The Incredibly Stupid Plot To Hijack a Domain By Breaking Into Its Owner's House With A Gun (cnn.com) 294
CNN tells the story of 24-year-old "social media influencer" Rossi Lorathio Adams II who'd wanted his domain to be the slogan of his social media sites (which at one point had over a million followers on Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter). Unfortunately, that domain was already owned by another man in Iowa -- but Adams came up with a solution:
In June 2017, Adams enlisted his cousin to break into the domain owner's home and force him to transfer it. The cousin drove to the domain owner's house and provided a demand note [which contained "a series of directions on how to change an Internet domain name from the domain owner's GoDaddy account to one of Adams' GoDaddy accounts."] After entering the home, the intruder grabbed the victim's arm and ordered him to connect his computer to the internet. He put the firearm against the victim's head and ordered him to follow the instructions.
"Fearing for his life, the victim quickly turned to move the gun away from his head. The victim then managed to gain control of the gun," court records show. The victim shot the intruder multiple times and called the police. The intruder, Adams' cousin Sherman Hopkins Jr., was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year. Now it's Adams' turn. He will remain in custody pending sentencing. He faces a maximum 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.
"Fearing for his life, the victim quickly turned to move the gun away from his head. The victim then managed to gain control of the gun," court records show. The victim shot the intruder multiple times and called the police. The intruder, Adams' cousin Sherman Hopkins Jr., was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year. Now it's Adams' turn. He will remain in custody pending sentencing. He faces a maximum 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.
Millennial entitlement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much sums up what is wrong with narcissistic social media culture.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He was also black. Just sayin'.
And beng named "Rossi Lorathio Adams II" tells you pretty much all you need to know about his basic home environment/upbringing.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hilarious that someone simply mentioning the race of the perpetrator is somehow racist to you.
To be fair, he said "just sayin'". Everyone knows that if you're just sayin', you can say anythin' and it's 100% not racist.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious that someone simply mentioning the race of the perpetrator is somehow racist to you.
I take it you're a millennial as well? The short attention span would stop reading the post after 4 words.
Being a product of the current education system would explain how you don't understand that the whole 6 words makes it racist.
You could have played the "foreigner" card but you seem to be able to string a sentence together so you blew that opportunity of making you look less like an idiot.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most murders do not cross racial lines. "You" are not more likely to be killed by a black person unless you yourself are black, and then it's only a factor of 13. If, instead, you are white, you're at least 5 times LESS likely to be killed by any member of another race.
You are correct, the original guy's numbers are retarded. But its hilarious how you don't seem to realize that the real numbers which you quoted are still absolutely horrible. "5 times less likely" is hugely disproportionate given that - as you point out - most murders don't cross racial lines, and given that the black population is much smaller.
By comparison, a black person is about 12 times less likely to be killed by a white person than he is by a black person .... even though there are far more whites
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:4, Informative)
The cause here is likely that people under the poverty line are more likely to commit murders. Most of those in poverty are minorities.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't help you in this case. There are more Hispanics in the USA than blacks, and their poverty rate is only slightly lower (18% vs 21%), yet they commit way fewer murders.
It's also stupid because, in pure numbers, there are WAY more whites below the poverty line than there are blacks. In the USA there are about 17 million non-hispanic whites in poverty, 10 million hispanics of either race, and 9 million blacks. Yet blacks commit about half of all murders.
No, poverty doesn't explain it.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that 'commit' about half of all murders,
'charged' with about half of all murders
or
'convicted' of about half of all murders?
I'm genuinely curious.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's a difficult question to answer, but the difference between the three categories isn't big enough to make a significant difference. Whites tend to be arrested somewhat more often in comparison to actual violent crimes committed, but the difference is something like 10%, so it's not really worth quibbling over.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And we abolished slavery how many 100 years ago?
It's about time to get over it and quit playing the victim card over something that happened so long ago, terrible as it was.
Funny, you didn't see the breakup of the black family, where today the majority of black families are raised without a father in the house.
