The woman who decided to come after my job and my rights to speak? I don’t know if it’s because of Social Media blowback, or if it was in response to me emailing her employer, but her Twitter account is now set to private.
Who got silenced now, bitch? Since you like Breakfast club quotes so much (that is how I found so much of your shit- you used the same quote on every one of your social media accounts)
We are not taking your shit any more, Karens of the world. Check Target’s stock price for more details.
EDITED TO ADD:
This was all she got with all of that:
I had to remove the post that called her a whore. Hey Stephanie- how did your meeting with HR go?
The liberal skank that threatened to come after this website and my job? Thanks to a reader tip and a short records search, I know who she is.
She threatened to contact my employer to get me fired. She contacted this website’s registrar in an attempt to have this blog deplatformed. She posted to social media, asking people to help identify me so I could be canceled. She tried to doxx me. Turnabout is fair play.
She is Stephanie Tuttle Coccarelli of Fredonia, NY and is 30 years old. She has worked as a recruiter for a home health agency since February 2022. She is no record of her having a nursing license in NY, so her profile claim of being a nurse is a lie. The agency is a home health care agency and she is an office drone. She claims that she has fired lots of nurses for refusing to honor a patient’s pronouns and claims that she will get my HR to do the same to me if she can figure out who I am and where I work. She doesn’t hire or fire anyone. Again, HR office recruiter drone. Here is her picture. Note the Magic Marker drawn in eyebrows and glasses that make her look like Mrs. Potatohead.
The more she wants to come at me, the more of a profile I will build. If she keeps it up, I will get a PI and a lawyer. Defamation, libel, and slander suits can be a real bitch.
I may send a comment to her employer today to let them know how she spends her workday.
So in response, I sent this message to her employer, using the contact us link on the website.
I would like to let you know that one of your recruiters, Stephanie Coccarelli, is spending her workday on social media telling nurses that she will write to their employers and get them fired for disagreeing with her political opinions. You don’t have to believe me, check it out for yourself. Her twitter handles are @stephc1024 and @stepht1024. I’m staying anonymous because she is obviously vindictive.
Do I think she will get fired? No, but I am betting that her boss will talk to her about this. Maybe she will eventually back off of attacking me. The worst she can do to me at this point is get my Twitter account banned. So? I have several, just like she does. Banning me from Twitter won’t hurt me a bit. It isn’t like I wasn’t banned several times during the Liberal censorship days before Musk bought the place.
I really enjoy pissing off people like her. She is a liberal, antigun, proabortion, pro-tranny leftist moonbat who spends her working hours on social media doxxing, insulting, and attacking people on Twitter. She decided to threaten me, my business, and my job online because I made a statement of opinion, then proceeded to do exactly that. So turnabout is fair play. This isn’t work, it’s actually fun.
Stories abound on so-called “book bans.” The right is pulling books from school libraries because they instruct children on how to perform sex acts upon other children or on adults. It’s a disingenuous argument. Librarians are acting all offended because a school is choosing not to carry books that are inappropriate for children. The books can still be purchased by those who choose to do so. They can still be read, are still being published. They haven’t been banned at all.
Not so with other books. It was just five years ago that the left cheered as Amazon pulled a book from its store. That book, published by Defense Distributed, was the text version of the step files required to 3D print the Liberator pistol. That book was subsequently banned by a US judge. It is no longer published. It can’t be bought. No one can read it, unless they find a bootleg copy from a site like Pirate Bay.
The Democrats and CNN (redundant, I know) think that this makes DeSantis look bad.
I know that a lot of people out there think he is fake. All I know is what he has done and is doing for Florida. He is doing a great job here, a damned sight more than any other Republican has done for the past 20+ years.
The first line of the original article says:“A 12-year-old car theft suspect died of a gunshot wound after being confronted by the vehicle’s owner, according to the Denver Police Department.” It would be more accurate to say “12 year old shot and killed while attempting to murder the owner of the vehicle whose car he was stealing.”
The vehicle owner tracked the vehicle using an app. When he approached the vehicle, the occupants began shooting at him. The owner of the vehicle returned fire. The vehicle drove away and wrecked a short distance away. The police found the wrecked vehicle with a driver inside who was suffering from a gunshot wound. The other occupants of the vehicle ran off from before officers arrived. The wounded driver died at the hospital and was identified as 12 year old Elias Armstrong.
How did I know?
The Denver District Attorney’s Office decided to not file charges against the vehicle owner.
The family acknowledges Elias was caught up with the wrong crowd that day, but does not believe he should have been killed. “Even though they were joy riding, it was never that serious for somebody to have to lose their life or for [the car owner] to track down the car the way he did,” said Alicia Henderson, Elias’ sister.
He committed an armed burglary, illegally carrying a concealed weapon, attempted murder, armed robbery, grand theft auto, carjacking, and multiple other violent felonies. To minimize these crimes as harmless and call them “joyriding” is bullshit. The same kid has been in the Denver news more than once.
Said Henderson: “I’ll never get over this, I’ll never stop fighting for it until something is done about it. That doesn’t necessarily have to be a murder charge. However, manslaughter still comes into play because [Elias] was a child. The use of unnecessary force was present at the time and it wasn’t right.”
