Carl

Cute quip, but the trans-Atlantic slave trade was specifically trafficking slaves. I even said in my original comment that human trafficking can ferry slaves to slave owners. Human trafficking refers to the broader crime of illegally transporting humans, regardless of their status as slaves.

Someone illegally ferrying immigrants across a border is engaging in human trafficking. Are the immigrants enslaved just because they were illegally trafficked? Even if they go about their merry lives in the new country after crossing the border and shaking hands with the trafficker? Because if we define human trafficking strictly by the trade of slaves, then the immigrants who got trafficked would be slaves, right?

Someone illegally transporting their own child across country lines during a custody dispute is engaging in human trafficking. Is that child now their parent’s slave, just because they were illegally trafficked across country lines? I guess so, because trafficking equals slavery, right?

Or maybe we just accept that the two are different crimes. Words mean things, and falsely equating the two is (at best) disingenuous and misleading.

It’s also proof that people fundamentally don’t understand their immigration rights. You can always go to an embassy and report your passport as stolen. Hell, you don’t even need an embassy. You can go straight to the cops and file a police report. Even if the cops don’t do anything about it, (they probably won’t), the police report alone will be enough to get you on a plane back to your home country. The various governments around the world accept that lost and stolen passports are inevitable, so they have systems set up specifically to deal with them.

But simply saying that they “take passports” is downplaying things. There is an extreme amount of isolation, intimidation, and financial abuse that goes into it as well. All to ensure victims don’t consider fleeing.

Step 1 of an trafficker’s playbook is to isolate the victim. Isolate them from their friends/family/etc by creating physical distance and taking away their means of communication. Isolate them from local peers by bringing them somewhere they don’t speak the local language. Isolate them economically by taking control of their finances and refusing to give them any money to go anywhere or do anything. Isolate them mentally and emotionally by slowly and methodically convincing them that they don’t deserve better.

Simply saying that they “took away their passports” is an extreme oversimplification, because simply taking the passport isn’t enough by itself. The victim could always just file a report and use that instead. It only works because of the other forms of isolation that the victim is simultaneously experiencing. They legitimately don’t believe they can escape, and the stolen passport is only one part of a much larger system of control.

Yeah, human trafficking leads to slavery, actively supports slavery, funnels slaves to slave holders, etc… But trafficking is just that. Moving something (in this case, a human) from A to B.

Saying they’re the same thing is sort of like saying that making meth and smoking meth are the same thing. They each can’t realistically exist on a mass scale without the other, but they’re not the same thing.

Yeah, Trump’s actions make a lot more sense when you view it through the lens of “he approaches every single interaction as if there needs to be a winner and a loser.” And his ego means he is truly obsessed with winning.

My guess is actually that they refuse to take the case, allowing the original ~$80M judgement to stand.

Their original ruling was that he can’t be sued for actions taken in office, as long as he could argue that the actions were officially a presidential action. Basically, people can’t sue the POTUS personally for things that the POTUS does officially as president. It creates a barrier between “official actions” and “personal actions”, but gives broad discretion to be able to argue that an action is official. The ruling didn’t define what an official action is, and essentially handed that power to the POTUS.

But here’s the important part: Trump didn’t rape Carroll while in office, (it happened in 1995), so it’s not covered under that existing ruling. And even if he did, the SCOTUS isn’t going to want “I raped a woman as an official presidential act” on their record.

In a statement, Murphy cited the recovery amount, personal payments by former executives, a commitment for $7 million to go to nonprofits and the absence of a confidentiality provision in a system where “wrongdoers too often hide their misdeeds by dangling compensation in front of those they victimized and trading that compensation for confidentiality or an NDA.”

Glad they stuck to their guns. I’ve been following this case for a few years now. This all began as an attempt by eBay’s C-level executives to bully a few reporters into silence. It makes perfect sense that those reporters would refuse to accept an NDA as part of the settlement, because reporting on things like this is exactly what landed them on eBay’s radar in the first place.

