The chances of that happening to the average person are close to zero.

That’s the whole point. People don’t watch the news to hear “dog bites man” they watch it to hear “man bites dog”.

No one wants to watch a 2-3 hr long movie about someone’s regular Tuesday at the office they want to watch something that doesn’t happen everyday like an adventure, the perfect couple meeting, or the world ending.

Just feel it should be pointed out that money isn’t the only way to contribute. Time is another. Volunteer hours are important for many charitable organizations too.

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).

No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.

In other words:

it seems fairly dishonest, especially since

schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don’t groom children to sell them for them.

K-12 and colleges/universities are only the setting of ~12.8% of mass shootings.

Your just making speculative hyperbole about a nation a hemisphere away. Isolating any one factor as reducing crime is often near impossible. A downward trend following legislative can just as easily be attributed to other factors like a general decline in criminality over time or due to bettering economic conditions (among countless other factors).

Those other groups aren’t using blanks. If anything this case is an indictment of how poor the industry can be at times with safety.

It’s like comparing the injury rates of commercial flights and those from a parachuting company.

I’m shocked your work doesn’t have some for free. Kits are much cheaper in bulk orders and the benefit to an employer of not having sick people killing production is probably clear.

One job I had had a literal pallet of them. People would grab an entire family’s worth at a time.

Kerosene and whale oil have been around for a bit longer than cars.

That’s been protected as free speech specifically for decades.

Depends on the place like everyone else has said.

• To the nearest convenience store: .3 mi
• To the nearest chain supermarket: 1.1 mi
• To the bus stop: .3 mi
• To the nearest park: .5 mi
• To the nearest big supermarket: 1.1 mi
• To the nearest library: .5 mi
• To the nearest train station: 30 mi

use whatever his response was (even a 5a plead) as prima facie evidence

This would get you reprimanded in court at best disbarred at worst. Utilizing the right to remain silent can not be used against you in a court of law. If it could it’d defeat the entire purpose of it by making silence become an admittance of guilt.

Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.

The 320 had a recall earlier in its life for drop safety but they did a redesign of the interior since then. I think today it’s more of a poor excuse for negligence.

Respectfully submitted,

United Nations

It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.

The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.

No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.

If you are having problems with cotton maybe look at a material better at wicking. I wear wool or viscose. Cotton is anti-wicking, making you hot and sticky at first then cold and clammy as it cools down.

Yeah I thought the same thing. With how much people reveal about themselves online these days with just OSINT pretty much anyone dedicated enough or facilitated by ai could create a similar effect.

The thing here that lent significant credibility is the shared phrases predated on the other site.

The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.

When someone says someone is legally trespassing read it as “legally [speaking they are] trespassing”. At least in most cases.

Pedantic tangent:

You could lawfully trespass on the land of another (with permission). There’s 4 elements to the tort of trespass to land. 1) You act volitionally. 2) You intend to occupy that space, are substantially certain that will happen as a result of your actions, or you intend another intentional tort granting transfered intent. 3) But for your act their property wouldn’t have been invaded. 4) Their property has been invaded.

In civil law a trespass to land doesn’t consider whether you have permission or not to determine if you trespassed. They would determine that you did infact trespass but you have the defense of having done so with the privilege to do so granted by the owner. Meaning you did trespass but did so only in a manner appropriate under law.