top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 221 points 7 months ago (8 children)

And still not one goddamn Epstein Rapist has been arrested.

But we're gonna throw federal and state charges at a guy for fighting back?

This country is fucking ridiculous.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Not only that, Trump also pardoned nearly 1,600 hard criminals that violently attacked a federal building on January 6th.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    This was in Canada. Its a different country, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 128 points 7 months ago

    All of them were inspired by a shit system and not by another man, who was also fed up with it

  • source
  • [–] 107 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I heard about the fire, but I thought it was just a fire. I had no idea it was a brother in arms fighting against capitalism and wage theft. Good on him.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Do what you gotta do. By any means necessary. We live in a slave culture marketed as freedom.

    Being a good or hard working person doesn't get any reward.

    America Makes the Terrorists and then complains.

  • source
  • [–] 74 points 7 months ago

    Nice try, mass media. Luigi is always innocent.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    He is innocent just like Lugi. He was in Oklahoma at the time. Let me know where to donate to his legal defense. If fucking murders can get millions in go fund me so should this class hero.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe I'm heartless, but why give millions of working class dollars to a bunch of lawyers in what will almost certainly be a slam-dunk loss? It's not like the carceral system will stop enslaving and torturing him if we pay them enough.

    If you want him to be rewarded, give the money to his family, to his friends, and to the workers whose lives were disrupted because of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (16 children)

    This guy rules. Nobody died. Should have paid him more.

    Edit: I can't believe a warehouse that big didn't seem to have sprinkler systems. This kind of thing was practically inevitable. Is this just some kind of water conservation exemption in california?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Read in an internet comment, so take with a grain, but he apparently had a multistage plan. Started a small fire, fire dept came to deal with it, and company brass had them turn off fire suppression to limit unnecessary damage to product in other areas. It was then that they lit a bunch more fires, and by the time the figured it out, it was too late.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    Idk how accurate any of it is, but looked at several articles that claimed the fire suppression system was working but insufficient (statement from fire chief)

    My guess at this point would be that the warehouse shelving design was actually preventing effective use of sprinkler systems by protecting the fire and being too dense to allow the system to be effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    uh huh, now dozens of his coworkers don't have a paycheck. Mission accomplished, I guess. If he really ruled, he would have left the door open.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    co-workers already weren't getting pay checks that's why he sent the place on fire they hadn't been paid in months.....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    This doesn't make much sense. If my employer didn't pay me for months, the only reason I'd stay is if it was a great company that I loved and believed in. Even then, I have hard time believing a company could make this sort of arrangement in California.

    ....also-if what you're saying is true-then the company was a hair breadth away from bankruptcy. Someone burning down the warehouse could have been a best case scenario for everyone but the insurance company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Is that the location that was doing bad? Because the company has been around since 1872 and is a fortune 500 company with annual revenue over 20 billion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    It means not everybody will take the same course of action that you will some people will continue trying and hoping that they'll finally get paid considering they've got all this time sunk into it it's called the sunken time fallacy actually....

    Despite whether or not they actually will and who knows the motivations of the management of that particular Warehouse on why they weren't getting paid or what was happening it's easy enough for us to speculate as arm chair quarter backs.

    So we have to go off of what we have available is and we have the video of the person who set the fire openly stating exactly why so let's just go with that how about that. At least until new information that's becoming available otherwise all we're doing is speculatig bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    y'all children know that unemployment is a thing, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    weird, I didn't see anything. you?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    LUIGI MANGIONE ALLEGEDLY KILLED UNITED HEALTHCARE CEO BRIAN THOMPSON.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (14 children)

    I'd say he's more of a Milton. Still understandable, though.

    Source: LA times reporting "Videos posted online appear to show a man igniting a fire at an Ontario warehouse while complaining about being paid low wages."

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    What does Milton mean in this context?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Steven Root's character in Office Space, who ends up burning down his office building because of nonpayment and abuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

    At least he received a paycheck.

    Edit: I was referencing office space like the guy above me people chill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago

    He was with me the whole time

    I can provide other witnesses to corroborate his alibi

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Warehouse Luigi, or Waluigi for short.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    Ai voice cloning has gotten so good they cloned the voice of my best friend who is known for NOT burning down warehouses and framed him!

  • source
  • [+] 38 points 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago

    Is his name fucking Mario Mangione? Wtf? They could be brothers

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    So we have a Luigi and a Waluigi. Next up... Mario? Who wants to beat up the evil fatass kidnapping girls?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That warehouse got luigid good

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago* (15 children)

    Why do they prosecute people multiple times at different levels of government? Doesn't that seem kind of unfair?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Laws here are intended to protect to the wealthy. Its illegal for homeless people to sleep anywhere outside. Law and fairness are not ideas that ever touch each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    The United States is a federation.

