2022 13:06 (one year ago) link
a true yeoman of our republic
i mean, like, freal tho
not that there’s anything anyone can actually do to make it happen. this pot of frog water became frog soup became frog sludge became frog leather many moons ago.
but still
i would like for people to stop being murdered like this
i would like for it to be incredibly difficult, grueling, as close to impossible as possible for a random person to kill lots of other people
it doesn’t make sense that this isn’t everyone else’s default opinion
― bule bulak oying (cat), Tuesday, 5 July 2022 02:12 (one year ago) link
somehow i’m still not used to things not making sense
― bule bulak oying (cat), Tuesday, 5 July 2022 02:13 (one year ago) link
cat otm
― Herby Dutch Baby (Sufjan Grafton), Tuesday, 5 July 2022 04:16 (one year ago) link
o misbegotten amendment
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, 5 July 2022 04:23 (one year ago) link
SLATER SCOOP: Exclusive video of road-rage shooting in Miami from in-car camera.The shooter seen here was arrested and is awaiting trial. He told cops the other driver fired first.(Warning: Language and gunfire) pic.twitter.com/10vDVEwBbw— Andy Slater (@AndySlater) January 28, 2022
The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office has dropped charges against Eric Popper, the driver who pulled out a handgun and shot at another driver through his own car on I-95 in Miami-Dade County. The road rage incident occurred in June 2021 but took a wild twist in January 2022. Dashcam footage from Popper’s Toyota Venza was given to the media. Popper’s attorney said the footage showed his client’s actions were in self-defense. The state attorney’s office agreed.
In 2021, Eric Popper cut off another driver while driving to work on I-95. The other driver began tailgating and honking his horn at the 30-year-old. Popper brake-checked him. The other driver pulled up alongside Popper, and this is where accounts diverged. The Florida Highway Patrol stated the other driver threw a water bottle. Popper claims it was gunfire, and he returned fire in kind. Whatever struck Popper’s crossover SUV can’t be seen in the video footage.
Eric Popper faced charges including aggravated assault with a firearm after the road rage incident. However, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office recently dropped the charges against Popper. Popper’s attorney Robert Gershman has said that the charge was dropped because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. Gershman told WPLG, “I think under the stand your ground law, Mr. Popper was perfectly reasonable and justified in his actions. There was no question when you look and listen to the facts of the case, Mr. Popper was shot at.”
Popper has told the media that he wants to move on. He told WPLG, “Hindsight is 20/20. There are always things we can look back and say we wish we could have done differently. Definitely, I would have done —would be to not have pumped my brakes. I would have taken another tactic. Definitely try to de-escalate a little better.” Hopefully, Popper wishes that he would not have pulled a handgun in traffic.
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Saturday, 18 March 2023 19:51 (one year ago) link
There was no question... Mr. Popper was shot at.
Here's a question. Any bullet holes in Mr. Popper's SUV?
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Saturday, 18 March 2023 19:59 (one year ago) link
so weird that at the very beginning of all this, he's singing "doot doot doot doot! gonna suck my d. gonna suck my d!" one minute later he's trying to kill someone
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:17 (one year ago) link
What is the source of the video?
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:19 (one year ago) link
his own dashcam, i think, given to the media in january 2022
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:20 (one year ago) link
throw the book at this fucker what is the question exactly
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:30 (one year ago) link
fucking violent psychopath loser, go to jail thanks
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:31 (one year ago) link
pulling a gun because you’re mad at traffic, has to be one of the easiest tests for dangerous terrible people
― k3vin k., Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:32 (one year ago) link
yeah. didn't even get charged, in the end
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:35 (one year ago) link
He had his gun out and ready before the guy ever came up even with him. And he was spraying bullets. He's a danger to himself and others.
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:44 (one year ago) link
it seems really obvious to me, too. i don't know. repeal the second amendment
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:45 (one year ago) link
there’s cool laws in the cool states that say you can just blast away however much you want if you feel bad that day or whatever, what are you gonna do
― Clay, Saturday, 18 March 2023 20:47 (one year ago) link
Jeb should be charged with thousands of manslaughters for signing SYG into law.
― hootenanny-soundtracking clusterfucks about milking cows (Neanderthal), Sunday, 19 March 2023 17:36 (one year ago) link
I know it's merely semantics, but how is this even considered road rage? I get the impression, given how disturbingly calm this guy is throughout the altercation, that this is not the first time this has happened. Pretty fucking chilling
― Paul Ponzi, Sunday, 19 March 2023 19:07 (one year ago) link
A Black teenager was shot in the head in Kansas City, Mo., after showing up at the wrong house to pick up his siblings, lawyers for his family said.Family members identified the victim online as Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old high school junior.Kansas City Police were called to a residence shortly before 10 p.m. on Thursday where the teenager was shot by a homeowner, Police Chief Stacey Graves said in a news conference Sunday. The teenager was transported to a hospital to be treated for his injuries, Graves said. She did not name the victim.Police said the teenager’s parents asked him to pick up his siblings at a residence on 115th Terrace, in the city’s northeast, but that he instead went to a residence on 115th Street, the Kansas City Star reported.Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Lee Merritt, who are representing Yarl and his family, said in a statement that Yarl “is alive and recovering” but that he has severe injuries. They said he was “shot twice and struck in the head and arm by an unidentified white male assailant,” and that Yarl was unarmed. The Washington Post could not independently verify those claims.
