It’s been covered extensively. Look up “cars rule 34”.
Huh, that’s a lot of dragons
😂
User name czechs out.
you misunderstand… he was convicted of 34 felonies. its the punishment phase that took his bank account and affiliates into consideration
thats the same for almost everyone who is a billionaire, its very fair!
No, because you’re not valuable enough to the billionaires running the country to stay out of prison.
You don’t have an absurd amount of undeserved financial credit and an entire army’s worth of pedophiles in political power to shield you from consequences.
The unspoken rule in the eyes of society is that people are granted certain privileges.
This is not to be confused by privileges defined by law.
These privileges are unspoken, because they differ between people and place, cultures, race, experience, education, etc. Things that you might have but another person might not. It’s deeply rooted in society, and near invisible to those who aren’t aware of the privileges they don’t have.
To use an example: You are a doctor. Your work provided you with a office, and items for you to do your work. One of those items is an iPad, which you use to take notes and access the internal medical records. One day, you take that iPad home and let your kids play with it.
The company noticed you installed a game, which is against company rules and is a fire-able offense. But, your status as a doctor means that if they fire you, they’ll lose a lot. The patient workload would increase, and finding a replacement would take a long time.
Even though you, the doctor, broke a rule, the company decides that it was an honest mistake and lets you off with a warning.
Here’s where the privilege comes in. You, the doctor, just got away with it. What else can you get away with?
As a doctor, you now KNOW that you have a high status in the company and they have to weigh the pros and cons of firing you.
So maybe you, the doctor, start taking snacks home that was meant for the whole team. Maybe you start telling the new interns about how cute their little butts are. Maybe you start taking huge turds and not flushing.
Each action, the company has to go: Do I fire this doctor and lose how much we gain from them? And chances are, they won’t. Because the rules you broke are too “minor” and it would be an inconvenience to the company. The company found ways to convince themselves to keep you even though you clearly broke the rules.
Let’s switch it. You’re a janitor at this hospital. You are minimum wage. You tell a intern how cute their butt is. Instant fire. Because to the company, you’re easily replaceable, your absence would be a minor hiccup.
With the president, the people behind the scenes are asking themselves, “Well he really did call black people monkeys, bomb a school of girls, rape underage girls… (Laundry list of bs here), but if we removed him, will it be a major inconvenience to our operations of making money/power/influence?” And the answer is unfortunately yes to those people.
If they asked the same question about you, the answer will be way different.
you have to be rich and politically connected like trump. and you would need to have HORDES of mouthbreathing supporters issuing death threats on your behalf as well.
In the context of the US, you have no rule of law. There is no such things as law, justice, courts, judges, prosecutors, defendents, trials etc… The US uses the words borrowed from real justice systems to legitimize the American mafia state and whatever we want to call the shitshow that substitutes for justice.
Just some examples, beyond Donald Trump not being in prison, but OJ Simpson, Steven Donziger, Kids for Cash, and countless other examples, all prove Wilhoit’s law:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
You ask if you can use a certain defense, why or why not? Wilhoit has your answer. Are you in an in-group, or an out group? The rest doesn’t matter.
Your argument and answer: U.S. law, and most other modern judicial systems, rely on something called precedent. If a judge makes a ruling that creates such precedent, another judge handling a similar case cannot simply ignore it.
There was no new ruling in any of the cases Donald Trump was involved in; therefore, no new precedent was established.
When it comes to sentencing, a judge can and oftentimes does, have leeway to impose punishment as leniently or as harshly as they see fit.
If you commit a crime and are convicted, you could argue at sentencing that, since Trump received leniency, you should also receive a similarly light sentence. Unfortunately when it comes to sentencing a court is not obligated to take into consideration how other criminals were sentenced.
most other modern judicial systems rely on precedent
Citation needed. Most of the “modern” countries use civil law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
The very second sentence of that Wikipedia page says that common law is built on precedent.
OK, here’s a breakdown from me, a person who is not remotely a lawyer. I’ll be using the most common names for things; they might be called something different in your country.
The highest form of law is the Constitution. A Constitution is a sort of meta-law which defines what parliament can and can’t do. If a law contradicts the Constitution, it’s invalid. Because the Constitution is so important, changing it normally requires a referendum. Not every country has a Constitution; Britain is notorious for lacking one.
Below the Constitution is statute law. This is where the parliament writes a new law, which can and often does override existing law. The president (or monarch if your country really needs to get with the times) usually has the power to veto any act of parliament, but it’s vanishingly rare they will do so except in cases where the new law is unconstitutional.
Common law refers to clarifications on existing laws made by judges, who are supposed to be Lawful Neutral on such matters. For example, let’s say parliament successfully passed a law requiring people to wear hats outside. If I see my Sikh neighbour wearing a turban, I would report him to the cops for failure to wear a hat. In court, my neighbour’s lawyer argues that, based in IRS shape and function, a turban is a type of hat. The judge agrees, and rules that my neighbour did not violate the hat law, and so I need to pay all the legal fees.
Now, whenever somebody reports a Sikh for failure to wear a hat, lawyers will cite the case of Me vs My Neighbour, wherein it was determined that a turban counts as a hat. Precedent is important, because if we’re going to have laws, they are supposed to apply consistently to everybody. It’s no good if getting to wear a turban depends on the whim of the cops or the judge that day.
Parliament can, of course, change the rules by making a new law which defines ‘hat’ in such a way that does not include turbans. Under the new law, people could be prosecuted for wearing turbans without hats, if they do so after the new law comes into force.
You’re right, I was overgeneralizing.
I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.
Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception. So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.
Are you a president?
Not yet, but we’re studying the playbook…
If you mean the case where he raised presidential immunity against seditious conspiracy charges?
The reason he was granted this is because in his capacity of president, basically the courts are supposed to cut him some slack if he does some accidental criming; you see, if the president does it, it’s usually necessary to perform his duties and if you stop him you are preventing him from getting any work done. That’s basically what the supreme Court ruled. It’s a bit like when cops raise qualified immunity. It’s supposed to insulate them from personal grievances so they are able perform their duties. Only that the presidential immunity is way worse for us, because a cop can raise it and then prosecution has the burden to prove there was a rule and the cop knew it. But in this case it’s worse because the president just has to say it was in his presidential capacity and that’s it iirc.
So back to your question: can you do so too? No. You are not a president, you don’t have presidential immunity.
Only if you run for president.
Sure, you can say whatever you want. The US conviction rate is in the high 90s, though. Actually innocent people go to jail all the time. It makes the rich richer.
That depends on you’re argument.
How do you think his case applies to you yours.I don’t see any similarities other than the number 34.
