Slashdot Mirror

Shooting him for what? It is hotel property. You gun nuts are bizarre people.

A woman has reasonable expectation of harm from any man that enters her private living area, be it home or hotel, without invitation. Rape and assault are unfortunately all too common. A knock on the door, a call on the land-line from the hotel lobby, or any basic courtesy, is all it takes to avoid unintended consequences.

Please see Venezuela for what happens when all forms of security are entrusted to the state.

Here in the US, citizens ensure their own safety & security. It's called the 2nd amendment, and the Castle Doctrine is indeed codified in Nevada law.

If you are unclear on the meaning and intent of the term Well Regulated Militia , it means specifically the citizens, including the guests of a hotel:

You 'willing subjects of the state' nuts are bizarre people. It's almost like you chose to live in a fictional world, some kind of Star Trek utopia, where everyone has a prescribed role in society.

context of a well-regulated militia

The militia was and is every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. The term "well-regulated", as used in the Constitution and as understood in other places where it appears in that same document, means that "We the People" will be the ones "regulating" the militia, not the government. A plain reading of the document makes that abundantly clear. Of course, it's difficult to get somebody to understand something when for whatever reason they don't wan't to understand it.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ... The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted.

That was the quote from google from this article
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/...

Wrong. OP's post is absolutely accurate.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/...

No, it doesn't. You are allowed to protect yourself from imminent danger and threats. It's not a murder, it's self-defense. It is actually defined to what you claim it isn't, and has a legal standard which fits. If you believe you are imminent mortal danger, and can reasonably prove that your belief was valid, then it's self-defense and not murder. And being half the size of an attacker can easily grant that. You do not need to be armed to be deadly...

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...

Coffee hot enough to produce third degree burns is too hot. Third degree burns is past blistering, past melting, all the way to exposed muscle. This isn't a little burn, it is quite extensive. McDonald's was warned repeatedly, and decided that the number of burns (700) occuring wasn't worth doing anything about. They knew the issue existed, and refused to settle for $20,000 as the woman offered (which was the cost of treatment, no more).

Everyone involved in the case, except those paid by McDonald's, felt that McDonald's acted willfully and with knowledge of the issue. They intentionally caused the issue knowing that it was lead to significant burns if someone actually tried to drink the coffee.

There was this one time that a company violated safety rules multiple times resulting in substantial human pain and suffering. The courts decided to fine them punitive damages in the amount of 2.7 million dollars, which was still a trivial amount of money to the company.

This is the most often quoted case of our court systems abusing companies and coddling litigious citizens. But it is the epitome of what you are asking for here...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I totally agree. Without EVIDENCE there is no case here.

There is evidence. Certainly not enough to convict, but enough to get a warrant to search for additional evidence. The key question is whether he can be compelled to assist in that search. The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a lock, so I don't see how this is significantly different.

If you are talking about this case, I believe that it is considered to be a "dicta" and is not considered to be binding law. http://blogs.denverpost.com/cr...

How about some facts?

1) The McDonalds coffee in question was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of causing serious 3rd degree burns.

2) Sheila Liebeck was, in fact, very badly burned by the coffee- a vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting.

3) During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.

4) McDonalds revealed during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit "to maintain optimum taste". Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

5) Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would literally burn the mouth and throat.

6) The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages (she had originally only asked for $20,000). This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...

Militia means the common people being called upon to fight. Straight away this encompasses all citizens.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...
http://www.constitution.org/co...

(and for future reference, the English language is not static, so interpretation must be done in the context of the period a piece was written)

There's a reason so many companies have headquarters in the US. And it has nothing to do with taxes.

There absolutely is. The U.S. operates as a tax haven for business entities from foreign countries in much the same way other countries act as a tax haven for U.S. businesses. http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/...

Shady indeed. Missing a single payment (due to a bank clerk error, not mine) and Chase upped my interest rate from almost nothing to 30%...which is evidently illegal in NY, if this site is accurate http://www.lectlaw.com/files/b... and yet they do it anyway.

I paid the fee for missing a payment and closed the account so for me impact was limited but for people caught in the trap 30% is, to say the least, abusive.

More than a decade something like that happened to me. I can remember the agent on the other end rebutting one of my points with the statement, "I am unaware of any applicable usury laws in the state of Colorado." That's when I knew I was in trouble.

