krayj @ krayj @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

Visceral fat can cause this (especially in men), but it's usually a side-effect of being overweight and it sounds like you describe yourself as looking 'malnourished'. https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-is-visceral-fat

There is at least one type of malnutrition, "Kwashiorkor", caused by protein deficiency that can cause something like this also. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23099-kwashiorkor

But, disclaimer, I am not a doctor, so best advice is to get checked out by your healthcare provider.

The point is that infringing people's rights because there -might- be some public good is a horrible precedent.

The current precedent that is being used to apply the law makes no distinction between "protective order" and "restraining order". It also makes no distinction between "protective order" and "temporary protective order" nor does it recognize a distinction between "restraining order" and "temporary restraining order". So considering that, and because the naming convention varies from state to state, we're forced to consider all those terms equal under the current interpretation of law and current court precedence.

You've already admitted that Temporary POs are easy. How easy? In most states, the only requirement is a signed affidavit from an accuser claiming they feel threatened. That's it.

I'm not going to go look it up state by state to give you the requirements, but I did look up California's (since they have such a huge population and since many other states base their own laws on the precedence that California sets). In California, an EPO (emergency protective order) can be granted solely from "a person's allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse". See California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250 Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA%20Victim%20Protection%20Statutes.pdf

That's it. Also in California (and in many other states), EPOs are temporary, but can be repeatedly extended until some upcoming court date can decide on a permanent resolution (and this can take weeks to months). Also in California (and in many other states), a domestic EPO is sufficient to deny someone access to firearms, revoke their concealed handgun license, etc. Here's the quote from the State of California Emergency Protective Order Bench Guide for judges:

Any EPO issued prohibits the restrained person from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition during the term of the protective order. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in jail, a $1000 fine, or both.15 Any firearm must be surrendered while the protective order is in effect. Additionally, in a gun violence EPO (form EPO-002), ammunition, including magazines, must also be surrendered.

And that bit about "must be surrendered"...comes with some pretty big penalties also. When surrendered, the state takes possession and assigns fees to the subject of the order for hanging onto them...and then if/when the protective order is ultimately lifted or defeated in court, that poor bastard still needs to hire a lawyer to navigate the legal system and all the forms and filings to get them back. One fraudulent protection order ends up costing the subject tens of thousands of dollars.

...And this is the precedent that is currently being challenged.

I had my own brother crashing on my couch for 4 months for this very issue (his ex had filed a fraudulent one against him without needing any more evidence than an allegation....and 3 months into it (after a dozen extensions), she threatened to file one against ME for refusing to let her into my house where he was staying. Obviously, some protection orders are valid and necessary, but the system is currently easily abused by anyone who wants to make their ex's life miserable and there are ZERO repercussions for filing a fraudulent protection order. I think it's fair to reconsider how many rights we are willing to violate against an innocent person before there is due process in a court proceeding.

I agree with that...but that is not how it's currently implemented.

Some people will say yes and some people will say no. The same argument you made could be used to outlaw a LOT of human behavior, though.

For me personally, I universally don't think it's fair that I could be stripped of some of my rights without due process - that bit is important to me regardless of whether that is used for wrongdoing by others or not. A better solution would be to make due process happen faster, imo...or for the state to take a more proactive role in protecting the accuser until that due process runs its course.

Domestic abusers shouldn't have guns...this is true.

The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what's being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)...because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser...which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who've been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.

Unfortunately, in many states, no actual proof or evidence is required to get a domestic protection order issued against someone. Some individuals do actually weaponize the justice system just to take out their anger on another person, damage their reputation, and make their life hell for no other reason than to make their life hell.

This article title is bait and switch. The law still would prohibit convicted domestic abusers from possessing firearms. The subject of this current challenge is about whether it should continue to impact people who've merely been accused by someone or not.

This has happened to both my brother and a very good long-time friend. Both individuals were eventually completely vindicated but the current system allowed an accuser, without any evidence, the ability to have protection orders placed, their firearms confiscated, their concealed pistol licenses revoked, their reputations damaged, and it cost them thousands in attorneys fees to deal with. And at the end of it all, and after being completely vindicated, zero repercussions for the accuser of the false accusations.

I don't know what the right answer is here, but the discussion has merit before blindly accepting the title of this post at face value because there's a lot more to it than what the title implies.