Unnecessary force? This little felon had a gun and shot at the legitimate owner of the vehicle. Just what level of force was necessary? Look at the little hoodlum’s picture that the family has put on a Tshirt.
Many of the articles say he was “involved in an exchange of gunfire” which is a rather odd way to phrase “he was trying to kill the law abiding, legitimate owner of the vehicle when the citizen did society a favor by removing his criminal, thieving black ass from the gene pool.”
The family has, of course, set up a change.org petition. The opening paragraph is grounds for a lawsuit for defamation, in my opinion.
On February 5th 2023, 12 year old Elias Armstrong was inside a stolen vehicle when the owner tracked the vehicle down using an App. The vigilante then took it upon himself to run toward the vehicle and shoot inside 15 times, ambushing the 3 occupants. Elias drove a few blocks away before he succumbs to multiple bullet wounds.
Hey, if Trump can lose millions for defamation for saying “I didn’t rape that woman, I don’t even know who she is,” then this certainly is a winner. The last paragraph is right out of the Trayvon playbook:
Denver Police told the Elias’ family that the shooter was on the phone with them for 20 minutes prior, and he was told NOT to pursue the stolen vehicle. The angry man decided to take justice in his own hands. We need him to be held accountable for HIS actions, and District Attorney Beth McCann needs to charge him for this crime that HE committed.
People are sick of the criminals, and they are sick of the fact that the cops aren’t doing shit. However, the shooting wasn’t vigilante justice. That little armed piece of shit tried to kill a man, and he came in second in a gunfight. I hope that little asshole burns in hell.
Baltimore is suing some car makers whose cars are being stolen because their cars are too easy to steal. Next up: suing rape victims for dressing like they clearly want a cocktail, hold the tail.
Maybe those car makers should sue black people for stealing everything that isn’t (and some things that are) nailed down. Maybe they can take some of those future reparations payments.
Today, I wanted to take a look at this article from the Washington Post. They are attempting to make the case that the Second Amendment allows for the banning of the AR-15, because it isn’t a weapon “that ordinary people carry on an ordinary basis for self-defense.” This article is as dishonest as usual when discussing the Second Amendment. What they have done here is said that the Second Amendment applies to weapons that the militia would carry, then twisted it to say that the modern interpretation doesn’t apply to any gun that you can’t carry concealed, meaning that you can’t carry hand grenades and rocket launchers, or AR-15s.
Logically, it should also exclude AR-15s, which are not commonly carried for self-defense.
Washington Post
Of course, the Heller decision never said that “common use” was restricted only to weapons that were carried for individual defense. It said used for common defense. That decision also glossed over what we are supposed to do when a law creates its own “common use” restriction. That is, what if a weapon isn’t in common use because an otherwise unconstitutional law has eliminated that weapon from being in common use? For example, machine guns might very well be in common use, if it weren’t for the fact that they have been restricted for a century, and outright banned for the past 37 years. It’s this sort of circular argument that the Bruen decision is addressing: Would the founding fathers have banned machine guns? I don’t think that they would have. After all, there were cannons and even entire warships that were in private hands at the time of ratification.
What’s really interesting about the Post article is that it signals a shift in anti-gunner philosophy. It looks as though they are finally giving in to the SCOTUS decisions. Sure, they take the time to trash talk the decision:
Modern gun rights jurisprudence began in 2008, when Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a Supreme Court opinion called District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion featured the astonishing act (astonishing for an originalist, at least) of reinterpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment. This took some jurisprudential jiu-jitsu. Scalia discounted the introductory clause that explains the purpose of amendment as ensuring a well-regulated militia. He shifted the meaning of the right to bear arms to personal self-defense.
Along the way, Scalia made up a new limitation for the newly created right.
Washington Post
The point here is that they are beginning to recognize that they have lost this part of the fight. What’s funny is that they go on to claim that the right doesn’t apply to hand grenades or tanks. I beg to differ. The law permits the private ownership of armored vehicles. We see them every day: they deliver money to your local grocery store. Granted, those are not armed with cannons and belt fed coaxial machine, guns, but they are currently owned.
I would argue that hand grenades would be permissible to own. I could easily see that using a hand grenade in a crowded subway would be just as illegal as emptying an entire handgun into a crowd. After all, indiscriminate weapon use that strikes six innocent people in order to hit one mugger is a bit ridiculous. However, using that same tactic against four armed men in your downstairs living room that are waiting to ambush you as you come down the stairs could easily be justified.
Similar cases can be made for owning a Javelin AT missile. There aren’t many cases where one would be useful to use in self defense, but that is a different story than simply owning one. It is important that we not conflate owning a weapon and actually firing it. Just as there is a difference between owning a 1911 and firing one at someone, a similar distinction exists for nearly any weapon, whether that weapon is a single shot .22, a missile launcher, or a hand grenade.
I would argue that the Second Amendment as it is written also permits nuclear weapons. If only there was a way that we could rewrite the Constitution to account for new technology… Perhaps a way to modify it. We could call it an Amendment. Perhaps we could, say, get a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, and we could amend the Second Amendment to say: “shall not be infringed, but in no case will this permit the private ownership of nuclear weapons.”
But then, several decades from now, the left will be arguing that the AR-15 is actually the same as a nuclear weapon.
