It's the same inconsistency the government uses. The kid is responsible enough to take drugs and change genders, but isn't responsible enough to work or own a weapon.
Besides this is just a tactic to discourage gun ownership.
Not until the last straw. And then it'll be like a dam bursts. Same for all the other degenerate demographics. Once what happens happens, they'll all pay.
If and when the country is overwhelmingly minority, I don't think they'll go easy on the blacks. Mexicans and Chinese don't wanna put up with their shit. You could see some Chinese or Mexican style justice applied. Which is almost good because that's the kind of force the negro understands.
Look, there are cases where it's obvious (bullying/harming small animals, angry outbursts) but there's no guarantee if a teenager is going to lash out violently. If evidence was found that makes sense where he was exhibiting violent behavior multiple times in a pattern and then they gave him a gun (or he had one and they didnt take it away from him), fine, charge the parents and put them in jail. But if the parents or those interacting with kid didn't see it, then you can't say they "ignored" it.
I can't absolutely blame the parents if the kid appeared normal enough to have a gun, then he suddenly snapped and killed others. Because at that point it seems like pearl clutching from gun grabbers.
Alternatively: your child is your responsibility when he’s white and potentially violent, but he becomes our responsibility when he wants to cut his own dick off.
I can't absolutely blame the parents if the kid appeared normal enough to have a gun, then he suddenly snapped and killed others. Because at that point it seems like pearl clutching from gun grabbers.
This case wasn't anything like that, the kid exhibited murder suicide ideation and the parents did their level best to ignore it while giving him a gun at the same time. Still, I am suspicious of how the legal theory will play out.
With that, I still don't see how it's manslaughter on part of the father simply because it wasn't done by his own hands. If they knowingly let their son have a gun, at most it should be accessory to murder, but I'm assuming the prosecutors were slapping harder charges because the shooter was a juvenile and they possibly don't like guns.
So, what, manslaughter is now just a "something bad happened, and the government hates you, so get fucked" law?
The son isn't a piece of industrial equipment. Hold the son accountable for what he did, and if the father's liable for not securing the firearms properly, prosecute him for that...
Doed anyone else feel like this ends up becoming part of a depopulation agenda?
Used to be having kids was beneficial to you once they reached a certain age. Became part if your hunting party (think spears or arrows) that brought back food, or did chores around the farm.
Now kids cost a lot but don't bring back any money.
And they cost a lot.
Used to be kids would run around with other kids in the tribe. Now you're the sole source of interaction up to 5.
Now they also mean a huge headache, wondering teachers are trying to trans them.
Now you can also go to jail for something the kid did? Like who would want to have kids any more.
People respond to incentives. No amount of moralistic chiding will alter that reality. Change the incentive structures if you want to see different behavioral patterns.
this, exactly this. and your enemies understand this and are exploiting the realities if human nature to the absolute max while we sit around shaming each other and ignoring inconvenient realities (women, race, human instincts, etc)
this will be unpopular here, but I actually agree with this sentence. handing a minor a weapon, and then that minor committing a murder with that weapon, should absolutely be a manslaughter charge. this should apply universally.
They didn't "hand him a weapon" they bought him a gun to shoot with when they go to the range. He took it from the safe and committed murder. This is just ammo for grabbers pushing "safe storage" laws.
the question would then become: did the parents give the kid full access to the safe? if not, then the kid stole the gun and I agree the parents should not be charged.
If a parent gives their kid a condom and they go on to rape someone with it, should they be charged for that too? Should they be responsible for any car accidents their kid has?
Where is the line where a minor is finally accountable for their own actions?
Yes, so long as they are responsible for the kid. If a kid is not trustworthy with adult tools, don't fucking trust them with adult tools!
Also, the parent is not a scapegoat for the minor. The minor should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. However, the parents are not blameless either and should be held accountable.
They are held accountable if their kid gets in a car crash. The insurance rises and extra scrutiny is given. Also, they now have to drive their kid around while buying a new car.
That's not at all the same. This sentence is a demonstration of criminal accountability, where the government is forcibly punishing the parents using the judicial system. Your example is one of material accountability, where the parents are freely choosing to buy something to replace what their kid broke.
Well good thing we were talking about parents being held legally responsible for the behavior of their children before it was derailed by idiots to be about insurance then.
At what age? What would make gifting the 17yo son a rifle different from gifting the 18yo son a rifle?
