Asklemmy

44125 readers

472 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-26

Is Lemmy getting more radical lately? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Have seen a few posts popping up recently just straight up calling fo violence barely disguised as memes

Had thought Lemmy had chilled out a bit on that kinda thing for a while but seems to be coming back now

Anyone else noticing the same or just me?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The only difference is the immediacy. If exploitative strategies by healthcare companies directly caused harm to you or a loved one, it could very much be interpreted as self-defence to kill their CEO.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Unfortunately not, it would be interpreted as retribution (at least by the courts). Immediacy means something like "guy with knife threatening to stab you right now," BUT if you pull your gun to do so and he starts walking away that's it, it's over, if you shoot him at that point you'll be argued to be the aggressor and will lose your case. As such, having a claim denied and then traveling to wherever this guy is and likely planning for months is called "premeditation," not "self defense."

You may disagree, but that's the court's opinion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I didn't think we were talking about the law. I thought we were talking about personal moral considerations, which don't have much to do with the law or courts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

carry permit if your state needs it, and learning the laws regarding use of force in your area. Also buy/carry OC spray if it's legal (for instance it isn't legal in NYC) in case he ends up being a threat, but not a deadly threat.

Those are all laws.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wasn't the opinion in George Zimmerman case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

True, sometimes juries fail, personally I wouldn't bet on it and would err on the side of caution but that's your own choice to make I suppose.

(It also helps if you're the "right" color shooting the "right" color in the "right" state/county... but... otherwise it helps to have your ducks in a row.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I genuinely laughed. Politician style or hospitality industry style? I've so many questions!