0·
10 months agoGood point, plenty of defense attorneys are just in it for the money.
420blazeit69 [he/him]
- 0 Posts
- 11 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: April 9th, 2021
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
As always, the only winners in pointless stuff like this are the solicitors and lawyers.
I bet they hate this one, too. As a defense attorney this is basically your nightmare: someone who definitely committed a horrific crime and it’s your job to make a frivolous appeal. And if you’re on the other side this is the last case you want to fuck up.
I’m not a prison abolitionist
The “guilty until proven innocent” part highlights a tactic to push back on manufactured claims of genocide paired with smears of genocide denial: genocide is a formally defined crime, just like murder. Just like murder, you start with a presumption of innocence – that is, you start by denying the accusation, and it is on the accuser to prove what happened.
In cases like the Holocaust (or Palestine today) you have a mountain of evidence. You have countless eyewitnesses backed by film, sometimes video, and almost always official statements or internal documents showing intent.
In China you have significant motivation and credibility questions about the much smaller number of witnesses, you don’t have anything like the photographic documentation of the Holocaust, you have some blurry satellite photos of… something despite the U.S. having spy satellites that can read a license plate, and your official statements (that are themselves backed by significant evidence) are about combating radicalization through development.
In short, there is actually a live question about the credibility and weight of the evidence. You do have to engage with the evidence and not simply take the accusation at face value, just like you would at a murder trial.
If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says “nah,” they’re just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that’s the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn’t it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
One would hope.
- You said “[a yes vote on Russia annexing Crimea] never happened.”
- I showed that it did.
- You responded with “We’re taking about Hawaii here.”
Get the fuck out of here
They’re running multiple accounts pushing the same reactionary garbage, with the same little debate fallacy pictures, and even the same obnoxious “most people learn this when they’re 5” bit.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so.
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico…) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can’t even vote on it. What then?
this never happened
The referendum had widely been expected to pass; Crimea’s parliament has already voted to seek annexation by Russia…
Update at 3 p.m. ET: The Polls Are Closed; 93 Percent Approval Cited
The death penalty is not abolitionist. If you think they should just kill this guy but are also vaguely in favor of prison abolition, there’s a real contradiction you need to work out.