A lot of hate crime laws are challenged for the very reason I described. I do not think they tend to be valid, and believe me, I am not pro-bigot.
A lot of hate crime laws are challenged for the very reason I described. I do not think they tend to be valid, and believe me, I am not pro-bigot.
And at the time of your writing, no one knew what their motive was. Turns out, the Dagestan visit appears to have had nothing to do with it.
And what happened? I am guessing the woman was either convicted, or did not get that good of a deal.
Alas, poor Yorick does not travel well.
PS—Half of the immigrants in my apartment complex probably don't have American friends. If any one of them committed a crime, I wouldn't call them a terrorist, either.
Source? The Russian government says all kinds of things.
Wow. You "hate" defense tactics?
If I were his lawyer I would tell him to shut up.
Yeah, when there is duress and the person isn't incredibly resilient, false confessions are easy. Long breaks, lack of duress = accurate confessions.
The funny thing is, most suspects talk even if warned, too.
Considering that Miranda was a rapist, you are correct.
Plenty of people with family in other countries visit them for long periods. He went to Dagestan, which is hardly our enemy No. 1.
That's crap. Crime is crime is crime. Even if you were right, that crime for political ends is different, there is approximately zero evidence right now that these two men were any more politically motivated than Harris and Klebold or Malvo and whasisface.
Raising both simultaneously also works. Hear yah.
Hah, I know what you mean. Can you raise one eyebrow? Because making raised eyebrow, awkward silence your stock response to deeply inappropriate behavior may help.
Ummm, the Rosewood bar is notorious for being a hangout for ladies of the night and older gentlemen, not "cougars."
California has lgb persons as a protected class. However, sometimes there are "ministerial exemptions" where religious entities can discriminate, if the role is ministerial enough.
When you sue for discrimination, you sue for the wrongful termination/adverse employment action. Regardless of the contract, if they treat men/women pregnant/not pregnant, people differently (i.e., enforcing the morals clause against one but not the other) they may be liable for discrimination.
For a while, it was more than half of the time. About 80% of the time, if I liked a guy, I would be like, what the hell, and ask him out. After determining he was single. That was not working very well (led to few dates and almost no relationships) so I started just being friendlier, and doing online dating, which…
I have done it a fair amount, and am glad I did even though it led to frequent rejection. My current bf would probably object if I started asking men out again, otherwise I would. I just wouldn't expect much.