Slashdot Mirror

Just look at Corning! The company is now BANKRUPT all based on what is now fully dis-credited "junk science" that somehow linked immunodeficiency illnesses to silicone breast implants.

Wrong. Corning filed bankrupsy to try to get out of the breast implant case.

Or at least according to http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur28.htm and http://overlawyered.com/archives/00oct1.html#00100 6a and many other links.

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

No. The fellow who said something unkind on the Internet has the right to post it on his OWN web page. At present, the slandered party must find another web page. They are NOT allowed by the mighty WebMasters to post on the same page that slandered them, so they have less freedom of speech. They have to find another forum. This is rather like using a megaphone at a cocktail party. The mighty WebMasters demand the right to censor other contributions by exclusion. What this law is about is making the Internet public property, not the private domain of the mighty WebMasters, who expect to say what they want, in public and one way (i.e. without allowing the other party to respond in the same forum).
Look man, get your terms straight first. SLANDER is a deliberately false statement made with malicious intent to do harm to another's reputation; it is done VERBALLY. LIBEL is the printed version of SLANDER, and since we're talking about the World Wide Web here, LIBEL is the term you should use, not SLANDER. LIBEL is an actionable crime under the law, whether in the US or in Germany. If someone has been libeled, they take the libelous party to court. Here is a legal definition of libel with some examples. I'm sure Google can help you find more.
So now that we've gotten LIBEL out of the way, that leaves the rest of the objectionable bits, which essentially amount to you not being able to deal with other people's exercise of free speech. Free speech is the right to speak your mind; this right is not abridged by consideration of others. In a free society, you have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to say things that please you. In no way is free speech constituted so that you can only say what you like if you repeat others' objections to your opinion. Bear in mind that we are not talking about news organizations here, we are talking about people's own web pages and blogs.
And that's just on principle. Then there are the practical nightmares of trying to enforce this law effectively on the general population.
Finally... "the mighty WebMasters?" WTF is that, some kind of comic book villain? Despair, mortals! The WebMaster is come to destroy you! Bwahahaha! Seriously, a web master is just a name for a guy who updates and administers a web page. In the case of someone's blog or personal web page, that's the owner. So do you think people should no longer have rights over their own web pages?

{from article} SCO said that the termination of the AIX license means that all IBM Unix customers also have no license to use the software. "This termination not only applies to new business by IBM, but also existing copies of AIX that are installed at all customer sites. All of it has to be destroyed," Sontag said.

I think the courts will disagree with SCO. The term to apply here is called estoppel, which basically means that they can't retroactively change the terms of your license. IANAL. SCO can deny further use of the UNIX license to IBM for AIX, but that doesn't mean the copies of AIX that I am using now will in any way are "invalid".

If you sell someone the right to use a peice of software, you are essentially selling them intellectual "property" (gee, thus the term.) Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the grant is perpetual ...

The term everyone is looking for is called estoppel, which basically means that they can't retroactively change the terms of your license. IANAL. SCO can deny further use of the UNIX license to IBM for AIX, but that doesn't mean the copies of AIX that I am using now will in any way become "invalid".

SCO seems to be out on a limb here. 6/13 deadline or not, this won't have an immediate impact on current AIX users.

-jh

No, it isn't extortion, it is barratry.

How about tortious interference? IBM says it has a license in perpetuity and that's that. Okay, so why is SCO giving press releases about this bogus deadline instead of suing IBM? IBM could argue that SCO is intentionally trying to damage IBM's business, since (presumably) SCO is wrong about IBM's license.

Get some facts; don't spew drivel.

I see a major problem with SCO's case that no is talking about. That is the equitable doctrine of laches, which prevents a party asserting a claim against another too long a time after he could have, i.e., long after the offended party knew about the damage it supposedly suffered.

The source of the Linux kernel has been open for public inspection from its very inception, and SCO has been free to look through it and discover instances of copyright violation. Even more damning against it, SCO's own people have worked with the source, distributing their "own" version of Linux. There's no way they can claim that they couldn't have known about the issue for all these years.

