Search Results: act around him

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”

If you go on X, your feed will be flooded by "conservatives" that post anti-immigrant and anti-black content over and over. Many of these accounts love to only show black people committing crimes, particularly on white people, and claim that white people are at war with blacks. A lot of them even dehumanize blacks, tell white people to never relax around blacks and to stay away from them.

NEW: The Chicago teen who was sh*t by a lifeguard is now paralyzed and on a ventilator

Jeremy Herred Jr., 15, then 14, and 15-year-old Marjay Dotson were both sh*t on June 26

Jeremy was sh*t in the neck. The bullet struck an artery and his C4 vertebra

Dotson died from his… pic.twitter.com/vROuYAT66P

— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) October 9, 2025

In the video above, a white male appears to be fixing his bike. He sees two black males approach him and instantly pulls out his gun and starts firing. One teen is shot in the neck and is now paralyzed. The other teen tried to flee but was shot in the back by said white male and is now dead. When you look through the comments, about 1/2 of them are trying to claim it was self defense and that the two black teens were planning on robbing the white male. Many even rejoice that the two black teens are dead and claim that it's good for society, since they won't be able to steal in the future.

Now if you are a white person and your social media feeds is flooded with this content daily, wouldn't this warp your perception of black people? Wouldn't this make people, who are already trigger happy and have racist belief, act hastily and do things like this? You can also argue that maybe this person was mentally ill and would have done this to a white person as well, but it seems like with the growing number of racist account and open racism on blacks that this person's judgement might have been skewed by what they saw online.