What if there are no other aggravating factors? (say, unlike this case, there is no history of violence, or mental illness, and the parents are involved in their kid's life and taught proper gun safety)
Should this have been applied to shooting/marksmanship classes that used to be popular in American schools? If one of the students starts shooting people the teacher/school is to blame? Well maybe people did start blaming the schools. I guess that's why we can't have nice things any more.
minors are not legal adults, and do not share the same rights as legal adults. there is always someone responsible for a minor. if a minor commits a murder using tools that the adult willingly gave them, the adult should have some responsibility in that.
this is not to take responsibility away from the minor. At the end of the day, they are responsible for their actions as well and should be disciplined accordingly.
Better round up all the parents of kids that do skeet shooting or other gun sports right? I mean how could those irresponsible monsters do that? Take away archery too just in case and of course no more hunting
you should read the comment you're replying to in its entirety before you type.
skeet shooting and target shooting are not crimes, and neither is possession of a weapon if you meet the minimum age requirement or are under supervision of a legal adult.
murder is a crime.
the parent giving a minor a weapon means that parent trusts that minor to be responsible with that weapon. no parent should ever hand their kids a gun if the parent is not absolutely sure the kid knows the basics of shooting safety, and has the minimum level of integrity to not commit a murder with it. (unless of course the miner is receiving instruction in the responsible handling of guns)
No dumbass, but if you trust the kid with that gun and they go and commit a murder with it then now you are liable so now every parent of a kid who are in sports like this is now liable according to the ruling of this judge. I read your comment perfectly fine and I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about.
if your kid is liable to commit a murder, you've got other issues on your hands. a good parent who raised their kids right has nothing to worry about.
parents are responsible for their children. if the parent decided to let their kid be raised by an iPad instead of raising them themselves, that's their own problem. if someone dies because of their poor parenting, you can be sure as shit they share in the responsibility.
or do you think the parents of those dipshit teens pointing guns at the camera for their profile pics and dressing like gangsters are blameless?
I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction between the two to be perfectly honest. I guess if we the term bigotry denotes an element of active malice but I don't think that's the case. Then again people keep changing definitions of language so frequently these days that who knows.
Discrimination is when you decide where to eat, who to talk to, what clothes to wear, etc. You make a decision based on whether you like something, whether it is beneficial etc.
Bigotry is when you hate something simply because it has traits you dislike, or if it shares traits with something else you dislike. Hating Clarence Thomas for being black is bigotry because despite sharing the same skin tone as George Floyd, his character is wildly different.
Bigotry is a form of prejudice. Discrimination is not, because it relies on prior information.
It is not bigotry to want to avoid inner city blacks, because there is a good reason to do so, but it is bigotry to avoid the only black kid in school if he hasn't given you a reason to do so.
The average person isn't smart enough to understand or care about this distinction though, so just like the difference between a liberal and a progressive, it's largely moot in the modern context.
No matter how much you set them up or what kind of position you give a nigger, they nigger it away. Look at Fani Willis. Basically muh-diked the prosecutors office into even more shame than they normally have. I dunno if she went to Harvard, but she's a Harvard kind of negress. But still you can't take the jungle out. I've seen it time and time again. And then "someone" blames you for the niggers' failures.
In fact, expecting blacks to behave according to the standards whites set is the very definition of what the commies call structural racism.
I call it a good argument for segregation. Blacks, if left to their own devices, I believe would make different rules. Maybe it would be easier for them to follow those. By integrating them and then throwing them in prison when they offend white society, you're not helping. As is widely pointed out by SJWs.
Answer: no
We wish, but you'd need to combine that with 2A freedom and clear castle doctrine to REALLY curb crime in about, 1 month of implementation.
All the cops need to do is look away while we do their jobs for 'em, cuz they're so scared.
It's the same inconsistency the government uses. The kid is responsible enough to take drugs and change genders, but isn't responsible enough to work or own a weapon.
Besides this is just a tactic to discourage gun ownership.
Will blacks be held accountable? No.
Not until the last straw. And then it'll be like a dam bursts. Same for all the other degenerate demographics. Once what happens happens, they'll all pay.
I just hope I am still around to see it when it happens. I absolutely can't wait for one day, for no reason at all to happen.
If and when the country is overwhelmingly minority, I don't think they'll go easy on the blacks. Mexicans and Chinese don't wanna put up with their shit. You could see some Chinese or Mexican style justice applied. Which is almost good because that's the kind of force the negro understands.
what? held accountable once they run the country with the arabs, hispanics, and indians? you are aware of the south african timeline, yes?