Here's a nice little quote from a N.Y. state court case that failed to find laches due to a short delay of two years:

• "Laches is an equitable doctrine which bars recovery where a party's inaction has prejudiced another party, making it inequitable to permit recovery" (Vickery v. Village of Saugerties, 106 AD2d 721)

Here are some other interesting cites:

• Understanding Basic Copyright Law Has some examples of where laches might be used.
• Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Executive Dev., Inc. (Federal district court, laches defense successful).

P.S. - I am a registered patent agent, not an attorney. This means that I don't practice copyright law, and nothing above is legal advice or the opinion of any client etc. I'm also an open-source software author, which I suppose is a bit like a butcher being a vegetarian...

There might be something to the idea that consumers are to blame.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Most EULAs include denials of Merchantability and denials of Fitness.

This is usually the part of the EULA that is in all caps. (It was required to be in all caps by the state of CA in an effort to make sure people read it, but as an aside, I would argue that putting in caps almost guarantees that no one reads it.)

Now, could you imagine if you were about to drive over a bridge and there was a sign saying "By driving over this bridge, you acknowledge that this bridge is not warranteed for any particular purpose and the owner makes no guarantees whatsoever that it may do or not do anything."

Essentially translated: "This bridge should not be driven over by anyone for any reason whatsoever. If you still want to do that, stop and pay a toll!"

I don't think people would stand for that. Yet people accept denials of merchantability and fitness all the time in software. Those terms in EULAs were put there specifically because software makers back in the day were getting sued under product liability laws. It's rather shocking that people put up with it.

There might be something to the idea that consumers are to blame.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Most EULAs include denials of Merchantability and denials of Fitness.

This is usually the part of the EULA that is in all caps. (It was required to be in all caps by the state of CA in an effort to make sure people read it, but as an aside, I would argue that putting in caps almost guarantees that no one reads it.)

Now, could you imagine if you were about to drive over a bridge and there was a sign saying "By driving over this bridge, you acknowledge that this bridge is not warranteed for any particular purpose and the owner makes no guarantees whatsoever that it may do or not do anything."

Essentially translated: "This bridge should not be driven over by anyone for any reason whatsoever. If you still want to do that, stop and pay a toll!"

I don't think people would stand for that. Yet people accept denials of merchantability and fitness all the time in software. Those terms in EULAs were put there specifically because software makers back in the day were getting sued under product liability laws. It's rather shocking that people put up with it.

Wow... had you gone to Google, typed in "mcdonalds coffee" without the quotes, and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky", you would have reached this page.

You claim she was lacking personal responsibility. However, she was not driving at the time of the incident. Nor was the car moving.

Funny, because according to this, McDonalds research shows that people drink coffee they buy at the drive-through while they are in the car. Wait... that's what you were trying to claim two paragraphs above. As much as you'd like to make it appear otherwise, she was not the one lacking in responsibility.

Nope, entrapment is defined as: 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. They are not getting them to commit a crime, they already did that, they are just getting them to turn themselves in.

But i had to look up what Indemnity means. I myself am curious as to what companies will pay for damages for using their software. It would be nice to see Microsoft pay for the billions of dollars of damage there software causes on the internet due to worms and the sort.

Actually, no they have not. Part of the definition of perjury is not only that the statement was false, but that the witness knew the statement was false and intended to mislead the court. (Source The 'Lectric Law Library). While the statements are technically false, there apparently is no intent to mislead anyone, the BSA admitted a mistake, and offered remedial actions to change future behavior. Courts deal with clerical errors all the time.

But it's much more useful than that - if they're able to collect all that information, they can correlate it with people who give money to the Green Party or peace groups or environmental groups (some of whom are already on the TSA's not-allowed-to-fly lists because of their political incorrectness.) Also, the increased "information sharing" between the US civilian police agencies, spook agencies, and military, plus the redefinitions of lots of forms of vice as "national security" issues means that they can use those hotel bills from Humboldt County, California to decide to give your luggage a lot of extra attention when you're flying back from Amsterdam, or ask the Internal Revenue Service to check out your tax returns after that trip to Las Vegas just in case you might have been "money laundering" or passing some cash to that suspicious Penn fellow.

So contracting a debilitating illness while in combat in Kuwait,

What debilitating illness is that? Your not talking about the "illness" that a lot of hypochondriacs and those hoping for lifetime government subsidies (medical vacations) are claiming, right?

Invent an illness. Any illness. Publicize it widely. Someone will have matching symptoms, especially if there is a medical disability check involved. This is unfortunate for the minority who really are suffering from inexplicable illness, but that's human nature.

Before you sputter too much, I was there, thank you. It was less dangerous than a boisterous Xmas party. I'd wager that more people have choked to death on chewing gum than died during the entire conflict. I'm speaking of Americans, of course. Not because I'm discounting the deaths of the thousands of innocent Iraqis we murdered, but because those deaths seem to be invisible.

People get sick. Every day - soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. Gosh, even civilians. We don't deserve handouts because of it.

Yes, I know. You have a brother who has a friend who has THE SYNDROME, so you know it is real. Or you are a sufferer. Or your brother is, or someone else who is near and dear. Well, I do feel for the real sufferers, for they undoubtedly exist, but for all of the rest I would like to introduce you to the friend of a friend who has a cousin who was abducted by an alien proctologist.

Well lets see. While in the military, you could not publicly make the statement you just did. I would be considered treason against your Commander-In-Chief, and could result in prison.

You would be amazed at the level of free speech you have in the military. I swas in the USAF for ten years, and said whatever I wanted whenever I wanted, including, on more the one occasion, "Fuck the President."

Ronald/Bush/Bill may have been my Commanders-In-Chief, but they weren't my buddies (although I did vote for Bill), so I didn't feel bad criticizing them, and it was my right to do so.

Treason, incidentally, is defined thusly: "treason...consist[s] only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort." The reference can be found here.

Now, when I wrote an anti-flag letter to the Stars and Stripes (an overseas US military rag), I did take shit for it, including bricks through my window. But the letter was published, and I received no censure or reprimand.

This isn't a troll or a flamebait, though some will probably perceive it as such.

Oh, well. Life goes on (and sometimes it doesn't).

I would think that would come under the Implied Warranty Of Merchantability.

er, I'll learn to link, first .. but herer it is

All these replies are just wonderful, really. However, every factual resource disagrees with you.

Kindly read here, here, here, and... oh lord, I could go on, but why?

Yes, you're all way too manly to be afraid of boiling hot water. Yes, yes, indeed, you must have very large testicles, or something, I'm not sure why you need to think you're so macho. 180-190 degrees is *HOT*. And sure, the coffee you get from McDonalds has just been made, passed through grounds! Or, maybe it's been stored in a huge vat for several hours, and you're kidding yourself. And yes, coffee should be *hot* or else you don't like it! Yes, but not that hot, even if you don't admit it. And I'm sure they drink it when they get in to work, even though McDonalds' own research indicates the vast majority *try* to drink it right away, while driving.

Besides. Of course you people are perfect. You've never spilled a drink in your life! You're fully comfortable having to hold a fucking *beverage* container as if it held nuclear waste. Severe burns that will require surgery? In *UNDER TWO SECONDS*? Yeah, sure. Clearly, this is appropriate.

All your points have the following in common:

1) Enhanced machismo. Clearly you're making up for something.
2) Finding humor, reveling in your own ignorance. You don't care about the actual facts, it just makes you happy to think, "Ha, ha. She's so dumb, she got burned by coffee!" Sure, just neglect the fact that she's 80, *wasn't* driving, and was holding a liquid in a fragile, disposable cup, capable of doing a full skin burn in under two seconds.
3) Express strong opinions, without really having a deep understanding of what your talking about.

I know, 3 really shouldn't surprise me, considering what website this is. Oh well. You know what? Think whatever you want, since trying to change the minds of the willfully ignorant is one of the most difficult things you can do. McDonalds now serves coffee at 160, which is still way too hot to drink, but is several orders of magnitude too cool to cause severe damage, just like *every other fast food chain* has always done. Good.

Well, I may be a twit, but at least I'm not an anonymous one.

