I've never been so confused by so very few words.

A Mcpocalypse

Or the dog

Especially the puppy.

Yeah knife arch definitely makes it sound much cooler than it is...

I have a couple crypto miners in my office, disguised as a server. They don't make much but it's a nice little bonus. Plus they heat the office in the winter. Highly recommended.

Average ethnostate moment

Even the puppy?

Point 1: circumstances and experiences during pregnancy have an influence on the later development of the child, do it is not completely irrelevant. However, I agree that the baby cannot leave the mother until birth, so "imprisonment of the baby" is a very week argument.

Point 2: not only the baby, but the mother as well!

Point 3: the defendant claims, that she was attacked and defended herself and the baby with a single shot. There is no verdict in the case, yet, so far she is only indicted. That means she has to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.

In other words: if she is convicted, then you are right. Until then, the child should stay with the mother, except if there is any indication for neglect or mistreatment. An alternative might be the father, but you should have very good arguments to separate mother and child, and for me, that means you should have very good arguments to keep the mother imprisoned until the process.

Good for that guy. He was middle school facilities staff, which means he was paid peanuts. Might as well supplement that shit job with a mining operation.

Don't call the cops unless you're ready for someone to be murdered over the issue

Again, I’ve said that you don’t need to prosecute and punish him for this but the man needs help. Picking him up, housing him, and getting him real help is worth the cost in my mind. He has a long history of mental illness and domestic violence. We need to not have such an adversarial relationship with police and hope that them responding to a crime scene and picking this guy up can lead to the right governance in his life for him to get a support system and change. My comment was not that this guy needs to be punished but was noticing how we look at this situation and only want to call the cops idiots, racists, and evil. All the celebrated comments are about hating the cops. You don’t have to pick sides. This is a man who needs help and him being seen by the system is a good thing. Now, if you want to criticize the system for releasing him without help, I’m with you there

Oops, yes

Force of habit?

This is like the worst possible case to try to make that point with.

Pregnant lady left in a hot car for hours. If her being neglected in this instance or future instances resulted in a miscarriage, would it still be a good example?

It definitely feels like stolen Valor, but there is no such thing as a legally protected term...first amendment and all. You can trust me that I know what I'm talking about *points to noble peace prize ordered from Amazon*

He's either been disciplined for 8 months to a year, or he flat lied to me that he didn't retire.

I think he's talking about Proverbs 6:30, which is pretty close to that. The Bible does cover gleaning pretty unambiguously (Leviticus 19:9-10, 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), which is what this story effectively is

I think it's most plausible that people on the Internet well removed from the situation shouldn't be speculating as to what happened.

But since we're speculating, I think the dude just wandered around the corner, saw chips on the ground, and ate chips. Angry piggies then pulled up and harassed him, and are now looking for a post hoc justification of their brutality.

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

Jesus Christ, it’s a bag of chips. Why are you such a simp for property protection?

Representative, congressman covers both

It's not that they give them out for "about anything." You can take a look at the requirements here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart

In the example you described:

Type of injury: caused by shrapnel, so qualifies

Severity of injury: required medical treatment, so qualifies

Source of injury: This is the only real question. The description says that the injury may be caused by an enemy or friendly fire that was intended to harm an enemy. This definitely fails the requirement for friendly fire intended to harm an enemy, so we have to evaluate if the drunk soldier was considered an enemy.

I would say intuitively no, but who knows what they were thinking at that time.

True but also which of these scenarios do you think is more plausible?
- The dude was in/around the store, saw everything go down, noticed the chips get dropped on the ground, and decided "hey, free chips", and picked them up to eat

- The dude was around the corner or somewhere where he saw/heard nothing go down, the cashier who chased the thief out didn't notice the chips that fell or didn't care to pick them up, and then the dude stumbled upon the scene and saw the chips, and then decided "hey, free chips", and picked them up to eat