They probably didn’t have you as a prosecutor there, unfortunately.

I’m a public defender. Was about to talk about how even though I’m as leftist as they come and find this guy reprehensible, that I’d have had no problems arguing what he argued in court… But I missed that it was charged as “attempted.” That’s an excellent point. I agree that he almost certainly attempted to commit voter fraud.

That said, I can still see how the jury could find a not guilty though, even if, were I on it, I would have said guilty. Attempted crimes still have a mens rea (usually, and I’ll note here that I’m not barred in PA so this is all a best guess, consult a local attorney to know anything for sure). So the state would still have to prove his intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m guessing the jury said they couldn’t prove the intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Your argument convinced me, but, I can see how a jury might go the other way, for sure. Especially since juries are always unpredictable. I’ve won cases I should’ve lost and lost cases I should’ve won, you just never know what’s gonna happen in the jury room.

If you’re at a table with 11 people and a Nazi, you’re at a table with twelve Nazis.

Most people aren’t the extremes, sure. But if they refuse to denounce the extremists, they create space for the extremists viewpoints to survive and gain traction and acceptance on a broader scale.

So, no, even though I know most of my family would be against outright killing me, I also know they support and vote for people who are in favor of killing me. So no, I do not feel safe around them. How do I know if any of them hold extremist viewpoints before it’s too late? If they don’t denounce it, they’re every bit as culpable.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin I have to pay an extra $100/yr for registration because I drive a hybrid.

Why?

Because, I shit you not, driving a hybrid apparently costs the state too much money, because we have to fuel up less, and so they get less tax.

What the fuck.

If this is America, and it was a House Sparrow, bastard had it coming. Awful invasive species, and it’s one of, I believe, two animals birds which is always legal to kill here. Fuck sparrows. I’d swipe right.

Edit thanks to extra info from replies.

"Correctional officers from the jail responded to a medical emergency in one of the cell pods.

There, inmates explained that they believed [Jessica] Barry was experiencing a drug overdose.

Within 3 minutes of being notified of the emergency, officers gave Barry a dose of Narcan.

A total of six doses of Narcan, chest compressions, and an AED were given to Barry, but officers were not able to resuscitate her."

Tragic stuff. I know we all like to blame the cops, and usually I’m 1000% on board, but it sounds like they did everything they could here. At most they could maybe be blamed for not catching and stopping the drugs from getting in. Maybe the ongoing investigation will turn something up as to how that happened, but I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve been that courthouse and jail. It’s not the most well-funded, and addicts tend to find a way. Sad stuff.

The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.

Hmm. I’m annoyed at my lawyer brain, all I can think about is how this would actually be a very interesting case. At least, based on my understanding of U.S. Torts law, which is not my practice area (but which is bar tested and a required law scool course). Don’t take any of this as real legal advice.

But, there’s a concept known as the eggshell plaintiff rule/doctrine. Basically, it states that if the person you injured is unusually fragile, you’re on the hook for their injuries regardless of whether they’re a typical result of the action you took. So, here, while the typical result of pulling a finger would be a fart, the puller may be on the hook for the entire damages of a lost arm.

However, undercutting that is the defense of consent. The “victim” here clearly consented to the activity which led to the injury, and should have known that the action may likely result in the loss of an arm, based on the lack of tendons/muscles/skin/everything.

I’m gonna have to save this to show at conventions and see how people think this would play out. I’ll totally be the coolest kid in school then. In your face, Mark.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.

Criminal defense attorney here, confirming this is correct in at least every jurisdiction I’m aware of.

But as always, it’s best to contact a lawyer in the same jurisdiction of the court to know for sure.

deleted by creator