Yes, but I still don’t believe an anonymous caller should have this kind of weight. If it’s not anonymous however it should.
But then there should also be a possibility of the caller facing charges on an obviously false accusation.
So the caller needs to be verified before going to extremes.
Maybe this was done properly, but I was thrown off by the handcuff bit, here it’s not normal to handcuff somebody who cooperates.
OK, here it’s the other way around, you don’t normally handcuff somebody unless they are arrested.
If they enter his home, and there is no evidence of a crime, then what is the basis for the arrest?
One thing is to investigate the truth of a call, another is to act on it as if it’s verbatim truth.
How is “someone called” enough evidence to enter peoples homes and arrest them?
These officers should lose their job,
That expired 20 years ago, oh such horror!! 🤣🤣🤣
But this is not even true, it’s just something Republicans say.
Wow that’s insane, even if it’s “just” about $20 in USD for the cheapest packs at $30 NZD.
Remember in 2016 there were LGBT for Trump?
It was absolutely insane!! No it doesn’t make sense, but there are always a percentage that are delusional, and sometimes they manage to convince others.
Probably there are people who actually believe they don’t deserve equal rights, this can be indoctrinated through religion, and religiousness in USA is VERY high.
There are probably also people who don’t see themselves as part of one of the groups even if they clearly are.
Remember the MAGA woman who was extremely surprised when her husband was expelled because he was an illegal alien? That’s how stupid people can be!
Because it’s “all the others” not “me” they think.
That doesn’t seem realistic. I don’t see how you can vote for Trump 2024, and claim to be a moderate.
Yes I agree, but only because they are a capitalists first and a human beings second.
They love him because they are morons, who don’t know they are engaging in self harm.
It’s sad that people of power, like for instance Elon Musk and the people behind Fox are so stupid they can’t see they are digging their own graves.
USA as a society is mentally ill, where sociopathy is often seen as a virtue. For instance denying poor people health care and food, denying pregnant women with potentially lethal complications the right to abortion. Allowing (white) people to kill (black) people without reason based on stand your ground rules. Refusing stricter gun rules despite countless school shootings. Denying workers a living wage. The list of sociopathy permeating US society goes on and on.
Now I know that despite this, about half the population see the problems. There are also Americans that fight this, and are world class people. But the other half, somehow confuse Trump’s sociopathy with strength, and admire him for it. Yes this is how it is in USA, sociopathy is widely not only accepted but admired, people want Trump to hurt people, the poor, emigrants, people of color, LGBT. Many Americans want all these people to suffer, for no other reason than their mere existence. Somehow this is OK to even extend to women in general too! As Trump is clearly a major misogynist.
If you are a normal well functioning person, it’s near impossible to grasp that such hate can be this widespread, and Trump is fueling it, and before him Republicans have been fueling it for decades.
This makes all the hateful illegal stuff Trump does nearly irrelevant, people simply don’t care, his followers just want to see the people they hate burn. It’s not that Trump isn’t called out at times, it’s just that it doesn’t really make a difference.
That only explains the cultists, and I doubt the entire media industry is in the cult.
You are 100% right, the downvote must be some creationist.
Good question.
It’s a thing that evolved among humans over millions of years. Men evolved bigger stronger muscles, because women are more vulnerable during pregnancy, and infants need their mother to survive.
Making men more available for the more dangerous task of protection and hunting.
So by the numbers, we evolved those roles, because it improved chances of survival for the group.
Males are more aggressive, because it actually help the group to survive short term attacks and hunting for food, and women are on average more cautious because that helps infants and the group survive long term.
It all boils down to survival of our ancestors.
Yes obviously there are women serial killers too, I never claimed there isn’t, I just claimed women are less prone to violence, which is a damned hard statistical fact.
The thing with serial killing, is that it is very difficult to hide.
Some of the hardest cases can be for instance a nurse at a hospital killing in a way that appear natural.
But even that gets detected quicker than you would think, because while 1 killing can be a fluke death, already at 2 killings, it can throw off the statistics and cause an investigation. With 3 it’s almost impossible the incidents can’t be tracked back to the person who did it.
An other situation can be a woman who kill their husband for inheritance, and then does it a second time. That second time is usually enough for alarm bells to sound for families of the deceased. Resulting in more thorough police investigations.
Obviously it can happen they get away with it, but I’m confident, that by far the most serial killers are caught, because it’s insanely difficult to hide multiple killings.
it’s impossible to know why more serials are men
I disagree, it’s part of a pattern where men are generally more violent than women.
For all we know, the numbers could be the same, and women are just better at getting away with it.
No this is not likely, since serial killers are generally caught, it’s very difficult to hide multiple killings.
This is not just modern age, this is how it has been for as long as our knowledge reach back. Women are less prone to violence than men.
Some say testosterone makes men more aggressive, but the problem is that the difference in aggressive behavior can be observed before sexual hormones kick in.
Another possibility could be social structures.
This article says there are 2 theories:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/roots-aggression
One being male competition for reproduction, and the other social.
Problem is IMO, that it doesn’t swing with behavioral studies of children, that to me seem to exclude both as the fundamental course for higher male aggression and tendency towards violence.
Seems to me it goes deeper, yes we do have competition for reproduction, but so do women, and women can be quite competitive and aggressive about it too, but generally in a less violent way.
A third more likely possibility IMO, is that in a society where mankind consisted of small nomadic groups, the men had a role of protecting the group, while women protected the children.
This role for the male, needs the male to be less prone to fear of consequences of violence, giving the ability to confront danger, where women protecting the children were probably more prone to evade danger.
So yes you could say it’s based on a social role, but that role is not just learned, it’s a genetically encoded social role, that is then reinforced by social structure and hormones. Obviously women have the ability to take the role if needed, because we are sentient beings with ability to learn traits.
Now there is a curiosity in that women have actually become relatively MORE prone to violence for the past 50 years. And the above hypothesis does not explain that.
As I see it, there must be new factors playing a role that did not exist previously. I suspect it could be an increase of man made hormone like chemicals in the environment, that influence our behavior.
Yes, but then there’s the matter of HOW they respond.