| ▲ | blitzar 3 hours ago |
| > Researchers at Amazon had used a series of prompts to get Anthropic’s Fable 5 model to provide them with information that could be used to aid cyberattacks... Are there going to be bans on things that could be used to aid in school shootings next? |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | logicchains 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > That's why school shootings pretty much never happened before the 1970s School shootings didn't happen for multiple reasons that are not SSRIs: - Semi-automatic and automatic weapons weren't available to the public
- There were no video games and few movies glorifying a lone gunman "getting revenge" on a society that spurned them (there movies about gangsters, or war movies)
- There was no anti-American/facist "militia/tactical" cultural meme
- There was not yet any widely known stories of suicide-by-cop and fame via mass-murder
- The American cultural ethos had not yet turned cynical; once Vietnam and Nixon's betrayal happened, it was all downhill
- We stopped locking up crazy people in insane asylums
- Social isolation and urbanism increased population density and animosity
| | |
| ▲ | dabluecaboose an hour ago | parent [-] | | > - Semi-automatic and automatic weapons weren't available to the public They were fully available to the public. Automatic weapons were tax-gated, but still were (and are!) available, after 1934. Semi-automatic weapons have been freely available to any citizen pretty much since they were invented (circa 1893). |
| |
| ▲ | m-hodges 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That's why school shootings pretty much never happened before the 1970s This claim is gonna need a lot more evidence. | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here's from Wikipedia all the mass shootings conducted by students prior to the 1970s. They're incredibly infrequent compared to the shootings of today, March 26, 1893 – Plain Dealing, Louisiana (Plain Dealing High School): During an evening school dance, a fight broke out. Students fired shots, killing two immediately, fatally wounding two more, and injuring a professor (total: 4 killed, 1 wounded). December 12, 1898 – Charleston, West Virginia: Young men (including students/former students in the context of a school exhibition) disrupted an event, leading to a brawl with gunfire. At least 6 killed (including students) and 4+ wounded in the chaos. July 21, 1903 – Jackson, Kentucky (Cave Run School): Students James Barrett and Mack Howard dueled with pistols over a card game, killing each other; a 12-year-old bystander student was wounded (total: 2 killed, 1 wounded). November 16, 1904 – Riverside, California (Indian School): A gunfight between pupils resulted in one student killed, another fatally wounded, and one wounded (total: 2 killed, 1 wounded). October 8, 1950 – New Orleans, Louisiana (Booker T. Washington High School): Suspected gangsters (youths tied to students) fired on each other; 6 bystanders wounded. May 5, 1956 – Seat Pleasant, Maryland (Maryland Park Junior High School): 15-year-old student Billy Ray Prevatte returned with a rifle after a reprimand and shot staff: 1 teacher killed, 2 injured (total: 3 victims). October 17, 1961 – Denver, Colorado (Morey Junior High School): 14-year-old Tennyson Beard argued with a classmate, shot and wounded him, then fatally shot another student (total: 1 killed, 1–2 wounded). October 5, 1966 – Grand Rapids, Minnesota (Grand Rapids High School): 15-year-old student David Black killed a school administrator and seriously wounded another student (total: 1 killed, 1 wounded). | | |
| ▲ | m-hodges 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wasn’t asking for evidence of the number of mass shootings. I was asking for evidence of “that’s why”. | | |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | logicchains' "evidence" is one of the most ridiculous styles of argument I see more and more frequently in social media, so thank you for calling them out on it. They made a very specific, unsupported claim, and then when you requested evidence of that, they responded with a completely unrelated set of information that in no way supported their original claim, as if a longer response someone makes their argument more credible. I don't know if it's AI slop or human slop, but it's total slop regardless. |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One could just as easily blame the change on the availability of color TV, or cultural shifts that took place in the 1960s. | |
| ▲ | bflesch 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Correlation != Causation I invite you to scientifically work on this important topic. Catch up on previous work by others and then use a proper statistical methodology to do proper research and validate your hypothesis. Other possible factors that could explain it apart from your theory on SSRIs: more exhaustive news reporting, less wealthy parents and thereby more kids brought up in poverty conditions, more parents with lead poisoning, more kids exposed to plastics, more weapons per household, more exposure to violence and/or mobbing, violence in video games, less third places that kids have for socializing, more social media, more mobbing at school, more unrealistic beauty standards and many others. Some of them might've been researched already and some might not. Even though you're not trying to do a degree you can always do proper science and maybe also prove a novel explanation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Topfi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | SSRIs are a first line treatment across many EU countries too, yet we somehow manage. | | |
| ▲ | vjvjvjvjghv 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | When I grew up in Germany, I had some pretty bad phases during my teens. I wonder if I had had easy access to guns together with lots of information and videos about shooters on the internet, maybe I would have thought about that too. I didn't have any of those so I sometimes thought about suicide but never about shooting others. The US has a combination of SSRIs (maybe that's a factor, we don't know for sure), easy access to guns, gun culture, glorification of violence and vigilantism and over the last decades a lot of school shooters to imitate. Basically a ton of risk factors combined. |
