Marriage is about my happiness and according to AITA and TwoXChromosome my husband is a toxic spouse and I need to leave him, force my kids into poverty and go out there and just be happy without those lead balloons. Marriage over do it now

So would they

Good news is they have to buy it

Name on the reservation?

Yea but like have fun with it

I'm asking honestly though. Are there any first hand accounts or interviews where any of these soldiers explain these actions. Is it just straight up murdering old ladies and kids. Is it callously firing and ignoring what's behind other targets. Or is it something else.

Blow their mind and counter protest by praying for them and show up wearing priest outfits and have your own Jesus. Make it a whole thing that your godlier

Why are they shooting at unarmed grandmothers holding hands with a child?

Sudo Cowabunga dudes.zip

Now that I'm thinking about itHave any cave divers / spelunker's ever found treasure?

I've already said I'm not going to hit anyone. And those are already crimes

Public education

In the context of what people have said here they are the same.

Luck has nothing to do with victimless crime. I can safely navigate running red lights and be as safe as smoking weed.

Increases stoners increases amount of stoned drivers on the road. Increasing risk to all drivers.

Smoking anything increases risk of disease. Inhaling any burning substance increases risk both to mental and physical health. Increasing demand on medical systems already stretched thin. Who says a pot head doesn't kick someone out of prompt medical care by taking up a bed or service.

But again increasing risk doesn't create any victims. We've said no victimless crime should exist. Unless they should exist and that risk to public is a viable reason to create a law.

Yet there is no victim. You're not a victim because the risk is higher.

Because then the argument changes to that there are victimless crimes that are reasonable to have and that on that scale everything from running red lights to drug use would be on it

Driving through red lights doesn't affect anyone either than. I make it through the intersection, nobody gets hurt and everybody gets what they want. We're arguing same thing. Both are victimless crimes.

I think its still possible that I could freely choose my actions and you knowing what they would be would not invalidate that it was an action I choose based on my own free will.

Weed isn't benign. It exasperates amd can induce psychotic mental health conditions much earlier in some people like schizophrenia and bipolar. It is carcinogenic. It does change people mentally affecting their emotional regulation and behaviors even when not high. There are impacts on already stretched health care systems. And what is wrong with wanting to argue. I want someone to give me good reason to think what constitutes a victimless crime isn't some arbitrary line

There is always risk. Having easily accessible weed increases the risk that people will operate vehicles while high or increase number of beds needed in medical systems that refuse to increase beds as inhaling smoke increases cancer risk. I can drive through 100 red lights and never hit anyone but an increased demand for medical care in a system that can't handle it puts me at risk also. I say running a red light is victimless just as smoking weed is also victimless and we have said victimless crimes should not be punishable.

Intent?

I haven't attempted to kill anyone running a red light. So where is the harm

So its a crime to increase risk to society?

There isn't a victim. Just the possible increased risk.