Slashdot Mirror

The simplest way to test if what they did was wrong and illegal is what the reaction would have been if a private citizen had done the same thing to the FBI.

Lying to the FBI (or any other federal agents) is illegal. The other way is not.

The FBI, nor any law enforcement agency has the right to willy nilly break the law

They don't alright. And they haven't. Not in this case, anyway.

Even theft laws have degrees. If you steal enough candy bars (over a certain dollar value) then it becomes a felony, with a lot tougher penalty.

Some info: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/grand_theft.html

> we already have laws to cover that crime (child abuse, rape, etc.)

On that subject, wouldn't charging a 14 year old girl with distributing child porn because she sent nude pics of _herself_ to others be child abuse?

The thing is, given current laws and the insane way they are handling things, she might cause innocent people to go to jail for decades (reckless endangerment?), but as you said perhaps those laws or procedures should be fixed so that people like this guy don't go to jail.

Anyway, there are plenty of laws that the prosecutors, cops etc do NOT enforce. For instance adultery could mean life imprisonment in Michigan!

See: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/articles/adultery_life_imprisonment.html

I'm sure there's adultery being committed in Michigan, so where are the life imprisonment cases?

You think adultery is not serious? Go take a survey of people whose spouses have been unfaithful. Ask them how serious it is, compared to say being mugged, beaten up, raped etc. Also ask scientists and researchers in the relevant fields (anthropology etc) on the long term impact of adultery to human society. Then you can work out whether adultery should be a crime or not and if it is, how serious a crime it should be regarded.

How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?

From here:
A number of Supreme Court decisions have made a plaintiff's defamation case more difficult to win. A defamation case can be dismissed if the statements that were made were opinions rather than fact; were true, or are considered "fair comment and criticism." Defamation must also be believable in order to be considered damaging to a person's reputation. In many defamation cases the plaintiff must prove that the defendant deliberately made statement that s/he knew to be false and defamatory

And the Supreme Law of the Land says I'm allowed to carry a gun.

True.

The U.S. Supreme Court has gone on record that guns may be used for self-defence

Sort of. Legal precedent related to self-defense comes all the way from English common law, and most states have their own statutes related to it.

for protection of property

False. Protection of property is not a criterion for justifiable homicide anywhere in the United States. Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.

and for overthrowing a tyrannical government.

The Declaration of Independence said that, not the Supreme Court, but close enough.

The Democrats are hardly innocents, either. St Hillary was Democratic counsel to the Watergate Hearings when they tried to oust Nixon and was so fired up on getting an impeachment rammed through she couldn't see straight. Strange that when Bill came under the gun for perjury she was the first to cry 'Witch hunt'.

While I have no problems with politicians indulging in extramarital sex while in office, I do have a problem when they commit perjury about it. Perjury is a felony, plain and simple. Bill was under oath both times. He lied once. For perjury, once is enough. The impeachment trial was a sham, everybody knew the vote would come down along party lines, politics overriding the issue, which made any possible impeachment of Bush for unconstitutional powergrabs out of the question, the spin being 'We went after your boy, you're just wanting revenge'. A shocking display of American politics at its worst.

What I'd love to see, and I know it's just wishful thinking, is a few real candidates for this goaround. Ain't gonna happen, though. Real candidates haven't won an election since Ike.

... do remember that it's never been easier to commit a sex crime that requires that you're place in a registry. Even people who get busted for 'indecent exposure' while urinating in an unwise place can end up on a sex offender registry.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/in decent.html

Theoretically, you have to be trying to 'assualt' someone by exposing yourself. Of course any DA with an agenda can make certain charges stick with a plea-bargain deal, even when they might not otherwise be applicable.

How many people can afford to hire lawyers necessary to try to defend themselves in such a case? If you do try to fight it, I hope you've got a damn good Public Defender.

It's also a much safer route legally speaking because you aren't directly involved in the criminal act, you're just selling the tools.

Be carefull!!! In the US, you can be charge with being an accessory to a crime.

Two words: contributary negligence.

Everything I see regarding 'contributory negligence' refers to its use in personal injury cases, not in property theft cases.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligen ce
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c125.htm
http://insurance.cch.com/Rupps/contributory-neglig ence.htm
http://www.west.net/~smith/negligence.htm
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/co ntributory_neg.html

Even in situations of contributory negligence, the injured (suing) party must have been negligent to the point that they could have been injured apart from the injuring (sued) party.

Perhaps if I had left all my car doors standing open and the car parked in the middle of the street, I would be contributorially negligent. If it's parked in front my my house with the windows open and gets stolen, I'm not negligent. Apart from the actions of the person stealing my car, I would not be "injured."

As with Microsoft - apart from the actions of those who take malicious action against computers, those computers would not be compromised.

No. In many nations that would make the developers an accessory to a crime:

An accessory to a crime is any individual who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime.

If all it takes is a disclaimer to make legal troubles go away, many of my favorite NES rom sites would still exist!

A file is available on a network, even a private network, and available to the network's signers-on. Are those members not also members of the public?

Read harder into it. Example: in some areas, it is illegal for a member of public to wander around town with a concealed weapon. Undercover cops are members of the public. Yet undercover cops are granted exceptions to this rule in those areas. Similarly, studio employees will be given exemptions.