We are all poop drones on this glorious day.

Carousel!

I’ve put a bit of thought to this over the years, and I have come to the conclusion that “might makes right” is always going to underpin any society. The people with the resources have the power, and by extension, get to make the decisions. The path to change, if people without resources want something different from those with resources, depends on a transfer of (at least some of) those resources from the haves to the have nots.

That only happens via force, or the threat of force.

He literally said he was not trolling.

Boilerplate from someone who can’t differentiate between fascist propaganda and reality.

Just because they’re doing it sloppily doesn’t mean it’s not disappearing.

Or maybe we should wait a decade before we refer to it as what it is.

Nothing wrong with that sample size, it’s plenty.

Deporting. Disappearing.

“Because we fucking felt like it, bitch. What you gonna do about it?”

deleted by creator

There are dozens of us!

Ideally, a jury’s responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of “Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims.” There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.

But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You’d basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for “failure to follow jury instructions” or some such thing.

Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won’t speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.

Please note that I am also not saying “He’s guilty, he should hang”, because that would also entail speculating on evidence.

When your repository is on Facebook.

Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it’s over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.

You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.

I’ll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.

Oh sure, I totally agree with all that. The instability has been looming for some time; I’ve been alive for most of the points you make. Still, relative stability has held on until Jan 21, 2025.

It is amazing how a single presidential election can take a world superpower from “relatively stable” to “significantly unstable” in a couple of months.

All manner of slavers have had their hooks in from the jump.

Capital city: Soviet District of Fascigrad.

New band name, I call it.

It’s been nice knowing you, Mr. Goldberg.