quirzle

deleted by creator

Like right after 9/11…

Or the weapons. Have to imagine there’s a pretty wide disparity between the police and average citizens. If Prigozhin/Wagner couldn’t get it done, it’s not exactly a simple task for some politically progressive average folks.

A few seconds past the timestamp I linked:

As good as my memory is, I don’t remember that. But I have a good memory.

So you don’t remember saying you have one of the best memories in the world?

I don’t remember that.

Seems like she didn’t inherit her father’s “perfect memory”.

Sure she did.

I got ya. I’m agreeing that he’s a coward and an idiot, but disagreeing that he might not have been trying to murder a guy. He might not have believed it was murder, because of the idiot part…but the video convinced me he was intentionally trying to kill the unarmed man in the back of his car.

At an active threat, sure. When the dude’s been searched, handcuffed, and trapped in the back of a car…there’s some personal responsibility, imo.

Would just be an idiot and a coward trying to kill a man.

You don’t mag dump like that if you don’t care. He very much was trying to kill him.

like we’ve learned absolutely nothing from the experience

We’ve learned a lot, it’s just what we’ve learned is about the nature of our employers and our value to them.

No human would be dumb enough to park there.

There’s at least 3 other cars parked there clearly visible in the videos.

I don’t believe it was, based on the other cars present in the videos.

Seems like the witnesses saw it differently.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/12/waymo-set-on-fire-sf/72567647007/

“They were putting out some rage for really no reason at all. They just wanted to vandalize something, and they did,” witness Edwin Carungay told KGO-TV.

The witness told the outlet the Waymo was vandalized and set on fire by a big group of people.

“One young man jumped on the hood, and on the windshield.,” Carungay told KGO. “That kind of started the whole melee.”

What about contacting them and telling them you’d like to place an order but won’t be because of the long wait times (which should reflect in the apps if they’re striking)? You can include a suggestion that they pay a fair wage to attract enough drivers to meet the demand they’re failing to meet.

Sure, if you’re willing to count my house as a “fence,” otherwise the same logic would make you liable if someone breaks into your house and drowns in your bathtub. Of course it’s not likely at all, but if someone were to smash down your front door to commit suicide in your tub, nobody’s going to argue that’s your fault.

I’ll agree that leaving a firearm laying in the open in your back yard should be criminally negligent though, so can get behind that much of the pool analogy.

I’m not saying that is the case here, but I’d like to know if it is.

It’s not. The reason I called out the specific Nanovault in another comment was that a friend had locked his (the gun bumped into the internal button to change the combination and it had gotten changed and was unknown, another ridiculous design flaw). Rather than mess around with cracking the new combination, I shoved the blade of my pocket knife into it, twisted it, and it popped open. Literally the same amount of effort/force and sticking a key into a keyhole and turning it, but without needing the actual key.

After realizing how secure it wasn’t, he decided to test the other one he had before replacing them. Picked it up and dropped it from about waist height onto the garage floor (empty, no gun in it). It popped open, sending little plastic bits from the locking mechanism everywhere.

Yet, these are generally considered to meet the California legal standard of “a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.”

I disagree. The safe or trigger lock does nothing in this example, making them functionally identical situations. You’re literally suggesting making it illegal to be burgled but legal to be robbed, which is an asinine distinction.

And you’re implying that not using a safe or trigger lock means no precautions are taken. If the gun is in a locked house already, is that not “secure”? It’s as secure as a knife needs to be to not be a liability if stolen and used in a crime. Hell, a locked building is sufficient security for a pyrotechnics company to store their literal explosives.

I also specifically disagree that the barest of minimum (as you’re describing it here) is better than nothing (as defined as no safe/trigger lock). A gun locked in one of these in an easily accessible room meets your “barest minimum” criteria, but is more easily stolen than one hidden in a non-locking box in a locked apartment.

I think the better solutions focus on harsher penalties for the theft itself and more laws/enforcement around failure to report thefts.

The “safe storage” laws are usually pretty worthless just on how they define “safe” on top of the actual problem with enforcement. They’re not meaningful in any practical way, as anyone responsible enough that they should be allowed to own a gun already locks their shit down.

People who only lock their firearms away because they’re required to are the reason shit like Nanovaults are so popular. They’re a good-sounding concept, but in reality are held together with flimsy plastic internals. You can literally pry them open with a knife or housekey, or even just slam them onto the ground to pop them open.

tl;dr: Given the lax legal definition of a safe, using one doesn’t necessarily add any meaningful security.

As an aside, I have safes for valuables and documents I’d like to survive a housefire…but I don’t have any record of owning them. Were they stolen, I don’t think it’d be easy to prove I didn’t have them.

On one hand, I think there’s an argument to be made about this depending on how “secure” is defined, but this has too much in common with the case that promiscuous enough clothing implies consent, so I’ll reject that notion outright.

And “robbery” implies force or the threat of force. If somebody has a gun to your head and tells you to give you the gun in your safe or the gun in your nightstand drawer, is there really a meaningful difference? I somebody stabs you then takes your gun while you crawl around bleeding, does are you really any more/less a victim based on where they take it from?

I don’t think they’re that different. I also don’t think there’s many (any?) cases where kids are getting their hands on gun where existing laws could/should not be used to charge the owner, as happened with this case. I’m rarely in favor of new laws when the existing ones would accomplish the same goal, were they actually being enforced consistently.

You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.

I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don’t think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that’s moving into victim-blaming territory.

I’m not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.