Later I found out the rate spike hadn't been solely due to one late payment, but also due to a student loan that was supposed to be in deferral but messed up my credit rating before the paperwork cleared. Amazingly, once it did clear up, I was able to successfully argue with the credit card company that they had not properly informed me of the reasons for the rate hike. I not only got them to lower the rate back from 30%+ to something closer to 12%, but also got them to refund several months worth of inappropriate interest. Honestly, I'm still amazed I got that through the system. They gave me a ton of runaround and were repeatedly late following up on things (once even blaming a multi-week delay on a snow storm in North Dakota, as if snowstorms up there in midwinter were somehow an unusual thing). It took a ton of patience and documentation and pushing them.

T

I'm kinda on the fence with regards to how I feel about this. One one hand, the banks are doing some shady stuff and directly trying to set people up for financial disaster for their own benefit. On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means. Personally I've managed to never pay interest on any of mine. I guess it's gotta be a middle ground. Much as I hate nanny-state type stuff, I feel like this is one area we may need the government to come in and save people from themselves by restricting how much credit a person can hold based on income or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Shady indeed. Missing a single payment (due to a bank clerk error, not mine) and Chase upped my interest rate from almost nothing to 30%...which is evidently illegal in NY, if this site is accurate http://www.lectlaw.com/files/b... and yet they do it anyway.

I paid the fee for missing a payment and closed the account so for me impact was limited but for people caught in the trap 30% is, to say the least, abusive.

Although my understanding is imperfect as I'm a transplant to this country, my understanding of the way it works here in France is that banks, et. al. can lend you as much as they choose to but they can't collect debt that you can't pay if they've loaned you more than you can pay back with 30% of your income. End result is that the banks balk at lending that exceeds that 30% soft limit.

The temperature of the McDonald's coffee was already below industry recommended levels.

The temperature of the McDonald's coffee was from 82 to 88 C at the max according to plaintiffs lawyers, so by the time served less.

Horseshit.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...

McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

Do you just make up the lies, or do you recycle them from AM radio? Nobody else served it that hot. Nobody else had to change the temperature they were serving coffee at. Have you ever owned a restaurant? Do you know anybody who works in a restaurant? The only way to think that temperature is normal is to be in complete ignorance of serving temperatures or burn safety, and also to refuse to read the facts about the case.

According to the framers of the constitution, it means well trained.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...

It also has been held by the Supreme Court as the meaning of that phrase.

Also, the phrase isn't worded the way you think.

In order to have a well regulated (trained) militia (all able bodied men between x and y ages), EVERYONE should be allowed to own arms without restriction.

That is my paraphrasing, but if you read the ammendment, it is pretty much what they were saying. Also, it has been held up by the Supreme Court that it applies to ALL weapons that would be used by the military, so if you can afford it, you are supposed to be able to own Nukes, or Tanks, or Fighter Jets.

It is kind of funny, but yeah, you can actually own tanks and fighter jets and most conventional arms, though nukes are not allowed for other reasons.

You are saying even if they felt like they didn't do anything wrong,

There is the rub. They knew they were doing something wrong and did it anyway. They knew they were brewing coffee too hot as they had been warned several times before. They brew hotter so more flavour is extracted and less ground coffee needs to be used. One of the reasons the award was so bit gas that they put a few dollars profit above customer safety. Serving coffe at a temperature that would burn the inside of the mouth when it is designed to be consumed immediately is what got them into trouble.

But on the other hand I (and most people) brew coffee at > 180 degrees at home every day and manage not to soak cotton sweatpants with it to cook our skin for 30 seconds.

I bet that you cool the coffee with milk, as she was trying to do, or wait until you drink it. Coffee that hot would burn your mouth.

Which I have to say, I don't pity them much for. But I also don't think the lawsuit made much sense.

Read a few more facts and you will see that justice was served.

The phrase is ambiguous. But if you learn a little history, you'd know that the framers didn't mean what you think.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...

Uhm, wait... "that guy" is still telling the McDonalds hot-coffee thing, after all these years? Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Please read the section "Trial and Verdict."

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

There are plenty of things that will hurt you, if you are careless with them. Most hot coffee is indeed that hot.

Actually, it's not. I'd encourage you to read the facts about the Hot Coffee case. McDonald's coffee was about 50 degrees hotter than home-brewed, and significantly hotter than most other establishments.

Coffee cups are a really bad example to bring up here. The warnings are there to try and dislodge ideas like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The reason that woman won a large judgement against McDonald's is that they were knowingly selling an unsafe product and just didn't care what happened to their customers.

So the problems leading to the warnings were not so much that people were stupid. It was that some number of corporations selling coffee were acting irresponsibly. In a social environment where legal penalties are the only way to add corporate accountability for unsafe behavior, you're kind of stuck with suing them to make a useful change. And when that happens, you can expect that those companies are going to add warnings to try and reduce their liability. That's not really connected to consumers being dumb in the coffee case.

The reason why that's a particularly bad example is that people see that sort of necessary legal action, and then apply it to shifting blame for any problem with a product. The subtle difference is that the McDonald's coffee was unfit for its stated purpose as sold, making it defective by objective measures. You cannot measure anything wrong with an Apple product because it lets you view porn. That's a subjective, moral issue rather than something you can build a factual case around.

> What won't happen is that some ditz who bought a hot beverage and spilled it in there lap and got burned

Sad to see people still completely and totally ignorant of the FACTS this many years later:

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

For the record, the "McDonalds hot coffee" thing was NOT an example of lawsuit abuse, even though it's commonly trotted out as an example of it.

It's more an example of "McDonalds screwed up, then refused to do anything to make it right, then was sued and lost".

More on it can be found here and if you think she wasn't that badly hurt, check out the picture of the burns here (warning: not safe for lunch).

Found one in Georgia. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm Guilty of consensual sodomy.

Well, it doesn't have to be life threatening to be duress, but there is a degree of danger/fear that has to be there before it counts as duress legally. There's a standard you have to meet before something goes from "pressure" (which is legal) to "duress" (which invalidates a contract): ... "they must be such as would naturally operate on a person of ordinary firmness, and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation or fortune" via http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm

But even setting that aside: can *inaction* or the refusal to do something you are under no obligation to do, be duress?

Okay, if your insurance carrier mandates these Doctors and they all require this, I can maybe see your point... except, I know I had to agree to a contract to get my insurance, and my choices were basically, "no health care" or sign up.

You have a right to life, but you don't necessarily have a right to have your health needs served on your terms or by whom you want: doctors are private citizens and not civil servants. They can require you sign a contract to get their service and its not duress: Kaiser for example, requires you to sign a contract that waives the right to sue them, insisting instead on an arbitration system. This has been upheld repeatedly in the Courts.

You're free to refuse it -- even if that "freedom" is sorta just "technically" and not entirely ground in reality. I, for instance, can't really afford any other health insurance option but Kaiser (which is offered by my work: and which I'm actually quite happy with), so in all practical reality, I'm forced to agree to their contract terms to get my regular check ups and the medicine I need to not-die. But honestly, I don't think that "forced" actually technically rises to any level of legal duress.

Yep. They're kinda like a set of statements to be used indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

No. They are exactly a set of values to be fed into a set of statements that are designed to interpret them. "Statement" has specific meanings in law, programming, and logic, none of which map to "a data series".

From your link for a legal definition of "statement": "An oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion."

And from the statute I quoted: "A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

Now, let me get this straight... You think that when Congress wrote both of those (since the sole legal definition you cited is from Chapter 28 of the US Code), they meant that a computer program is set of oral or written assertions or nonverbal conduct of a person, intended by an assertion?

'Cause wow. I mean, really... Wow.

Anyways, sorry, you're wrong. Congress may be stupid, but they aren't as stupid as that assertion. The "legal" definition you're citing to is the definition of an evidentiary statement from the federal rules of civil and criminal procedure. That is distinct from the definition in 17 USC, in which it stands in contradistinction to an "instruction". The statements are "the set of values to be fed into a set of instructions that are designed to interpret them."

Yep. They're kinda like a set of statements to be used indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

No. They are exactly a set of values to be fed into a set of statements that are designed to interpret them. "Statement" has specific meanings in law, programming, and logic, none of which map to "a data series".

