So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over
I don’t think that follows from their argument. It’s valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer’s evasion attempts by steering toward them.
The unprecedented lack of accountability on the part of the Federal government. To wit: Trump’s rampant misuse of the presidential pardon power.
We have seen the reverse from time to time: State courts failing to hold white defendants accountable for crimes against black victims. At that time, federal prosecutors were able to step in with their own prosecutions.
Ideally, both governments should be trustworthy and accountable, and justice could be achieved in either court in any case. Here, with the defendant being an agent of the federal government and the federal government behaving so egregiously, their position cannot be trusted.
That’s not a thing that can happen. The state supreme court can substitute another state judge, but the federal government does not have the power you describe.
I agree completely.
The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of “force” necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.
Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute,
Right. Understood. The state prosecutor files charges in a state court
and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial,
Right. The federal prosecutor files charges in a federal court.
[The feds] drop charges.
The only charges the feds can drop are the charges in federal court. So there are no more federal charges.
Are you saying the state would refile charges?
I’m saying the state never dismissed the charges in state court. They don’t need to refile anything; the state charges are still filed.
I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?
That is incorrect. The state and the federal government can both decide they want to prosecute. Luigi Mangione, for example, faces charges in both New York and Federal courts.
No, I don’t think we are agreeing at all. I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of dual sovereignty.
The assumption you seem to be making is that there is only one court with the jurisdiction to try him. You seem to be arguing that if this was a federal crime, he will be tried only in federal court, and not in state court.
This is not accurate.
Dual sovereignty is the idea that the same act constitutes a crime against the state, and a completely separate crime against the federal government. He can be tried in both courts, not just one. The outcome of either court is irrelevant to the other. He can be acquitted in one or both; he can be convicted in one or both. The charges being dropped in one have no bearing on the other case.
He can, indeed, be tried and convicted twice for the exact same act, once in state court and once in federal.
No. The “reasonable person” standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, “Necessary” is what is going to hang this guy: the level of “force” “necessary” to end the “imminent threat” was to take a half-step to the right. “Sidestep-Right” is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.
Under the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, even if he is fully acquitted in Federal court, he can later be charged and convicted in State court for the same actions; this is not considered Double Jeopardy.
Double Jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act. It is an offense against the state to violate its law against homicide; it is an offense against the federal government to violate its law against homicide. The same act creates two offenses; each can be prosecuted independent of the other.
(I haven’t agreed with this doctrine in the past, but this particular case has forced me to consider factors of which I was previously unaware.)
I haven’t kept up with the development side of it…
Clicking through the links on F-droid, their issue tracker (https://lists.sr.ht/~petercxy/shelter) is active as of three weeks ago. Author’s github shows commits as of November 2024, and suggests a custom F-droid repository.
Try “Shelter”. It’s available on F-droid. It’s an app that lets you manage your phone’s “Work Profile”. I use it to house scummy corpo apps that I occasionally need, but don’t want running all the time. From inside the work profile, HSBC shouldn’t be able to see apps installed outside of it.
I challenge the effectiveness of protesting in general. Doesn’t seem like it has been effective at all since the 1960s.
Take the Just Stop Oil protests for example: all they have actually achieved is harsher punishments for jaywalking.
You have identified the purpose of these questions. They are determining your mindset when dealing with novel circumstances. Do you make an effort to explore and understand the actual constraints, or do you impose your own, preconceived notions on the scenario? Do you limit yourself needlessly?
The worst you can do is to treat it as a riddle and immediately give the “correct” answer. An interview isn’t a knowledge test. They aren’t trying to determine if you’ve seen and retained the accepted solution. They ask this sort of question to gain some insight into your problem solving skills.
A better answer is to step in to the question, and treat it like a real world scenario. Acknowledge the stated constraints, then explore them.
How much effort should we put into this problem? How much time and treasure are we going to spend on this? Why are we even determining which switch controls the light in the first place? What are the consequences of a wrong answer? If we’re going to get fired for a wrong answer, we should take our time and get it right. If the consequences are “go try again”, let’s just start flipping switches.
Do we have other resources available? Is there someone in the room? Can we put someone in the room? Is there someone else available who uses the switch regularly? Can we ask their assistance? (If the room isn’t being used often enough for anybody to know how the switches work, should it be repurposed to something more useful?)
Do we know that these are normal, simple switches? If they are three-way switches, or installed upside down, we can’t trust their position.
Is it safe to assume the bulb is functional? The “riddle” answer fails on this.
Is it safe to assume the bulb starts cold? Did they run this test with another candidate a minute earlier? Did they leave it in a “hot” state for us already?
Is the light accessible when we get into the room, or is it inside a ceiling fixture, 12-feet over our heads?
What are the other switches connected to? If they control fans or lights or other appliances that can be sensed outside the room, we don’t even need to leave the first room.
What is the necessity of the specific, given constraints? If this is a real-world scenario, we’re probably not going to have a limitation on entering the room only once. If we can eliminate that constraint, the problem is a lot easier to solve.
Get feedback from the interviewer: Have we adequately explored this scenario to their satisfaction? Is there some other aspect we need to address?
On average, we earn enough that everyone should have healthcare and 4 -week vacations every summer
On average.
Yeah, I hope Clinton/Harris was snark.
Clinton/Harris 2028
(/s)
AFAIK, the affected senators vacate their seats. A quorum is 50% + 1 of occupied seats. When an asteroid falls on 30 GOP senators, a quorum is 36 and a supermajority is 47, not 51 an 67.
I have legitimately never seen this meme.
I’ve seen dozens of posts and articles commenting on it, but I have never actually seen this meme in the wild.
28 USC 1441:
28 USC 1442:
Apprehension or punishment of criminals: The president’s position is that ICE is repelling an invasion, not enforcing law. The president’s argument against Birthright Citizenship, and his entire justification for non-judicial deportation is that the immigrants in question are not “criminals”, but foreign nationals not subject to the laws of the United States. The detainees are not considered criminals; they are not afforded the rights of criminals. Since the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship, ICE actions in general are not for the apprehension or punishment of criminals.
Allowing the case to be moved to the district court on these grounds would set a more important precedent than the murder charge.
The other categories do not apply to ICE agents.