Skip Navigation

Rivalarrival

@ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today

Posts
1
Comments
2727
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • Are you more responsible for capitalism than Elon Musk?

    The consumer class is responsible not just for making Musk a billionaire, but also Bezos, Zuckerberg, Brin, Arnault, Ballmer, all of the Waltons... The most accurate answer to your question is "Yes", I am indeed more responsible for capitalism than Elon Musk.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • And cameras. And keycards. And computer logs. And forensics. Try to sabotage something big enough to matter, and management can identify you in a heartbeat. That's the end of your resistance.

    The overwhelming majority of us can cause a far greater loss of productivity by simply not showing up for work than through surreptitious sabotage. That just wasn't true when "this stuff" was written.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • Hitler had no power whatsoever without the will of the German populace.

    It was the sum total of all the trivial efforts - like those of that janitor - that gave us the Holocaust.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • That manual was published in 1944, when significant workplace malfeasance could be readily concealed. A worker in that time could easily hamper far more production than they were forced to produce to maintain their cover.

    With modern workplace supervision, surveillance and record keeping designed specifically to identify and eliminate such "inefficiencies", our modern saboteur cannot hope to achieve results anywhere close to those of his great-grandfather. The amount of production he has to achieve to maintain his cover greatly exceeds the loss of production from his efforts. Your great grandfather could throw a wrench in the gears and play dumb; you'll be caught and prosecuted if you try the same, so you have to resort to less effective efforts.

    With such extensive workplace surveillance in place, every worker in a unit can be a "saboteur", and productivity from that unit can still be positive. They can churn out production even with every single worker actively trying to slow it.

    Better for our would-be saboteur to resign. He sets the example for his former co-workers, while also saddling them with his work. His absence damages unit productivity more than he could achieve through active sabotage.

    The tactics you are recommending are about 60 years out of date.

  • Someone, I'm thinking with multiple accounts, is downvoting EVERY comment I make. Mildly aggravating, mostly sad for someone like that. Can I find out who and just block them?

    Jump

  • You can discover who is doing it with Lemvotes

    But no, you can't block them. Here in the real world (as opposed to the dystopian centralized platforms that have largely supplanted public discourse), it is not possible to isolate a specific individual and deny them access to information provided freely to the rest of the general public.

    Should their public engagement rise to the level of harassment, there are legal options you can take to compel their restraint. But downvoting everything you do does not rise to such a level.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • All your points can be summarized with one word: Collaborator.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • If your livelihood depends on Hitler being in power, you're going to keep him in power. In a very real sense, the toilet guy is more culpable than the asshole who sat on it.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • This two-word comment tells me more than your earlier diatribe about nuance.

  • What do we call the career bureaucrats who remained working in Nazi Germany?

    Jump

  • Your appearance of compliance leads others to actual compliance.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • 28 USC 1441:

    Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

    1. State level murder charges are not a civil action.
    2. The district courts of the United States do not have original jurisdiction over state-level murder charges.

    28 USC 1442:

    (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

    (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

    Apprehension or punishment of criminals: The president's position is that ICE is repelling an invasion, not enforcing law. The president's argument against Birthright Citizenship, and his entire justification for non-judicial deportation is that the immigrants in question are not "criminals", but foreign nationals not subject to the laws of the United States. The detainees are not considered criminals; they are not afforded the rights of criminals. Since the president's executive order on birthright citizenship, ICE actions in general are not for the apprehension or punishment of criminals.

    Allowing the case to be moved to the district court on these grounds would set a more important precedent than the murder charge.

    The other categories do not apply to ICE agents.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over

    I don't think that follows from their argument. It's valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer's evasion attempts by steering toward them.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • The unprecedented lack of accountability on the part of the Federal government. To wit: Trump's rampant misuse of the presidential pardon power.

    We have seen the reverse from time to time: State courts failing to hold white defendants accountable for crimes against black victims. At that time, federal prosecutors were able to step in with their own prosecutions.

    Ideally, both governments should be trustworthy and accountable, and justice could be achieved in either court in any case. Here, with the defendant being an agent of the federal government and the federal government behaving so egregiously, their position cannot be trusted.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • That's not a thing that can happen. The state supreme court can substitute another state judge, but the federal government does not have the power you describe.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • I agree completely.

    The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of "force" necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute,

    Right. Understood. The state prosecutor files charges in a state court

    and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial,

    Right. The federal prosecutor files charges in a federal court.

    [The feds] drop charges.

    The only charges the feds can drop are the charges in federal court. So there are no more federal charges.

    Are you saying the state would refile charges?

    I'm saying the state never dismissed the charges in state court. They don't need to refile anything; the state charges are still filed.

    I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?

    That is incorrect. The state and the federal government can both decide they want to prosecute. Luigi Mangione, for example, faces charges in both New York and Federal courts.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • No, I don't think we are agreeing at all. I think you're misunderstanding the concept of dual sovereignty.

    The assumption you seem to be making is that there is only one court with the jurisdiction to try him. You seem to be arguing that if this was a federal crime, he will be tried only in federal court, and not in state court.

    This is not accurate.

    Dual sovereignty is the idea that the same act constitutes a crime against the state, and a completely separate crime against the federal government. He can be tried in both courts, not just one. The outcome of either court is irrelevant to the other. He can be acquitted in one or both; he can be convicted in one or both. The charges being dropped in one have no bearing on the other case.

    He can, indeed, be tried and convicted twice for the exact same act, once in state court and once in federal.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • No. The "reasonable person" standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.

    Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, "Necessary" is what is going to hang this guy: the level of "force" "necessary" to end the "imminent threat" was to take a half-step to the right. "Sidestep-Right" is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.

  • Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.

    Jump

  • Under the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, even if he is fully acquitted in Federal court, he can later be charged and convicted in State court for the same actions; this is not considered Double Jeopardy.

    Double Jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act. It is an offense against the state to violate its law against homicide; it is an offense against the federal government to violate its law against homicide. The same act creates two offenses; each can be prosecuted independent of the other.

    (I haven't agreed with this doctrine in the past, but this particular case has forced me to consider factors of which I was previously unaware.)

  • Removed

    White House Official: Why do we have the right to take Greenland? Because we live in a world governed by strength, by power. We have power. Nobody can fight the United States militarily

    Jump

  • i’m well aware.

    Clearly, not.

    where’s the alliance in it?

    Their shared objective in 1939 was to carve up and annex Europe between them. That one party to the alliance unilaterally terminated the alliance does not mean that the alliance never existed.