Even if they don't complain now, they could complain later on

So much for the theory that viablos is FM. I'm pretty sure that Florian knows about doctrine of laches, and won't bother to post such ignorant nonsense.

Probable Cause is listed as: "A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992)." src: cite

What this means is that, any issuing authority can go before a judge and explain a "reasonble suspicion" of a criminal act, under oath, and have a warrant for arrest or seizure issued by that magistrate.

You do have recourse if the government issues a warrant and your property is seized using a invalid warrant. Anything from "suppression of evidence" if you are being charged with a crime, to civil suits based on damage accrued.

Any of the 84,000 sites that were accidentally cut off, including FreeDNS' have the legal right to sue in civil court for any lost revenue and/or other damages pursuant to the civil code of the state the business is registered in.

"As designed?" We're clearly dicussing an exploit. Nobody designs slot machines and deliberately inserts autowin codes. He used the device "as is" in a way that clearly violated the anticipated design of the machine.

What makes it a forgery is this: The machine claimed he won. He did, in fact, not win. He forced the machine to incorrectly indicate that the casino owed him money. This is not exactly a "written" instrument, but it's close enough: The machine's "you have won!" display functions equivalently to a document purporting to entitle him to a large amount of cash. But it was not produced as a result of a legitimate game of chance, which is what the machine is supposed to do. Instead it was produced as a result of deliberately triggering a malfunction, which was then misrepresented as legitimate.

When he claimed the jackpot, he presented the printout, the winning screen on the slot machine, whatever as proof that he had won the game of chance. Playing the slots at the casino is effectively entering into a contract with the casino: Play this game of chance according to the rules, and if you win, we will pay you according to the reward schedule. He didn't play according to the rules, instead, he misused casino property to made it appear as if he had. As I see it, that definitely falls under 'the fraudulent making and alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right.'

No, it was kept at a higher temperature than is safe or customary.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

        -dZ.

When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion

He wrongfully assumed a right to use computer code (and sought to derive value from it), in violation of the terms of his employment.

And I didn't even have to walk across the hall and [blah...blah...blah...]

Not true. If a verdict (guilty or not guilty) has not been reached, there is no double jeopardy invoked. It doesn't even matter if (as someone else has suggested) the jury has been seated. In fact, you can go through the entire legal process and at the end, if you wind up with a hung jury then the case can still be retried without it being double jeopardy. You can even be tried by a state prosecutor, found not guilty, and then be tried by a federal prosecutor without it being double jeopardy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States

Double jeopardy also does not apply if the defendant was never tried from the start. Charges that were dropped or put on hold for any reason can always be reinstated in the future if not barred by any statute of limitations.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

'[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

They can't, because the bidding process indemnifies the contractor.

In return, the contractor has to comply with the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA, which will put contractor personnel in jail if there are any lies being told, whether through knowing underbidding or knowing overbidding.

TINA is a bitch. It requires the company to tell the government the truth. Not just the person writing the bid. So if the person writing the bid calculates X dollars for N units of wing-nut Z in a fighter jet, but a person at the company's subsidiary knows those wing nuts can be bought for YX dollars, then the person writing the bid, and possibly the entire chain of authority above him, can end up in the can.

But, once you use TINA, all decisions are the government's, so all fault is the government's. And any changes and overruns are approved by the government in real-time, so they're indemnified, too. At the top are the political denizens of government, who, when they realize they've put their foot in it by allowing all these "reasonable" changes and overruns to the point that the total has become embarassing, suddenly turn around in their chairs and point fingers at anyone but themselves until the cameras turn off.

They do have a right to be there, but if they don't identify themselves the owner doesn't know that.

If it was impossible for the owner to realize that he was dealing with federal agents instead of vandals then he can't be prosecuted under the laws dealing with assault of a federal officer.

Of course, the feds are perfectly willing to ruin someone's life regardless of what the law actually says so in the end it's moot.

A law library's web page is not authoritative but this is what it says:

A person can be found guilty of the offense of assaulting a Federal officer only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person forcibly assaulted the person described in the indictment; Second: That the person assaulted was a Federal officer as described above, then engaged in the performance of his official duty, as charged; and Third: That the person did such acts knowingly and willfully.

It is not necessary to show that the person knew the person being forcibly assaulted was, at that time, a Federal officer carrying out an official duty so long as it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was, in fact, a Federal officer acting in the course of his duty and that the person willfully committed a forcible assault upon him.

On the other hand, the person would not be guilty of a willful assault if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt concerning whether the person knew the victim to be a Federal officer and only acted as he did because of a reasonable, good faith belief that he needed to defend himself against an assault by a private citizen.

Treason is *VERY* far away. Constitutional amendment far. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

I think what the article means to say is that "In canada, they're not litigation happy, and the courts have made it very difficult to get a multimillion dollar settlement for pouring hot coffee on your lap and claiming that it was the fault of the coffee shop for not telling you that coffee is hot... (and other such nonsense cases ... like awarding a family damages over the autism-caused-by-vaccines debacle which has been debunked by real scientists over and over...)".

I love how everyone uses that case as their poster-child for all things wrong in American courts. I guess everyone is susceptible to media bias as one point or another. Here's the actual facts of the case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Right now, the working assumption is that he is in control of the domain. The damage is done. And yes, he is the legal owner of the domain, thanks to the lax way that domain registrations are carried out. He has the opportunity to get the domain under his boss's control within a few hours. Now think for a moment - what happens if he doesn't do this?

The real danger for him, as of today

If I were his boss or a co-worker, and I read this thread next week, I would be really p*ssed off that he didn't take these simple and obvious steps, steps that could resolve everything in a day or two at no, or minimal, expense. I would draw one of two negative inferences:

1. That this appeal for help is just posturing, he really did register the domain, and that doing this would reveal that he paid for it, or
2. That he is a gutless wonder with no common sense, and I would pray he goes to work for my biggest competitor.

Either way, he would no longer be just suspended - he'd be fired, since his inaction jeopardized both the company and his position in it. And they'd be right. Someone gives you an easy way to clear everything up in 24 hours, and you don't at least bring it to their attention ASAP after a very public appeal for help? It wouldn't pass the smell test. All he has to do is forward a link to this thread, and ask the boss what information they want in the updated dns record. Problem solved.

Unless, of course, this request for help was a sham.

Steal it back!

Someone stole your identity, and you have a chance to steal it back, then you steal it back ... And hope they're stupid enough to file a complaint, like the crackhead who went to the police to complain that they got cheated on a drug deal.

Not that he's really stealing it back - he is the owner of record already. If he weren't he wouldn't be in hot water up to his neck.

"Run it by a lawyer" - like a lawyer has a clue as to how these things work. Know any retired judges or lawyers? Ask their opinion of lawyers, off the record. Even lawyers who aren't retired admit that most lawyers (7 out of 8 by one measure) are liars who routinely cheat their clients.

B: the reason why she won the case was that was shown that Ms Donalds put profit before safety. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's a good job you USAnians dumped the tea. In tea-drinking countries (UK, Ireland, India, China, etc), tea is as served as close to boiling point as possible, and we even have rituals to make sure of that ("pot to kettle, never kettle to pot..."). In India, tea is often served with a second, empty, cup, so the customer can pour the tea from one to the other until it's cool enough to drink. Somehow we tea-drinkers manage without incinerating ourselves.

The woman suing Mc Donalds wasn't stupid. A: she got quite a lot of cash out of it, and B: the reason why she won the case was that was shown that Ms Donalds put profit before safety. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The McD coffee was at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association, and generally not that far off from what most chains serve.

Ah, the National Coffee Association, that noted consumer safety organization.

The McDonalds lawsuit was meritorious -- the woman suffered third degree burns. More than 700 people had previously been burned, some with third degree burns, by their dangerously defective product. McDonalds deliberately served their coffee much hotter than competitors, at a temperature that their own quality assurance manager testified posed a burn hazard.

safety feature (that tight lid)

The vast majority of coffee consumers add things like cream and sugar to their coffee. This necessitates removing the lid. Calling that "defeating a safety feature" is the stupidest thing I've heard this week.

while holding the cup in an inherently unsafe way (by holding it between her legs.)

Let's see, I'm sitting in a car, I've got my sugar in one hand, I need one hand to remove the lid. (I'm 79 years old so it's not like my fingers are the most dexterous any more and I can do both with one hand.) Where the fsck else do I put the coffee? (Kids -- cars didn't always come with cupholders. They were pretty rare in 1992.)

