The lack of a legal limit means they are never safe from justice catching up, even decades later. This lawless administration won't last. Some perpetrators may die of natural causes before that point, but 2026 and 2028 elections aren't far away.
When the crime is murdering people in cold blood, I will take nailing the “lowliest of perpetrators” (e.g. cold blooded murderers) to the fucking wall.
Yes, I hope future administrators go up and down the chain of command looking at everyone who was involved in the cover-up, and charges them with conspiracy to commit murder, but a future Democratic administration will at least identify and prosecute the murderers themselves. While Republican administrations will conceal the identity of the killers and continue to have them out on the streets
Don't get me wrong, I'd gladly take any small victory. But thinking of it in terms of 2026 or 2028 just means you've kicked the can down to 2030 or 2032.
I mean, these will likely be state cases no matter what.
The question is, can the State of Minnesota put together enough evidence to convict these agents for murder and conspiracy to commit murder without the involvement of the federal government?
If so, we could see cases brought as early as this year.
If not, then the next question is can Democrats get them enough information by controlling one branch of the federal government. In that case, we could imagine a prosecution brought in 2027.
Otherwise, if we need Democrats to control the executive branch to get enough information it might be 2029.
I don’t think it will take long, because the State of Minnesota will have put the case together and be waiting to go. So the question will be how quickly can they get any necessary evidence, incorporate that into their case, and then bring charges.
>The question is, can the State of Minnesota put together enough evidence to convict these agents for murder and conspiracy to commit murder without the involvement of the federal government?
They'd have to fight the feds for jurisdiction and will unfortunately likely lose that fight.
> They'd have to fight the feds for jurisdiction and will unfortunately likely lose that fight.
That’s simply not how the system works. There’s no one assigned entity with “jurisdiction” over a crime.
The state and federal governments are dual sovereigns and each are empowered to enforce their own laws. It doesn’t even violate double jeopardy for the Feds and a state to prosecute the same actions.
The only thing that matters is if the state can obtain enough evidence that they feel they could secure a conviction before a jury of the shooter’s peers.
The federal sovereign can usurp the state sovereign's courts jurisdiction and use jurisdiction removal[] to try the state charge in federal court. This is exactly what happened when Lon Horiuchi was charged by a state for killing (sniping) an innocent unarmed mother with a baby in her hands, and part of how he got off free.
Given the feds are always keen to do this when possible, it's not for nothing that they do it.
No, you didn't understand. Poster claimed they would have to fight the feds for jurisdiction. You argued they didn't. Then I set you straight that they would have to fight for court jurisdiction.
Just parroting back what I've said then simply declaring I don't understand it (despite explicitly acknowledging the state charge would be tried in federal court) just looks terribly misguided when you lied with your smug quip "that's not how it works", when apparently you pretend as if you knew all along jurisdiction was relevant and would be fought over.
Canadians aren't crass enough to describe it as superiority, but it is true that the identity of English-speaking Canada is largely built on "not being America" and that the vast majority of the population is content as long as things are "better than in the USA".
Australia, New Zealand, and the UK aren't on the same continent as Canada either, so I fail to understand why that type of agreement doesn't get labeled as silly as well.
The European Union is strictly meant for European countries. CANZUK is a hypothetical agreement that would only include the above. I'd also say that one challenge the EU has is the free movement of citizens of poorer EU countries to richer ones. It might work well for the EU but Canadians are very concerned about immigration and the idea of newcomers undercutting domestic wages. The CANZUK countries all have similar levels of wealth and cultural similarities so that would be much less of a concern. Also, none of the CANZUK countries are in a common market as large as the European or American unions so they would all stand to benefit from that.
> The European Union is strictly meant for European countries.
In the (non-binding) "Briefing No 23 Legal questions of enlargement" of the European Parliamentary Research Service, this criteria is described as follows:
The sole material condition laid down by Article O of the TEU is that the applicant must be a 'European State'. There is no unequivocal interpretation of that criterion. It can be read equally well in geographical, cultural or political terms.
