AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
view the rest of the comments
this is kind of his fault for breaking and entering. Aside from police turning a blind eye... I don't see why someone wouldn't defend themselves from armed robbery.
" Heriford, who was 35 when he died, was relatively well known to Seattle police, who sometimes encountered him when doing “crime prevention efforts” at the encampment under I-5 in Northeast Seattle where he lived, according to one police report. Between October 2022, when court documents show SPD officers first arrested him for an attempted break-in, and his death this year, Heriford was was charged in at least five theft or attempted theft cases, most of those in the garages of apartment buildings like the one where he died. The items Heriford was accused of included suitcases, paddleboards, motorcycles, and cars.
He pled guilty to a domestic violence assault charge in 2009 and was charged with violating a no-contact order in that case several times between 2010 and 2012, but court records indicate he was never charged with another violent crime.
"
So we're trying to hitch our wagon to a violent thief just because they died in a failed armed robbery attempt?
He was known for breaking and entering, but the murderer was not being attacked and nobody's car had been broken into according to the article.
It seems to me everyone is willing to dismiss a murderer because the person who was murdered is an "undesirable".
Edit: it seems like people support preemptive murder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most people on the internet are emotionally little kids who fantasize about ending the lives of people who "deserve it". They have little understanding of how most things in the world actually work.
When life puts them in a position they think they are righteous and justified, they can be capable of unimaginable cruelty. While seeing themselves as the "good guy" the whole time. I've seen it.
Yup, it's the old "He was no angel" trope. Lots of people think it's OK to kill non-angels.
How do you how he wasn't being attacked? I am definitely not condoning strangling someone to death but we don't know what happened.
From the article:
“determined the owner of the vehicle interrupted the car prowl and confronted the male, and they got into a physical altercation. During the altercation, the man fell unconscious, and the vehicle owner separated from him.”
The murderer interrupted the man who he presumed was prowling and choked him to death.
"Hey! Are you trying to break into my car? Stop!"
"Don't tell me to stop! I'll fucking kill you man! I'm going to fucking kill you!"
Just one of a million different scenarios where confronting a person breaking into cars might turn into that person turning violent and trying to kill the one confronting them.
Still doesn't make it okay to kill them, which is contrary to the feeling of the comment thread of this post.