Is the New York Times fuckin' serious right now. (AKA another attempt to undermine Luigi's support).
Is the New York Times fuckin' serious right now. (AKA another attempt to undermine Luigi's support).
You're viewing a single thread.
Not a criminal until a guilty verdict...
It's also not a crime to eradicate a parasite.
I mean it’s a “crime” technically but that doesn’t mean we can’t nullify it!
Yes breaking the law is a "crime" but to be a criminal you need to have the verdict saying you committed it. Innocent until proven and all. A "not guilty" or null result means not a criminal.
If Biden and Trump can decide the law does not apply to certain people, then so can you.
The law only applies where and when it is enforced.
Guilty's meaning depends on whose the listener
That you present the set of possible states of guilty poorly aside, are assuming everyone shares your POV.
I can present your bullshit more clearly. So lets do that
For someone to be labeled a criminal they must have been convicted in a court of law by their peers and all avenues of appeals have been exhausted. This is the only situation where the word criminal can be used by anyone besides paid liers and illusionists.
No it's a poor journalistic standard to cast guilt before trial. If some random person was saying it who cares. This is a large public facing news entity though.
They demonize perps every single day. To the point it's comical. Finding an exception is rare.
Got to the point, where i refuse to believe anything the media or the State says. Anything. If they said the sky is blue i'd ask for the unittests (wouldn't believe them)
They lost the narrative forever. Which is another way of saying they aren't ruling by the Will of the people. Incapable of presenting themselves in a believable manner.
In terms of narrative, have to agree.
Not a crime against society, so possibly not a crime.
The word, crime, is subjective. Much like the word, value.
Really what is wanted is play court and feel special.
I mean i agree ethically and morally. I was just commenting on NYT not understanding how laws work.
Except in texas
Lest we forget, "He needed killin'" was a successful defense against a murder charge in Texas, once upon a time.
Depends on how it's eradicated.
If the actual assassin, not the patsy, really wanted to make sure. He might be capable of making really really sure.
Dropping a tank on it or destroying a city block might not be beyond his pay grade.
A BB gun is not making sure. Just a bit cleaner and quieter.
Thank you!
Being neutral cute both ways, he is innocent until a jury of his peers decide to vote guilty.
Just hope he doesn’t sign a confession, there is plenty of resources for him to fight this.
Also, I think all people charged with a crime deserve this benefit or the doubt.
There's that word again
What peers?
The rando software dev is a genius being extradited to a State full of boot lickers and sell outs.
His peers are minimally accomplished well known FOSS devs.
There should be a higher burden of evidence which includes reproducible unittests and his peers should be well acquainted with writing maintainable and sufficient test suites.
Then lets talk about peers and courts.
Guilty until proven innocent is nonsense. We are beyond that already.
Just a patsy
Using the term criminal is just demonizing a random guy.
The State and it's officers are just illusionists. They can't present evidence or be witnesses. Cuz they are unbelievable.
So far that is all they got. So when anyone uses the term criminal, i jump straight to innocent and civil suit