I was considering a while ago to use greyhound next year when I'm in college. I decided that it wouldn't be good, but jeez, I didn't expect it would have been that scary. Glad I'm not going to.
NAIROBI (AFP) — Five Dutch women participating in a charity project in western Kenya were gang-raped and robbed of their valuables, police said Monday.
The women, aged between 17 and 26, were attacked last Thursday in a school in Kakamega, around 250 kilometres (155 miles) northwest of the capital Nairobi, Western Province police chief Francis Munyambu told AFP.
He said the women were in Kenya to participate in a school building project.
"We understand they were gang-raped by a gang of about 10 men," Munyambu said, adding that two security guards at the project, a guide and a driver had been arrested.
"The guards who were on duty at the time said they were tied up and beaten before the gangsters proceeded to the house where the women were sleeping, but we believe these guards are accomplices," he added.
The gang also stole satellite phones, cameras, money and other valuables.
Munyambu said detectives were in contact with foreign exchange bureaus in the region to check if the attackers attempt to change some 600 euros stolen from the women.
Earlier this month, an elderly Canadian couple on a charity mission in Kenya's western Mount Elgon region was brutally attacked and robbed by gangsters who also sexually assaulted the wife of the 70-year-old Canadian man.
Two security guards were arrested over the July 9 attack.
"These guards are notorious in collaborating with gangsters to attack foreigners," Munyambu said.
Goddamnit, can we have some happy fucked up stories for a change?
No. Those can be found in the somewhat amusing news thread, or in the fucking awesome news thread. This is fucked-up news thread. God, what good is it to spend all this time categorizing news if you're just gonna do whatever you want? Prick.
This thread often makes me scared for my freaking life. Sure, they don't take place near me, but JEEZ! There's so freaking fucked up, it makes me wonder how possible it is around me!
Well, remember Texas has a good track record of killing people who break the law. Hopefully that'll serve as a deterrant. Doesn't Texas also have a Death-Row-Express-Lane if someone in a heinous crime has been ID'd by 3 separate people? Or something like that?
I dunno about the death-row-express lane, but having been raised in Texas I do agree with being able to shoot someone who barges into your house and is trying to attack you, and I also agree that there are some sick people out there who shouldn't even waste the space of Texas' overcrowded prisons and get the death penalty. That article earlier in this thread talking about the man who raped a girl for like a day? He would be one of them. I don't think that happened in Texas, but if it DID, there would be no question.
yea, in your home is one thing, the growing trend of "stand-your-ground" laws, which started with Florida, is a little disturbing. For those who don't know here's a summary from a pro-stand your ground site.
In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
aka, if i'm walking down the street, reasonably think you're going to commit a crime or hurt me or someone else, I can cap yo' ass with immunity.
:yuk:
HELENA-WEST HELENA, Ark. - Officers armed with military rifles have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.
Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty. The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost.
"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."
The area under curfew, in what used to be a West Helena neighborhood, sits among abandoned homes and occupied residences in disrepair.
White signs on large blue barrels warn those passing by that the area remains under curfew by order of Mayor James Valley. The order was scheduled to end at 3 p.m. Tuesday, but Valley said the city council's vote would allow police to have the same powers across Helena-West Helena.
Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons, Fielder said. The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights. Other officers carry short-barrel shotguns. Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.
"We've had people call us, expressing concern for their children," Fielder said. "They had to sleep on the floor, because of stray bullets."
Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.
However, such stops likely violate residents' constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting. Because of that, Dickson said any convictions coming from the arrests likely would be overturned.
"The residents of these high-crime areas are already victims," she said. "They're victims of what are happening in the neighborhoods, they're victims of fear. But for them to be subject to unlawful stops and questioning ... that is not going to ultimately going to help this situation."
The council rejected Dickson's claims, at one point questioning the Little Rock-based attorney if she'd live in a neighborhood they described as under siege by wild gunfire and gangs.
"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."
The curfew is the second under the mayor's watch since the rival cities of Helena and West Helena merged in 2006. That year, Valley set a nightly citywide curfew after a rash of burglaries and other thefts.
