Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

108. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 13:34 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:14:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:13:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 12:28:
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE


Not a fair fight, I have logic, common sense and economics on my side.

Well, it's a good thing you tie a hand behind your back by not using any of them! Haha.

Zing and shit. Argue
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 13:14 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:13:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 12:28:
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE


Not a fair fight, I have logic, common sense and economics on my side.

Well, it's a good thing you tie a hand behind your back by not using any of them! Haha.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 13:13 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 12:28:
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE


Not a fair fight, I have logic, common sense and economics on my side.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 12:28 jdreyer
 
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE

 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 09:18 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 09:16:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:13:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 20:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.

It's more so calling it what it is, democrats have this whole control issue. Not sure why, maybe one of the key components to leaning to the left is have a touch of narcissism.

Oh, wait, I read "run their lives" as "ruin their lives."

I spent way too much time yesterday staring at monitors.

No worries, I know what that's like.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 09:16 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:13:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 20:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.

It's more so calling it what it is, democrats have this whole control issue. Not sure why, maybe one of the key components to leaning to the left is have a touch of narcissism.

Oh, wait, I read "run their lives" as "ruin their lives."

I spent way too much time yesterday staring at monitors.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 08:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 20:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.

It's more so calling it what it is, democrats have this whole control issue. Not sure why, maybe one of the key components to leaning to the left is have a touch of narcissism.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
101. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 20:02 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
100. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 18:21 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
99. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:33 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
98. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:18 PHJF
 
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
97. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:11 Verno
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:05:
Now you are getting socioeconomic. Shitty food is just plain cheaper than healthy food, the outcome of decades of subsidization of specific foodstuffs (cough, corn, cough).

Sure, I don't know much about the supply side of the food industry. I'm just amazed at the disparity because I thought farm subsidies were at all time highs but I guess I've never examined what is actually being subsidized.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:05 PHJF
 
Sure, junk food taxes just make sense too. Why should my tax dollars support every fatso and smoker out there? I'm ok with taxation in general but when people consciously make poor choices they should pay the burden. Unfortunately you're going to have a lot more trouble getting traction on restricting food than smoking. Maybe on a state level or something, I just don't see it happening federally.

Now you are getting socioeconomic. Shitty food is just plain cheaper than healthy food, the outcome of decades of subsidization of specific foodstuffs (cough, corn, cough).
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 16:02 Beamer
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:56:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:51:
[url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1611207.html]Here's a good case about strict liability.

A guy downloads a ton of porn off of Limewire. Some of it is underage, but not marked so. He deletes the underage porn. He has no interest in underage porn. But, once he opens it, he knows he has it. He did not know he was going to download it until after the fact.

He is found guilty.

Well, except that he hadn't deleted ALL of them:

The officers seized the computer and delivered it to the crime lab of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Once there, crime lab employee Anthony Pollock searched the computer's hard drive and noted that LimeWire was installed on the computer. He found “hundreds” of adult pornography files, and also discovered 63 files that he believed could be child pornography, based on their file names. Most of these files were located in a LimeWire “Shared” folder. Pollock was not able to locate the videos downloaded by Officer Hanson on June 17 and July 23 by name; he found evidence, however, that two of those videos were previously on the computer, but had since been removed or deleted.

If you've got 63 undeleted illegal files on your had drive, that indicates you're not very interested in deleting them.

Yup, still, the fact remains that the law only cares that you know you have it (and, well, that it's above 3 images. If it's 3 or less they don't care, so long as you either delete it immediately or notify law enforcement.)

Strict liability means you don't have to know you're committing a crime. That was the initial argument here, whether such a thing exists.
It's a weird semantics argument he picked with me, but it's true that criminal laws do not necessarily care if you intended to do something illegal. The vast majority do, but not all, therefore the fact that something is a criminal law does not mean intent is necessary.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:52 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:45:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:57:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.

I say ban heroin, but don't ban chips and Coke, and you interpret that as me saying ban everything? Also, Obama wouldn't be responsible for passing laws encouraging or discouraging behavior. That would be the house, and last I checked it was in Republican control.

And yeah, I'd prefer a junk food tax. Obesity related diseases are now the number one killer and the number one healthcare cost in this country. It's been proven that they are addictive, just like tobacco. And just like tobacco, they need to have their advertising restricted, and their price adjusted through taxation. Not banned, but adjusted so that their consumption can be discouraged and their price can reflect their cost to society.

