Every single person with luggage in their hands made an absolutely foolish choice— and, given that they were disobeying the orders undoubtedly given them by uniformed crew members, an illegal one at that.

Roger Corman ‘Four or GTFO.

Not in the least bit useless: plug it into a touch tone converter dongle and you’re good to go. Not expensive, either.

You actually could not lawfully connect your own phone to the Bell system for the first 35 years of that—you had no choice but to lease the phone. (If you bought a non-Bell phone, you had togive them ownership, and lease it back!)

Ok, re-read it w/ proper tone in mind, and actually not a bad joke. Tirns out my humor radar shuts down w/ law issues.

Well, the one rape that’s at issue in the defamation case, yes, absolutely. But I’m just talking about the actual litigation, nothing more.

No, the statute’s run a long time ago for each of these cases, and all of them. The case that’s going forward now is not for the assault—it’s for defamation; Cosby called his victim a liar about the rape much more recently than the attack itself, therefore the statute’s run on the attack, but not his lies about it.

I can tell you from experience that that is simply not true.

The way this is written? Yeah, I do, actually.

Agreed if he was just repeatedly asking. I got the impression, though, that this woman specifically felt threatened and so there was more to it. Admittedly, that would have to be true to justify pulling a firearm!

Truthfully, there’s not enough information in the article to say one way or another. If ALL the guy was doing was repeatedly asking for the money, I completely agree that this is way too strong a response. That’s not the impression I got from the piece, but it doesn’t specify what the “threatening” behavior was…

Nice strawman. This was a homeless stranger on the street who was instructed to get out of her personal space repeatedly and continued the offensive unwanted contact. He was the agressor and she was the victim of same, until she acted.

No, his refusal to leave her alone after being asked three times to step away is the escalation.

Dude relax—I’m pulling your chain a bit. I will write on a blackboard a 100 times: Guernsey is NOT a constituent part of the UK. That is undeniable. My (admittedly minor) point is that the nation state that is relevant as the controlling power is the UK of GB and NI. Yes, like Puerto Rico or Guam.

Never denied the legal distinction, so I dont know what you’re on about; off to see fireworks for independence day. Final thought— once you admit that they themselves are not sovereign, and yet claim they are not part of the larger sovereign entity, then who wields sovereign power? Under your formulation, there is no…

No, you’re entirely missing the point: I’ve always conceded that in a very narrow legal sense, the UK excludes the crown dependencies (except the original post, which was shorthand). The point I’ve been making is that it’s a distinction without a difference: the UK controls the territory; the people carry British…

The citizens of Washington D.c. Have no representation in Congress— does that make DC not part of the U.S.?

AgAin you’re using the self-Identification argument, like a US Indian reservation—you can find similar statements from the Us Federal gv’t concerning sovereignty, but it is not recognized internationally. Channel islanders carry British passports unlike the other dependencies mentioned. Yes the nation state “in…

The sovereign entity in control IS the sovereign entity, ipso facto

Well aware; see my lengthy thread w/ the op.