Rebekah Summa
For anybody disagreeing with abortion...a child is a CHILD from the day it is conceived. A heartbeat can be seen within THREE weeks of the child being conceived. For saying the child is "not really a child" is false. Because it is. Finish this sentence.."it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when....." Ya there is no answer. For anybody saying "what about rape". Why would you punish an unborn child because of one mans fault? The rapist already hurt the mother and if you have an abortion you are hurting another human too (the child conceived) abortion needs to be thought about and changed. It should not be "a woman's right" to kill a child.
Jimmy P
i dont think you meant to type what you did about the rape thing.. oh? you did? well then some people are just dumb :p
deathtokoalas
it is okay to kill a baby in the womb when the mother decides she doesn't want it in her body anymore.
easy.
Helena Jade
But shouldn't a woman be able to decide what she wants to do with HER BODY? If she doesn't have the money to support, or the baby is causing complications with her body, or the baby is cause by rape, she should be able to make her own decision considering it will be her body the baby will be growing in for the next 9 months. Whether to terminate or not? No one should decide something like that for you. That is a personal matter between the parents and most importantly the woman carrying.
gianna bruno
deathtokolas you are wrong. Everyone is agrees with abortion is wrong
TheNicoleDB
no...not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong because it isn't lmao
deathtokoalas
wrong in what sense, exactly? i don't think it's wrong at all, so you're going to have to make your case for me.
i'll even give you a humongous concession: i'll agree that life begins at the point of conception. now, this isn't a religious argument, it's to do with dna. if we acknowledge that what we are, biologically, as individuals is our unique genetic make-up, it follows that we begin our existence at the point that a new genetic combination is determined. so, sure life begins at conception: it's at that precise point that we become distinct individuals.
however, getting from that point to the point that abortion is "wrong" requires a lot of leaps that rely on some level of faith.
so, go for it. lay it out. explain to me why abortion is wrong. let's see how far you can get before i stop jumping with you and reject an opinion....
it's about being a front for data collection. if you don't use your real name, it's very difficult for intelligence services to cross-link your files together.
deathtokoalas
no, this is bullshit. he went into the car to get his license on request, gets shot, then the cop says he told him to get out of the car. this is just a dumb cop that needs to find a new career.
datapro007
How about inmate?
deathtokoalas
i think it's stupidity, not malice.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
he's more of a menace to society being taken care of for 50K/year in a for-profit prison than he is struggling to pay his rent by flipping burgers at mcdonalds...
he should be banned from operating firearms, i'd argue permanently. if an underlying condition can be established, it would probably also require that his license be revoked. that's likely enough to prevent him from harming people as a consequence of his stupidity in the future.
(deleted responses)
deathtokoalas
i'm getting some weird responses, so i just want to clarify my position.
the problem with coming down on him really hard is that it doesn't accomplish anything except make you feel better about yourself. it doesn't make anybody safer. it doesn't deter future behaviour. it doesn't rehabilitate the offender. it's just an act of vengeance - nothing more.
the law reacts differently when the person shooting is a cop compared to when the person being shot is one. that's an easily explained consequence of a hierarchical system. the solution is not to clamp down on the cops, but to ease up on the hierarchy.
you can't get to fairness and freedom by constructing deeper systems of tyranny. it's just the wrong approach.
with this guy, particularly? he's not evil, he's just stupid.
in terms of liability, he should clearly be responsible for medical costs. there's no logical connection between his action and any other punishment.
it's just barbarism to carry out acts of vengeance like that.
Marques
I hear you, but I definitely disagree. You can't say that putting him in jail would not deter future shootings by police. That might be an opinion, but I'm sure there is no empirical evidence to back that claim up. And like it or not, our entire judicial system is based on "vengeance ". Otherwise, why have any consequences at all? now I still see some logic in what you think should happen, I just also think it should be in tandem with Penal consequences.
