Jump to content

Menu

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
  • Posts

    1,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. 7 minutes ago, Katy said:

    If you live in a stand your ground state, don't go around physically confronting or threatening people, or they have every right to kill you the second a reasonable person would think they were in danger. In this case, it might have been self defense in non stand your ground states because he was on the ground and didn't have an ability to retreat.

     

    I think even in SYG states the fact the other person appears to be backing up would be enough to consider that a reasonable person would not feel they are still in danger.  In addition he was pushed but not punched or kicked, even when he went to the ground, which would indicate there was not an imminent assault.

    • Like 5
  2. 11 minutes ago, goldberry said:

     

    It seems crazy to me to base a law on something entirely subjective.  The sheriff basically said, the guy said he felt threatened, so nothing else is relevant.   How does someone's feeling exempt a person from the law?

     

    Because what constitutes self defense is also determined by what is in the law. FWIW this isn't a component only of stand your grand laws. Most laws on justifiable use of deadly force rely on someone acting on their *reasonable* belief that they are or another are in imminent danger.  The SYG laws differ as they do not require the person to consider if they can safely retreat. 

    IMO the issue is that what is considered reasonable is too broad.

     

    • Like 6
  3. 5 hours ago, Night Elf said:

    This is my Aspie. I don't know if he'll wear low socks. He's used to wearing ankle socks. He may not like how they feel. I wish he'd let me buy him a pair of white shoes. Even then, ankle socks look nerdy but at least they'd match his shoes.

     

    Anything dark will work.  My boys wore either black, gray or dark blue.

  4. In general insurance follows the car, not the driver. If someone is driving your car their insurance can possibly come into play as secondary coverage.  I believe (not 100% certain) that if they are named on the policy then their insurance cannot come in as secondary (that sounds right but I am not sure if it is correct/varies by state but I don't have time to look it up).

    The lady driving your kids is a habitual user of your vehicle. If you did not add her and there was an accident, your insurance company could deny the claim.  And yes, your adding her only covers her on vehicles under your policy.

    • Like 1
  5. Amazon gave us a notice last year when we had saved enough in shipping to justify having Prime.  I think it took us until around October (we aren't big Amazon users), but combined with the streaming it is worth it.

    DMIL has figured out having family with Prime is the same as having Prime lol.  We order and ship to her and she settles up when we visit.  For an 80+ year old with limited tech skills she has figured out a lot of life hacks.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  6.  

     I am naturally suspicious of people who want to separate children from their parents on overnight trips. I would send an email worded something like this to the coach, with a cc to the league organizer:

     

    Just some clarifications:

    1.) Cooperstown hosts a national tournament, not a league.  There is no "league organizer" to CC.

     

    2.)  The Cooperstown facility is set up like a camp.  There are 3 adult coaches/chaperones per team in the camp.  They don't allow additional adults both due to space and security.

     

    3.) The coach cannot give permission for additional adults to stay in the athletes area.  If her DH is not one of the coaches, then it is not an option for him as I doubt the coach of the travel team would make someone else quit as a coach to accommodate a parent.

     

    To the OP:

    Your DH will have a lot more interaction with your DS than you seem to think, but it is an intense tournament and there are lots of games.  The teams usually do a lot together in the down time.

     

    • Like 3
  7. Here's me showing my paranoid side...You might also want to think about him quitting for liability reasons.  Let's say someone has a heart attack in the pool and dies.  Even if there was no way to save them, the police, insurance companies (of the individual and the facility), and the family will be looking at where to place possible blame.  His work record will come into the record, and everyone will assume he fell asleep or was inattentive.  There's no way that ends well for him, personally and possibly financially.  

     

    They would sue the facility which has insurance/deeper pockets, not the 17/18 year old.

    • Like 2
  8. I bet that's what'd happen if you just send an over-payment. 

     

    How about sending a "regular" payment a month ahead of the payoff date, that is equal to double a regular payment (or whatever the last two scheduled payments would be)? That'd presumably be a bit over your ultimate payoff amount since less time to accrue interest. 

     

    They'll process it and send you a tiny refund, probably. It'd save you the wire fee.

     

    Actually that may not happen, at least not without issue.  There is a specific process to getting a home mortgage cleared, part of which includes getting a payoff quote and sending in a wire transfer/cashier's check.  I strongly advise following the exact instructions sent by the bank or there is the distinct possibility of either an additional auto draft, or if that is shut off, a "missed" payment on a negative balance.

     

    We had this occur with a 2nd mortgage in the past and it was a pain.  (In our defense the payoff paperwork didn't show up and we assumed the last payment being more than the payoff would keep us from having issues. Wrong.)

    • Like 4
  9. The number of deaths due to accidental injuries for children has fallen significantly over time.

     

    https://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=unintentional-injuries\

    Excerpts:

    "Between 1981 and 1992, the rate of deaths due to injuries among all children ages birth through 19 fell by nearly 36 percent."

     

    "Rates declined at a slower pace between 1992 and 2007, falling from 17 to 14 deaths per 100,000 population. However, between 2007 and 2010 there were greater declines—a drop of 25 percent over three years. After 2010, fatalities from unintentional injuries continued to decline, but at a slower rate. In 2012, there were 10 child and youth deaths per 100,000 population caused by unintentional injuries."

     

     

  10. Went back to the original post. Her daughter was not asked if SHE had bullied anybody, but if anybody had tried bullying HER.

     

    Answering "Have you ever been bullied?" with "Bullying is stupid" doesn't make much sense. I don't see another way to understand that exchange.

     

    Except what she actually said was:

    She snorted and said “is this question because of something you read on your board? My friends aren’t into that, Mom. That stuff is stupid..â€.

     

    Taking out the "my friends aren't into that" changes the meaning a great deal.

  11. And some teens are into sexually assaulting others. And generally, the bullying and the sexual assault are two sides of the same coin. Either way, you're not likely to tell your mom about it.

     

    And you know what? I'm not interpreting anything "oddly", as seen by the fact that many people agree with me.

     

    You might disagree with this understanding of what was said, but it's clearly something that multiple people think is a reasonable interpretation of the words.

     

    What seems odd to me is that the part you bolded has little to do with what you said. It looks like you were specifying the part where I pointed out that if her daughter DID like to bully people online she's not going to volunteer that information to Mom... but instead you talked about how this has nothing to do with victims. Not seeing the relevance between those two sets of text. Did you mean to bold that part?

     

    I personally interpret people making the same odd interpretations as hive group think so it doesn't mean anything to me.

     

    You still haven't explained why Jean's daughter saying her friends aren't into bullying is diminishing victims.

     

  12. ChocolateReign, you're making a distinction that doesn't make sense.

     

    Cyberbullying is something they can commit OR be victims of. Sexual assault is something they can commit OR be victims of. Obviously neither of these things happens without both a victim AND a perpetrator.

     

    Edit: And not to put too fine a point on it, but while I'm sure her daughter is telling the truth, the fact remains that most people who are "into" bullying and harassing and assaulting others don't exactly admit it to their parents. "Oh, yeah, Mom, my friends and I love making other people feel bad!"

     

    For that matter, many victims also don't tell their parents, even when directly questioned.

     

    You are interpreting the daughter's comment rather oddly.  Some teens are into bullying others. She said that bullying is stupid and her friends are not into it.

     

    That doesn't say anything about victims of bullying.  I simply cannot see how what the daughter said is controversial or diminishes victims.

    • Like 4
  13. How about this:

     

    I asked dd16 if she had ever had any one haze her. She snorted and said “is this question because of something you read on your board? My friends aren’t into that, Mom. That stuff is stupid..â€.

     

    What is implied about hazing and who it happens to?

     

    Much better.

     

    Now why is the daughter saying hazing is stupid and her friends are not into it so awful?

  14. I replaced "cyber bullying or anyone suggest or try posting anything inappropriate" with inappropriately touch or sexually assault.I

     

    I replaced the forms of abuse.

     

    Cyberbullying is something Jean's daughter and friends can commit, but she is staying they don't participate in it.

     

    Sexual assault is something they would be victims of, and therefore they do not choose participation.

    • Like 1
  15. If I wrote:

     

    I asked dd16 if she had ever had any one inappropriately touch her or sexually assault her. She snorted and said “is this question because of something you read on your board? My friends aren’t into that, Mom. That stuff is stupid..â€.

     

    What conclusions would be drawn? Would people see the problem with this line of thinking then?

     

    That doesn't make sense as assault isn't something you are "in to" so your comparison is faulty.

  16. FWIW Ally Bank seems to have the best short-term CD rates I have seen.  2% on 12 month, 1.85% on 9, and 1.75% on 6.  I think the 12 month does have a high minimum to get that rate but the other two are available for $5k deposits.

     

    I personally would not hold any CDs with a maturity beyond 12 months in the current interest rate environment.

    • Like 1
  17. The gun show loophole is a pretty big myth in the world of gun sales. I've bought countless guns at shows. Every.single.one required me to do a background check. It may not be required, but I've never experienced not having a background check run and I've been at shows all around the country. Believe it or not, the dealers don't want to sell to people who aren't supposed to get one. They don't want to be the guy that sold the gun to the mass shooter. They really don't.

     

    Yes, reporting needs to get better. Law enforcement needs to take tips about dangerous students seriously. We as a society need to get better about noticing these problems and making sure the people get the help they need. Frankly we need to stop talking about bullying and then doing nothing to stop it. I don't think we'll do it because it requires a bit more thought than just banning guns, but it really needs to be done.

     

    Some states do require background checks at gun shows.  Others do not.  Federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks.

     

    There are also no requirements for private party sales.

     

    And yes, I have friends who have made purchase at gun shows without background checks.  DH also was able to do so but ended up not making the purchase.

  18. Because my FB feed for the past couple of weeks has been full of how we need tighter gun regulations because our kids aren't safe at school. I don't actually oppose the other 49 states adopting my state's strict gun regulations (including background checks for private party sales) but I think people are being totally naive if they imagine doing so will actually stop mass shootings.

     

    You are making a leap in logic that seems unfounded.

     

    Someone saying they believe tighter gun regulations will make our schools safer /= them believing they will stop all mass shootings.

  19. I don’t have a problem with expanding background checks, I just have doubts that doing so will be successful in preventing mass shootings. So many of the perpetrators either used someone else’s weapon (Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters), didn’t get flagged when they should have been (the TX church shooter), etc.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

     

    Part of the expansion can (and should) include fixing some of the issues we have with reporting.  Of course the system we have would likely be better/less piecemeal if a certain 3 letter organization had not fought background checks rabidly back in the 90s.

     

    FWIW I don't believe anyone has claimed expanding background checks would eliminate all mass shootings so I don't see why you keep bringing that up.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...