| |
| ▲ | iririririr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | man, to repeat this (obviously flawed) argument as your own... you are really down a very bad path of pernicious podcasts. reevaluate some values. | |
| ▲ | brisket_bronson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One: Correlation does not imply causation, two: SSRIs are available worldwide | |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everything you said is here is wildly and completely inaccurate and seems to be based on fringe conspiracy theorist RFK Jr's thoroughly debunked lies. The exact opposite is true. Countries with the highest SSRI use have the lowest mass shooting rates. The evidence doesn't lie. Politicians do. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/rfk-jr-misleads-about-anti... | | |
| ▲ | zephen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To be scrupulously fair, the SSRI thing was a conspiracy theory well before RFK Jr. came into the spotlight. | |
| ▲ | logicchains 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | m-hodges 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The article you linked does not support the claim you made. It argues that antidepressants may be associated with aggression or violent behavior in a small susceptible subset. That is very different from “SSRIs explain the rise of school shootings.” The “most school shooters were on SSRIS” claim has been studied directly: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31513302/ Their conclusion: “most school shooters were not previously treated with psychotropic medications - and even when they were, no direct or causal association was found.” | |
| ▲ | dualvariable 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That's a stupid comparison because other countries have much less firearm ownership. Okay, let's try being slightly less permissive in our firearm laws then, since you've just proven it works. | |
| ▲ | xnyan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > other countries have much less firearm ownership. Interesting. Why do you think countries with lower firearm ownership rates have fewer shootings? | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | antinomicus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Lmao but the first part of your comment really shows the true reason other countries don’t have shootings…because they regulate guns…. So yea maybe some super rare cases of ssri aggression are real but by your own admission the solution to it is gun control. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | deadbabe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | disillusioned an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Hard to put an economic damage value on the psychological scarring of everyone in the country sending their kid to school with this in the back of their minds, to say nothing of security theater put in place in an attempt to assuage those concerns. But, sure. Crowdstrike oopsie wiped out a lot more market cap, so I guess that's the priority. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | vfclists an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why has HN become utterly useless as a place where meaningful discussions can be held? A response concerning the model being prompted for information that could be used to aid cyberattaks ie - "Are there going to be bans on things that could be used to aid in school shootings next?" floats right to the top of the comment listings and the responses are quite irrelevant. What is it with this place? In the past I came to see what the comments about the articles were is hoping they would share more light on the topic. Right now they are totally meaningless. |
|
| ▲ | dash2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean, for most of the world that is not the gotcha you think it is… |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not supposed to be a gotcha, it's supposed to be an example of the hypocrisy of the government. | | |
| ▲ | mikey_p 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Similar example Ohio legislature makes it illegal to drive with any THC of Cannabis products in the passenger compartment to crack down on people driving high, but there is nothing to prevent you driving with an open bottle of prescription opiates or benzos and popping those while you drive. | |
| ▲ | altairprime 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bad choice of example, then. Restricting things that are uniquely and critical to planning and executing school shootings is a highly desirable outcome for regulation, in the eyes of a society that desires its youth to grow up without constant threat of murder at their mandatory educational institutions. That desire is not particularly uniform in the U.S. right now, in contrast with much of the world. Choosing murder sprees as an example supports regulations that have societal safety benefits, which is the opposite of what was intended. Perhaps a different example might have the desired effect? |
| |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most of the world didn't ban Fable. |
|
|
| ▲ | newsclues 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Canada had a school shooter that used ai tools and the public has not been informed of what happened in the chat |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's OK tho, Sam personally apologized for that oopsie. | | |
