Whether or not they’re responsible isn’t the question. It’s whether they’re criminally responsible, which is a much higher hurdle.

You can’t fathom, but you also can’t prove, which is the standard of proof in America. Our laws were designed to make cases like this, where the aleged crime is that the officers didn’t do something (strap Freddie in) very hard to convict, because even if they didn’t do it, there needs to be proof that they didn’t do…

It doesn’t change that fact, but it probably helped cause it, which is what a lot of people take issue with. Maybe Hillary would have won without the DNC’s help. Hell, probably she would have won. But that doesn’t make the DNC’s blatant support of her any better.

The manga goes a lot faster than the anime. You can easily read a few dozen chapters in only an hour or two, and get cought up in a few weeks.

Public parks were designed with a certain population density in mind, as are the surrounding roads and pathways. There are logistical issues that come up when the population explodes like this, which the article mentioned.

Used to wish I was a bio-engineer. Even went to college for biology, until I realized I hated it and switched to chemistry.

Helping my brother move was a clusterfuck. First he shows up in this tiny moving van that could barely hold anything, and was way too small for all the furnature he wanted to take with him. Then his bf says his mom has arthritis and he told his brother to meet us at the new place, so the only people doing any actual…

“under your skirt” is not a place, it is a location on your body, and the current law makes no distinction between any of those.

Laws can’t make something illegal retroactively. That’s actually a pretty major part of our legal system, even if it doesn’t come into play very often because just about everyone understands how completely dystopian it would be if they could. That’s how laws work: Things are legal, then laws are passed making them…

1) They’re not criminals if the law is on their side. That is kind of the exact opposite of the definition of “criminal”.

Probably something about the fact that you’re in a public space, and the law makes no distinction between taking a picture of your face (which nobody has ever wanted to make illegal) and taking one of your panties. I’m just guessing though.

It’s a very scary day when I see people posting about how they just don’t understand why a law needs to be passed making something illegal before a judge can find you guilty of it.

No, because the laws against robbing anyone do not make exceptions for gas stations. But there are no laws against taking someone’s picture in public, and so no laws against taking a picture of a certain body part in public.

Yes? The same is true for most things. Our laws are exclusive, not inclusive. We don’t have the explicit right to eat an apple. Instead, we are explicitly banned from killing anyone. If you want something to be illegal, you need to pass a law first.

Yes, it does. That is exactly what it means. That is the precice definition of the term illegal: “[Not] against the law.”

Today during my performance review, my boss decided I was a genius because I knew 460 seconds was a little under 8 minutes without using a calculator (which she quickly pulled up on her laptop to check). The older generation obviously wasn’t taught how to do math correctly, and it’s a little scaryy that they’re so…

Your father made enough money that your mother could afford not to work (or afford not to be paid for her work) . It wasn’t exactly costing more money, but the opertunity cost was pretty huge.

It speaks of the difficulty of teaching, which isn’t the same as knowing.

Exactly. It’s called rule 34, and it’s almost as old as the internet itself.

All porn is easily accessable to kids.