Police in Hartford, Conn., began enforcing a nightly curfew for youths after recent violence, including a weekend shooting that killed a man and wounded six young people.
Helena-West Helena, with 15,000 residents at the edge of Arkansas' eastern rice fields and farmland, is in one of the nation's poorest regions, trailing even parts of Appalachia in its standard of living.
In the curfew area, those inside the homes in the watch area peered out of door cracks Tuesday as police cruisers passed. They closed the doors afterward.
Video Games Can't be Blamed for Humanity's Problems
Sorry, but I refuse to believe that video games can be the scapegoat for all of our problems. Call me a video game apologist or just another gamer hack, but it's true. Why should the video game industry be blamed for the problems all of humanity faces?
According to reports, Thailand has halted the sale of Grand Theft Auto 4 after a teenage boy confessed to robbing and murdering a taxi driver in an attempt to recreate a scene from the game.
"We are sending out requests today to outlets and shops to pull the games off their shelves and we will replace them with other games," Sakchai Chotikachinda, sales and marketing director of New Era Interactive Media, told Reuters.
Always one to jump on the bandwagon, Reuters found an anti-video game hack to tell us all that it's only going to get worse, but we also should watch out for those GTAIV-wannabes.
"This time-bomb has already exploded and the situation could get worse," Ladda Thangsupachai, director of the ministry's Cultural Surveillance Centre, told Reuters. "Today it is a cab driver, but tomorrow it could be a video game shop owner."
Millions of copies of GTAIV have been sold around the world and when one crazed kid decides he wants to rob and kill a taxi driver, we need to stop selling the title for fear of more disturbed people resorting to violence? That doesn't make sense.
Sorry, but I fail to understand how a video game showing pixelated violence is somehow worse than a movie showing even worse violence. I know, I know, "it's the participatory element you're forgetting." Uh, no.
The fact of the matter is this: more than 99 percent of individuals playing video games don't kill people, don't want to reenact what they see in a video game, and don't perform these kinds of acts. Sure, it may be difficult for the average anti-gamer to fully comprehend when they don't hear the other side of the story, but it's true: video games are not the root of all evil and they shouldn't be the scapegoat when people try to make them evil.
This is just another case of an obviously disturbed person acting out in a way that doesn't fall in line with the norm. So he blamed it on GTAIV. Are we now supposed to believe that the video game is telling kids to go out and kill taxi drivers?
A dog told the Son of Sam to kill people. Should we start killing off every dog we see for fear that dogs are sending us subliminal messages telling us to kill other people?
It doesn't make any sense.
It's easy to blame video games when we don't want to blame ourselves, but it needs to stop. This person obviously suffers from some unique problems that the vast majority of gamers simply don't. I played violent video games all my life. You don't see me running out and finding the nearest taxi driver to kill, do you?
Each and every individual is different and there's no telling what might set them off. Sometimes it's a cheating wife, other times it's a dog, and still other times it's a video game. Until we start eliminating every cheating wife and dog in the world, I don't think we should eliminate violent video games.
Instead, let's try for some common sense.
Twenty years ago, it was movies. Thirty years ago, rock music. Previous century, century before that, books. Every new kind of media. "Books, novels, corrupting our youth!" "What's the problem today? Our youth don't read enough books." Twenty years from now the source of all of society's problems will be that kids aren't playing enough video games. I can't wait to see what causes some idiot to say that.
But really, if a kid is killing a taxi driver over video games, he could easily find some other reason to do a horrible thing. He has bigger problems than a violent game.
A 7-year-old Chinese girl was not good-looking enough for the Olympics opening ceremony, so another little girl with a pixie smile lip-synched "Ode to the Motherland," a ceremony official said.
What, they couldn't find a Chinese girl that was cute and could sing? In a country with 1.3 billion people? Chinese officials apparently are rather lazy.
This has always been interesting to me. Can any violation of constitutional rights ever be considered justified? I know about slippery slopes and how a 24-hour curfew can easily become something worse (the curfew being extended is evidence it's already started), but there doesn't seem to be many options for these people. When gangs have AK-47's and people are afraid to sleep in their beds because a random bullet can kill them in their sleep, the situation requires dire action. The way the town is described in the article, it sounds almost like a war zone to me and I can't think of how anything short of this kind of curfew could ever make it a better place.
"Today it is a cab driver, but tomorrow it could be a video game shop owner."
I fail to see how that was the first horrific example that cam to mind for a murder... It'd be ironic i guess, if you buy the "video games = cause for violence" story. Wouldn't like... tomorrow the president be more scary? oh... well... i suppose that depends on who the president is.
aka, if i'm walking down the street, reasonably think you're going to commit a crime or hurt me or someone else, I can cap yo' ass with immunity.
:yuk:
You're completely not understanding the concept. Lawful self-defense has existed as legal figure for centuries, as has unlawful self-defense. Basically, the judge has to determine if you acted reasonably, based on whether you faced actual life-threatening aggression or not. So no. you can't just cap someone while on the street if you think they are going to commit a crime.
This has always been interesting to me. Can any violation of constitutional rights ever be considered justified?
About constitutional rights, there are cases in which they can and must be violated, in order to permit another constitutional right to be exercised. This is obvious, because there are always cases in which one constitutional principle is in contradiction with another, and there's gotta be a way to solve the issue.
In this cases, there's a technique through which judges resolve what constitutional right is the most important in a given case. However, this only works for that case, because in another different one the different context might make the other constitutional right more important.
A perfect example is something that happened in Argentina, I think: a 8-year old kid got in a car accident and needed a blood transfusion within the next 8 hours to stay alive. His parents were Jehovah's witnesses and, based on their freedom of cult, denied the transfusions. The doctors asked the Constitutional Court to issue an order to permit the transfusion, because the constitutional right of life and health was held higher than the right of religious freedom.
Comments
No. Those can be found in the somewhat amusing news thread, or in the fucking awesome news thread. This is fucked-up news thread. God, what good is it to spend all this time categorizing news if you're just gonna do whatever you want? Prick.
aka, if i'm walking down the street, reasonably think you're going to commit a crime or hurt me or someone else, I can cap yo' ass with immunity.
:yuk:
Edit: It's comforting to know that not all members of the media are idiots.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10005871-17.html
Twenty years ago, it was movies. Thirty years ago, rock music. Previous century, century before that, books. Every new kind of media. "Books, novels, corrupting our youth!" "What's the problem today? Our youth don't read enough books." Twenty years from now the source of all of society's problems will be that kids aren't playing enough video games. I can't wait to see what causes some idiot to say that.
But really, if a kid is killing a taxi driver over video games, he could easily find some other reason to do a horrible thing. He has bigger problems than a violent game.
What, they couldn't find a Chinese girl that was cute and could sing? In a country with 1.3 billion people? Chinese officials apparently are rather lazy.
I fail to see how that was the first horrific example that cam to mind for a murder... It'd be ironic i guess, if you buy the "video games = cause for violence" story. Wouldn't like... tomorrow the president be more scary? oh... well... i suppose that depends on who the president is.
You're completely not understanding the concept. Lawful self-defense has existed as legal figure for centuries, as has unlawful self-defense. Basically, the judge has to determine if you acted reasonably, based on whether you faced actual life-threatening aggression or not. So no. you can't just cap someone while on the street if you think they are going to commit a crime.
About constitutional rights, there are cases in which they can and must be violated, in order to permit another constitutional right to be exercised. This is obvious, because there are always cases in which one constitutional principle is in contradiction with another, and there's gotta be a way to solve the issue.
In this cases, there's a technique through which judges resolve what constitutional right is the most important in a given case. However, this only works for that case, because in another different one the different context might make the other constitutional right more important.
A perfect example is something that happened in Argentina, I think: a 8-year old kid got in a car accident and needed a blood transfusion within the next 8 hours to stay alive. His parents were Jehovah's witnesses and, based on their freedom of cult, denied the transfusions. The doctors asked the Constitutional Court to issue an order to permit the transfusion, because the constitutional right of life and health was held higher than the right of religious freedom.
a man after my own heart, however it had to be tweaked a bit. Carry on, my wayward son! tally ho!