What do you mean by "allow you to kill a 3rd party"?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn't actively breaking into your car?

This is something that's going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other's perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to "drive slowly" through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

Misleading title, this was a Missouri State case, not a federal one.

That being said, there are way too many innocent people getting killed for crimes they did not commit.

The only purpose of the death penalty is revenge. It has no place in a modern society.

It really bothers me when journalists don't list out which laws specifically were passed/signed.

Even better if they could link to the bill text itself, yet instead they just link to a similar article on their own site.

Nah, Cygnus beat you by about 14 min.

(On a serious note, had you already heard about someone else being convicted under the new security law? It also sounds like they're talking about how the sentence was increased from 2 years to 7-10 years.)

We have a little more information now and it is interesting:

https://nypost.com/2024/09/15/us-news/alleged-would-be-trump-assassin-ryan-routh-donated-exclusively-to-democrats-since-2019/

The article starts with:

The Hawaii man suspected in former President Donald Trump’s assassination attempt on Sunday is a long-time Democrat, donating exclusively to the party’s candidates 19 times since 2019, records show.

Then later on it mentions:

Routh, 58, claimed in other social media posts that he supported Donald Trump in his first presidential campaign in 2016 — but later became disillusioned after his chosen candidate won office.

The article you linked was updated, looks like he did have a gun and was spotted while aiming through the fence:

Investigators found the suspect had left behind his “AK-style” rifle, as well as two backpacks, one of which contained ceramic tile, at the scene, Bradshaw said.

At least 109 now...

Page tracking all of the polls in the battleground states: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

Edit: List specifying which state for each poll: https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/state/general-election

I think the vast majority of unions out there are good, but there are definitely a select few that give the rest a bad reputation.

At one of my previous jobs, our union was one of those that gives others a bad reputation.

It was a seasonal job, we had to pay the union whether we wanted to be in it or not. If we had an out of season work meeting for training, all of the money that we earned would go straight to the union and we might end up with a $2 check (if that).

We tried working with the union reps, but they just seemed so out of touch with our group. They would give themselves a big pat on the back for getting everyone a 2% raise and then raise the monthly dues... We barely made minimum wage so a percentage increase like that meant nothing to us.

10 years later and most employees working there are still just earning minimum wage while similar jobs in other cities nearby are earning twice that (at least).

Mythbusters did an episode on this.

2 poppyseed bagels were enough to have them test positive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MythBusters_pilot_episodes#Episode_P3_–_"Poppy-Seed_Drug_Test"

They remained positive for at least 8 more hours and by the next morning they had tested negative again.

While this is definitely something people should be doing, doesn't the attorney general only act out if they get enough complaints, or if the complaint stands out in some way?

Will they actually work with someone to resolve their specific complaint every time?

From what I've seen, at least the BBB will try to specifically address your issue with the company and is probably a much easier process to carry out before trying to take things further.

Or is there something about using the BBB that would prevent you from filing a complaint with the attorney general, or prevent you from going further with something like a lawsuit?

if not the BBB, then who?

I'm confused.

What prominent figures on the left have said something to the effect of "If we lose, the election was rigged!"??

I can only think of prominent figures on the right who have made statements like this.

Or are you saying that those who are against the 2 party system typically fall under the thinking that the election is rigged?

Same as it ever was.

I doubt this was the case during (and for at least a time after) WWII. But maybe a history buff can correct me. I haven't looked too deeply into how the justice system handled Nazis that far back.

When you fail the Captcha test... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

Yep, I definitely misunderstood that. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's not a perfect system by far and I'm not arguing that.
But we've already seen how removing all privatization from an economy leads to worse outcomes because we have less options, less innovation, and more monopolies.
In my opinion we need to find a balance between the two systems that works best for everyone. Arguing for either extreme doesn't make sense (in my opinion). I would rather see if we can come up with some other solutions that are better than the current system.

"Always" is a pretty strong word here. In some cases this is true, but in others it's not.

For example, if you live in an area where all of the public schools are terrible, you're going to want to look for other options. If the private schools in your area are way better (and hopefully affordable) then you would want to send your kids there. Public schools can also compare/see what private schools are doing that's working, and update their policy/curriculum to improve themselves.

Privatizing public libraries is a terrible idea and is currently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.

Removing all privatization from the entire economy is where we end up with command economies or communism which means that we end up with a lot of monopolies. There isn't much of an incentive for innovation in those economies. Then you're either living under some crazy dictatorship, or the country is falling apart and they are forced to change how their economy works.

Then if they go this route, they better make sure that they clearly define what they mean by a "Recommendation Algorithm" or an "interests-based algorithm" because the opinions of individuals won't hold up in court.

If it's not defined an attorney could easily argue that Lemmy's "Scaled" algorithm is a "recommendation algorithm" and you would hope that the judge understood enough about programming to know where to draw the line.