You seem to equate a plea of ‘not guilty’ with ‘not confessing.’
That’s not what I said. I said that “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”. One can plead “not guilty” if one is not innocent. If so, that can be understood as “not admitting guilt but contesting the charges”. But that is still not the same as “no contest”, which can be understood as “not admitting guilt but not contesting the charges”.
Functionally, the only thing that matters is whether one contests the charges. Which is why “no contest” (not admitting guilt but not contesting) is functionally the same as “guilty” (admitting guilt and not contesting).
“Not confessing” and “not contesting” are different things. So, as I originally said, someone who doesn’t want to confess can still plead not guilty. Which, as I said, has a completely different function than pleading no contest.
If you plead “no contest”, the prosecution does not have to prove your guilt and the court will proceed to sentencing just as if you had pleaded “guilty”. Functionally, it is identical to a guilty plea.
no contest: A plea by a criminal defendant that they will not contest a charge. A no contest plea does not expressly admit guilt, but nonetheless waives the right to a trial and authorizes the court to treat the criminal defendant as if they were guilty for purposes of sentencing.
I think they are pretty useful. Especially when you use them to filter out by checking (-).
For example, if you are looking for games that play with 7 people but you don’t want to see party games. Or a game about animals, but not a children’s game. Or games set in ancient Rome, but not wargames.
Not exactly. It’s more like asking the defendant, “Do we have to prove you are guilty, or are you going to save us the effort?”
You are free to answer “Not guilty” even if you did it. It doesn’t mean “I’m innocent”, it means “I’m not admitting guilt”. In other words, “Prove it”.
“Not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean “innocent”. Often it just means “not confessing”, ie the prosecution has to go through the motions to prove he’s guilty.
Remember when people wouldn’t buy garbage that didn’t last, even if was cheaper?
Even today, you can choose to buy products that last longer than their competitors. But they will be more expensive and harder to find, so many people won’t make that choice.
it isn’t defamation if the defendant genuinely believes it to be true
No. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, but this means that the defendant must prove to a jury that what they said is actually true, not merely that they believed it was true.
If the plaintiffs can prove that what the defendant said is false, then the defendant can defend themselves by showing that they were supported at the time by a reasonable body of objective research/investigation.
So for instance if you publish a story about “My neighbor, the murderer”, you could cite the court case that found them guilty. Not just police accusations or your genuine belief that they committed murder. That’s why reporters usually say “X allegedly committed a crime” before they are tried.
Note that a different standard is used when plaintiffs are celebrities, but that won’t apply in this case.
They immediately released a photo, so it’s not true that they “had no idea” who did it. Everyone knew it was a white middle-aged male. And I don’t recall them saying “we have no leads on this man’s identity”. They simply didn’t want to publicly identify the person in the photo without corroborating evidence.
decided to slow walk it for at least 24 hours
Even as we discuss this, it’s been less than 24 hours since the shootings.
Maybe they knew who to ask first, but I think it would be inappropriate for government officials to publicly point fingers at the “crazy guy” without first asking some questions. Like, for instance, was the crazy guy somewhere else at the time? Nobody wants a repeat of the Richard Jewell fiasco.
You’re right, you were quoting the article not another person.
Regardless, you asked for a critical look at the necessity of PFAS and whether it is possible to reduce usage. My original answer is the same, namely:
One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.
So saying “we can’t replace all” is completely irrelevant.
I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to as well as the original point of the article.
PFAS are critical to some modern technologies. In some cases, they cannot be replaced. Any time we replace cars with buses, we will need PFAS to electrify the buses. And likely we will need more PFAS in the future than we are using today.
Electric vehicles add demand to the power grid. These days, increased demand is met by increasing renewable energy production (mostly wind turbines). Nobody is building coal plants any more.