| ▲ | disillusioned an hour ago | parent [-] | | The specific breadth of that oopsie, to recall, was that multiple human reviewers recommended escalation to law enforcement, and were rebuffed. So the system _almost_ worked except for an unforced error and people died as a direct result. Oopsie, indeed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | graphime 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Are there going to be bans on things that could be used to aid in school shootings next? No. Because us Americans don’t care about school shootings. I’d rather the government invest in S&P500 going higher. You overestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings in America. |
| |
| ▲ | blitzar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe we can incorporate the children one by one in delaware and then people will care. On the plus side they will also then qualify for billions in government subsidies. | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Won't matter if they're not publicly traded. | | |
| ▲ | icandoit 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We could sell options on their future incomes, or taxes. An idea worth exploring. How can we encourage investment in future generations? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | rocketpastsix 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you underestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Caring with no significant action in prevention doesn’t really signal caring. Sure, it sucks, headlines get printed for a couple of months, then people forget and move on. To put it in the most disrespectful and sad way, it looks like more people have been on the streets for Knicks games than most (any?) school shootings of the past decades. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think your assumption of lack of caring is misplaced. The citizens clearly care, but have no power to do anything about it. Those in power are the ones that do not care or are paid not to care. | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's just harder to get the average joe charged up to fight a battle with anything meaningful on the line. Americans are used to living relatively cushy lives where they don't sacrifice their QOL to make the lives of their countrymen better. The closest thing to that are people in the military, and it's probably been a while since the US military is improving QOL, on average. People will continue to be complacent on multiple fronts until it absolutely comes to a violent boil. I don't really see half measures or peaceful protests changing anything. And maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think the upcoming elections will either not change enough or be strongly manipulated to maintain the status quo. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >harder to get the average joe charged up to fight a battle with anything meaningful on the line Doesn't this imply that on average people just don't care? So, school shooting preventions are just way down in the list of "things I care about", when you have "cushy lives where nobody wants to sacrifice their QOL". | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It means they don't care enough to meaningfully make sacrifices for change. To deal with school shootings is to change the constitution. The American constitution is basically wired for school shootings. To change the constitution is basically a civil war. Things aren't binary. Many people care deeply about school shootings. But they don't have the means or power to organize to stop them and, individually, they are powerless. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They’re not binary, but when an issue persists for decades, over the course of multiple administrations, and political landscape… it shows either the country is incompetent in terms of solving an issue, or the issue is not a priority. I wholeheartedly believe US can solve issues when it’s an important one. And thus, I think, for an average American it’s not an issue. Decades is a very long timeframe. Countries have achieved more in shorter periods. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I wholeheartedly believe US can solve issues when it’s an important one. What's the last important issue in the US that was democratically resolved? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nish__ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Enforcing the global use of the petro dollar is what keeps Americans living cushy lives so be careful disrespecting the military personel. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My post was not disrespectful. It was matter of fact. And if the Petro Dollar only persists by use of force or perceived force, it's probably not a sustainable system for humanity. So hopefully we can go back to a soft power maintained Petro Dollar? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | graphime 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I think you underestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings. Less than 1% of the population, that’s for sure. You remember the last protest about school shootings? Neither do I. | | |
| ▲ | throw__away7391 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well they happen in schools and children don’t vote. If this had been a wave of senior center shootings, something would have been done a long, long time ago. | | | |
| ▲ | throwaway-11-1 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get what you’re saying but in the last 20 years can you think of any mass protest that accomplished anything substantial? I don’t really blame people for giving up on it as a tool for change. TBH only truly effective one I can think of would be Jan 6 | | |
| ▲ | Topfi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can, just not in the US [0]. I always presumed this is linked to the health care being provided by employers rather than having a more robust safety net that allows for civil disobedience without having to fear existential risks. However, I also can’t forget that the French have their safety net not as a God given right, but because they fought for it via (often not just civil) protest. Reference also the statements MLK JR made concerning the willingness of white moderates to engage in actually effective disobedience, even when their financial situation allows for such. [0] https://thenonviolenceproject.wisc.edu/2023/06/02/recent-pro... | | |