I don't like driving faster than I can see in front of me. TIL: I'd be considered abnormal in New Orleans.

What's the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame "advice of counsel" on.

76 down, ten thousand more to go.

This is a step in the right direction.

China is investing 13.7 trillion in their power sector to achieve net-zero emissions. 3.5 billion is rookie numbers if we want to keep up and remain competitive. At least it's a start.

The most plausible path forward would be to pass the 2023 Medicare for All act (introduced by US representatives Pramila Jayapal, Debbie Dingell, and Bernie Sanders).

link: https://jayapal.house.gov/2023/05/17/jayapal-dingell-sanders-introduce-medicare-for-all-with-record-number-of-house-cosponsors/

The only way this wouldn't meet the definition of 'execution' is if it were an accidental shooting, which I find hard to believe when it involved 2 dead. Are you confusing the word 'execution' with 'assassination', which would imply there was both planning and pre-selection of the targets? No one is saying this was an assassination.

The first two sentences of the article:

Two people have been shot dead in the Belgian capital Brussels on Monday evening, police have said.

The gunman fled the scene and is still at large. Prosecutors say they are treating the shooting as terrorism.

Does a gunman shooting and killing 2 people not meet your definition of 'executed'?

On the surface this comes across as SciFi, but it's a true classic horror with a scifi backdrop. It's essential watching for any horror genre fan, IMO.

All of the Hellraiser movies (some are great, some are not so great, but it's worth it to work through all of them in order). The newest was kind of a re-imagining and you can start there if you want).

The Thing - the 1982 film is a classic, but the newest one is a prequel that came decades after the original movie- I'd recommend watching both, starting with the original.

All the alien movies. Some don't consider Sci-Fi horror to be true horror, but these are essential watching. I consider it to be the best complete horror series of movies ever made.

Vampire's Kiss (Nicholas Cage) - this is truly bizarre and if you are a Nick Cage fan it should be considered required watching.

Barbarian (2022) - simultaneously mind blowing and absolutely terrifying. Probably the best horror of the past 5 years.

The Mist - and mainly just for the ending which was a total mindfuck.

Train to Busan - This is a Korean made film (with subtitles) in the zombie genre, and is absolutely riveting.

World War Z - an outstanding zombie genre movie - one of the first zombie movies to feature fast moving parkour capable zombies as opposed to the slow moving classic zombies.

American Psycho - scary because this could (and does) happen and you could be standing right next to the next American Psycho right now and not even know it.

Maximum Overdrive - doesn't get recommended a lot, but it holds up and is a great machine-uprising type of horror.

Event Horizon - propped up as SciFi Horror but this is a classic true horror just with a scifi backdrop.

I WISH there would be a modern remake of "Scanners". Scanners is great horror from decades past but it just doesn't hold up well to modern standards-it desperately needs a modern remake.

You seem to be implying you think this is faked because it doesn't comply with how you expect the documents to look. It took you less than a couple hours since this was posted to think this conspiracy theory up. If these documents were faked, don't you think the Israeli intelligence community would also have considered the same issues you raised and properly dirtied them to make sure they had the necessary dirt and blood to meet your specific definition of 'authentic'? The ultimate implication here is that you think you have thunk up a gotcha in a few hours that Israeli Intelligence were incapable of thinking up. That's very arrogant.

This article desperately needs video.

Here's the official video from Adobe. Bump to 45s into the vid to see the dress in action:

https://youtu.be/EvGquKkSFMM?si=_yo33O7N6VhFxYQO

To keep the analogy going, they would have to have raped and beheaded the occupants of the death star before actually blowing them up...and the Death Star would have to have been an Imperial tourist destination with not just Imperial citizens, but also visiting citizens from all across the galaxy..but if that's what George Lucas had filmed, I think there would have been a lot less sympathy for the rebels.

That's a single narrow example and does not accurately account for the taxpayer cost of doing this.

When it's reported that the government estimates the cost to be 1.2 million (and that estimate was as of some date back in June - source: https://en.as.com/latest_news/missing-titan-submarine-how-much-does-the-search-and-rescue-mission-cost-and-whos-paying-for-it-n-2/ ) I understand that to mean over and above what their daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly predictable/normal expenses are.