It's a shame Affleck didn't let the guy speak. This is something that needs to be talked about. That doesn't make anyone racist, and any right thinking Muslim would agree with that because we are ALL at risk.

However. There is currently the largest episode of human migration in history. The west is responsible for this with their destabilising campaigns in the middle east. Those places are breeding grounds for terrorism. Personal loss to the point of numbness towards violence and death, hunger, insecurity, fear, uncertainty... these things play directly into the hands of evil people looking to manipulate people to do their dirty deeds for them.

Our actions have led to this worldwide humanitarian crisis which has made us far more unsafe than before we began our poorly planned excursions into the region based on a knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye reaction to a small number of individual thugs tragically murdering thousands of people. And haven't we just played into the hands of the extremists...

The indiscriminate bombing has to stop. This only ends diplomatically, but we are already at it again in Syria dropping bombs with no clear long term plan. We are fueling an already out of control humanitarian crisis and doing exactly what the terrorists need us to do for them to thrive.

On the one hand, that old person is an incredible asshole doing their best to traumatize a train driver, but on the other hand that crossing seems ridiculously unsafe. What the hell, Brazil.

OK, that's a large change from your original post where you limit the death sentence to the mentally ill.

Wow. I'm certainly glad people like you don't make societies rules then. Death sentence for a simple threat?!? Sweet zombie Jesus! That's EVERYONE at some point.
What if you threaten to stab someone who's trying to stab you? You threatened, so you die?
What if I claim you threatened me to get the state to kill you? You can't prove you didn't, so you die?
What if you just hit them with a stick? You still get executed, right?
What if you turn a corner and accidentally stab someone? You still get executed for being unsafe, right?
What if you just push someone? You still get executed because that's also violence, right?
Or is it ONLY if you use a knife? Your position is so odd and illogical to me that that's a reasonable question to ask. Exactly where is your line where violence is met with death? At what age do you implement it?
I don't think you thought through the full implications of your 'idea'.

People in general are unpredictable. Period. Those that are assumed to not be mentally ill, yet are still prone to violence are MORE dangerous and unpredictable than those we know to be wary of, not less.

I don't think you've actually ever deigned to speak with a custodian, considering your assumptions about them. I would counter that most take great pride in their work, work that's a necessity, that pays well, and does not require extensive training or school, only a willingness to work hard and an ability to be conscientious about your work.
Your idea, to ask if they would like a cushier job with the same pay, is patently ridiculous and applies to ANY job....'Would you like to work much less in a far cleaner environment with less stress for the same money?'...DUH...who's not going to say "yes" to that deal? If you asked them would they quit their job for another job they might actually GET at it's pay rate, I would suggest you'll likely find 99% would say "no fucking way, are you stupid?!? I would need to work 3 fast food jobs to equal one custodial job". That goes for those with and without degrees, BTW. A diploma is no guarantee of a job in your field, and a job in your field is no guarantee of happiness.

Do you not see that, while you likely do greatly appreciate their work, you are denigrating them and the job they do? It's like you think only 'untouchables' should do that kind of work, and they're all really sub-humans so that's OK, but a real person would/should never stoop to 'cleaning' after others.
Just wow.

EDIT: In a way, your mindset is the reason why custodial work pays so well, so I guess I should really thank you.

Where is the option for the cotton planter to change careers to something they find interesting and challenging?

Does it matter? If you have a job that you studied for in college and suddenly notice it doesnt fit you, you have to work a lot to correct that for no pay, you actually have to pay for it. Also if youre 40+ and want to start a new career human resource managers will rather take someone who didnt have the issues like you and has the years experience in actual work at the same job. So you will always be at a huge disadvantage if you decide to change professions.
All these "super successful" people you see on TV that proudly talk about how they did all that so well, "just because they worked soooooo hard" (everyone either does that, or claims it), are exceptions to the rule!



Where are the benefits of infrastructure?

Uhm, those infrastructures are mostly used to get to your job or do your job anyway. What good are they if you work where you live, like those slaves?



How about healthcare?

