Shelton corrections

Teacher sentenced to 20 years for attempted murder of Ashley Reeves RELEASED on parole

2024.05.02 19:47 Smallseybiggs Teacher sentenced to 20 years for attempted murder of Ashley Reeves RELEASED on parole

Source
Sam Shelton pleaded guilty in 2007 to trying to kill 17-year-old Ashley Reeves and leaving her for dead in a park.
Author: Kelsi Anderson, Megan Kernan Published: 9:28 PM CDT April 23, 2024 Updated: 7:13 PM CDT April 24, 2024 ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Ill. —
A former Freeburg High School teacher who admitted to trying to kill a teenage girl in 2006 was released on parole after serving nearly 17 years of his 20-year prison sentence.
Sam Shelton, now 44, pleaded guilty in 2007 to the attempted murder of then-17-year-old Ashley Reeves. According to court records, he was released from the Illinois River Correctional Center on Monday.
The 2006 attack made national headlines and was the subject of a Lifetime movie.
5 On Your Side spoke exclusively with the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department, whose detectives worked the case 18 years ago.
"This was initially reported as a missing person's case. Then, it spiraled," said Sergeant James Hendricks with the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department.
Shelton claimed in a taped confession that he accidentally broke Reeves' neck when he put her in a chokehold during an argument in his car, then tried to cover up his involvement.
Authorities said Shelton then strangled Reeves with a belt and left her for dead in a Belleville park.
Reeves was missing for a total of 30 hours.
Hendricks said the Sheriff's Department's former Investigator Steve Johnson, who is now the Fairview Heights police chief, was successful in the interrogation room.
"Ultimately, Mr. Shelton confessed that he believed he had killed her, and he had left her body in the woods," Hendricks said.
Believing her to be dead, Shelton led police to her body.
"When our guys came out, they believed they were doing a recovery mission to recover her body," Hendricks said.
But that's not what happened. Astonishingly, when Johnson and other detectives found Reeves in the dark woods, she was still alive.
"Once they recalled seeing her body, and that's all on video, you can recall them shouting, 'She's still breathing' and 'get medics in here.' This very well could've been a case where they came a couple of days later, and she was actually deceased. So, we're very happy that she's still alive and doing well," Hendricks said.
Reeves underwent rehabilitation to relearn how to swallow, talk and walk.
Now that Shelton is a free man, Hendricks said, "We hope that he's been successfully rehabilitated and that he'll become a productive citizen."
5 On Your Side spoke with the Reeves over the phone Wednesday. She said she's hoping to move on and forget about the past.
"She's got emotional scars that'll last for the rest of her life, and she just wants to kind of move on," Hendricks said.
According to the Department of Corrections, Shelton will serve three years on parole.*
submitted by Smallseybiggs to whenwomenrefuse [link] [comments]

2024.04.30 16:05 Gear4Vegito Complete List of AEW Inactive Wrestlers & Injury List.

Already put together a list for WWE with their draft having been finished so I thought I would also do the same for AEW.
This was a lot harder to put together...let me know if I made a mistake or missed someone.
Injuries:
Non-Injury:
Unknown Inactivities: No AEW/ROH Matches/Appearances Within Last 60 Days:
Might have simply missed some news on them....
Expected Free Agent Signings/Yet To Debut:
Edit: Appreciate the corrections. Made changes to accommodate those after further research.
submitted by Gear4Vegito to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]

2024.04.08 04:03 rumplump I am 25 years old making $260K working in tech in San Francisco

Background

This is an update to the money diary I wrote in 2022. A quick recap: I work as a data scientist, own a studio apartment in San Francisco, and am in a long-term relationship with a PhD student (25M). P and I split expenses 50/50 and don't live together yet. Since my last money diary, I was laid off but fortunately found a new role soon after. My new job pays more than my old one, but requires me to commute out of the city on most days.

Net worth

Assets
Liabilities
I got a lot of questions about owning a house on my last post, but to clarify, my studio condo isn't really what most people would consider a house. It is a micro-unit (less than 300 sq. ft), which I bought in 2021 when the market was down and interest rates were at all-time lows.
💰 Total Net Worth $330,000 💰

Income

I work in tech and am on track to make $260,000 this year. This includes:

Monthly Expenses

This includes my mortgage payment, private mortgage insurance, property taxes and HOA fees (which cover trash and water). Property tax has gone up $100/mo since I last posted.
I now have my own health, vision & dental insurance, which I pay $100/mo for.
I still buy almost all of my groceries from Costco, but the new office doesn't provide snacks or lunch so my food costs have increased substantially.
The bill usually fluctuates from $50- $100 depending on the season.
Comcast sneakily raised prices on me a few months ago, and I keep forgetting to call them... maybe this weekend.
I got an Equinox membership, which I love but lately I've been finding myself too busy and tired to go. May cancel this one soon.
I pay $25 for AMC A-list, $15 for Netflix, $11 for Spotify, $10 for Apple TV+, $10 for Apple Care+, and $6 for NYT Games monthly.
💸 Fixed Monthly Expenses $3,477 💸

What I Spent In A Week

Sunday, Day 1
Daily total: $882.00
Monday, Day 2
Daily total: $0.00
Tuesday, Day 3
Daily total: $0.00
Wednesday, Day 4
Daily total: $100.00
Thursday, Day 5
Daily total: $37.63
Friday, Day 6
Daily total: $0.00
Saturday, Day 7
Daily total: $0.00
💸💸 Total Spending $1,019.89 💸💸
submitted by rumplump to MoneyDiariesACTIVE [link] [comments]

2024.04.05 17:34 Leather_Focus_6535 The 16 inmates executed by the state of Delaware and their crimes (warning, graphic content, please read at your own risk)

Here is my list for Delaware's executions that I made for my personal death penalty project. The surveyed time period is from the 1970s nationwide reinstatement of capital punishment following the 1976 Gregg court decision to Delaware's abolishment in 2016. To be upfront, many of these cases are quite extreme in their brutality, and I don't hide their nature in my write ups. Personal digression is advised. I'll probably do Tennessee's list tomorrow.
​
The executed 16:
​
1.Steven Pennell (1987-1992, lethal injection): The murders of 3 to 5 prostitutes and other women have been confirmed or attributed to Pennell's hands. His verified and suspected victims consist of 31 year old Catherine DiMauro, 27 year old Margaret Finner, 26 year old Kathleen Meyer, and 23 year old Shirley Ellis. Every victim was raped, partially strangled, and beaten to death with hammers. Due to his habits of both abducting victims from and disposing of their bodies on the Route 40 highway, Pennell was labeled "The Route 40 Killer" by media coverages.
​
2.James Red Dog (~1973-1993, lethal injection): Red Dog was first involved in a robbery of a pizza parlor on his native Fort Peck Reservation that killed the owner William Vesseth (age unknown). A few years later, he was granted leave to participate in an unspecified Native American ceremony. Red Dog and another inmate took the opportunity to escape and fled to California. While on the run, he and his companion befriended Stanley Large (age unknown) and John Moses (age unknown) at a bar, and the two allowed them to stay at their apartment. Red Dog stabbed both men to death in their sleep, and abducted a third man, 19 year old Levi Aargon. Aargon was raped by Red Dog's companion, but he managed to escaped. During his second incarceration, Red Dog supplied heroin for the Mexican Mafia to forcibly overdose another inmate Joseph Ortega (age unknown). Red Dog was released, put in the witness protection program, and relocated to Delaware in exchange for testifying against the American Indian Movement and the Mexican Mafia. As a free man, Red Dog broke into the home of his friend, 30 year old Hugh Pennington, in the middle of the night. He tied Pennington up, slit his throat, and abducted his mother, 52 year old Alisa. Red Dog held Alisa captive for 11 hours, and raped her 4 times. She escaped his clutches, and called the police.
​
3.Kenneth DeShields (1984-1993, lethal injection): While DeShields was robbing a landfill, he shot the attendant, 67 year old Elizabeth Reed, dead with his shotgun. He dragged her body several yards away from the landfill, and left it there for her son to discover.
​
4.Andre Deputy (1979-1994, lethal injection): Deputy and his accomplice William Flamer went to the home of a couple, 69 year old Alberta and 68 year old Bryad Smith, he was friends with. They asked for some beer money, but the couple refused them. In a fit of rage, the pair stabbed the Smiths to death with a bayonet and a butcher knife.
​
5.Nelson Shelton (~1982-1995, lethal injection): Shelton, his brother, his cousin, and his girlfriend were partying at a bar with 64 year old Wilson Mannon. They lured Mannon into their car by offering him a ride home, and took him to a remote location. The Shelton brothers and their cousin then killed Mannon by severely beating him and smashing his skull into several pieces with a hammer. Mannon's body was pillaged of his rings and wallet. Hours later, Shelton went alone to the home of an 85 year old woman, made an attempt to rape her, beat and tied up her 60 year old son, and stole their car. Both of the Shelton brothers had a lengthy criminal history, which included several accusations and convictions of rape, theft, assault, forgery, and a DUI. Their cousin also had significant rap sheet, but his were theft, forgery, and burglary crimes that didn't have any violence involved.
​
6.Billy Bailey (1980-1996, hanging): After robbing a liquor store, Bailey forced his way inside in the farmhouse owned by a couple, 80 year old Gilbert and 73 year old Clara Lambertson. He shot them both dead with his pistol and shotgun, and fled the scene. Bailey also unsuccessfully fired on a police helicopter before he was captured.
​
7.William Flamer (1979-1996, lethal injection): Flamer was an accomplice to the aforementioned Deputy. He was also executed for taking part in the Smith stabbing murders.
​
8.James Clark Jr. (~1965-1996, lethal injection): As a child, Clark frequently attacked other children, and he hospitalized some of them. This pattern of behavior escalated as a teenager when he abducted a 3 year old girl, and tried to choke her to death. Clark was released after serving 21 years out of a 30 year prison sentence for that attack. During his incarceration, he was also convicted of assaulting a prison guard. A month after his discharge, Clark shot his adoptive parents, 72 year old James Sr. and 71 year old Elizabeth, dead in their home to collect a life insurance policy.
​
9.David Lawrie (1992-1999, lethal injection): While under the influence of drugs, Lawrie stabbed his wife, 25 year old Michelle, to death. He then set a fire that killed their two children, 4 year old Fawn, 2 year old Tabithia, and a child that his wife was babysitting, 3 year old Charles Humbertson.
​
10.Willie Sullivan (1991-1999, lethal injection): Sullivan lured his ex employer, 78 year old Maurice Dodd, into a greenhouse. He then bludgeoned Dodd with an ice scoop, stabbed him 10 times, and dropped a concrete block on his chest. After Dodd was killed, Sullivan stole $300 from his pockets and his home, and drove away with his car.
​
11.Dwayne Weeks (1992-2000, lethal injection): Weeks and an accomplice he hired broke into the apartment of his estranged wife, 27 year old Gwendolyn, and her boyfriend, 33 year old Craig Williams. The pair shot Williams and Gwendolyn dead in the middle of their 9/11 call, and tried to stage the murders as a robbery. Weeks' marriage with Gwendolyn was fraught with domestic violence against her, which was the cause of their separation.
​
12.David Dawson (~1968-2001, lethal injection): After he escaped from the Delaware Correctional Center with 3 other inmates, Dawson broke into the home of 45 year old Madeline Kisne. After she was bound, gagged, and stabbed over 12 times, he stole her car. Dawson had a long criminal history dating back to when he was 13 years old, escaped or attempted to escape from prison 5 times prior to Kisne's murder, and was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.
​
13.Abdullah Hameen (~1980-2001, lethal injection): In 1980, Hameen robbed a bar and fatally shot an unidentified patron in the process. 11 years later, after he was paroled for the 1980 murder, Hameen shot 22 year old Troy Hodges dead during a drug deal gone bad.
​
14.Brain Steckel (1994-2005, lethal injection): Steckel tricked 29 year old Sandra Long into letting him inside her apartment by asking to use her phone. He then disconnected the phone and demanded sex from Long. When she refused, Steckel strangled Long unconscious with a pantyhose and a sock, raped her, and lit the curtains on fire. Long succumbed to smoke inhalation and burn wounds. After Long's murder, Steckel anonymously confessed to a local newspaper in a call, identified himself as the "Driftwood Killer", and named another woman as his next target. The police quickly put the woman under their protection and were able to trace the calls to Steckel.
​
15.Robert Jackson III (1992-2011, lethal injection): Jackson and his accomplice invaded the home of 47 year old Elizabeth Girardi to steal money for marijuana. Although the house was empty when they entered, Girardi came home sooner then the pair anticipated. In the ensuring confrontation, Jackson struck and dismembered Girardi with an axe.
​
  1. Shannon Johnson (~2001-2012, lethal injection): Johnson went to his ex girlfriend's (who was also the mother of his child) in an attempt to convince her to rekindle their relationship. When he saw his ex sitting with her boyfriend, 25 year old Cameron Hamlin, in their car, Johnson opened fire on them. Although Hamlin was killed in the shooting, the ex girlfriend escaped unscathed. A month later, Johnson made another unsuccessful attempt when he shot at her while she was trying to grab their son's clothes from the house. He had an extensive criminal record that entailed 33 felony and 145 misdemeanor charges, some of which pertained to raping a pregnant teenager. Johnson was also suspected in shooting his estranged stepfather. On an unrelated note, researching this case was a little confusing, as some sources identified the ex girlfriend as "Lakeisha Truitt", while others mentioned it to be the name of Johnson's sister.
submitted by Leather_Focus_6535 to TrueCrimeDiscussion [link] [comments]

