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 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

68. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:56 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.

Woosh.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:50 Redmask
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

You are changing the goalposts, as usual. First it was why does the government restrict advertising and demonize smoking. Now it's oh uhhhhhh alcohol iz bad too. Alcohol has a recreational use that is not engineered to be addictive, cigarettes do. Alcohol can be abused like anything else but every single cigarette is abusive to health. You can drink in moderation but you can't smoke in moderation, it's inherently bad for your health. When you quit smoking it takes years for the body to fully recover for a reason. Drunk driving is a straw man and smoking causes far more damage to society anyway.

I'm not 'wrong', this isn't opinion, its long established fact which is why the government and society are curtailing smoking. By all means smoke yourself into oblivion, it's going to catch up with you and you basically ceded all health care debate in the future but that's your problem. I don't care about you, I care about how smoking affects society as a whole and its massive cost in dollars.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:48 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:41 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:40 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:26:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:17:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:08:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:52:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.

I know people who didn't smoke or drink their entire lives and still died of cancer. Smoking increases the risk obviously, but if I get cancer I'm not going to blame anyone but myself for it.

Calling smoking a blight is a bit over board unless you want to put alcohol right up there with it. Until then kindly stop being a sanctimonious prick thanks.

My insurance rates thank you you entitled jerk. "I can smoke, and you all can deal! And then, later on, help me pay for any ramifications!"

And it is a blight. I'll never live in an area without a public smoking ban.

Plus, frankly, it makes you look like a redneck in the States. There's definitely a correlation between social class and smoking.

Your insurance rates went up due to obamacare, and will continue to go up due to obamacare. Thank yourself you voted for the shit.

Oh is that right? People who smoke automatically have less class than ones who don't? Riiight. I'm a redneck from Taxachusettes now apparently. Want to call me a bigot again too?

Why would I seek anything from anyone? I'm not a liberal like you, I don't expect everyone else to pay my way for me.

Like I keep saying, you don't discuss things, you ad hoc all day long and wonder why I call you things like libtard.

I've said many times I did not vote for Obama.
Our taxes have not yet gone up due to Obamacare. And, frankly, taking the executive cut out of healthcare is a wise idea.

Again, you need to read. I didn't say you have less class, though seeing you as a lower class smoker fits your uber right wing yet not a millionaire attitude, I said there was a correlation between social class and smoking. Correlation does not mean a rule. But you say you're in MA? Try to going to Harvard, MIT or BC and look at how many students smoke. Then go to UMass Boston, Quincy College or Northeastern and see that percentage rise considerably.

Though you're probably not from Boston. You're probably at least 20 miles out.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:39 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:29 Redmask
 
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:26 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:17:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:08:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:52:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.

I know people who didn't smoke or drink their entire lives and still died of cancer. Smoking increases the risk obviously, but if I get cancer I'm not going to blame anyone but myself for it.

Calling smoking a blight is a bit over board unless you want to put alcohol right up there with it. Until then kindly stop being a sanctimonious prick thanks.

My insurance rates thank you you entitled jerk. "I can smoke, and you all can deal! And then, later on, help me pay for any ramifications!"

And it is a blight. I'll never live in an area without a public smoking ban.

Plus, frankly, it makes you look like a redneck in the States. There's definitely a correlation between social class and smoking.

Your insurance rates went up due to obamacare, and will continue to go up due to obamacare. Thank yourself you voted for the shit.

Oh is that right? People who smoke automatically have less class than ones who don't? Riiight. I'm a redneck from Taxachusettes now apparently. Want to call me a bigot again too?

Why would I seek anything from anyone? I'm not a liberal like you, I don't expect everyone else to pay my way for me.

Like I keep saying, you don't discuss things, you ad hoc all day long and wonder why I call you things like libtard.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:17 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:08:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:52:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.

I know people who didn't smoke or drink their entire lives and still died of cancer. Smoking increases the risk obviously, but if I get cancer I'm not going to blame anyone but myself for it.

Calling smoking a blight is a bit over board unless you want to put alcohol right up there with it. Until then kindly stop being a sanctimonious prick thanks.

My insurance rates thank you you entitled jerk. "I can smoke, and you all can deal! And then, later on, help me pay for any ramifications!"

And it is a blight. I'll never live in an area without a public smoking ban.

Plus, frankly, it makes you look like a redneck in the States. There's definitely a correlation between social class and smoking.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. removed Mar 28, 2013, 09:08 RollinThundr
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 28, 2013, 09:45.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 08:52 Redmask
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 08:20 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:12:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 00:32:
Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.

I swear you are incapable of reading. You, why do they tax smoking but don't allow it to advertise? Me, a full explanation of why. You, a bunch of shit totally unrelated. Over dramatic? It's the truth, it's scientific fact, there is nothing dramatic about it. They tax it because it has a major health cost to people that the cigarette companies would otherwise not kick back. Ban it? If only! They can't ban it because people like you would make an unholy stink and you know that. They restrict advertising because it's bad for society as a whole. You are slowly killing yourself faster than you otherwise would be. Maybe you don't care, fine but you're sucking up unnecessary tax dollars. Take some personal responsibility for your actions you freeloader.

People kill themselves drinking and eating too except those things positive weight for society when used in moderation, smoking does not. You lose all rights to bitch about healthcare when you're a smoker, it is the height of hypocrisy and that's coming from an ex smoker. I smoked for 15 years, don't talk down to me as if I was other people about it, I know all about the health risks and you will learn one day the hard way.

Cancer isn't fun and smoking is the losers lottery ticket to it, as if there wasn't enough risk of getting cancer as it is. Getting into a car accident sucks but that just proves life has enough risk without taking totally unnecessary ones that have nothing positive whatsoever. You want to be a daring risk taker, go climb a mountain. At least you would have some pictures to show for it instead of a huge hole in your wallet where a chunk of your retirement savings could have been and chemotherapy.

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 07:51 Beamer
 
[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.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 07:42 InBlack
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:12:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 00:32:
Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.

I swear you are incapable of reading. You, why do they tax smoking but don't allow it to advertise? Me, a full explanation of why. You, a bunch of shit totally unrelated. Over dramatic? It's the truth, it's scientific fact, there is nothing dramatic about it. They tax it because it has a major health cost to people that the cigarette companies would otherwise not kick back. Ban it? If only! They can't ban it because people like you would make an unholy stink and you know that. They restrict advertising because it's bad for society as a whole. You are slowly killing yourself faster than you otherwise would be. Maybe you don't care, fine but you're sucking up unnecessary tax dollars. Take some personal responsibility for your actions you freeloader.

People kill themselves drinking and eating too except those things positive weight for society when used in moderation, smoking does not. You lose all rights to bitch about healthcare when you're a smoker, it is the height of hypocrisy and that's coming from an ex smoker. I smoked for 15 years, don't talk down to me as if I was other people about it, I know all about the health risks and you will learn one day the hard way.

Cancer isn't fun and smoking is the losers lottery ticket to it, as if there wasn't enough risk of getting cancer as it is. Getting into a car accident sucks but that just proves life has enough risk without taking totally unnecessary ones that have nothing positive whatsoever. You want to be a daring risk taker, go climb a mountain. At least you would have some pictures to show for it instead of a huge hole in your wallet where a chunk of your retirement savings could have been and chemotherapy.

Banning cigarettes is counterproductive, its a huge industry and there is a lot of money involved. Better a large tax and let people choose for themselves. Look how the alcohol ban turned out, production went underground and it powered one of the biggest crime waves the US has ever seen. IMO they should legalize marijuana as well. Its a herb, like tobbaco and could power another huge industry that would be very beneficial to the economy. Then they should tax the shit out of that too, considering the risks.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 07:38 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 19:16:
Untrue. The ludicrous circumstances I provided have come close to happening. There have been cases where someone had sex with an underage girl found in a 21+ bar where the guy who had sex with her saw her ID.

Some states have provisions to protect statutory rapists who were defrauded by fake ID. It's going to fall on the jury to determine whether the defendant had reasonable proof to believe the partner was of age. It isn't strict liability everywhere. Criminal law always has the question of culpable mental state. You mentioned traffic violations... how can one possibly argue they had no idea they were speeding? There are speed limits statewide for when roads have no posted limits, and equipment (speedometer) failure falls squarely as the driver's responsibility.

And for the record, Ohio's consent is 16. I know people say there are 13-year-olds who look 18, but I've never personally seen that.

Very few states don't have strict liability for statutory rape. Alaska, for one.
It doesn't make sense. The amount of people that actually get caught by strict liability is ridiculously outweighed by the amount of people that would falsely claim it.

But no, again, strict liability eliminates mens rea. Your speeding ticket is a perfect example. Let's say a road is a 50, then pulls into another part of town and it's 35. The sign is down. The car is a rental car he's been in for five minutes and the speedometer is broken. The driver thinks he's doing 25 in a 50. He's doing 60 in a 25. There are no close landmarks to make it clear he's going faster. Everyone else is passing him.
He's a guy with absolutely no culpable mental state. But he's breaking the law. He gets penalized.

It's not Black's, but here's Wikipedia:
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.r
...
As a jurisdiction with due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.

A serious offense in which strict liability tends to show up is in drunk driving laws; the punishment tends to be given on a strict liability basis, with no mens rea requirement at all. This was important for the purposes of a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2004, Leocal v. Ashcroft, where a deportation order was overturned because the conviction that led to the deportation order was a strict liability law, while deportation was only allowed upon conviction if the crime was a "crime of violence" (where violence, or the potential for it, was inherent in the crime itself).

In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.

Please note: mens rea does not need to be proven. And please remember, you're arguing with me when I said criminal law doesn't necessarily care about intent. Necessarily is a key word there. Just because it's a criminal law doesn't mean it cares about your intent. This is what you're arguing: that criminal law always cares.
Strict liability, by definition, means that a law doesn't care. So all there needs to be is 1 criminal law that does not care and I'm right.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 07:12 Redmask
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 00:32:
Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.

I swear you are incapable of reading. You, why do they tax smoking but don't allow it to advertise? Me, a full explanation of why. You, a bunch of shit totally unrelated. Over dramatic? It's the truth, it's scientific fact, there is nothing dramatic about it. They tax it because it has a major health cost to people that the cigarette companies would otherwise not kick back. Ban it? If only! They can't ban it because people like you would make an unholy stink and you know that. They restrict advertising because it's bad for society as a whole. You are slowly killing yourself faster than you otherwise would be. Maybe you don't care, fine but you're sucking up unnecessary tax dollars. Take some personal responsibility for your actions you freeloader.

People kill themselves drinking and eating too except those things positive weight for society when used in moderation, smoking does not. You lose all rights to bitch about healthcare when you're a smoker, it is the height of hypocrisy and that's coming from an ex smoker. I smoked for 15 years, don't talk down to me as if I was other people about it, I know all about the health risks and you will learn one day the hard way.

Cancer isn't fun and smoking is the losers lottery ticket to it, as if there wasn't enough risk of getting cancer as it is. Getting into a car accident sucks but that just proves life has enough risk without taking totally unnecessary ones that have nothing positive whatsoever. You want to be a daring risk taker, go climb a mountain. At least you would have some pictures to show for it instead of a huge hole in your wallet where a chunk of your retirement savings could have been and chemotherapy.

This comment was edited on Mar 28, 2013, 07:24.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 00:32 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 21:44:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 18:13:
And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.

It's a blight on society and a huge resource drain on the health care system. Of course the government taxes it, they need to recoup something from it. There is no positive benefit to smoking and I say that as someone who smoked for 15 years and knew it was stupid every time I lit one up. You'll quit one day and understand. I don't want my tax dollars paying for unnecessary health care.

Since I know the comparison people will make is to alcohol, it can be used recreationally in moderation. Smoking is more insidious, it has inherent addictive properties, both short term and long term health implications. Smoking has no positive weight whatsoever, literally nothing at all outside of jobs that aren't a good long term bet. Of course it's advertising should be limited.

Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 21:44 Redmask
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 18:13:
And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.

It's a blight on society and a huge resource drain on the health care system. Of course the government taxes it, they need to recoup something from it. There is no positive benefit to smoking and I say that as someone who smoked for 15 years and knew it was stupid every time I lit one up. You'll quit one day and understand. I don't want my tax dollars paying for unnecessary health care.

Since I know the comparison people will make is to alcohol, it can be used recreationally in moderation. Smoking is more insidious, it has inherent addictive properties, both short term and long term health implications. Smoking has no positive weight whatsoever, literally nothing at all outside of jobs that aren't a good long term bet. Of course it's advertising should be limited.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 20:45 jdreyer
 
@ Cutter,

And then the dude is branded a sex offender for the rest of his life, and his life is ruined. In some states, you can legally have relations with a 16 year old if you're 20 or under, but if you're over 20 it has to be 18. Easy to be fooled.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 19:38 Cutter
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 19:16:
Untrue. The ludicrous circumstances I provided have come close to happening. There have been cases where someone had sex with an underage girl found in a 21+ bar where the guy who had sex with her saw her ID.

Some states have provisions to protect statutory rapists who were defrauded by fake ID. It's going to fall on the jury to determine whether the defendant had reasonable proof to believe the partner was of age. It isn't strict liability everywhere. Criminal law always has the question of culpable mental state. You mentioned traffic violations... how can one possibly argue they had no idea they were speeding? There are speed limits statewide for when roads have no posted limits, and equipment (speedometer) failure falls squarely as the driver's responsibility.

And for the record, Ohio's consent is 16. I know people say there are 13-year-olds who look 18, but I've never personally seen that.

When you've worked in bars as long as I have you've seen it all, plus plenty of that. And there are plenty of young girls who don't look and act that young and it's intentional. I've flirted with girls over the years who I assumed to be early 20s only to find out they're a lot younger. It always sets you back on your heels. And the worst part about many of the statutory laws is that even if the girl fully cops to it and says she was responsible for leading him on/decieving him it doesn't matter. How the fuck is that fair? Some dude half in the bag has some chick crawling all over him in a dark bar at night and its his fault? Fuck that noise.
 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo