What I believe he is referring to is Jury nullification. I interpret your statement of open and shut case as you believe jury must convict if what they interpret to be facts of breaking a laws written by man. By a jury choosing not to convict there is another form of justice implied…
My guess is that most people on a jury would convict, but the odds of an entire jury convicting are less than fifty percent. I don't know how much less.
Tha kind of flexibility is the point of a jury. Laws aren't purely mechanical in most countries, for good reason. There's a lot of complexity and nuance, especially when some people have political power.
I don't have enough background here to make a judgement about what a jury should do, but I do have enough background to know that things like jury nullification are important to a well-functioning justice system.
I believe he is referring to if/when the cops confront the suspect, they will claim a justification for shooting him fatally during the arrest attempt.
In which case the prosecution will have plenty of grounds to screen for that in the next trial, that next trial will happen, and then the guy gets convicted of first degree murder. Presuming he's found in the first place.
There's no world in which all twelve jurors vote not guilty if the defendant is demonstrated to be the assassin beyond reasonable doubt. That simply won't happen, it's a delusion. Hanging the first trial would merely delay the inevitable, and I don't expect that to happen either.
Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry are both walking free after unambiguously murdering people in broad daylight.
You're right, I do find it less likely that the murderer of a CEO would get the same kind of treatment as murderers of civil rights protesters, but there are examples in recent history of people walking free despite unambiguously murdering people in broad daylight for political reasons.
You need consensus either to convict, or to _declare_ someone not guilty.
In the US there is an important distinction between the presumption of innocence, and its declaration in a court of law.
Someone with a hung jury or mistrial is still presumed not guilty by the law, but may be tried again for the same crime, because the prohibition against double jeopardy only applies to those cleared of a charge, which mistrials don't do.
In this case, it's a hard guarantee that a mistrial would be tried again. So yes, you would need consensus in a jury to prevent the conviction from eventually occurring, because there's no realistic chance of it happening twice.
It won't happen once either, but even if it did, it won't happen twice.
In the UK a few years back a statue of a slave trader was thrown into the river in Bristol, and the people charged were acquitted in what is commonly considered to be a case of jury nullificaiton.
Now, it's definitely true that getting a jury to nullify a murder charge is significantly different, but I'd argue there is a lot more anger about the healthcare system and CEOs making huge profits from human suffering in the US than there was about that statue, and much more generally too.
You also have a climate where a convicted felon just got made president, and another in a long line of presidents pardoning people they have close personal relationships too with clear conflict of interest. If you wanted to pick a moment where people in the US were losing faith in the justice system, now seems like a good choice, and if you believe the system is rigged, are you going to judge it on technicalities, or how you feel?
Do I think it is likely? No.
"No world it could happen", "delusional", and "won't happen"? I wouldn't be so sure.
It's delusional to think you'll win Powerball just because you bought a ticket. But that's a case where the odds of _someone_ winning are reasonably high, due to the very large sample size.
This is like if $billionaire announced that he will publicly generate a fair signed 32 bit number, and give a specific person a billion dollars if the number is exactly 1234567. It would be delusional to think that will happen, there's no world in which it will, and it won't.
People who think otherwise are ignorant of the process of jury selection, and how straightforward it is to find twelve citizens who don't want to spit directly in the face of the judicial process (and judge) and let a bloody-handed murderer off the hook because of feelz. They're unable to separate their social media fantasies from the real world.
I think you vastly underestimate how common and strong the anger is, and how low belief in following the letter of the law is. It's unlikely, but not winning the lottery unlikely.
Been through the airport shenanigans enough; collected DEA cards like they was Pokémon. Glad to see them do away with this practice. DEA could definitely use more checks and balance structure with their history of warrantless taps, gps tracking, stingrays, parallel construction (obscuring the true source of where information came from denying those charged the ability to challenge and defend themselves properly.)
Dumb question but my assumption is fiber optic cables could be “tapped”? But the disruption would be noticeable when monitoring the cable. Could you just tap it when you cut it and when it hooked back up that’s the new baseline with the tap in place? That would seem more of a logical reason then a country just randomly cutting lines to me?
Hybrid warfare - the infrastructure is offline, and the repair resources are consumed. And you gather intel what the resource impact and offline time is.
Message - we can do this. Now think what else we can do.
Of course the message is also pushing EU closer to war footing. But China and Russia don’t see it that way - they think the lack of popular outcry means weakness.
That wasn't the case in the past. Events over the past 15 years have resulted in most companies encrypting all traffic between datacenters (due to the perceived risk). TLS between consumers and companies is probably at an all time high though due to a push for end-to-end encryption.
TLS doesn't help here, because state actors (including China, Russia) own trusted root certificates, which allow them to TLS-terminate for _any_ website they choose and silently decrypt/MITM the traffic.
TLS offers quite good protection actually: Anytime they create fraudulent certificates they risk burning their CA. Attacks need to be very targeted to keep risk of detection low. Due to Certificate Transparency, hiding attacks got even harder. And for sites that use cert pinning, the attack doesn't even work in the first place.
And eavesdrop is one thing but I'm not clear how you could MITM an undersea cable without the operators noticing.
Except it's not silent because you need to expose your misissued certificate every time. Sure, the average joe won't spot it, but all it takes is one security researcher to expose the whole thing. AFAIK there are also projects by google and the EFF to monitor certificates, so the chances of you getting caught are really high. Combined with the fact that no such attacks has been discovered, makes me think that it probably doesn't occur in practice, or at least is only used against high value targets rather than for dragnet surveillance.
These things get encrypted at a lower layer, macsec. At the transport layer it's all transparent. No need for TLS between your servers, that's just wasted overhead.
You typically encrypt anyway because you just lease the line and buy the b/w. It's operated by a different company and you share the wire with other customers.
Yes. Having used both I can say indeed it is. Not only does GLP-1 slow digestion which limits what you can eat and when it also is being study for its effects on alcoholism etc reducing cravings. I and many people I know noticed the difference in cravings were not limited to food.
Oddly enough, no. It seems to affect a different desire pathway than dopamine and such. It’s not anhedonic, good stuff is still good and you still want it. Even food! It doesn’t make food not-pleasurable, just reduces hunger. It only seems to affect very particular kinds of cravings associated with food and addiction/compulsion, not sex drive (though maybe for “sex addicts”? IDK)
Yeah... They use to pay 10% of the "bounty" seized. Not sure what the going rate is with the heat now and days. The war on drugs lol.. war on peoples rights. Warrantless GPS trackers, then it was stingrays.. quite an intersting organization. They use some .. unique software. Penlink use to publish their software updates publicly was a good read. (you can probably find it on wayback machine) Interesting software to say the least.. https://www.penlink.com/digital-intelligence-original-work-2...
I appreciate your thinking, unfortunately if it sells well I feel the industry will just do the same thing. Instead of shoe shaped things, we will just have cyber truck knock offs. Which ugh I can’t say I would prefer over what we have now.
BofA/ML appears to have default limits of $15k/day for wealth management clients, and $25k/day for private bank clients, though there is a footnote stating that limits may actually be higher depending on the client. So at least for BofA/ML, they seem to essentially make higher transfer limits dependent on how much you're paying them in management fees.
Do you have a business account? I have a $1500/day limit. Looking it up it seems like for popular banks it tops out at $2500/day, and some go as low as $500/day.
How privileged is it to say that a $1500 loss is "hardly worth noting"? Median take home pay is under $45k, so that's more than half of the median paycheck gone in a single mistake.
Obviously for an individual person it can be bad, bad enough to cause problems that take months to solve, but not lose your life savings and retirement bad. The report identifies a few hundred million dollars in losses but my point is more that for instance there are single "pig butchering" case losses in the millions (and totals in the billions, which is likely an underestimate because some people feel too ashamed to report to ic3.gov) and not much is being done in the way of educating people on how to avoid being swindled.
As someone that consults in this space I more or less agree with you. Requirements are derived from interpretation of UETA and ESIGN Act. Itext has a good write up and great library to leverage when taking on project like this. Docusign has a good writeup on esign/UETA. ESRA is the goto body on the subject, and if you need legal opinion DLA Piper is the goto in the industry. This stuff is fairly simple once you know it.