    Each state has a code of laws, and the federal government has one. You break a state law, you're going to state court. You break a federal law, you're going to federal court. You break a state law and a federal law, you're going to state and federal court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Only if you piss off the rich. A good example is Ted Bundy. Murdered non rich people in 4(?) different states, a situation where it would make complete sense the federal government would be bringing the charges because the crimes weren't all within the jurisdiction of just one state... Yet no federal charges were brought against him, they left it to the states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That would have been so very high profile back then. Did the lack of federal charges tick everybody off? Just wondering if anyone was going for a “let's play this out through all of the four courts and that'll be enough” game plan, or if it was ineptitude, focus elsewhere, your explanation, etc.

    Also has that happened in recent history within the past couple of administrations? If you know

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    In my personal opinion (anecdotal and possibly wrong) I feel like we had a period of a few decades where there was not so much of a state/federal governments not getting along. Unlike today where you have the FBI blatantly taking cases out of states hands and trying to not allow them to have evidence as we are seeing in say Colorado or California. Jimmie Carter would have been president when Bundy was caught in Florida. I think there may have been a trust in the states to deal with it. Floridas government very much was trying to take pride in the fact that they would execute him from what I know of the case, but I was born in the late 80s so I wasn't around for the the arrest and public reaction in 78'. Someone else may be able to shine light on the differences between how it was portrayed to be handled after/now vs how it was taken by the public then.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    There are valid reasons to do so, that wouldn't necessarily feel unfair against someone who for sure did something wrong. Basically, it's so that one sticks. Derek Chauvin was charged on second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.

    These all have different degrees of severity, including average and maximum punishments.

    Unintentional 2nd degree is the hardest, and requires a felony (3rd degree assault) to stick. Max penalty 40y, average 12.5.

    3rd degree murder requires less; just an "eminently dangerous" act with a "depraved mind" and no regard for life. 25y max, same average

    2nd degree Manslaughter is just culpable negligence that can cause unreasonable risk of death or great harm. 10 year max, 4 average.

    Now they have to convince a Jury to convict on those charges. If they don't think the felony happened, then the first charge is out. If they don't think he had a "depraved mind", then the second charge is also out. So to make sure he actually gets a punishment, they charge all charges they believe they can get a jury to accept. Charging in both federal and state can also protect against only one politically motivated Governor or president from pardoning all charges, so they would need two pardons.

    In addition, if the federal government is worried the state trial might be too biased, they may want their own charges just in case. It seems unfair because you may identify with his actions, but if this was someone lynching people in an extremely racist state (I'd like to say like in the past, but maybe even today) the federal government tacking on charges (in a better admin) could protect against racists just absolving someone from said murder.

    In Derek Chauvin's case all charges were successfully convicted, but that isn't always the case. It is a double edged sword though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you for the explanation (sincerely).

    Beyond the pardon thing, it just seems like they're having multiple bites at the same pie whilst being able to ignore double jeopardy.

    It would seem saner to make them commit to whatever the maximum crime/penalty they are aiming for and ignore the rest. Instead it seems like they (the government, in all its forms) can just try to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Because it is such a high profile case, every level of the bureaucracy wants a bite at the apple. Everyone wants to get in front of a camera and say "We're doing something about it!" to a gaggle of social media influencers and party apparatchiks with press badges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Not corruption, per say. This is a fatal flaw of any democratic institution. You need to be seen doing your job or people will assume it isn't getting done. So more and more of the job of an executive level official is marketing yourself.

    Everyone who isn't running around cutting their own promos is setting themselves up for defeat against someone who does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I'm always defending politicians, so… no, just kidding, I'm not. But I will offer a more sympathetic explanation not from experience, just from my hindquarters.

    If there were three different people in power who are all independently upset about a crime, I could imagine each of them figuring out what the suspect did in their jurisdiction. That’s to fight back personally as well as to have a story for the next town hall when someone includes the crime in a long list of places why $currentCity has gone down the tubes over $longPeriod

    So then have these three separate cases because everyone felt disrespected and wants a billboard, “don’t mess with us“. Maybe it wasn't very relevant that the perp scraped a mailbox while peeling out of the scene of the crime, but is that a reason for the postmaster not to have his friends from the US postal inspection over? :)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Oh how I'm not looking forward to seeing the right make this into a "the left" issue and then a race issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Okay internet. The first hero was meme'd into this guy:

    Since this second hero has facial hair, I think we should keep with the theme and meme him into this guy:

    Let's make it happen internet denizens.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    wish he worked at mara lago.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    18 comments in c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post