3 ms·
>If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approac
by freejazz 3y ago
>If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation.
Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability?
>Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo.
I didn't accuse you of anything. You seem a bit confused so try to follow here: I'm literally just explaining to you that when someone goes and uses another other person's property without permission, its prima facie trespass. You can make a defense that it was "just", but that's an affirmative defense.
- jncfhnb 3y ago> Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether
- freejazz 3y agoThere's many legal theories for many things, whether or not they have merit is something entirely different. I wouldn't call a random congressperson's grandstanding a legal theory, but I am a lawyer.