She had to be cut out of the wire and miscarried soon after.

  • 133arc585
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers.

    Completely visible barriers would do the trick.

    You’ve somehow, again, managed to miss the point: the purpose was not just deterrence, the purpose was to hide them and cause unexpected harm. I’m not using booby trap to evoke any legality relating to the word; I’m using the word to evoke the horrendously inhumane use of hidden weapons meant to cause harm to those who accidentally stumble upon them.

    You’re defending a horrific practice in the guise of it being a necessary evil, when in all actuality, it’s just one horrific out of many not-horrific implementations of something that you’re overtly in favor of.

    • PowerCrazy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, already to the “intent” argument. The intent is 100% to stop migrants. That is the intent of literally every single border. If you are jumping into that trap and saying that the problem here is the specific method used to stop migrants, you are playing their game and are basically just a liberal.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No.

        The intent is to maim a human being.

        What you are talking about is just a bonus…

      • Atmosphere99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Don’t be a coward. The intent is to cause harm, otherwise it wouldn’t be hidden. Build up the courage to admit that at least, rather than just saying “you’re a liberal…” So weak, dude.