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

Evening Legal Briefs

View
8 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

8. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 20, 2013, 13:57 Beamer
 
InBlack wrote on Aug 20, 2013, 03:56:
Beamer wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 22:46:
jdreyer wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 21:26:
Well, they would say that. They wanted to put Aaron Swartz away for 35. Ridiculous. I can go kill someone and be out in 10 years, but woe be to he who posts secrets online. Hopefully the judge sees reason.

No one wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

The problem with your post, aside from a basic misunderstanding of the Schwartz preceding, is that you're applying one logic to Schwartz and a different logic to killing someone. If you go out and kill someone then "they" would want to put you away for life, by the logic that "they" wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

In reality "they" wanted to put him away for 6 months. That was the offer he turned down. 6 months. Not 35 years, but 1/70th of that. Much like someone that kills someone will likely face life, but end up only going away for 20 years, depending on the circumstances, and then be out on parole in 10 years. Schwartz likely would have been out in a handful of months.

Please don't spread such weird information.

You are always the devils advocate around here Beamer, but fucking hell Schwartz never even did anything wrong and you went too far with this shit. Have some fucking empathy for a change...

I have empathy, but what that guy said is totally misunderstanding how the legal system works. The prosecutors offered him 6 months. And he would have been out quicker with parole. That's enormously different than the "35 years" that people constantly say.

Yes, he faced 35 years. Murderers face life. Saying "he faced 35 years but murderers are on the streets after 10" is the kind of sensational idiocy people always say without understanding how anything actually works. It's the legal equivalent of saying that your iPod sounds better because you have a $5k Monster cable attached to it. Or that your PS2 has better graphics than a PC because of the Emotion Engine and Blast Processing.

That pisses you off, right? Then maybe you'd understand why people totally fucking up how the legal system works to better fit their own story pisses me off, right?

You can't apply one set of logic to one case then a different set of logic to another and compare them. Schwartz, who technically did do something wrong because he broke federal laws, was facing 6 months. 6 months. Not 35 years.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 20, 2013, 13:22 El Pit
 
Hm... How much should George W. get for lying to the people? That's sort of treason, too, right? And how many have died because of his lies? Could the war in Afghanistan have been kind of won if the troops that he sent to Iraq had fought in Afghanistan, too? Oh, sorry. Only the little guys get hung, right. I forgot. Sorry. At least GWB didn't sleep with a young girl in the oval office. Well, THAT would be a reason for impeachment, right? Right.  
Consoles? I owned two: a Pong clone and an Atari 2600. And that's it.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 20, 2013, 03:56 InBlack
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 22:46:
jdreyer wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 21:26:
Well, they would say that. They wanted to put Aaron Swartz away for 35. Ridiculous. I can go kill someone and be out in 10 years, but woe be to he who posts secrets online. Hopefully the judge sees reason.

No one wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

The problem with your post, aside from a basic misunderstanding of the Schwartz preceding, is that you're applying one logic to Schwartz and a different logic to killing someone. If you go out and kill someone then "they" would want to put you away for life, by the logic that "they" wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

In reality "they" wanted to put him away for 6 months. That was the offer he turned down. 6 months. Not 35 years, but 1/70th of that. Much like someone that kills someone will likely face life, but end up only going away for 20 years, depending on the circumstances, and then be out on parole in 10 years. Schwartz likely would have been out in a handful of months.

Please don't spread such weird information.

You are always the devils advocate around here Beamer, but fucking hell Schwartz never even did anything wrong and you went too far with this shit. Have some fucking empathy for a change...
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 19, 2013, 23:39 cronik
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 23:09:
People are getting away with robbery and murder and he's the bad guy?


The bad guys are running the show.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 19, 2013, 23:09 Cutter
 
Manning is guilty of embarrassing the US (Armed Forces) and his superiors. That's entirely what this is about. Has any of the murderers he shone a light on even been charged, much less convicted? Nary a one.
People are getting away with robbery and murder and he's the bad guy?

 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 19, 2013, 22:46 Beamer
 
jdreyer wrote on Aug 19, 2013, 21:26:
Well, they would say that. They wanted to put Aaron Swartz away for 35. Ridiculous. I can go kill someone and be out in 10 years, but woe be to he who posts secrets online. Hopefully the judge sees reason.

No one wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

The problem with your post, aside from a basic misunderstanding of the Schwartz preceding, is that you're applying one logic to Schwartz and a different logic to killing someone. If you go out and kill someone then "they" would want to put you away for life, by the logic that "they" wanted to put Schwartz away for 35 years.

In reality "they" wanted to put him away for 6 months. That was the offer he turned down. 6 months. Not 35 years, but 1/70th of that. Much like someone that kills someone will likely face life, but end up only going away for 20 years, depending on the circumstances, and then be out on parole in 10 years. Schwartz likely would have been out in a handful of months.

Please don't spread such weird information.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Into the Black Aug 19, 2013, 22:04 NegaDeath
 
And still no proof that anyone was harmed.  
Avatar 57352
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Aug 19, 2013, 21:26 jdreyer
 
Well, they would say that. They wanted to put Aaron Swartz away for 35. Ridiculous. I can go kill someone and be out in 10 years, but woe be to he who posts secrets online. Hopefully the judge sees reason.  
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo