Fairly certain the suspension would not be needed when you liquify a human being under the tracks
Fairly certain the suspension would not be needed when you liquify a human being under the tracks
Yeah I need to know more about that too
Technically yes
The pilot is the modern knight, the plane its steed. The analogy is pretty straightforward
That was the franco-prussian war from 1870/71 not the anti-Napoleon one, Germany didn’t become an empire after the letter
Block alignment in two columns is the way to go
If I were to always believe that other beings are behind any weird or outright deviant behaviour, I’d need an ERA-reinforced tin-foil hat
The Chinese lost a couple of million to that idea. The Australian Trauma should not be forgotten but is a bit negligible compared to the Chinese
Now now, how would you know Wagner are Nazis?
/s
Thats were it gets tricky in reality. But not necessarily in an exam that prioritises theoretical criminal knowledge
Annoying some is thankfully not a criminal action.
Yes prove intent, but depending on the legal system that might not be enough. Say I believe that spraying someone with sparkling water on the beach would kill you, that does not necessarily mean you attempted to take someones life. Similarly hurting someone in sports does not mean you assaulted them in a criminal sense.
Wait till you hear about countries closing linguistic institutions for being spy agencies.
That honestly is a very interesting subject for a beginners exam to criminal law
Yes, Willy Brandt, former chancellor of Germany for amending the post-war relationship with Central and Eastern Europe. He’s most famous for kneeling in front of the memorial for the Warsaw Ghetto while he was Chancellor.
Fuck them, I live on the coast, I don’t want to live close to a steppe
This is post-sovjet version of Arab guys owning high-end cars but living in a 2-room flat with 6 people
Statistical probability that’s all
They won’t is my prediction