_bcron_

They redacted like 95% of the stuff so doubftul. Most of the pages are just blank

That's the look when you lose 1 of the LCD panel screws in the carpet and knock the rest over when you lean forward to try to find it

Be me

A moth, chilling with my moth friends

Diablo 2. I was still in school, parents had dial up, and it was marketed in such a way that I thought it was mostly catering towards the online experience, so I blew it off. Flash forward nearly 20 years, get into D2:R, single player is actually pretty cool

Please cite the claim, I'm drowning in DMs over a list of hypothetical things I pulled out of my ass for the sake of discussing something else entirely (that simply possessing something that could be seen as something used for criminal activity shouldn't be used as prima facie evidence for the sake of proving intent to commit criminal activity)

Can someone prove the same for flip phones, and in either case, if they're simply alleged to be frequently used by criminals for the sake of proving intent, would it change the nature of what I said?

We could instead list them as 'hypothetical object A, B, C' so on and so forth and it'd still highlight the frivolity of having someone acting lawfully prove that they're acting lawfully

The effectiveness isn't relevant, just that it's an item frequently used to commit an unlawful act.

They're arguing that if someone is in possession of a thing commonly used in criminal activity, then it is prima facie evidence that the person possessing it has intent to use that thing in a criminal manner.

Usually we wait for someone to commit a crime and then try to show intent.

They'd somehow have to prove otherwise, that they don't have intent, but it's pretty backward because how does someone who isn't doing anything unlawful show that they're going to continue to not do anything unlawful, when not doing anything unlawful is not sufficient?

And as I've pointed out there are more than a couple things a lot of people own and use innocuously that just so happen to be used in an unlawful manner by some people. Cops abuse this... paradox... to sieze cash, don't put it past them to try to use the same mechanics to bypass due process, that kind of thing

It'd only be fair if they apply this to every item frequently used in commission of an unlawful act. There's little reason to possess an incandescent frosted white light bulb nowadays aside from converting it into drug paraphernalia lol. I don't even need to elaborate on stockpiling ammunition or possessing a bump stock. Who needs 2 bottles of Drano?

I just moved and wound up getting an LG C4 65", put off getting internet service, TV worked fine

I grew up in the sticks where, if you didn't pay your bills, people would gossip about you being a deadbeat and spend all day speculating about what kinds of problems you have. So it's kind of funny to me that those folk just rationalize all of his shit and at the same time drag their kin through the mud. Some random nobody pulling his shit, those kinds of used car salesmen have a special place in hell when you're from a town of 300 people

"The pedestrian was involved in a collision with a vehicle"

By using the passive voice you can just flip the subject around and not even mention the other party

I'm not in software but from what I read the importer sends a request and that request is used by the exporter and importer to encrypt and decrypt, so I think there's a way to tweak the whole process a little and instead have both the exporter and importer ask Netflix or whoever to provide a key as opposed to using the request. Could be wrong tho