It just seems that most of the ones that come up are on a particular side of the aisle, that's all.

The original article is from the AP.

Not so much. It's portion size. Walking a mile might burn a hundred calories. Ordering Breakfast in America you're going to get a thousand to 1500.

Criminal sexual behavior is not bound by politics.

It said "harassment" not "penetration of a minor".

Dude is a democrat….. just sayin’

No. We've already established the understanding that it's not an onion.

The jury probably already knew this. In this case, climate change is well known, and there are a number of climate change protests going on, so this is not a rocket science for the jury to determine why this is happening. From the jury's perspective, the judge prevents them from explaining their motivations and are afraid of the grim reality. Is that influencing the jury in any way?

r/selfawarewolves

It really does honestly. I could at least understand the temptation to break the law for some kind of amazing once in a lifetime opportunity. But no, they clearly don’t give a fuck at all.

WTF is this reasonably well written fact based article making references to positive contributions governments can make doing on Fox News?

Is there treatment for being an asshole? It must be new.

Holy shit he's a Democrat, anyway fuck that guy.

[removed]

Many Americans have to accept it because either a) they can’t afford anything healthier or b) they live in a food desert and literally cannot get anything better.

She’ll probably divorce you if you tell her that.

>You are correct. I did not suggest that they should be let off. The judge is preventing them from explaining their motivations in court.

But he is doing that because he believes that the defendants will use their motivation to influence the jury to let them off. (Which appears to be what happened.)

We did a lot of walking too haha. My best friend said if we didn’t gain a little bit of weight then we did Italy wrong and I have no regrets. That was some of the best food I’ve eaten in my entire life.

>He concluded that the defendants had either set out to “manipulate” the jury into acquitting them even if they were sure of the pair’s guilt, or to use the trial to continue their protest within the courtroom.

>“Either motivation would be serious as you would be seeking to set yourselves above the law,” the judge said.

Seems pretty clear. They don't want people breaking the law and then saying that even though they did it, it was OK because they were fighting climate change.

People should be able to see how bad it is be to allow people to mount such a defence, and how juries letting people get away with crimes based on ideology would be a very bad thing.

The court decides whether they are guilty or not, not that what they were doing was so noble that they shouldn't be found guilty of a crime for doing it.

Something like self-defense is different, as the circumstances can mean that the accused is in reality not guilty of a crime.

Does he work for Veridian Dynamics?

Close, but the real reason is that subsidies have made unhealthy food so incredibly cheap for the consumer that we can't afford healthy food.

We lost in March. Lots of walking. Portions were more reasonable. Not much for breakfast.

Meals we ate out were generally about the right size to kill the hunger but not leave stuffed or have leftovers to eat again in 2 hours.

I find the same thing happens when I travel to Europe. It isn’t all about how the food is made or the ingredients used (though that is part of it), it’s also because portion sizes are reasonable compared to the platter-sized dishes used by most American restaurants.

Wow. Not a Republican. I'm shocked.

>But surely mentioning the motivation for their crime is relevant to the case and should be admitted in court.

It's their defence. So they would be saying that the fact that they did something because of climate change should have some effect on their guilt or sentencing.

Most decisions made in court have an effect on subsequent cases, so accepting it might set a precedent for these kinds of ideological beliefs to be accepted in court.

It's fairly obvious why fighting climate change isn't allowed in someone's defence.