However, when I lived in the US I was shot at multiple times. Usually because some idiot was shooting downhill or mistook me getting off the school bus for a dear and only occasionally by our local lunatic that sat on his back porch shooting at anything that moved. Oh, and once or twice because I was "a damn hippie," but fortunately they were too drunk to hit the broad side of a barn.
I think you are probably mistaken. If there was shooting going on, I doubt it was directed at you. Most likely it would have been aimed at the trolls that seem to be circling you. Trolls used to be the big targets before zombies came along.
Ah yes, a subtle variation on the "if you disagree with me, you must be trolling" slashdot meme. Because obviously in a society with widespread gun ownership, there are abosolutely no idiots with guns at all.
Second, we have a gang problem fueld by a misguided drug war.
Most of the Western world is involved in the War Against Drugs. It's not specifically a US thing. Nor are gangs.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal, what is unique about America is the contrast between wealth and poverty, and the fact that poor people in the US think they have a right to be rich, somehow. The problem lies in using the cash nexus as the primary method of social interaction.
Sounds like a problem the black community needs to solve for themselves
There is no "black community". Society is a whole, made up of individuals who can be described/categorised in many different ways.. It's as stupid as saying that someone white is part of "the white community" and is therefore a billionaire, because most billionaires are white.
The police have no obligation whatsoever to do anything at all. They have no legal obligation to protect specific individuals, except in cases where they've specifically promised such protection. Their duty is to society as a whole, not any individual.
That's an American thing. It's so they can't be sued.
In the rest of the world we realise that the mergency services like the police, ambulance or fire service can only be expected to do their best, and individuals should only be blamed for gross failures in their professional duties, not for failing to arrive at your house wihin 10 seconds of your emergency call.
Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US.
At the risk of stating the obvious, "violent crime" is a very broad concept, ranging from common assault (just pushing someone) up to murder.
Now, I am happy to believe that there are more fist fights in the UK, but the crime of punching someone in the face is in no way equivalent to murdering them, even if both are indeed violent crimes.
If the actual murder rate were lower in the US than the UK, that would be an interesting argument in defence of widespread gun ownership. But it's not. At this point, gun-advocates usually try to separate out big cities like Chicago, and say that in the affluent suburbs, the murder rate is much lower.
Well, no shit, but it's the same if you take out big cities from the UK's murder figures. Most rural counties in the UK probably have a couple of murders a year.
Do you realize rifles are used in less murders than bludgeoning weapons. And semi-automatic rifles (ala so called "assault weapons") are only a small percentage of that greater number.
So why focus all the effort on a gun that is not even the problem. Just cause it "looks scary" to 1D10T5 errors?
You're right, gun control laws should focus on handguns. Oh, wait, that's probably not what you want at all is it?
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped. Evil will find a way.
That lacks the joyously spontaneous expression of individual freedom that we associate with mass shootings. It sounds suspiciously like socialism to me.
NWA weren't advocating the murder of anyone in particular. I think the problem for this kid is that his ramblings can be made to sound like a terrorist bomb threat, and post-Boston that's not something I'd like to be arrested for.
That sounds like a bit of doublespeak [wikipedia.org] to me. We aren't trying to control what you say, just don't say anything that we consider too far.
Some speech is limited or prohibited. You can't get away with making a direct threat to kill someone and say "it's just words" (whatever the libertarians here would like to happen).
Whether this kid actually made such a threat is another question. It seems implausible that he's anything other than a simple minded adolescent with poor impulse control, and if we locked up all of them for 20 years we'd wipe out the human race in a generation.
Both of those contain the word "intent" though. I don't believe for a second that he had any intent to threaten.
I'd say the "reasonable fear" is a little speculative as well.
Look, the end result is a white teenage rapper off the streets. What's not to like?
because is burglary terrorism? hardly. is shooting your mother terrorism? no. the police in this case could label just about everything from robbery to calling someone
a nigger terrorism.
Yes, but making a bomb threat IS terrorism, at least potentially.
Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.
Ever seen rap lyrics? The "rant on facebook" looks suspiciously like they could be his rap lyrics to me, especially since he's boasting about becoming famous and acting like a thug.
I can't even say what would have went down if it was 20 years ago in my town and he said that kind of shit in public... because it would probably violate some kind of speech laws.
The French and Russian revolutions vastly improved their countries. They were (unfortunately) crude and bloody knives aimed at excising hard-to-kill cancers.
Not only the US, I recall a case that made the media a while back in Australia where a famous photographer landed in semi-hot water when a nude photo was in a gallery and causes a cuffuffle as the person in the photo was under the age of 18. I don't recall if anything further happened short of a Streissand and got the artist a whole heap of publicity, but I was pretty sure that the art community backed them and common sense prevailed.