That really didn't start till about the 60's or so....I don't t
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2)
How about 100+ years of slavery that completely repressed American blacks in every way possible and continues to favor white people? Does that explain it?
No.
It's amazing how people can come up with these generalized statements on black crime and forget that their ancestors were involved in the most severe inhumanity that occurred in American history.
What's amazing to me is how quickly people are willing to wave the "slavery" card even though it has no explanatory power. It's not a magic wand. If you want to establish some kind of link then go ahead and try, but just yelling "SLAVERY!!!" gets you nowhere. It's barely even a starting point for an argument, let alone a conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to get over it and address the problems we have today....
Riiight.....
You should check out this show called "Live PD" on A&E. Or what we up here in the Great White North call "the pulling over black kids for having small amounts of marijuana" show. Seriously, that is what half the show basically is.
It really does explain a lot.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:4, Interesting)
"That really didn't start till about the 60's or so....I don't think you can blame problems like this that are relatively recent, on slavery, can you?"
Also how do you explain that foreign born blacks in the U.S. tend to do better economically than native-born blacks, even thought they also come from countries with a history of slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what "we" call it.
No doubt.
You're obviously full of shit since nobody can be "pulled over for having small amounts of marijuana"
No they get pulled over for being black. The war on drugs is just a way to get them into the criminal justice system for life.
How exactly do traffic stops explain a grossly disproportionate murder rate
Pretty sure you will never figure it out.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2)
No they get pulled over for being black. The war on drugs is just a way to get them into the criminal justice system for life.
That's pretty retarded. Blacks do get pulled over about twice as often per capita, but given that they commit at least 6 times as many murders, 7 times as many robberies, and 3 times as many assaults, this hardly seems unreasonable. Other factors also play into it; people in a lower income bracket are more likely to have issues with their vehicles, such as broken lights or expired plates, which are often the reason such stops are initiated. Only idiots believe that cops are out there pulling over motoris
Re: (Score:2)
Blacks do get pulled over about twice as often per capita, but given that they commit at least 6 times as many murders, 7 times as many robberies, and 3 times as many assaults, this hardly seems unreasonable.......I'll never figure out how you came to the retarded conclusion that blacks being pulled over for traffic stops twice as often causes them to commit 6+ times as many murders.
So we know which you think is the chicken. I don't expect to change your mind, but many would disagree. Hey, I think it's great how far you have come from outright slavery to civil rights to simply a huge black underclass in only a little over 150 years, but you should not pat yourself on he shoulder and think you don't still have a ways to go.
That kind of stupidity is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those in poverty are minorities.
In the US, barely - 14.5 million poor whites, 19 million non-whites, per this Kaiser study on poverty by race/ethnicity. [kff.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet whites aren't committing more murders.
"Poverty" isn't even a correlation. Try again.
Remind me, how many years were white people enslaved by black people? How many years was their culture repressed by black people? How many years were they strategically limited to low-income areas by black people? How many years were they subjected to unfair legal systems that were ran and developed by black people?
Oh wait.... I forgot. White society has never been through any of this shit. In fact, they have gotten to where they are today by systematically taking advantage of every non-white ethnicity. Fro
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, people used the Christian Bible to support slavery too, putting it in the same league as Islam on the slavery issue.
Re: (Score:2)
False. In the USA there are twice as many whites in poverty than blacks. ( https://www.kff.org/other/stat [kff.org]... [kff.org] )
Check your stats, "minority" does not mean "black", it includes latinos, asians, etc. There are 14.5M whites living in poverty, 19M non-whites, including nearly 8 million blacks.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2)
What is retarded is to argue over homicide rates per race and miss the elephant in the room which is the horrendous homicide rate in the USA compared to most EU country or other civilised places. Even with Muslims' terror attacks they are still ~15-20 times lower.
That's just nonsense. The EU overall has a homicide rate of around 1 per 100,000 while the USA is at around 5.4 per 100,000. That's a big difference, but it's nowhere near your ridiculous "15-20 times lower".