2024.03.28 18:29 ConspiracyTheoristO7 Edgar Allan Poe's Mysterious Unresolved Death: My Unique Theory To What Happened

Edgar Allan Poe is one of the most famous nineteenth century poets in history. Renowned for his grisly and mysterious stories, such as 'Murders in the Rue Morgue" and "The Tell Tale Heart," Poe unfortunately would suffer a similar fate to what he wrote in his stories. His mysterious and bizarre death in 1849 at the age of 40 has brought on many theories to what could have happened to him. This photo was taken a few months before his death: https://bogartmagazine.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Edgar_Allan_Poe_circa_1849_restored_squared_off.jpeg
Here are the official (and somewhat inaccurate) events to what happened:
"In June 1849 Poe embarked on a speaking tour to raise funds for a literary magazine he hoped to publish. On September 27, 1849, Poe was supposed to board a ferry from Richmond, Virginia, to Baltimore, Maryland, and then on to New York. The night before the ferry trip he visited a doctor in Richmond for a fever. About the next few days, very little is known for certain. Poe arrived in Baltimore on September 28, but he didn’t go on to New York. He turned up in a tavern in Baltimore on October 3. He was in bad shape, nearly unresponsive in what onlookers assumed was an alcoholic stupor. A note was sent to a local doctor, and Poe was soon admitted to a hospital. One odd detail is that the clothes Poe had on did not appear to be his own. Instead of his usual black wool suit, he was wearing a cheap ill-fitting suit and a straw hat.
In the hospital, Poe continued to drift in and out of consciousness, hallucinating and speaking nonsense when he was awake. (He was supposedly saying the name Reynolds). On October 7 he died. A Baltimore newspaper reported enigmatically that the cause had been “congestion of the brain,” (which has never been proven)." https://www.britannica.com/story/the-mysterious-death-of-edgar-allan-poe#:~:text=On%20October%207%20he%20died,died%20from%20complications%20of%20alcoholism.
The actual cause of death remains a mystery. Speculation has included delirium tremens, heart disease, epilepsy, syphilis, meningeal inflammation, cholera, carbon monoxide poisoning, and rabies. One theory dating from 1872 suggests that Poe's death resulted from cooping, a form of electoral fraud in which citizens were forced to vote for a particular candidate, sometimes leading to violence and even murder. (Just so you know, the majority of these theories have been completed discredited. For example, the drinking binge, the ‘cooping’ theory, the rabies death, and other similar theories have no basis to them whatsoever.)
A lot of people blame Poe's drinking problem and depression to what caused his death. However, what I found in my research was that Poe's problems with heavy drinking and mental health issues have been greatly exaggerated by enemies of Poe's that unfortunately have been considered as fact. A man called Rufus Griswold, who can be considered Poe's arch nemesis, wrote almost all of the lies that many people still believe today about Poe. Griswold wrote a lot of made up quotes that he falsely attributed to Poe on purpose, he fabricated entire passages in Poe's letters to make him appear as an immoral character, and he wrote a biography of Poe with invented stories of his drunkenness, immorality and instability. Griswold helped to create the longstanding myth that Poe was a tragic, helpless, friendless figure. Poe, although he did suffer from depression from time to time, was a relatively happy man who actually had lots of friends. A good friend of his, by the name of John F. Carter said this of Poe: "Although I ... knew of his occasional lapses from sobriety, I never saw him in the least under the influence of liquor, and was told that not even in his moments of dissipation was he known to use language which could offend the most fastidious. To me he appeared ever the pleasant and agreeable companion and the refined and polished gentleman." All of Poe's actual friends have stated that he was a mostly sober man, while all of his enemies (and he had a lot of political and personal enemies) including Griswold and even his cousin Neilson Poe called him a drunk. He was known, however, to occasionally become depressed and then drink, but the problem with Poe is that his friends have stated that if he drank just one glass he would have a terrible reaction to it and could not really drink anymore. It is not known why he had such a bad reaction to alcohol, but his sister did too. Poe was known to go without drinking any kind of alcohol for months. Poe, in fact, himself stated in one letter defending himself against the accusations of being a drunkard by saying that his "sole drink is water."
At the time of his disappearance, he was actually in a good state of mind and his life was improving significantly. It has been confirmed that he was going to marry his childhood friend Sarah Elmira Shelton, who was also a widow just like him. Poe, in fact, joined the Richmond chapter of the Sons of Temperance, where he promised that he would never drink again. Poe was planning on going from Richmond to Philadelphia to edit somebody's poems for $100 (if I recall correctly, which was a lot for that time) and to New York. He was planning on coming back in two weeks and then to get married shortly after the trip. Poe left for his trip on September 27 1849 and then was found on October 3, 1849. His whereabouts during those six days are unknown.
However, when he was found, he was in Baltimore, which was an unplanned stop, wearing clothes that were not his and supposedly in a very inebriated state and was stated in being in a "bestial intoxication." When he was found, he was incoherent and completely unaware of his surroundings. Poe was found only a few blocks away from the house of a man called Joseph Snodgrass, who he used to work with at the Baltimore Sun newspaper years back. They were not friends and he had not talked to him for the past several years before his mysterious death. A man named Joseph Walker found Poe (I think near a tavern or a voting booth?). Walker did not know Poe at all but he happened to work for Snodgrass at the Baltimore Sun. Walker wrote a note to Snodgrass that said the following:
"There is a gentleman, rather the worse for wear, at Ryan’s Fourth Ward Polls, who goes under the cognomen of Edgar A. Poe, and who appears in great distress, & he says he is acquainted with you, and I assure you, he is in need of immediate assistance. Yours, in haste, Jos. W. Walker."
What is strange about this note is that why would Poe state his full name, including his middle name? If he was really in such a bad state, would he even have the presence of mind to say his name? Or why not just his first name? Did Walker ask his name and he just said Edgar A. Poe? Also, why would Poe ask for a man that he had not communicated with for years and who is not his friend? Is it a coincidence that both Walker and Snodgrass worked for the Baltimore Sun? Is it a coincidence that Walker found Poe? When Snodgrass arrived to see Poe, Poe's uncle by marriage Henry Herring was already there. Herring hated Poe and never allowed Poe to come into his house. What is strange about this all now is the fact that Herring was there. Who called him? Did Snodgrass? If so, why? Snodgrass, according to his account of the story, never gave any reason for Herring to be there. Herring and Snodgrass are the only two people who saw Poe and both hated him. Coincidence? Maybe not.
Herring and Snodgrass then took Poe to a Doctor John Moran, who was incredibly unreliable and gave many unbelievable and melodramatic stories of his death. So, we do not actually know how he spent his last few days before he died on October 7. Dr. Moran and Snodgrass's report on Poe's state on Oct 3 completely contradicted each other. Snodgrass stated that Poe was drunk while Dr. Moran stated that there was not a smell of alcohol on him and that he was sure that Poe was not drunk. Neilson Poe, Poe's cousin, went to visit Poe a couple of days after Snodgrass and Herring found him on the streets only to find out that he died. Neilson and Edgar really hated each other. In a letter, Poe wrote this about his cousin Neilson:
"I believe him to be the bitterest enemy I have in the world. He is the more despicable in this, since he makes loud professions of friendship...I cannot account for his hostility except in being vain enough to imagine him jealous of the little literary reputation I have, of late years, obtained. But enough of the little dog."
I have in fact heard a rumor (not sure where though) that Poe hated Neilson so much that he married his cousin Virginia only so that Neilson Poe could not take care of her (not sure that this is true though). What is more strange is that when Poe passed away, no autopsy was done to determine his bizarre death and there is no known death certificate. In truth, we don't really know when he died, as Dr. Moran even claimed that he died on Oct 6, not on Oct 7 as usually believed. There was only a brief mention of his death in the Baltimore Sun (where Snodgrass worked) which was strange as Poe was considered a famous poet during his time. His burial was very hasty and the funeral lasted only three minutes, and only about 6 people (I think) attended the funeral, all of which were mostly family members who hated him. No other member of Poe's family or his friends or his fiancé were told much of anything and were mostly kept in the dark.
So in summary: No autopsy, hasty burial, and “found” by men who hated him from detour on a 240 mile journey, who were the sole witnesses to the “finding,” and teamed with hated family members to keep everything as murky as possible. Coincidence? In truth, we really don't know how he died, as the only ones who tell the story are very biased against Poe and unreliable. Did Poe's own cousin, uncle, and former colleague have something to do with his death? Personally, I think so. Motive? Probably many, including jealousy or revenge of sorts.
With all the known true information we have about him, to me it most definitely seems like foul play.
What are your guys' thoughts on my theory?
By the way, here is a picture of Edgar Allan Poe's cousin, Neilson Poe: http://www.eapoe.org/images/poeniels.jpg (He looks quite snobbish in my opinion).
(P.S. If you want further reading into the manner concerning his death or his life, I would suggest you read Midnight dreary : the mysterious death of Edgar Allan Poe by John Evangelist Walsh. I read it and the author has done a lot of research (that's also where I got a lot of my information from), but I do not entirely agree with the author's theory on what caused Poe's death.)
Further Research Links:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/edgar-allen-poe-obituary_n_587d4b0de4b03549ebc02172#:~:text=The%20author%2C%20Rufus%20Griswold%2C%20was%20Poe's%20arch%2Dnemesis.&text=In%20broad%2Dstroke%20descriptors%20of,while%20Poe%20was%20a%20southerner.
https://www.eapoe.org/papers/misc1900/19021100.htm
https://scarriet.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/ten-most-outrageous-poe-myths/
https://scarriet.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/was-edgar-allan-poe-murdered/
https://scarriet.wordpress.com/?s=lion+and+the+little+dog
https://scarriet.wordpress.com/2022/01/18/the-first-modern-journalist-of-misinformation-was-edgar-allan-poe-happy-birthday-to-the-greatest-hoaxer-eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Edgar_Allan_Poe
submitted by ConspiracyTheoristO7 to UnresolvedMysteries [link] [comments]

2024.02.24 17:53 SalamiMommie One Summer in Savannah

One Summer in Savannah by Terah Shelton Harris
I couldn’t give a definite answer on why I chose to read the book. The story itself isn’t one I really would have dove into. Perhaps it was how the book cover looked. Perhaps it’s that me and my wife are talking about visiting Savannah for our very first time either this year or next, or maybe I have been watching too much Savannah Bananas baseball. I randomly came across this book through Libby, and I became glued to it.
Before I discuss further, I will say there is a trigger warning. The story mentions about the main character being raped when she was younger. It does not go into full details of what happened, but this book mentions it throughout.
This story is about a woman who moved away from Georgia when she discovered she was pregnant after being raped at a party as an eighteen year old. She comes back down once she hears news of her father’s health condition.
Her attacker is in prison, though his mother still lives at home and his twin brother moves back down. His family is very wealthy and well known.
The story revolves around the perspective of the woman and of the twin brother and who they collided. This story is of forgiveness and hardships.
It’s one of those stories that I was unable to put down. I finished it within three days because it stayed interesting to me and ready so smoothly. If done correctly, this story would make an excellent movie.
Even if you aren’t into a story like this, give it a try anyway. I did and I’m so glad I tried.
submitted by SalamiMommie to books [link] [comments]

