Slashdot Mirror

I don't live in Missouri, but from what I see Missouri law "requires the state of Missouri to assist voters who might not have a photo ID with the process of obtaining one free Missouri non-driver license for the purpose of voting". Seems if you cannot afford an ID in the State of Missouri, for the purposes of voting the State will get you a free, valid ID. Most States have programs for reduced or free ID cards for those who cannot afford them.

Meanwhile, over here in (some parts of) 'Murica, it's legal to shoot a burglar in the back while he flees.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML - see 563.031.1.(3) for "fleeing", and "forcible felony"
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000111.html - see 563.011.(3) for "forcible felony" definition
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56900001601.HTML - burglary defined, specifically see 569.160.1.(3), where another person in the structure is not a participant in the crime of burglary.

So if you're home and someone breaks in and sees that you're home and flees and you shoot them while they flee, you can legally justify doing that even if you kill that person.

I'm not saying it's a better situation than the UK's gunless culture, but at least the burglars don't get sympathy for being burglars.

Meanwhile, over here in (some parts of) 'Murica, it's legal to shoot a burglar in the back while he flees.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML - see 563.031.1.(3) for "fleeing", and "forcible felony"
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000111.html - see 563.011.(3) for "forcible felony" definition
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56900001601.HTML - burglary defined, specifically see 569.160.1.(3), where another person in the structure is not a participant in the crime of burglary.

So if you're home and someone breaks in and sees that you're home and flees and you shoot them while they flee, you can legally justify doing that even if you kill that person.

I'm not saying it's a better situation than the UK's gunless culture, but at least the burglars don't get sympathy for being burglars.

Meanwhile, over here in (some parts of) 'Murica, it's legal to shoot a burglar in the back while he flees.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML - see 563.031.1.(3) for "fleeing", and "forcible felony"
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000111.html - see 563.011.(3) for "forcible felony" definition
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56900001601.HTML - burglary defined, specifically see 569.160.1.(3), where another person in the structure is not a participant in the crime of burglary.

So if you're home and someone breaks in and sees that you're home and flees and you shoot them while they flee, you can legally justify doing that even if you kill that person.

I'm not saying it's a better situation than the UK's gunless culture, but at least the burglars don't get sympathy for being burglars.

Meanwhile, a reasonably written law is not hard to find.

RSMO 327.181. 3:

Notwithstanding any provision of subsection 1 of this section, any person using the word "engineer", "engineers", or "engineering", alone or preceded by any word, or in combination with any words, may do so without being subject to disciplinary action by the board so long as such use is reflective of that person's profession or vocation and is clearly not indicating or implying that such person is holding himself or herself out as being a professional engineer or is willing or able to practice engineering as defined in this section.

Hicks and bumpkins, maybe, but hicks and bumpkins that know when to lay off the goose-stepping. Good job, Oregon. Even Missouri looks saner than you on this topic. And Missouri allows homeowners to legally shoot fleeing burglars in the back. Yes, really.

Missouri had just switched from a Republican trifecta to Republican controlled state houses with a Democratic governor when it started and successfully completed a project to replace or repair 802 bridges in 4 years, with project planning beginning in late 2008 and construction starting in 2009 and ending in 2012, on budget and 14 months ahead of schedule. And then the Republicans cut the budget so now we can only handle 100 bridges a year, just barely keeping our heads above water, as about 100/year go into "poor" condition. We proved we're capable of twice that rate, if the budget is available. Admittedly, some of that money was Federal stimulus money after the Great Recession (we actually used it to repair infrastructure), but the rest of it was ours.

Missouri is nearly a Democratic state, but we got gerrymandered into appearing Republican with the 2000 census. Our state voting districts are so fucked up they have actual holes in them, with discontiguous pieces. We have one Republican and one Democratic Federal senator, a Democratic governor, and Republican state houses. At least one of the state houses would be Democratic if we had honest voting districts. It's not visible on the maps here but can be seen at the address by address level if you zoom in far enough in Google Maps. Our state Senate districts are fairly honest, since there's considerably fewer of them, but our state House districts are downright creative. Also, we'd be less Republican, but the Baptists are a force to be reckoned with, and they're stilling buying the anti-abortion bullshit the Republicans claim, but don't actually follow up on.

Geographically, we have a lot of hills, a lot of rivers, and a lot of streams. We have the largest river in the country, the Mississippi, making up the entirety of our eastern border and we have the Missouri river, the third largest river in the country that isn't mostly Canadian, after the Mississippi and the Ohio. Those two huge rivers have carved bluffs all over the place, many of which were subsequently abandoned as the river shifted. In short, we need a lot of bridges to get around. Replacing 800 in 4 years was significant, but we do still have a long ways to go. And we're not quite as politically backwards as we appear to be. By just a little bit.

Not true.

Missouri is a quieter, scarier version of Texas.

RSMO 563.031: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML
RSMO 563.041: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000411.html
RSMO 563.074: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000741.html

It's interesting to note that the crime of burglary in Missouri includes the escape of the burglars. In light of this, it is completely legal to combine the burglary statute and the castle doctrine statute to justify shooting a burglar in the back as they flee the scene.

Not true.

Missouri is a quieter, scarier version of Texas.

RSMO 563.031: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML
RSMO 563.041: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000411.html
RSMO 563.074: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000741.html

It's interesting to note that the crime of burglary in Missouri includes the escape of the burglars. In light of this, it is completely legal to combine the burglary statute and the castle doctrine statute to justify shooting a burglar in the back as they flee the scene.

Not true.

Missouri is a quieter, scarier version of Texas.

RSMO 563.031: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML
RSMO 563.041: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000411.html
RSMO 563.074: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000741.html

It's interesting to note that the crime of burglary in Missouri includes the escape of the burglars. In light of this, it is completely legal to combine the burglary statute and the castle doctrine statute to justify shooting a burglar in the back as they flee the scene.

I would have turned the neighbor in to the authorities for not calling a utility marking service before they put spade to dirt.

Where I live, it's as much as a $10,000 fine per day for disruptions caused by excavation performed without calling the marking service. (RS MO 319.010 through 319.050, fines are detailed in 319.045.1) The marking service doesn't charge a fee, and they provide both a toll-free number (1-800-dig-rite) and a speed number (811). There's constant TV commercials about this service, so there's zero excuse not to call.

And the shitty response of the cable company's technician could get them considered as partially culpable too. The state's public utility commission would probably love to get their hands on a case like that. Nothing screams "needs more regulation, because fuck Comcast" like stories like yours do.

Corporations don't publicly arrest, imprison, or kill people

In Missouri, they do now!

Try National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE2011) http://training.dps.mo.gov/tra... or http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/...

Missouri allows deadly force in response to a "forcible felony", which is explicitly defined to include burglary.

Definitions: RSMO 563.011
Requirements to justify deadly force in response to a forcible felony: RSMO 563.031 2.
Definition of burglary: RSMO 569.160 (After January 1, 2017: amended version - changed "crime" to "offense", added verbiage "in flight" to include fleeing burglars)

So, in Missouri, not only can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your house while you're home, after January 1, 2017, you can also shoot them in the back as they run away.

Texas is advised not to mess with Missouri.

Missouri allows deadly force in response to a "forcible felony", which is explicitly defined to include burglary.

Definitions: RSMO 563.011
Requirements to justify deadly force in response to a forcible felony: RSMO 563.031 2.
Definition of burglary: RSMO 569.160 (After January 1, 2017: amended version - changed "crime" to "offense", added verbiage "in flight" to include fleeing burglars)

So, in Missouri, not only can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your house while you're home, after January 1, 2017, you can also shoot them in the back as they run away.

Texas is advised not to mess with Missouri.

Missouri allows deadly force in response to a "forcible felony", which is explicitly defined to include burglary.

Definitions: RSMO 563.011
Requirements to justify deadly force in response to a forcible felony: RSMO 563.031 2.
Definition of burglary: RSMO 569.160 (After January 1, 2017: amended version - changed "crime" to "offense", added verbiage "in flight" to include fleeing burglars)

So, in Missouri, not only can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your house while you're home, after January 1, 2017, you can also shoot them in the back as they run away.

Texas is advised not to mess with Missouri.

Missouri allows deadly force in response to a "forcible felony", which is explicitly defined to include burglary.

Definitions: RSMO 563.011
Requirements to justify deadly force in response to a forcible felony: RSMO 563.031 2.
Definition of burglary: RSMO 569.160 (After January 1, 2017: amended version - changed "crime" to "offense", added verbiage "in flight" to include fleeing burglars)

So, in Missouri, not only can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your house while you're home, after January 1, 2017, you can also shoot them in the back as they run away.

Texas is advised not to mess with Missouri.

Not all states are the same.

For example: Revised Statutes of Missouri 311.055 indicates that there is no license required to manufacture any intoxicating liquor (as defined in RS MO 311.020) up to 200 gallons, for personal use, and not for sale. The definition of intoxicating liquor includes wine, beer, and spirits.

There is no restriction on the manufacture, ownership, or use of a distillation device mentioned in any part of RS MO chapter 311. And due to the 10th and 21st amendments, ATFE can pound sand.

Not all states are the same.

For example: Revised Statutes of Missouri 311.055 indicates that there is no license required to manufacture any intoxicating liquor (as defined in RS MO 311.020) up to 200 gallons, for personal use, and not for sale. The definition of intoxicating liquor includes wine, beer, and spirits.

There is no restriction on the manufacture, ownership, or use of a distillation device mentioned in any part of RS MO chapter 311. And due to the 10th and 21st amendments, ATFE can pound sand.

Hilarious.

http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep...

There's more, there's so much more! There's so much more it kind of drives me insane! I could list hundreds of links! Educational opportunities, health outcomes, workplace advancement, legal mistreatment, housing discrimination, homeland security - name an institution where you think black women are outclassing white men, name one, and I will throw it back in your face so freaking fast.

The grand jury was selected in May for an upcoming and not-yet-determined case. They were "active" until early September, basically on notice that they might be used for a case during that time.

This particular grand jury was selected at random from a pool of available, assembled grand juries. They began performing their duties before their "deactivation" date, therefore they had to stick with it until the end.

If you actually listened to what Bob McCulloch said and understood how that fits in with RSMO 540, you wouldn't be so blind as to assume this was rigged or a racially-driven thing.

The Missouri "Keep right" laws don't support your scenario, though. According to this, all drivers should drive as far to the right as safely possible except if passing or preparing to turn left. If another car is able to pass you on the right, then you are not driving as far right as possible. In your scenario, the person in the left lane is violating the "keep right" law and the person in the right lane is violating the speeding law. Both of your hypothetical drivers are in the wrong.

In fact, the wording in the statute doesn't mention the speed limit at all, but refers to a "regular flow of traffic". If everybody else is speeding and you're driving the speed limit, you are violating the statute by refusing to move into the right lane. Leave speed limit enforcement up to the police... it's not your job.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

We're discussing Alaska.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

Actually, donating your deer meat to charity is a common thing and it feeds, not the hunters themselves, but those who rely on food banks and assistance programs. The hunters that donate their kill are usually just rich guys that want to shoot stuff, which is kind of sick-in-the-head when you think about it. But at least their mental deficiency benefits someone.

Of course, if we were talking about a courthouse or other government building it would be a different story.

In some places. In the Commonwealth of Kentucky and at least 10 other states (according to an article in the Lexington Herald-[Mis]Leader) it's legal to pack directly in the state Capitol.

And some people try and say that Southerners are all a bunch of ass-backward rednecks... that sounds like a pretty damn progressive policy to me!

Missouri may be following suit soon, if the legislature overturns the governer's veto of H.B. 436, which would make it a crime to enforce, "all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Damn but I love living in the Midwest!

http://insurance.mo.gov/

Insurance is regulated at the state level not the federal level. why is it every time someone hears of some fiscal regulation they assume it's the IRS? the IRS jurisdiction is taxation only.

Who the fuck cares about facial recognition, I say arm the citizens and save money and time.

Go to Somalia and find out how good that works out.

Why go to Somalia? You don't have to travel outside of the United States. (And many countries have one or more of these sorts of laws.)