If you truly in your heart believe that this police officer should not serve any time over shooting and damn near killing this man, then I'd like to know what you think is a "jailable "offense? If a man walked down the street next to you right now and opened your head up with a crowbar, would you be okay with him just paying for your medical expenses? Or would you expect him to have to suffer some sort of consequences for negatively impacting your life?
deathtokoalas
i don't think the community has the right to impose "punishments" on people as a "consequence" of their behaviour. that's a type of moral absolutism that i'd consider to be very primitive thinking and should be abolished along with the religions that it comes from. part of being an atheist is rejecting moral absolutism.
i do think that the community has the right to protect itself. somebody randomly bashing me with a crowbar - cop or not - is an indication of mental illness. really, that's the dominant characteristic - i think we have the right to remove crazy people from society so they can't hurt us.
but, i don't get the impression that the cop in the video is a threat to repeat, and i consequently don't see any reason he needs to be removed for protective purposes.
else3573
Are you insane? By the way, yes, he had 5 prior complaints against him. But you think people should just be allowed to shoot someone and not serve time for it? Wow, I guarantee if it was your mother, father, brother, etc shot you'd feel different.
deathtokoalas
i know it's difficult to get beyond the idea of thinking that society has the right to punish people. but, it's a function of statist, hierarchical thinking and the religious brainwashing that upholds that system. once you're able to remove yourself from the mental limitations of religious type thinking, you'll understand that neither you, nor society, nor a church, nor any other institution acting on behalf of any other imaginary entity or contrived moral system has any prerogative whatsoever to impose punishments on any other living creature. there's just no way to arrive at this point without reconstructing the religion.
however, as mentioned, i do believe that society has a right to protect itself. if this individual has five prior issues, that is valid information to be used in determining his mental health. and, if it's determined that he's not of sound mental health then society has a right to institutionalize him for it's protection.
that's not the same thing as punishing him.
i might clarify that mental health issues are generally not resolvable, and consequently ought to come with a life sentence rather than a prison term.
however, it's also a medical condition and consequently ought to come with a level of humane treatment.
LOLO Tom Cat
I'd like to know what is protocol when pulling over someone who has clearly existed their vehicle before police has made a complete stop. I don't hear any siren or any reflections from the police lights so I'm assuming he may have just been trailing him into that gas station without actually stopping him or pulling him over. Instead of asking him for his Driver's License to run in the computer, he should have told him to not to move and tried to establish some sort of dialogue which hopefully would have put both parties on the same page. Not openly shoot at someone for going into their car at this point, it seems like your gun is already out and ready to fire once he existed his car. Why not then tell him to FREEZE?
it looks like a game on the surface, but it's really a struggle for placement in the school's social hierarchy.
deathtokoalas
hrmmmn.
maybe you shouldn't sell guns at walmart?
the cops overreacted, but this is the kind of thing you use to argue we shouldn't have cops at all (which i'd argue) rather than the kind of thing you use to argue for more training. that's a judgement call. it's a bad judgement call, but it's not a training issue and it can't really be dealt with without pumping cops full of hormones. had that one cop called in sick that day or something, things would have turned out entirely differently.
it's really difficult for me to try and get my head around the open carry argument. i don't tend to have much empathy for cops, but policing in an open carry state's gotta be a very stressful job. this is one of those points where i need to step back and say "i'm canadian. i just don't get this.".
but putting the guns behind a counter or something, where they're watched and controlled, would eliminate this sort of ambiguity - you'd know when customers have store guns and you'd know when somebody doesn't have a store gun.
Ron Allen
Well yes, for REAL guns, they are sold from BEHIND the counter & a clerk has to unlock them from the case, but most every where I have shopped, BB or AIR rifles/guns are usually out of the shelf & can be carried to the counter to buy. They usually have 1 or 2 open for DISPLAY, so all the boxes won't be opened.
deathtokoalas
yeah. so, that's not a very good idea, is it?
the reasoning is the big brother intelligence services, and it is frightening. how can they cross-link your facebook, google, security and tax files if they don't know your government name?
it's about being a front for data collection. if you don't use your real name, it's very difficult for intelligence services to cross-link your files together.