Comment on Relevant advertising 🤪

Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• optissima@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Your example is weak because they did a hate crime, which this would not have been. Do you have a better one?

  source

  • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Well, technically this seems to have been a hate crime as well - just not of a “protected class” (which I’m sure is a “shortcoming” of the law that they’ll get “addressed”).

    source

    • optissima@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Technically, hate crimes consist of crime because of innate properties of an individual (+religion), which again this isn’t. No doubt they’ll codify something special for the rich soon, but still not a hate crime.

      source

      • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s that religion exception that belies the idea that it’s solely about qualities of a person that they have no control over. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless if they’re related to religion or capitalism.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    My point is, you don’t get away with killing someone just because you used a car to do so, and I think that proves my point.

    Feel free to come up with some evidence of your own.

    source

    • optissima@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Getting away is not the point, the point is a lighter sentence.

      source

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        the point is a lighter sentence

        Didn’t work for the example above, did it?

        source
• TheBat@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Checks username

  Ummm…

  source

  • lemmyng@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    He stopped worrying.

    source

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s pretty strange… Love the username, though.

      source
  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They used to defend universalmonk, judge them by that

    source
• AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  if you do it deliberately it’s no different to any other weapon.

  Of course but at least there’s the possibility of it being an accident. Absent other proof, such as that possession of a manifesto, you can quite possibly get away with it

  On the other hand there’s no way to spin as an accident that you walked up behind someone and shot them

  source

  • trolololol@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What do you mean, isn’t guns like play things for everyone starting age 3?

    source
  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It would be a difficult argument to make if you ran them over on the sidewalk though.

    It’s not the weapon, it’s the plausible deniability.

    source