Alas, no. Your suggestions would determine that he knew it before he was arrested, none suggest his on-going memory of the password.

It's harder because the other questions only have to look at state of mind for a particular moment in the past before police activity could have influenced it.

This is closer to Heisenberg. The act of questioning can cause the accused to forget. That is exactly why this is a screwed up law.

Have you truly never heard someone say "If you hadn't asked, I could have told you?"

You've never known anyone who can type their password by muscle memory but cannot consciously call it out other than by watching themselves type it?

There are a great many factors that can confound memory and all must be ruled out to eliminate reasonable doubt. Furthermore because memory can be malleable and tricky, even evidence that he later recalled the password isn't evidence that he could recall it when asked. It's actually common for an answer to pop into mind once all pressure to remember has passed.

OTOH, there's really only one reason to arrange to meet someone in an out of the way place and take a gun, gloves, and a body bag with you. The prosecution and the judge don't have to determine what the defendant is thinking NOW.

Why yes, I did eat pork and beans, asparagus and eggs for breakfast, why do you ask?

So instead of killing one planeload of people, kill the ten planeloads waiting at the checkpoint? Bad trade.

If the static voltage is high enough, you don't need to complete a circuit to ground to have a significant current flow. Capacitive effects are more than adequate to give you quite a shock.

The same effect happens with plain old aspirin with less risk to your liver.

Sure, but there's no good reason not to minimize it.

Clone it. upgrade the clone and make sure it works. If so, wipe the clone, snapshot the production VM and upgrade it. If it fails, roll back. Make sure your infrastructure is set up so the clone CAN be properly tested. Yes, sometimes you will have to do that rollback, but with an adequate test setup, frequently you won't.

That shouldn't be true, but probably would be.

Overstated, not wrong. There's nothing you can buy for the home that won't cost several times more money than the equipment being protected.

You can buy arresters that will protect against near misses, but if a bolt of lightning hits the outdoor antenna, the TV and arrester will become smoking chunks of plastic and metal.

In addition, the generally crappy value engineered quality of consumer goods will add a lot of noise.

The spectrum they are allocated comes with a mandate to provide a public benefit. They have been allowed some slack on encrypted sub-channels as long as their primary broadcast still meets the public service mandate. If they encrypt that too, they'll be forced to give their allocation back and cease transmitting.

So why did they then pursue it rather than backing off to a safe distance? From the report, it is clear that the drone's operators were attempting to move away to a safe distance when they were pursued.

That is done by looking at how the state of mind drove objective action.

In the case of the murder, we can infer state of mind based on how the murder was accomplished. If the accused shot, stabbed, strangled, then dismembered the victim, we may conclude that death was the intention. Dropped the weapon at the scene, tripped 3 times running away, then threw up in the ally, we can guess it wasn't intended. Took the weapon, the bag the body was placed in, cleaning products that were used to clean up evidence to the scene, then lured the victim, we can infer premeditation.

So now we ask what objective actions at the time he was asked for the password would suggest that he still remembers it?

Quite honestly, courts have in general not paid as much attention to determining state of mind as they should.

We can look at many things to loosely assign a probability to it, but none of those probabilities are likely to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes down to looking at who is lying in the absense of further evidence, it is known as "he said, she said". Except in extreme cases where one person claims that Elvis and the Grays were all there too, it rarely rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

At most, honest testimony now could say "I think he probably remembers it". Yes, he probably does, but the standard of proof isn't 'probably'.

The thing is, by the time you get to the point of a password being demanded, you have necessarily been put through an ordeal that may have you not thinking clearly. Likely your daily routine where you might have remembered the password is thoroughly disrupted (set and setting is important to memory).