The difference is the issue being discussed. Being discussed is a state seceding from the US. What you are interjecting is a comment on the US's foreign policy.
I believe he is still under subpoena and could be forced to testify. I could be mistaken, but I believe that just because you're found in, or convicted of contempt, that relieves a person of the need to still comply with the subpoena. (Or if a new subpoena is issued perhaps.)
If there wasn't a minimum mandatory sentence, then this is in the judge as well as the prosecutor, both of whom have discretion.
That sounds amazing--and terrifying! You're one of those real life "I bought a boat and just went people." While I couldn't do a boat open ocean, one day I hope to emulate you and do something like the Great Loop, and other adventures. Fair winds and following seas.
I love shitting on Texas and Florida and, well every southern state, and most of the Midwest, and quite a few states out west, but as someone who lives in one of these areas I like to remind everyone that's there's a lot of decent people living in those states. That is all.
Damn, person just expressing their opinion and preparing for the worst and they get downvoted. They weren't even supporting the win. The hive is buzzing.
Thank you for providing some direct language from the proposed statute. I do not know Kentucky state law but I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that there are already laws on the books that deal with all situations this proposed law purports to handle. Trespassing, vagrancy, camping, stand your ground/castle doctrines, assault/battery, etc. Can anyone more familiar confirm or negate my admittedly unstudied guess?
@BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider
@lemmy.world