I don't want to start searching for it here at work though, not sure that the links would come up safe as I don't recall the artists name - and other search terms might bring back something less than savoury.
The only way you can get a nude photo of someone under the age of 18 is to take a photo of someone who is nude and under the age of 18. If it is illegal to look at a naked child in real life, then having the photo would necessarily be illegal.
It's not like writing a fictional murder mystery and being accused of murder.
The question of whether it should be illegal to look at a naked child is irrelevant, the point is just that art doesn't exempt you from obeying the law.
I always thought that expression in art was pretty much anything goes? That art was for the most part above general censorship no matter what?
Doesn't poetry, song and the like get expempted from the likes of this?
Unfortunately for proponents of absolute free speech, human communication has consequences. In most places threatening someone's life is a crime, and the fact that you do it in approximate rhyme with shitty music in the background is not really a defence.
"An accused teenage rapper pleaded not guilty today...”
I think it is pretty clear that he is a teenage rapper. The only question left is, what would be an appropriate punishment for such an offense? I vote for the death penalty. I'm quite certain I have Darwin on my side as well.
Although I'm an opponent of capital punishment, in this case I'm prepared to make an exception.
It appears that they might be actually dealing with a criminal. They little shit threatened to stab his sister to death. TFA doesn't really give details of that incident - but it does put an interesting spin on this incident. Sounds like a violent little shit to me!
I think more to the point is that he made a bomb threat and specifically mentioned outdoing Boston and getting away with it. It's a bit like someone making jokes about crashing planes into skyscrapers on 12th September 2001.
Withdrawing the slave states from the United States of America would by definition have destroyed the US, it could only have been "Some States of America".
And legal elections of people who support slavery are morally void anyway, in much the same way that it is irrelevant whether or not Hitler ever actually won any elections.
Slashdot Mirror
However, when I lived in the US I was shot at multiple times. Usually because some idiot was shooting downhill or mistook me getting off the school bus for a dear and only occasionally by our local lunatic that sat on his back porch shooting at anything that moved. Oh, and once or twice because I was "a damn hippie," but fortunately they were too drunk to hit the broad side of a barn.
I think you are probably mistaken. If there was shooting going on, I doubt it was directed at you. Most likely it would have been aimed at the trolls that seem to be circling you. Trolls used to be the big targets before zombies came along.
Ah yes, a subtle variation on the "if you disagree with me, you must be trolling" slashdot meme. Because obviously in a society with widespread gun ownership, there are abosolutely no idiots with guns at all.
Second, we have a gang problem fueld by a misguided drug war.
Most of the Western world is involved in the War Against Drugs. It's not specifically a US thing. Nor are gangs.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal, what is unique about America is the contrast between wealth and poverty, and the fact that poor people in the US think they have a right to be rich, somehow. The problem lies in using the cash nexus as the primary method of social interaction.
Sounds like a problem the black community needs to solve for themselves
There is no "black community". Society is a whole, made up of individuals who can be described/categorised in many different ways.. It's as stupid as saying that someone white is part of "the white community" and is therefore a billionaire, because most billionaires are white.
The police have no obligation whatsoever to do anything at all. They have no legal obligation to protect specific individuals, except in cases where they've specifically promised such protection. Their duty is to society as a whole, not any individual.
That's an American thing. It's so they can't be sued.
In the rest of the world we realise that the mergency services like the police, ambulance or fire service can only be expected to do their best, and individuals should only be blamed for gross failures in their professional duties, not for failing to arrive at your house wihin 10 seconds of your emergency call.
Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US.
At the risk of stating the obvious, "violent crime" is a very broad concept, ranging from common assault (just pushing someone) up to murder.
Now, I am happy to believe that there are more fist fights in the UK, but the crime of punching someone in the face is in no way equivalent to murdering them, even if both are indeed violent crimes.
If the actual murder rate were lower in the US than the UK, that would be an interesting argument in defence of widespread gun ownership. But it's not. At this point, gun-advocates usually try to separate out big cities like Chicago, and say that in the affluent suburbs, the murder rate is much lower.
Well, no shit, but it's the same if you take out big cities from the UK's murder figures. Most rural counties in the UK probably have a couple of murders a year.
Do you realize rifles are used in less murders than bludgeoning weapons. And semi-automatic rifles (ala so called "assault weapons") are only a small percentage of that greater number.
So why focus all the effort on a gun that is not even the problem. Just cause it "looks scary" to 1D10T5 errors?
