Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
I'm getting weary of cucking myself defending the rights of people who deny them to others. Nick's a self-described authoritarian who loathes liberalism and secular law. Well, as his own holy book says, whatever a man sows, he will also reap.
Basically, imagine the Taliban if they were Christian.
We don't claim him.
The part about "you never know who it could be", is a part that you're right about - which is why you don't answer your door for weird people. Imagine if the rest of us did that every time a Jehova's Witness or door-to-door salesman came to our doors...
Sure, word would spread and those annoying people would never come to our doors again, but we wouldn't get a free pass for assault.
First amendment, guy.
The First Amendment protects freedoms of speech and of the press, which generally includes the right to gather information such as through recording.
Are you even from America? Because if you are, what are you doing making topics about political matters then arguing against the very FIRST amendment of the constitution?
That's a separate matter.
One injustice doesn't suddenly give you exemption to the law for every injustice that you decide to respond with. Assault is also generally seen as worse than doxxing because the person who actually makes the physical attack, is causing bodily harm that might even be fatal.
Had one of the women physically attacked him first, he MIGHT have had a self-defense argument, but that's apparently not how it went down.
Self-defense is a defense to assault claims, which is reserved for situations where there is an actual physical attacker or weapon being brandished - self-defense DOES NOT apply to "feeling uncomfortable". Plenty of men have had their rights violated and suffered serious bodily injury from women making that same claim - and it is very difficult to win a civil suit in those cases, but sometimes it is possible to sue people who attack someone for "feeling uncomfortable" because "feeling uncomfortable" is not a valid basis for claiming self-defense in response to assault.
Fair. Hard to imagine a less Christlike character.
It's not putting it mildly. There is no level of her disagreement with her views that justifies her going to his home to confront him directly. It's also been proven she and her friends have been harassing him for days prior. What his political views are, and your opinions of those views are irrelevant. He has every right to his own views and beliefs whether you like them or agree with them or not.
I must be just naive as shooting someone seems as equally unimportant on a scale of things meh...
Maybe what she did qualifies as harassment. But that is a job for law enforcement, not for some Sturmabteilung cosplayer.. What he did was wrong and I hope he rots in prison.
Also I find it interesting, that you (correctly) criticise people for applauding the CEO murder but here for some strange reason, you try to find excuses for Fuentes attacking a person.
So, I disagree because someone simply coming up to your door with a camera (like any police officer will if they show up at your door) is not actually enough to meet the statute of harassment laws,
...however - and this actually makes it even worse to file that charge - the police will probably proceed to charge someone on the claim alone, ruining their background check, making it so that they can't get housing, or a new job, possibly causing them to lose their current job, and costing them to hire a decent attorney to defend themselves (unless they like gambling with their freedom and future ability to get housing & jobs) because you don't have to be guilty or even have enough evidence to convict you for them to file charges and start the process of forcing court appearances that you'll have to take days off of work for (and probably lose your job ...while having "PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES" on your background check and thus unable to get a new job) -- they can just keep you tied up in the courts for about 2 years, which can cause a lot of harm - far more harm than being sprayed and shoved probably even will.
The statutes for harassment typically specifically state something close to that a violent threat must be communicated or a pattern of behavior that would cause a REASONABLE person to fear for their safety.
Some states actually have really poorly written harassment laws that state that an interaction is criminal harassment if someone calls the police and simply claims that it is criminal harassment - which is really bad legal implementation, and makes speaking to or interacting with ANYONE extremely dangerous in a way that it really wouldn't be if the only danger posed by speaking to strangers were that the stranger themselves might be dangerous (rather than what poor-implementations of harassment laws do, which is to make it so that speaking to a stranger may result in an interaction with a dangerous authority figure who automatically sides with "the victim" (person making the claim) and who will also have the law on their side for any dangerous or harmful actions that said authority figure takes).
In some states, that's how the police enforce the law, even if it has provisions in it like, what I described above about needing to have a REASONABLE fear, or at least saying that disagreements can't be harassment if they're workplace disputes.
Consequently, filing claims of harassment which do not rise to the occasion of being a reasonable concern for one's well-being - nor in response to a severe and recurring pattern of unwanted attention - is an extremely immoral, unethical, and depraved thing to do.
The police WILL respond to that claim if someone comes to your door with a camera and doesn't leave ...well... as long as that person isn't a police officer, because when it comes to boots and batons wearing badges, it's "rules for thee but not for me".