Slashdot Mirror
Garmin Engineer Shot And Killed By Man Yelling 'Get Out Of My Country!' (theverge.com)
lxw56 writes:
Garmin engineer Srinivas Kuchibhotla was shot and killed at a local bar in Olathe, Kansas, the U.S. headquarters of Garmin. Co-worker Alok Madasani was also injured along with bystander Ian Grillot, who attempted to help the men. "The suspect in the shooting, Adam Purinton, was drinking at the bar in Olathe, Kansas, at about 7:15 p.m. that night," reports The Verge. "A witness said he yelled 'get out of my country' to two of the victims, reportedly saying the men, believed to originally be from India, were 'Middle Eastern.'" In 2015, Garmin employed 2,700 workers in Olathe and has plans to double this number, which the article notes has led to "increasing diversity" in the community.
I would expect a REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE as well
You should start by looking in the mirror and see how the election of Obama moved the overton window enough to make trump possible. Alas such honest reflection from the left is why the democrats are as decimated as they are.
the comments section, i mean. honest question.
why do you guys bother keeping this comment section running, when it has clearly devolved into one of the worst, most openly racist and least interesting communities on the internet? okay, sure, there are communities specifically geared towards right-wing fascism and racism that are probably worse, but this site is supposed to be about, you know, tech news and stuff. but you guys have let it erode into something gross that almost nobody other than despicable morons want to participate in. i remember years ago when articles would have hundreds of interesting and insightful comments, with actual experts weighing in with well thought out reactions. those people are all gone, and with very good reason. are you glad they're gone? do you miss them? do you miss relevancy?
i doubt you are proud of providing a forum dominated by some of the worst elements of humanity. so that's why i'm asking why you continue to do so.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religious Affiliation
National Origin
Disability
Age
Military Affiliation
Bankruptcy
Genetic Information
Citizenship Status
Funny, political party isn't up there. What a wonderful false equivalence you've devised.
And don't forget bona fide occupational qualifications! If the job skill required is logical thought and the prospective seeker voted for Trump, that'd be legal discrimination even if they *were* a protected group. Which, again, you're... I mean, *they're* not.
Man has a point. If you only hire H1-Bs, you won't get many Trump supporters.
About TFA: is a sad commentary on the US education system that our rednecks can't tell the races they're supposed to hate apart. But then, I guess it's not the smart ones who do this sort of shit in the first place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
Here is the thing foreigners don't understand about guns in America. The reason we have an amendment to the Constitution which permits citizens to own guns is twofold:
1) The Founding Fathers, almost all of whom were British subjects, saw firsthand what happens when only the government has firearms. They can use those weapons to quell public outcry over anything, claiming the people were "rioting" or were "a threat to peace and order" because the people can't effectively fight back. If you read The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay all say the same basic thing: citizens who have weapons are more fully able to defend themselves from the government.
That may sound odd to Europeans, but if you look at your history you should be able to see the logic behind this amendment. The Founding Fathers used their own experiences to craft a document which (was supposed to) enshrined rights to people while limiting that of the government. However, as James Madison pointed out, there has been more abridgement of freedoms of the people by the silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations (paraphrased).
The second reason for the amendment, and one the NRA absolutely refuses to recognize, is those who had weapons were during that time required to register with the government so they could be called up as part of the militia. Unlike today, the Founding Fathers envisioned a small standing army, if at all, with the militia doing the brunt of the work to slow or repel foreign invaders or put down rebellion, as George Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Men who had firearms would register with their local government and if the need arose, they would be called up. The government maintained that list so they knew who they could call on.
The original amendment, as proposed by James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution, was:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
You can see how cutting out and rearranging a few words has people imaging the amendment to be something it is not.
This is why gun control is such a contentious issue. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, says citizens are allowed to own firearms. Where the argument comes in is where to draw the line on a) who can own a gun (as a rule, anyone convicted of a criminal offense cannot) and b) what restrictions on gun ownership (type of weapon, amount of bullets, etc). As you have seen, some believe there should be no restrictions and others say there should be plenty of restrictions or even no ownership at all.
My nervousness is about the presence of firearms. I see the police wearing them, I see guns for sale at Walmart and I see signs about gun policies on the entrances to building. Combine that with the news reports and statistics and it is concerning. I use the rational side of brain to remind me that the media do hype things up and while it is much more dangerous than back home the risk is still small as long as I don't do anything stupid I should be fine. As a result I normally enjoy my visits and I like 99% of the people I meet.
Pretty much all Trump supporters are not racists
Everybody is racist. At least to some degree, if you think you're colour-blind or your biases are grounded in dispassionate statistics then you're delusional.
Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.
that is yet more Fake News
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
In the face of a shooting why are you trying to make people hate others more, not less?
We're trying to wake people up to the danger posed by the rhetoric that Trump is pumping out, and he's not just creating threats on the right, if I were an Al-Queda or ISIS recruiter right now I'd be over the moon.
What triggers this shooting was a vet who couldn't get assistance from the VA.
Are you always so understanding when seeking the root cause when a Muslim does something terroristy?
After eight years, that is on Obama - as is Obama and supporters stirring racial tension
Yeah! What was Obama thinking Presidenting while black??
and giving focus to a violent angry drunk man.
I don't think Trump drinks.
Mathews apologized to the family's in her statement, calling Purinton's actions "senseless." She said he had a drinking problem that became worse since his father passed away in October 2015, and he'd been trying to get assistance from the VA.
The families of home-grown Muslim terrorists tend to be very apologetic and horrified by the actions of their relatives, do you also bold their family's response when trying to humanize the perpetrator?
I stole this Sig
Although the math doesn't require an absolute population value, it's a bit easier to reason about it if one is used, so I'll round the population of the country to 300 million.
If whites are 70% of this population and 500 whites per year are murdered by blacks, then the white population is 210 million, and the rate of whites murdered by blacks is 500 per 210 million -- about 2.4 whites per million are murdered each year by blacks.
If blacks are 13% of this population, and 200 blacks per year are murdered by whites, then the black population is 39 million, and the rate of blacks murdered by whites is 200 per 39 million -- about 5.1 blacks per million are murdered each year by whites.
Ergo, as I said, these numbers, if believed, show that a black person is twice as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person is to be killed by a black person.
Well, only approximately, since 5.1 is not exactly twice 2.4, but that wasn't your quibble now, was it?
As other commenters have pointed out, that statement is fairly meaningless without further context, but I'm not the one who posted the context-free numbers. All I did is point out one conclusion from them. Another conclusion, of course, is the one probably intended by the original poster, e.g. that on average, black people commit more interracial murders than white people, but that conclusion likewise requires additional context before you could consider it to be actionable data.
Here's one piece of context for you -- "on average" has its own problems. As Dylan Roof illustrates, a single white guy easily supplied 4.5% of the carnage in that white-on-black number.
Should that make blacks feel safer or less secure?