[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

This comment is completely correct. This rule would apply here.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Don’t miss the one next year in April

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Okay I think current precedent is consistent with your view; thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more about the extradition clause. Constructive presence is not currently considered in the context of the extradition clause.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Morally I am in complete agreement with you. I just think the US law is a lot more nuanced.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I have dug into this issue in a bit more depth and I think California has more of a ground to stand on than I originally thought. See the edit to my top level comment.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

That is exactly my argument.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.

Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).

Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.

I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

Here is a law review article that discusses related issues in more depth: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=clr#:~:text=Without%20intervention%2C%20anti%2Dabortion%20states,the%20people%20that%20support%20them.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

Was about to post this. There is a fact check here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/26/fact-check-false-claim-male-and-female-watermelons/7366708001/ No such thing as male or female watermelons.

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do you know how this will affect existing installations? Is this gnome only or any desktop?

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Currants are delicious and I wish we had them here more often

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

To add to this, here is another model that seems to aim to to be a poor man’s chatgpt: https://huggingface.co/togethercomputer/GPT-NeoXT-Chat-Base-20B

[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for sharing this! As a new lemmy user I did not know this. The page you linked to says any admin in the federated universe has access to this information. What’s to stop someone from making their own server to get access to this information?

view more: next ›

bbsm3678

joined 1 year ago