Not-for-profit is still a corporation, and the distinction simply means that they need to reinvest profits back into the company. A for-profit company can sit on massive amounts of stockpiled wealth, while a not-for-profit needs to find ways to reinvest that back into the company. To be clear, they can still sit on a lot of money. But all of their money needs to be earmarked for something, instead of just being a rainy day fund.

deleted by creator

Users choose not to update to avoid rebooting. The average user barely even knows what an OS is. They just know that if they reboot, they’ll lose their 347 Emotional Support Chrome tabs. Lemmy tends to be fairly tech literate, which means conversations about tech often involve the Average Familiarity problem:

One former official told The Post that any record of a judge questioning David Brouillette’s credibility would add to questions about his fitness to serve and could cast a negative light on whatever he tells his superiors about the encounter with Durán.

Issues like this are exactly why the Brady List exists. The SCOTUS ruled in Brady v Massachusetts (1963) that prosecutors must disclose potential exculpatory evidence if the defense requests it. This is known as the Brady Doctrine, and it has been expanded by future rulings several times.

One of these expansions was to encourage prosecutors to create a Brady List, for prosecutors and defense attorneys to be able to easily look up any officers. Basically, the courts ruled that “I didn’t know there was exculpatory evidence” isn’t enough as long as the cops knew. So the list is meant to allow prosecutors to look up upcoming officer witnesses, to see if they’ll potentially be problematic.

This Brady List is a compiled record of officers who have been caught with things like official misconduct, corruption, giving false testimony, abuse of power, etc… Basically, the Brady Doctrine says that an officer can be ruled as an unreliable witness if they’ve been corrupt in the past. Even if that corruption wasn’t related to the current criminal case. Because their previous lack of credibility impacts their ability to serve as a credible witness in current/future trials. And the defense has a right to access the officer’s officially noted issues, to cast doubt on an officer’s testimony in their current trial.

Speeding tickets likely wouldn’t qualify to get them added to the list, but repeatedly being caught lying on the stand might be. Because it signals to prosecutors that they will likely lie again, which means their testimony can’t be considered reliable. And an unreliable witness is potentially exculpatory evidence, which means they would need to disclose it via the defense’s Brady materials request.

The issue is that getting an officer put on a Brady list can be… Difficult. It usually goes along with some sort of “officer was found guilty of…” type of headline. Because without a solid ruling, the cop’s union rep can say it’s just hearsay and rumors, and work to get them removed from the list. It needs to be something they were convicted of, or a sustained pattern of behavior. And individual departments are hesitant to submit their own officers to Brady lists, which means it usually requires a lot of legwork from someone who isn’t directly tied to the police, like one of the officer’s victims.

Lastly, Brady lists are largely regional. They’re typically maintained by local prosecutors, to make exculpatory evidence (Brady material) requests easier to process. Some prosecutors coordinate their lists with other local areas, but most will keep their lists internally and only refer to them when a defense attorney files a Brady material request for an upcoming trial. Which means that an officer on a list in some podunk California town probably won’t show up on a search when they move across the country to New York. Because the California list and the New York lists aren’t automatically coordinated. So a defense attorney in New York makes a Brady request with their prosecutor. The prosecutor consults their local list, but the officer doesn’t show up because they’re only listed in California.

Even worse, some police departments started using short/unregulated data retention periods to purge “old” misconduct complaints, effectively erasing them. Because when local prosecutors maintain their lists, they usually do so by requesting complaints from the local PD, and then looking for convictions or patterns. So if the local PD purges old records, those old records won’t show up the next time the local prosecutor asks for them. So when the prosecutor looks for patterns of behavior that could land a cop on the Brady list, they’d be missing a lot of the pattern because it was purged.

As an example, imagine if the local prosecutor pulls records and adds any cop who was caught lying on the stand at least five times within five years. But the local PD purges their records after two years. That effectively means a cop can be caught two times a year and never show up on the prosecutor’s Brady list, even though they’ve been caught a total of ten times in the past five years.

This is legitimately some cartoon villain level BS. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect from a Captain Planet supervillain, like “hah I built a weather machine and am forcing everyone to work in the sweltering heat, just to create suffering” type of toony.

Ah, my dumbass didn’t zoom in enough. I thought she was vacuuming carpet, and somehow managed to slip on it. That’s why the rest didn’t make sense to me.