[removed]

That's Norfolk Southern's problem. Or at least it should be.

Imagine trying to sell a house in that town

I mean, the closest we ever got to WWIII was the Seuz Crisis, because of France and UK using their VETOs..

it was actually deescalated and world war III prevented because Canada took the issue to the General Assembly and ended up having them create the UNEF under command of E. L. M. Burns..

I just think its worth noting, the General Assembly did more to prevent WWIII than the security council ever did

Anyone who has the means to leave really should. Then sue the crap out of Norfolk Southern.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

As long as the company that installs them “donates” to their super PAC first.

But the company said everything was okay. Some woke guy wrote this to scare people

/s

You are forgetting about the kids growing up and realizing their workplace and homes and public places they frequent don't have the super necessary bulletproof safety sheds.

This idea that we should turn schools into fortresses always ignores the side effect that you are telling children they aren't safe unless there are draconian and in some cases ridiculous security measures in place to prevent or mitigate events that odds are would never have happened at their school in the first place.

These kids are going to be afraid to exist in the real world.

Why would pilots be holed up in a classroom?

[removed]

[removed]

I'm also willing to bet Ukraine is holding back airpower and resources in the western part of the country waiting for other countries to send equipment.

In Alabama, which has just about the most relaxed gun laws in the country, last I heard.

Stupid idea anyway. Puts all the potential victims in a pen for easy pickings. Bullets aren't the only way to kill people.

So you’re going to put everyone in a small room where they can all be caught by the active shooter?

B. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

1. General rule: Character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in civil cases.

For example, a defendant cannot offer the testimony of friends (or her own testimony) that she is usually a very careful driver as circumstantial evidence she was probably driving carefully and not negligently on the day of an accident.

2. Character in issue.

Character evidence is occasionally admissible if a trait of character has been placed in issue by the pleadings.

Lawsuits in which character is a material issue are extremely uncommon.

One must be careful not to confuse:

an allegation of particular unsavory behavior (e.g., acted maliciously on a certain day)

with true character (tendency to be malicious on all days and toward all people).

Character is a material issue in the following types of cases:

a) Defamation.

Character is in issue in a defamation case when the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of having a general flaw, e.g., accusing Hillary Clinton of being a liar.

Character is not in issue if the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of a specific act, e.g., Hillary lied about Benghazi.

https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b723/06char/T06.pdf

​

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, in this instance, if the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women," then his character would be at issue and they can introduce specific past instances (since they're trying to prove that Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women).

But the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin sexually harassed a Marriott employee on the night of Feb 5th." So, character evidence would be inadmissible in court because this is one SPECIFIC ACT and you can't use character evidence to disprove one SPECIFIC ACT.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

You now have fake cancer

[removed]