2024.02.23 06:00 FireFight1234567 Criminal 2A Case Update 2/22/2024

US v. Kenneth Cherry, Jr. (Not US v. Bernard Cherry): The Defendant, who got busted for firearms trafficking and felon-in-possession, tried to vacate convictions and sentences pro se by saying that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and, citing US v. Price and. Rigby v. Jennings, saying 18 USC § 922(k) is unconstitutional as applied to him. He got prohibited because on 5/29/2008, he falsely identified himself at a traffic stop, and the police found 22 bags of cocaine and a semi-auto handgun. He then tried to conceal a cellphone in his prison cell. He was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, criminal conspiracy, and false identification on 10/2/2009. He also has has committed bad things as a juvenile.
The judge denied the § 922(g)(1) challenge because he is “dangerous and untrustworthy.” He says that cocaine is “a dangerous and deadly substance”, and that he’s a repeat offender, including while incarcerated. While I agree that dangerous individuals should be disarmed, it should only be done if they are dangerous, and the government cannot keep such people disarmed after they return to their pre-indictment status as long as they are not dangerous (unless it’s a life sentence or death sentence). The judge denied the § 922(k) challenge by citing to some commercial requirements like manufacture and transportation of gunpowder, as well as barrel proving laws. Gunpowder laws is not a good analogue, and while barrel proving laws look similar, the purpose is different from § 922(k). The proof marker is there to certify that it’s of good quality, while the serial number is there for tracing the gun in law enforcement investigations.
US v. Shelton: Defendant Oronde Shelton has been prohibited because of instances involving illegal drug possession and intent to distribute, vehicular assault and homicide (some of which involved DUI), escape, recklessly endangering another person, and unlicensed carry. See superseding indictment. Shelton tried to dismiss the § 922(o) charge as unconstitutional as applied to him. The firearm he possessed belonged to one of his friends who passed on, and according to an investigation, he fired the firearm after initially being fired upon in each instance.
He also points out why “common use” is faulty. In 2009, Professor Michael P. O’Shea in The Right to Defensive Arms After District of Columbia v. Heller said
[S]ince restrictive firearms legislation influences which firearms will be found “in common use” by law-abiding private citizens, a constitutional rule that uses the presence or absence of particular arms in common use as a gauge of the constitutionality of firearms legislation runs a serious risk of harmful circularity.
He also cites Richard Posner’s In Defense of Looseness: The Supreme Court and Gun Control. He also cites Dave Kopel’s article The Federal Circuits’ Second Amendment Doctrines, which cited US v. Henry:
Historically, machine guns have always been rare in the hands of law-abiding citizens, partly because of the enormous cost of ammunition. When they were introduced to the U.S. market in the 1920s, they were a commercial failure for law-abiding citizens, although they did become popular with bootleggers. However, in compliance with the NFA system, over a hundred thousand machine guns were lawfully possessed by citizens as of 1986, when Congress enacted a statute prohibiting sales to citizens of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. This led the Ninth Circuit to adopt the circular argument that the machine gun prohibition is constitutional because machine guns are prohibited:
A machine gun is “unusual” because private possession of all new machine guns, as well as all existing machine guns that were not lawfully possessed before the enactment of § 922(o), has been unlawful since 1986. Outside of a few government-related uses, machine guns largely exist on the black market.
Judge Easterbrook in the Friedman opinion criticized this:
And relying on how common a weapon is at the time of litigation would be circular to boot. Machine guns aren’t commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal; semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal. Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly owned. A law’s existence can’t be a source of its own constitutional validity.
“Common use” means not “dangerous and unusual”, which refers to conduct, not a class of arms based on the number of those privately owned by civilians. I personally agree with Easterbrook’s criticism on the “common use” phrase, and SCOTUS really needs to step in and correct this (the Bevis cert petition makes this question).
Shelton tried to get § 922(g)(1) dismissed and cited to Range v. Garland as guidance. The judge denied both motions by saying that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Shelton because of the latter’s uglier criminal history compared to Bryan Range’s, and by saying that 2A’s text doesn’t even presumptively protect possession of full autos for self-defense, and says that the US doesn’t need to do the historical burden to prove that full autos are “dangerous and unusual.”
submitted by FireFight1234567 to firearmpolicy [link] [comments]

2024.02.23 05:59 FireFight1234567 Criminal 2A Case Update 2/22/2024

US v. Kenneth Cherry, Jr. (Not US v. Bernard Cherry): The Defendant, who got busted for firearms trafficking and felon-in-possession, tried to vacate convictions and sentences pro se by saying that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and, citing US v. Price and. Rigby v. Jennings, saying 18 USC § 922(k) is unconstitutional as applied to him. He got prohibited because on 5/29/2008, he falsely identified himself at a traffic stop, and the police found 22 bags of cocaine and a semi-auto handgun. He then tried to conceal a cellphone in his prison cell. He was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, criminal conspiracy, and false identification on 10/2/2009. He also has has committed bad things as a juvenile.
The judge denied the § 922(g)(1) challenge because he is “dangerous and untrustworthy.” He says that cocaine is “a dangerous and deadly substance”, and that he’s a repeat offender, including while incarcerated. While I agree that dangerous individuals should be disarmed, it should only be done if they are dangerous, and the government cannot keep such people disarmed after they return to their pre-indictment status as long as they are not dangerous (unless it’s a life sentence or death sentence). The judge denied the § 922(k) challenge by citing to some commercial requirements like manufacture and transportation of gunpowder, as well as barrel proving laws. Gunpowder laws is not a good analogue, and while barrel proving laws look similar, the purpose is different from § 922(k). The proof marker is there to certify that it’s of good quality, while the serial number is there for tracing the gun in law enforcement investigations.
US v. Shelton: Defendant Oronde Shelton has been prohibited because of instances involving illegal drug possession and intent to distribute, vehicular assault and homicide (some of which involved DUI), escape, recklessly endangering another person, and unlicensed carry. See superseding indictment. Shelton tried to dismiss the § 922(o) charge as unconstitutional as applied to him. The firearm he possessed belonged to one of his friends who passed on, and according to an investigation, he fired the firearm after initially being fired upon in each instance.
He also points out why “common use” is faulty. In 2009, Professor Michael P. O’Shea in The Right to Defensive Arms After District of Columbia v. Heller said
[S]ince restrictive firearms legislation influences which firearms will be found “in common use” by law-abiding private citizens, a constitutional rule that uses the presence or absence of particular arms in common use as a gauge of the constitutionality of firearms legislation runs a serious risk of harmful circularity.
He also cites Richard Posner’s In Defense of Looseness: The Supreme Court and Gun Control. He also cites Dave Kopel’s article The Federal Circuits’ Second Amendment Doctrines, which cited US v. Henry:
Historically, machine guns have always been rare in the hands of law-abiding citizens, partly because of the enormous cost of ammunition. When they were introduced to the U.S. market in the 1920s, they were a commercial failure for law-abiding citizens, although they did become popular with bootleggers. However, in compliance with the NFA system, over a hundred thousand machine guns were lawfully possessed by citizens as of 1986, when Congress enacted a statute prohibiting sales to citizens of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. This led the Ninth Circuit to adopt the circular argument that the machine gun prohibition is constitutional because machine guns are prohibited:
A machine gun is “unusual” because private possession of all new machine guns, as well as all existing machine guns that were not lawfully possessed before the enactment of § 922(o), has been unlawful since 1986. Outside of a few government-related uses, machine guns largely exist on the black market.
Judge Easterbrook in the Friedman opinion criticized this:
And relying on how common a weapon is at the time of litigation would be circular to boot. Machine guns aren’t commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal; semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal. Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly owned. A law’s existence can’t be a source of its own constitutional validity.
“Common use” means not “dangerous and unusual”, which refers to conduct, not a class of arms based on the number of those privately owned by civilians. I personally agree with Easterbrook’s criticism on the “common use” phrase, and SCOTUS really needs to step in and correct this (the Bevis cert petition makes this question).
Shelton tried to get § 922(g)(1) dismissed and cited to Range v. Garland as guidance. The judge denied both motions by saying that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Shelton because of the latter’s uglier criminal history compared to Bryan Range’s, and by saying that 2A’s text doesn’t even presumptively protect possession of full autos for self-defense, and says that the US doesn’t need to do the historical burden to prove that full autos are “dangerous and unusual.”
submitted by FireFight1234567 to progun [link] [comments]

2024.02.23 05:53 FireFight1234567 Criminal 2A Case Update 2/22/2024

US v. Kenneth Cherry, Jr. (Not US v. Bernard Cherry): The Defendant, who got busted for firearms trafficking and felon-in-possession, tried to vacate convictions and sentences pro se by saying that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and, citing US v. Price and. Rigby v. Jennings, saying 18 USC § 922(k) is unconstitutional as applied to him. He got prohibited because on 5/29/2008, he falsely identified himself at a traffic stop, and the police found 22 bags of cocaine and a semi-auto handgun. He then tried to conceal a cellphone in his prison cell. He was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, criminal conspiracy, and false identification on 10/2/2009. He also has has committed bad things as a juvenile.
The judge denied the § 922(g)(1) challenge because he is “dangerous and untrustworthy.” He says that cocaine is “a dangerous and deadly substance”, and that he’s a repeat offender, including while incarcerated. While I agree that dangerous individuals should be disarmed, it should only be done if they are dangerous, and the government cannot keep such people disarmed after they return to their pre-indictment status as long as they are not dangerous (unless it’s a life sentence or death sentence). The judge denied the § 922(k) challenge by citing to some commercial requirements like manufacture and transportation of gunpowder, as well as barrel proving laws. Gunpowder laws is not a good analogue, and while barrel proving laws look similar, the purpose is different from § 922(k). The proof marker is there to certify that it’s of good quality, while the serial number is there for tracing the gun in law enforcement investigations.
US v. Shelton: Defendant Oronde Shelton has been prohibited because of instances involving illegal drug possession and intent to distribute, vehicular assault and homicide (some of which involved DUI), escape, recklessly endangering another person, and unlicensed carry. See superseding indictment. Shelton tried to dismiss the § 922(o) charge as unconstitutional as applied to him. The firearm he possessed belonged to one of his friends who passed on, and according to an investigation, he fired the firearm after initially being fired upon in each instance.
He also points out why “common use” is faulty. In 2009, Professor Michael P. O’Shea in The Right to Defensive Arms After District of Columbia v. Heller said
[S]ince restrictive firearms legislation influences which firearms will be found “in common use” by law-abiding private citizens, a constitutional rule that uses the presence or absence of particular arms in common use as a gauge of the constitutionality of firearms legislation runs a serious risk of harmful circularity.
He also cites Richard Posner’s In Defense of Looseness: The Supreme Court and Gun Control. He also cites Dave Kopel’s article The Federal Circuits’ Second Amendment Doctrines, which cited US v. Henry:
Historically, machine guns have always been rare in the hands of law-abiding citizens, partly because of the enormous cost of ammunition. When they were introduced to the U.S. market in the 1920s, they were a commercial failure for law-abiding citizens, although they did become popular with bootleggers. However, in compliance with the NFA system, over a hundred thousand machine guns were lawfully possessed by citizens as of 1986, when Congress enacted a statute prohibiting sales to citizens of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. This led the Ninth Circuit to adopt the circular argument that the machine gun prohibition is constitutional because machine guns are prohibited:
A machine gun is “unusual” because private possession of all new machine guns, as well as all existing machine guns that were not lawfully possessed before the enactment of § 922(o), has been unlawful since 1986. Outside of a few government-related uses, machine guns largely exist on the black market.
Judge Easterbrook in the Friedman opinion criticized this:
And relying on how common a weapon is at the time of litigation would be circular to boot. Machine guns aren’t commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal; semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal. Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly owned. A law’s existence can’t be a source of its own constitutional validity.
“Common use” means not “dangerous and unusual”, which refers to conduct, not a class of arms based on the number of those privately owned by civilians. I personally agree with Easterbrook’s criticism on the “common use” phrase, and SCOTUS really needs to step in and correct this (the Bevis cert petition makes this question).
Shelton tried to get § 922(g)(1) dismissed and cited to Range v. Garland as guidance. The judge denied both motions by saying that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Shelton because of the latter’s uglier criminal history compared to Bryan Range’s, and by saying that 2A’s text doesn’t even presumptively protect possession of full autos for self-defense, and says that the US doesn’t need to do the historical burden to prove that full autos are “dangerous and unusual.”
submitted by FireFight1234567 to gunpolitics [link] [comments]

2024.02.14 17:41 Tomasfoolery How I have reported possible issues of concern to Town resources - and how you can too!

