underwire212

It’s more than just “a man within range of vision”. Obviously we don’t have the full story here, but even in the text, there are specific behaviors that would, arguably, make a reasonable person suspect they were in imminent danger. Depending on the state, that is enough to trigger self-defense definition.

They had legitimate reason to believe they were in danger. ~~Not assault at all.~~ Unlikely to be assault.

Edit: Guess I shouldn’t say “definitely not assault”. Don’t have all the information here, so can’t come to any definitive conclusions.

I mean I think it’s the adults responsibility to make due diligent efforts to check, but if the minor continues to lie, is it really on the adult anymore? Unless there were glaring red flags that a reasonable person could suspect, I don’t believe the adult can be held responsible.

I have no idea how the law handles this, but from my understanding, “mens rea” (guilty mind) is required to prove criminal wrongdoing. There would be no “mens rea” proof here since the adult had to have willful intent to commit a crime.

TF you on? Just because there weren’t immediate, drastic regime level changes doesn’t mean they went “exactly nowhere”.

There have been many changes at smaller levels not being reported in mainstream western media. Public pressure called for MANY local officials to step down along with changes in law that have already started effecting everyday life, and at least in Thailand, some pretty major changes in how public officials are held accountable via more expansive auditing channels, thereby increasing transparency.

Not everything is a fucking hollywood movie wherein you have some Hunger Games style uprising against the elite.

In fact, it’s fucking insulting hearing people who haven’t an ounce of global exposure beyond whatever 2 or 3 media sources they shove their heads into saying “those protesters got nothing accomplished”.

Never let anyone tell you protesting doesn’t work.

Can’t wait till AI can just learn and utilize my consciousness on my behalf. That way I don’t need to exist.

He works at the knife factory

WhatsApp? Isn’t that just like, a messenger? Would think you’d want better friends if you’re encountering hate speech in your group chats haha

We define people by their labor value in capitalist societies. It only makes sense headlines would refer to people thru the lens of their previous employer.

Basically, AT&T argues against it saying it’ll force them to innovate and be competitive with other services.

Won’t anyone think of the poor telecom shareholders??

My fragile masculinity 😔

Soooooo VPN?

I mean, it’s not really a false dichotomy though? Your statements suggest that we assign fault/root cause to the consumer. I’m suggesting we assign root cause to the manufacturer/lack of regulation. If at the end of the day, it’s the consumer’s fault they chose a product without conducting a comprehensive quality review of all components within the product they purchase, then the action of pushing government regulation contradicts that. Funding regulation doesn’t do anything to fix consumer behavior; i.e. root cause. But maybe I misinterpreted your statements.

As for your first statement, there are many problems with this reasoning. How can we reasonably expect consumers to perform comprehensive research studies on everything they purchase? If it turned out the specific manufacturer of Grade B wool that’s used for a certain sweater from a certain clothing brand is known for causing latent forms of cancer if worn for 2 years, that’s really on the consumer? C’mon now.

Besides, in this specific case, it turned out to be a catastrophic latent failure. It wasn’t even possible for an informed consumer to have predicted this sort of catastrophic failure.