If you want facts, get facts:

- the cup didn't melt, she attempted to open it while holding it between her knees;
- the high temperature was not for optimum yield, but for optimum taste.

A judge going ballistic and awarding large damages because he felt his court wasn't receiving due respect is hardly the image I have of Justice.

is the doctrine of laches. You can't claim back dues for patent infringement if the person you're suing honestly didn't know about your patent. This supposedly puts a stop to "submarine patents".

What the hell are you ranting about? Must be some other case, as the facts are pretty much agreed upon:

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

So the TRANSFER was complete, she was not distracted by driving, she was not rolling up her window, she was not (that we know of) jostled, she just klutzed out and spilled it on herself through (your words) nothing but her own incompetence.

More stuff:
When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales ... ) The award was later reduced to ~480,000, and she accepted a check for less than that - but I can't find a definitive final amount. :(

Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car.
The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. [She was not the driver and the car was not moving.]
The cup tipped and spilled over her lap.

I have to assume you are thinking about this case - "[The attorney]planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000." but, as it is not the case being discussed, your rant is also irrelevent to the discussion.

Well, read this. Among other things, the coffee was somewhere around 180 or 190 degrees F. Yeow!

This wouldn't have been entrapment even had the police been the ones offering the item for sale on Ebay to begin with. All that happened was that an opportunity was created for him to use one of his counterfeit checks. Nobody even had to suggest to him that he illegally pay for the item with a counterfeit check, and even if somebody were to suggest it to him, including the police, it would not neccessarily be entrapment. (See the above link) He wasn't even approached asking to legally buy the item. He initiated the transaction himself in response to a publicly posted auction, which although admittedly posted as bait, was nothing even remotely resembling entrapment.

Total Information Awareness will be used for the security of all American citizens, watching over you with the compassion and leadership of a big broth---er, uh - a favorite uncle.

Our glorious leader will leverage these tools to usher in a new era of safety and prosperity, unfettered by the shackles of complicated and antiquated laws. Never fear, no terrorist will be able to hide behind the The Constitution.

Of course, we rely on your cooperation and your TIPS to ensure our enduring freedom.

Everything is warm and fuzzy. War is peace.

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

You know what they say about people who represents themselves in a court of law? Glad I'm not you guys.

Legal definition of property

Copyright myths dispelled

The actual law

Fair use & copyright resourse at stanford

More resourses pro & con

Intellectual property

I know people don't want to read and understand the above, but they certainly want to voice their opinion of the way it should be when the law comes after them. A little late IMHO.

McDonalds maintained an *unsually* high temperature for optimal coffee taste that could (and did) cause third degree burns. Other vendors maintain *lower* temperature, that can still cause burns but not to such great extent.

It might be entrapment, but its not as if that is illegal- cops do it all the time. What I mean is, American police can get away with committing the English definition of "entrapment", if they don't meet the strict legal definition of entrapment.

Basically, when they take you to court, the prosecutors have an additional burden to show that you had a pre-existing inclination to commit the crime, before the undercover cops spoke with you. That's not very hard if they can find evidence of prior violations when searching your home & computer after the arrest.

If cops want to, they can use entrapment to get you arrested and have some search warrants made. If fruits of those searches are enough to indict you, then the District Attorney can completely ignore the entrapped offense, and just focus on the earlier violations.

Fortunately for you, today's undercover cops aren't interested in puny busts like this. Someday that could change...

I should really make this a text file so I don't have to type it each time...

The McDonald's case, although popular belief would hold otherwise, was actually a reasonably good decision. The story brought to the jury, which is all that is allowed to be decided upon, goes as such. The lady recieved second and third degree burns all around her lower torso and legs, to the extent that quite a bit of plastic surgery was required. However even including reimbursment for medical bills and pain and suffering the compensatory damage was very small (160,000 USD). I think almost everyone can agree that was probably fair, since it compensates her for her lost time, and expenses. The rest of the judgement was punative, and was intended to punish the McDonalds corporation for their behavior. Keep in mind that the verdict was probably calculated as a result of McDonald's finances. It was later reduced to 3 times compensatory damages.
What sort of behavior would incite a jury to want to punish the company like that? Well, first of all realize that coffee is usually served around 160 F (~71 C), which will not produce the burns she suffered. The coffee was estimated to be about 190 F (~87 C), by medical experts, from the nature and severity of the burns. McDonald's was not errant in keeping their coffee this hot, it was corporate policy. The policy was designed to save money, because hotter coffee lasted longer before dispoal was required. The jury deemed this action so negligent that they decided to punish the company, hense the judgement.