Well first they have to find the dad...
It would be consistency, so no they won’t hold bad black parents to the same standard
Look, there are cases where it's obvious (bullying/harming small animals, angry outbursts) but there's no guarantee if a teenager is going to lash out violently. If evidence was found that makes sense where he was exhibiting violent behavior multiple times in a pattern and then they gave him a gun (or he had one and they didnt take it away from him), fine, charge the parents and put them in jail. But if the parents or those interacting with kid didn't see it, then you can't say they "ignored" it.
I can't absolutely blame the parents if the kid appeared normal enough to have a gun, then he suddenly snapped and killed others. Because at that point it seems like pearl clutching from gun grabbers.
Alternatively: your child is your responsibility when he’s white and potentially violent, but he becomes our responsibility when he wants to cut his own dick off.
This case wasn't anything like that, the kid exhibited murder suicide ideation and the parents did their level best to ignore it while giving him a gun at the same time. Still, I am suspicious of how the legal theory will play out.
With that, I still don't see how it's manslaughter on part of the father simply because it wasn't done by his own hands. If they knowingly let their son have a gun, at most it should be accessory to murder, but I'm assuming the prosecutors were slapping harder charges because the shooter was a juvenile and they possibly don't like guns.
They love guns, that's why their goons get the best ones. It's those uppity peasants they don't like.
Aha, that gave me a good laugh!
The jury was not a jury of his peers. It was a jury of animals.
Do unto others before they do unto you.
So, what, manslaughter is now just a "something bad happened, and the government hates you, so get fucked" law?
The son isn't a piece of industrial equipment. Hold the son accountable for what he did, and if the father's liable for not securing the firearms properly, prosecute him for that...
Doed anyone else feel like this ends up becoming part of a depopulation agenda?
Used to be having kids was beneficial to you once they reached a certain age. Became part if your hunting party (think spears or arrows) that brought back food, or did chores around the farm.
Now kids cost a lot but don't bring back any money.
And they cost a lot.
Used to be kids would run around with other kids in the tribe. Now you're the sole source of interaction up to 5.
Now they also mean a huge headache, wondering teachers are trying to trans them.
Now you can also go to jail for something the kid did? Like who would want to have kids any more.
Imagine not having your own kids because other people don't raise theirs well.
People respond to incentives. No amount of moralistic chiding will alter that reality. Change the incentive structures if you want to see different behavioral patterns.
this, exactly this. and your enemies understand this and are exploiting the realities if human nature to the absolute max while we sit around shaming each other and ignoring inconvenient realities (women, race, human instincts, etc)
I'm not ignoring shit, but I'll be damned if I can think of any practical solutions.
They can support you when you're old. You can actually put them to work around the homestead.
I do see it as part of the agenda, as you say.
I think a lot of what you said is specific or average. I fully intend my children to interact with other people before 5.
this will be unpopular here, but I actually agree with this sentence. handing a minor a weapon, and then that minor committing a murder with that weapon, should absolutely be a manslaughter charge. this should apply universally.
They didn't "hand him a weapon" they bought him a gun to shoot with when they go to the range. He took it from the safe and committed murder. This is just ammo for grabbers pushing "safe storage" laws.
the question would then become: did the parents give the kid full access to the safe? if not, then the kid stole the gun and I agree the parents should not be charged.
If a parent gives their kid a condom and they go on to rape someone with it, should they be charged for that too? Should they be responsible for any car accidents their kid has?
Where is the line where a minor is finally accountable for their own actions?
Yes, so long as they are responsible for the kid. If a kid is not trustworthy with adult tools, don't fucking trust them with adult tools!
Also, the parent is not a scapegoat for the minor. The minor should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. However, the parents are not blameless either and should be held accountable.
They are held accountable if their kid gets in a car crash. The insurance rises and extra scrutiny is given. Also, they now have to drive their kid around while buying a new car.
That's not at all the same. This sentence is a demonstration of criminal accountability, where the government is forcibly punishing the parents using the judicial system. Your example is one of material accountability, where the parents are freely choosing to buy something to replace what their kid broke.
Insurance rates go up. Go to jail.
Same thing!
Insurance can be in the kid's name. It doesn't have to be on the parents' policy.
It still goes up. Insurance becomes the law, and they don't want to spend money.
But if the policy is in the kid's name, the parents aren't being punished for it like you say they should be.
