"Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?"

Time.

Time for research to be done, for evidence to be gathered that exonerates the wrongly convicted.
There have been a couple recent articles in the news about people released after long periods of incarceration.

Agreed.

I thought I had made it quite clear that I was not defending HRC.
If you speak to others, well and good. If to me, see above.

My point is that many bash/defend depending not on right / wrong, but my side/ their side.
I would love to be able to take everyone's comments from the Bush era issue and this and see how many changed.

I understand you see HRC's failing as "much much worse". In a sense, as you argue, coming on the tails of the Bush administration's failing on this, and ( I'll take your word she came out against it ) her comments against it ( and in disciplining another for similar actions ), it *is* worse on her part, but both were simply wrong, neither are justifiable.

"No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a .GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them."

ALL? Hyperbole. ( who are "them" )
And during the Bush admin, many had dual blackberrys, one "in", the other hosted on RNC systems, to avoid oversight, apparently. And, IIRC, emails went missing from this system when requested by authorities. ( sidebar, how many of those howling about the IRS disks being destroyed howled about this? )

"I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?"

I'm assuming "HRC" is Hillary Clinton.
The hypocrisy of Hillary does not in any way remove the hypocrisy of others.
And I agree, it is hypocritical of her.

If you assume I am defending Hillary in this, you are mistaken.
My take:
The intent was clear that emails were to be preserved.
Bush Admin was wrong to subvert this
Hillary was wrong to subvert this.
Nixon was wrong not to produce the full tapes, assuming the claim of damage was subterfuge
The IRS ( whoever within ) was wrong not to produce the disks, assuming the claim of damage/destruction was subterfuge
The Bush admin was wrong not to produce the emails during the AG firing investigation, assuming the claim of them being lost is subterfuge.

What I find interesting in all this is that many think it is OK for "their team" to do wrong.

And that the question of when the Bush admin used the RNC email system to avoid proper oversight, who condemning HRC now also condemned the Bush Admin is avoided.

"My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP."

All? Not. Most? Sure.

I find it interesting how many (R)'s and (D)'s condemn an action when committed by someone "not theirs", but justify it when committed by "theirs".

Tell me, everyone on the (R) side, when the Bush administration had their RNC hosted email system, did you justify that?
Those on the (D) side, did you attack then and justify now?

"So the defense now is "Bush did bad things, too?""

For me, it is really incredibly funny how many people line up on one side then the other side of this issue and the only thing it depends on is the party of the perpetrator.

It was wrong for Hillary and wrong for Bush.
There are laws, follow them or change them.

"The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it."

I find that an unreasonable stance. Joke aside, that is true of any standard, really.
You know that when you attempt to spell everything out, you will miss some, include incorrect things, etc. You cant enumerate it all.

"The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely."

True. I never said it was not possible.
It is liable to use and misuse.
Governments should be mistrusted, as should people ( and corporations ).

"The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?"

Police have their workflow already. For things that pass the standard, they can get what they need.
I see no need to grant them access to things they are liable to misuse.
The request for a warrant spells out what they want to look at, what they intend to access.
It keeps the fishing expeditions lower than they otherwise would be.

I doubt crime would be 100% solvable with 100% DNA collection in place.
DNA would have to be available, to start with.
It would have to be un-subverted/uncontaminated.
So, criminals will still be around.

Future subversives of an oppressive government will find a way.

"Why should he have been worried for a month? He knew perfectly well he was innocent."

The legal/judicial system we have is not perfect. We read occasionally about people that are released from prison after being falsely found guilty ( with limits for error there as well... ).

So, knowing you are innocent and not worrying are not mutually exclusive.

Forth amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

The garbage disposer shows a reference to the item...

You don't usually do car repair unless something is not working..

In the late 1800's sure.
But they were still bloodletting then.
And just discovering that keeping germs out of wounds/surgical sites/people would help them heal better/faster.
So, I don't know how much Doctors prescribing tobacco in that era means. :-)

My mom had a Dr recommend cigarettes to her. ( 1950's when she was a teen. )
So she would be "cool" and less anxious.
So, basically, irrational.

You are assuming rationality on the part of people.

Knock that off.

If people were rational, no one would ever start smoking.
Assume it is harmless. ( It's not, but for argument )
The benefit is non-existent to negligible at best, and the cost is too much.
Why would anyone start?

They knew. Datapoint, 1944 movie "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo", cigarettes are referred to as coffin nails in carrier deck conversation between Van Johnson and Robert Mitchum.

I don't run red lights, or blow through stop signs.
I will make a left turn from the left lanes, as that is fitting, proper and legal ( where I am, anyway ).
Otherwise, I keep to the right and make sure I am predictable, and try to be courteous to all.

It is still dangerous.

I agree completely that a cyclist should obey the rules of the road. It annoys me when they don't, as a cyclist, as car drivers seem to take a "all cyclists misbehave, so I can run them over" attitude. But that is all window dressing. Riding a bike in traffic is dangerous because automobile operators, in general, don't look, don't see, and don't understand ( excluding a few that do, and a few that seem actively malicious*. ) I would expect you would know that from riding a motorcycle, I have noticed that cars seem to act the same there.

* I am alive today thanks to ( short list, there are others A, 2 metal posts I could ride between, but the car trying to run me down could not, and B, a curb that I hopped up that the car chasing me was not willing to try to get up ).
Note, just ridding my bike where I was allowed to.