You can read much more than I wish to type here, at a consumer's attorney page here.

She was the most famous victim, but not the only one by any means:

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.

Good luck sipping this:

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[....] 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.

Well then don't use them

Just like banks, credit unions, credit card companies, and insurers. We don't need any pesky restrictions on companies whose entire purpose is handling large quantities of money. Sure, maybe the occasional person loses their life savings, but don't worry about it, the market will self correct.

Meanwhile, here on Earth companies which hold millions of dollars of customer money each year are held to a higher standard. Otherwise the risk catastrophic failure of the system is too high.

Bloody McDonald's coffee spillers.

Yeah, what a bunch of whiners. Real mean like coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns. McDonald's is jsut cutting edge for serving coffee 40 degrees hotter than your home machine can make it. (The poor woman who suffered these serious burns only originally sought a settlement of $20,000, but McDonald's refused. She ended up with $160,000 after the lawsuit, much of which was certainly eaten by legal fees. Sure, she got $2.7 million, but those were punative damages awarded by the jury as a warning to McDonald's. And how serious is 2.7 million to McDonald's? Two days of coffee sales. Life's tough.)

Also, I don't think they were charged with hacking while in the U.S. That was merely to get the passwords.

Also, I don't think the FSB is complaining about the keystroke-trackers (just a guess, the article isn't clear) ... the russians had no reasonable expectation of privacy. I think they are complaining about using that info to open the hacker's accounts.

BARRATRY - The practice of instituting groundless judicial proceedings - a crime in a number of jurisdictions.

In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise.

A man cannot be indicted as a common barrator in respect of any number of false and groundless actions brought in his own right, nor for a single act in right of another; for that would not make him a common barrator.

Barratry, in this sense, is different from maintenance and champerty.

An attorney cannot be indicted for this crime merely for maintaining another in a groundless action.

That only took 5 minutes of Googling. It was the second hit, after the definition at dictionary.com, which also lists the maritime offense as a second definition.

Hope that clears up any confusion. Of course, I've got a feeling that posted based on the theory of "if you can't be smart, at least be a smart-ass," but you never can tell.

here's the legal definition of insanity. might work....he could claim he was schizophrenic or something; whenever he picked up a soldering iron his concepts of Right and Wrong went bye-bye for a bit.

In practical terms, this generally means companies within the same corporate family. So, Verizon could sell my records to Verizon Wireless. Unless the CIA becomes a subsidiary of Verizon (or a large shareholder with voting shares, I suppose), it's not an affiliate. It's a far narrower term for lawyers than for the unwashed masses.

Innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to remain silent, and all...

Moon rock, how do you plead? The defendant stands mute.

This brings up the idea of eminent domain. If this technology were classified as a necessary step in increasing the security of operating systems, could the federal government co-opt SCC's patents in the interest of the public good under the doctrine of eminent domain? Is there a precedent regarding the application eminent domain to intellectual property?

If so, would we want them to do so? Eminent domain can cut both ways, since the federal government can assign ownership to corporations, state or federal government in addition to effectively putting something into the physical analog to public domain.

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 only way anything in this case could fall under the anti-SLAPP laws is if PanIP sued the poster for slander.

SLAPP is merely a special case of barratry, the practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Barratry is a crime in many jurisdictions and can get a lawyer kicked out of the Bar.

