In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
"an Arkansas man allegedly threatened to shoot up a Walmart if the hantavirus forces the United States to shut down.""According to cops, Aaron Keith Bynum was arrested Friday by Marion County Sheriff deputies and charged with making terroristic threats -- a felony -- and harassing communications, a misdemeanor.Bynum's capture comes after he allegedly made the threat during an o
1. anecdotal ragebait
2. unless there's more to it, sounds like fed overreach based on a guy saying something dumb in a chat, rather than an actual threat
but, y'know, this stuff is catnip for shitlibs...
1. anecdotal ragebait
2. unless there's more to it, sounds like fed overreach based on a guy saying something dumb in a chat, rather than an actual threat
but, y'know, this stuff is catnip for shitlibs...
I remember mentioning, while some here were in mid chug shaming family owned hair salons and Mexican restaurants for trying to stay open while Walmart was packed with fools wrestling over toilet paper, that maybe it wasn't such a great idea to put the hate on those particular folks over others so you don't create the quickest accelerant for a world where everyone later wonders why nothing else exists except Mickey Ds, Amazon, and Walmart. But the ability to control tends to be addictive.
Boomers are so ****ing dumb they needed a guide to tell them how to watch TV, just incredible.
Gramma used to collect TV guides and comics off the rack in the 50s to read. She stored all her TV guides in boxes in her closet for w/e reason for decades which stayed mint. She folded up or threw away every comic in the garbage and the ones she didn't bother throwing away (which now are in my possession) all seem to have a coffee cup imprint on the back when she used them as coasters apparently, or had some address or division problem written on it.
The dfs are upset about lockdowns that aren't even happening.https://www.tmz.com/2026/05/16/arkansas-..."an Arkansas man allegedly threatened to shoot up a Walmart if the hantavirus forces the United States to shut down.""According to cops, Aaron Keith Bynum was arrested Friday by Marion County Sheriff deputies and charged with mak
He is charged with Making a Terroristic Threat in the first degree, which in Arkansas means
“ 1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if:
(A) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person; or
(B) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.“
I’m not sure what he actually said, but they need to actually show that he intended to terrorize another person or that he really threatened anyone.
If he said as a joke “dang it if x happens I’m gonna do y”, I don’t see how that would qualify.
Since neither the TMZ article or the police press release specifies his comments, it’s unclear if he actually said something that would constitute a terroristic threat.
It’s going to be hard to show that he intended to threaten physical injury to everyone if he was just talking crap online and wasn’t speaking to an actual Walmart employee.
Things are different now.
When my cousin Larry used to say he was getting ready to blow up the Walmart bathroom no one ever called the cops.
1. anecdotal ragebait
2. unless there's more to it, sounds like fed overreach based on a guy saying something dumb in a chat, rather than an actual threat
but, y'know, this stuff is catnip for shitlibs...
You're right, your random guess about what happened is probably more reliable than the FBI. It should be obvious that it is probably both an actual threat and something that was dumb to say in chat.
But you are right to imply that I enjoy pointing out the stupidity of the anti-science conservative brigade that thinks they are tough alpha wolves (though "shitlibs" is...let's just say not the one). Either way, don't look for me to stop doing that.
Once we get Neuralink fully mature, we can just start sending the feds as soon as people think it.
1. anecdotal ragebait
2. unless there's more to it, sounds like fed overreach based on a guy saying something dumb in a chat, rather than an actual threat
but, y'know, this stuff is catnip for shitlibs...
Im sure the feds will soon arrest all of the raving mad American Zionists that posted about their desire to kill Arab kids.
Im sure the feds will soon arrest all of the raving mad American Zionists that posted about their desire to kill Arab kids.
Just in case anyone is dumb enough to buy this argument, there’s a clear first amendment difference between advocating for a war and actively threatening to shoot up a walmart. Not that there’s enough evidence to conclude he actually did it, but just hypothetically.
Once we get Neuralink fully mature, we can just start sending the feds as soon as people think it.
Let me get this straight. Let’s say that someone went into walmart and started screaming “I have a gun and will shoot everyone in here!” do you think that shouldn’t be a crime?
That’s clearly not the type of speech that the first amendment was ever intended to protect.
Gramma used to collect TV guides and comics off the rack in the 50s to read. She stored all her TV guides in boxes in her closet for w/e reason for decades which stayed mint. She folded up or threw away every comic in the garbage and the ones she didn't bother throwing away (which now are in my possession) all seem to have a coffee cup imprint on the back when she used them a
Gramma's last name wasn't Castanza ?
Im sure the feds will soon arrest all of the raving mad American Zionists that posted about their desire to kill Arab kids.
