Gotta disagree. This is on all of us for tolerating bullshit “offenses” like this to stay on the books & on the stupid Supreme Court for authorizing police to detain & arrest people for non-incarcerable offenses such as this.
Fucking Mickey Mouse charges are the result of over-criminalization because a bunch of “Karens” write our laws & those laws do little beyond empowering bad cops to abuse their powers.
Exhibit A: I once drove 100 miles round trip on I-95 for 6 months straight with totally dead tags & a busted tail-light. Never got pulled over. Take a wild guess why. 🙄
Exhibit B: The only time I’ve ever pulled over was on my way to the courthouse - because I had my client in the car with me: a black male. Cop had no legit reason to stop me whatsoever (no ticket given), & he could not turn me loose fast enough when he realized I was a lawyer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@lilyq1011 Exactly. Stop explaining your choices to people who don’t care about you. They are not entitled to it.
Also, stop answering questions that people should not be asking you. Just because someone thinks they want to know something doesn’t mean they get to.
@lilyq1011 Women especially have trouble with these ideas, which are really just setting healthy boundaries. It see it with young female lawyers & clients.
You don’t have to answer every question! You get to decide each time whether it’s in your interest to answer or not!
Noem’s “defense” is that her state would be alone on an island fighting the left (NCAA & ACLU, etc.) in court & would be penalized by NCAA on this issue if she signs a bill that applies to colleges. She wants to do a “coalition” 1st to fight them as part of a team instead.
When the issue is one of balancing equally valuable or comparable interests or competing material costs & benefits, this is wise. When the issue is one of principle, this is cowardice.
If you’re not willing to sacrifice for your “principle,” it isn’t one.
So the Harry & Meghan interview presents a good opportunity to see how other people you know analyze- or don’t -information they receive. Many, many people accept everything at face value - because they saw it. Also, info presented w/emotion - whether real or not - persuades. /1
Critical thinkers -who will be more fair & objective- will compare what they are hearing & seeing w/their experience of the world (from life or from education) & how it works, including how human beings usually act & the mental issues they can have. Most people struggle w/this./2
The most fair evaluation will consider whether someone is mistaken instead of lying, whether their view is genuinely held even though it may be objectively wrong, & whether someone’s experience may lead them to different but equally valid conclusions from yours. /3
This is Democrat theatre for sure. But I think it also separately reflects the unfortunate reality that the Capitol is likely not currently defensible against even a small but professionally trained force intent on killing our legislature if assembled by any one of our enemies.
The powers that be won’t admit publicly that this is true, but it obviously is. Setting everything else aside, the riot on Jan 6 exposed that actual security at the Capitol was pretty nonexistent. One of our special ops teams could’ve waltzed in there in no time.
We live in an open society. Our enemies can relatively easily operate amongst us. The security pros must have been/be horrified at how clear it made it that the Capitol is a soft target.
Watkins case. So we are back in court with this Jan 6 case. There is a superceding indictment that hasn't been made public yet, but the PD says they have a copy and they waive the reading of it and plead not guilty to all the (new" charges.
Now they are arguing the "crime of violence" issue. The PD says the govt is misapplying the Stokely case, which is about taking property from a person, not inanimate property.
Now the judge is asking the PD about the way govt is using the definition of "federal terrorism" as a sort of substitute for "crime of violence." PD is pointing to the bail statute as the thing that needs interpretation.
Watkins Case. For those who are interested, the section of law that Judge Mehta wants the Govt to pin down a position on is in the detention statute: 18 USC 3142(f)(1)(A)
/1.
(f) Detention Hearing.—The judicial officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of conditions set forth in . . . this section will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required & the safety of any other person & the community—
/2
(1) upon motion of the attorney for the Government, in a case that involves—
(A) a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed;
/3