Woa, buddy.

Among the myriad ways to tell that there is no world government... if there was a single world government, money would be irrelevant to situations like this - there would be no issue to smooth over because no-one's sovereignty would have been violated.

Reminder that it is an internet crime to post an smbc strip without the votey, just as it is a crime to post an xkcd without the alt text.

Yeah, easy-peasy appeal material. The First Amendment absolutely bans modifying someone's sentence based on whether they're left or right wing. This judge just flat-out confessed to violating the Constitution.

Bad analogy, on multiple fronts. Better:

A truck is on its way to deliver gold to you (you have been told this is happening). When it gets to you, the driver hands you a gold bar. You say, "Thanks! Can I have another?" The driver hands you a second bar. Then you are charged with theft of the second bar, presumably because it was illegal to ask for it.

Information not mentioned in this article:

In Italy speeding fines are a fixed amount based on how far over the limit you're going, which makes them a regressive tax on going fast - wealthy people can sinply afford to speed as much as they like while the poor suffer. That woman they quoted who clearly thought the cameras would meaningfully deter speeding was full of shit; the cameras are there to generate revenue, not reduce speeding.

She was discrete - there was exactly one of her, and one suitcase, and one victim. I think you might mean discreet.

The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can't be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.

To landlords, who will charge arbitrarily high rent, secure in the knowledge that they aren't in a free market due to inelasticity of demand (people can't do without shelter) and supply (there are finite places to live). That will let them pay the insurance premiums homeowners can't afford.

OP hates their fellow lemmings, so they posted an xkcd without the alt-text. I love you, so here it is.

[after a minute] "Okay, I think I've got it, thanks. Can I--" "oOOOooOOooo!"

Alan W. Colie, 31, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building following the April 2 altercation in the mall’s food court.

Since the second charge depends on the first, which he was acquitted of, I'm guessing he was convicted of the third.

If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.

What a confusing headline. The cop did not, in fact, shoot a dead man. He shot a live man, killing him.

Same headline with fixed grammar:

London Cop Who Shot Unarmed Black Man Dead Charged With Murder

So now drunk drivers have an incentive to claim it was intentional, not accidental.

The overall idea here is excellent, but it is fundamentally nonsensical to only apply it to drunk drivers and not all killers.