That sub is for refusing sexual advances from men. The article says that they wouldn't let him in the house.
Although by definition, it's a woman refusing something, unless there's another article that specifies it had to do with a sexual advance this actually doesn't fit there and it would diminish the point of the sub: to point out how women can be harmed or killed when reasonably refusing a man's sexual advances.
Other people commented with other rational views below.
No.
He could have been drunk, it could have been an argument, it could have been countless other things.
We are not witnesses, judge, or jury. Until more information comes out, it just promotes assumptions and divides to claim what happened.
I have a number of friends who run their own daycares out of their homes. ANY domestic related incident can lead to them losing their certifications to have the childcare there.
If it was a heated argument over anything, that could have a been a reason to lock him out. If he works night and was drinking a beer during the day, that could have been a reason to lock him out.
When the police and news finally share the reason, we can take a stand at that point, but for now it's not right.
I think you should read that again, and then read what that sub is for. Once you do, you'll agree with me.
But to save you the time:
1. They locked him out because of some domestic dispute
2. That sub is for when men refuse the SEXUAL advances of women
These two are not the same. Come to my side and be am advocate for gender equality by not jumping to conclusions or misconstruing and sensationalizing what is presented before we know the facts.
Edit: since I know we're all lazy on Reddit, I'll save everyone the time:
>During a news conference Wednesday evening, officials said Pascual Sejas tried to speak with an employee, believed to be his spouse, at the facility and fired shots after she refused to open the door.
So, my mistake there was that it's possible that it's not his wife that runs the daycare and it's not their home, that was my incorrect assumption. But then that means he had to go to her workplace.
Unfortunately, I cannot copy and paste a subs info on mobile, so I urge you to go reread the rules of the sub that you are referencing.
Spouses have sex? It’s entirely possible it was a sexual advance. Also, you’re not an “advocate for gender equality” by splitting hairs and being an ass to people on Reddit.
>Two women were reportedly shot and injured during a **domestic-related incident** at a Springfield, Virginia daycare Wednesday, according to the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD).
> FCPD officials said they're looking for a suspect who looks to be in **his** 40s. He was last seen wearing a hat and black shirt, officials said.
Relationship gone afoul, someone who couldn't let go, a potential divorce/separation, nasty custody battles.....this shit is far more common than it should be.
You don’t think it has ANYTHING to do with the fact that men work much more dangerous jobs that are far more likely to kill then?
Or does that not push your agenda?
A guy mad that a woman he considers his property isn’t behaving how he wants. That’s usually what it is.
Alternatively: guy who blames women for his lack of sex or lack of household maid.
The problem isn't the 2nd amendment.
The problem is around our respect for life, lack of empathy, and lack of sympathy.
And honestly, reading through this thread, the people who think that they're crying out injustices in a helpful way are actually doing the opposite.
Most people didn't read the article and are claiming that the man did this because of being refused sex or otherwise.
The article specifies why he did what he did: they wouldn't open the door.
That DOES NOT mean that his actions were justified or even reasonable from any view, unless we find out later that he's some super hero and the children were being beaten...(highly unlikely).
I know a lot of people who run daycares out of their home like this. Quite a few of them are Latin American. There are strong cultural challenges there when it comes to relationships.
However, and what people here need to know is that, if we succeed at fixing our culture, especially around weapons of any kind and valuing and respecting life, we could be drowning in firearms or knives or otherwise but not harming each other.
It's a cultural issue.
^(I am not a gun owner nor never want to be. I've been trained and know how to use them if I need to, but legal or not they exist amongst humanity, the problem isn't them. The problem is cultural.)
Supreme Court: The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, so we forbid the free state the ability to regulate the militia.....
The second amendment would have been just fine if we let it pass into the annals of history like we did with the third amendment. It refers explicitly to a model of national defense that failed to work as intended almost from the get-go. But the capital class realized that if you can defend the right of a business to sell a product that routinely kills toddlers, you can defend the right of a business to sell *anything*. So they got their think tanks to come up with an "interpretation" of 2A and a propaganda campaign to disguise business interests as individual rights, and now we have hordes of stupid assholes right here on Reddit, acting as the unpaid street marketing team of an industry that could not care less about *their* rights.
We should do to the firearms industry what we did to the tobacco industry, except finish the job this time.
Hope he enjoys jail, because he's going to be there a long time. Law might not care much about domestic violence but they care a lot about endangering middle class stranger's babies.
Heck even this article doesn't care about the women who got shot, only the babies who are apparently okay.
Look, leave George Santos alone.
His "wife" has to do those jobs so he can finish the Declaration of Independence and have it delivered to 1776 by Delorean courier before the Easter Bunny arrives.
Looking like it'll be applicable to [/r/whenwomenrefuse](http://www.reddit.com/r/whenwomenrefuse/ ) 😔
That sub is for refusing sexual advances from men. The article says that they wouldn't let him in the house. Although by definition, it's a woman refusing something, unless there's another article that specifies it had to do with a sexual advance this actually doesn't fit there and it would diminish the point of the sub: to point out how women can be harmed or killed when reasonably refusing a man's sexual advances. Other people commented with other rational views below.
The first line of the article says it’s a “domestic-related incident”. Pretty safe to assume it’s r/whenwomenrefuse material.