Family members identified the victim online as Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old high school junior.
Kansas City Police were called to a residence shortly before 10 p.m. on Thursday where the teenager was shot by a homeowner, Police Chief Stacey Graves said in a news conference Sunday. The teenager was transported to a hospital to be treated for his injuries, Graves said. She did not name the victim.
Police said the teenager’s parents asked him to pick up his siblings at a residence on 115th Terrace, in the city’s northeast, but that he instead went to a residence on 115th Street, the Kansas City Star reported.
Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Lee Merritt, who are representing Yarl and his family, said in a statement that Yarl “is alive and recovering” but that he has severe injuries. They said he was “shot twice and struck in the head and arm by an unidentified white male assailant,” and that Yarl was unarmed. The Washington Post could not independently verify those claims.
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Monday, 17 April 2023 16:41 (eleven months ago) link
Yarl rang the wrong doorbell and was shot twice. how could this be understood as anything other than the homeowner, hearing a doorbell at night, grabbing their gun and prioritizing "kill"
― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Monday, 17 April 2023 16:43 (eleven months ago) link
Asked whether the shooting may have been racially motivated, the police chief said, “the information that we have now, it does not say that that is racially motivated. That’s still an active investigation. But as a chief of police, I do recognize the racial components of this case.”
no, i don't think you do
― Will.I.Am's fetid urine (Neanderthal), Monday, 17 April 2023 17:17 (eleven months ago) link
if it was truly still an active investigation, you could have simply said "we are investigating all possibilities", not lead with "it doesn't look like it". I'm sure this will be an unbiased, fair investigation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/accused-shooter-in-kansas-city-shooting-of-black-teen-who-went-to-the-wrong-house-is-white-man-in-his-80s/ar-AA19WVkR?ocid=iehp&cvid=f95cbb1b28204e0889f6331eedef8dba&ei=9
― Three Rings for the Elven Bishop (Dan Peterson), Monday, 17 April 2023 18:17 (eleven months ago) link
“White man in his 80s” being invited for a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention.
― "The pudding incident?" (Boring, Maryland), Monday, 17 April 2023 20:25 (eleven months ago) link
Picking up siblings while black. Yes, the U.S. is a dystopia.
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Monday, 17 April 2023 22:33 (eleven months ago) link
Judge Carlton Reeves has issued his decision in the felon-in-possession case. He rules that, under Bruen, permanently disarming people convicted of felonies violates the Second Amendment. The 77-page decision is absolutely fascinating. https://t.co/aVLee5se3s pic.twitter.com/quWEM5iwXQ— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2023
this is so grotesquely bleak lol
― k3vin k., Thursday, 29 June 2023 00:05 (nine months ago) link
is there a left wing troll out there ...trolly enough to take this all the way?
― Nhex, Friday, 30 June 2023 03:34 (eight months ago) link
so can anyone parse this development for me?
"Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/hawaii-supreme-court-guns-case-rebuke-scalia.html
― Surfin' burbbhrbhbbhbburbbb (sleeve), Sunday, 11 February 2024 05:24 (one month ago) link
I wish Hawaii and Puerto Rico could gain total autonomy away from the States
― beamish13, Sunday, 11 February 2024 06:59 (one month ago) link
as usual, your posts suck and are unhelpful
― Surfin' burbbhrbhbbhbburbbb (sleeve), Sunday, 11 February 2024 17:51 (one month ago) link
I think what's being said is that from a legal perspective it has limited reach, but it's part of a beginning trend of state Supreme Courts rebuking SCOTUS and ruling the opposite of Federal precedent, while also calling out SCOTUS's bad reasoning.
In this case, it won't do much legally because the SCOTUS interpretation still supercedes, but in cases like abortion, where Federal law states something isn't a right and state Supreme Court says "well, it is in this state", it can have more impact...even if temporary.
Really feels like mostly a protest, and one I wholeheartedly support
― never trust a big book and a simile (Neanderthal), Sunday, 11 February 2024 17:56 (one month ago) link
it's part of a beginning trend of state Supreme Courts rebuking SCOTUS and ruling the opposite of Federal precedent, while also calling out SCOTUS's bad reasoning
The entire southern tier of US states ignored Brown v Board of Education for a couple of decades. The rest of the USA didn't do remarkably better at school integration, but they didn't have state segregation laws they kept actively enforcing like the southern states did.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 11 February 2024 18:39 (one month ago) link