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.
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.
Never knew Mr. Beast’s real name was Hunby
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.
I recently sat in a call with someone ~50 y/o helping someone ~25 y/o…
“Open vim and change xyz” met with “What’s vim…?”
I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard while feeling overwhelming sadness at the same time 😖
Myself.
Others generally dislike me cause I’m a total asshole (not wrong) 👍
I think the thigh high socks requirement scares people away 😓
I really hope people don’t think these are the only two options…
Imagine being in a corporate environment trying to implement an OSS into your platform and having to tell your 50 yo teammate: “Oh yeah, just pop in this Discord server real quick to see any relevant info”. Instant credibility loss
It seems to me, anecdotally, that women with a more masculine temperament prefer men with a more feminine temperament, and vice versa.
Python is a virus
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