I understand the feeling, but try not to pigeonhole. There are 300 million Americans, and I haven’t done a survey, but a substantial percent of the population thinks that the death penalty sucks. That’s one reason many states don’t use it at all.

If you want to start on a philosophical question, try to define the word “exists”. Write down a bunch of definitions, whichever are your favorite, and then see if the expression “God exists.” has meaning.

It’s not just that ballot stuffing would be easier, but also that any kind of complications can lead to delays and court cases which might go to the supreme court, which has a history of deciding who the president will be. In other words, there are multiple advantages to the shady f*** heads.

There’s no need for any new case law here. It’s already established that the cops can’t go into a fenced off yard unless they have a warrant or accident circumstances, which they didn’t. No precedents are going to be set, because they already were, long ago.

I believe that the victim filed a civil rights lawsuit with multiple claims, and this one claim was so obvious that the judge ruled there’s no need for a jury to rule on it, but that the other claims would have to go before a jury.

This means the city is going to lose on at least one aspect of the case, and they could choose to fight the other aspects of it in court, or they could settle, as you suggested.

Just in case anyone lives under a rock, this is another great example of how the cops are not there to protect you. They will hurt you, intentionally or accidentally, and they will never apologize or try to make amends for what they’ve done. They will always blame somebody else.

And if you don’t believe me, ask yourself this. When people on the New York subway see someone with a knife next week or next month, will they be happy if the police arrive? Or, will they run away, because the police are there. I think we all know the answer to that question.

I’m not sure what the law is on this. But from a practical standpoint, I would like to see adverse inferences drawn against him because he failed to show. That would form the basis for massive fines, so assess those fines, and take away a ton of his money.

It doesn’t seem like there’s any need to put him behind bars when this is a question about doing shady things with money that can be handled by taking away a lot of his cash.

My understanding is that the temporary nature is supposed to be because the plaintiffs need time to advance their case, which they got. The extension is now incredibly damaging to all of the people who would have had their student debts reduced. Every day that goes by is an extra burden on them, but the judge doesn’t care.

Clearly the nomadic lifestyle does not work for everyone. Many people try it for a couple of months or a couple of years and then make a change. If you’re enjoying it, great, and if you enjoy it for years or decades to come, great, but don’t pretend that everyone does. And this is important because social workers cannot predict your future. They can only play the odds and make reasonable preparations for possible future badness.

You want certainty, but I think the many high-profile cases this year have shown that there is corruption in prosecutors and police and judges, and that often overlaps. How do you possibly think you could create a justice system that would prevent it from ever occurring?

I understand you’re speaking casually, but in fact many of us do not say that. It’s always a risky proposition when you conflate an organization with individuals in it.

Let me give you a related example that should shed light on their stubbornness…

If someone gets in an accident and hits their head, they might have a concussion. How can you tell? Basic first responder training says to ask several questions. What we don’t ask is, “Are you OK?” because the patient will say “yes” even when they aren’t OK. It’s answers to the other questions that give us enough information to get a sense of whether our help is needed.

It’s quite possible that some social workers are acting in a similar fashion to first responders here. They want the details because their checklist is longer than yours. (There are other reasons that social workers might be annoying, as others have explained, too.)

That doesn’t negate your frustration, but maybe it helps you understand one cause.

Can you explain what you felt was harsh?

The DOC will be responding to it in future lawsuits. At least one of those 1300 people definitely didn’t do anything to justify their reaction, they certainly have the time to file pro se, and discovery will tell us what we need to know. Sadly, that will happen years from now.

No doubt various TLAs have compiled dossiers on various very important people. It would be irresponsible of them not to. People who have so much power and access are intrinsic security threats, and that’s no secret to the spy agencies.

Of course they might frame it differently. They might say that they compile information so that they can make sure that the powerful person doesn’t get blackmailed, for example. It’s easy to try to phrase things in a way that suggests you’re protecting them, when the actual theoretical goal is protecting us from what they could do if things went sideways.

Will the courts shut this down? If so, which ones might do so?

The Reuters authors are far too generous to corporate leadership. No, the bosses weren’t blindsided. No, the bosses weren’t surprised. All of the demands and expectations are ones you would predict.

This kind of situation is exactly when strikes happen, and if anyone in management wasn’t prepared for it, they’re unqualified for their job. Or they’re liars. Or both.

I think many of us, and many Important People, give a fuck. It’s just that we know to take our time and gather information before making any strong proclamations about exactly what happened. We all know that Trump would lie about everything, and initial reports from police and neighbors are notoriously unreliable.

Finally now, more than a day after the event, it feels like maybe we’re able to put together the beginning of a reliable picture about exactly what happened.

If you want to know how people feel about assassination attempts on presidential candidates, just look at what they said two months ago.

Typically the first amendment is going to protect you when you say most things. The types of things you definitely don’t want to say are specific threats.

But there was a sad situation in Colorado where the courts ruled that a guy could be locked up for saying that he wished that bad things fell upon some judges, even though he definitely didn’t say or imply that he was going to do them. So if you want to rely on the Colorado precedent, maybe there’s something to work with, but it’s a pretty terrible precedent.

That all being said, let’s not wish death on anyone. Even if it’s someone who’s done horrible things, let’s just wish that they’re forced to retire early and either get locked up in prison, if they committed crimes, or live out there lives in miserable condition in some community that we never have to visit or think about.

That’s not exactly true. He has lost a massive amount of public respect. He bought Twitter and now the company is worth much less than it was before. His credibility has gone down considerably in the last few years.