@TMSTRS_@MarioNawfal i dont believe thats actually his main point he just worded it poorly he means to not incentivise people literally using children as shields
@pureMetatron i understand its a very uncomfortable conversation no one wants anyone dead never mind kids. i think core of his argument is that long term if you have an exploitable part of a law people will use it. hes referring to them using them as shields which is horrible
@mikesummers_oz@waitmaya i had to scroll way to far down to find another person putting the correct answer deeply concerning although twitter likely puts wrong answers at the top for engagement
@J0K3R870@Blazeionn@j_retsu harm could be interpreted as literally anything if you try hard enough you could consider walking harm so there has to be some threshold
@J0K3R870@Blazeionn@j_retsu ima be real nothing i have heard from this case sounds so bad i wouldnt recommend someone looking into it so im guessing that is a far more extreme case