| ▲ | peyton 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are more people not on employer-provided health insurance in the US than exist in France. How does your presumption work given that fact? | | |
| ▲ | Topfi an hour ago | parent [-] | | I just checked and it's 54% in the US [0] vs 0% in France (cause basic public healthcare isn't tied to employment). So, unless you are referring to absolute numbers (not very helpful when comparing countries of different sizes), I'm not sure what you are referring to. I will admit that my purely personal thesis on this front goes a bit beyond healthcare. I feel that a robust safety net, iron clad right to protest and a large, at least reasonably financially stable (meaning no existential financial fears for at least the majority of citizenry, i.e. above roughly 60% middle class for a given economy) are needed to allow for protests in such a manner that the citizenry are both capable, willing and informed sufficiently to protect their own interests and democracy as a whole. Having the right and ability to protests is needed, just as much as being comfortable enough to have the time to actually stay politically engaged (consistent financial strain being a reasonable cause for why one doesn't stay informed in my book). France or my home country of Austria (imperfect countries like any other, I will (un)happily admit) on that front are in the 65%-75% range, whereas the US appears to barely get above 50% purely by income along with higher health care costs in general and employer linked plans for as stated above the majority, so these are somewhat interlinked in my view. Same reason, albeit less extreme, why in war-torn countries, long standing brutal dictatorships and the like, the citizenry rarely is able to create any proper action agains their oppressors, not because they are accepting of the status quo, weak, or anything of the sort, but because when one is starving and trying to help their family unit survive, even beyond the risk that action can pose, their often isn't any time to actually consider it. "A republic, if you can keep it", in my opinion is a high demand from the public. They need to have the tools, rights and resources to actively defend it. Not saying France is perfect here, but I will say that it is easy to just raise our finger at the US populous without considering the whole picture. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/portion-insured-americans-w... |
|
| |
| ▲ | graphime 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I get what you’re saying but in the last 20 years can you think of any mass protest that accomplished anything substantial? Nope. Even the Jan 6 one didn’t really change our quality of life. And damn, that was a protest, by American standards. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was a protest as much as the Beer Hall Putsch was. | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | January Sixth was not a protest, it was an attempt to interfere with government processes to prevent Biden from being elected - so a really shitty attempt at a coup. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Jcowell 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The author said nothing of the people but of the government itself. 12 years ago, elementary school children were slaughtered and even that wasn’t enough to ban guns. | |
| ▲ | andrew_lettuce 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thoughts and prayers doesn't count as truly caring |
| |
| ▲ | terabytest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I recommend revisiting this comment when you have a son or daughter. | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hate to say it but you're right. If people cared, they'd actually do something about it. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | People are doing something, the issue with you two's extremely poor thinking is that lack of inaction means no one cares. What it actually represents is the massive growing disparity between the political class and average Americans. There is >70% public support universal background checks for all firearm transactions, safe storage laws, and crisis intervention. Just the same that there is also large public support for things like public jobs programs, medicare for all, universal childcare, or free university; there is a very real obstacle that the political class in this country are adamant about stopping all progress towards better lives and not strictly caring that the elites extract more wealth or corporations get more welfare. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm very sorry, but I've heard that "there's large public support for X, Y, Z" for decades. If there's no real action in achieving such things, my assumption is people don't actually care about it. Personally, when I "care about something", I try to act on it. My list is not long, and I'm very grateful that I don't have to spend a single minute of my life to think about school shootings. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You clearly missed the part about the divide between the political class and everyone else. Most people in the US are just trying to pay rent and maybe one day save up for a house by the time they are 40-50. If you don't see this you are either 1) making enough money you are part of the problem 2) don't actually live in the US so have a completely unmoored understanding of reality on the ground here | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I obviously don’t live in the US. My entire point was that people say that care about school shootings and etc., but unless they do anything about it, those are just words. Given the voting record of the majority of the population, I tend to believe that an average American cares more about SPX. Which, honestly, is fine by me. Every nation and culture is different, freedom and etc. etc.. But it would be hard to convince me that an average citizen cares about it, because, once again, nothing has changed in decades. For the record, I have nothing against Americans, you guys are a lovely bunch. But it is what it is. | | | |