You're right, gun control laws should focus on handguns. Oh, wait, that's probably not what you want at all is it?
Right, he'd have used pressure cookers.
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped. Evil will find a way.
That lacks the joyously spontaneous expression of individual freedom that we associate with mass shootings. It sounds suspiciously like socialism to me.
I suppose it has a mild numbing effect but that's about it.
> sat in court with his head hung between his knees
Was this a bit of editorializing?
I think if I was looking at 20 years in jail for writing a shitty song I'd be a bit unhappy too.
NWA weren't advocating the murder of anyone in particular. I think the problem for this kid is that his ramblings can be made to sound like a terrorist bomb threat, and post-Boston that's not something I'd like to be arrested for.
That sounds like a bit of doublespeak [wikipedia.org] to me. We aren't trying to control what you say, just don't say anything that we consider too far.
Some speech is limited or prohibited. You can't get away with making a direct threat to kill someone and say "it's just words" (whatever the libertarians here would like to happen).
Whether this kid actually made such a threat is another question. It seems implausible that he's anything other than a simple minded adolescent with poor impulse control, and if we locked up all of them for 20 years we'd wipe out the human race in a generation.
For example, having CCTV cameras on main London public streets isn't the same thing as having a fucking two way telescreen in your front room.
Both of those contain the word "intent" though. I don't believe for a second that he had any intent to threaten. I'd say the "reasonable fear" is a little speculative as well.
Look, the end result is a white teenage rapper off the streets. What's not to like?
I could knock out a rap song in about 1/2 an hour.
That's what jazz musicians used to say about rock 'n' roll.
because is burglary terrorism? hardly. is shooting your mother terrorism? no. the police in this case could label just about everything from robbery to calling someone a nigger terrorism.
Yes, but making a bomb threat IS terrorism, at least potentially.
Ever seen rap lyrics? The "rant on facebook" looks suspiciously like they could be his rap lyrics to me, especially since he's boasting about becoming famous and acting like a thug.
So what?
He doesn't get to choose what his words mean.
community service and fines? for writing rap lyrics? please...
Agreed. It should be hard prison time.
We have truly become a nation of cowards when a white high school kid can scare everyone with a song.
So if the Boston bombers had put their plans to music and released it on YouTube, you'd just have said "cool, go ahead"?
Preventing crime is not cowadice, it's self-preservation and common sense.
I can't even say what would have went down if it was 20 years ago in my town and he said that kind of shit in public... because it would probably violate some kind of speech laws.
No it wouldn't.
The French and Russian revolutions vastly improved their countries. They were (unfortunately) crude and bloody knives aimed at excising hard-to-kill cancers.
Not only the US, I recall a case that made the media a while back in Australia where a famous photographer landed in semi-hot water when a nude photo was in a gallery and causes a cuffuffle as the person in the photo was under the age of 18. I don't recall if anything further happened short of a Streissand and got the artist a whole heap of publicity, but I was pretty sure that the art community backed them and common sense prevailed.
I don't want to start searching for it here at work though, not sure that the links would come up safe as I don't recall the artists name - and other search terms might bring back something less than savoury.
The only way you can get a nude photo of someone under the age of 18 is to take a photo of someone who is nude and under the age of 18. If it is illegal to look at a naked child in real life, then having the photo would necessarily be illegal.
It's not like writing a fictional murder mystery and being accused of murder.
The question of whether it should be illegal to look at a naked child is irrelevant, the point is just that art doesn't exempt you from obeying the law.
I always thought that expression in art was pretty much anything goes? That art was for the most part above general censorship no matter what?
Doesn't poetry, song and the like get expempted from the likes of this?
Unfortunately for proponents of absolute free speech, human communication has consequences. In most places threatening someone's life is a crime, and the fact that you do it in approximate rhyme with shitty music in the background is not really a defence.
From the Boston Herald: (emphasis added)
I think it is pretty clear that he is a teenage rapper. The only question left is, what would be an appropriate punishment for such an offense? I vote for the death penalty. I'm quite certain I have Darwin on my side as well.
Although I'm an opponent of capital punishment, in this case I'm prepared to make an exception.
It appears that they might be actually dealing with a criminal. They little shit threatened to stab his sister to death. TFA doesn't really give details of that incident - but it does put an interesting spin on this incident. Sounds like a violent little shit to me!
I think more to the point is that he made a bomb threat and specifically mentioned outdoing Boston and getting away with it. It's a bit like someone making jokes about crashing planes into skyscrapers on 12th September 2001.
And legal elections of people who support slavery are morally void anyway, in much the same way that it is irrelevant whether or not Hitler ever actually won any elections.