You left out the word ‘alleged’ or have they all been tried and convicted?

Except that the biggest info was about the vantage point the US government was taking up against its own people.

Of course they left out traitor, because not everyone thinks he is a traitor, it’s not universal. Traitors don’t generally give their info to journalists for public release.

Rural folks can’t take a bus, they don’t exist in towns smaller that 40k. You literally can't get around small towns without a car, most streets lack sidewalks.

Quick skim of the og article says that another fellow pled guilty to being an unlicensed money broker. So that makes it clearer, two defendants, one pled one got his charges dismissed.

Until allegations go to court nobody knows anything. This is why assumption of innocence is important.

You just keep on defending closed doors, demanding blind faith, and watch as the violence continues and politicians force the doors open on the demands of the people. Then remember how that guy without experience told you that experience tends to justify immorality.

I’m in my 30s, don’t dismiss my opinion because you perceive it to be youthful.

It is a question with a strong base in history, smaller groups, operating in their own circles will often abuse power and find an excuse to justify it. Bringing in outsiders is a way to fight that, this goes beyond government.

How much legal experience does it take to be OK with corruption?

I am aware that lawyers and judges have intentionally tried to negate the jury’s moral duty. I also know it hasn’t strictly worked, and that a jury cannot be wrong in its finding. Finally, I know that their efforts are a modern subversion of the intended use of the jury. Pulling the system away from justice and into…

A jury is the standard for a ‘reasonable person’ whether you call the members reasonable people or not is irrelevant. If 12 mostly random people can’t agree the actions are just, then they probably aren’t.

It still falls on reasonable person, still falls to a jury of average people. The lawyers have to educate them on the details, which makes those trials long.

We don’t give other professions the option of consulting their own group, no ‘reasonable banker’ or ‘reasonable lawyer’ because we know any group can come up with bullshit justifications for their bad behavior.

Replacing “reasonable person” with “reasonable cop” is a rule of law problem, the kings men should not be treated differently by the law. You might want to hold them to a lower standard, I don’t, laws for search do, that might be what you are thinking of.

Yes. Defense to a criminal charge, ie “I did something that would normally be a crime except it’s not here because a reasonable person would do the same or considers my actions justified.” blowing someone up is normally a crime, even when police do it, and requires affirmative defense.

Civilians are held to the ‘reasonable person’ standard constantly. I see no reason cops shouldn’t be. But that’s not my point at all, you are defending the act by pointing at a rule, that may defend the officer who performed the act, it does not defend the act itself.

The source of law is the people, what the policy or the law says it is unimportant, as those can be changed. Do not base your opinion on law. Base it on reason that should back up law.

It’s not about what they do, it’s about how we respond.

Windows 10 makes them money from advertising, that's why.