• panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Didn’t the founding fathers rebel to strip exactly this kind of thing?

    At what point can this just be thrown out with prejudice, is that not a thing?

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Didn’t the founding fathers rebel because they didn’t want to pay taxes and not have any representation? Which is funny because the US is doing the same thing today with DC and Puerto Rico. Maybe DC should revolt and throw Trump in the Potomac. You could call it the orange tea party.

      • mr_tyler_durden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’d argue the cap on reps in the house is an even bigger issue. What kind of representation can you possibly have with the crazy ratios of elected official to citizen we have? Once you’ve gerrymandered your district to pick your voters you can easily ignore the minority, they are just warm bodies no matter how they vote, it doesn’t matter.

  • TipRing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If you can’t even meet the low bar of an indictment, you are unprepared for a trial.

  • SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    In other news, a Federal grand jury also failed to indict a “Whole Hog Special” from a local deli.

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      How many times was it with the sandwich guy? They downgraded to a misdemeanor and they still lost at trial. These people are wildly incompetent.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I dunno.

        what’s fun about MrHamSandwhich was that it was jury nullification. They didn’t even argue he didn’t do it.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It wasn’t nullification. It was good to lawyering to have the instructions be specific about requiring the act to be forceable which requires a risk of harm. The argument was entirely a wrapped sandwich isn’t a threat to an armored officer.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            no. no it did not.

            also the “victim” being a broken-dick fuckwit didn’t really help either.