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

48. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 19:16 PHJF
 
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.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:48 Julio
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 10:49:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 10:42:
Wait, what's wrong with putting someone trying to blind the pilot of a commercial aircraft in jail?
Nothing, but 30 months seems a bit excessive don't you think? How do you feel on the other article there Beamer?

30 months seems light to me. Trying to cause an airliner crash...how about 10 years+...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:10:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.

Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.

And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.

But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.

This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool.

If someone wants to eat nothing but twinkies, it's their own fault if they end up 300lbs. I don't need, nor want the government to tell me what I can and can't eat or how to live my life thanks. You may think it's a good idea because "hey people will lose weight!" but do we really want to open that door to government running our lives for us? Or is that something you really want Beamer? Someone to tell you what to do?

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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:09 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

I'm fine with regulating tobacco, course when you talk about regulating tobacco do you mean the half of the price of the pack that's all pure tax or actual regulation?

Feinstine's anti gun bill is a perfect example, the woman has a permit to carry in San Fransisco, one of the toughest places in the US to get that type of permit. It's ok for her to have the means to protect herself, just not you or I. She's had a 10+ year agenda to attack the 2nd amendment, I doubt any of her constituents want to remove the 2nd amendment of the constitution. And to me that's the crux of the issue on both the left and the right, politicians today forget that they're supposed to work FOR us. Not for their own agendas. Somehow We the People got lost along the way.

The soft drink ban in NY due to fatties. Yes I know Bloomberg is an independent but his views are all pretty much extremely liberal anyway, may as well just call him a liberal.

Obamacare.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:53 Cutter
 
It's far easier and far cheaper to eat unhealthy in most countries than the opposite. Obesity isn't just about laziness, it's built into the system by the gubment.

And yes, 30 months is a good way to set an example that being an idiot is not a get out of jail free card. And shut up about that idiot that was threatened with 35 years. Have you people never been arrested? Threatening someone one with something to encourage compliance is as old as mankind itself. They've stated on multiple occasions that at most he would have served a few months. They were just scaring the bejeesus out of him which is fair play for someone who broke the law. You want to be a rebel law-breaker? Then prepare to pay the fucking price, period.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Bye weeks? Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks, and now he's deadů Well, maybe they're a good thing." - Moe
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:44 NegaDeath
 
I've always thought high schools needed a "how to live as a healthy adult" course. Think like an expanded home ec course: healthy eating, how to budget, do taxes, common odd jobs around the house, etc. School these days is too much like "pumping out a production unit" now, teach facts and figures and hope they don't crash and burn during adulthood. Ones immediate reaction would of course be "that's the parents job!". Yeah, and as studies have proven parents as a whole are failing on that front and society is suffering because of it.  
Avatar 57352
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:36 Beamer
 
It's a first mover issue, too. People love all this unhealthy crap that tastes bad. A big part of that is conditioning. We're conditioned, after years of eating it, to expect a certain amount of fat, a certain amount of salt, etc. And often these tastes from from chemicals, like partially hydrogenated crap.

The first company to make a move away from this will lose, because the masses don't want it. Sure, companies often make attempts to move, but those products don't sell well enough to be a focus.

Like many things, unless the government forces a move the free market will never make the move themselves. We'll continue getting fatter and continue having more difficulty finding decent food in supermarkets because the not decent food is cheaper and sells better.

Because people, en masse, are idiots.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:27 jdreyer
 
@ Beamer, regarding food, this is actually how I feel. For every $1000 spent advertising food, the government spends $1 promoting healthy eating ($10b vs. $10m annually). The influence of the food industry needs a counter. And people's individual choices aren't made in a vacuum. My health insurance is high BECAUSE so many people eat poorly and don't exercise (among other reasons). Price controls ARE a way of modifying behavior while still allowing choice. If potato chips are $6 per bag instead of $4, you're still able to buy them, but then the cost better reflects the costs to society when you contract obesity related illness (and don't think you won't. Potato chips are highly addictive).

The "free market" is actually anything but when there's no regulation. It results in monopolies and corruption and false advertising. No one wishes to go back to the days of snake oil salesmen, but without gov't intervention and laws, that's where we'd be.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:26 Puma
 
Bard wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:22:

A laser isn't going to crash a 747 - that's bollocks. Instead of looking out the cockpit the pilot goes heads down and lands as he would in adverse weather - using the ILS. If anything it's a minor annoyance.

But hey, it's all about making money. This guy will make some privatized jail owner $100K or so in profit.

I take issue with your flippant remark. I am a corporate pilot and have had two laser strikes in the last 3 years. Both green lasers, both from over a mile away, and both about one half second duration before I looked away. Know what?

IT F*CKING HURTS. FOR HOURS. My eyes watered almost as long and made focusing on the instruments difficult for those last critical moments of the flight. So yes, if all pilots in the cockpit caught the beam it is entirely possible to cause a disaster.

30 months is just right, and I hope they fined his a$$ too.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:18 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:08:
Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old?

You have to knowingly possess child porn. I can't go hide a picture of a naked kid in your wallet and have you arrested. And having sex with an underage is negligence. If under the (ludicrous) circumstances provided you were being charged, in all likelihood the grand jury would toss it.

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.
He went to jail. Alaska, I believe, is the only place where negligence matters. Under strict liability there is no mens rea standard. Again, no mens rea standard means it does not matter if you are negligent or not, it matters if you did it or not.

As for child porn, it hinges on "knowingly," you are correct. But your hypothetical is accurate to a point. Yes, you cannot put the picture in a guy's wallet then have him arrested. However, the second he opens up his wallet and sees it there you can. A famous case involved a guy who had received some photos via email. He did not ask for this email. He did not seek it out. But he knew he had it. In fact, he went into his temporary cache to delete the pictures from his HDD. That act was the proof he knew he had it. BAM! Jail. Of course, they wanted to send him to jail so they went for it, but that's how thin the proof needs to be (in another famous case a farmer was sent repeated catalogs for videos, some of which had children. He never asked for the catalogs and repeatedly asked to be taken off the distribution list. As he had never done anything wrong, he was acquitted. After first being found guilty and having to appeal.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:10 Beamer
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.

Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.

And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.

But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.

This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 17:08 PHJF
 
The federal government quite famously (briefly) regulated toilet seats a few decades ago.

Laws are not enacted/enforced to protect people from themselves. The only recent one I can come up with is that stupid-ass sugar ban in NYC.

Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old?

You have to knowingly possess child porn. I can't go hide a picture of a naked kid in your wallet and have you arrested. And having sex with an underage is negligence. If under the (ludicrous) circumstances provided you were being charged, in all likelihood the grand jury would toss it.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:54 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:32 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?

Bigger government != "daddy."

No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

This is like a vegetarian telling me that I'm going to die from heart disease because eating a diet of mostly red meat is bad for your heart.

Great, whatever, I eat a steak on occasion. It's called moderation. A little of it can be a good thing.

I'll again point to the New Deal, and US v. Carolene Products. Carolene Products wanted to sell unhealthy fake milk. It was called Filled Milk, but let's call it Malk, because we all love The Simpsons. Carolene Products claimed it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to stop them from doing this. The Federal government said it was perfectly within reason for them to stop a company from selling something so clearly unhealthy.

The Federal government won.


But people like you claimed it was a daddy state thing. Today, people like you are ok with a company not being allowed to sell us poison that's labeled as a healthy drink. Why?
Because people like you love the status quo. Something is bad if it's more than what you're used to, but it's fine if it's exactly what you're used to.

Or, do you prefer China, where used newspaper can be sold as a protein bar, because no one really gives a shit and it's all buyer beware. Did you buy something called milk that was really poison in a bottle? Well, you should have done research. Personal responsibility! You can't expect the Federal government to daddy you and protect you!
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:25 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?

Bigger government != "daddy."

No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:25 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:17:
Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was

They absolutely do. Criminal laws establish the culpable mental state of the offender as an element of the crime (negligently, recklessly, knowingly, purposefully).

It's kind of hard to recklessly or negligently aim green lasers at an airplane and then a police helicopter. The little shit got exactly what he deserved.

U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2

Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Bingo bango. Not knowing something is illegal? Not a defense.

Yes, words like reckless imply that a crime can be a crime even if you didn't intend to do harm. This is called mens rea.

But laws don't necessarily have to care.

And some crimes can be a crime regardless of what you meant. Possession of child porn, for one. Have sex with a 14 year old? You're going to jail, even if she looked 60, you checked her birth certificate and social security number, you interviewed her parents, saw a birth announcement from 1953, etc. Most of those laws, as well as things like child pornography laws, or speeding laws, also lack any reference to mens rea.

This is called strict liability. You are liable for doing something regardless of whether you meant to, or whether you were even slightly wrong or negligent for it.

And not knowing something is illegal is never a defense. Well, almost never. If a law is passed and you do something an hour later you may have some kind of defense.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:17 PHJF
 
Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was

They absolutely do. Criminal laws establish the culpable mental state of the offender as an element of the crime (negligently, recklessly, knowingly, purposefully).

It's kind of hard to recklessly or negligently aim green lasers at an airplane and then a police helicopter. The little shit got exactly what he deserved.

U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2

Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Bingo bango. Not knowing something is illegal? Not a defense.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:15 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?

Bigger government != "daddy."
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 15:57 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 15:57 jdreyer
 
I wouldn't mind if the FBI had that power IF there was strict oversight, and IF there was a transparent warrant process. Currently, as the warrantless wiretapping scandal (started by Bush, continued by Obama) shows, without those things, it's rife with abuse.  
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 4.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo