Yesterday's Lowes experience

[Sandcut]

I'm afraid that I either would have smashed the security devices to shut it up, or I would have set the saw down in the middle of the store and bought it somewhere else.

I refuse to give money to people that treat me like a thief.

[DukeConnor]

I'm afraid that I either would have smashed the security devices to shut it up, or I would have set the saw down in the middle of the store and bought it somewhere else.

I refuse to give money to people that treat me like a thief.

I considered that but decided to play it out and push it around the store to be annoying

[internet troll]

That's hilarious!!!

White trash republicans don't shoplift?

See previous.

I took the blame Democrats remark to be aimed at creating policies that benefit criminals and take away the fear of serious consequences for stealing.

[OwnTheRide]

The problem with that plan is that you just fuck over the taxpayers.

A better plan is to dramatically expand the use of the death penalty. And a good one, not the kind where you sit in jail for 25 years. All death sentences to be carried out within a year, period.

Death for any violent offense above simple assault.

Death for any property damage over $25K unless you can make immediate restitution (and I'll accept insurance from the offender).

Death to anyone doing shit for the purpose of ruining someone else's life (revenge porn, deep fake whatever, etc).

Death for manslaughter, unless you can make restitution satisfactory to the victim's estate.

Death to anyone in the country illegally, and anyone employing, housing or feeding them.

Etc.

Whew. That is a lot, and I mean a LOT, of faith in our various levels of government to do things right. The same government that, you know, can't seem to do one damn thing right.

You, uh, sure your faith isn't misplaced here?

I don't think our government is suited to regulate firearms. They're fucking terrible at it. If they can't handle that, then I certainly have no faith in their ability to execute only the right people.

[GunLawyer001]

Whew. That is a lot, and I mean a LOT, of faith in our various levels of government to do things right. The same government that, you know, can't seem to do one damn thing right.

You, uh, sure your faith isn't misplaced here?

I don't think our government is suited to regulate firearms. They're fucking terrible at it. If they can't handle that, then I certainly have no faith in their ability to execute only the right people.

Perhaps in death penalty cases, we should use 3 separate juries of 6 each, keep them segregated from each other. If 3 different panels all independently conclude that the defendant did the crime, that seems pretty reliable.

Most of us saw "12 Angry Men", and saw the groupthink and the power of 1 persuasive person to sway them. (We also saw violations of the basic rules, with Henry Fonda going out & creating his own evidence.)

At the same time, anyone committing perjury in a capital case, should face the same penalty that the defendant faces. This is serious stuff, we should NOT accept that cops lie, that mothers lie for sons, that girlfriends provide false alibis, that people will just lie under oath.

[free]

Whew. That is a lot, and I mean a LOT, of faith in our various levels of government to do things right. The same government that, you know, can't seem to do one damn thing right.

You, uh, sure your faith isn't misplaced here?

I don't think our government is suited to regulate firearms. They're fucking terrible at it. If they can't handle that, then I certainly have no faith in their ability to execute only the right people.

Yeah. I know. No good choices these days. I'm just tired of criminal bullshit.

[OwnTheRide]

Perhaps in death penalty cases, we should use 3 separate juries of 6 each, keep them segregated from each other. If 3 different panels all independently conclude that the defendant did the crime, that seems pretty reliable.

Most of us saw "12 Angry Men", and saw the groupthink and the power of 1 persuasive person to sway them. (We also saw violations of the basic rules, with Henry Fonda going out & creating his own evidence.)

About 20 years ago, there was a well-known semi-rich guy in my area (Cal Harris for those who want to read more) who was charged with killing his wife on Sept 11th 2001. The primary evidence against him was the fact that he and his wife were separated and in the process of divorce, and they found a few drops (literally) of her long-dried blood in their garage. Evidence to the contrary, such as her boyfriend at the time burning bloody clothes in his yard the next morning, or a farmer seeing her arguing with someone who was not Cal Harris mere hours before her disappearance, or even the former boyfriend later admitting to getting away with murder and the husband taking the rap - was either suppressed, ignored, or covered up.

He was convicted, then received a new trial upon appeal. He was convicted again, and again received a new trial after appeal. He was convicted yet again, and received yet another new trial on appeal. Finally, on the fourth trial, his lawyers successfully argued for a change of venue, and opted for a bench trial... and he was found not guilty.

I worked with a person who was on his jury during trial #2. I asked her what led her to vote to convict him. Her words: "he just looked guilty."

Now, she's right... ol' chromedome did not present well. He looked like a guy who was angry at the fact that he was accused of killing his wife, who had been separated from his children, who had his business taken from him, and who had to sacrifice large chunks of his fortune while fighting for his freedom. I'm sure he did look guilty. But that's not what juries are supposed to convict on.

You're a lawyer. You know that lawyers aren't trying to find the most competent, well-read, intelligent, unbiased jurors they can find. They're looking for gullible, easy-to-charm, easy-to-mislead, people of questionable intellect and analytical skills, preferably with a political or personal bias that favors said lawyer's side of the courtroom.

