Kepabar @ Kepabar @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

237

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes we go by preponderance of evidence.

Essentially it's 'whoever you Believe more' in civil cases, which is significantly lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt ' we use for criminal trials.

It's nothing so complicated as all that.

It's as simple as any possible solution to the issue is to Israels disadvantage, so they work to maintain the status quo.

No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.

In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.

So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.

Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?

I still don't think that answers the question:

Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?

Nah, it's neither.

It's that while I do enjoy whatever it is, if it were to disappear because I'm ad blocking and won't sub then .. ohh well?

There are a select few groups I actually care about and I donate to them (like PBS).

Anything else will either find a way or die but I don't care which.

It's called qualified immunity.

The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone's rights while trying to do their job and wasn't aware they are not at fault.

It's not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.

For first world nations we won't see anything substantial for decades at least.

Yeah, but I didn't care about any of that.

The leadership of Gaza is Hamas. Unequivocally.

Hamas was elected to power then pulled the ladder up behind them suspending all future elections.

All officials in the Gaza government are Hamas.

Elections were suspended in the West Bank because there is a real chance Hamas would win an election there today.

This isn't a case of a tyrannical overlord ruling over the Palestinian people without their consent.

Most supported and still support the organization.

Naw, lots of us stopped when Netflix streaming came in full swing.

A link to the past is my top Zelda game for sure.

... Have you ever tried the randomizer for it? It will give you a rom where all the items are randomly distributed around the map, making you do the whole sequence out of order.

I will play though a random Rom one a year or so and it's a blast.

https://alttpr.com/en

Yeah. This is the one that came to my mind.

Dude straight up ended his career. His band members left, label dropped him and his colabs said they wouldn't work with him anymore.

Turns out he was a lieutenant in the oath keepers and the FBI grabbed him. Last I heard he made a plea deal and got put into the witness protection program.

He is the band and it can't exist without him. Even if he could continue, he'd have to rebuild it from the ground up.

It's a shame, I really Loved Demons and Wizards, the iced earth / blind guardian colab group.

... Based on some song lyrics I feel I should have seen this coming when looking back though.

I just want to say that this comment was a rollercoaster of emotions and I enjoyed the ride.

Yes, it does.

The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.

This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.

Actually, it really might in this case.

A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.

Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639

Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.

There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.

One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.

Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.

The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.

So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.

All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.

It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.

You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).

God damned degenerates!