America's Toughest Sheriff, Joe Arpaio

As chief law enforcement officer for the county, Arpaio continues to reduce crime with hard-hitting enforcement methods. . . . The posse, whose ranks have increased to 3000 members under Arpaio, is the nation's largest volunteer posse. Posse men and women help in search and rescue and other traditional police work as well as in special operations like rounding up deadbeat parents, fighting prostitution, patrolling malls during holidays, and investigating animal cruelty complaints. The posse's contributions are invaluable and essentially free to taxpayers.

POSSE

Wait, there's more! (This sort of law is common in the US.)

"901.18 Officer may summon assistance. -- A peace officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of persons he deems necessary to make the arrest. A person commanded to aid shall render assistance as directed by the officer. A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall have the same authority to arrest as that peace officer and shall not be civilly liable for any reasonable conduct in rendering assistance to that officer." --- Advisory Legal Opinion - AGO 75-200

In most cases, this means you.

That's not all. If you are an American male, you are probably in the militia - US Federal, and state - even if you don't know it.

State militia, members.

41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri. The maximum age requirement may be waived by the adjutant general on a case-by-case basis.

Federal: Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members

It's a bill not a law.
Hearings not scheduled, not on the house calendar. You've been had ARS... this is a publicity stunt by 2 conservative politicians to garner attention for their next election by introducing a bill popular with their tiny constituencies, guaranteed never to even get voted on, but sure to bring in gullible leftist reporters who are all too eager to snap up any tidbit of info that might portray their political opponents in a negative light. And you guys are flooding ARS with traffic because you're also so eager to believe it.

Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (055)
Co-Sponsor: Koenig, Andrew (099) ... et al.
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2013
LR Number: 506L.01I
Last Action: 1/31/2013 - Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education(H)
Bill String: HB 291
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB291&year=2013&code=R

As if there were nothing in the world actually worth reporting on, they've got to spoon feed you this horseshit. How many people die in Africa from AIDs per day? Oh wait, you can't blame that on republicans so it's uninteresting. Fuck you.

such as replacing the staff and hring a private company to run the school

Only in the most extreme circumstances:
From http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/nclb/QandA.html:

What are the consequences of not achieving AYP?
NCLB spells out an array of consequences for schools and districts that repeatedly fail to meet the AYP goals. Any school that fails to achieve AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject area will be identified by the state as “needing improvement.” Initially, a school that does not make AYP for two consecutive years must, if possible, offer students the opportunity to transfer to another, higher-performing school within the district. After a third year, schools must offer “supplemental services” (such as tutoring) for students. Schools that do not show adequate progress after five years may be forced to take tough “corrective action” such as replacing school personnel or extending the school year.

I see nothing about required privatization, just the possibility of hiring additional (possibly private) tutors.

That being said, why not force lower student/teacher ratios for schools that do not achieve AYP or require increased state funding? These seem like more obvious beneficial solutions than "send the students to a different school"

Police forces have to do something with all that grant money they get from the DHS. Their chosen course for a damn long time now has been to play paramilitary. Once they had all the neat toys, they had to create a justification for having them, so they started using them for routine things.

This is why I find complaints of slippery slope fallacy to be way overstated. Not enough people read history.

Amen on people not reading history, or only skimming the "revised" versions provided to public schools.

It's not all the state and local police at fault here for the militarization of the civilian police, essentially turning them into an occupying military.

The Feds only recently temporarily suspended the DoD/Pentagon "1033" program that from 1994 until very recently supplied full military weapons and equipment including tanks with .50-cal machinegun turrets, armored personnel carriers, LAWS anti-tank rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Blackhawks, Hueys, and on and on. All the local agency had to pay was the shipping charges, and of course the insurance and operation/maintenance costs. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

Here's a couple of links to stories. Google has tons more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/pentagon-suspends-weapons-program-cops-military_n_1585328.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/14/ariz-sheriff-ordered-to-return-military-goods/57781594/1

And finally, an interesting look: http://www.dps.mo.gov/dir/programs/cjle/dod.asp

I guess one way to get around that clunky old Constitution and that inconvenient Posse Comitatus Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ) is to not obviously bring IN troops, but to simply turn the existing law enforcement apparatus already around us into the military.

No convoys of soldiers rolling into neighborhoods, everyone just suddenly wakes up one day and the local police are now wearing combat equipment and patrolling in armored vehicles and you need a pass to clear the checkpoint to travel to your job. Oh, DHS recently posted a bid for tens of thousands of prefab bulletproof portable checkpoint guard shacks.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Strat

In what way does attaching a GPS unit to a stationary vehicle parked on a public street control the property to which the tracker is attached? How does the existance of that tracker change in any way the use of the device to which it is attached (without the owner's knowledge?)

According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."

Note the emphasis.

YMMV depending on your state's laws regarding tampering.

We deforest the planet, without thought to the fact that not only are we using up a renewable resource faster than it grows back, we're also chewing through the planet's primary carbon sink.

Yet I recently read that the Northeastern U.S. has more forest today than a hundred years ago. I couldn't find a reference after a quick google search (hey, it's Friday!), but I did find one showing Missouri (yes, Missouri!) has more trees today than 50 years ago! http://mdc.mo.gov/blogs/fresh-afield/missouri-s-15-million-acres-woods

It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed, however, it would appear to be so, the indictment is specifically for "Failure of Mandated Reporter to Report." Here is the relevant Missouri statute.

PP 4 reads:

In addition to those persons and officials required to report actual or suspected abuse or neglect, any other person may report in accordance with sections 210.109 to 210.183 if such person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.

Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?

In the Missouri Revised Statutes it states that the plates "shall be aesthetically attractive" and "Each such plate shall be securely fastened to the motor vehicle or trailer in a manner so that all parts thereof shall be plainly visible and reasonably clean so that the reflective qualities thereof are not impaired". Section 301.130

But we all know that you'd probably just get nailed for some statute related to interfering with the police's ability to collect evidence and/or perform their duties.

It's not spin, it's a matter of reading the bill for yourself. While I won't be nearly as mean about it as the ACs, I would suggest a little legwork on your own would go a long way in answering the questions you seem to have. I'll provide the link for you: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf

Full text of the bill can be found at http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf

The summary above leaves a few thing out, but the fact remains that the law is vague, and inappropriately give the schools the authority to interfere with the first amendment rights of the teachers and students.

You are right - the summary should say "the law bans educators from using any tool not provided by the State for communications" as anything that doesn't allow parents to have access to all electronic communications between teachers and students is forbidden by the new statue. And being there are no exceptions, it makes it kind of hard to use any social networking site, now doesn't it?

Your idea for a summary is just as inaccurate. Go read the actual law http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4066479. Here, I'll help you since you're obviously too lazy to check your facts before posting up your uninformed opinion.

SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

Taken literally, the bolded wording precludes a teacher from using facebook, twitter, gmail, and a whole host of other sites. This would be regardless of whether they interacted with a student on a work on non-work level because those sites ALLOW private communications. It didn't ban private communications, it banned the use of sites that could permit it. They couldn't even email their own kids unless they gave the school admins access to their email account. The law is poorly worded to address the issue they tried to correct (inappropriate private communcations between teachers and kids). The injunction was simply to stave off the enforcement of this section until a court could rule on the 1st amendment issues.

Indeed not. Quote from section 162.069.4:

No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting a teacher from establishing a nonwork related internet site, provided the site is used in accordance with this section.

Indeed. Quote from section 162.069:

Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

Honestly from the wording, it sounds like they can't use any social networking at all, even if they don't even have any students friended... as long as the potential to talk to a student privately is there.

There most certainly is. Here is the immediately following sentence, which was for some reason omitted in the original quotation:

SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication ... Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

I suggest people go and read the bill itself.

The problem is people are knee-jerking all over the place without bothering to actually read the law. If they did, they would discover that it is worded so as to criminalize having "secret" communications with students (and former students) via online means (web forums, social networking sites). Basically, it isn't permitted if the communications are not available to administration/students parents.

This is a bad law in that it is an attempt to appear to be doing something about improper teacher/student relations without actually adding anything. This is a bad law in that it is aimed at technology when its purported purpose is to prevent improper teacher/student relations. The former is just plain useless, the latter would seem better addressed by a law that targeted improper relationships without specifying the specific means for facilitating those relationships.

