Sure, that's easy. There's no reasonable expectation that a legal tender act is perfectly universally enforceable or even really enforceable at all under a condition of genuine hyperinflation, and indeed the experience of Third World countries undergoing "dollarization" even when laws are explicitly passed…

The takeaway here, no offense meant (or not that much offense because I know I do it too) is that a lot of people say a lot of really dumbfuck things when they don't think through what it would actually mean.

The takeaway here, no offense meant (or not that much offense because I know I do it too) is that a lot of people say a lot of really dumbfuck things when they don't think through what it would actually mean.

What I mean by real eyewitness testimony is direct involvement of the witness in the event in question, not circumstantial bystander evidence that they "saw something".

What I mean by real eyewitness testimony is direct involvement of the witness in the event in question, not circumstantial bystander evidence that they "saw something".

@Ajax Wish I could give this more likes. The heart of the problem here is the inherent cognitive bias humans have for wanting everything in the pattern to fit together.

@Ajax Wish I could give this more likes. The heart of the problem here is the inherent cognitive bias humans have for wanting everything in the pattern to fit together.

The classic "lawyer show" was stereotypically about a defense attorney, though it was still a "law and order" kind of show — Perry Mason and Ben Matlock both famously considered their job to be acquitting their clients by doing their own private investigations and discovering the real criminal at the last minute.

The classic "lawyer show" was stereotypically about a defense attorney, though it was still a "law and order" kind of show — Perry Mason and Ben Matlock both famously considered their job to be acquitting their clients by doing their own private investigations and discovering the real criminal at the last minute.

You're arguing against a strawman. I have no problem with eyewitness testimony that's actually eyewitness testimony, i.e. "I was actually there, at the scene, and I actually saw the kid actually murder his father before my very eyes."

You're arguing against a strawman. I have no problem with eyewitness testimony that's actually eyewitness testimony, i.e. "I was actually there, at the scene, and I actually saw the kid actually murder his father before my very eyes."

This is more in performance than text, but certainly the reason I liked Juror 8 and the reason audiences did is I think we're meant to get the impression he's a genuinely decent man who decides to speak up and be contrarian because he's genuinely freaked out at how eager his colleagues are to spill a kid's blood in…

This is more in performance than text, but certainly the reason I liked Juror 8 and the reason audiences did is I think we're meant to get the impression he's a genuinely decent man who decides to speak up and be contrarian because he's genuinely freaked out at how eager his colleagues are to spill a kid's blood in…

@avclub-a1967e6de4ca99fb2635d94b99453928:disqus You're the actual attorney, not me, but I was under the impression that barring something truly egregious enough to declare a mistrial the right against double jeopardy means the prosecution can't appeal an acquittal in a criminal case.

@avclub-a1967e6de4ca99fb2635d94b99453928:disqus You're the actual attorney, not me, but I was under the impression that barring something truly egregious enough to declare a mistrial the right against double jeopardy means the prosecution can't appeal an acquittal in a criminal case.

I know! That's so obnoxious. We should just let the other jurors overrule the one troublemaker; in fact we should just have it by majority vote so we can vote once, based on everyone's initial feelings right after the arguments are presented, and be done in time for lunch.

I know! That's so obnoxious. We should just let the other jurors overrule the one troublemaker; in fact we should just have it by majority vote so we can vote once, based on everyone's initial feelings right after the arguments are presented, and be done in time for lunch.

Juries are instructed to use their "common sense", a highly nebulous term, sure.

Juries are instructed to use their "common sense", a highly nebulous term, sure.

The fact that the book causes rape politics and race politics to violently collide and pretty much sets itself up for the heartbreaking "Racism vs. Sexism: WHICH IS WORSE?!" donnybrook we seem unable to avoid having is pretty sad.