I think this gets discussed in the context of the European Union whenever Poland or Hungary uses their veto power to block something important. Basically, the idea is to start “EU 2” and then not invite the offending countries. Then say that EU 2 replaces EU 1 and refuse to let anyone else tell you otherwise.

I read it as “Let’s end anti-consumerism” and thought “Well that’s a brave thing to post on Lemmy of all places”

Well, to put it simply, you say “murder” he says “nuh uh”. Now you have to prove he’s wrong and why or he gets off.

Generally speaking, law enforcement can arrest someone based on arrest warrants nationwide, although typically, what happens is that the governor of the state where the crime was committed will make a written extradition demand to the governor of the state where the accused fled to. The receiving governor is constitutionally bound to turn over the person in question, although in reality, for political cases, this can get bogged down in political arguments, and it can result in the governor or attorney-general of one state suing another to force them to arrest the person in question.

One would describe those as the actions of the prerogative state

It does apply. It’s just that for non-high-profile cases, prosecutors are pretty quick to make a decision to prosecute/not prosecute. Years ago, I was arrested and accused of assault, and I was released mere hours after getting to the police station because the prosecutor’s office thought my self-defence claim was good and decided not to file charges. Generally speaking, this is what happens. You get arrested, taken to the police station or to the local jail, and then the police department refers the case to the prosecutor’s office. Someone at the prosecutor’s office reviews the evidence, and then they decide whether they will file charges. If they file one or more charges, then you’re brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing, usually within 24 hours (depends on state law). At the hearing, you will make a plea of guild or not guilty, then either arrange for a lawyer, or the judge will appoint a public defender to represent you. Then your lawyer can make a demand for a speedy trial and/or make any other submissions to the court in your defence.

If the prosecutor’s office decide not to prosecute, they will instruct the police department to release you. Failing that, someone can make a habeas corpus petition on your behalf and a judge will order your release.

He will still try to argue that, and prosecutors need to come up with real reasons why it doesn’t apply. Defence lawyers are not stupid and they will probably think of a way to argue immunity. Those arguments must be anticipated, researched, and rebutted.

The problem is that he could also probably use a federal immunity defence. The prosecutors need time to plan out a good way to attack this defence. The worst possible outcome would be to file charges now, unprepared, and then the guy gets acquitted at trial which forever bars future state prosecution for that offence, or the case is dismissed because prosecutors failed to present a good argument for why the accused is not immune. Prosecutors have only one chance so they tend to make sure their case is as good as they can get before shooting their shot.

It’s actually very rare for murder trials to be argued over whether the accused killed the person in question. Usually, the argument stems from whether the killing counts as murder or whether the evidence that the accused killed the victim is legally admissible.

This is because defence lawyers often advise their clients to waive their right to a speedy trial, so they can get more time to prepare a defence. If you insist on the right to a speedy trial, then it is usually held in a month.

Legally, the law says “too bad”. American law does not recognise the concept of administrative detention. If someone is a danger to the public, then there must be probable cause to believe they have committed a crime before an arrest warrant can be issued. After they are arrested, they must be charged by prosecutors immediately. Or, at least, this is how the normative state works. There are many exceptions in fields like national security and military law.

The law requires people who are arrested to be charged with a crime or released immediately. So in order to obtain an arrest warrant, prosecutors would need to file a criminal complaint followed by an indictment or an information. The accused could then assert their right to a speedy trial and demand an immediate trial. Depending on local court case loads, this could be scheduled in as little as a week (not typical; usually at least a fortnight up to six weeks).

Edit: A slight correction. An arrest warrant can be applied for without filing a complaint, but judges will require that a complaint or some other charging document be filed expeditiously after the accused is taken into custody. It is not legal to hold someone in jail without charge. Criminal procedure laws are not nationally uniform in the US; it varies by state.

So in a nutshell, once someone is arrested, the prosecutors are required, essentially, to already be ready to press charges and go to court. If they are not, then an early arrest followed by a judge ordering their release for lack of charges would be prejudicial to their case.

Now that I think about it, I honestly think that Lemmy has suffered this more than Reddit. Reddit has a lot of various non-politics related content but Lemmy seems to be filled a lot more with political posts. I get that many people find that content interesting, but after a while, one tires of it.

If you have used Reddit for some time, you’ll have noticed an interesting trend: any large space where general content is allowed to be posted and which does not prohibit US politics, will generally become saturated with US politics.

This happens to some degree on Lemmy as well. It’s because Americans are the largest national demographic group on the English-speaking portion of the Internet, and because American politics in general is extreme and garners a lot of attention from others. So if talking about it is allowed, it will usually become all that anyone ever wants to talk about, or at least it will appear that way in a space where popularity determines visibility.

The Venezuelan government might. But according to some DW reporting and footage earlier today, the actual reaction of ordinary Venezuelans is mixed, and mostly concern and confusion rather than anger or fear. Maduro is generally not popular in Venezuela but I doubt many people really wanted the US to come and kidnap him. And understandably those who supported him are in the streets calling for his release.

Major news organisations in general are really scared when it comes to pointing out things which are extreme, because they believe describing those things as extreme will lead to accusations of sensationalism. The reason they think that is because sensationalist outlets are indeed more likely to describe everything as extreme and make unjustified comparisons to extremities, so major media outlets often think that to be “unbiased” is to refuse to acknowledge that an action is extreme.

Vox described this as the “this is fine” bias.

Even though England was a republic in name, really it was “more of the same” with the office of Lord Protector as head of state for life with powers similar to the king and the power to appoint his successor.

This reminds me of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act.

After Charles I of England was overthrown and England was declared a republic, the House of Commons seized control of supreme legislative authority and enacted various laws to govern the country without monarchy. The republic collapsed after a decade, and Charles II was crowned king again. Parliament then enacted the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, which nullified all laws passed by the republican parliament, and it even pardoned almost everyone who was convicted of a crime during that time.

Yes, progress is fragile and needs constant defending. This is an important observation you have made.

No, but during the eight years after him, we did get:

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act
• Affordable Care Act
• Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
• Removal of 180-limit for wage discrimination claims
• Withdrawal of US forces from Iraq
• Paris Climate Agreement
• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• Clean Power Plan
• Shepard & Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act (allows crimes motivated as gender identity to be prosecuted as hate crimes)
• Death of Osama bin Laden

Saying they didn’t get “everything done [that] they wanted” is disingenuous to the achievements accomplished and shows a lack of understanding of how progress is made.

Now, I’m not one of those “muh free market” morons, but I also think that not every potentially-abusable business practice immediately deserves government regulation against it. By and large it seems that most customers really don’t care that much about this (myself included). The ability for customers to choose where they shop has regulatory power which I think a lot of people fail to recognise. If a behaviour is really repulsive, then customers will just not shop there, which provides a strong negative incentive against the behaviour in question, without any state intervention or enforcement resources required.

An example of this working in practice is the practice of restaurants attempting to introduce tipping in Australia (where it is not customary to tip). Whenever a restaurant frequented by locals tries to force them to tip or makes it awkward to not tip, there is an immediate and strong negative reaction to it from the customers which usually causes the restaurant to give up on the idea.