Re: "Only criminals demand due process under the law."
It's not just fighting an extradition in court. Under the DOJ's interpretation of the law, any US citizen who so much as requests a lawyer be present during questioning could be construed as being a fugitive from justice.
That's one reason I tell people to make citizen's arrests when they see cops committing what they reasonably believe in good faith to be crimes -- suing the officer in civil court and getting a settlement paid for by taxpayers while the officer continues to be a cop is not justice.
One of the benefits of the citizen's arrest path is that in about a third of the states, if the officer resists arrest, the citizen can legally use any necessary force to enforce the arrest, just like a cop can.
Killed while violently resisting arrest has a nice ring to it -- especially since if an officer is in punching range, he's also inside the safe firearm draw range and any attempt to do so leaves him open to being disarmed, in self defense.
I agree. Were it me, and knowing the law as I do, I'd have arrested the officer for second degree assault on the spot -- in a state where private citizens making a citizen's arrest can legally use any degree of force to enforce the arrest that a police officer could to enforce an arrest.
I've always wondered -- since the only brake on an invalid DMCA take-down is willfully perjuring yourself, and writing a bot to do it for you (despite the fact that the bot only does exactly what it is told to do) somehow removes any willfulness, couldn't you game that system?
Take some ignorant individual somewhere, give them a wrong explanation of how copyright works, and create a bot that swings into action when they push a button. That bot sends DMCA take-downs to the upstream provider of whatever site the person is browsing when they click the button, and thanks to their wrong education, they believe any site they like must be copyrighted, and nobody can make a site with copyrighted stuff.
Then multiply it by anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand ignorant individuals acting in good faith. That would be a hell of a way for a hacktivist group to take down a content industry. After all, if Disney's own site gets disconnected from the internet because it looks copyrighted, or the members of the US Congress lose their re-election websites, you can bet that Something Must Be Done.
As corrupt as our system is these days you would be hard pressed to find any elected member of the executive branch who has not been involved in any way with a violation of rights under color of law.
Since elected officials are only rarely the boots on the ground for such a rights violation, those violations are always felonies. If they used their personal wealth even peripherally to get elected, then it is a certainty -- not merely probable cause -- that their wealth assisted them in being able to commit that crime.
The solution to people like Governor Otter is clear -- they have never been abused by police, and therefore believe police when they claim accusations against them are unfounded. So find a sympathetic prosecutor, use all the tools in the prosecutorial toolbox, and seize the Governor's assets, thereby proving that even the finest and most upstanding citizens in the state can lose their bank accounts, cars and homes without it ever being suggested that criminal charges be filed against them.
And then, the Governor will join the growing list of people who know why civil asset forfeiture laws are a very bad idea.
"The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it."
The reason there is an anti-police attitude is that it is the natural consequence of having an anti-criminal attitude and seeing an entire class of criminals getting away with their crimes. That will naturally make people focus more on that class of criminal, and when that class of criminal is commonly known as 'corrupt police officer', it will naturally look a lot like an anti-police bias to an outside observer.
If the existing oversight authorities the police have would just do their jobs instead of rubber stamping almost every police abuse of power, there would be no anti-police attitude, because there would be no de facto mafia to provoke it.
It's not just the IRS that does that. The entire legal system presumes that all citizens have an encyclopedic knowledge of all laws as a result of a mere high school education, and apply the doctrine that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Unless the accused is trained in the law -- cop, lawyer or judge. Then ignorance IS an excuse, because no one can be expected to know every law.
The crime is statutory rape. California has the third strictest laws about underage sex out of all 50 US states, and is one of the states that will happily convict both underage participants of a consensual sexual act for raping each other.
By law, it doesn't matter if both consented, since someone under 18 cannot give consent to sex in California. The legal system is aware that this is a legal fiction, and distinguishes between statutory rape and forcible (real) rape, at least in California -- there are states that don't make that distinction.
The case is complicated by the fact that the girl (who likely consented at the time) recanted her consent after the fact, causing prosecutors to react as if the sex was actual rape.
Even derivative works can escape the control of the original's copyright ownership if the result is different enough from the original. For example, if the focus of a video is a news commentary review of the original.