In Obama's case he'd just put in an executive order anyway. Lets have carbon taxes too, and a junk food tax, and a air breathing tax then we can spend all that money on more welfare for people who refuse to work like the rest of us. It'll be a grand social experiment!!! A utopia of perfect living! /sarcasm

Meanwhile back in reality, people will still get fat, smoke etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:49 Verno
 
And yeah, I'd prefer a junk food tax. Obesity related diseases are now the number one killer and the number one healthcare cost in this country. It's been proven that they are addictive, just like tobacco. And just like tobacco, they need to have their advertising restricted, and their price adjusted through taxation. Not banned, but adjusted so that their consumption can be discouraged and their price can reflect their cost to society.

Sure, junk food taxes just make sense too. Why should my tax dollars support every fatso and smoker out there? I'm ok with taxation in general but when people consciously make poor choices they should pay the burden. Unfortunately you're going to have a lot more trouble getting traction on restricting food than smoking. Maybe on a state level or something, I just don't see it happening federally.

Something that would go a long way toward helping would be more sensible price levels for fresh food. Right now you can eat like a fat king on nothing if you buy processed and premade food while eating fresh food is several times more expensive. That needs to change but I'm not even sure where the problem lies - food source/supply, logistics, taxation, who knows.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:48 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:32:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:14:
If taxes continue to go up to the point where we have no middle class since Obozo is all about tax and spend wealth redistribution what would you call it?

The bottom 90% of income earners has had a salary increase of $59 over the past 40 years while productivity has doubled. The top 10% has increased $116,071. So, we could actually do with some wealth redistribution, thank you very much. I'm guessing you're in the 90% bracket, so you'd benefit from that.

As for taxes, they're lower than they've ever been. Given the state of our infrastructure and debt, I'd say it's time to raise them, especially on the wealthy who haven't had rates this low for a long time. It hurts the country when they don't pay enough.

I'm fine with raising taxes, but there's a stipulation to that. Massive spending cuts, and neither party, dems especially want to cut anything that's not military.

We're going to be at 20 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term here. That to me is a problem. When the government proves to me they can balance a budget and stop putting so much pork into bills that no one apparently reads anyway, then I'll care about taking more from the job creators.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:45 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:57:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.

I say ban heroin, but don't ban chips and Coke, and you interpret that as me saying ban everything? Also, Obama wouldn't be responsible for passing laws encouraging or discouraging behavior. That would be the house, and last I checked it was in Republican control.

And yeah, I'd prefer a junk food tax. Obesity related diseases are now the number one killer and the number one healthcare cost in this country. It's been proven that they are addictive, just like tobacco. And just like tobacco, they need to have their advertising restricted, and their price adjusted through taxation. Not banned, but adjusted so that their consumption can be discouraged and their price can reflect their cost to society.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:32 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:14:
If taxes continue to go up to the point where we have no middle class since Obozo is all about tax and spend wealth redistribution what would you call it?

The bottom 90% of income earners has had a salary increase of $59 over the past 40 years while productivity has doubled. The top 10% has increased $116,071. So, we could actually do with some wealth redistribution, thank you very much. I'm guessing you're in the 90% bracket, so you'd benefit from that.

As for taxes, they're lower than they've ever been. Given the state of our infrastructure and debt, I'd say it's time to raise them, especially on the wealthy who haven't had rates this low for a long time. It hurts the country when they don't pay enough.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:05 Verno
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:56:
Well, except that he hadn't deleted ALL of them:

The officers seized the computer and delivered it to the crime lab of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Once there, crime lab employee Anthony Pollock searched the computer's hard drive and noted that LimeWire was installed on the computer. He found “hundreds” of adult pornography files, and also discovered 63 files that he believed could be child pornography, based on their file names. Most of these files were located in a LimeWire “Shared” folder. Pollock was not able to locate the videos downloaded by Officer Hanson on June 17 and July 23 by name; he found evidence, however, that two of those videos were previously on the computer, but had since been removed or deleted.

If you've got 63 undeleted illegal files on your had drive, that indicates you're not very interested in deleting them.

Yeah that's pretty damning, it seems to indicate he went through the videos picking and choosing so it's not like he can just claim ignorance of their existence.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo