Remington's lawyer... argued that [he] had no "non-lethal options" ...
"He did have a taser, but in his mind, he couldn't use it because he didn't feel he had the proper spread to deploy it, with the wheelchair between him and Richards," Storie said.
"Oh no, my position relative to the wheelchair means I can't deploy my taser. Should I: (a) change position or (b) empty my magazine into the back of someone suspected of shoplifting and having a knife?"
What the fuck?
"I felt like my life was threatened, because who knew how fast he could come after me in his wheelchair, it's motorized" (which is undoubtedly next) is the greatest parody of cop-entitlement mentality ever, too bad it has to come with a dead body, but of course it does
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Anyone acting like the Rittenhouse verdict is a travesty either doesn't understand the law, doesn't have a good grip on the facts, or doesn't care about how the law is supposed to be applied. I said day 1 that the self-defense argument was too fact-specific to be assessed from
a distance and the evidence that came in at trial made it sounder and sounder. The jury finding reasonable doubt? That's our system working the way it should, protecting the accused. That's why a DA needs to prove more than just "the defendant PROBABLY did it"
Of course, there are too many people that the system doesn't work for, and that needs to be fixed. That takes work. But that work isn't "well make it fuck over the white kid too"
Here's the thing: There's not even the slightest smidgeon of doubt that SB-8 is unconstitutional. There isn't a scintilla of an argument that it can stand under current law. And nobody even tries to make one.
The only questions are procedural, because it is *expressly & intentionally* written to try to prevent courts from addressing the unconstitutionality of the law.
Texas' state government is expressly trying to trample people's constitutional rights. And the right is cheering
The right, which used to worry about "freedom" and "government overreach" is cheering "one neat trick that lets the state take away your freedom in a way the courts can't do anything about"
Huge news in Epic v. Apple, where the judge just ruled for Epic that Apple *must* allow app developers to provide users with non-AppStore purchasing options if they want them, under California unfair competition law - but also that Apple was not a monopolist under anti-trust law
The court also found Epic breached its contract with Apple and is required to pay them millions of dollars. Time for a live-read
The court starts with a recap of the case, and a discussion of the parties' views of the "relevant market." In an antitrust case, the definition of the market can be the ballgame, because whether a defendant has monopoly power may depend on how tightly or widely you zoom in
It's time to stop pretending that most Americans have a coherent view of foreign policy. 75% wanted troops to remain until all civilians could get out, and also wanted no danger to troops, and also wanted troops out as fast as possible, and also ...you can't do FoPo by poll
And btw, this isn't a shot at "ordinary Americans". This stuff is HARD. It's complex, it requires wide-ranging domain specific knowledge, and the domains are way more distinct than just "foreign policy" or "military" or "diplomacy"
What works in Afghanistan won't necessarily work in Botswana, and vice-versa. Hell, it won't necessarily work in Uzbekistan, right next door.
Conducting foreign policy by polling is like building an airplane by polling; the people you're asking just don't know enough to give ...
This is the correct legal decision on the facts and the law (gimme a sec) which should be enough to tell you that the law itself is the problem here, and has to change.
Also, with respect to Dilan, he's 100% wrong about what the Missippi Supreme Court found. See below.
Why is it the correct legal decision? Mississippi does not have no-fault divorce, so the abused spouse here had to prove "habitual cruel and inhuman treatment" to get out of her marriage. There was a trial, and the trial judge found she hadn't proven - without expressly saying if
That failure of proof was either because (1) the judge believed the wife's testimony about what happened in the marriage but didn't think it was sufficiently cruel; or (2) the judge believed the husband and didn't believe the wife
Terpsehore Maras is suing Dominion for defamation, because they said [IN A PLEADING] that the Arizona court called her affidavit for Sidney Powell "unreliable" ... when the court just said that Powell's experts were generally derived from unreliable sources.
There's just so much wrong here. But look, litigation privilege exists. That means you literally can't sue someone for defamation over things they say in a document filed with a court in a litigation.