It seems like defense counsel was primarily concerned that the message indicated the defendant owned/possessed a gun. The emoji argument seems to be a secondary concern that he raised only on appeal.
The defendant could raise an "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument, asserting his counsel was incompetent and it prejudiced him. You can make that claim in your direct appeal, but for procedural reasons, defendants usually make them in separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus. That's not a lawsuit against the lawyer, though. Instead, it's a lawsuit seeking your freedom from the state.
It seems to me there's plenty of conspiratorial thinking on the left. The rhetoric around Project 2025 comes to mind as a recent example. Same with rhetoric around for-profit prisons (e.g., I see lots of people saying our criminal justice system is primarily profit driven).
If I had to guess, I'd say such thinking is more widespread on the right, but I find it very difficult to see these sort of things clearly since I'm generally left-leaning in my politics.
Which rhetoric around Project 2025 specifically? Everything I saw claimed to be in it is actually in it, and Trump’s distance from it was complete bullshit.
I haven’t heard anyone say our justice system is primarily profit-driven, and certainly haven’t heard any notable mainstreamers taking that position. One could argue lefties overplay the significance/effects of commercial incentives, but I also think it’s defensible to say there should be (to the extent possible) no commercial incentives in incarceration whatsoever.
“Project 2025 is more than an idea, it's a dystopian plot that’s already in motion to dismantle our democratic institutions, abolish checks and balances, chip away at church-state separation, and impose a far-right agenda that infringes on basic liberties and violates public will. This is an unprecedented embrace of extremism, fascism, and religious nationalism, orchestrated by the radical right and its dark money backers. We need a coordinated strategy to save America and stop this coup before it’s too late."
Here's one example on prisons from a quick Kagi search:
"Currently, many think that the goals of [American Prison System] APS are to rehabilitate inmates and help them function properly in the real world. However, the APS’s high recidivism rate and methods of revenue creation support the conclusion that increasing the prison population may be the real goal of the APS."
"Daniel Hatcher used to work as an attorney for Maryland Legal Aid. He says he's seen American courts turn into a system that's more interested in profits than justice.
'California is pursuing billions in fines and fees, and Alabama, multiple prosecutors' offices in Alabama generate 70% of their total funding solely by the pursuit of these court ordered fines and fees against the poor,' Daniel Hatcher says.
Hatcher says that when profit becomes the point, families become targets of the very justice system that is meant to protect."
The suggestion that profit is "the point" of California's criminal fines and fees seems absolutely wild to me.
Ah, the notable figurehead Daniel Hatcher, who used to work as an attorney in Maryland, I suppose.
> I haven’t heard anyone say our justice system is primarily profit-driven, and certainly haven’t heard any notable mainstreamers taking that position.
I suppose you can find someone to say any ol' opinion on the vast Internet. I'll consider clause 1 to be disproven and clause 2 to stand.
I'd consider someone saying profit is the "point" to mean it is primarily profit driven. You asked for an example and I provided one. It's pretty clear your mind is made up, so best of luck to you.
Did you read the comment? I said yes, you've demonstrated that a person has expressed that sentiment. I said "no notable mainstreamer" has, and your example doesn't refute that. No one knows who this guy is!
The only divide is pushed from the corporate media who desperately wants 1. this to be a left/right issue and 2. for everyone to stfu because United spends billions of dollars advertising on said media's platforms.
Luigi's selfless act of heroism on the behalf of the American middle and lower classes should be treated as such.
You'll find that United Fraudcare doesn't discriminate on left/right when it comes to denying care to those who need it most. The same can be said for the victims of United denying them services that they paid handsomely for over the course of several years.
But it is a left/right issue : this obviously wouldn't have happened in a socialist country. (You would still have had issues with higher status people sometimes getting much better healthcare of course.)
The problem here is that people confuse left/right with Democrat/Republican and seem to think that Trump is on the right just because he used the Republican party : he is no more on the right than the Nazis, who deployed both left leaning and right leaning policies when those suited them.
Just tried the same search and here are my results for the first 25 images:
6 "all" white race families and 5 with at least one white person.
Of the remaining 14 images, 13 feature a non-white family in front of a white background. The other image features a non-white family with children in bright white dresses.
Can't say I'm feeling too worked up over those results.
I was aware of the white background results, hence my other example query. Both yielded the same result.
7/25 = 0.28 = 28%. That's awful accuracy. Google would be out of business if their general search accuracy had a similar success rate.
Interesting how "black american family" yields results where not a single person in the result is anything but Black. I suppose Google doesn't think that blended families are possible for this query. Where's that 28% precision rate this time?
There's a civil lawsuit involving the State of California and Amazon. When you have a civil case, you can get discovery from third parties using subpoenas, which seems to be what's happening here.
Wouldn't he be able to recover the costs for complying with the subpoena under Cal. Evidence Code section 1563?
"All reasonable costs incurred in a civil proceeding by a witness who is not a party with respect to the production of all or any part of business records requested pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum shall be charged against the party serving the subpoena duces tecum."
Something's not adding up about his twitter posts.
