Because we are (were?) talking about this case where the criminal made a claim for stand your ground (so I assume it’s an affirmative defense) and the jury clearly didn’t think it applied. I then explained why I thought the jury made the right call.

Where did I disagree with what you? Because it seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you.

Is the article title image AI generated? Because it just looks like a bad design to me (as opposed to being technically bad). And honestly it's not something I would be shocked to see in a freemium gacha game.

Thank you.

That the dude who ran through the stop light and almost hit a bunch of people likely would have trouble claiming a right to stand his ground (and the jury in this case seemed to agree).

Cool. The lighting looks a little to good (to dynamic and precise) for the era in my opinion. But I would definitely be down to play it if I liked single player horror games.

“misconduct could go on for so long without anyone on our command staff noticing.”

Let me first say I'm glad he's back and hope the other ousted house member is returned quickly. I thought this triggered a special election, not local officials being able to appoint someone. Is it just because they wanted to reappoint him that they got to make the call? If they wanted someone else would they need to…

Ghandi did it as part of proving his purity from temptation (so clearly he viewed it as sexual in nature). This could indeed be a case where he simply did not see it as a sexual act in line with his cultures concept of them. Still shouldn't have done it, but different cultures do have different views on things.

That is definitely something I found to be odder with this guy.

? I think he’s guilty and should stay in prison. So I don’t get comparing me to Abbot on this.

Yes. But the legality of them generally requires you not to be committing a crime that would give the people that you are standing your ground to have a legally valid reason to feel you are threatening them.

Seems clearer than the Rittenhouse trial. Guy directly endangered people, who came to seemingly see what the fuck was going on; and then without attempting to flee or deescelate the situation that he caused, he started shooting at people. The jury sounds dead right from my understanding.

I meant believe in his divinity. I haven’t ever looked through the reasons historians believe he is real as it doesn’t particularly matter to me (I’m an atheist and real or not the impact of the belief would likely be pretty much the same in the present).

“vulnerabilities groups”

Bearing false witness would prevent them from lying (I mean they aren’t supposed to do it, not that they don’t). But that also hinges on MTG not believing what she says. And she comes off as pretty stupid; but that could be an act (it seems to have served her well).

I would point out that Christ and Mandella were both guilty of thier charges (in that Nelson had been involved in the terrorism he was accused of, and I forget the specific accusations the Roman's made but I think it had to do with harming thier rule and claiming divinity). The issue with them is more the morality of…

I don’t really get the point of using Retroarch on my pc over bespoke emulator apps. It’s good for my microconsoles and system on a chip stuff though.

I mean if the GOP in general really cared about stopping abortions would have been supporting better available of free and low cost things like condoms, birth control, and the plan b pills. Since those all lower the chances of unwanted pregnancy.

I don’t know, I’ve quite a few people who collect memorabilia from wars. They didn't seem particularly big fans of the confederacy or Nazi’s. Don’t know anyone with paintings by Hitler or a display copy of his book though.