Both of them?
Wapo said like 20k Americans served in the IDF during the Gaza genocide. I wonder how many advocated for mass murder in their social media.
You're right, your random guess about what happened is probably more reliable than the FBI. It should be obvious that it is probably both an actual threat and something that was dumb to say in chat.But you are right to imply that I enjoy pointing out the stupidity of the anti-science conservative brigade that thinks they are tough alpha wolves (though "shitlibs" is...let's just
I'm with 72off on this one. Of course, time will tell (unless it doesn't).
You're right, your random guess about what happened is probably more reliable than the FBI. It should be obvious that it is probably both an actual threat and something that was dumb to say in chat.
Isn't this the same as everyone's random guess about Epstein island being more reliable than the FBI? Stay consistent.
Let me get this straight. Let’s say that someone went into walmart and started screaming “I have a gun and will shoot everyone in here!” do you think that shouldn’t be a crime?
That’s clearly not the type of speech that the first amendment was ever intended to protect.
Potentially, yes. But the specifics matter even in your case, and for starters, I think your scenario is way different than some idiot gamer making a dumb comment while playing some game. If he said he was going to put you in the hospital and ass **** your girlfriend if you beat him in COD, do we also send the feds on that felony threat? The level of imminence does matter.
The crux of it here is that you don't have some specific targeted location or a planned out event, you don't have any discussion or signs of a weapon. You have some idiot saying something that they shouldn't which just shifts punishment towards impulsive expression.
Potentially, yes. But the specifics matter even in your case, and for starters, I think your scenario is way different than some idiot gamer making a dumb comment while playing some game. If he said he was going to put you in the hospital and ass **** your girlfriend if you beat him in COD, do we also send the feds on that felony threat? The level of imminence does matter.
If this is the position, I agree with this. My only small comment would be it’s possible that he did make a statement that could be perceived as an imminent threat or could be argued to have intention to cause terror. Without seeing what the statement was I don’t think we have enough evidence to conclude that the arrest wasn’t justified.
I'd kill to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
the bs economics one does a lot of damage worldwide
The crux of it here is that you don't have some specific targeted location or a planned out event, you don't have any discussion or signs of a weapon.
What is your source for these claims?
Did Luigi do it or not do it? im confused because I hear arguments of both sides saying he's a hero and he's innocent and others saying he's a murderer
Did Luigi do it or not do it? im confused because I hear arguments of both sides saying he's a hero and he's innocent and others saying he's a murderer
If we imagine a venn diagram, then I am guessing that almost the entire circle of people people saying he is innocent fits into the circle of people who says he is a hero. Meaning the vast majority of them say he is innocent because they don't think he should be punished. You might find some conspiracy theorists on the outside, who have constructed scenarios where he is somehow framed.
While legally speaking he needs to be tried and convicted before he is a murderer in the eyes of the law, outside the courtroom and legal proceedings I would say that it is pretty clear that he committed murder.
For good reason, criminal law tends to be fairly strict on what constitutes justifiable homicide. Casus belli, self-defense, necessity, euthanasia and so forth (not all are applicable, countries vary), in addition to various circumstances that might constitute partial defense and thus be counted as lesser offenses (relatively speaking).
Personally, I would say that people who take it upon themselves to commit murder to further their political views extremely rarely make things better, and people who look for heroes in such individuals are making a mistake. There is a lot wrong with you when you go up to someone on the street and gun them down.
And I'm sure a lot of people are itching to write something about the victim, the state of country or instances of (legally) justifiable homicide that are morally or politically questionable, but two wrongs do not make a right.
More on the occasionally topic of jury nullification
Trial for criminal damage
Judge says moral justification would not be a lawful excuse -- (*)
Barrister says that the jury can decide independently of the judge based on their convictions -- (**)
Barrister charged with contempt of court
Court of appeal throws it out for procedural reasons. It could come back
I claim (*) is possibly correct and that (**) is definitely correct. And I conjecture that the judge is a pompous arse.
More on the occasionally topic of jury nullificationTrial for criminal damageJudge says moral justification would not be a lawful excuse -- (*)Barrister says that the jury can decide independently of the judge based on their convictions -- (**)Barrister charged with contempt of courtCourt of appeal throws it out for procedural reasons. It could come back
Meh, this is all noise. The real reason the judicial jury system is failing in the West is because of demographic change and increasing tribal sectarianism. To quote Lee Kwan You:
"Jury trials may work in homogeneous societies, but not in a sharply multiracial one. You cannot assume that each juror will set aside his race, language, and religion."
“In a multiracial society, trial by jury can result in communal prejudices influencing verdicts.”
