• untorquer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean i agree ethically and morally. I was just commenting on NYT not understanding how laws work.

        • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lest we forget, “He needed killin’” was a successful defense against a murder charge in Texas, once upon a time.

      • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends on how it’s eradicated.

        If the actual assassin, not the patsy, really wanted to make sure. He might be capable of making really really sure.

        Dropping a tank on it or destroying a city block might not be beyond his pay grade.

        A BB gun is not making sure. Just a bit cleaner and quieter.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you!

      Being neutral cute both ways, he is innocent until a jury of his peers decide to vote guilty.

      Just hope he doesn’t sign a confession, there is plenty of resources for him to fight this.

      Also, I think all people charged with a crime deserve this benefit or the doubt.

      • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s that word again

        What peers?

        The rando software dev is a genius being extradited to a State full of boot lickers and sell outs.

        His peers are minimally accomplished well known FOSS devs.

        There should be a higher burden of evidence which includes reproducible unittests and his peers should be well acquainted with writing maintainable and sufficient test suites.

        Then lets talk about peers and courts.

    • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guilty until proven innocent is nonsense. We are beyond that already.

      Just a patsy

      Using the term criminal is just demonizing a random guy.

      The State and it’s officers are just illusionists. They can’t present evidence or be witnesses. Cuz they are unbelievable.

      So far that is all they got. So when anyone uses the term criminal, i jump straight to innocent and civil suit