Someone had to apply for that hand job.

Not that it seemed to apply to most of the vehicles that crashed but a lot of modern cars with LED or HID lights have a VERY aggressive cutoff, with the driver's side light being angled down slightly to minimize blinding oncoming traffic. Unless you have your high beams on (which you can't really on a busy highway), it's quite easy to outdrive those lights on a poorly illuminated section of highway.

On another note, I wonder what happened to that dude in the red shirt that got back into his car just before it was hit. I didn't see him get out... Also, I wouldn't be milling about in the middle of a freaking highway; I'd stay in the car or maybe even better, get to the damn shoulder as soon as you can!

Meaningless fiction.
In the post Trump era, it’s more likely that aliens will land and offer free telepathic abortions on demand than it is Democrats and Republicans will agree on anything enough for a 2/3 majority. When one party’s entire platform is “obstruct the other party”, constitutional evolution is dead.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….that makes abortion a right on all 3 counts, since pregnancy can threaten life, denies liberty, and who could be happy forced to be a life support system for another? Also, the logical extension of that obligation means healthy people forced to donate kidneys, transfuse their blood, repeatedly donate partial livers, etc. …anything that other person needs to live should be the obligation of anyone who can supply it. Same as forced pregnancy. That makes it a constitutional issue, the denial of life, liberty, and property without due process, conviction, or even a crime is addressed in the constitution, and applies here.

"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

I believe the train engine is built to withstand a crash like this one, meaning it will not explode or come apart in large heavy pieces. Also it is a passenger train. To apply full braking could cause more injuries for the passengers onboard.

I also think any passengers in a stuck vehicle on the tracks will more times than not have plenty of time to abandon the vehicle before impact. An 8-car passenger train moving at 80 miles an hour needs about a mile to stop.

If an engineer sees that a bridge up ahead is out, he would probably apply full braking and deal with the injuries to passengers rather than risk deaths.

That's my uneducated reasoning and I'm sticking to it.

Pretty sure the driver would apply the brakes first and only later sound the horn. Train takes hundreds of meters to stop.

Made me wonder, how many steps (geographically/ scale) can be made starting with the universe and ending at a residential address?

(edit)
Universe
Super Cluster
Cluster
Local Group
Solar System
Planet
Continent
Country
State
County
City
Neighborhood
address
(may not apply to everywhere i'd assume)

That's my best stab at it. Do tell if it's not correct in some way.

And if they’re here under what was legally called refugee status until the rules, but not the law or the treaties that required creation of certain laws, changed, as most are?

If you go 1 mile over the speed limit, or pass on the right, forevermore you call yourself an illegal driver?

If your school breaks some laws, it’s forever an illegal enterprise?

If your charity breaks a few, or all the rules for being a charity, you are branded for life as one who ran a fraudulent criminal illegal organization?!

LMFAHS!!!

It would be nice to see some consistency in how you would apply rules, and how you would handle rule breakers. I see no chance of that, but it would be nice.

Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

My two cents, the old axiom, your right to swing your first ends at my nose, seems to apply.

I think people should pay for their choices, so eating poorly, pay more for insurance....Lots more. Ignore doctors advice, lose all benefits of insurance and pay for your own care, and from the back of the line too. When that choice has a good chance of costing someone else's life or health, that's the line imo. You cannot ever repay that kind of debt, so you shouldn't be allowed to take it on, nor should people be allowed to gamble with other people's health and lives.

@bobknight33
You can do the inverse math to calculate the risk of the vaccine as well

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
(vaccine adverse event reporting system)

You can find more current numbers on the CDC site, but they're difficult to access and link directly to. This is simpler, but feel free to post more updated figures https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

------------------

"Event Category" "Event Category Code" Events Reported
"Death" "DTH" 5378 total reported as of right now.

out of how many vaccinations?
(i took the larger number because they still did get a poke in the arm at least once)

186,474,836

soooo

5378 ÷ 186,474,836 = 0.000028840352486

0.000028840352486
move the decimal

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
0.0028840352486% of death from the vaccine
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------

Now, Bob, please, consider this.
Is a 2% chance of death MORE? or LESS? than a 0.0028840352486% chance of death?


Lets apply the numbers to the USA population

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

332,545,571 x 0.02 =
6,650,911.42
soooo 6.65 million WOW how close to the real number of deaths in the USA this is eh? WEIRRRRRRRRRRD right? durrrrrrrrrr


332,545,571 x 0.000028840352486 = 9590.7
soooo yeah, this is pretty close to the reporting incident report also
WEIRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD eh?


------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
You know them liberals, they are so powerful they can manipulate basic multiplication and division.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

This is why I love my 50 year old Bronco and Jeep. None of this crap applies.
Of course I don't really have secure locking doors or electric locks or windows either, but that's fine where I live.

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.