daychilde

According to Claridge, the city commission announced that in-person meetings with open public comments will return soon. “Our mayor is ‘willing to give us another shot to act like grown ups,’” Claridge said, quoting Emporia mayor Becky Smith.

Oh, it's fucking clear who the children are in the room, bub.

The only thing is we have to actually pull the guillotines out first.

So…. this weekend? :)

hey bb, i cn only reed the top fore lines, so u wan sum fuk den?

(I'd normally use a winky emoticon down here to indicate I'm being silly here, but I know you younger kids interpret that in contexts like this with sexual overtones. :shakes fist: Leave my 1980s emoticons alone, damn you kids! heh)

On the right, three House Republicans recently introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, “including a Flock Safety camera.”

Really? Wow. Okay, when you lose Republicans (well, some Republicans), you KNOW you've gone too far. Damn.

Nobody talking about how this article seems very strongly AI-written? Like it offers things it can "do for you" at the end of each section. And the "what this means to you' has nothing about what this means to you......

Very interesting.

If that's the case, being thrown out by a grand jury is basically being thrown out for being insufficient for probable cause. But that's again why I want the details to know if it's some sort of technicality or some major flaw to the argument.

It's not a practice round for a trial. It is the first safety check of "Is there even plausibly enough evidence to go to trial?" or more specifically "If everything the prosecutin is claiming is true, is that enough for a trial?" which is why it nearly always is.

I highly disagree with your assessment, and it sounds like you don't really understand the courts. Now, you may be simplifying, and if so, then my 'accusation' is off-base, so don't take it too seriously.

I'm no legal expert, but I've followed enough to see how 99% of legal representations on television (i.e. court dramas) are laughably inaccurate.

So I go back to my point - like when see a real judge on a youtube video of a courtroom proceeding and they do a probable cause hearing - basically similar principles to a grand jury - it matters why they throw something out. It matters a lot. Is it a technicality that they can overcome and resubmit the case, or is it a fundamental flaw?

I don't see how supporting that it should explode in their faces (from the comment to which I'd replied) indicates casual dismissal.

But I guess you're just smarter than me.

casual dismissal

Ah, so you can't read. Got it.

There is zero information on why they didn't indict, so I'm not celebrating until we find out why.

It might can hit online shopping, but it is not practical to hit stores - at least not with the recent scares and rumours of some stores trying to do on-shelf dynamic pricing.

I don't fly.

But given my last sentence, not sure i'm the best target for your angst, which with I might not share the emotion, but I share the conclusion. lol. But no worries if you did see and still felt I was the best place to reply.