Reps from the social media platform, Yubo, says they’re “deeply saddened by this unspeakable loss” and that the killer’s account has “since been banned from the platform". It’s all good, right?

CNN
Salvador Ramos told girls he would rape them, showed off a rifle he bought, and threatened to shoot up schools in livestreams on the social media app Yubo, according to several users who witnessed the threats in recent weeks.

But those users -- all teens -- told CNN that they didn't take him seriously until they saw the news that Ramos had gunned down 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, this week.
Three users said they witnessed Ramos threaten to commit sexual violence or carry out school shootings on Yubo, an app that is used by tens of millions of young people around the world.

The users all said they reported Ramos' account to Yubo over the threats. But it appeared, they said, that Ramos was able to maintain a presence on the platform.”

---

A priest, a rabbit and a minister walk into a bar.
The bartender asks the rabbit "what'll ya have?"
The rabbit says "I dunno. I'm only here because of Autocorrect.


National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
As of July 16, 2022, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is now available by simply dialing 988. The previous number, 1-800-273-8255, will remain active.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

If only we could do something about mental health

---

Hurts like a bastid...

According to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas social media law would not allow Yubo to ban him even if they wanted to and that's the way it should be.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2022 07:24AM by Ted King.

Ban, no, but report the threats, sure. This goes for any social media platform.

If I'm out in public spouting off, it's my legal right. But the police certainly can show up and check me out if someone reports disturbing or violent verbal behavior. They do it already. Disturbing the Peace report.

So if social media sets up automatic alerts, with key words, to law enforcement or social services for a mental health wellness check, how is that any different? How would that be unconstitutional on a state of national level.

I am all for fixing the people, yet still protecting personal rights. This does both.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

“I am all for fixing the people, yet still protecting personal rights.”

People will always break. The best fix would be to eliminate that one personal right granted by Justice Scalia and his cohorts in Heller. Or repeal the 2nd Amendment and do a national gun buy back. This is one right that requires repeal.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy
“I am all for fixing the people, yet still protecting personal rights.”

People will always break. The best fix would be to eliminate that one personal right granted by Justice Scalia and his cohorts in Heller. Or repeal the 2nd Amendment and do a national gun buy back. This is one right that requires repeal.

And you can sidestep every politician from your city council up to the president, by having an overwhelming majority of the voters in enough states to vote the 2nd away, or to rewrite it.

That's not going to happen.

We could guarantee the right to abortion and tell the Supreme Court to go eff themselves by doing the same thing.

That's not going to happen.

You could capture 150 million votes, but getting that many different states isn't going to happen.


"The best fix would be to eliminate that one personal right granted by Justice Scalia and his cohorts in Heller. Or repeal the 2nd Amendment and do a national gun buy back. This is one right that requires repeal."

The Right was granted by the Constitution. The Supreme court just ruled it still stands and clarified an aspect of it.

How will removing firearms stop the all violence? There was violence, crime and murder since the dawn of mankind. Once, one dude killed his brother with the jawbone of an ass. Firearms are a VERY VERY recent invention.

We need to focus on why are people angry and can't restrain themselves.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2022 01:22AM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X
The Right was granted by the Constitution.

THAT is NOT the universally agreed interpretation!

Quote
Racer X
The Supreme court just ruled it still stands and clarified an aspect of it.

How conveniently forgotten…

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

And more:
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Dried Scott? Those were racist judges, not like those we have sitting on the court today. /s

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Back in the day, humans of African descent weren't considered human. At least not in the US.

Like I said. If enough people, in enough states want it, all 3 branches of the government can't stop it, and the Constitution evolves.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2022 02:29PM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X
Back in the day, humans of African descent weren't considered human. At least not in the US.

Like I said. If enough people, in enough states want it, all 3 branches of the government can't stop it, and the Constitution evolves.

The salient point is that the Supreme Court CAN overrule their previous decisions; District of Columbia v. Heller being an ideal candidate.

Oh sure. But I think every time it happens, it sort of erodes their credibility. They got it wrong, but we got it right. Whose to say the first time it was right, and NOW it's wrong?

Bypass all of them, and everyone gets a vote, not filtered through politicians, and see where it ends up.

It's not that many millions to have a state vote. Every state has one, and see what the numbers are.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
Oh sure. But I think every time it happens, it sort of erodes their credibility. They got it wrong, but we got it right. Whose to say the first time it was right, and NOW it's wrong?

Bypass all of them, and everyone gets a vote, not filtered through politicians, and see where it ends up.

It's not that many millions to have a state vote. Every state has one, and see what the numbers are.

Those numbers will be skewed just as is today's Senate. You would give Wyoming and Montana as much weight as California and New York?

Quote
Racer X
Oh sure. But I think every time it happens, it sort of erodes their credibility.

I don’t think you looked at my link above; here it is again. Note the quantity and range of years covered.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Quote
RgrF

Quote
Racer X
Oh sure. But I think every time it happens, it sort of erodes their credibility. They got it wrong, but we got it right. Whose to say the first time it was right, and NOW it's wrong?

Bypass all of them, and everyone gets a vote, not filtered through politicians, and see where it ends up.

It's not that many millions to have a state vote. Every state has one, and see what the numbers are.

Those numbers will be skewed just as is today's Senate. You would give Wyoming and Montana as much weight as California and New York?

Unfortunately, that is the way our government and the checks and balances were laid out. You either change the system, or work within it.

In a popular vote, places like LA, San Fran, NYC, Chicago and a few others dictates to the rest of the country. We don't have that. 3 counties control Washington State. That's our reality. Our countries reality is that we need to work with the system that is in place. It's imperfect, but we could be Russia or North Korea too.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]