AFAIK slaves got good healthcare, since they were property and the owner would lose money if they "broke" and couldnt be fixed.
Also I wouldnt call American healthcare good. People have to pay for it. And often have to take huge debts on themselves and their family to survive or be still able to work.



How about individual's rights?

Individual's rights? Yeah, maybe against other "slaves", but not against the state or rich people. They will always have a huge advantage compared to you. And actually they do what they want all over the world. Just look at those cesspools Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Millions killed for what? Are you safer now than before 9/11? No. The whole world is actually MUCH MUCH unsafer now. All thanks to your masters that care so much about the "individual's rights".
They even have the audacity to threaten NATO countries with invasion if they ever dared to bring one of them before an international tribunal.



How about protection from hostility?

Hostility from whom? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorists who are only created due to inhumane politics aswell? Criminals? Do you know that crime is actually not something we are born with, but we actually learn to do, because of our surroundings? If a lot of people feel treated unfair and cant do anything about it, crime rate will skyrocket. It has been that way for thousands of years. Look at other countries that treat their people much more humane and actually even pay then enough to live a good life even if they dont work, or have never worked! They shudder when seeing American crime rates. You can compare yourself more to Brazil than to Europe.



How about ever improving quality of life?

Most people are extremely stressed in their life, due to their job, not having enough time because of their job, being frustrated because other people have more then them, while working less (or not at all), having health issues due to their work and they know they cant change the job because they wont get another one, they simply hate their job, but also know they cant get a better one, etc, etc, etc.
There was a study a few years ago where they found out that people 500-1000 years ago were actually very happy. They didnt have to work nearly as much as we do nowadays! It wasnt rare that they only worked 6 months a year, and even if they worked they had MUCH longer breaks every day and didnt work as long. And they lived a good life for those times. Of course nowhere near as good as the monarchs, but it wasnt nearly as bad as its commonly claimed.

One thing has changed though: If youre smart and/or lucky (as in having a rich family) you can open your own company, do what you love. But even that gets harder and harder because the competition gets higher in numbers and in quality.

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

Not really the fault of the Justice Squad if he chooses to drive off unsafely? Pretty sure he'd be the only one in trouble if he managed to get in an accident.

I don't think "But I didn't put the stickers on! So it's not manslaughter." is a valid excuse.

Personally, I have zero sympathy for the guy at all.

It looked to me like a million post it notes.
Best use of them I've ever seen.
I can't figure out why the cop didn't give him a thousand littering tickets, or chase him for unsafe driving.

I hope this guy's day got even worse - he could've got pulled by the police for unsafe driving and littering

So I guess I'm going to sound like a bad guy here, but this seems truly idiotic and naive to me. Not buying the shirt just means you are not going to support their wages - while horrendous - are still obviously better than nothing or they wouldn't be working for it. It would be counter productive to not buy the shirt. It would also be counter productive to push for transparency in the fasion industry as labor would just be shifted. The only pressure I see working are trade deals that don't rape other people in the name of globalization. We need human centric trade deals with enforced import regulations. These trade deals must enforce worker rights to western standards - same worker protection laws. Any country that doesn't comply should not be allowed to import their goods here. While obviously wages are still going to be disparate, at least hours, unsafe working conditions, child labor laws, etc will be enforced. Unfortunately most trade deals are written and driven by business to do the opposite. That's what needs to change, and its the only thing I see working.

Once again, your repeated blanket promotion of using black market DMT without supervision has gotten old, and you have repeatedly been chastised for promoting it in unsafe, irresponsible ways. I feel like you should have to list your actual name and address when you repeatedly suggest things like that with an air of knowledge, so people and estates know who to sue when it all goes bad.
You're also in danger of being nothing more than a skipping record. I rarely if ever see you post anything NOT suggesting random strangers do a hard core, illegal drug. Please find another topic to speak about. I'm starting to think that doing DMT makes your life about nothing but DMT from then on, and that's pretty sad.

So, I am an auto liability adjuster. I do this for a living--I take statements from drivers and witnesses, review damage and, when it's available, I watch videos of car accidents to see where fault lies.