Hi everyone!
If you notice something that is a concern to you about one of Shelton's properties (telephone pole, roadway, stuff like that), there's some things you can do to help Shelton resources investigate easily and with minimal effort (as far as I know! Actual Shelton resources, please correct me if I give incorrect information here). Many of these can be reported online, and that form will walk you through what you would need.
  1. On each telephone pole there is a number. Collect that number and provide it to the PUD. If the issue is between two poles, provide both poles.
  2. lines need to be 19 feet up - but that would actually be power lines. Cable or telephone lines can be under 19 feet (or rather the PUD doesn't particularly care about them, though that isn't what they would say, I don't think). Power cables usually are braided and live at the top of the poles.
  3. In the case of the road (handled by the Shelton Public Works department), use google maps to see if you can get a GPS location (for example 47°12'40.1"N 123°06'37.3"W is where an area of concern is - the hillside is slipping and the road has been steadily dropping for years on both sides of the roadway). You can also ask about proper signage and drainage if you contact the public works department.
  4. Water issues. The county assessor has a map with all waterlines marked, so you could use https://masoncountywa.gov/assesso to find the water lines, and give as much information to the water dept as possible. That's a courtesy, since they probably know more about the setup just from saying the streetname, but it could help you figure out if the fire hydrant is supposed to burble like that or not.
  5. Fiber issues - the PUD3 cannot repair fiber connectivity issues for you directly. It's EXTREMELY rare for an issue to be backbone related (though it happens) but if you do see a fiber cut or something along those lines, grab the telephone pole (or underground pole) info and give 'em a call. Worst case scenario, they take the info, and still direct you to call your provider.
  6. Non emergency police calls - I always feel weird calling about non emergency issues, such as wildlife acting oddly, or possible road hazards or even the good old, "Is that a house fire or a really smoky chimney burning really green wood or trash?" If you can, grab as much information as possible for dispatch and keep it concise. I would think, and any dispatcher can verify, that it is best to report a non issue than it would be to non report an actual issue. Once. Unless you can verify that the issue has escalated, in which case call 911 instead of non emergency to say the oddly acting wobbly raccoon is now on fire.
  7. In case of fire, evacuate. Stay visible, stay safe, and let the responding firefighters know what to expect. People, pets, and dangers they wish to know - such as where the propane/cutoffs are. It is very stressful to watch your stuff burn, especially if loved ones are still inside. Do NOT return to your house/carv/spaceship, no matter how wrenching it is.
  8. A more difficult one, socially, is what to do with public land and littesquatters. The best that can be done is to alert the property owners if you are concerned. Most recently, it appears a small camp/dumpsite was cleaned up by WSDOT over by Walmart. From what I understand, WSDOT works with local communities to handle such things with as much grace and responsibility as possible. Shelton's website has this: https://www.sheltonwa.gov/residents/homelessness.php and the city regs have this: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Shelton/html/Shelton20/Shelton2047.html. There is no place top report possible concerns, so if you have a concern, I suggest contcting the non emergency number for MACECOM dispatch.
https://www.pud3.org/service/contact-us/pud-3-locations
https://sheltonwa.gov/government/departments/public_works/wateindex.php (Mr. Albaugh is a great public servant, if you have questions and email him)
https://www.sheltonwa.gov/government/departments/public_works/streets/index.php (Mr. Albaugh is a great public servant, if you have questions and email him x2)
I hope this helps.
submitted by Tomasfoolery to shelton [link] [comments]

2024.02.09 02:17 GasElectronic4454 wadoc shelton county (washington corrections)

Okay, so I was wondering about the department's culture and what to expect when I received a final offer from Washington Corrections. I'm a city man, so please let me know if you know anything about Mason County; I'll be going there for on-the-job training.
​
I would like information on the jail's rules and practices as well as what to expect during my initial few days there.
submitted by GasElectronic4454 to OnTheBlock [link] [comments]

2024.02.07 11:04 theconstellinguist Social decision making in narcissism: Reduced generosity and increased retaliation are driven by alterations in perspective-taking and anger

Social decision making in narcissism: Reduced generosity and increased retaliation are driven by alterations in perspective-taking and anger
Crossposting audience: This is a new subreddit at zeronarcissists, the first anti-narcissism subreddit based on scientific evidence as far as I can tell. Please give us a follow at the original sub! We are new and growing.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/87175644/Boeckler_etal_2017_PID_Narcissism-libre.pdf?1654665772=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSocial_decision_making_in_narcissism_Red.pdf&Expires=1707268837&Signature=gEIuewYt~Vy3jzHnh5x8-BFVEAqJw5qZqgfZdrdusnIs48ydWsgoAvJHYrk4mVvtobakCrY4zjfIUQ9TbhsJVZFO3OrU-xerk~AeWIvT2r0rIIedh3UjZ7lCi9Xj5wzgTDBlq3WwRqNYwkx4mnw9sG7f3c079YyDefFp7-rIb3~pMSuw6Nxz-Ap2uhy8CKtbM~dPQo213kNrelL~dTesbKFDDz9KlymKAjZwII5yLIXzLVqbpIfe-5D6PLpcikrowDwB3ytc-ikFZQTZ-SRdk2xB8Cgu9NUnXLXvch8HDm4JdiJN3vHxcRpbHmK0t2F1VJ2YR2EqsJOA8AXzkpBICw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Due to reduced perspective-taking, narcissists in general showed lower generosity when generosity was remedial to relationships. Narcissists also therefore showed unhappy and unstable short-term and long-term relationships.
Narcissism scores were related to lower generosity, especially when this could result in being punished. This maladaptive behavior was fully mediated by reduced perspective-taking abilities in narcissism.
Narcissists tended to turn to punishment when angry, validating VET (Violent Entitlement Theory)
Also, narcissism scores predicted higher levels of punishment behavior, driven by higher levels of experienced anger.
Interpersonal difficulties therefore are a combination of reduced perspective-taking which results in lower generosity when required in a relationship and more anger-based retaliation akin to VET (violent entitlement theory)
Hence, the difficulties narcissists face in interactions may be due to their reduced perspective-taking skills and resulting reduced generosity as well as enhanced anger-based retaliation behavior.
Narcissism is marked by interpersonal difficulties, entitlement, and enhanced feelings of grandiosity
Narcissism – both on the sub-clinical and on the pathological level – is characterized by enhanced feelings of grandiosity and entitlement as well as by impairments in interpersonal functioning (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005; Given-Wilson, Ilwain, & Warburton, 2011; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
Narcissists are not considered “relationship material” by society in most cases
Narcissists are considered less likable by others (Back et al., 2013), are less often engaged in committed and satisfactory relationships (Campbell, 1999; Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002; Carroll, 1987; Paulhus, 1998), and their behavior negatively impacts on others and on society (Barry, Kerig, Stellwagen, & Barry, 2011; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, Elliot, & Gregg, 2002)
Narcissists report lower moral and ethical standards; they aren’t bothered by far more than the average person is in terms of moral disgust. The also volunteer less and usually put as little time into helping as they can get away with
Concerning the first question, psychological research suggests that (sub-clinical) narcissism is related to reduced prosocial decision making. Narcissists report lower moral and ethical standards (Antes et al., 2007; Brown, Sautter, Littvay, Sautter, & Bearnes, 2010; Cooper & Pullig, 2013), volunteer less for the sake of others, and invest less time to help others (Brunell, Tumblin, & Buelow, 2014; Lannin, Guyll, Krizan, & Madon, 2014)
Trait narcissism predicts higher selfishness and less prosocial choices
Using a social dilemma (‘Public Goods Game’) Campbell et al. (2005) demonstrated that trait narcissism predicts more selfish and less prosocial choices.
Narcissists are stingier when they think the person is powerless to push back. They only engage in strategic giving; where they view the askethe person in need as someone powerful who can retaliate if they don’t give
Why narcissists are identifiable by stingy behaviors when they believe the other person won’t retaliate/has no power to retaliate: In fact, decades of research in behavioral economics suggest that the opportunity to reciprocate or retaliate against others' actions determines social decision making in two important ways: First, people adjust generous or cooperative behavior to whether their interaction partners can respond (e.g., by punishing unfair distribution choices; Fehr & Gachter, 2002; Güth, 1995; Spitzer, Fischbacher, Herrnberger, Gron, & Fehr, 2007; Steinbeis, Bernhardt, & Singer, 2012). Put simply, people give more when others have the option to retaliate, a behavioral tendency that has been termed strategic giving (e.g., Steinbeis et al., 2012).
Narcissists are often punished by society for behaving selfishly, but they fail to lower self-enhancement even when held socially accountable. Most narcissists are therefore maladaptive, often because their self-report (what they think about themselves) is not in congruence with reality, and therefore they are in denial that there’s anything wrong with them. When faced with evidence of their narcissism, they–narcissistically–twist facts to suit theories of their non-narcissism (they challenge the facts on science, challenge the facts on logic, challenge the facts on psychology, challenge the facts on statistics, etc.) instead of theories to suit facts
Second, people tend to punish those who behave selfishly (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Fehr & Gachter, 2002; McAuliffe, Jordan, & Warneken, 2015). T
Criminal narcissists have less empathy and perspective taking which results in VET (violent entitlement theory).
. Research shows, for instance, that reduced levels of empathy and perspective-taking drive the enhanced sense of entitlement in criminal narcissists (Hepper, Hart, Meek, Cisek, & Sedikides, 2014).
Narcissism most strongly predicts Machiavellianism
Besides impairments in such interpersonal traits, narcissism has been linked to enhanced Machiavellian attitudes and increased negative emotions such as anger (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Menon & Sharland, 2011; Witte, Callahan, & Perez-Lopez, 2002)
Reduced generosity is associated with increased Machiavellianism in narcissism; aka many narcissists don’t give not only out of stinginess but out of cruelty/envy/rage/etc.
Concerning first mover behavior, we expected to replicate findings of reduced generosity in narcissism (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005). Beyond, we were interested whether trait narcissism is related to enhanced strategic behavior (i.e., less generosity especially when others cannot punish), which would be in line with reports of enhanced Machiavellian attitudes in narcissism (Menon & Sharland, 2011)
Narcissists are not sensitive to the reactions of others so sometimes don’t give even when the other person can punish
Alternatively, given that narcissists are less concerned with the effects their actions have on others (Sedikides et al., 2002), it may be that they are less sensitive to other's prospective reactions and, hence, behave less generously not only when retaliation is impossible (Dictator Game), but also when the other player can punish (2nd Party Punishment Game).
VET (Violent Entitlement Theory)
Concerning second and third mover punishment behavior, based on findings of a heightened perception of others as unfair and enhanced anger and aggression in narcissism (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Menon & Sharland, 2011), we hypothesized that narcissism is related to an increase in anger-based punishment.
The Tests
. The IRI is a 28 item questionnaire measuring empathetic concern, personal distress, perspective-taking, and fantasy. The fantasy subscale was not included due to previous criticism (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). The CEEQ is a 30 item questionnaire measuring the cognitive and emotional facets of empathy, including the subscales empathic concern, perspective taking, mirroring, and mental state perception. Sum scores for all subscales were derived for both questionnaires.
Groups high in narcissism gave significantly less than groups low in narcissism
The high narcissism group gave significantly less overall than the low narcissism group, as reflected in a main effect of Group
High narcissists punish low offers significantly more than non-narcissists.
. In addition, punishment was significantly enhanced in the high narcissism group (F(1, 115) = 7.2, p b 0.01, ηp 2 = 0.059). The two-way interaction of Offer and Group (F(1, 115) = 4.3, p b 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.036) indicates that high narcissists punish low offers significantly more than non-narcissists (t(120) = −2.9, p b 0.01, d = 0.53), which was not the case for high off
Trait narcissism is related to lower giving, especially when retaliation is not possible. Narcissists punished others more harshly when offers were low.
Taken together, game theoretical paradigms revealed trait narcissism to be related to lower giving, particularly in settings where retaliation was possible. When taking the role of the receiver or observer, narcissists punished others more harshly, especially when offers were low.
In the average non-narcissist, a low offer will cause anger, sadness, and disgust and less happiness. In narcissists, anger and sadness were even higher than the average population, giving way to sadness based anger. It can be hypothesized that the anger is due to not believing the individual would care about their sadness so they enforce the correction through anger (Violent Entitlement Theory).
The main effects of Offer show that anger, sadness, and disgust increased and happiness decreased with decreasing offers (Fs(1, 111) ≥ 47.0, ps b 0.001, ηp 2 s ≥ 0.297). In addition, the high narcissism group reported significantly more anger (F(1, 111) = 10.7, p b 0.01, ηp 2 = 0.088) and sadness (F111) = 9.9, p b 0.01, ηp 2 = 0.082), while no group differences were revealed for disgust or happiness (ps N 0.1). In accordance, PNI scores correlated significantly with overall anger (r = 0.20, p b 0.05) and sadness (r = 0.23, p b 0.05), as well as anger (r = 0.20, p b 0.05) and sadness (r = 0.25, p b 0.01) specific to low offers.
The high narcissism group was not engaged in perspective taking behaviors; rather, they were engaged in self-protective behaviors, showing low exposure to the paradigm of intent to explore vs. intent to protect
The high narcissism group reported significantly less perspective taking (t(120) = 2.4, p b 0.05, d = 0.44) a
High narcissism also was related to reduced perspective taking and higher personal distress
The high narcissism group reported significantly more Machiavellianism than the low narcissism group (t(120) = 3.4, p b 0.01, d = 0.61) and PNI scores were correlated with the Machiavellian Index (r = 0.35, p b 0.001). Taken together, questionnaires revealed enhanced negative state affect in narcissism as well as enhanced personal distress, reduced perspective-taking and higher Machiavellian attitudes
Anger directly affected punishment, and sadness directly affected anger. However, sadness and Machiavellianism did not directly affect punishment. Interestingly they had to turn into anger first.
Narcissism was associated with low offer punishment and with anger, sadness, and Machiavellianism. The direct effect of anger was associated positively with punishment. No relations were found for sadness and Machiavellianism
Narcissism is linked to reduced generosity, driven by poorer perspective-taking skills, and increased anger-based punishment
We revealed that trait narcissism is linked to reduced generosity, driven by poorer perspective-taking skills, and to increased anger-based punishment.
Even when partners could retaliate, those high on narcissism still acted selfishly, showing inability to reduce self-enhancement even when they can or are being held accountable. Thus most narcissists are maladaptive, they are not adaptive enough to their environments (thus why they are only pragmatically socially successful, but when interviewed, most people reported being interpersonally dissatisfied by their relationship with the narcissist).
By contrast, people scoring high on narcissism behaved more selfishly than people with lower scores especially in settings in which interaction partners could retaliate (2PPG).
Impaired empathy made it so that narcissists were less generous when it would have been the rational decision to have been generous in the situation
Results of the mediation analyses suggest that lower generosity in the 2PPG was fully driven by a reduced perspective-taking ability in participants scoring high on narcissism. The impaired ability or willingness to take an interaction partner's perspective (or action opportunities) into account, thus, led narcissists to behave less generously in situations where generosity would have been in their own interest (in order to forgo punishment)
Decreased empathy and generosity are why narcissists are generally resented and unliked by society.
The lack of considering other peoples' perspectives and action opportunities and the ensuing tendency to behave less generously towards others may well be one of the core reasons for the impaired social interactions of narcissists (e.g., unstable relationships; Back et al., 2013; Campbell et al., 2002).
In addition, they are less likely to adapt to the facts of these being the reasons why they are disliked, acting with VET (violent entitlement theory) when they are unliked without changing the core reasons presented to them as to why. Thus, the VET presents an intent to create justice, but it ultimately leads to more resentment as it is maladaptive to the facts of the situation. Behind the VE (violent entitlement) was increased sadness and anger and narcissists, who did not have the empathy required to see the pleasures/reasons in giving like non-narcissists do.
Complementarily to reduced generosity and lower sensitivity to others' punishment options, high narcissists exhibited enhanced levels of punishment when faced with other people's offers, especially when these were unfair. Such behavior may have two different origins: First, it may reflect the tendency to reinforce fairness norms by punishing unfair agents (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004) or, second, it may be a direct result of anger experienced when treated unfairly (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Menon & Sharland, 2011), hence, reflecting impulsive retributive actions. Supporting the latter, people with high trait narcissism reported higher states of sadness and anger during the interaction, particularly when receiving unfair offers
Narcissists tend to report feeling like they are more unjustly treated, they are more likely to be angry, and they are more likely to externalize this anger through blame
This finding is in line with reports of narcissists' enhanced sense of being treated unjust, increased levels of anger, and their augmented tendency to blame others (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998) as well as with research on the relation of anger and punishment (Knoch et al., 2006; McCall et al., 2014). to others' unfair behavior may jeopardize stable social interactions.
Reciprocity is not enough; social success is awarded to those who have generous (upspiraling) reciprocity. This means that they do as the other does AND also correct for selfishness when and where encountered with an eye to upspiraling the situation for the better
In fact, research suggests that stable cooperation is strongly supported by an interaction strategy that has been termed ‘generous tit-for-tat’ (Wedekind & Milinski, 1996), namely doing as the other does (e.g., cooperating when the other cooperates), but with bracing cooperative behavior at least once after the other has behaved selfishly.
The unpopularity of narcissists that shows through in their difficulties in relationships and interactions are based on relational stinginess; stinginess in interest, in taking the time to understand, stinginess in positive regard, stinginess in the researching-and-resolving-type mentality required in empathy and other generous and prosocial miniscule acts in day to day relationships that adds up. This is mediated by their actual inability to have these features. Thus they are experienced as a burden on society who instead of even just non-generously but perfectly matching positive social interaction, they are likely to lower the overall social generosity exchange with a negative “return” for any social actor interacting with them. Thus they become avoided and are experienced as socially burdensome.
It is likely that they are at the core of the difficulties narcissists face when interacting with others - ranging from being considered less sympathetic and experiencing less satisfying relationships to being an actual burden to others and society.
Tl;dr
Narcissists are more likely to punish you if they feel they are getting the short end of the stick in your fundraising encounter than they are to donate to you because they do not have the prerequisite ability to take your perspective. Rather, they are quick to enter personal distress by your ask which turns to VE (violent entitlement), where you are threatening their entitlement to their money, and this turns violent. Thus you may be more likely to encounter punishment or exploitation if you are dealing with a narcissist when doing basic fundraising. Thus narcissists should be avoided in the fundraising process whenever possible.
submitted by theconstellinguist to zeronarcissists [link] [comments]

