What A Moto Robbery Looks Like

[lamarque]

He should be in jail, until this country doesn’t start threatening his crimes with the seriousness they deserve, this kind of crimes will get more common. I know people that have the same approach as Matias and bajo cero and people like them are the ones that keep this country from taking off. How can you justify him not been kept in jail?? He is truly a danger to the society.

There is no excuse for him.

 

[Joe]

He should be in jail, until this country doesn’t start threatening his crimes with the seriousness they deserve, this kind of crimes will get more common. I know people that have the same approach as Matias and bajo cero and people like them are the ones that keep this country from taking off. How can you justify him not been kept in jail?? He is truly a danger to the society.

There is no excuse for him.

Perhaps this thinking derives from the misguided belief that allowing crime is a form of compassion for the poor. That this is one of the few remaining ways the poor can survive in the cruel world controlled by monied interest. And that it is only fair that the wealthy are at times made to feel the pain of loss. In other words: payback.

I say misguided, because it is the poor, that are most often the victims of violent crime. And when the poor suffer from violent crime and loss of property they endure extreme hardships: hunger, loss of shelter, etc.

The encouragement of this type of criminal activity is going to burden the poor with even greater hardships...

 

[khairyexpat]

The encouragement of this type of criminal activity is going to inflict the poor with even greater hardships...

Reasonable to see that poverty could lead to crime.
To accept crime as a solution to poverty, ... is grossly misguided.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I thought the US was the only country where criminals could get guns.

No, it's the only place they're allowed to use them.

 

[ElQueso]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]"You seem (words can be imprecise, I may be taking you wrong) to be [/background]feeling[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] more irritation with this yanqui than outrage at what the thief did"[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]So the offensive term "yangui" now extends to Canadians?[/background]
[...]

That was my quote, for those who didn't attach it to me in Sergio's post.

I was using the word for effect related to words used by bajo_cero, and given that I have heard this term erroneously applied to North Americans in general I judged it apropos to the moment, within context of the rest of my words .

 

[ajoknoblauch]

That was my quote, for those who didn't attach it to me in Sergio's post.

I was using the word for effect related to words used by bajo_cero, and given that I have heard this term erroneously applied to North Americans in general I judged it apropos to the moment, within context of the rest of my words .

The word yanqui bothers me far less for its occasional pejorativeness than for its inaccuracy - the unrepentant descendents of Southern slaveholders would certainly resent the term. Strictly speaking, it should probably be applied only to New Englanders, as a neutral description, though there's certainly a case for using the pejorative when speaking of http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy.

 

[jp]

The only way I can understand this ridiculous case is to remind myself that the Argentine security services do not exactly have a track record of excellence when it comes to protecting and serving the public. Makes sense that the public aren't going to trust a security apparatus that detained, tortured and murdered thousands in the name of security, and are going to be very cautious granting them the power to detain people in the name of public safety. According to Bajo, had he killed his victim or successfully robbed him he'd be in jail right now. He's on TV because he failed, and therefore isn't worthy of being detained.

It's an uncomfortable limbo to live in, where violent criminals walk the streets for fear of the security services abusing the power to take them off streets. I can understand to some extent why things are they way they are, but it still gives me the creeps knowing that nothing is being done and nothing apparently can be done to protect me and my family from idiots like this. His right to stay out jail trumps our rights to safety and security. Good to know...

 

[ElQueso]

The word yanqui bothers me far less for its occasional pejorativeness than for its inaccuracy - the unrepentant descendents of Southern slaveholders would certainly resent the term. Strictly speaking, it should probably be applied only to New Englanders, as a neutral description, though there's certainly a case for using the pejorative when speaking of http://newyork.yanke...x.jsp?c_id=nyy.

Inaccuracies such as including all of Southerners in your description of "unrepentant descendants of Southern slaveholders?" I'm a Texan but hardly have any Southern slaveholders in my past (my father is quite the genealogist, well-renowned amongst dedicated amateurs, and in fact my daughter is a member of the Daughters of the Union Veterans of the Civil War) and I am certainly not unrepentant at my inability to hold slaves under the current law. To our knowledge, no one in our family ever owned slaves, although that may be a bit problematical to prove completely at this far remove.

Yet I am still not terribly happy when foreigners call me a Yankee even though my family, through its ancestors, were associated with and fought for the North. My direct family (the surname I currently hold with some minor modifications) is originally from Pennsylvania, from the earliest days of colonization of that area and we still hold property directly descended from one of the original family landholders - my father's side of the family. My mother's side of the family was rooted in Maryland and was on the Northern side of the argument even though Maryland was mostly neutral/split, but none of her family fought for either side as far as we can ascertain.

I feel I am able to look dispassionately at all of the facts I know of and feel that the Civil War was aggression on the part of the North, was not about "freeing" the slaves (not where it mattered), and certainly didn't have that effect...in my opinion

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Inaccuracies such as including all of Southerners in your description of "unrepentant descendants of Southern slaveholders?" I'm a Texan but hardly have any Southern slaveholders in my past (my father is quite the genealogist, well-renowned amongst dedicated amateurs, and in fact my daughter is a member of the Daughters of the Union Veterans of the Civil War) and I am certainly not unrepentant at my inability to hold slaves under the current law. To our knowledge, no one in our family ever owned slaves, although that may be a bit problematical to prove completely at this far remove.

In the name of free speech, you have every right to misinterpret or misquote me, but you should refrain from distorting what I said. The fact that there are still unrepentant descendents of slaveowners in the South does not mean that all Southerners are such, and even some who descended from slave-owning families are repentant. There are much larger numbers of unrepentant Klansmen and their acolytes in the South today even though, ironically, we now call them "Republicans" (What would Lincoln say?) or "Teapartiers" (a subset of those same Republicans). They're the ones who blame a jaywalker in Missouri because the police shot him to death.

 

[wineguy999]

The word yanqui bothers me far less for its occasional pejorativeness than for its inaccuracy - the unrepentant descendents of Southern slaveholders would certainly resent the term. Strictly speaking, it should probably be applied only to New Englanders, as a neutral description, though there's certainly a case for using the pejorative when speaking of http://newyork.yanke...x.jsp?c_id=nyy.

In Central Texas, we figure anything north of Waco - you're a Yankee.