Yes, you are correct. A federal law would preempt a state law, usually. But this is not a federal law, so it’s a load of kindling.

Well no, because this order has zero legal weight. They are liars, though, for pretending it does.

It is a single point system. One DUI and your license is gone. For cars and bicycles.

See, the larger vehicle is responsible for accidents over here, almost all of the time. So if cyclists get drunk and a car hits them, the car driver could get a lot of flack, legally and in insurance costs. Which is kinda fucked up, but that’s the system.

So we expect cyclists to be sober. So they don’t create those situations.

This is Japan. There are other ways to get around than cars. Surprisingly, perhaps, if you’re American. Although it depends where you live.

Or people will stop driving because they have no license… Who cares if they care, then?

That was largely true. Now much less, but it depends on the industry and company.

Linux user here. I want to read dramatic complaints. Any kind, if it’s dramatic. Or write a boring one and I’ll move on. Starting a flame war for complaint style is boring. Better topics for flame wars exist.

You say it’s nothing and then explain why it is something, all without realizing you contradicted yourself. That takes skill.

It matters because there are victims. It matters because Trump is MAGA and some (but not all) of his followers dislike pedo shit. It matters because many of the problems we see nationally are mainly problems created and continued by the ultra rich, as opposed to a single political party, and this issue makes that easy to see.

And remember how much momentum Trump had six months ago? I do. He lost all of that because of Epstein. The one issue that was so clear to his base, to the conspiracy theorists, that tanked his political momentum. He’ll never recover that power.

“will have to” is such a misleading phrasing… Many of them will visit elsewhere. Fuck that shit for tourism. It’s not worth it, not to see some sites.

Right right, if by “everybody” you mean “definitely not everybody”.

I think the prosecutor is going to drop the charges because I don’t think he broke a law. So we’ll not find out…

But also, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything and would probably be wise not to testify in court. If you decide that you’re going to testify at all, then they can ask you a lot of other questions that you probably don’t want to answer. So almost all of the time you should shut the fuck up. :-)

That doesn’t mean the Russians don’t have anything on him.

I think your speculation is probably going to be fairly close to reality, but that makes their case very difficult to prove. If the FBI comes to my house and tells me that they’re investigating a crime and then I delete data, then probably I have broken the law. And I would have known it. So I would get convicted. But Border Patrol loves to go on fishing expeditions and search digital devices when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. And if that’s the case, then I don’t have any obligation to preserve the data. And it doesn’t even matter what Border Patrol claims later because the legal standard is going to be what I believed at the time that they tried to go on their fishing expedition.

I think we can safely conclude that there was no warrant because no one has reported there was a warrant and that is the kind of thing that they would have reported. And if they had one they would have seized the phone itself. So we can reasonably conclude that this is a situation where they told the guy, unlock your phone or we’re going to keep you locked up or we’re going to take your phone.

Actually, that is how it works. And if you don’t believe us, then take 10 minutes and do a brief web search and you will find the same information… In this situation the law matches common sense which says that most of the time you are allowed to erase things on your own phone and when it is a special case then you need to know it’s a special case for it to be a crime.

If he had received a valid court order to not delete anything on his phone, then doing so could put him in legal trouble. So what you said is not true in general. But most of the time, for almost everyone, almost all of the time, then, yes, it’s okay to wipe your phone… And because the article did not mention a court order, we can be sure that there wasn’t one.

Yeah, but at some point they will and then they’ll have to deal with all of the problems without anyone to help them manage the challenges. So either you parent them now or you just set them up to fail later. Take your pick.

It is being used. The defense is moving to suppress evidence (his backpack and anything he said before he was locked up), and that’s what these days in court are all about.

The state is trying to tell a complicated story. They claim that he (a) wasn’t detained, (b) voluntarily gave them a fake ID because … nobody knows why, © he didn’t feel like he was being detained, and therefore (d) they arrested him for the fake ID, after which (e) they read him Miranda, and after that (f) they searched his bag as part of arresting him.

That lets them maximize the evidence against him. The problem for the prosecution is that probably the above is actually factually incorrect. It’s the judge’s job to determine exactly where the prosecution and cops are making shit up, which is why the hearings are happening right now. Later the judge will rule on what actually happened, and therefore what evidence can be admitted against him.

The proceedings right now are before the trial. No jury is watching this.

And doesn’t that just expose the underlying immorality even more? The elderly are told to spend down extra money. It’s common sense. You can’t take it with you. Plan as best you can, right?

Any housing provider or retirement center that can’t reasonably deal with the fact that some of their oldest residents might unexpectedly run out of cash, well, I have zero respect for them. Don’t open that kind of business if you aren’t ready for this kind of entirely predictable scenario. It’s just wrong.

You mean we have absolutely zero information in a situation where we’re responding to a post that literally gives us some information?

If you want to speculate about theoretical violent old women, I guess you can. But even then, let’s roll with it. So apparently you’re saying it’s possible that she’s violent and if so then it would be reasonable of them to throw her to the curb. So you think it’s okay if they throw her out to die, in that hypothetical. That’s your values. And I’m happy to say that I don’t mirror them.