All of that is a long way of me saying that I don't trust juries to get things right, either. Not even three separate, segregated juries. That said, I will give you that your proposal is nonetheless an improvement, and that I am very likely setting the bar way too high.

At the same time, anyone committing perjury in a capital case, should face the same penalty that the defendant faces. This is serious stuff, we should NOT accept that cops lie, that mothers lie for sons, that girlfriends provide false alibis, that people will just lie under oath.

I can agree with the sentiment here, of course. But I don't think the answer to my concerns about the government administering the death penalty will be relieved by, well, more death penalties.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the death penalty. But I have what I think are very reasonable concerns about the government - or anyone for that matter - being in charge of it. At the very least, the death penalty should require an even higher standard of proof. Not "beyond reasonable doubt" - maybe more like "completely, utterly, absolutely beyond any doubt whatsoever."

[markshere2]

Perhaps in death penalty cases, we should use 3 separate juries of 6 each, keep them segregated from each other. If 3 different panels all independently conclude that the defendant did the crime, that seems pretty reliable.

Most of us saw "12 Angry Men", and saw the groupthink and the power of 1 persuasive person to sway them. (We also saw violations of the basic rules, with Henry Fonda going out & creating his own evidence.)

At the same time, anyone committing perjury in a capital case, should face the same penalty that the defendant faces. This is serious stuff, we should NOT accept that cops lie, that mothers lie for sons, that girlfriends provide false alibis, that people will just lie under oath.

AMEN.

CLEAN THE GENE POOL!

[wew3]

At this point, I'd be OK with store security capping thieves in clear cases. Use of force if they won't show a receipt. if they run, high-speed pursuit is authorized, with 100% of the blame placed on the perp, who rots in jail until all compensation is paid to victims.

Our economy dies unless people pay for what they use. It's bad enough the producers are taxed to hand cash to the parasites, it's worse if anything of value is only as safe as the chain holding it to something immovable. We're 95% of the way to anarchy when it comes to protecting the citizens, contrasted with Draconian punishments if you defy the Regime.

Vietnam appears to be following that principle. I love how the husband threw her under the bus:

Her husband, the Hong Kong property mogul, also denied wrongdoing. He said he didn’t understand the Vietnamese language and simply signed whatever his wife asked him to.


From the WSJ.

She Was Convicted of Making a Bank Her Personal ATM—and Sentenced to Death
Property tycoon’s case became one of most high profile in relentless anticorruption campaign in Vietnam dubbed ‘Blazing Furnace’

By Feliz Solomon and Trang Bui
Updated May 1, 2024 11:44 am ET

HANOI—The scheme described by prosecutors was brazen: Buy a controlling share of a bank, fill its ranks with loyalists, then pay them to lend you billions of dollars for real-estate deals.

Vietnam authorities say a property tycoon named Truong My Lan carried out the audacious plan for more than a decade. A court in the country sentenced the 67-year-old businesswoman to death in April in the biggest financial scandal the Southeast Asian nation has ever seen.

Vietnam’s famously secretive Communist government made an unusual show of punishing Lan. Her case became one of the most high profile in a relentless antigraft campaign dubbed the “Blazing Furnace,” launched about a decade ago by Communist Party leader Nguyen Phu Trong, who is now 80 years old. Thousands of officials have gone to prison. Two presidents, accused of allowing corruption, have been toppled.

The crackdown was meant to cleanse the image of the country, where corruption has become deeply entrenched, and attract more of the foreign investment that powers its growth—particularly as countries like the U.S. look to Vietnam as an alternative to China.

...

Lan was convicted of a fraud of staggering scale. Prosecutors said she bribed bank staff, appraisers and government officials to approve and cover up some $42 billion in fraudulent loans to shell companies she controlled. They said she then used the funds to carve out an empire of luxury hotels, waterfront condos, prime office and retail space in up-and-coming cities. Of that sum, $27 billion remains outstanding, which the state is trying to claw back.

Prosecutors brought various charges against her, including embezzlement to the tune of around $12 billion.

...

Lan was sentenced to death for embezzlement, 20 years imprisonment for bribery and another 20 years for violating lending regulations.

“The scale is truly unbelievable,” said Le Hong Hiep, a senior fellow at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. He said the public nature of the trial and the severity of the sentence are meant to send a message that the government, which had to take over the bank to stabilize it, won’t turn a blind eye to corruption in the private sector.

Complete story at https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/she-w...hare_permalink

[Daycrawler]

I just bought some EGO stuff from Lowes. The employee warned me, don't grab the boxes by the strap they are very sensitive. I guess you grabbed the box by the strap. All was well and I checked out.

Fast forward two weeks and I go in for the leaf blower. I carefully pick it up remembering the prior warning. Walk up to the register and WTF do I do? I grabbed the box out of the cart by the strap. Well lefts just say the lady at the register was clueless. The situation was briefly entertaining while she was in full panic mode.


So far I have the following from EGO:

Power station
Weed whacker
Two 400 Watt power inverters
Leaf blower
Lots of battery's
Chain saw (won on a prize drawing)