Like I said elsewhere fhis is exactly what they were claiming MR. Beast was doing, yet this guy admits it and it’s fine?

I would prefer a crow

That’s the same suit people were bitching about here about with that YouTube kid(Mr. Beast) Lottery fraud or whatever

Edited went back to add name forgot it

Maybe they meant raisinettes, a lot of people don’t like raisons.

Edit: never mind, milk duds are chewy as hell, but also good. I ruled them out because I figured most people would like them (assuming their teeth don’t get pulled out).

Side note: if you didnt chew now&laters and instead sucked on them. You have infinitely more self control than I do.

Yeah, much of the issues brought up seem to be tied to prohibition where if guilty charges increased dramatically (roughly from 3 to 30 percent) it would say they are entering with a predetermined thought of going against the law. The other common cases brought up were all tied to racism.

The fun is this for me is the thought that a supernatural force attacked you in your sleep, you claim it to be a Christian/religious force, and yet at no point does he acknowledge/reflect that maybe his actions may cause scrutiny by his religious beliefs.

Thought process?: “My God created everything, including deamons sent to attack me personally, clearly I am doings gods work”

Tuna Cowboy discussed that below, it appears there are cases that show otherwise listed on the link he sent. In theory that is how jury’s should work. From said page:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]

Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

I couldn’t figure out a way in Brave, it won’t let you set a custom URL for the default browser. Firefox allowed it to just change the customer browser link in the format of

Couldn’t find an APK to test vanadium, I assume it may be exclusive to GrapheneOS? (I just called it test for this, so name it something you’ll recognize in a few months)

Once the Default browser is changed in Firefox/chrome, their widgets pull that information from the app, so it just searches that way.

Yeah, the chrome one will convert.

If you set it as your default search in chrome or such, it will convert the Google search bar in Android to a SearXNG search bar. I started using it a little while back. Firefox never did well for me on Android (I’m sure it’s anecdotal)

She should challenge him to a duel. His pro guns strong man fans will have to watch him give excuses as to why he can’t show up. Could be legal in Washington and Texas I think as fair fights are considered legal there if supervised.

/Joking in case it wasn’t obvious.

“was acquitted of attempted illegal voting”

Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.

Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.

Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.

From said page:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]

Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

If the Democrats had any balls Biden would court-marshall him and charge him for interfering in international affairs pertaining to both Israel and Russia. Skip the courts, he served the executive branch, head of the military, take him to a military court.

Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.

Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn’t mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to “test” if the prostitute would actually agree.

Laws are written in such a way that they don’t allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.

Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession? Yes - jail.

Do you agree they had the drug on them?

Yes -jail.

The jury doesn’t get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person… And conviction of possession.

We punish people for DUI’s harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. “I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe.”

I’m still mad we are giving them typewriters instead of keyboards. Think of the arthritis! Ergonomics please!

See a lot of people think he shit his pants, I tend to believe he is just so full of shit he actually smells like it.

Switzerland educated Kim Jong Un threaten to bomb …

Pretty sure it wasn’t Switzerland’s fault. Lol. Really is a stretch of a title