If you were ever in such a situation, I’m sure your lawyer would present the fact that you always have a first aid kit with you to challenge it’s relevance. People who know you could be brought in to testify as such.

On the other hand, if you don’t generally carry a first aid kit but brought one to the protest alongside the other listed items, it does seem indicative of intent.

There was just a news story that Denmark was (among other activities) stocking up on blood supplies in Greenland. That’s not an unusual thing for a military to do, but it’s pretty obvious that they were preparing to fight US forces. That’s obviously not a crime, but the logical connections to intent are similar.

If you give me ssh access to their server, then I can verify. Otherwise it’s “just trust me bro”.

What do you think an independent autit does?

I love ads. They tell me exactly which sellers would rather spend money on manipulating consumers than making a better product.

Making exceptions is never a good idea.

Why not? The whole reason we have judicial discretion is that every crime departs from the platonic ideal in one way or another.

The working class has been losing a class war for decades without ever properly noticing that it was happening. Working Americans have been dying in that war, and now someone struck back.

I’ll be sold on the “no exceptions” ideal when we haul in the corporate murderers alongside the people who fought back.

Jury nullification is the other acceptable option.