2024.02.05 21:43 funfsinn14 Comparing Band of Brothers, The Pacific, and Masters of the Air

Over the past few days I've done a re-watch of BoB, Pac, and what we have so far with MOTA a few times. There's just so much I want to chat about regarding all of the series so I hope here is a good place to sound off and I'm not breaking any mod rules. I watched BoB when I was maybe in high school and in college Pac was on. I don't think I finished it and disappointed I lost track as it was airing and didn't revisit it until now. Alright, essay incoming and also some stuff relating the family history of my two grandfathers who served in the ETO and PTO.
BoB
Pac
MOTA
submitted by funfsinn14 to MastersoftheAir [link] [comments]

2024.01.31 22:34 theconstellinguist Narcissists Spite Accountability Features Because They View Everyone But Themselves as Incompetent; Narcissistic Myopia, Narcissistic Hatred of Democracy , Narcissistic Overconfident Interruption, And Narcissistic Rage When They Can’t Convince Others Despite Having Non-convincing Reasons

​
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/136881/Too-arrogant-for-their-own-good.pdf?sequence=1
Crossposting audience: This is a new subreddit at zeronarcissists, the first anti-narcissism subreddit based on scientific evidence as far as I can tell. Please give us a follow at the original sub! We are new and growing.
Gathering information required to make a good decision is critical for good decision. Narcissists are known for making poor decisions especially for discounting this step;
  1. Advice taking is central to making better decisions, but some individuals seem unwilling to use advice. The present research examined the relationship between narcissism and advice taking. In particular, we studied the mechanisms that explain why narcissists are dismissive of advice.
  2. Results showed that the narcissism–advice taking relationship was strongly negative under process accountability. Taken together, these results suggest that narcissists eschew advice not because of greater confidence, but because they think others are incompetent and because they fail to reduce their self-enhancement when expecting to be assessed.
Advice is more likely to be taken when it has a lot of ethos. Even just making it more expensive increases the likelihood it will be taken, no matter how bad (or good) it actually is.
  1. . For example, advice is more likely to be used when it (a) comes from experienced people (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006), (b) comes from confident individuals (Swol & Sniezek, 2005), and (c) is expensive (Gino, 2008)
Even this has even less effect on narcissists, who overestimate their attractiveness, importance, and competence. Narcissists will ignore things they don’t want to hear, even if they are necessary to hear.
  1. Narcissism reflects a belief in one’s superior qualities, including intelligence, attractiveness, and competence (Carlson, Naumann, & Vazire, 2011; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; John & Robins, 1994). Narcissists tend to experience a sense of self-admiration and superiority (Emmons, 1987). Perhaps for this reason, some practitioners have reported that narcissists are poor listeners and disregard others’ judgments, especially if they are in conflict with narcissists’ own judgments (Lubit, 2002; Maccoby, 2000)
Definition of narcissists for this experiment
  1. In our examination, we focus on the mechanisms that may explain why and under what circumstances narcissists will be dismissive of advice from others. Specifically, we examine three primary characteristics of narcissism: a positive view of the self, a lack of concern for others, and the use of self-enhancement strategies (Campbell & Foster, 2007).
Taking into account other’s opinions while successfully navigating them critically improves judgments
  1. Decision makers who take into account others’ opinions or judgments—even if they use simple strategies to aggregate this information—can improve their judgment or choice (Clemen, 1989) and reduce error (Larrick & Soll, 2006).
Narcissists, however, are more likely to think invalidating opinions that are from someone they don’t respect or cause them ego injury are ignored on good reason. They are not; they are ignored due to causing ego injury or because they don’t respect the person, no matter how correct. (Narcissistic “fact checking” vs. legitimate “fact checking").
  1. Indeed, the use of advice is related not only to individual performance, but also to firm performance (McDonald & Westphal, 2003), with research demonstrating that firms whose CEOs tended to solicit advice from people who offered strategic perspectives different from their own were more likely to perform better than firms whose CEOs who did not (McDonald, Khanna, & Westphal, 2008).
  2. Third, superiority biases suggest that people tend to believe they are more accurate and important than others (Hoorens, 1993; Krueger & Mueller, 2002), which would explain why they ignore others’ advice (Harvey & Harries, 2004; Soll & Mannes, 2011). This third account suggests that people with greater superiority bias should take limited advice, if any, when making decisions. As we review in the next section, individuals high on narcissism have greater superiority bias and tend to be poor listeners who discount others’ input. These characteristics and tendencies should lead narcissists to engage in less advice taking than non-narcissists.
Narcissists overestimate themselves in the positive, need to appear and feel grand, and are more entitled
  1. First, narcissists’ positive view of the self implies that narcissists (a) think they are better than others (John & Robins, 1994), (b) have inflated beliefs about their skills compared to objective measures or others’ ratings (Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Judge, Lepine, & Rich, 2006), (c) believe they are special and unique (Emmons, 1984; Kubarych, Deary, & Austin, 2004), and (d) have high levels of entitlement and selfishness (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005; Miller, Price, & Campbell, 2011b).
  2. Second, narcissists tend to disregard others and are concerned with possessing agentic (e.g., competence) rather than communal (e.g., friendliness, empathy) characteristics (Jordan, Giacomin, & Kopp, 2014).
  3. Third, narcissists utilize self-enhancement strategies to regulate their self (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011). Self-enhancement involves ‘‘motives and self-directed effort to increase the positivity of one’s self-concept or public image’’ (Wallace, 2011, p. 309). **In other words, narcissists expend a lot of effort engaging in behaviors that make them appear and feel grand (**Campbell & Foster, 2007).
  4. the narcissistic perspective involves a permanent quest aiming at trying to achieve self-affirmation. **This results in behaviors including showing off and dominating conversations (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010), as well as affiliating with high-status individuals and competing to emerge as winners (**Buss & Chiodo, 1991; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002).
  5. Narcissistic features: overconfidence, egocentrism, and core self-evaluation (see Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005).
  6. However, it is the unique conglomeration of characteristics comprising narcissism that distinguishes narcissism from these other constructs. For example, overconfidence refers to an excessive conviction in the accuracy of one’s beliefs
Overconfidence is not the whole picture of narcissism, though narcissists are overconfident. It has more malicious elements in addition.
  1. However, overconfidence lacks some key features of narcissism, such as the absence of concern about others, a sense of entitlement, and selfishness (Campbell, 1999; Grijalva & Harms, 2014).
Egocentrism (conflating others with the self, or to do with the self) is not the whole picture of narcissism, though narcissists are egocentric. Again, it has more malicious elements in addition.
  1. Similarly, egocentrism is an inability to differentiate between aspects of self and others (Liotti, 1992; Piaget, 1926) and is characterized by a lack of perspective taking (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004). In other words, egocentric individuals only see the world from their own view.2 Narcissism differs from egocentrism in at least one important issue. In egocentrism, people have difficulties in seeing others’ views; in narcissism, people do not care about these views or may even become infuriated when others fail to have their same perspective
  2. “If you can convince someone, you don’t have to kill him.” -Vladimir Putin
Narcissistic overconfidence leads to more risks with less competence.
  1. First, narcissists’ positive view of their self should lead to overconfidence. Campbell et al. (2004) found that individuals high on narcissism exhibited more overconfidence than their less narcissistic counterparts; that is, they showed greater confidence in their judgments but did not exhibit greater accuracy. The authors also found that narcissistic decision makers took greater risks, which led to an underperformance on a betting task. Consistent with this, Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007) investigated the effect of CEOs’ narcissism on their firms’ strategy and performance, and found that companies with more narcissistic CEOs had more extreme and unstable performance. The authors concluded that this was because the CEOs were overconfident and took bold actions
Narcissists do not trust others to be as competent or as interested in their self-interest as them.
  1. theorized that narcissistic executives are poor listeners because they are distrustful of others’ intentions. When individuals high on narcissism encounter others who have beliefs that are different from their own, they tend to think that those views are inferior and ignorant; they may even attempt to correct those views (Saucier & Webster, 2010). This is consistent with Smalley and Stake (1996; see also Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993)
When grandoise narcissists feel challenged in their sense of self. Their first strategy is to try to discredit the person (narcissistic myopia) So if you’re being excessively discredited, you’re likely dealing with a grandoise narcissist.
  1. When narcissists encounter feedback that conflicts with their grandiose sense of self, they tend to discredit the person who provided the feedback and disregard the feedback as being inaccurate.
  2. . This discrediting of others’ opinions and failure to see the relevance of others’ views has been referred to as narcissistic myopia (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). In sum, narcissistic individuals are likely to view others’ advice as useless and inaccurate; which, in turn, would lead them to avoid using advice when making decisions.
Accountability as justification
  1. d accountability as the implicit or explicit expectation that an individual may be called on to justify his or her actions or outcomes to others. The anticipation of having to justify actions to others often changes both the way people reach decisions (i.e., the process of making decisions) and the outcome of the decisions themselves (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1985)
Process accountability is scrutiny of reasoning and the reasoning process, and whether this process is sound, sane, coherent, and competent
  1. In contrast, process accountability has been defined as ‘‘a condition in which evaluation is based on the quality of the decision making process used to produce the response’’ (Slaughter et al., 2006, p. 49). The outcome of the decision is (ostensibly) irrelevant to the evaluation of the process (Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002). In the laboratory, process accountability is typically operationalized by informing participants—before they make their decision—that after the decision they will have to provide reasons and write their procedures that motivated their action, that these written protocols will be scrutinized, and that they will have justify them in front of others
Self-enhancement is social-comparative; process accountability frustrates self-enhancement in trying to make the narcissist feel grand around others because they have to answer to others and cannot be self-serving if it does not make them rank well from a process accountability perspective.
  1. ). Thus, process accountability works as a deterrent to self-enhancement (Sedikides, Herbst, Hardin, & Dardis, 2002) because, in order to avoid rejection, the perceived presence of others generally makes people behave in a more conforming, less self-serving way than they would do in private (Baumeister, 1982; but see Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2013). This increases self-criticism, which should lead individuals to heed others’ advice.
  2. They consistently found that participants who were held accountable provided lower ratings for themselves than participants who were not held accountable.
  3. The superiority bias is one of the reasons people discount advice; people give more weight to their own judgment than others’ because they think others are less accurate (Harvey & Harries, 2004). Process accountability, therefore, should lead people to take more advice from others.
Predictions in the Experiment
  1. We expect that accountability will deter self-enhancement and increase advice-taking behavior only among those who are less narcissistic. For those high on narcissism, the effect of process accountability would be different. As Sedikides et al. (2002) argued in the discussion of their findings, ‘‘we would expect resistance and even a measure of immunity to the impact of accountability on the self-enhancement inclinations of individuals... high on narcissism’’ (p. 602).
Narcissists are not persuaded by the facts of others they don’t respect (aren’t glamorous others who they want to be seen with and inflate their self-importance) or who cause them narcissistic injury
  1. After all, narcissists tend to believe that their opinions are superior to others, and as a result, they exhibit resistance to persuasion.
  2. Putin’s insistence that facts are opinions is a good example.
  3. In contrast, those high on narcissism did not reduce their self-enhancing tendencies when they were held accountable because they don’t respect accountability if it comes from others that cause narcissistic injury or aren’t important enough to them (aren’t glamorous others who they want to be seen with and inflate their self-importance).
Narcissists do not seek social approval to avoid being criticized under process accountability
  1. Previous research suggests that narcissists may indeed exhibit increased self-enhancement under process accountability. Narcissism is related to displays of exhibitionism and a strong need for individuality, dominance, and uniqueness (Emmons, 1987; Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Sedikides & Gregg, 2001). Moreover, narcissists usually engage in self-presentational strategies that magnify these characteristics (Ames & Kammrath, 2004). They are willing to sacrifice being likable to others in order to show their grandiosity (Miller et al., 2011a,b; Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991). In other words, people high on narcissism do not seek the social approval that the non-narcissist may pursue to avoid being criticized under process accountability; narcissists’ need for individuality may lead them to seek admiration by exhibiting their dominance and individualism.
  2. The continued indignance of Trump on twitter is a good example.
Even under process accountability (checking for peer review, checking for logic, checking for high quality citation), narcissists will not engage with what is required to score well because they do not respect anyone that causes them narcissistic injury or is not a glamorous other than enhances their self-importance.
  1. In summary, there are two reasons of why we expect that process accountability (i.e., the expectation to justify a decision in front of others) will not deter self-enhancement among narcissists, and may actually increase it: (a) narcissists’ beliefs that they do not need to conform to others’ expectations, which make their opinions resistant to persuasion and (b) the presence of others make narcissists act in a more dominant, individualistic, and unique way. Based on the preceding discussion, we expected a strong negative relationship between narcissism and advice taking under process accountability.
  2. Furthermore, given that most people tend to underestimate the importance of using advice (Yaniv, 2004), rewarding decision makers’ accuracy would not have an effect on advice taking. For outcomes (or incentives) to have an effect on decision making, individuals must know the strategies that could work in the first place (e.g., advice taking); in other words, decision makers must possess the ‘‘cognitive capital’’ to recognize when to apply the right decision strategy (Camerer & Hogarth, 1999).
Outcome accountability, “just get it done”, is more popular with narcissism because it allows for corruption and poor or completely nonexistent reasoning as long as the outcome happens. It is more likely to excuse steamrolling, abuse, and other non-techniques to “convince” people (but really it’s just terrorizing them into submission…most are not actually convinced.)
  1. However, learning doesn’t happen much in outcome accountability.
  2. Several authors have found that, in contrast to process accountability, outcome accountability fails to improve decisions and their consequences
Non-narcissists are humble, democratic, prudent, modest and cooperative
  1. non-narcissistic (or humble) individuals, such as being cautious, learning from criticism, and recognizing the contributions of others, among others. After this, we asked participants to think about a decision they made in which others were involved and in which they made the decision in a humble, democratic, prudent, modest, and cooperative manner
Narcissists are dominant, authoritative, bold, and persuasive with a “no time for questions” attitude
  1. Dominant, authoritative, bold, and persuasive manner
  2. In sum, the results of Study 2 show that narcissism is negatively related to advice taking. By manipulating participants’ state level of narcissism**, we showed that narcissists used significantly less advice than non-narcissists,** essentially replicating our results from Study 1.
    1. They are more likely to have their comments turned off (unless exceptionally abusive), to not engage with comments (unless exceptionally abusive), or otherwise evade advice and feedback.
Non-narcissists not only valued advice and others’ input, but they used it.
  1. On the other hand, non-narcissists not only perceived the advice to be useful, they used it
Narcissists think other people are inferior without many good reasons (they don’t score well when defending their reasons under process accountability; see above). They think their perception is sufficient.
  1. This suggests that because narcissists think other are people are inferior (Kernis & Sun, 1994), narcissists perceive others as less competent. This lack of perceived competence makes narcissists then judge advice as less useful, which, in turn, makes them less likely to use the advice they receive.
  2. In other words, these findings suggest that non-narcissistic individuals tend to increase their use of advice under process accountability. This is consistent with the modesty effect found by Collins and Stukas (2008). Narcissistic individuals, however, were unaffected by this pressure.
  3. By emphasizing the importance of narcissism, the belief that other people and their opinions are unimportant, and process accountability in advice taking. Second, there has been virtually no attention to the influence of personality traits on advice taking (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006; Dalal & Bonaccio, 2010).
Advice taking is related to better decisions and job performance
  1. This is unfortunate, as advice taking is related to better decisions and job performance (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, and Kraimer (2001)
Narcissists view the advice of almost all others’ unless they are particular important and enhance their own self-importance as useless and inaccurate
  1. However, the mediation analyses conducted in Studies 1 and 2 did not support the hypothesis that confidence mediated the negative narcissism–advice taking relationship; rather, what was driving this relationship was narcissists’ assessment of others’ advice as useless and inaccurate.3
Narcissists do not become more accurate when provided with opportunities to become so, due to not taking the opportunities
  1. This suggests future research for an intersection of intellectual disability being interpreted in favor of the ego (the other person is wrong, not them; if it was right, they would use it) instead of out of favor of the comprehensive mechanism (they’re not understanding it well) as a feature of narcissim: For example, prior studies have shown that process accountability can increase decision accuracy, such as job interview validity. however, these effects appear to be limited to those who are relatively less narcissistic.
Narcissists are most likely to fail as leaders due to being the least likely to be democratic, to hate democracy, or harbor secret contempt for democracy.
  1. Our results may also help explain findings from a meta-analysis on the relationship between narcissism and job performance (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). O’Boyle and colleagues found that this relation depended on the individual’s position in the organization’s hierarchy: it was more strongly negative for individuals in positions of authority than for individuals in low-position jobs. This means that narcissists fare poorly when in positions of authority.
Individuals high in narcissism have lower leadership effectiveness even though they score themselves higher for leadership effectiveness
  1. This is also in congruence with a recent meta-analysis showing that those individuals who are high on narcissism tend to have poorer leadership effectiveness than those at midrange levels of narcissism (Grijalva et al., 2015).
  2. This can be explained by the fact that effective decision making is one of the most important managerial tasks (Drucker, 2003), and, as noted, using others’ advice is an important strategy to making better decisions (Ciampa, 2006; Soll & Larrick, 2009).
  3. Our results suggest that narcissistic managers may perform poorly, among other reasons, because they are particularly ineffective in taking into consideration advice from others when making decisions.
  4. This is consistent with Lubit’s (2002) idea that narcissistic managers avoid ‘‘the real interchanges of ideas needed for optimal decision-making’’
  5. Interestingly, this finding suggests that narcissists’ spite for others can occur regardless of their confidence in their own skills (Wink, 1991).
Even vulnerable narcissists who do not view themselves as successful and have low self-esteem will still view the advice as others as incompetent, even if they are much more successful than them if it is an ego threat or the person is not a glamorous other who enhances their self-importance
  1. Wink indeed argues that some narcissists are vulnerable and lack self-confidence, but they still disregard others and are perceived as intolerant.
Narcissists are aversive to critical thinking and are aggravated by the whole thing, and may even become aggressive when forced to think critically.
  1. Excessive comparisons to the “gadfly” of Socrates when anyone basically asks them to examine their reasoning.
    1. For those who don’t know, Socrates was the victim of narcissists way back in the BC era. He was given poison for “corrupting the youth” but most of what he did was ask them to examine their reasons. There was some behavior still considered illegal to this day on his end though; however, the real threat was his insistence on thinking critically.
  2. Aversion to critical thinking, even if impersonal, simply because nobody’s criticism but their own is respected by the narcissist; denial of investigations, findings, etc., that are not in their favor due to contempt for anyone other than themselves as incompetent (but will immediate find those same findings if the roles are reversed, showing a lack of ability to take another’s position):
  3. Narcissists take less advice than non-narcissists because they are motivated by their despise for others.
  4. Narcissists are most likely to show knee-jerk, unexamined contempt and belief in the incompetence of others, even before they have the full account of information being proffered. This reflects the narcissist’s overconfidence that they understand the situation (in most cases, they do not.)
  5. Likewise, non-narcissists under process accountability take more advice than non-narcissists under no accountability or outcome accountability, because they are motivated by self-effacing strategies: trying to present themselves in modest ways and assessing their judgments and decisions critically
Audiences can incentivize narcissism
  1. The audience can potentially incentivize narcissism by favoring machismo in decision-makers, i.e., those who don’t consult others and make decisions without giving others credit (which in a submit-dominate paradigm is seen as giving power away, when in fact it is really gaining power): . Future research should examine how different audiences may enhance or reduce advice taking. It would be interesting to study what preferences decision makers attribute to powerful or high status audiences. If individuals assume that powerful audiences prefer assertive decision makers, these individuals might take less advice from others to signal self-confidence (for a recent study on how overconfidence signals competence and high status, see Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012)
Some countries had such strong procedural accountability that it cancelled out all the effects of individual narcissists. These may be invaluable countries to study in combatting an excess of narcissists in any given environment.
  1. For example, in countries with collectivistic cultures, such as Indonesia or Colombia (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995), the effect of procedural accountability could have been stronger, perhaps overriding the effect of narcissism (see Grijalva & Newman, 2015). Thus, the way accountability affects expressions of self-enhancement in different cultures is an issue that merits future research attention.
submitted by theconstellinguist to zeronarcissists [link] [comments]

2024.01.11 16:57 SpiritualAbalone5231 Fantasy Tennis AO 2024 (Men's Singles)

Fantasy Tennis AO 2024 (Men's Singles)
Hi guys, first of all sorry for my english (just in case I'll make some mistakes). I've just made a Prediction-Game for this AO (only Men's Singles at the moment). The game consists of FIVE H2H, where you have to say which player will do a better result (1 or 2...if you believe they'll do the same result you can choose the "X option" - 3 points for each one correct) and a sort FANTASY TENNIS, where you have to choose 6 players with 250 credits. Every player will earn an amount of points depending on his result (obv)...20 if he wins, 15 for runner up and so on (all written in the pic). This game is 100% free and only for fun. If you want to play you can leave a comment with your five H2H predictions and your team of 6 players (pay attention to spend max 250 credits). You have time until DAY 1 begins. THANK YOU AND I HOPE U'LL ENJOY IT! Ps: I know that some player's cost could be arguable, I didn't follow 100% bookmakers' opinion to make the game more interesting (I hope). If someone will play I'll make an update-post at the end of the first week and a final one at the end of the slam✌
submitted by SpiritualAbalone5231 to tennis [link] [comments]

2024.01.09 17:50 BigChungus69210 UQ Gatton residence halls

Hi everyone, yesterday I got a place in Shelton hall C. i'm happy to have a place near my classes, but either I haven't researched correctly or they don't provide all the information how the rooms look like in the residence hall. I only know that I have a single in a 3 x 3 room. I'm also a little bit worried how clean are the restrooms and showers. If someone can light me up a little bit about that information I would really appreciate it.
submitted by BigChungus69210 to UQreddit [link] [comments]

2024.01.08 01:31 ntsmith Diagnostic- Help? Goal?

Hi all, this is my diagnostic score. I am happy about my overall, but overall very discouraged about missing almost half of the reading passages. Does anyone have any tips on where to go from here or how to improve? Also what’s a realistic goal for myself? I take it for the first time in April!
submitted by ntsmith to LSAT [link] [comments]

2024.01.04 23:13 Lyleadams Too much time on my hands...

I had a long drive for work today and my mind wandered to a random question. If I could, which former Husky (in college prime) would I add to the roster for Monday night? UW is VERY set at QB, WR, TE and OL. Maybe add an RB? Dillon, Kaufman, Gaskin? Or, should we beef up the D? Who should we add? Milloy, Emtman, Shelton, Vea, Baker, Trufant, Hoffman? I'm embarrassed to say it took me way too long to come up with the correct answer. SHAQ THOMPSON! He could play both ways to spell DJ. He's a monster LB (maybe the best in Udub history). I realize this is a stupid fantasy, but what the hell, Monday is a long ways off. Who agrees? Who disagrees? Who would you add?
Edit: After watching some old Shaq highlights, I think he would simultaneously be the best linebacker and running back on this year's team. I think our current LBs are great, and DJ is a stud, but Shaq was video game good. IMO
submitted by Lyleadams to huskies [link] [comments]

2023.12.29 17:13 shadowrangerfs 2024 Contract Predictions

I got the idea while watching this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWjjI6MIokc
My idea is for anyone interested to guess where each person will go in 2024. At the end of the year, I'll come back and see who got the most correct predictions.
Mercedes Mone
Dolph Ziggler
Mustafa Ali
Shelton Benjamin
Rick Boogs
Emma
Aliyah
Elias
Riddick Moss
Top Dolla
Dana Brooke
Mace
Mansoor
Dabba-Kato
Shanky
Yulisa León
Ikeman Jiro
Alexa Bliss
Dirty Dango
Deonna Purrazzo
Kamille
MJF
Alexander Hammerstone
Okada
Drew McIntyre
Sheamus
Tony Schiovone
Clark Conners
Seth Rollins
Becky Lynch
Ricochet
Andrade
Jinder Mahal
Dustin Rhodes
Bryan Danielson
Rich Swann
Kevin Owens
These people have contracts that expire in 2024 but might have time added due to being out with injury.
Big E
Xavier Woods
Kofi Kingston
Randy Orton
submitted by shadowrangerfs to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]

2023.12.27 22:15 RadioactiveOmelets [Updated] Performance of ATP players relative to match odds in 2023

Per the discussion on my post from yesterday, I wanted to recalculate each player's performance relative to match odds where losing as a favorite is weighted for a 1u return (i.e., losing as a -150 favorite is -1.5u and losing as a -900 favorite is -9u). Underdogs are always 1u stakes. Behold:
​
Player Net units As Favorite As Underdog
Novak Djokovic 28.77 27.02 1.75
Fabian Marozsan 22.35 1.4 22.05
Adrian Mannarino 21.31 8.8 12.51
Grigor Dimitrov 18.6 21.6 -3
Nicolas Jarry 18.31 16.98 0.33
Zhizhen Zhang 16.14 1.8 14.34
Dusan Lajovic 13.78 -5.21 18.99
Tallon Griekspoor 12.77 3.04 9.73
Jannik Sinner 12.5 8.62 3.88
Daniil Medvedev 10.41 9.56 0.85
Gijs Brouwer 10.3 1 9.3
Arthur Fils 10.14 -0.59 10.73
Feliciano Lopez 9.78 0 9.78
Francisco Cerundolo 8.8 -4.16 11.96
Shintaro Mochizuki 8.35 0 8.35
Alexei Popyrin 8.32 -2.32 9.64
Michael Mmoh 7.4 3 4.4
Andrey Rublev 6.99 8.71 -1.72
Jiri Vesely 6.5 0 6.5
Pavel Kotov 6.14 1.8 3.34
Yu Hsiou Hsu 6.1 0 6.1
Matteo Arnaldi 5.74 0.13 5.61
Alexander Ritschard 5.67 1 4.67
Hubert Hurkacz 5.62 8.47 -3.85
Mackenzie Mcdonald 5.57 -1.89 6.56
Jozef Kovalik 5.56 0 5.56
Alexander Shevchenko 5.43 -1.95 7.38
Dominic Stricker 5.43 1.7 3.73
Aslan Karatsev 4.56 -0.04 4.6
Jenson Brooksby 4.4 3 0.4
Gael Monfils 4.4 5.35 -0.95
Jack Draper 4.26 6.36 -2.1
Laslo Djere 4.03 0.2 2.83
Alexander Zverev 3.99 8.29 -4.3
Rinky Hijikata 3.78 1.36 2.42
Ugo Humbert 3.4 5.63 -2.23
Emilio Gomez 3.35 1 1.35
Alex Michelsen 3.2 4 -0.8
Marton Fucsovics 3.2 4.25 -1.05
Soon Woo Kwon 3.03 0.25 2.78
Gregoire Barrere 2.86 -4.89 8.85
Guido Pella 2.82 0 2.82
Maximilian Marterer 2.63 5 -2.37
Harold Mayot 2.6 -0.35 2.95
Andrea Vavassori 2.29 -1.89 4.18
Thiago Seyboth Wild 2.05 -3.95 6
Hugo Grenier 2.05 0 2.05
Juan Pablo Varillas 1.83 1.38 0.45
Fabio Fognini 1.74 -1.16 2.9
Dominik Koepfer 1.4 6 -4.6
Liam Broady 1.26 3.56 -2.3
Yibing Wu 1.05 -1.1 2.15
Christopher Oconnell 0.66 -0.34 2.2
Alex Molcan 0.61 2.4 -1.69
Marco Cecchinato 0.49 -1.31 1.8
Sebastian Ofner 0.48 1.9 -2.42
Milos Raonic 0.4 -0.7 1.1
Jack Sock 0.35 -1.2 1.55
Denis Kudla 0.35 1 -0.65
Dino Prizmic 0.3 -0.9 2.3
Benjamin Bonzi 0.24 -5.01 6.25
Juan Manuel Cerundolo 0.19 -2.16 2.35
Joao Sousa 0.17 0 0.17
Hamad Medjedovic 0.15 -1.1 2.35
Sebastian Baez 0.08 3.87 -2.69
Borna Gojo -0.05 0.7 0.35
Cristian Garin -0.05 3.37 -3.42
Facundo Diaz Acosta -0.17 -1.65 1.48
Yoshihito Nishioka -0.18 2.37 -3.55
Taro Daniel -0.2 1.4 -0.47
Felipe Meligeni Alves -0.25 1 -1.25
Roman Safiullin -0.33 -6.76 6.43
Jurij Rodionov -0.74 -1.4 0.66
Frances Tiafoe -0.87 0.75 -1.62
Roberto Carballes Baena -0.89 5.03 -4.82
Tomas Barrios Vera -0.91 -0.49 -0.42
Tommy Paul -0.98 4.96 -4.84
Filip Misolic -1 -0.8 -0.2
Jan Lennard Struff -1.14 -4.8 2.66
Emilio Nava -1.25 0 -1.25
Radu Albot -1.51 1 -2.51
Jeremy Chardy -1.8 0 -1.8
Alexandre Muller -1.95 -0.75 -1.2
Francesco Passaro -1.98 1 -2.98
Yosuke Watanuki -2.1 1.75 -3.85
Alejandro Tabilo -2.37 -4.11 1.74
Ben Shelton -2.49 2.14 -5.63
Jiri Lehecka -2.5 -9.25 6.75
Jan Choinski -2.55 0 -2.55
Zizou Bergs -2.65 1 -3.65
Abedallah Shelbayh -2.7 0 -2.7
Steve Johnson -2.71 1 -3.71
Juncheng Shang -2.75 1 -3.75
James Duckworth -3 2 -5
Tomas Martin Etcheverry -3.12 2.08 -6.1
Stan Wawrinka -3.23 -4.33 1.1
Yannick Hanfmann -3.34 -0.39 -2.95
Tomas Machac -3.36 1.65 -5.01
Daniel Altmaier -3.42 -4.8 0.38
Pedro Cachin -3.49 6.11 -9.6
Chun Hsin Tseng -3.55 0 -3.55
Christopher Eubanks -3.56 -9.45 5.89
Karen Khachanov -3.58 -4.88 0.3
Flavio Cobolli -3.81 -1.4 -2.41
Elias Ymer -3.89 -3.04 -0.85
Sho Shimabukuro -4 0 -4
Thanasi Kokkinakis -4.3 2.25 -8.55
Hugo Gaston -4.62 -0.55 -4.07
Federico Coria -4.91 1.87 -6.78
J J Wolf -4.92 -2.42 -0.3
Luca Nardi -5 0 -5
Fernando Verdasco -5 0 -5
Nikoloz Basilashvili -5.13 -5.13 0
Luca Van Assche -5.15 1.9 -5.95
Aleksandar Kovacevic -5.5 -1.9 -3.6
Jason Kubler -5.54 0.46 -6
Lloyd Harris -5.95 -3.3 -2.65
Pablo Carreno Busta -6.05 -6.05 0
Alejandro Davidovich Fokina -6.1 -1.91 -4.19
Daniel Evans -6.21 -3.84 -2.37
Dominic Thiem -6.38 3.82 -10.2
Alex De Minaur -6.45 -7.58 1.13
Jaume Munar -6.73 -2.92 -2.71
Quentin Halys -6.89 -7.34 1.55
Alexander Bublik -6.93 -5.05 -1.88
Kyle Edmund -7 0 -7
Hugo Dellien -7.07 2.63 -9.7
Jordan Thompson -7.42 -8.27 0.85
Sebastian Korda -7.5 -12.95 5.45
Mikael Ymer -7.63 -3.83 -3.7
Thiago Monteiro -7.82 -3.14 -4.68
Denis Shapovalov -7.9 -3 -3.8
Andy Murray -8.06 -6.27 -2.79
Marcos Giron -8.07 -8.49 0.52
Facundo Bagnis -8.23 -3.52 -4.71
Lorenzo Sonego -8.47 -2.98 -5.49
David Goffin -8.69 -3.79 -4.9
Emil Ruusuvuori -8.92 -1.93 -6.99
Oscar Otte -9.02 -8.59 -0.43
Pedro Martinez -9.22 -5.07 -4.05
Bernabe Zapata Miralles -9.32 -1.23 -9.09
Aleksandar Vukic -9.39 -9.17 -0.22
Constant Lestienne -9.9 -0.5 -10.4
Arthur Rinderknech -10.34 -10.39 1.15
Filip Krajinovic -10.65 0.35 -11
Max Purcell -10.82 -11.97 1.15
Matteo Berrettini -11.12 -12.17 1.05
Borna Coric -11.23 -6.78 -4.45
Corentin Moutet -11.31 -0.79 -9.42
Ilya Ivashka -11.48 -7.4 -5.08
Botic Van De Zandschulp -11.91 -11.18 -1.73
Diego Schwartzman -11.97 -10.29 -2.68
John Isner -12.22 -10.03 -2.19
Stefanos Tsitsipas -13.8 -9.1 -4.7
Daniel Elahi Galan -13.96 -5.73 -7.13
Richard Gasquet -14.6 -10.74 -1.66
Maxime Cressy -14.89 -10.74 -3.05
Brandon Nakashima -15.06 -15.16 1.3
Nuno Borges -16.11 -7.7 -8.41
Roberto Bautista Agut -16.69 -11.44 -5.25
Lorenzo Musetti -16.98 -6.15 -10.83
Cameron Norrie -17.79 -13.22 -4.57
Holger Rune -18.1 -19.64 1.54
Albert Ramos -18.94 -8.77 -10.17
Marc Andrea Huesler -20.2 -10.13 -10.07
Miomir Kecmanovic -22.14 -14.87 -7.17
Felix Auger Aliassime -25.99 -27.24 0.25
Casper Ruud -28.44 -26.44 -2
Taylor Fritz -33.73 -30.46 -3.27
Carlos Alcaraz -175.51 -175.07 -0.44
​
Djokovic jumps to the top of the list by simply not losing. The highlight for me, though, is that Mannarino apparently overperforms as a rule and I can't decide if that's the most or least surprising thing I've ever heard. The Mannarino Enigma rolls on.
​
Also: Yes, the Alcaraz row is correct. He did have a few really big upsets this year, but he actually still would have been quite profitable if you overslept and missed betting on the Marozsan match. That one alone cost him -200u. There was obviously no coming back from that. Worth noting across the board (but it really only makes a significant difference for Djokovic and Alcaraz) that there was no upper limit for how much one would be willing to bet to return 1u for the favorites. That means it wasn't uncommon for 100 or 200u stakes just to pay out 1u (or, in one conspicuous case, -200u). Also, occassionally none of my books would even have odds listed for those guys so I filled in -10000 (1.01) because, for a while, that was the lowest odds I had seen and I assumed that was the lower limit. Unfortunately for Carlitos, I saw him actually listed at -20000 (1.005) for the Marozsan match, so he arbitrarily lost 200u instead of 100u. Not that it would have changed anything qualitatively.
submitted by RadioactiveOmelets to tennis [link] [comments]

2023.12.03 17:27 worldtraveler19 My Ann Elizabeth Isham theory.

For those who do not know, Ann Elizabeth Isham has long been an enigma. She was a virtual ghost during the voyage, and disappears completely during the sinking narrative, with no one being able to account for her below or on deck at all.
It has also been claimed that she refused to leave the ship without her [unknown breed] large dog, and that post-sinking she was seen floating in the debris field, clutching said dog, by passengers aboard the Baltic. This story can largely be dismissed as she was known to NOT be traveling with any companion furry or otherwise. As to the identity and veracity of the story about the unknown woman and her dog; it is up for heated debate to this day.
Lizzy, as she liked be called had a family who loved and deeply cared for her, and wanted to know what happened to her. After learning that her neighbor onboard had been Col. Archibald Gracie, they contacted him with a photo of Lizzy and asked if he had seen what had happened to their sister, their fear it seemed, stemmed from reading Gracie's book where he claimed that cabins were locked to prevent looting. They had feared that perhaps their Lizzy had been locked below. Gracie, himself sad to admit it, hadn't seen her and offered no answers, except to adamantly reiterate she had not been locked below and all rooms had been cleared before being locked.
For what it is worth, several rooms on D deck had trouble with jamming doors throughout the voyage including those of John B Crafton, and either Fredrick Sutton or William Walker.
One survivor's door was also jammed during the collision which left him unable to exit and in need to be extricated by a steward.
Victorine Chaudanson; the personal maid of Emily Ryerson, was ordered back to her employer's room on B deck to retrieve family valuables. During this excursion, she heard locking sound and found herself locked in by an unwary steward. Luckly for Ms. Chaudanson, she was able to scream and was quickly released from the room by the same steward
Some passangers, also stated they had seen a first class woman, traveling alone, refused to exit her cabin after being told to by stewards.
There was however, an unknown First Class Passenger who claimed, directly, to Lizzy's sister Gretchen Shelton to have seen her be pitched from collapsible A when it swamped.
As to the identity of the myseterious witness, that tidbit has been lost to the sands of time.
We do know however that there were six first class passengers around A at the time of it's attempted launch: Archibald Gracie, Algernon Barkworth, Peter Daly, George Rheims, Jack Thayer and Richard Norris Williams.
And while most can be dismissed as the mysterious witness, I do believe one of these men is not only possible, but likely to be the mysterious witness who spoke to Ms. Shelton.
Let's go through the possible witnesses:
Archibald Gracie: Dismissed having known or seen Lizzy. Definitely NOT the mysterious witness.
Algernon Barkworth: On the night of the sinking, he spent the night debating the process for construction of roads with Charles Jones and Arthur Gee [Bodies 80 and 275 respectively]. He was awake during the sinking as he intented to stay awake for the setting of Titanic's clocks in order to match them to his own personal watch. Late in the sinking, he returned to his cabin to dress warmly, and walked by the ship's band which was playing a waltz. He was berthed in A23. Upon his return to the boat deck all boats had left aside from the remaining two collapsibles. He eventually dove into the water and swam towards overturned collapisble B. Initially he was denied entry, but was eventually able to find a opening and climb aboard. Due to the location of his cabin and his having been closer to B than A, I have significant doubts about Algernon Barkworth being the mysterious witness.
Peter Daly: On the night of the sinking, Peter Daly spent the night assisting women to the boats and being genrally a gentleman. He was on the Starboard side during the final moments of the ship, and was washed overboard next to an unknown woman. Many belive this could have been Lizzy. I do not know, but given the fact that other sections of Peter Daly's narrative have been called into question, I do have my doubts.
George Rheims: On the night of the sinking, George was in the first class smoking room with his brother in law Joseph Loring. The two men were attempting to calculate the speed and distance for the next day's betting pool. The felt the collision and were initially confused as to what to do. Over the course of the night they spent the spent time on deck or their cabin on A deck before ultimately debating wheter or not to head aft. Ultimately, the men could not agree, and George and Joseph separted, shaking hands and wishing each other luck before George jumped midship and Joseph continued aft. Joseph was never seen again. But George swam to collapsible A and spent the night standing in knee deep water in nothing but his underwear. It is of my opinion that Mr. George Rheims was not in the correct locations to have seen or correctly identified Lizzy Isham.
Jack Thayer: Jack Thayer began his night hanging out with his shipboard friend Milton Long. When Titanic stuck the berg his parents were in their stateroom, but he investigated what went wrong. During the sinking, He and his father saw off his mother Marian Thayer into a lifeboat possibly 6. However, Second Steward George Dodd later advised them that Marian was still onboard. Unfortunately, John Thayer was seperated from Jack in a crowd, and Jack never saw his father again, but was able to find his friend Milton Long. According to Gracie, he belives that John Thayer eventually went aft with George Widener. Jack and Milton evenually took a jump midship, though, Milton, not being a proficient swimmer like Jack was, never resurfaced. Jack then swam and eventually found himself near collapisble B, Though initially denied entry, someone, it is unknown whom, eventually collapsed from cold and exhaustion and fell in the water yeilding his spot to Thayer. I do not believe that Jack Thayer could have possibly been the identity of the unknown witness, he is far too young, and not in any of the correct locations to have seen Lizzy.
R. Norris Williams: Richard Norris Williams pro-tennis star, First Class Passenger, and I personally believe the identity of our mysterious witness. Sources vary, but Mr. Williams, and his father were either berthed Port-side D-Deck or Port-Side C-Deck. We also know it was in the forward. During the sinking, as he and his father exited their room, he came accross a steward struggling to open a door for a passenger who had been trapped when the room was locked to prevent looting. He then waved the steward away, put his shoulder into it, and broke the door. This prompted the steward to then yell at him and threaten to report him for damaging White Star property, a scene which made it into the 1997 movie. Though the timing is fairly unclear, he was known to attempt to get alcohol from the first class smoking salloon, though a steward told him it was against protocol. (eventually the bar is reopened and free drinks are served) Afterwards, he headed aft to the warm himself with several other passengers in the gymnasium, where he heard Gymnasium Instuctor Thomas McCawley say he wouldn't wear a lifebelt as it would impede his stroke. Another scene that made it into the 97 film ("Right you are Mr. McCawley, we are 500 miles from the nearest land, you wouldn't want of anything... to impede your stroke.") After this, he and his father eventually headed foreward and found themselves with the very deck sinking beneath them and eventually swimming in the water. Eventually swimming face first into Robert W. Daniels' prize winning bulldog Gamon De Pycombe, another scene that made it into the 97 film, yet was ultimately cut. When the first funnel fell, he witnessed his father Charles Duane Williams get crushed, but the wave it created washed him towards the swamped collapsible A, now spinning like a top and dumping out riders. It is here I believe Mr. Williams saw Lizzy Isham dumped into the sea, perhaps recognizing her as the passenger rescued from her locked stateroom only an hour before.
In conclusion, I believe that the passenger 'saved' by Richard Williams, was Ann Elizabeth Isham. Both soon found themselves aboard collapsible A, and pitched into the sea by the wave created by the falling funnel. The same falling funnel that crushed his father Charles Duane Williams only moments earlier. However, only Richard would surface, Lizzy being lost to the sea entirely.
I believe this as Richard Norris Williams was in the right place at the right time for the person that he saved to be Ann Elizabeth Isham, if when he saved her was late into the sinking, then by the time he and Ann made it to the boat deck, all boats had gone, and she was unfortunatley lost to the sea.
submitted by worldtraveler19 to titanic [link] [comments]

2023.11.30 00:21 Rashaadpennydespiser Last tourney was amazing!! Who wants to do it again on golf this weekend?!?!

Last tourney was amazing!! Who wants to do it again on golf this weekend?!?! submitted by Rashaadpennydespiser to underdogfantasy [link] [comments]

http://rodzice.org/