What happens if population size is smaller than needed​

Is it enough to be "suspected" of terrorism, or should these suspects have the right to a fair trial before being detained indefinitely? your response should be at least five sentences. use complete sentences and offer evidence to back up your opinion

Nita is the office manager at a service station. two applicants, max and tim, arrive to interview for the open mechanic's position. max's clothes are dirty, his hair is unwashed, and he doesn't make eye contact when he gives nita his name. tim dresses in clean jeans and a nice shirt, is shaved, and shakes nita's hand when he introduces himself. after the interview, keith the head mechanic, asks nita what she thought. both men have the skill set needed for the position. nita recommends tim. she is responding to her perception of

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.