In this particular accident, it seems pretty obvious that both parties contributed to some degree or another. The VW's driver was obviously making an unsafe lane change. However, the trucker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and from the audio in the cab was clearly distracted by a cell phone. The truck thus contributed by failing to maintain driver attention.


So we're going to need to assess partial negligence on both driver's. So, how much will we need to assess, and what does that mean for how much each person might or might not get paid?

In terms of negligence law, Texas is a Modified Comparative state under the Not Greater Than rule. What this means is that in order to recover money from the other party, you cannot have more responsibility than they do in order to recover any money. But you can only recover the percentage that the other party is at fault. So if it's 50/50, each party gets half of their costs from the other party. If it's 51/49, one person owes the other guy 51%, but the other guy doesn't owe a dime.

In this case, 50/50 would be a likely and attractive option for the insurance companies. Both parties clearly contributed, and each party had equal opportunity to avoid the loss, so each insurance company would pay the other 50%.

The gross negligence of the driver of the pickup is such that I don't see less than 50% negligence on that driver. However, I can see the car's insurance company arguing for a higher responsibility on the truck.

When the car puts on the signal and starts moving over, there is clearly room to move over without striking the truck. The car starts moving over, and the truck starts to overtake the VW. The trucker was closing the distance with the traffic ahead. The VW appears to hit their brakes as the traffic ahead is slowing down--but the trucker doesn't, and appears to be accelerating.

Moreover, as the driver of the larger vehicle, the trucker has a greater duty to maintain driver attention and avoid accidents, as a mistake on his part has greater likelihood of causing more serious physical damage, and severe bodily injury or death.

I believe that it would be justified to put a slight majority on the truck, 60-70%. This would be my preference. So they would owe for 60-70% of the VW's damages. The trucker will have to go through his own insurance or pay out of pocket for his damages.

Safe to the extent that there was room, with a car length behind and ahead... That is how most people drive in town, or with less room. You do realize this is on a freeway, not in town, right. At freeway speeds, that space was too tight to be safe. Putting a car in that space makes that car immediately at an unsafe close distance to the car in front of it and behind it. At 60mph less than a car length between you is unsafe.

You also still seem to be repeating that the truck had no business being in the fast lane? Look at the start of the video, our truck driver is having to SLOW DOWN to match the speed of traffic in the fast lane. He absolutely is not too slow for that lane.

Finally, per the space available for that lane change, there is no way that car makes a lane change into a space that small, and does it that slowly without ever checking their shoulder, unless they are a terrible, terrible driver.

Is anyone actually debating if the car made an unsafe lane change? I think not . It's kinda a given. Its what the trucker did or did not do in response that is in question. Did he intentionally hold his ground in defiance? Did he not see the car until it was to late? Could the truck even slow down in the situation?

Did not signal until was actually changing lanes, tried to force themselves into the lane, unsafe lane change, not paying attention, unsafe driving what else what else...

1. Watch before second 10, he's not closing (4 lines between him and the truck). Watch again starting at second 15, he starts closing. (down to under 3 lines between him and the truck, and less than one between him and the first car). Proof to me he sped up, since you can see the blue truck didn't slow down (passes the other truck at a constant rate).
2. He sped up like a car...brakes work better than acceleration on a semi., he should have gone with the larger pedal.
3. No, traffic ahead seems to go the same speed throughout. Traffic is clear ahead of them, and no brake lights from the truck.
4. Yes, you can hear it. Case closed IMO, and a concession of your point #one. He sped up, blocked the spot (illegal), and caused an accident he could have easily avoided (also illegal, right of way or not), therefore his fault.
5. Yes, definitely unsafe passing on the right. In Cali, it's also illegal to stay in the fast lane if someone is going faster than you..."Slower Traffic MUST Keep Right" signs are everywhere, just ignored....so a bit of a wash that, in this state. Truck and car were doing their thing both in the wrong lane by our rules.
Also important, the truck driver was distracted by being on the phone. Distracted driving is actionable everywhere, no matter what the phone laws in your state are.