Almost every pop culture depiction of pacifism I've seen shows the only acceptable way to protect yourself is to flee, and violence even in self defense is still violence. Granted, that's all TV/Movies/Video Games, and I've never met an actual pacifist in real life...
"Unintentionally" I'll give you. If some idiot jumps out in front of a moving car as part of a protest & gets run over because the driver couldn't stop in time, well...don't jump out in front of cars ya moron! "Negligently" OTOH implies that the driver is at least partially to blame - and should face repercussions based on how severe the accident was & how much to blame they are.
He said he no longer has to be politically correct, because refraining from sexual assault is apparently a politically correct move. Oh, and before you think this is a matter of "he said, she said":
Welcome to Trump's America.
Assuming 'unintentionally' only applies when the driver is not driving recklessly or negligently (unless one can down a bottle of whisky if they want to legally kill protesters), that would fall under ND's aggravated reckless driving because of a breach of duty to care (which is usually an element of negligence), and either manslaughter (recklessness) or negligent homicide (negligence).
Florida white people already get away with shooting someone to death as a first response to almost literally anything, I don't have much doubt that someone will get away with nigh intentional vehicular homicide under the new law. Probably while screaming about PC culture ruining America at the same time.
On the flipside, hey, don't run people over.
How about, as a compromise, we create a special area, made recognizable by being made of a certain surface and painted with recognizable patterns of stripes and lines, to indicate where cars are supposed to drive and people are not supposed to walk.
That sounds needlessly complicated. It would never work.
Is it racist to point out that the person most identified with trying to use a 'stand your ground' defense in Florida is probably best described as 'mixed race'?
Good to see there a bunch of dipshits out there who have no clue about history or significance beyond their own social media accounts.
At first glance, the behavior of the people highlighted by the project appears horrible, but I think this is mitigated considerably by some of the details about the memorial. The memorial has no weight to it. It's not located at a site specific to the Holocaust. It doesn't house the remains of the victims. It doesn't include the names of the victims. And, it has no history -- it has only been open for 12 years. (Wikipedia)
Oh shit, the company that made the anti-graffiti covering for the stones, made Zyklon B for the Nazis.
So if I'm reading what you said & that Wikipedia link right some of the people in these photos might have wandered into the memorial without knowing it's a Holocaust memorial? In which case yes, that's obviously a pretty mitigating factor.
I believe he's saying the memorial simply isn't affecting these people, and maybe that it is in effect not a "good" memorial, that it doesn't inspire awe, nor encourage contemplation.
And just because you don't instantly feel something doesn't give you the right to jump up and down on it like an asshole. These self-absorbed twits seem to think it's all about how they feel, and don't give a shit about anyone else.
A bit more here? Poe's law an all that. Melting != weakening, so I need to know more what you're implying and such. It's extremely unclear.
And it will remain so.
The bill is not expected to pass.
Sure, but every year there isn't an actual threat of it passing.
I honestly don't know. The big difference is that now we have a very short-sighted group of people with all the power.
