Evia @ Evia @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

101

Joined

2 yr. ago

And if you throw up, don't brush your teeth as you're then just scrubbing stomach acid into them. Rinse and gargle with water then brush an hour later

Either or both parent could be responsible depending on the circumstances. Was dad working away and doesn't own any guns? Not his responsibility. Does mum have 3 guns but all of them were locked away according to strict safety regulations and the child accessed a gun from somewhere else? Also not responsible. Did uncle give the child a gun and tell him to go nuts? Very responsible. Circumstances, and levels of culpability, can vary. If both parents own guns, didn't secure them properly and failed to monitor or restrict the child's concerning behaviours then yes, they're both equally culpable.

I don't really identify as liberal and not sure what that's got to do with anything. But regardless, if somebody's willful negligence leads to multiple deaths then yes, they should be held accountable.

We don't need to focus on the details here. If they were strangers, the jury would say something to the effect of, 'Jennifer failed to prevent undue access to her gun' or 'negligently permitted a stranger to have access to her gun'. Ultimately, if it's her gun, she needs to be in control of it, regardless of the circumstances

Eh, if the child was an adult and they were strangers to each other, I'd still say that the gun owner was culpable for not securing their gun properly. If you own a weapon, it's your responsibility to know where it is and what it's doing at any time

More than one person can be responsible for a crime. A burgler might have been the one to break and enter but the accomplice could still have been culpable of staking the house and driving the getaway car.

I know a Simon Banks who works in a bank. Go figure

It's the lazy eyes. But at least it's a little more diverse

Brilliant, thank you

Thank you, good detective work

Looking for a new, non-shot phone. Can anyone ID the one on the left?

That was a big question during the trial, too

No but we do know the basic function of screws: holding shit together. The absence of screws implies that shit is not held together fully. Is it still sufficient to fly? Maybe. But the presence of screw holes implies that somebody in the development process thought them necessary and now they're not there.

Sure, it's likely safe in the same was that the restaurant rat is likely not carrying a plague. But it's not guaranteed and I'm not willing to be the one to test it

Sure, this is why the passenger raised the issue to make sure someone responsible was aware of it and could make that safety judgement. And clearly they were right to do so if the pilot (or whoever) grounded the plane.

I'll refer you to unexpctedkeg's comment

Because the cost of the app to do that isn't $60 a year.

From right to left, lol at n.2

That's actually heartbreaking

Until you get good people dying of rabies

Well certainly but the Brits tend to ignore that part of the UK - it's a little uncomfortable so we just pretend that NI doesn't exist

Eh, we don't really use Britain. UK is more inclusive