It's useful to look at homicide rates in different demographic categories because it tells us where we need to focus our efforts. If we look at the white-only homicide rate in the US, it's at around 2 per 100,000. That's still twice as high as the EU, but not particularly worrisome. Of course the E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because i despise lies being showcased here, here are the actual FBI statistics of the crime rate by us WHITE people:
[snip]
Now adjust those numbers by the ratio of blacks to whites in the population. What do you get?
Re: (Score:2)
Others have asked you for per-capita figures, but obviously you're not going to do it ... so I went and did it for you! I see that you used UCR 2016 Table 21 for your data, so I downloaded the excel file, added a couple fields for race, and then ran a simple formula. Here is what we get:
- Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 6.76x higher
- Rape - 2.47x higher
- Robbery - 7.22x higher
- Aggravated assault - 3.05x higher
- Burglary - 2.44x higher
- Larceny-theft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lety's look at your data:
Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown.
So whites take 43% of Medicaid benefits and and 36% of SNAP benefits, which somehow dwarfs the 57% and 63% of non-whites that participate in Medicaid and SNAP programs, respectively?
The world is made up of more than just blacks and whites.
Re: Millennial entitlement. (Score:2)
White countries that were formerly war-torn, like Serbia, are also very poor and under-developed. I've been there -- it's a total shithole -- and all white people, beaten down, needing baths, and hungry for miles.
That's a rather large exaggeration, but yeah, Serbia isn't doing well economically. That's partly a result of war, partly a result of the breakup up of the country they were formerly a part of, and partly a result of their communist past. Despite that, their murder rate is only 1.2 per 100,000. The US murder rate is over 5 per 100,000 ... but if you remove blacks and Hispanics from that number, the white-only homicide rate is around 2 per 100,000, so roughly comparable.
If we look at African countries wit
Armed Robbery? (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, seriously, no one expects that kind of transaction to go unreported and the domain name returned and the criminals arrested. The only way they thought they could get away with it, was by killing the victim, no criminal could be stupid enough not to do that. The charge should have been attempted murder, that was the intent, get the transfer done and silence the witness. That guy saved his own life that day and make no mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.. Unless Luca Barsi can't hold his gun right. Then he can refuse, and shot Luca multiple times.
Re:Armed Robbery? (Score:4, Insightful)
C'mon, seriously, no one expects that kind of transaction to go unreported and the domain name returned and the criminals arrested. The only way they thought they could get away with it, was by killing the victim, no criminal could be stupid enough not to do that. The charge should have been attempted murder, that was the intent, get the transfer done and silence the witness. That guy saved his own life that day and make no mistake.
So the victim transfers the domain the night he gets murdered? Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.
Probably the plan was that the victim would be so scared that he just let the whole thing go rather than risk the nutjob with a gun coming back. Which probably won't work... but there's a chance.
Barring that you just let him report then when the cops come around go "gun-point? I withdrew $5k and paid him in cash!" Which again lands you in jail... but maybe you get away with it.
Either way it was a really stupid plan, but killing the victim would have made it stupider.
Re:Armed Robbery? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the victim transfers the domain the night he gets murdered? Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.
What exactly are the odds that the transfer would even get to the attention of the police? I grew up in a relatively small town and I can tell you that small town cops are a lot closer to Sheriff Andy Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife (look up The Andy Griffith Show if you don't get the reference) than the crime solvers on NCIS. I own 3 domains, none of them are valuable and I barely use them. If somebody put a gun to my head, made me transfer them, killed me and took my computer, the cops would be looking for fingerprints and other evidence but they probably wouldn't be calling Go Daddy to see who got my domain. I read the article and I have reason to suspect that the guy with the gun was indeed going to kill the victim after the transfer happened. If it had gone down like I mentioned - do the transfer, kill the victim, steal the computer the victim used - the cops would probably be treating it like a robbery gone bad or some personal revenge thing, but they might not have ever looked at the guy who wanted the domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'd check bank account history, but that wouldn't show up there.
They'd show payments to a registrar, a casual scan of the victims computer would likely turn up emails and texts from the "influencer" attmpting to buy the now transferred domain name, the victim likely mentioned the "crazy guy that wants to buy my domain" to afriends and family, at least in passing, before being murdered...
