First, just because they’re only slightly less accurate than most cops… doesn’t mean they’re not able to get lucky.
Secondly, I’m reminded of an incident I saw security recordings of, from a guy running across a light rail platform (warehouse district in Minneapolis,) dude was spraying behind him. While running.
Missed all of the people he was aiming at, killed 4 people all the same.
ACAB, so I’m not saying the cops didn’t fuck up. (Or even plant the damn pellet gun…) but yeah. There’s a reason that’s the narrative.
it's only contempt, from my understanding of law it's not uncommon for contempt of court, and inter court violations to be anywhere from like 2 weeks of jail time, to a few months.
Iranian elections are generally considered fair, although the candidates must be approved by the Supreme Leader, and wield very limited power, so it almost doesn't matter if the elections are rigged or not.
If the Reformist candidate wins, it would be the first time that the president and Ayatollah are not in lock step. It could be interesting.
Of course. Iran is more like a monarchy. The king is still the king, but if the people are unhappy enough, the king might be compelled to give up influence to parliament.
Not a perfect analogy by any means, but I think it helps.
AI can be very useful, the problem here is humans trusting it to be accurate all the time.
In this case it should be used to narrow down results, but even then the police need to do their job.
They need to do an actual investigation to gather evidence that they have the right person before even attempting to make am arrest.
Even removing AI from the picture entirely doesn't solve this problem. Just look at wrongful arrests that have been made simply because a wanted criminal has the exact same name as someone else.
Looking at recent decisions, it's going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.
Kavenaugh has been better than expected (still bad). Actually, all of the Trump appointments have been less-bad than Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. If it weren't for the fact that Kavenaugh replaced Kennedy and Barret RBG it wouldn't be so bad.
The good news is that the next 2 up for replacement are probably Thomas and Alito. If we can hold onto the White House we may be able to unfuck this.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
Reading one piece of the Constitution or the text of any specific statute is kind of useless in our legal system. Other parts of the Constitution, the laws, and the case law that's been established over centuries and decades also have parts to play.
This particular legal situation has been argued before, and it's very settled law (at least for now.) Specifically, the 14th Amendment has been viewed to expand many of the Constitutional provisions that originally only restrained Congress to apply to the state governments as well.
It's most likely to be slapped down in district court, slapped down in the appellate court, and then declined by SCOTUS.
News
Oldest