Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Replies
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If anyone breaks into my house, I am going to put a couple of bullets into him or her, and not think twice.
I won't argue with you, fetboy, do whatever the fuck you want. If you want to go that route, fine by me. You're the one who has to live with yourself afterwards, if, for example, you discover that you just killed a high-school kid who was trespassing as a prank, or a developmentally disabled man who was seeking assistance finding his home. Enjoy.
I don't want to live in the society where everyone gets a pass on killing "intruders" in their home without a good reason. I'd advocate charging you with the "justifiable homicide" idea I've been talking about. So fine, we disagree, BFD. Happy hunting.
AKA:
...you cannot know the intentions of someone who breaks into your house. You cannot know if his intentions are property crime or injury to you or your family. I think, however, that when someone breaks in it is pretty clear that their intentions are not good. If you ask him his intentions, you could be dead or assaulted before you find out. I say that a person has a right to assume personal danger and to defend himself in his own house.
I fully understand this and agree, which is PRECISELY WHY I advocate creating a "justifiable homicide" charge for the person who kills an intruder.
Lemme share a lovely story from my neighborhood a few years ago. A guy had tried to rob a bodega with a knife or something. The guy at the counter (who was the owner) pulled a gun. The would-be thief ran out of the store. The owner chased him out of the store, halfway up the block into my apartment building, and shot him in the leg in the hallway right in front of my door. For reasons I don't understand, the bodega owner was not arrested.
OK, ok. So this is a specific case, and everyone has whatever opinion about it. Here is the relevance: the shooter could very well have hurt innocent people doing this.
Any idiot with a gun who feels completely free to shoot at intruders is a SERIOUS menace to society. A 9mm bullet will penetrate 4 or 5 walls of common stick-built houses.
Fetboy's shot at the intruder in his house may well miss and hit a sleeping infant next door. AKA's shotgun blast probably isn't quite as dangerous, but the same problem exists.
Now if we get into some super-specific situation where someone lives in a kevlar-shielded castle over a mile from every neighbor with no roads passing within rifle-range outside, and this person took a shot at a (later determined to be) harmless intruder, that person's sentence should take into consideration just how little risk the shooter posed to anyone else.
But I'd say he still gets charged, and maybe he's found guilty maybe not, and that's what the courts are for. I don't want ANYONE finding themselves in a situation where they don't have to consider potential consequences of blowing someone away.
That's just me.
-
@ markthomp
[Read the article: America's trinity of terrorism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They say "the U.S." installed and propped up brutal dictators like Pinochet, the Shah, Marcos and Somoza. But you could just as easily say "the U.S." brought down those dictatorships.
You can just as easily say anything, but that doesn't make it true.
Can you please elaborate on how "the US" brought down the Shah and Somoza? I'd really like to hear that version of history.
As for dictators in place thanks to the US, I'd name the Saudi royalty, and while I'd concede that it wasn't terrorism that put them into power, it is very definitely US foreign policy that keeps them there.
US terrorism did give us bin Laden and al Qaeda, for sure. I guess they don't count as a problem because it isn't a country?
-
Nice Improvements to the VBlog Format
[Read the article: Feminist hypocrisy on the hijab?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was much better done than the simple "talking head in the middle of the screen" approach that seemed so pervasive.
If you're going to keep up with these things, please take the cues from this. Editing, other images, etc.
Well done!
-
1.5 Million? Shucks...
[Read the article: Gold diggers not that greedy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And to think I considered marrying an immigrant woman a few years ago just for a freekin roof over my head.
She qualified as poor enough for real government assistance, but she wasn't a citizen. I was a citizen, and couldn't get a dime of assistance out of the state to keep my apartment.
Talk about a match made in heaven. I declined, eventually, but it was primarily because she didn't speak enough English for my tastes. As in, any at all.
-
Is it Really the Weight, tho?
[Read the article: Lose pounds, pad your paycheck?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I dunno. My experience has been universally that more attractive people "do better" in the workplace, regardless of size.
I also have always thought that people with lousy self-esteem don't do as well in the workplace.
Could it be that the bigger issue is that these heavier women have lower self-esteem, and thus do not behave in a way to maximize their earning potential?
I dunno. I do know that I've had hundreds of conversations with women about their unhappiness in the workplace because of some emotional issue between them and their bosses. I haven't had enough similar conversations with men to even remember ONE of them.
That's pretty amazing.
I suspect the "findings" mentioned in this posting are scientifically worthless. As was previously mentioned, there's no methodology at all. This all sounds like hand-waving.
-
What is the ugliest part of your body?
[Read the article: WayLay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some say your nose,
Some say your toes,
But I think it's your mind.
(Props to FZ)