Any wonder they they started shooting schools up? Imagine the connections that can be made to Columbine for instance. Everyone recognizes bullying without much effort. But if a bullied person gets no justice... we risk them snapping in the worst possible ways.
Perhaps he was hoping to trick people into thinking he was telling the NSA to reveal flaws. And it even worked for a while.
'Amusingly, the NY Times initially had a title on its story saying that President Obama had decided that the NSA should "reveal, not exploit, internet security flaws," but the title then changed to the much more accurate: "Obama Lets N.S.A. Exploit Some Internet Flaws, Officials Say." '
Presumably there are still people who believe the original headline.
Actually, knowing about a critical security vulnerability which 'enemies' can take advantage of, and which affects everything the united states government has online, is giving aid and comfort of enemies.
If nobody has ever been convicted of or even charged with treason for doing that, then that claim sounds speculative.
You are on a really slippery slope if you think the NSA is not a rogue agency, just like the CIA.
He specifically said the NSA is doing bad things, just not treason.
Choosing not to act is, in fact, an act. And from the standpoint of governments, every other government is an enemy, actual or potential, and must be guarded against.
What you're saying probably has no relevance in the context of the law. It doesn't matter that philosophically choosing not to act is an act, it only matters whether the law considers it so. IANAL but I'm pretty sure the law treats acting and failure to act very differently. The same with the meaning of "enemy".
If failure to fix a major security threat isn't "giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies" I will eat my mouse.
I think failure to act will not meet the bar for treason. You have to actively do something to give aid to a specific nation that is considered an enemy. The NSA didn't take any action here, and their inaction may have helped many bad actors, but not particularly enemy states. My understanding, anyway.
What if the case were "many citizen's see officer do bad thing X but officer's camera doesn't show this clearly".
Then that would be different from what happened here. Because in this case, they didn't decide that the camera didn't clearly show what happened so they have to go with what the officer said. They decided that the camera showed one thing, the officer said another, and they went with the officer's testimony.
I am saying that the fact that the person was over the BAL suports not the stopping of the citizen, but the officer's assertion that he saw a reason to stop the citizen.
No, it doesn't support that at all. That is exactly justifying the stop based on what the search later found. If an officer pulls someone over because he's black, and finds illegal drugs and guns in the trunk, that doesn't make the stop justified. Maybe this officer had a good reason to pull her over and maybe he didn't, but whether she later turned out to be drunk has no bearing on that question.
To your defense the headline and comments on this story DO read AS THOUGH that's the ruling.
I'm not going to try to sum up the comments, but I disagree about the headline. I think it says exactly what happened: an officer's testimony was deemed more reliable than video evidence.
it is entirely reasonable that the fixed camera angle in the car WAS inferior to the officer'smovable perspective
Camera angle is not at issue. If it had been a bad angle, the argument would have been that the video doesn't show what's at question. What was determined is that the video showed one thing, and the officer said something conflicting, and the officer's testimony is more reliable.
The officer was factually correct in his suspicions , which supports 1 above
"The person turned out to be guilty" can never be a post facto justification for a search.
3- the Indiana SC did NOT render a decision anything like your headline.
"The trial court found, as a matter of fact, that to the extent Deputy Claeys’s testimony conflicted with the video, the former was more reliable than the latter."
The 5th amendment states in part, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." Why did this case go to trial at the Supreme Court?
"Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of a second grand jury if the first refuses to return an indictment."
Sounds like this was probably the first one.
Unless she was in danger of being punished by execution or amputation of a limb, how would that provision apply?
The double jeopardy provision doesn't only apply to execution and amputation.