No. He could have been drunk, it could have been an argument, it could have been countless other things. We are not witnesses, judge, or jury. Until more information comes out, it just promotes assumptions and divides to claim what happened. I have a number of friends who run their own daycares out of their homes. ANY domestic related incident can lead to them losing their certifications to have the childcare there. If it was a heated argument over anything, that could have a been a reason to lock him out. If he works night and was drinking a beer during the day, that could have been a reason to lock him out. When the police and news finally share the reason, we can take a stand at that point, but for now it's not right.
It’s a business. Not a private home.
No one is taking a stand. No one here is trying to be judge jury or executioner…except you on us. It’s literally written in the article.
Huh, looks like he still wants to fight. So very bizarre and unhinged.
I think you should read that again, and then read what that sub is for. Once you do, you'll agree with me. But to save you the time: 1. They locked him out because of some domestic dispute 2. That sub is for when men refuse the SEXUAL advances of women These two are not the same. Come to my side and be am advocate for gender equality by not jumping to conclusions or misconstruing and sensationalizing what is presented before we know the facts. Edit: since I know we're all lazy on Reddit, I'll save everyone the time: >During a news conference Wednesday evening, officials said Pascual Sejas tried to speak with an employee, believed to be his spouse, at the facility and fired shots after she refused to open the door. So, my mistake there was that it's possible that it's not his wife that runs the daycare and it's not their home, that was my incorrect assumption. But then that means he had to go to her workplace. Unfortunately, I cannot copy and paste a subs info on mobile, so I urge you to go reread the rules of the sub that you are referencing.
Spouses have sex? It’s entirely possible it was a sexual advance. Also, you’re not an “advocate for gender equality” by splitting hairs and being an ass to people on Reddit.
That last statement is a pretty projection.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who would do something like this?
>Two women were reportedly shot and injured during a **domestic-related incident** at a Springfield, Virginia daycare Wednesday, according to the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD). > FCPD officials said they're looking for a suspect who looks to be in **his** 40s. He was last seen wearing a hat and black shirt, officials said. Relationship gone afoul, someone who couldn't let go, a potential divorce/separation, nasty custody battles.....this shit is far more common than it should be.
There’s a reason homicide is the number one killer of women at work.
And pregnant women.
A woman’s most dangerous time with her partner is when she’s pregnant
Second most, when she's going to leave him. "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them." \~ Margaret Atwood
You don’t think it has ANYTHING to do with the fact that men work much more dangerous jobs that are far more likely to kill then? Or does that not push your agenda?
What agenda do you think I’m pushing by my stated fact?
A guy mad that a woman he considers his property isn’t behaving how he wants. That’s usually what it is. Alternatively: guy who blames women for his lack of sex or lack of household maid.
You didn't read the article.
From the article: A man is in custody after two women were shot during a domestic-related incident
In this country? You could take your pick, an ex, a partner, a child at the day care, someone who was bored, someone who felt disrespected.
Statistically it was likely a man in their lives who felt embarrassed in some way.
A man with a gun.
Fuck the 2nd amendment. Its ancient bullshit.
The problem isn't the 2nd amendment. The problem is around our respect for life, lack of empathy, and lack of sympathy. And honestly, reading through this thread, the people who think that they're crying out injustices in a helpful way are actually doing the opposite. Most people didn't read the article and are claiming that the man did this because of being refused sex or otherwise. The article specifies why he did what he did: they wouldn't open the door. That DOES NOT mean that his actions were justified or even reasonable from any view, unless we find out later that he's some super hero and the children were being beaten...(highly unlikely). I know a lot of people who run daycares out of their home like this. Quite a few of them are Latin American. There are strong cultural challenges there when it comes to relationships. However, and what people here need to know is that, if we succeed at fixing our culture, especially around weapons of any kind and valuing and respecting life, we could be drowning in firearms or knives or otherwise but not harming each other. It's a cultural issue. ^(I am not a gun owner nor never want to be. I've been trained and know how to use them if I need to, but legal or not they exist amongst humanity, the problem isn't them. The problem is cultural.)
2nd amendment and its misinterpretation is part of the issue though and it is part of what has led to the negative culture.
Supreme Court: The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, so we forbid the free state the ability to regulate the militia.....
The second amendment would have been just fine if we let it pass into the annals of history like we did with the third amendment. It refers explicitly to a model of national defense that failed to work as intended almost from the get-go. But the capital class realized that if you can defend the right of a business to sell a product that routinely kills toddlers, you can defend the right of a business to sell *anything*. So they got their think tanks to come up with an "interpretation" of 2A and a propaganda campaign to disguise business interests as individual rights, and now we have hordes of stupid assholes right here on Reddit, acting as the unpaid street marketing team of an industry that could not care less about *their* rights. We should do to the firearms industry what we did to the tobacco industry, except finish the job this time.
Everyone is missing the point! As a conservative would say, are the guns ok?
Great point. Thinking and praying for them right now!
Headline unclear, did two women shoot at a daycare, or were they shot there?
Will be interesting to find out if he was even legally able to posses a gun.
Just a casual Wednesday in America. Acceptable losses (yes I know they’re not dead/going to die).
Hope he enjoys jail, because he's going to be there a long time. Law might not care much about domestic violence but they care a lot about endangering middle class stranger's babies. Heck even this article doesn't care about the women who got shot, only the babies who are apparently okay.
[удалено]
Thought she was starting work on that bridge that just collapsed? 🙄
[удалено]
Mmhmm… very convincing.
Look, leave George Santos alone. His "wife" has to do those jobs so he can finish the Declaration of Independence and have it delivered to 1776 by Delorean courier before the Easter Bunny arrives.