dogslayeggs

It sounds weird, but it is more a technicality. Some cities have grown so much they consumed what used to be small towns outside their boundaries. Those small towns stayed independent entities. Examples are all over.

Your assessment is spot on.

If so, you’re not gonna have a lot of friends, which is a pretty shitty way to live.

Or you choose friends who will stay your friends even if you miss a concert???

OK, fine. Sure, whatever.

This is about DROC, not ROC.

From the source: "The partnership will reportedly cost the Democratic Republic of Congo 44m euros ($50m; £38m), although the club has not disclosed the figure it will receive."

Is this the same Maury Blackman who violently beat a woman less than half his age? I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking a question.

Where I live it is that people want bigger houses for their families, so they take a long commute instead of a small house with no yard. A guy at my company literally flies a small plane to work everyday. Another has a 100mi commute each way, so he comes in at like 5am to avoid most of the traffic.

Then his law has failed.

There are plenty of successful housing areas much farther out than 30 minutes one way (the 1 hour is daily). Nearly everyone I know has a longer commute than that.

Wow, that's an incredibly bad look for Barcelona.

30,000 child soldiers still active.

Normalized and accepted violence against women. Known as the "rape capital of the world."

Illegal to be LGBT.

Institutionalized corruption. Ranks 163 out of 180 in Corruption Index and 156 out of 167 in Democracy Index.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act

"A crime victim has the following rights:

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement."

The crime victims were not given those rights. This agreement was clearly illegal.

Also, the defendant isn't being punished. The defendant is dead.

1. It is the defendant's fault because he is a criminal who chose to make a deal that protected other criminals while stealing justice from victims. Also, the guy is dead.

2. He made a deal on the behalf of other people, not himself. Those other people did not agree to this deal. The person who did agree to the deal is dead. The government honored the illegal deal until he died.

3. You say my murder example is stupid because "that's clearly an illegal act." This deal is clearly an illegal act. It is illegal to make this deal. Period. Just because the lawyers agreed to the deal does not make it any less illegal. It is and was illegal. You say "honor your deal" but ignore that the deal was illegal. In the US Justice system, illegal deals are not binding.

I'm not arguing just to argue. This is important stuff. The basis of our legal system isn't "honoring handshake agreements." There are real reasons why we have laws and don't go by backroom deals. The justice system is a deal between the government and the people to protect victims and deliver justice. Honoring this illegal deal is breaking the agreement between the victims and their government.

And nice try making me out to the some kind of bad guy and saying I don't keep my word. What kind of ignorant argument is that? If the government said my word was illegal then I would be forced by law to go back on my word. That is the case here. One party made an illegal agreement that cannot be legally held.

If you made an agreement to buy a car from someone, but that someone actually sold you a stolen car, guess what happens. The answer is not that you get to keep the stolen car because the person who broke the law needs to keep his side of the bargain. The person who had their car stolen gets it back (hopefully).

In this case, one of the parties who made the agreement is dead. The other party broke the law in making the agreement. The people who are being protected by the agreement never agreed to it in the first place. So it makes no sense to honor an agreement between a dead guy and a criminal lawyer in order to protect other criminals.

Again, this was an illegal deal that hurts victims and protects a guilty defendant. There is a reason why this kind of deal is illegal.

You are saying quite clearly that you don't care if the government broke the law to protect a defendant and hurt victims, as long as they keep their word. You care more about keeping promises than you do about why the laws are there in the first place. The defendant actually is at fault here, and they are making a deal to keep their friends safe after breaking different laws. If that deal is illegal, why should it be honored? To protect a criminal?

If I make a deal to have the prosecutor murder the person who accused me of my crimes in exchange for giving up information to convict someone more important, are you OK with the prosecutor making and honoring that deal?

Or... "He was only having sex with young women, not boys. 16 is still legal in some states. 14 is still legal in some countries. He was just confused on how the laws applied on a private island."