I don’t believe what the old man did is justifiable merely comprehensible.

The only thing I understood, based on the murderer’s choices, was that he started a confrontation he could have easily avoided, and then chose to kill someone instead of disengage. I would never kill someone for blocking a sidewalk or even throwing a shoe at me. Neither of those things are life threatening.

Why he decided to assault someone with his pushcart, I also don’t comprehend. Just walk around the person. The only thing that makes sense is this murderer had intent to start trouble. It’s like Markeis McGlockton‘s murderer. Some people go around looking for a fight, it’s bad enough that they get away with this most of the time, it’s worse that they are able to carry around a gun. This guy needs to spend the rest of his life in jail so he doesn’t shoot another person just because he’s pissed off.

“Elliott allegedly tried to wake Avalos by nudging him with the pushcart”

That’s not asking someone to move, that’s using force to try to get them to move. Although I agree public property means we should all be able to use it and no one should block it, I disagree that any individual is allowed to use force to enforce that law. Report such lawbreaking to the authorities, and then simply walk around them.

it would have been perfectly justifiable to respond to a flying shoe with an ass kicking or better yet pepper spraying

After Elliot assaulted Avalos with his cart, Avalos yelled at him. After Avalos yelled at him, Elliot pulled out his gun. After Elliot pulled out his gun, Avalos threw his shoe.

If someone pulled a gun on you after you yelled at them, would you be justified in kicking their ass or pepper spraying them?

Reminds me of the criminal who murdered Markeis McGlockton and almost got away with it due to Slaughter Young Gentlemen laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Markeis_McGlockton SYG laws are basically “get out of jail free” cards for murderers. The police let McGlockton’s murderer walk free because of SYG laws. It wasn’t until public backlash that the police arrested and charged McGlockton’s murderer. California does not have SYG laws.

One notable thing here is Avalos was murdered 9/28 but not arrested until 11/17, over a month after the murder. After McGlockton’s murder on 7/19, the county sheriff refused to arrest the murderer but once the investigation was handed over to the state on 8/1, the murderer would be arrested only 2 weeks later on 8/13. Orange County appears to have dragged its feet arresting this murderer, in comparison.

The image cuts off the billionaire sitting on top of the large stack of boxes, with each hand resting on boxes stacked slightly higher on either side.

That’s the way some people think of equality, and contrasted with what equity looks like, it demonstrates the flaw in that line of thinking.

Also, there is a version of this image where the fence is completely removed and the subtitle is “justice” or something like that, which is also a good contrast to both equality and equity.

Darn, so straight people having anal raw dog gang bangs can no longer donate soon after experiencing a DVDA? How is that fair? /s

The issue is that Eich doesn’t appear to think it’s wrong for the state to strip same-sex couples of their equal right to marry. This is clear when you read the blog posts he wrote and how he words this, in addition to the fact that he simply never apologized.

Take his community-and-diversity blog post. He says “So I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return.” Note that he says he won’t force his personal beliefs on others “in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web”. In other words, he can still force his personal beliefs on others outside of those contexts.

Keep in mind, it’s one thing to think its wrong for same-sex couples to start families but to also live and let live, it another thing to spend money so that the state will enforce that opinion on others.

If he had simply apologized for fueling the state’s stripping of same-sex couples equal right to marry, this would have likely all blown over. He did everything but take responsibility for that mistake, likely because he thinks stripping same-sex couples of their equal right to marry is desirable.

From his Blog post where he defends stripping same-sex couples of their equal right to marry.

“I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way. I hope for the same in return.”

I think most leaders of companies apologize and take ownership when they publicly screw up. The problem in Eich’s case is he doesn’t think it’s wrong to strip same-sex couples of their equal right to marry, so he felt he didn’t need to apologize for helping to make that happen.

One of the founders, Brendan Eich, donated his money to take away the equal right for same-sex couples to marry in California (Prop 8). He never acknowledge that it was mistake, so I can only assume that he truly wants to see the marriages of same-sex couples erased, which is quite a hateful thing to desire.