In the end, it will most likely never amount to anything unless it is used to prop up local LE income via not-quite-entrapment scenarios similar to how various laws ostensibly passed to "protect the children" are used.

But don't take my word for it: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4066479&SessionType=R (meh, since last week the PDF of the full bill seems to have gone missing -- try google cache)

I don't think it should rise to the level of criminality in and of itself though, and criminalizing the act itself is of questionable legality.

It's incredibly questionable. Freedom of association, anyone?

I don't think it actually creates a criminal offense though. Bill text, relevant section:

SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

By January 1, 2012, each school district must include in its teacher and employee training a component that provides information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults, with an emphasis on mandatory reporting. Training must also include an emphasis on the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandatory reporters.

If it was creating a criminal charge, one assumes it would have mentioned the class and punishment.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-jrnl/DAY48.pdf#page=8

Sorry about that, same result though.

It may take a couple more years before Missouri gets hammered by the feds for violating the Sherman anti trust act if they let this dog and pony show get away from them. They were put on notice years ago that their state law is too vague. Even if legalzoom loses and pays 15 mil in damages, they will probably make it up in free ads and new revenue.

The ironic thing is I just completed a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney using a template downloaded off a website hosted by my state, Ohio. Missouri has one too. I suppose I should sue my State for 3x damages. I'm sure some of my tax money went into that bandwidth.

Do you hear the ROFOLing
A ROFOLing we go...

Soon the National Industrial Recovery Act will be legal history and regular employment of children younger than 14 with no minimum wage provision will be fine in many states.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271

With the same accuracy, can you please tell me how much PCP is currently consumed? What about Marijuana? How's about crack? Since none of those operate on an open market, all of these statistics would be heavily inferred from other proxy variables, and all would be WAY off the mark. If you're seeing a drop, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a drop, but instead there was a change in reporting. Additionally, even in an unregulated market with an open exchange giving us all the awesome information we could want, it can be hard to estimate these rates. While I would have expected prohibition to have had an effect, from seeing documentaries about people who lived in that time, and talking to people who lived through it, I know that the effect was more for show.

In fact, the rates between those dates, from the source you've listed, are under-reported by its own admission. They did not calculate those rates over this period, which is odd, given they were calculating it consistently before and after. This could suggest that the rates didn't change at all. In fact, given the market was flooded with lower quality alcohol (READ: Dangerous), it could mean it was higher. But that's just speculation.

Additionally when looking at epidemiology (an often deeply flawed method), you need to scrutinize what they're doing to the data to display it. For instance, this data is mostly Age-Adjusted, which means that it likely doesn't truly represent the observed rate at that time.

Lastly, while liver cirrhosis is terrible, I think the worst thing about prohibition was the "super gangs" it created. Some of which are still around, and many of which used this model for other things that were made illegal, that shouldn't have been. The statistics from that, would be way worse than any others, but calculating run on effects, is always hard.

If SB 222 (2/10/2011) passes in Missouri http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4124271&SessionType=R with "eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen" they will be working.

That’s not necessarily true. It can be a valid defense, depending on the laws in your state. For instance...

MO Revised Statutes, section 566.020:

Mistake as to incapacity or age--consent not a defense, when.

566.020. 1. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a victim's being incapacitated, no crime is committed if the actor reasonably believed that the victim was not incapacitated and reasonably believed that the victim consented to the act. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of belief as to capacity and consent.

2. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being thirteen years of age or younger, it is no defense that the defendant believed the child to be older.

3. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being under seventeen years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed that the child was seventeen years of age or older.

4. Consent is not an affirmative defense to any offense under chapter 566 if the alleged victim is less than twelve years of age.

In short, if the person was under the age of thirteen / twelve (depending on the particular law being violated), you have no defense of “I thought he/she was old enough” (yeah... right). However, if the criminality of the act hinges on believing the person to be 17 (the age of consent is 17), and you reasonably believed that they were 17 and consented to the act, that is a valid defense against criminal charges.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.