Most kids can’t even afford insurance. I get what you’re saying but in practice it doesn’t work
Well good thing we were talking about parents being held legally responsible for the behavior of their children before it was derailed by idiots to be about insurance then.
this won't be enforced fairly and you know it.
nevertheless it should be.
no, it's a complete abortion of a ruling and the judge should be sacked for it.
At what age? What would make gifting the 17yo son a rifle different from gifting the 18yo son a rifle?
What if there are no other aggravating factors? (say, unlike this case, there is no history of violence, or mental illness, and the parents are involved in their kid's life and taught proper gun safety)
Should this have been applied to shooting/marksmanship classes that used to be popular in American schools? If one of the students starts shooting people the teacher/school is to blame? Well maybe people did start blaming the schools. I guess that's why we can't have nice things any more.
minors are not legal adults, and do not share the same rights as legal adults. there is always someone responsible for a minor. if a minor commits a murder using tools that the adult willingly gave them, the adult should have some responsibility in that.
this is not to take responsibility away from the minor. At the end of the day, they are responsible for their actions as well and should be disciplined accordingly.
Better round up all the parents of kids that do skeet shooting or other gun sports right? I mean how could those irresponsible monsters do that? Take away archery too just in case and of course no more hunting
you should read the comment you're replying to in its entirety before you type.
skeet shooting and target shooting are not crimes, and neither is possession of a weapon if you meet the minimum age requirement or are under supervision of a legal adult.
murder is a crime.
the parent giving a minor a weapon means that parent trusts that minor to be responsible with that weapon. no parent should ever hand their kids a gun if the parent is not absolutely sure the kid knows the basics of shooting safety, and has the minimum level of integrity to not commit a murder with it. (unless of course the miner is receiving instruction in the responsible handling of guns)
No dumbass, but if you trust the kid with that gun and they go and commit a murder with it then now you are liable so now every parent of a kid who are in sports like this is now liable according to the ruling of this judge. I read your comment perfectly fine and I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about.
if your kid is liable to commit a murder, you've got other issues on your hands. a good parent who raised their kids right has nothing to worry about.
parents are responsible for their children. if the parent decided to let their kid be raised by an iPad instead of raising them themselves, that's their own problem. if someone dies because of their poor parenting, you can be sure as shit they share in the responsibility.
or do you think the parents of those dipshit teens pointing guns at the camera for their profile pics and dressing like gangsters are blameless?
Gotta find daddy first.
Once again providing a good argument for bigotry being a moral good.
Makes me smile anytime anyone calls me an incel/bigot online. I now know all I need to know about that person and have officially won the argument
Discrimination is a moral good. Bigotry is the perversion of that.
I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction between the two to be perfectly honest. I guess if we the term bigotry denotes an element of active malice but I don't think that's the case. Then again people keep changing definitions of language so frequently these days that who knows.
Discrimination is when you decide where to eat, who to talk to, what clothes to wear, etc. You make a decision based on whether you like something, whether it is beneficial etc.
Bigotry is when you hate something simply because it has traits you dislike, or if it shares traits with something else you dislike. Hating Clarence Thomas for being black is bigotry because despite sharing the same skin tone as George Floyd, his character is wildly different.
Bigotry is a form of prejudice. Discrimination is not, because it relies on prior information.
It is not bigotry to want to avoid inner city blacks, because there is a good reason to do so, but it is bigotry to avoid the only black kid in school if he hasn't given you a reason to do so.
The average person isn't smart enough to understand or care about this distinction though, so just like the difference between a liberal and a progressive, it's largely moot in the modern context.
This is completely normal and reasonable, if not an outright tautology.
Prejudice is the simple use of heuristics and is not a moral failing.
I hate that you're right.
Based on their behavior blacks SHOULD be oppressed but they have it so fucking good and they still bitch about being victims
No matter how much you set them up or what kind of position you give a nigger, they nigger it away. Look at Fani Willis. Basically muh-diked the prosecutors office into even more shame than they normally have. I dunno if she went to Harvard, but she's a Harvard kind of negress. But still you can't take the jungle out. I've seen it time and time again. And then "someone" blames you for the niggers' failures.
I call it a good argument for segregation. Blacks, if left to their own devices, I believe would make different rules. Maybe it would be easier for them to follow those. By integrating them and then throwing them in prison when they offend white society, you're not helping. As is widely pointed out by SJWs.