BC LEGAL
Saved by @CodyyyGardner

I have seen so many people (including folks on #lawtwitter) comparing what happened at the Capitol yesterday with the violence and property damage that happened in some cities during protests last summer.

Let me explain what is wrong with that analogy . . . . .

 To clarify -- my disagreement is not with those who are pointing out that law enforcement didn't respond with the same level of force and arrests at the capitol as it did during BLM protests.

That comparison deserves to be drawn and it raises some very important questions.
My disagreement is with those who are saying that what happened at the Capitol yesterday is so similar to what happened during protests this summer, that people's reactions ought to be similar--a suggestion that those reacting more strongly now are hypocritical.
Here's one example of someone (a law professor) making the argument. But I've seen it plastered across the site all day, it keeps cropping up in my mentions, and so I want to respond. https://t.co/Cwc0hCXQ7u
There are a number of things that distinguish what happened at the Capitol from what happened during BLM protests. The most obvious is the reason that people protested---some protested about factually false claims about election fraud; others about real police shootings.
It should go without saying, but the reasons that people act are incredibly important in judging their actions. People who do bad things for bad reasons deserve more condemnation than people who do things for good reasons.

This is a pretty basic social and legal concept.
There is another, more important difference between the reasons for action.

The people at BLM protests were trying to get changes made to policing practices.

The people at the Capitol were trying to stop Congress from certifying an election.
Changing policing practices so that fewer civilians get shot is a totally legitimate aim. If we were to accomplish it through a court decision or legislation, I don't think people would object. In fact, most Americans would likely welcome it.
In contrast, stopping the certification of an election is not a legitimate aim. It would be a major problem if it were accomplished via a court decision. And it's even worse to try and do it via force or intimidation.
But the reasons for the actions we saw is not the only important difference.

There is also a huge difference in how those actions came about--specifically the role that public officials played in the turmoil and protests that led to the storming of the Capitol.
The anger towards and distrust of police in Black communities didn't come from public officials. It came from people in those communities. In fact, much of the anger was directed at the public officials in those cities. Folks blame Democratic mayors for police violence.
And while some officials in Democratic cities expressed solidarity with the protestors, the mayors were not encouraging people to take to the streets and protest. The opposite in fact. They wanted people to stay home.
Contrast that with how Pres Trump and many other members of the GOP have reacted to the 2020 election:

They have been leading the charge to challenge the result.

They have been engaging in rhetoric that talks about violence and unrest.

They fanned these flames.
The President himself held a rally in which he literally encouraged people to march to the Capitol. He told them that the Republicans in Congress were being weak, and they needed to show them to be bold.

He told them to march to the Capitol, and he repeated it multiple times.
Did Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or any one of a similar stature tell people to take to the streets this summer?

Did they give the protestors a fist pump like Josh Hawley did, as he was heading in to try and overturn the election using frivolous legal arguments?
The answers to those questions is obviously "no"

Contributing to a bail fund or saying that you understand why people are angry--things that folks on the right criticized Dem officials for--is obviously not the same thing as encouraging people to take to the streets.
So were there protests this summer at which some people broke the law?

Yes.

But what we saw at the Capitol yesterday and what happened over the summer obviously aren't analogous.

And to pretend otherwise seems like it is minimizing yesterday's attack on democracy.

More from Legal

Elizabeth Wilmot of Deppland \U0001f3f4\u200d\u2620\ufe0f
Elizabeth Wilmot of De...
@Deppology
Counter-claim - when the defendant in a case “counter-sues” the plaintiff. So in this case JD is the plaintiff, AH is the defendant, she has counter-sued JD - in layman’s terms that’s her saying ‘you sued me, so I’m going to sue you!”. 🙄

AH’s counter-claim is actually rather poorly drafted (IMO!) and, to quote AH herself is “very dramatic”. It contains very little in the way of valid case law (see my video on caselaw) to support her claims and, to me, actually does read like someone throwing a tantrum!

Her counter-claim, when you cut through the crap, seeks: Declaratory Judgment, seeks to pursue a defamation claim against JD, and to pursue a claim against JD under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (“Bot-Gate”)

So… Declaratory Judgment. This duplicates the Anti-SLAPP immunity that AH has included in her Defence so this part of the counter-claim DUPLICATES an argument she has already made. The Judge decided that Declaratory Judgment was not appropriate.

So the issue she sought to resolve with the DJ is already being dealt with in her Defence & will be dealt with at Trial… which is what the Judge means when he said to hear her Defence and her counter claim for declaratory judgment would be to hear the same issue twice.
LEGAL
Corey Quinn
Corey Quinn
@QuinnyPig
And now a livetweet thread of a legal conference in the case of C21-31-BJR, Parler LLC v. @awscloud.

Parler suggests "AWS just has to flip a switch and Parler gets turned back on. Parler has been their customer for 2.5 years."

"They've met and conferred over some user content that violates not only Parler's user requirements, but also Amazon's." Yes, they'll do that, whether you want them to or not.

"I'm not on social media" says Parler's lawyer. "If I use any terms and you don't understand them, I can explain them your honor." Just go full bro and call it "dumbing things down for you" dude.

They're now saying an "algorithm" can solve their moderation problems.

Spoiler: it can not.
LEGAL
Advertisement
David Begnaud
David Begnaud
@DavidBegnaud
NOW: 6 days after the insurrection, the FBI says it’s ready to prove a “quick” update.
Here goes with updates from FBI:
•160 cases files have been opened
•100,000 digital media tips have been received
•they FBI admits they had intelligence warning of an attack

•FBI says an arrest the night before the Capitol attack indicates they took action
•@AndyTriay has previously reported: FBI “disrupted” a number of individuals from traveling to DC. Which means they were urged not to come – or somehow stopped.

•FBI says there will be hundreds of criminal cases against suspects at the Capitol and prosecuting them could take months
•the acting D.C. U.S. attorney says most investigations were opened on misdemeanor charges but now the feds will indict those people on federal felonies

BREAKING: The acting U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. says he’s ordered prosecutors to build cases to charge Americans who stormed the Capitol with sedition & conspiracy, if the evidence warrants charges against them depending on how they were involved.

NOW: Acting U.S. Attorney in D.C. says charges will also be brought against people who attacked members of the media.
LEGAL
JeLove
JeLove
@LovesTheLight
Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn


Heart attacks can be dangerous

Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best

Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy


Thunder indicates a storm is


Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
LEGAL
Eileen May
Eileen May
@suleskerry
Campaigner leading court action aiming to prove Scotland does not need WM’s blessing to hold an indyref has called on the Lord Advocate Jas Wolfe to say exactly who he represents, after a Court of Session judge yesterday described a motion as a “fishing diligence”.

Keatings:the most concerning aspect of the hearing was the refusal by Wolffe’s counsel to stipulate WHO the Lord Advocate is representing. “He was convened in this action to represent the interests of Scottish Parliament, NOT the Scottish Government."

Keatings: "We have a Lord Advocate (representing Scots parliament) being represented by ScotGov Legal Directorate (representing ScotGov), where Lord Advocate is supposed to be representing Scots Parliament but is advancing arguments on behalf of ScotGov, who have withdrawn!"

Keatings: “ScotGov seem to have dusted themselves in Lord Advocate coconut, & are trying to pass themselves off as a Scottish parliamentary snowball," antithetical to principle of separation of powers, as Lord Advocate spent more time wearing his “SG hat” than his parliament one

Keatings: although Wolffe is in Scottish Cabinet, his post is NOT supposed to be political: “I need say no more than my legal counsel Aidan O’Neill QC said in the hearing ... that the Lord Advocate seems to be a ScotGov mouthpiece.."
LEGAL

You May Also Like

V\u0936\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927\u093f
Vशुद्धि...
@V_Shuddhi
The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint
“Ramanujacharya” who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face

In Mahabharat,it is described how 'Maharishi Ved Vyasa' gave away his divine vision to Sanjay


Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

सुदर्शनं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्वीपं तु कुरुनन्दन। परिमण्डलो महाराज द्वीपोऽसौ चक्रसंस्थितः॥
यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्शे मुखमात्मनः। एवं सुदर्शनद्वीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्डले॥ द्विरंशे पिप्पलस्तत्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।

—वेद व्यास, भीष्म पर्व, महाभारत


Meaning:-

हे कुरुनन्दन ! सुदर्शन नामक यह द्वीप चक्र की भाँति गोलाकार स्थित है, जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप चन्द्रमण्डल में दिखायी देता है। इसके दो अंशो मे पीपल और दो अंशो मे विशाल शश (खरगोश) दिखायी देता है।


Meaning: "Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first part you see leaves of the Peepal Tree, and in the next part you see a Rabbit."

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed
ALL
\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8I Support Our Military & Law Enforcement\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8
🇺🇸I Support Our Milita...
@TheWiseOwl_AZ
1. There are more people added on the list of arrests and executions of famous people but no further intel is available at this time.

ARRESTS and EXECUTIONS OF FAMOUS PEOPLE 2020 UPDATED
Explanation of the latest military tribunal arrests and executions of famous people in 2020.

2. The tribunals are arresting these people in plain clothes. We saw the Obama’s arrest, although we didn’t know it was an arrest at the time. The arrest was done nonchalantly so as to not get noticed by the public.
All arrests of these famous people were done this way.

3. If the person is convicted of child sex trafficking, crimes against humanity or treason, they will be executed.
If the person arrested has evidence on someone else to help their prosecution, or is willing to help Trump, & they want to cooperate, they may be allowed to do so.

4. A sentence of execution down to life in prison may be accepted if their evidence is worth anything.
When a plea deal is done, the defendant must present evidence they have to make their sentence lighter. This information is given to the prosecution, defense, and to the judge.

5. If evidence is accepted, they are presented the plea deal. They will have to make a guilty plea to the crime with a video confession & written statement. That is how all plea deals work.

All famous people arrested were either treasonous or involved in satanic worship rituals.
CRIME
Advertisement
foone
foone
@Foone
So there's a class of puzzles called "river crossing puzzles" which involve having to cross a river on a boat/bridge containing some set of individuals/items with restrictions on which ones can be on the boat/left on each shore, right?

and the most common subclass of these problems is the one where you have 3 items/animals to cross with.
This is alternatively called the "fox, goose, and bag of beans" or "wolf, goat, and cabbage" puzzle.

the idea is that your boat can only carry one item at a time, but if you leave the wolf/fox unattended with the goat/goose, the wolf/fox will eat the goat/goose.
and similarly, the goose/goat will eat the beans/cabbage if left alone

so you have to set up a set of actions that never leaves either side of the river in one of the lose-states.

the solution to this variant being:
1. take the goat/goose over
2. return empty
3. take the wolf/fox over
4. return with the goat/goose
5. take the cabbage/beans over
6. return empty
7. take the goat/goose over
GAMES
Tinker \u274e
Tinker ❎
@TinkerSec
Singing the Blues:
Taking Down an Insider Threat

"I had all of the advantages. I was already inside the network. No one suspected me. But they found my hack, kicked me off the network...

...and physically hunted me down."


Many pentests start from the outside, wanting to see how the perimeter might be breached.

This pentest started from the inside. My client wanted to assume they had already been breached, and, if breached, how far could an attacker go.

Could they stop me once I was inside?

So they snuck me in. Disguised me as a new employee. Gave me a work computer, an ID badge, an account in their system... hell, I even had a cubicle w/my assumed name on it.

The only person who knew who I really was was their CISO. Everyone else thought I was Jeremy in Marketing.

During most of the first morning, I completed onboarding, made introductions, and completed menial tasks.

But I had to act quick. I only had a week onsite. I had to hack their network while not raising suspicion.

So I set about it.

You have to understand... most "Internal Pentests" are straight forward. The hard part is breaching the network, but once you're inside, it's a target rich environment. End of Life computers, default passwords, everyone a Local Administrator...
TECH
Egypedia
Egypedia
@Egypediax
Ancient Egypt was the most advanced civilization in the ancient world. Why was Egypt so special?

There are so many firsts in Egypt that we all know about, and that makes Egypt unique. For example, the Sumerians did not build the pyramids of Egypt.


Save as history
HISTORY