Thann

Thann, 2 months ago

You really just need laws that allow you to put anyone you don’t like in jail

Thann, 2 months ago

Interoperability is illegal now?

Thann, 2 months ago

The first one was good!

Thann, 2 months ago

If the people want heapoverflow, I’ll resurrect it

Thann, 2 months ago

yeah, it was essentially the site that OP is asking for, but one day freenom disappeared the domain from my account, and Ive been too lazy to write a DB migration to another domain name =/

Thann, 3 months ago

In my opinion, yes. “breaking the law” is a statement of fact that is based on what is actually quantifiable.

The fact that I was traveling over the speed limit is the only relevant factor. My intentions and consequences are irrelevant.

Thann, 3 months ago

An overwhelming number of people seem to think that either intention or whether you were charged are relevant to the question here:
lemmy.ml/comment/8298237

Thann, 3 months ago

how so?

Thann, 3 months ago

yeah, so the “level of crime” is debatable, but if I kill someone it would not be wrong to say “I broke the law” right?

Maybe it was justifiable, but it is up to a jury to determine guilt.
Really the essence of my question is: “are ‘guilt’ and ‘breaking the law’ seen as different things.”

conversely, if a murderer got acquitted, but then indisputable proof that the were the murder came out afterwards, you would say, “he broke the law”.

Thann, 3 months ago

what? youre talking about the joemygod(dot)com article?
its pretty biased and if you read the pdf you can search for Zwonitzer: you can find tons of examples of biden bragging about having the classified material. So its pretty well-established that joe had the info and knew he had the info. so he broke the law.

Thann, 3 months ago

There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it’s fair to say “he broke the law”, you just can’t say “he willfully broke the law”

Thann, 3 months ago

And who’s to decide if the baseball bat was willfully thrown? The jury! You could still be charged with assault because 1000 people saw your bat hit someone in the face, so its 100% plausible to say you broke the law.

If the law says don’t cross the line, and you accidentally cross the line, you broke the law, regardless of willfulness. Its up to a jury to decide if youre guilty

Its not like the police have an “accident detector” they roll up to the scene to determine if a law was broken.

Thann, 3 months ago

This is the second sentance of the report:

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.

Can you explain to me what the lie was exactly?

Thann, 3 months ago

Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though.

You realize that neither a judge nor a jury were involved with the decision to not prosecute right?

Thann, 3 months ago

Oh they definitely broke the law

Thann, 3 months ago

so, in the same way that the muller report doesn’t say that “trump never broke the law”, the hur report doesn’t say that “biden never broke the law”

Thann, 3 months ago

If you keep reading you’ll see you’re making the same stretch that trump supporters made when they said “the Muller report absolves trump.”

The next paragraphs read:

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.

…

However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then on page 219, they say unequivocally:

Mr. Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.

So, hur does not say that biden didn’t break any laws, in fact there is evidence biden intentionally broke the laws, but they’re not charging him because they don’t think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malicious intent because hes senile!

Having a poor memory doesn’t mean you didn’t break any laws…

EDIT: If you read the report instead of that biased article you will see that there is a ton of evidence that biden was told many times to return the classified material and refused.

Thann, 3 months ago

they said they didn’t think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its not the same thing, and if you read the report there are hundreds of pages of evidence, its not like they were short on evidence.
It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.

Thann, 3 months ago

so if i watch someone rob a 7-11 I cannot say “they broke the law” until they’ve been proven guilty?

Thann, 3 months ago

Im not butthurt lol

Im just confused about why people feel this way, and Im trying to get to the bottom of it

I dont think the people saying “he didnt break the law” have actually read the report.

Hur’s report contains dozens of similar paragraphs regarding his conclusion that Biden did not break the law in retaining classified documents.

thats not a good characterization of the report.

The paragraphs frequently end like this: (pg-5 AKA 9 of the pdf)

And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully-that is, with intent to break the law-as the statute requires.

Basically they’re saying that he obviously broke the law, but if just 1 jurror is sympathetic to the idea that it wasn’t willful, he gets off, so why bother. This is a perfectly fine and rational thing for the prosecutor to say.
The only thing is, nobody is debating whether or not biden actually broke the law, the evidence supports that unequivocally…

EDIT: just search the PDF for Zwonitzer: and you will find tons of examples of biden bragging about having classified info he knew he wasn’t supposed to have.

Thann, 3 months ago

Been waiting a while for this lol

Thann, 3 months ago

Demirkapi, in a post shared on X (formerly Twitter) late last month, said the vulnerability “exists in every Linux boot loader signed in the past decade.”

Thann, 3 months ago

And then you got yer prions, which are just self-replicating proteins, and not considered living, but worth mentioning because they kinda act like it.

Thann, 3 months ago

yeah, so they are similar to viruses in that they cant self-replicate because they need something very specific to attach onto to replicate.