Currently using a prius C. In theory I’d prefer to have an EV, but I just don’t have a consistent place to charge, and I already outright own my existing car.
Currently working on trying to reduce my use of my existing car. Because at the end of the day an ebike will always be better than any type of car.
I’ve played enough KSP to know that’s a good location to crash.
You said intentional.
I’ll grant you that I could have phrased it more clearly, but I was speaking about the 2A for that section:
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
Yes, which is why it cannot simply be labeled corruption in all cases. It’s dependent on the case it’s used in. It can be used to free somebody from stealing food for their star ijg family, it can be used to let lynchers get away with their horrid actions, and everything in-between.
Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
Because the majority of the time it isn’t applicable, or used. It’s an edge case.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
Mergers should be illegal.
Once against proving we have a two tiered justice system.
That’s not mutually exclusive with my point. So what?
The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it’s either kill or be killed. If we didn’t step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it’s no different. They’re actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.
So ultimately it boils down to self defense.
A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.
Sure there is. History is littered with examples. Though a more full explanation of the solution is probably a violation of the TOS.
IIRC the problem there is that it potentially makes you liable to be sued by the company for disclosing negative/private information. But they can’t exactly hold you liable if you’re dead, so if you’re dead you may as well speak what you know from beyond the grave.
Absolutely. I was gonna edit my comment to include that but you beat me to the punch.
If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here
Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.
He shot the guy and confessed to it.
He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.
While it won’t help you getting suicided, setting up a deadman’s switch on the cloud that will release your testimony is definitely worth doing.
Geneally, you don’t become a CEO without being a shitty person, and therefore a shitty parent.
The mechanism is irrelevant. Murder is still murder even if through insurance denials, pollution, or any other bullshit legal ways of killing people.
Agreed. If they both had heart attacks tomorrow I would be glad to not hear about them anymore.
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
The oligarchs that own the country.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.
Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.
You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Are you there universal monk?