Police don't have to look real hard to find sloppy criminals, and anyone who's plan is drive to their house, force them to transfer the domain, and kill them probably qualifies as a "slo
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the cops would even look into that aspect. How often are the domain transfers checked as part of the forensics?
Re: (Score:2)
a casual scan of the victims computer would likely turn up emails and texts from the "influencer" attempting to buy the now transferred domain name, the victim likely mentioned the "crazy guy that wants to buy my domain" to a friends and family, at least in passing, before being murdered... this guy is sloppy, his crime wouldn't go unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Also; a guy getting shot and at the same date and time of the murder a contested domain being "peacefully" transferred without a money transaction.
I'm guessing the cops would have a primary suspect at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
The charge should have been attempted murder, that was the intent
You are applying logical thought where there is none. An "influencer" just tried to rob someone of internet domain name at gunpoint. Let that sink in for a moment, and then re-evaluate the high bar you set for a base level of stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
The "influencer" probably doesn't realize that illegal domain transfers can be undone by the registrar, and forcing someone to take actions within their online account under duress results in such a reversible transfer.
Re: (Score:2)
The "influencer" probably needs to be reminded to breath on an ongoing basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't laugh. My Apple Watch has an app for that!
Re: Armed Robbery? (Score:2)
Gotta keep the plebs in line.
Re:Armed Robbery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Police don't like it when its an even fight. They want superiority in both equipment and training. Its both your first and second amendment right that the playing field is equal. It would go a long way to curtailing some of the abusive behavior some, not all, cops seem to engage in. Theres always going to be one or two bullies that are attracted to a job where they are placed in a position of disproportionate power over others. If the guy your questioning was equally skilled and trained, you most likely would make sure the problem is handled without any provocation that could escalate things. Instead, you hear the occasional story were some cop was just a complete asshole
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if you disarm a policeman the next one along is going to shoot you.
Alternate approaches to managing the police are required.
Re:Armed Robbery? (Score:5, Interesting)
strategic deterrence. A cop doing his job properly has nothing to worry about. A cop abusing his power, breaking the law, and being a complete dick, is less likely to have another cop running to his rescue if he gets disarmed and restrained. I happened to me once. I had just merged onto a road and turned into the parking lot of a Rite Aid pharmacy. As I was getting out of my car some hand reaches out and tries to snatch me. Before I even realize what was going on, I had already warded off his grasp, twisted his arm, and had him in a roll-back, face-first toward the ground, his arm behind him in a joint lock. Apparently he 'perceived' that I had somehow cut him off in traffic. At no time did he run lights or identify himself as any sort of law enforcement. So when he was on the ground yelling he was an elected constable and how I was in so much trouble, myself and 3 witnesses reminded him he did not identify himself as law enforcement. The local sheriffs department showed up, asked some questions, and told that guy to get the hell out of there. Afterward one of the sheriffs deputes let me know that this guy is a complete asshole with a badge but there is not too much they can do about it on their end.
Knowing that the the person you are interviewing could potentially be legally armed and/or highly trained stops the problem before it even happens. Ive been out of the military for almost 25 years now. I have veteran plates on my car and my hair is still fairly short by current styles. I get treated significantly different than some guy with long hair or wearing a man-bun. Some of it is the brothers-in-arms bit, but also the respect for the training. One of the biggest problems police have right now is public perception. They exist in isolation. Even though damn near every neighborhood has at least one cop living there, they almost never associate with their neighbors. They almost all just hang out with fellow cops. Its not departmental policy, in fact its quite the opposite. Its the isolationism thats harming them; both from perception and the way they interact with the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Police don't like it when its an even fight.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
We pay police to enter into fights, sometime gun fights, with suspected criminals - why would any officer "prefer" to enter the fight at a disadvantage? What would you have to pay an officer to enter a domestic disturbance without a sidearm?
Re: (Score:2)
The people in England claim the cops do it all the time there. But that’s besides the point. The point is the police do not have a right to force you to be a constant disadvantage. What they do is ensure that their people are highly trained and they rely on your laziness to not be. This isnt China. They can’t ban you from learning martial arts or any other highly tactical training. Do you know what happens when they encounter somebody who is highly trained? They ask them nicely and 99% of
Re: (Score:2)
Its both your first and second amendment right that the playing field is equal.
I'll keep that 1700s era law in mind when I get arrested for procuring a nuclear warhead. Seriously the only thing dumber than people claiming the First amendment exists to protect them from their government are those people who actually believe that if they ever had to rise up against their government they wouldn't be absolutely fucking destroyed before they get off the lounge chair.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes even 10 million people resorted to an armed revolt the police would be out numbered more than 10 to 1.
If you have 10 million people revolting against the government then you'll likely have 10 million enlisted in fighting for the government.
And if you think that 2nd Amendment is a way to control the government then you're an insane idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, but that was social engineering. Back in the day there was just one registrar and company letterhead was all that was required to prove identity. The original domain holder was not using it. He was a squatter that got the domain for free in the fledgling years of the Internet. In fact it was a while before he even discovered that he lost control of the domain.
Why the fixed fines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever I see rulings like this, I'm somewhat struck by the odd "and a multiple of $25,xxx fine". Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic".
At the very sound of that, some of you might be tightening various muscles. Yes, that is appropriate. That's because you may be in a condition where you don't find a commonly 'huge' fine to be the same thing as significantly meaningful threat of loss.
All punishments, to be perceived as actual punishments should be formatted to be just as painful to the biggest corporation, as to the poorest person. And if the poorest folks aren't allowed to use bankruptcy to escape such material punishment, neither should shareholder either - dept should be assignable through shares to bring actual meaning to harm caused by companies.
Just an idea.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that ... the quoted fines / prison terms are the maximum allowable. They can be far less than that.
I think Sweden (?) has traffic fines that are a percentage of one's income. ...) Swedish motorist facing world's biggest speeding fine [telegraph.co.uk]
(Post Google search
Ouch.
Re:Why the fixed fines? (Score:5, Informative)
No, Sweden has "dagsbot" which is based on the degree on the crime, and the perpetrators income, but it's not for minor traffic violations like speeding.
Finland on the other hand has that. https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com]
The concept is quite a fair one though since it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, the fine will be noticeable anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a joke that works best in the Americas:
Q: What's the hardest part of getting a speeding ticket as a rich man?
A: Keeping a straight face as the officer sternly serves you a fine for a scrap of pocket change!
Re: (Score:2)
The fine for speeding in the US is usually not the major cost from getting a speeding ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Many police deparments are funded by fines collected. Just think about the potential for abuse this encourages. Then think about all of the intentionally poorly timed red light cameras and misadjusted radar guns.
There are still plenty of "speed trap towns" in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame governments aren't actually the fine-tuned precision machines they would need to be to operate as they do in right-wing conspiracy theories, with every employee from top-level poltiicians to street sweepers seamlessly and flawlessly working together toward carefully planned common goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain "civil forfeiture" in the US in any other way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic
That's communist thinking. Surely no US jurisdiction has this for crimes, only divorce.
Re:Why the fixed fines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh that'll work beautifully. I manage a commercial building. One of our tenants (whom we later learned was what I now call a "professional squatter") stopped paying rent. We began eviction proceedings. The process normally takes about 3-6 months, but he'd file requests for extensions at the last minute and managed to drag it out for a year. After a year, the judge finally ruled in our favor, and we evicted him (get a piece of paper from the court that you can give to the police, who will then escort you into the unit so you can change the locks and clean it up to re-rent it). We also filed a lawsuit against him to collect back-rent, but our lawyer figured out that during the year he'd been busy transferring all his assets to his wife, then he filed for bankruptcy. Since only he had signed the lease, not he and his wife, We could only sue him. And since he had no assets and was basically worthless, we weren't going to get anything even if we won the lawsuit.
Your idea will make it so rich people will simply pay some bum via a dead drop to steal from people they don't like. Since the bum has almost no assets, the most they'd be fined for the crime under your system would be like $50.
They are allowed to use bankruptcy to escape such material punishment. That they don't learn enough about the law to take advantage of the various protections the law allows is not my or the shareholders' fault. You remind me of my 5 year old niece. We were playing tic-tac-toe and she got full of herself after I let her win a few times. So I started winning. She then got mad and began changing the rules while we were playing so she could win again. If you're losing because you don't understand the rules, that's not a valid reason for changing the rules.
The law exists because people decided those rules were a good idea. Just like ignorance of the law is not an excuse to violate it, ignorance of the law is also not a valid reason to overturn it. Corporate protections exist because while you can guarantee your own behavior, you cannot guarantee other people's behavior. So if you want people to be able to work together (that's all a corporation is - a bunch of people working together), you have to have a way for those people to be indemnified against punishment for the wrongdoings of other people they're working with. Otherwise you're back to the medieval practice of throwing an entire family into debtor's prison because the father couldn't pay back a loan. Or the North Korean practice of throwing all your relatives into a labor camp if you attempt to flee the country.
If you make shareholders responsible for the wrongdoings of employees, basically nobody will ever invest in somebody else's company. It's just not worth the risk of going to jail or being stripped of your assets because somebody else committed a crime. As a result, only rich people will be able to afford to start a company. You'll have cut off one of the best ways for a regular person to become a rich person - by starting your own company. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Precisely the opposite of the effect you intend.
Re: (Score:2)
You remind me of my 5 year old niece. We were playing tic-tac-toe and she got full of herself after I let her win a few times. So I started winning. She then got mad and began changing the rules while we were playing so she could win again.
Heh heh. She'll go far.
Re:Why the fixed fines? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bankruptcy has a 5 year lookback provision to expressly prevent this type of hiding of assets.
So you are FULL OF SH*T.
Why lie?
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic
No. Someone who lives hand to mouth or paycheck to paycheck won't lose much at all in that case. Someone who has been frugal, paid off the mortgage and put away a nice nest egg or college fund for the kids, would stand to lose what has taken a lifetime (perhaps several generations) to build. A percentage of earnings would be fairer (some countries already apply this to traffic fines)
Re: (Score:3)
The cost and penalty of crimes should be in proportion to the damage done, not the abili
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I see rulings like this, I'm somewhat struck by the odd "and a multiple of $25,xxx fine". Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic".
How do you define equality? Everyone being treated the same way, or everyone experiencing the same effect?
A tall a medium and a short person are trying to watch a football game over a fence. They have 3 boxes. Is equality giving them a box each because they are all human and should be treated the same way? Or is equality giving the short person 2 boxes, the medium person 1 box, and the tall person none, all now able to watch the football game?
Re: (Score:3)
I say we put the midget in the box and the tall and medium people can throw it over the fence and disrupt the football game, because science.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define equality?
A less philosophical, more pragmatic question: what sort of society do you want to live in?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I know the answer. But ultimately the problem is the term equality differs with your leaning on the political compass, and countries like the USA are pretty split across it.
I know which society I want to live in. I also know that some numb-nuts on here would label me a a socialist or a communist as a result. The world ... is a complicated place full of complicated people .... (who I think are wrong!)
Re: (Score:2)
"Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic"."
That sounds like a mighty stupid idea.
Anyone without meaningful 'assets' would not really be punished and basically get away with the crime.
So while you protect yourself against rich folks you leave your flank open to people who have nothing to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
> Shouldn't it be something like "50% their assets, foreign and domestic".
He was a social media influence. 50% of nothing is still 0.
may of been cheaper to just kill him and no jury (Score:2)
may of been cheaper to just kill him and no jury will convict
Re: (Score:2)
First off, Mr. Adams is black which means that not only is he much more likely to be convicted in American court, especially by white jurors of the sort who end up serving on most juries, but when he is convicted he will be given a much harsher sentence by the judge who is also more likely to be white
It's interesting that you say "when he is convicted", seems that you've already determined his guilt.