| ▲ | vntok 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed, the more accurate way to say it is that people in the US don't care enough about mass school shootings to do something about it besides thought and prayers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwawaytea 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| One infringes on a specific constitutional right. Also, this country would get even more dangerous without good citizens owning guns. IMO it's like herd immunity. Not everyone has guns. But the criminals don't know who does and who doesn't, so in a way they treat all homes as potentially being armed. Our criminals are already pretty care free, I can't imagine how much worse it would be if they KNEW no one was armed. |
| |
| ▲ | bloggie an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not American so maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Constitution apply to all citizens? Is it not then unconstitutional to prevent federal inmates from possessing firearms while incarcerated? | | | |
| ▲ | prmoustache 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doh, the ones who own the guns are the criminal. If not today, one day in the future. Most women who own a firearm and get shot are shot with their own firearm. Firearms in an household with kids need to be locked out for the safety of all, rendering them useless if someone in a family is in threat of being harmed. There is virtually zero situation where it would help the family. Trying to stop a robbery is the best way to get shot, armed or not. One is always better off letting the thieves go and get compensation from insurance. Weapons im your household only increase the chance of someone in the household killing their spouse/siblings/parents without increasing the safety against criminals outside. Gun owners who pretend to arm themselves against crime are really converting themselves into potential criminals. One can be mentally ok at the date of purchase but nobody can be 100% sure their mental health will stay the same all their life and we can't expect them to surrender their firearms when needed. Thus it should be a crime in itself to purchase guns. | |
| ▲ | EmoteSupportBot 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The brainwashing is truly staggering isn't it? | | | |
| ▲ | ajross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > One infringes on a specific constitutional right. The ability to develop and use technological products is, y'know, kinda protected speech under the first amendment. Congress shall make no law... unless you're talking about stuff we think is dangerous; in that case foreigners can't say it and you can't tell them. | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While there is some truth here, it's worth noting that firearms are far from a deterrent - these days, many criminals are often enraged by a victim having a gun and end up escalating further. Earlier this year there was a gang execution in Minneapolis that was prominent national news. The thugs were probably just going to kick the shit out of the victim, but when they discovered he merely had a gun, they took it from him and then held him down and shot him repeatedly in the back. Or there was another famous killing in Louisville about 6 years back. It started off as a simple night time home invasion but when one of the residents started to defend themselves by firing a warning shot, the perps responded by turning the home into a shooting gallery and ended up killing the other resident. So these days it's more of a toss up because we're not in the Wild West or even Paul Kersey's cities, but rather subject to highly organized crime that demands supplicating obedience and will readily retaliate against anyone who tries to defend themselves. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaytea 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The warning shot was the main mistake. It goes against all training. Only shoot to kill. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Accounts differ. It's hard to tell if it was really a warning shot or if that's merely what the resident said after the fact to avoid being prosecuted for having defended themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | DivingForGold 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the homeowners had a shotgun it would have been over quickly. Shotguns don't miss. | | |
| ▲ | unsnap_biceps an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Bullshit. Shotguns are not designed to have a wide pattern close up. They're designed to have a wide pattern out at 40 yards or so. Sawed off shotguns have a wider pattern closer, but it's wildly random and impossible to aim with any real effectiveness. I have both. I shoot trap. My gun on my bedside is a p226 with a flashlight that has a strobe option. | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There were like seven assailants, and the shot actually did hit one of them in the leg. This is what caused the others to retaliate. I don't think a shotgun would have helped. Unfortunately the incident was not a game of DOOM. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If anything that is an argument for extended magazines. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | At a certain point numbers just don't work out that way. Being woken up in the middle of the night and facing seven alert and well-prepared attackers? Good luck. The real problem is the corrupt politically-motivated DA who declined to even charge most of the perps. Only one of them got any jail time. The others are still out on our streets. Individual action can help mitigate, but it can't make up for the trend of politicians accepting and normalizing violent crime. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | antinomicus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|