WaPo editorial board: people are scared of crime
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Lovely words but, if you keep voting for the same party that made this happen, you'll get more of it. Either vote different or quit whinning. |
Anonymous
Better trackers, ways the "brick" the car if it's stolen (like a cell phone). |
Anonymous
Basically, if car companies wanted to, they could install software that would allow for the car to be slowed down/stopped remotely. They could also "brick" it by wiping the car's computer system so it won't turn on. |
Anonymous
Not to mention, the DC crime reform bill would essentially allow free butt grabbing the next time you're on a crowded metro: The RCCA proposes adding the modifier “sexually” to certain conduct before it can constitute a “sexual act” or “sexual contact,” such that certain behavior would only constitute a sexual offense if the defendant has a “sexual” intent. See RCCA §§ 22A-101(118)(c), 22A-101(119)(B)(ii).[6] However, adding the modifier “sexually” would constitute an ill-advised change from current law, as it would unduly limit situations where the defendant’s conduct should qualify as a sexual act or sexual contact. Sexual violence can be about power and control, not sex or sexual gratification. When committing a sexual offense, a defendant may be motivated by a desire to be violent or to assert power over a victim, not necessarily to be sexually aroused. For example, if, at a fraternity or sorority hazing, a defendant publicly penetrated another person with an object, the defendant may not have been acting with a sexual desire, but may have been acting with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the victim. This would and should constitute a sexual offense. Further, even where a victim clearly experiences a sexual violation, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a defendant committed the offense for a sexual reason. For example, if a defendant grabs the vagina, breast, or buttocks of a stranger, that victim likely will feel sexually violated, and the conduct should constitute a sexual offense. Absent evidence of the defendant having an erection or outwardly manifesting sexual pleasure through words or actions—which is rare in many cases, particularly those involving sudden, brief, sexual assaults of strangers—the government may not be able to prove that the defendant’s actions were sexually arousing or gratifying. The government, however, would be able to show that, at a minimum, the defendant intended to humiliate, degrade, or harass the victim. |
Anonymous
| Disagreeing with the far extreme left doesn’t make someone a conservative. Even if the far extreme left describes a lot of people these days. |
Anonymous
... especially in the most entitled corners of dc. |
Anonymous
|
Aren’t DC residents just getting exactly what they voted for? Imagine that. |
Anonymous
100% this. |
Anonymous
DC wackos have gone so wacko that anyone displaying a bit of common sense, even if occasionally, is a "conservative." G-d save the city. |
Anonymous
This is stupid. The car would be on fire or crashed into a building before it was bricked. These kids are doing this for fun, not to sell the car off for parts. |
Anonymous
And give the government the kill switch. We know that wouldn't be abused the next time there is a lockdown or a riot. |
Anonymous
Is it really that hard to know who to side with here? |
Anonymous
Yes, they could do it. But also it would be an invitation for hackers to hack into and brick any car on the freeway. Will GM accept liability for continual operating system and firmware updates to these critical software packages? |
Anonymous
+1 You know you're on a liberal website when anything at the Post is considered "conservative." |
Anonymous
Yep. Sounds like DCUM. |