Free Republic

What does anybody propose to actually do with these people.

Close down their camps, get them off the street...fine.

But where do they go, what can be done with them then? Just bitching about their existence won’t help.

Would the judge have been happier if the “trigger person” had killed more people and escaped before the police arrived?

‘Raymond said he believes the policy places the burden primarily on law-abiding gun owners rather than addressing people who use firearms to commit crimes.’

The law-abiding are easier targets than the criminal.

‘They have given it a name: “altruistic filicide”.

Altruistic: selfless concern for others. ‘

What about “altruistic homicide”?

I know some people and know of others.

“Men are more likely to strike out physically, commit sexual crimes, and give in to testosterone-fueled rages than women.”

It’s just hormones.

“She does not trust law enforcement or strangers.”
“She constantly fears for her safety and liberty. “

Me too.

You didn’t ask me, but I think so.

Personally, I don’t believe the Big “O” is that sharp. Looks to me like he pretty much came out of nowhere to attain the heights. I believe he’s a frontman, but I can’t figure out for whom.

“Unless you shoot them the IRGC is not going away.”

Your proposal is acceptable.

“Hut! Hut! Hutters! “ (From the article.)

AI overview: “Hutters are people who build, own, and spend their time in simple recreational shelters called huts...”

??????????

Data centers aside, I wonder what “guardrails” China is implementing regarding AI to maintain control and accuracy.

“...the initiative could be viewed as inflammatory or prejudicial toward Muslims.”

Would a similar initiative naming Christians, Jews, those of European descent, or Whites, be viewed as inflammatory or prejudicial toward them? Have there been such similar initiatives?

“DNA doesn’t lie.” Every time I see or hear those words I think: But people do.

“Auto companies would be required to have technology that ‘passively’ detects impaired driving and prevent the vehicle from operating. “

So you have one for the road, one for the sidewalk, and one for the gutter (which you shouldn’t) and leave before the last kicks in. What happens when the last kicks in? Does the vehicle stop operating in the middle of the road?

“...how fast they accelerate...”

So you’re in trouble if you accelerate on the entry ramp to “zipper in”instead of waiting and entering the freeway at low speed and then accelerating to match the traffic speed?

Bless your heart, you poor child.

“No. We were talking about the specific situation where the guy was being questioned.and walked up on the officer.”

We were talking about your word “anytime” and now you’re changing it to “specific situation”.

And using the words “walked up on” here isn’t helpful. They are what I wanted explained to begin with. Recall my questions at the start were “What’s this “ walk up on a cop” stuff? What is “Walking up on a cop”?”. (And they are questions that apply to “anywhere” not just this specific situation.)

“You brought up meeting an officer on the street or in a grocery store later.”

As examples of “anytime” because you wrote “anytime”.

Bless your heart.

So you changed your mind?

“Anytime you move and moving gets you closer to an officer it’s walking up on them. Especially when you have an attitude that’s bigger than your IQ.“

I think that’s the kind of response I wanted originally, troubling as it is. If the first sentence defined ”walking up on them” which you shouldn’t do, then you can’t pass them on the street or in an aisle at the grocery or exit the store if they are by the door, or approach them to report a crime or ask directions or tell them their fly is open, or much of anything. The second sentence is kind of subjective. I wonder how they write this into law.

“Why are you defending that looser?“

I don’t believe I defended him and I don’t disagree that he’s a “looser”, and probably his wife too.

At least you provided a better response to my original post.

“ Look at the still in post 17. He walked up chest to chest to the officer. It was a very stupid move.

Look at the video from 1:50 or so past the point from which the still was taken. As I wrote, “He stepped outside his door to go past, not toward, the officer…” Then he was FIRST accused of walking up on the officer. Then he stepped closer to talk to the officer after which he was accused a SECOND time. The still in post 17 doesn’t mean anything except as an example of cherry picking.

My questions still stand, the questions being “What’s this “Don’t walk up on a cop” stuff? What is “Walking up on a cop”?” to which you responded “It’s what that guy did, watch the video.”

All you seem to be doing is feeding me crap that is useless for answering the questions. And maybe redirecting the flow of the conversation so you can play “I win”.

“...the jury foreperson reported that one juror refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt...”

Does anyone outside the jury room even know the particulars of this juror’s position and how he wasn’t following the law?