All I’m saying is that if I’m doing self-checkout, and something I’m buying is missing its code, it’s probably going to be the cheapest thing I can get to go through.
I actually assumed the Target in downtown Seattle was one of the ones closing. I was unaware there even was one in the U-District. I could easily see a lot of theft there.
I’m a little surprised about the one in Ballard. While that spot is not exactly the epitome of high class, it is far from dangerous and does not have a large amount of homeless anymore. This kind of makes me think that revenue is shit and they are just using theft and safety as an excuse. If it was really about that, the one downtown would be closing instead.
I just happened to be in that Ballard target for the first time last week to get my Covid booster and it was weird. Besides the pharmacy, there were basically no employees. No cashiers, one person who ushered you over to the self-checkout, and two greeters (aka loss prevention). It's just anecdotal observation, but there was no visible sign of, you know, crime problem, i.e. nobody camped out on the sidewalk. But there were also zero customers. That store is tiny for a Target and seemed to have basically the same amount of inventory as a Bartells. For example, we bought a laundry basket while we were there and they just had one style and color (ugly as fuck!). And there is a CVS and a Walgreens basically a block away. And the Target has paid parking. So, I feel pretty confident that this Target was a loser due to bad business decisions.
While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.
Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).
Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.
I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
States aren’t allowed to be sanctuary for criminals from other states. I’m not clear on whether active pursuit is required, but if the governor of Texas produces a legal warrant for a person to the governor of California, they are required to act on it. They may not have to perform a manhunt, butbifnthe person is stopped for speeding or something, they would likely be required to arrest them. The only exception is that a state can keep a person for criminal prosecution and imprisonment first, which isn’t relevant for an out of state abortion.
The state could argue that a warrant for performing an abortion isn’t legal as the requesting state had no jurisdiction where the supposed crime occurred. This isn’t required by the law though, so it may be up to the arrested person’s counsel to raise that argument, keeping all the risk on the person still.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Now arguably one can say that a California person did not flee but that argument has not been explored from what I can gather. Generally rendition seems to be granted given an indictment in another state.
In 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (which enables interstate extradition): Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. …
Overall it seems to me that a person charged in another state will be extradited as one could interpret residing in California as “fleeing” say Texas’s jurisdiction.
Edit: see my edit on my top level comment. I’ve dug into this issue in a bit more depth and it feels like this is less of a clear cut issue than I initially thought. Thank you everyone for pointing out the flaws in my logic.
By not coming to your arraignment. Edit: this is a potential legal argument a state could make if they try to overturn Hyatt v People in a Supreme Court case.
Thanks for the further explanation. I’m curious how this is handled if products that are banned in California are mailed there from other states. For instance I recently ordered a plexiglass glue and read that if I was a resident of California they would not mail it there due to a chemical in the glue being banned in California. I’m not a lawyer obviously but to me this seems like a very similar legal situation.
I have dug into this issue in a bit more depth and I think California has more of a ground to stand on than I originally thought. See the edit to my top level comment.
That covers people who commit a crime in state A and then flee to state B. It’s not clear whether it’s even possible for a citizen of state B to commit a crime in state A without entering state A.
I am by no means a Trump supporter but I believe what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Trump was never present in Georgia leading up to the electoral count as far as I am aware, yet he is charged with RICO under state law in Georgia. Do you think he could have simply fought rendition to Georgia?
He made a phone call to Georgia, to influence the Secretary of State to commit fraud. That’s a crime. The victims are the citizens of the State of Georgia. If I shoot you over the state line am I innocent of a crime in your state? No.
This isn’t the 1800s where you flee over the county line and they can’t pursue you.
Your argument is bad because doctors in one state are not committing crimes in other states. Unless they are leaving their state to perform an operation. Mailing something like medicine may be a crime but these are not controlled substances.
Prescribing FDA approved medication for a valid reason is not a crime that has any victim, regardless of what politicians say.
Okay I think current precedent is consistent with your view; thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more about the extradition clause. Constructive presence is not currently considered in the context of the extradition clause.
It’s not at all clear that this would violate the Extradition Clause or Extradition Act which implements it. The offense in question isn’t illegal in California and doctors practicing in California won’t have fled from the States that may seek to bring charges.
This law will give California governors another reason to ignore requests from other States, requiring them to try their luck with a writ of Mandamus from federal courts.
Newsom’s signature on Thursday reflects the power and influence of labor unions in the nation’s most populous state, which have worked to organize fast food workers in an attempt to improve their wages and working conditions.
“This is for my ancestors. This is for all the farm works, all the cotton-pickers. This is for them. We ride on their shoulders,” said Anneisha Williams, who works at a Jack in the Box restaurant in Southern California.
It doesn’t matter whether they believed the election was stolen. It’s not illegal to believe that, and that’s not what they’re accused of.
What actually matters is that they knew they were not the duly-appointed electors for their state. That’s what makes it fraud. That’s why they’re criminals. And that’s why they should spend a few decades confined to a small room where they can think about what they’ve done.
The higher interest rates also discourages investors from buying houses too. Not because they don’t have the money to just pay cash for houses as investments, but because a high interest rate means there are MUCH SAFER investments that offer good returns than buying someone’s sketchy house in an uncertain housing market with disproportionately rising rent rates and are raising questions with lawmakers about rent stabilization.
Those investors can simply park their money in a bank and get decent nearly risk free returns on their money with zero work.
A lot of institutional money would much rather buy a mortgage security than actual property. However the costs of servicing basically killed any gains when rates were in the 3s. It’s going to take a few more years, but many companies will likely start to reduce their real estate holdings as they get 3 and 5 year ROI numbers that are equal or less than mortgage securities.
I’m glad you have that privilege. Some folks won’t eat if they don’t work. I support the union striking. I don’t support making lives of low wage workers harder than it needs to be.
Again violence isn’t ever acceptable but I understand the frustration of trying to get home just to pay rent. I would never fault someone for choosing a home and family over a union strike.
Can you point out where I spoke down about them? I fully support them except for this very specific issue. I’m just expressing my empathy for the low wage workers who don’t really have a choice.
I feel like you’re the one talking down here. Not everyone has the luxury of supporting the strike, they need to pay bills, and eat. If you can’t support that, then your opinion is not one of relevance.
Not to mention that we have 8 hour workdays, weekends off, payed time off and other benefits all thanks to union efforts. All of them we take granted for. We shouldn’t forget where they came from.
I wonder why low wage workers have such low wages, Mr. Unions-shouldn’t-strike-so-hard?
If only? There was a? Way? To?? Help raise? Wages???
Makes u think
Real talk here, a lack of union power is why people have such shit wages and scabs just undermine union power more and keep wages low by letting companies ignore union demands.
I don’t understand what is wrong with all you people. I made one minor single mention how I have empathy and you crazies start arguing random things I never said.
The problem is that you are giving empathy to the perpetrator of a vehicular assault, and not giving empathy to the workers on strike who are putting their livelihoods on the line to try and make a bunch of other people’s lives better, even including the scabs who don’t have the spine to join them.
Fuck off you, disingenuous troll. Go back to your redditwasbetter site and conservative echo chambers. You had no empathy when conservatives came for minorities killing migrants across the boarder, the teachers being targeted for a witch hunt, the women being targeted for health care, voting right and the violence against women act… don’t act like you really care about this issue…
It’s not imagined, when you said it all yourself through all your comments… so again… Fuck off, you disingenuous Troll… your projection and emoji use to argue, is pathetic and a waste of time… go back to your shittyredditapp.
I work at one of the “Big 3” as a software engineer, we are not unionized and the strikes have before reached the engineering centers. What exactly do you suggest those in this situation do? If we don’t go to work we get fired. There’s tiny internal efforts at unionizing engineering but it’s far from feasible yet.
I am genuinely asking, I’d love to not have to cross a picket line should the strikes make their way here, I fully support what the union wants and is doing. At the same time, I am afforded none of the protections the union has to enable them to strike. I go into the office, cross a picket line, to do a job completely unrelated to union work, or I get fired.
(No, running over picketers is literally never okay. But not everyone entering a facility is scabbing or trying to undermine the protest efforts)
I’d start applying to different jobs. Engineers quitting in solidarity would be a boost to the union. You likely have savings and employability to spare in comparison to the plant workers
It won’t, the lawyers always try stupid shit. Especially in pretrial
Like Trump’s lawyers just said that square footage was subjective so it can’t be a crime to have wildly varying numbers that always worked in the defendant’s favor.
They put that in writing, but when oral arguments came, they dropped it because they knew it wouldn’t actually work. It’s a stall tactic to make prosecutors waste time they could be spending on the case. Throw out a dozen ridiculous defenses, that way prosecutors have to have a plan for whatever they actually go with
Like Trump’s lawyers just said that square footage was subjective so it can’t be a crime to have wildly varying numbers that always worked in the defendant’s favor.
“You see, Your Honor, it was very cold the morning they were taking the measurements, and…”
Agree. However, it’s not really known by most people that that is the defense’s job. “Justice” is entirely the responsibility of the prosecutor. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, they have to do it correctly, and if they find anything that undermines their own case they have to present it. The defense does not, that’s the way our system is set up.
Television and other media makes it look like the defense is also responsible for finding the truth and making everything just. That’s incorrect. Defense’s role is to keep the overwhelming power of the state, and all the tools at its command, including corrupt police, etc., at bay.
So is this a stupid argument? Oh hell yeah. But when you can’t pound the facts, pound the table.
If they get their case dismissed on these grounds we will see Trump followers straight up commit acts of treason and may even go as far as overthrowing some state governments.
They always point and say "hey I was brainwashed " and point to this trail. Hope judge isn’t that stupid.
Hmm, brainwashed by Facebook posts. Clearly they’re not competent functional adults, so the solution is simple, declare them wards of the state and assign them a guardian who has to supervise them and do things like set a curfew they need to be home by. If you admit in court that you’re not a functional adult, you don’t get to be treated like a functional adult.
If only there were a place where we could house dangerous, mentally unstable people from the populous.
Of course, for me to have any thought on imprisoning people, I must first recognize the multitude of judicial and correctional atrocities that happen seemingly daily all over the country.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.