In any case, if he *is* convicted of planning this scheme, then he deserves the maximum sentence. I have a lot of sympathy for a defendant that was caught stealing out of desperation, or booked on some trumped up charge. But in this case, he planned (and presumably offered payment for) an armed robbery (for something he didn't really need - he could have used a domain with a variation of the name), whether o
Re: (Score:2)
talking about the owner killing the guy braking in.
Grammar nazi, sorry... (Score:2)
Breaking, not braking
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking, not braking
Really? You call that one out but don't say anything about the same poster using "may of" in the grandfather post? You claim to be a grammar nazi, but it looks like you are simply a homophone bigot.
homophone bigot? (Score:2)
Some of my best friends are homophones!
The intruder was extremely lucky (Score:2)
"The victim shot the intruder multiple times and called the police."
And yet the intruder survived.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tulta Munille!"
Re: (Score:2)
One bullet through a kneecap and the intruder will not present any further threat. As long as no arteries are hit, the it's a very effective method of disabling someone without killing them.
Kneecaps (Score:3)
First, no. People have continued fighting with crazy leg/knee damage. Mostly, kneecapping will stop them, but if you get one of those guys that won't go down you're going to have to shoot them again anyway. He potentially stays dangerous much longer.
Second, shooting someone in the kneecap is hard to do, especially in the midst of a chaotic wrestling match. He's moving, you're moving, the two of you are bumping into each other, your fine motor skills are gone (unless you have some very specialized traini
Re: (Score:2)
One bullet through a kneecap and the intruder will not present any further threat. As long as no arteries are hit, the it's a very effective method of disabling someone without killing them.
Kneecaps are difficult targets to hit. Aim for the torso.
Re: (Score:2)
Always aim for center mass. I don't even own a gun and I know this. If you are in stabbing range you might only get one shot. You miss, you die.
Also, if you are in a home, consider collateral damage. If you were to miss you may be sending bullets through your neighbor's window. Or the walls of your own house into your family.
But at least he got a domain (Score:2)
Why didn't the guy just go to the city council? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I've got more money then he has. So just take it from him and give it to me. You have the legal right to do it. I saw it in the papers. It's called something like Eminent Domain Name."
"Lorathio"??? (Score:2, Funny)
Bwahahahaha!
Gets funnier (Score:5, Funny)
"Between 2015 and 2017, Adams repeatedly tried to obtain 'doitforstate.com,' but the owner of the domain would not sell it. Adams also threatened one of the domain owner's friends with gun emojis after the friend used the domain to promote concerts," court records show.
Then he had an idea: Why not take it by force?
And the rest sounds like a future episode of Drunk History ...
"Influencer" ? (Score:2)
A homie with a violent cretinous "plan" (Score:2)
That failed. Well I'm truly shocked.
Not pronounced dead at the scene? (Score:2)
Am I the only one that was surprise reading the article when it got to the point where the victim gain control of the gun and shot him multiple times? I did not expect to read that he’s been charged in faces 20 years. With the slow police response time I was certain he would’ve bled out by the time the cops got there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised. Shooting at a moving target under stressful conditions is difficult to do. Most of the rounds were either misses or non-lethal hits. Humans are actually difficult to kill. [dailymail.co.uk] Hence the need for high capacity magazines for self defense.
The above link describes what some have determined to be a .357 magnum revolver. And the perp survived.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, the .38 special has more energy. A proper self-defense round in 38 .special (a +p hollowpoint) statistically does well as a stopper too, though of course there are many ineffective target loads.
20 years? (Score:2)
At least I would have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey it's Iowa, cornfed intruder could have had more than 14 inches of body fat over his vitals, so the average self defense round would have come to a halt.
Every cloud has a silver lining (Score:3)
police take the crime seriously?? braking in with (Score:2)
police take the crime seriously?? braking in with gun?? that is an violent crime
Re: Actually a SMART plot (Score:2)
With no record of sale, a history of attempted purchases and threats made against the victim, and physical marks from being pistol whipped, it's safe to say that the victim would not have had a difficult time getting police interested in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you have some data^W anecdotes with citation links to support that? For us people who've been living under a rock.