You may now apologize for your defamation of Ms. Liebeck...or you can show yourself to be a mindless corporate apologist.

So I can't speak to all of those, but usually when people win, there is more to the story that gets left out in the email forwards telling the story. For instance, in the case of the McDonalds coffee thing, they did try to settle for FAR less to cover the medical bills. The coffee at McDonalds was 180-190 degrees, not 134-145 degrees like at home, and thus caused 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting. Yes, we expect coffee to be hot, but we don't expect it to be THAT hot. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Worth reading.

That looks like a typical Webster's definition. Here's one from the 'Lectric Law Library. If we're going to be discussing the legality of things, a legal definition is more relevant:

STEAL

the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises.

This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.

In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I would guess that in a country where coffee that is heated beyond all industry standards, and served to customers at a temperature unfit for human consumption can get you sued

Fixed that for you. Kindly read up on the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case before repeating the bullshit that "all lawsuits are bad."

Yes it is, and if you search for that phrase you will see that it is short for Supreme court justices, where the apostrophe stands for court justice. I have seen this contraction before and thought it strange until I had it explained to me. You will find that many newspapers and such use it. For example: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/exp20.htm

Supremes is also used, but I've never been able to figure out what Diana Ross had to do with the Supreme Court.

So, sorry to be a pendant, but to answer your question, yes, I do type English, and apparently I understand it better than you. CmdrTaco is using correct grammer and spelling.

Can we get back to a world where a person said something after they gathered information on it?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

Agents in the case being anyone they could pay. Paying someone to bring you criminals is a really bad idea, since any judge would immediately consider the conflict of interest as a cause to have reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

I'm sure that paragraph could include a massive amount of legal terms if written by a lawyer.

IANAL, but, wouldn't that make a good case for estoppel? Saying that there were well known, visible implementations of this technology in the field for years, and the rights holder waited until commercial viability and adoption to give economic incentive to litigate. Seems like the definition of estoppel to me (in my NAL understanding).

Well, no, that isn't even remotely the definition of estoppel (IANALE) : http://lectlaw.com/def/e040.htm

ESTOPPEL (estopped) A bar which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body. An estopple arises when someone has done some act which the policy of the law will not permit her to deny.

IOW, Estoppel would require someone to first say there are no patents, then to claim them, or have somebody keep still in an official enquiry if there was a patent and (again) claim later - AFAIK there is no such enquiry process regarding patents.

Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

Accident != "Genuine" accident.

Really? I'd have thought a genuine accident would be the most accidental kind of accident there could be.

A genuine accident (I tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and fell over, bumping into you and knocking your head into a building and killing you) is still technically manslaughter (killing a person), but there would be no conviction because it was truly an accident.

Technically schmechnically. If it was manslaughter then there would be a conviction, subject to the usual gubbins like a convincing a jury.

You probably aren't aware that there are two forms of manslaughter - involuntary and voluntary. Taking the phrase at face value, what you describe would appear to fall under the involuntary type. However legal terms often don't mean what they appear to do. As the link says:

In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

OK, you got that. If tripping constitutes an act, which it may or may not. According to the third subprinciple, it isn't.

Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Walking along the street is not what I would call reckless or dangerous to human life.

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others. "

Which clearly is not the case.

The example I gave of driving an unroadworthy car however satisfies all three.

If I walked up behind you and simply pushed you into the wall, not meaning to kill you but just meaning to hurt you, and you died - that would be considered an accident but I'd probably still face some punishment. That's not a "genuine" accident. But it is an accident.

And that would be voluntary manslaughter - intending to injure but going too far. Google it, you clearly need the practice.

Any single juror can pronounce the defendant "not guilty," and it would have the force of law behind it.
"snip"
Any one juror answering "yes" to the second question would mean an acquittal.

Sorry, but no. In the US the decision of the jury must be unanimous. That decision can be for acquittal or for conviction, but those are the only definite conclusions. A jury that cannot reach a unanimous decision only results in a mistrial, not an acquittal. The prosecution is free to start over if they so desire.

When two police officers are giving contradictory orders, as in this case, and the result is a charge of "failure to comply," it's entrapment, pure and simple.

Entrapment has a very specific legal definition.

From lectlaw:
ENTRAPMENT
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.