4 ms·
No, he was not. You don't seem to fundamentally understand what "due process" means. At all. Look it up: "Due process is a requirement that legal matters be re
by Bud 4y ago
No, he was not. You don't seem to fundamentally understand what "due process" means. At all. Look it up:
"Due process is a requirement that legal matters be resolved according to established rules and principles, and that individuals be treated fairly."
The "established rules and principles" clearly and obviously were not followed, here. Therefore, by definition, and there can be no debate on this, there was no "due process", here.
- dingosity 4y agoIt turns out that the interpretation of "due process" is left to the judiciary, and not the hacker news comments section.
- Bud 4y agoI'm sure you think you're being very clever, but actually, you're not. It's really quite clear here whether there was due process. Which is why a judge already ruled. Probably took about five seconds to figure this case out.