In 1987 an application to become a Member of the Communities was received from Morocco. The application was rejected by the Council on the grounds that Morocco was not a European State [...]. In the case of Turkey, Article 28 of the Association Agreement signed in 1963 incudes the option of Turkey's eventually acceding to the Communities. Turkey in fact lodged an application to accede on 14 April 1987. Historically, Turkey has formed part of the so-called 'European concert'. Although part of Turkey's territory is located geographically in Asia, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have confirmed Turkey's eligibility [...]. This example shows that the term 'European State' need not be interpreted in a strictly geographical sense. It is at all events a criterion subject to political assessment.[1]
I would personally add Cyprus to the list. Geographically it is situated in Western Asia, but is considered culturally European.
In this perspective, countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. might be electible for membership. -- And there is always the option that the EU amends or officially clarifies its accession conditions.
And is the party whose political program is the closest to what the article rightfully commends as great about Canada, yet all it gets in return from many a Canadian is cheap potshots.
As is, the first-past-the-post system will continue to give PCs an unfair advantage until they either splinter into two or are outflanked by a yet nonexistent party from the right. Neither option doesn't seem likely at the moment.
The other option, I guess, would be for the Libs and NDP to merge, shed their conservative members to the PC and try to be the Ontario party. Splitting the centre-left while not splitting the centre-right is really counterproductive. And if I was a PC grandee, which I';m not, I'd get all my buddies donating to the NDP to keep things the way they are now. Perhaps the Libs and NDP need to foster the far right to peel voters away? But man, there's a risk in that kind of behaviour in case they ever win. That'll be the wrong kind of orange wave.
I believe that was the OP's point: we remember a sanitized version of the myth of MLK that flatters modern sensibilities, while ignoring Malcom X because we don't like to acknowledge he played an equally important role in bringing about change.
Liquid Death, CocaCola branded water, and household water filtration are unbelievable luxuries. Manufactured status for the masses. And my examines are truly luxuries: they are unnecessary for drinking water in developed countries.
Pools and green lawns have higher status when water is more expensive/scarcer.
I don't hang out with extremely high-status people, or the extremely wealthy, but I'm sure both of those groups have some surprisingly luxury water.
Luxury is a human concept that is completely disconnected from the underlying product.
Provenance, Branding, Myth, Environmental, Science all matter for status.
A very astute observation - The Program's audience is indeed loyal if not large. I mentioned in some previous reports that I might have painted myself into too big of a niche with a sci-fi audio drama at the intersection of IT and humanities, but people who like it seem to really love it. 1000 true fans, and all that I guess.
I haven't really found a way to incorporate AI into my creative process.
I do sometimes use it as thesaurus on steroids when I can't think of the right word or if I need to check grammar / sentence structure (I'm not a native speaker). I would never use AI in the way Gemini self-reports (and I doubt that's really a thing anyway).
I might be tempted to use it for episode art if I didn't have access to a professional illustrator.
I am experimenting with some AI-generated music at the moment, but that's for background cues that I'd use canned royalty-free music for anyway (emotionally important scenes have tailored-made music done by a professional composer).
One way I'm eyeing to use AI in the future is as a way to translate what are currently audio stories into video. But I feel we're still not there.
I’m writing my first sci-fi novel, and I’m using it for two main things. One, as a basic sanity check for the story, pacing, internal consistency, character development, etc, and basic copy editing. I’ve also used it to generate images for settings to go in the lore bible, so I can pin down what I see in my head into something tangible that I won’t forget. This isn’t the only step, I have human beta readers to double check the LLM, but it often tells me easily verifiable things, and it is often right, (for instance, this sentence reads funny), so it definitely adds value in that sense. Subjective things are a bit harder to trust, but that can be the same thing with subjective feedback from humans too, though of course the difference is that the LLM isn’t going to buy my book, whether or not it loves it.
