It's a useful, if not technically precise, abstraction. Since it's part of an indictment, it is a magnet for pedantry.
Just like how a long fall doesn't kill you, the sudden stop at the end does. It's a distinction without a difference.
Just like how a long fall doesn't kill you, the sudden stop at the end does. It's a distinction without a difference.
Because you don't have knowledge of the subject.
The subject at hand being the law.
On the other hand, understanding formal logic is of practical value in the legal industry; I was thinking of building searches to find electronic documents which is a real thing that (clueless) people (try to) do. Seems to me like it could potentially be very high stakes, at least in hindsight if you screw it up.
I don't know if boolean logic is or used to be part of a law school curriculum. It just seems to me a bit surprising if it isn't.
To disrupt any empathic thoughts towards the defendant
As well as convey omniscience of the government
If not, I think it’s an effective idea someone should start doing, and i was inspired by reading a few indictments