Maybe you should read about Lenin and Stalin and the Gulags and. . .

That really, really depends on the jewelry. That’s like telling a guy who bought a 1962 Corvette that cars don’t appreciate.

A friend of mine lives in an airport hanger. So what?

Just because somebody bought some land doesn’t give them an unfettered right to be annoying.

How other people use their property has an immense impact on your property. Every property owner cares. They just care about different things.

Just curiously, why should I, as an American, give a crap?

Presumably he’ll only get a fine. The charge is reckless endangerment, which doesn’t require specific intent to injure but only a disregard for the safety of others. He quite clearly showed no regard for the potential injury of others. This charge seems justified.

Nobody’s charging for stuff that didn’t happen. Reckless Endangerment happened. It happened when he recklessly targeted a drone at a building.

Not without a warrant. There doesn’t appear to be any exception to the warrant requirement here.

Paramount created Star Trek 50 effing years ago. At some point you gotta move on.

Those functions didn’t have a separate under-secretary before 1999. They were part of the DoE’s general function. This led to a number of scandals, most notably espionage, b/c the DoE had a lot on its plate and didn’t give it full attention. Now it’s a separate function, which is good (somebody is ON THAT SHIT…

That’s not how long the litigation would take. Even if you decided federal jurisdiction was needed, this is a purely legal issue where time is of the essence. A case would be resolved in a matter of months. I’ve seen cases like this resolved in WEEKS. And after the trial court decision you could get expedited…

Manslaughter generally applies to “imperfect self defense” cases, and this sounds like it. Basically, if a person says they were afraid, but had no objective reason to think they legally could use the force they used (sidestepping some stuff here), they can’t prove that they lawfully used force and so didn’t commit a…

Pretty sure I can blame her for those guys, too. Her argument (Clinton’s just like Trump! Maybe worse!) is the same reason those guys left it blank.

Plenty? Like who, exactly?

Sure, but they only have a right to say one of three things:

Isaac Newton formulated the laws of Newtonian physics that we still use today for most purposes. He also believed he could turn lead into gold and find the Philosopher’s Stone, which would lead to immorality. FDR created the new deal and lead the free world to victory in WWII. He also imprisoned thousands of…

That’s not at all what the Court is talking about.

FYI, you could totally require people to shave their hair. Not discriminatory.

That it’s constitutional?