3 ms·
Legal Eagle just covered this, it's quite interesting analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU
by neom 2mo ago
Legal Eagle just covered this, it's quite interesting analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU
- bena 2mo agoNot even a minute in. "Oh, he's protesting Cop City, got it. This is just police harassment."
- JungleGymSam 2mo ago[dead]
- copper-float 2mo agoSounds about right to me.
- knute 2mo agoThe guy from Game Changer?
- neom 2mo ago[dead]
- onionisafruit 2mo agoYes. And Paul Refereeno will be the judge in this case
- zenoprax 2mo agoGreat link. The most relevant part for me is the last couple minutes (22:00): it's only against the law to destroy evidence if it can be established that such evidence exists. This feels like a more elaborate version of accidentally losing a stack of papers to a gust of wind just as you hand them over. 1. Was there a lawful entitlement to the papers? 2. Were the papers protected private property? 3. Were the papers released to the wind intentionally? 4. If intentionally released was it expected that they would disappear or simply fall to the ground? A couple easy technological analogies: 3. "Sorry, I gave you the wrong code by mistake." 4. "I thought it would go to a private guest mode, not delete everything!"