LE - Law Enforcement, ND - Negligent Discharge

The thing is a very obvious death trap to anyone that knows simple physics. There are videos testing what happens when a Cybertruck hits a hard wall at certain speeds. That thing didn't crumple at all until speeds greater than 35 mph. And even then it only barely crumples at all. The damage it could produce hitting another vehicle would be catastrophic and fatal.

K. And what does this have to do with Trump being a pedo?

You're jumping through a lot of hoops to portray Joss as aggressive so you can justify his murder. Let's start here:

1.) All three dogs were found

Nothing in the article confirms they only had three dogs. On top of that, other sources you posted said they only found 2 dogs. Including this video from earlier today that is even more recent than the article that alleges they lost their three which is from Janurary. We also have no idea if there were more than 3 dogs, because the term they found all three dogs isn't anywhere in your source. Simply that they found 3, and that number isn't even likely correct. (Edit: On re-read, Sources 2, 3 and 4 all cite 2 dogs being lost in the fire. Did you even read your own sources and confirmed you had the correct number before you started spouting off?)

2.) 3.) What caused the fire?

This is a weird, semantic, pedantic, hill to die on. The police themselves say they don't know what caused the fire. If it was an accidental fire from a propane heater, grill, etc, it would be incredibly easy to determine if that was the origin point of the fire. The fact they couldn't determine the cause is either a sign to their utter incompetence, or that there was foul play. Even your own source for 4 had this quote:

I have classified this fire to be undetermined in nature at this time but cannot rule out human involvement intentional or unintentional

They already knew there was a heat source, but they can't confirm the fire started from there? That's extremely suspect. Meanwhile getting away with arson is fairly easy due to the nature of fire. Given these circumstances, you needs a lot more evidence to prove Jonathan Joss was the person responsible for his house fire. On top of that, Joss' house wasn't insured. So it's not like he or his husband caused it for the insurance payout.

4.) 5.) Previous incidents.

He was loud and brazen in his neighborhood, likely because of the abuse he received. However there is zero evidence that Jonathan ever aimed his crossbow at his neighbors house. The only evidence for this claim from a few anonymous sources, and the fact they found a crossbow on his property during a search. The pitchfork wielding was because he found his dog dead. Again, nothing in your first text proves whatsoever that Jonathan didn't find his third dog. Or even that Jonathan only had 3 dogs. Considering even the NBC source says 2 dogs found, that's 2 sources to your 1 saying otherwise. So it seems like there were only 2 dogs found.

6.) SAFFE investigation

First off, I'd like to see any evidence to the claim that Johnathan would shoot guns pr fire his crossbow from his property. I haven't seen a single substantiated claim that has ever happened. Second, the crossbow incident can't be substantiated whatsoever either. Jonathan had a crossbow, but there's zero evidence he ever brought it to his neighbors house. Plus it's weird that you bring that up like it happened repeatedly. Even if it did happen, which again there's zero evidence to it having happened, it only happened once.

And literally none of your sources ever once ask or answer where all of this animosity stemmed from. It very much seems like it could be a hate-crime, and its weird that you're in multiple threads railing against Joss. You have a weird vendetta it seems.

Not reading all that. Fuck off, transphobe

I've never seen people care this much about Micheal Phelps biological atheletic advantage. That alone tells me that this argument is disingenuous and a way to be transphobic in a public way.

There are actual verified cases of olympic tier athletes winning because of their biological make-up. And yet the only time biological advantage is brought up is to shill tranphobic talking points. You don't even have to be trans to be accused of being trans. These same people claiming to be advocates of women's sport are the same people who will falsely accuse biological women of being biological men

It's both. Kids suck and can be clique-like over the dumbest things. But these corporations also realize the amount they can make when their brand is a "status symbol", and they purposely market around that.

Cheney doesn't deserve tact. All he deserves is a piss-soaked grave.

There is objectively a genocide occuring in Palestine, caused by Israel, against the Palestinian people. Even the UN says that it's a genocide.

Israel also funded Hamas for years prior to the kidnappings. They used Hamas as an excuse, after years of funding them, to manufacture consent for their genocide against every Palestinian. Israel has even started operations in the West Bank following their "ceasefire" in Gaza. Proving that this is about the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian within Palestine.

You're being pedantic. The original point is referring to how indoctrinating the pledge of allegiance can be. If you're being made to do something since you're a very young kid and risk being scolded when you don't do it: you're essentially being forced.

Looks like a witch hunt

Tate has multiple sexual assault suits and charges in multiple countries and has a history of violence against women at his own admission.. Hell, he even claimed the biggest reason for moving to Romania is to avoid rape charges.

He is a raging misogynistic piece of shit that is almost certainly guilty of things like rape. Regardless of the incompetence of the Romanian legal system.

Legally, schools and teachers can't force a student to perform the pledge of allegiance. But it's also taught so early in school that most students don't even question it as something to do.

Anectdotally: I was regularly performing the pledge of allegiance (literally said every morning of school) since kindergarten in the US. Also anecdotally: I've literally seen a teacher scold student(s) for not performing the pledge of allegiance. The latter case may not be as common; but the former definitely is common in the US.

My life choices have been good. After all: I'm not a callous cunt like you.

Fuck off nazi

Unless the arguments they had stemmed from Jonathan being gay. Which is the claim his husband is making.

DC Police helped them break into the US Institute of Peace back in March, 2025. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a common occurrence that wasn't reported on as much as it should have.

These crack downs on erotica have been occuring in China. Are you implying they aren't happening, or that this specific one hasn't happened?

The lack of it being mentioned by the police is a good reason to believe that Tazers and Pepper Spray were not used. Otherwise they would have lead with that when talking about this case. On top of that, the officer in question shot this man in the back. Three times. And I'm supposed to believe that all non-lethal means to stop this man were exhausted? I highly doubt it.

And just because a person does wrong and deserves punishment does not mean they deserve to be murdered by the state. This person had the potential to be dangerous. That doesn't mean that he gets an automatic death sentence because some cop decided so. And I'd very much argue unloading a gun in a population center is far more dangerous then any agitated man with a knife.

I may not have been there personally, but you weren't either. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as valid to be critical of the police in question as I have been. After all: you've been doing essentially the exact same thing by defending the police's actions without any evidence that they exhausted all other non-lethal means.

News pundit claims that a proposed new law would make it 1) "illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters", and that 2) "it is legal to shoplift" in California.

What can we make of these claims?

Let's start with claim one. This claim is specifically referencing Senate Bill 553 in California. The bill has so far cleared the Senate and is currently working it's way through committees within the house.

I have not done a thorough reading of the bill, but there is only two parts I see that reference shoplifting, and only one in relation to confronting shoplifters. That reads:

6401.9 (b) (12) Provisions prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.

It would prevent companies from having policies that would try and stop shoplifters/active shooters. Anecdotally, I work in retail and it's my store's policy to let all shoplifters be. I don't live in California but a southern state. So even with the politics of the area it isn't encouraged to confront shoplifters.

And in my (unasked for) opinion realistically it's just not worth it; even if they end up stealing hundred or thousands of dollars in merchandise it's not worth my life to fight over it. Especially at the wage I make.

For part two, it's entirely hyperbole to completely factitious. Shoplifting in California is illegal and always has been to my knowledge. In order for it to qualify as felony shoplifting it has to be over $950 as of 2014. But it is still a misdemeanor if it's any amount up to $950. Here is the specific text for those interested.

Jesus fucking christ. She died in a genocide you sack of shit.