• Yes, the proposed bill would take away existing rights. As other posters have pointed out, the ratings restrictions on movies are voluntary restrictions on the part of the movie theaters. Last I checked, nobody was attempting to restrict what minors "talk about in public".
• There is no phrase "as is Deemed Apt..." in Article 3, or anywhere else in the US Constitution.
• The quote regarding "Fire in a crowded theater" stems from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. US, 1919: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." (emphasis mine.) Justice Holmes was a member of the White Court; there was no Wallace Court.
• The prohibition on threatening the President comes from 18 USC 871, not the "Grommet" doctrine. It requires the actual intent to harm, not just speech. Go here for more details.
• There is no reference whatsoever in the US Constitution to the age of majority, or any restrictions on minors, with the exception of the right to vote. "Non-free Chattel" - what a hoot!

To further distance ourselves from any discussion of public policy in Peru, here is one more piece of information regarding sovereign immunity. The concept is not explicitly written into the constitution, it is an interpretation of the statement that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. I was a little disturbed when I first heard of this, too.

• FIGHTING WORDS
• LIBEL
• COMMERCIAL SPEECH
• OBSCENITY

False arrest is if the police arrests you with no basis (wrong person, or they were pissed off). It is hard charge to bring against the police as much of it is discressionary and you have to show an abuse of discression.

See the definition for for malicious prosection. Then read a piece from the Colorado bar on litigating an abuse of process claim.

And no, I am not a lawyer, but I am obviously better versed in the law than you.

All polite so there wasn't enough evidence to do anything...

You are thinking of Warren vs. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. The police certainly could have entered the house without a warrant, under exigent circumstances, namely, "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts." (United States v. McConney, 1984).

However in Warren, the issues were completely different. Here the victims sued the police because the police had failed to protect them. The court ruled that when "a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community". This decision would appear to confirm the responsibility of the police to conduct investigations (as a duty to the public at large) even if they cannot be held liable for failing to protect every individual.

In a similar manner, despite the original poster's comment, the police aren't necessarily obligated to catch perpetrators. California Government Code says the police may not be sued "for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

Nevertheless, catching perpetrators is what police do as well as investigating, patroling and otherwise preventing crimes as best they can.

Are you thinking of 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."

or... unreasonable detention (this is probably what you are thinking)

or trapping?-- As in do the police officers lock him in, skin him, scraping the skin to remove fat and flesh, wash it, and treat him with a series of chemicals that soften and preserve, or tan, the skin?

How about if it was unlocked with the keys on the dashboard? My guess is they try to make it look enticing to the thief they are trying to catch, but at what point does it become entrapment (honest question, IANAL)?

According to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm , entrapment is based on where the perpetrator got the idea to commit the crime. Providing an opportunity to commit a crime someone was already willing to commit is not entrapment, but encouraging someone to commit a crime they were not already willing to commit is. At what point does "providing an opportunity" become "encouragement"?

Yeah, I know, "but he stole the car". But would he have stolen it if it wasn't set up to be stolen? If the car were no more attractive to steal than the cars surrounding it, then yeah, I don't think it's entrapment.

Just as nobody is completely evil, nobody is completely honest. I'd bet most people could be encouraged to commit a crime if the circumstances were right.

Normal people don't pay for sex, so if a cop offers a prostitute money for sex, that's entrapment.

Actually, this doesn't really sound like entrapment. From the link provided by a parent post:

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. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

Since the prostitute is obviously ready and willing to have sex for money, there is no entrapment. It would be a different matter if some average person was offered money for sex, especially if the officer had to persuade them. That would most likely be considered entrapment.

Carbonite

I can already hear the cries of "entrapment" about to spring up all over this article, so I'll point out this definition of entrapment, which would seem to indicate that this method (placing a "bait" car in likely spots) is NOT entrapment. I imagine that a court would actually need to rule on this (IANAL), but it's fairly clear-cut to me. Simply placing a car in an area where it is likely to get stolen would not, to any reasonable person, qualify as "government agents [persuading or talking] the person into committing the crime".

She was ultimately only awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $480,000 in punitive damages. Also, she initially offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000, but McDonalds refused (this was presumably to pay for her medical bills).

I think the real sin here is how the media managed to put the wrong answer in everyone's mind, as demonstrated by the general lack of knowledge about the true outcome of this particular case.

More details on the McDonalds coffee law suit.