He is currently innocent of all of those charges.
We don’t get to pick and choose when innocent before proven guilty gets applied. Openly stating that they’re seeking the death penalty before he’s even been indicted is weird and wrong.
Contempt of court when?
Additional information
Your purchase includes a 12-month Sailfish OS full license subscription valued at €59.88 (€4.99/month), granting access to all releases, commercial components, and feature upgrades. After the first year, you can choose to continue your subscription and support Sailfish OS development further. Even without renewal, your device will continue to function, but future software updates and commercial component upgrades will not be available.
Subscription pricing for security updates kinda sucks.
“I don’t even know who that is” clearly means “this person has been living rent free in the forefront of my mind for as long as I can remember”.
You know what man, my bad here. I have a general policy of not digging through comment histories to make judgements about people, but I saw a comment about you pulling this same shit about BLM so I went and had a look.
It’s clear to me now that you’re a low effort troll, and like, just a general chode. I hope you can fix whatever it is that makes you this way and I hope you can live a better life but I won’t waste my time with this anymore.
This guy isn’t interested in actual discourse. He only seems capable of one-liner nonsense and hoping you just accept it because it “feels right”.
You might be surprised by this, but nowhere in your response did you include links to peer reviewed research projects supporting your position.
Again with the simple answer. No evidence, no supporting argument, just “nuh uh”.
The incentive that works is “Get treatment or go to jail, pick one.”
Prove it. Show me studies that jail time is an effective deterrent to drug use. Peer reviewed, actual research.
I’ve worked with former addicts for many, many years; I have never had one of them tell me that jail got them straight, but I have had many tell me they came out of jail more addicted than they went in.
The solution is social welfare programs and a focus on mental health, job placement, and relocation assistance. Give the vast majority of people health care, stable employment, and a safe place to live, and they will thrive.
The solution is not cramming people into prison labor and ripping their constitutional rights from them.
I really don’t understand how this isn’t obvious to everyone.
I can’t help but notice that you really like to cherry pick only the parts of comments you think you have a simple answer to.
How about responding to the meat of the argument rather than trying to just move the goalpost?
Did you miss the entire part of the article talking about how this effectively locks up the court system, deprives US citizens of their constitutional right to representation, and does effectively nothing to actually get people off drugs?
Tell me more about how you like punishing the poor for being poor, though.
Green, the DA, said he felt deflection was a better path to treatment than the criminal system, which can be a slow process, and that the fact that only some people were succeeding was a good sign: “We didn’t [make it] too easy or too hard. We really found that sweet spot.”
Oh fuck you. 70 or so people deflecting out of 1200 arrests is not success you pompous prick, it’s failure.
The irony of choosing the most pedantic way of saying that they’re not pedantic is pretty amusing though.
The problem with being like… super pedantic about definitions, is that you often miss the forest for the trees.
Illegal or not, seems pretty obvious to me that people saying illegal in this thread and others probably mean “unethically”… which is pretty clearly true.
I guess I don’t understand the mastodon/twitter style feed, I’ve always found that I couldn’t seem to get a feed interesting enough to come back to.
GOP: “We only want to deport the illegals, if they want to be here they should do it legally”
Immigrants: “ok, we’ll come on this program specifically designed to allow a legal pathway to citizenship”
GOP: “No not like that!”
SCOTUS declaring full immunity for anything done as an official presidential act is probably why this term feels less hollow; last time around he had to be careful not to end up in prison, this time he has nothing to fear.
The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.
Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.
I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.
No, they’re not.
They’re not discussing what the appropriate penalties should be—which, by the way, is typically done at the end of a trial during the sentencing phase, after all evidence has been presented and a guilty verdict has been delivered, because punishment is supposed to be reflective of the evidence presented—they’re saying that they’ve already decided that the target penalty is death.
That’s a clear nod that they want to make an example, a concept divorced from justice.