sparkeda national conversation [sparked] around gun violence as well as “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine,” both self-defense laws."
this. This, is the headline.
The whole “black man killed by white man” is just race baity.
You’re hired
Feel free to explain why Newsom has been campaigning on solving homelessness in California for ~10 years but only made progress when Xi Jinping visited recently, and also why he hadn’t taken the exact same actions sooner. It’s the same reason, after all.
That is a really cool resume item, ngl
Do you mind me asking the languages/frameworks backing it? (e.g. JavaScript/Node)
With the new bullshit ruling by SCOTUS
FTFY
Describing someone using their race isn’t racism
Making the story about race rather than “this old man shot this young man for seemingly no reason, old man bad” is, in fact, race baiting
If Newsom wanted to he could probably solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.
In Utah they have been constructing “tiny homes” instead of more “shelters”. I think it’s a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.
If a man ~50 years younger than me that I don’t recognize/know knocks on my door at night, regardless of his race, I would be concerned. Would I just shoot him? No. Would an 80 year old man just shoot him? apparently, I guess… But equating it to racism, without any evidence, is simple race baiting…
The old man is clearly in the wrong, that doesn’t mean he is racist just because the kid was black
Welcome to Lemmy 😂
I’ll probably be in the minority, since this is Lemmy after all, but how is this “news”?
This is basically: reporter I hate said something I hate.
Is this Jesse’s regular MO? Yes.
Is Jesse garbage? Yes.
Is this news? No.
The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as “stand your ground” law)
21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. © Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not “reasonable” cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.
I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn’t surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it’s disappointing.
“CALL J.G. WENTWORTH – 877-CASH-NOW!!!”
Shoot you shot. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Stop underestimating yourself.
The major amendment:
no longer calls for the federal government to officially recognize Palestinian statehood
X is a pretty cool middle initial ngl
Ah yes, “respect my authority and ignore the first amendment or I’ll ‘investigate’ you and put you in jail”… Where have I heard that before…?
“The situation is so dire, that you need to pay us money if you want to read this article!!!”
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate and equally important groups.The police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute offenders. These are there stories. DUHN DUHN!!!
deleted by creator
Classic result of a business man in charge of a software company.
LPT: work for a company where the decision maker comes from an engineering background, not a business background.
You’re welcome.
In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:
Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.
Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated