Are you sure? We’re talking about an individual walking through the mall who simply stops occasionally, closes his eyes, and fires a single shot in a random direction. Nothing about his actions suggest he is specifically intending to injure anyone.
On your recommendation, I started following him. Almost finished anti-fragile and enjoying it immensely. (Aside over)
As much as she was digging, he just wasn’t yielding any dirt.
It’s good to see that much money getting back into circulation.
So I think the proper question to ask in regards to blindly firing shots is:
If two people blindly fire shots into the mall and one of them hits nobody and the other hits and kills someone, is that the same crime or different crimes?
As sure as I can be without reviewing laws in all 50 states.
There are certainly circumstances in which I think you’re correct–for example, if this guy had a person ‘cornered’ in the mall, with no means of escape except by approaching the shooter. So in that circumstance, I’m with you that deadly force would likely be justified. But what about individuals who have every opportunity to retreat? Are they justified to use lethal force?
Those are different crimes.
Yes. In defense of their lives as well as those of others. To fire shots, someone must be at least brandishing the weapon. Someone merely walking through a mall with his finger on the trigger and pointing the weapon in random directions without firing shots could be justifiably killed.
EDIT: Your best argument would be that it’s technically illegal in many(most or all?) places to shoot a gun while intoxicated. I’m not sure that applies to private property, though; while you can be arrested for DUI while mowing your lawn with a riding mower.
Prediction : Trump will bring 15 million jobs+ back by the end of his presidency (plus jobs he prevented from leaving) and politifact will rate his 25M job claim as liar liar pants on fire
700 Americans getting hired, I will gladly take it.
I don’t care about a number so much as I care to see him actually doing something to try to remedy the problem. I remember when Obama mocked Trump about his claims of creating or bringing back jobs, and Obama asked what magic wand did Trump have, it turned out to be nothing more than a telephone.
(I’m thinking that it took a BIT more than a phone and “confidence”, Max…)
But I’m with you…any jobs are great news indeed!
Instead of investing in a $1.6B plant in Mexico Ford will be investing $4.5B to develop 13 electric car models instead.
Hmmmm, that’s interesting…
As an aside, usmc:
I was listening to an Auto Exec on “Charlie Rose” near the end of the year.
The only thing keeping Electrics from taking off is:
-
the “recharge” infrastructure (electric “refill” stations).
-
The “fine-tuning” of the Technology (which is happening at a VERY fast clip) and
-
Politics/Economics of Fossil Fuel and their importance to the overall Global Economy. (this is a tough one).
Why didn’t Obama try to do this ?
Points 1 and 2 are already underway, there are companies building charging technology that will charge a car battery in 10 minutes, not to mention charging from home that is about 4 times cheaper than the cost of gas. The basic tech is in place, now it’s about autonomous driving which isn’t required. But your point 3 is the final piece of the puzzle, big oil will not go away quietly from this debate.
(I should have known it was coming…but from Zeb…)
Do you honestly think these companies negotiate and project these types of moves and expenditures over 2-month time frames?
Not hardly.
These Executives are as much Politicians as they are Business People…and with the exception of Silicone Valley, most are Conservative.
In other words…the decisions themselves are mostly business ones, made over 2-5 year time frames.
The timing…and the “confidence” jabs?..purely Political.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it goes like this. Companies such as these make their CAPEX plans for the period next 3 to 5 years - I know because I’ve just contributed a small part to one such plan.
For several years now, moving jobs overseas is slowly losing it’s advantages - from minor drawbacks such as increased reputational risk (the company is vilified in the media) to major factors such as increased cost of labor at the target location. I don’t have the number in my head for Mexico, but I know that China has an actual shortage of semi-skilled laborers in many industry branches, especially for wages that would make relocation feasible from a business perspective.
Also, with the huge increase in automation just around the corner, many companies are reluctant to invest in new plants that would have to undergo massive additional upgrades in the very near future, especially taking into account accompanying upgrade costs at this potential new locations.
Of course, every board of directors knows this - they’re using the relocation threat to extract major concessions from both the local and central governments. This is especially true now that everywhere jobs are a major political issue.
My employer used this tactic with strategically placed rumors to the media about potential relocation to extort a wide array of benefits, from lower utility bills to lower corporate tax rate. Admittedly, that wasn’t in the US but the general principle is the same.
My point? Well, those jobs “saved” were actually saved at least one and a half to two years ago, it’s just that the information was held back from the general public to ensure maximum leverage for the company at the opportune moment.
Trump’s people know (at least that’s something they know) this so it’s a mutually beneficial agreement - the companies pretend to have changed their mind after one phone call, and Trump pretends he “forced” them to do something they were already planning to do. Throw in some sweet, sweet tax credits and you’ve got yourself a nice PR exercise.