Slashdot Mirror

This kind of stuff couldn't happen in the world of material goods. The proprietary software industry lives in a different world with different laws. Do you think a manufacturer could sell a lawn mower which they blatantly announced wasn't even fit to cut lawns? When the blades were determined to have a defect, could they say "Here, buy these new ones?" No one would let them get away with it. Somehow, the software industry gets around it.

Captcha is "frauds." Hehe.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unclean-hands/

"The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue."

It all depends on where she lives. In some states it would constitute theft of services. In others it would not.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/

They exist and are pretty common, unfortunately. I really hate them; you'll find them a lot in gated communities and subdivisions. Live and let live I say.

Terry Stops seem to cover only persons and not vehicles? Where do I start reading to learn more (other than wiki)?

10 seconds in google can save you from a lifetime of shortsightedness...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

In most places in the US a threat against a person is now considered a Terroristic Threat and is actionable.

A quick web search revelas this handy URL: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

But manslaughter.

Thing is, how do you punish a corporation for manslaughter? Remember, a corporation is a "legal person" so you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.

IANAL but I would think this would constitute "depraved indifference" which is Murder 2. From the above:

'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendantâ(TM)s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

You would be very, very surprised at what most cops don't know.

Some around here have displayed a lack of knowledge of citizens' constitutional rights, the state weapons laws (whether or not it's legal to carry in certain places, with or without a License to Carry Firearms which allows concealed carry), and I've heard and read stories of cops who refuse to tell someone they've detained whether or not they're free to go on the basis that they're buying time to dig for a reason to arrest, which is frankly a pattern of behavior I find unsettling. When cops work on the assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent during a Terry Stop, on the basis that they think they have articulable suspicion ("he was walking funny and looked at me wrong"), they're going to do everything in their (limited) power to find you guilty right then and there so they can drag you in to jail, and worry about proving it later because chances are you won't take them to court even if you weren't guilty of anything more than picking a wedgie as the cop drove past.

I'm not saying that all cops are bad or are ignorant of the law - far from it. But those who are seem to be popping up more often and getting away with more, and legal recourse is all well and good until they come knocking on YOUR door and you have to pay the legal fees to defend what should be a clear right not to be harassed by someone in uniform. I'm all for pulling a weapon (gun, baseball bat, cactus, court papers) on a cop if he's abusing his power and shrugging off his responsibility to the law. If we can't defend ourselves and our own rights, we can't expect the cops to be able to do it for us, because they are us - in uniform, with guns.

Let's start with a couple of sources.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=98

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breaking-and-entering/

Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

First, to note that locked versus unlocked doesn't make a difference. That is why people can not argue about whether something is a "lock" or not when defending against B&E.

Second, it appears that B&E is not per se a crime, as you say, because B&E is a wider net than the specific crime which is illegal. E.g. if there is a theft, then it is burglary, and if the person was authorized to enter, then there was no B&E.

Third, a closed door on a private residence is generally considered an implicit "uninvite" unless some other invitation has been given, implicit or otherwise.

Fourth, the better example would be to have talked about going to someone's home where there was an invitation, because then you can talk about public versus private alone. In this situation, the person is legally allowed to be in both places, but one is public and the other private, rather than in your situation, where the waters are muddied with possible trespassing. The original post discussed "expectation of privacy" and "in public", neither of which require the potential trespassing that you brought into the equation.

Last, thank you for bring to my attention that B&E is not technically a crime.

The system that you describe...trial by a jury of your peers, clear rules, people expected to keep their word. It sounds nice, but are you sure that we don't have it already?

Absolutely CERTAIN.
....However, just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.

Allow my to explain my perspective, and lets see if anyone can show me my errors or assumptions.

Your first condition, "trial by a jury of your peers" depends largely on your definition of "peer".
According to Legal definition

"A peer is a person's equal. The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a "jury of one's peers," which means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives."

Let's break this down further.
"A peer is a person's equal": I am a college educated male, between the ages of 25-35. I am fairly well versed in current events, active in the local community, and own my own business.
I think that it's safe to say that my equal would be best defined by these same demographics.
If it was possible, I would prefer to be judged by people with an equivalent intelligence level as well, but lets not get picky.

"an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives": I live in the state capital of Louisiana (southern usa). According to Wikipedia "As of the census of 2000" "The per capita income for the city was $18,512. About 18.0% of families and 24.0% of the population were below the poverty line"
Since 2000, these numbers have worsened, the current poverty rate is above 25% according to the 2007 census. link
Also, better than 20% of our local population never finished high school. Census data
Additionally, I have been called for jury duty, as have many of my friends and associates. As a rule, the people who are educated, intelligent, and successful are removed from the jury pool in the first or second round. I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, but it's fairly common to wind up with a jury of the lowest common denominator. Intelligent, educated people are hard to convince, and hard to manipulate, which makes a lawyers job harder. Unfortunately out legal system doesn't weigh issues on thier own merits, but on the ability of the lawyers to argue instead.

So, what do you think the chances are of my having a jury of my equals?

Your second condition, "clear rules" is easier to define.
Clear rules would mean that the average American could read and understand exactly what was expected of them, the punishments involved, and how the legal system operated, in enough detail as to be able to successfully sue or defend themselves in court.

Or to make things even simpler, simply define the rules in such a way that the average American can at least understand what is going on in court, and participate in their own defense.

According to many different research groups, the US has a deplorable literacy rate. I'm not going to write a full analysis here, but there is a fairly good one Here
To summarize, 50% of our population reads at less than a 7th grade level.
So, what in the world makes people think that the average American can read, parse, and cross reference 1000's of obscure words, hundreds of referenced precedents, and actually understand it?

As for your last requirement, "people expected to keep their word" this is subjective, and the parent was referring to people with "integrity" not just honesty.
Unfortu

The person from whom it was stolen can still hold the thief liable for damages, but can't get their original goods back.

A little googling brings up a lot of sites to dispute that claim:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/possession-of-stolen-goods.htm
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession+of+stolen+goods

If you can prove something was stolen from you, you can get it back or get compensated for it's value most of the time... the operative word is "prove". This is why it's important to mark your stuff in a manner most thieves will miss... like writing your name on the top of an ATX power supply before you install it. On laptops the inside of the RAM cover plate AND under the battery are both good. This also helps keep your stuff out of police auctions.

Just because you claim not to have known something was stolen does not allow you to keep the item, and if it can be shown you either have it or converted (sold or traded) it then you are on the hook for it, regardless of what you knew at the time.

No, but presumably uslegal.com does make a legal argument. It's theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/

No. It's theft, just more accurately, theft of service. http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/

If what you're saying were true, then I would be taking serious legal risk if I (for example) claimed to experience diarrhea after eating a chalupa. Taco Bell could claim I lied, and I would have no evidence to the contrary. That is not the state of affairs I have observed.

Some web research supports my claim.

http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/tort-and-personal-injury-actions/libel-and-slander/7311/

"Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is drafted by the American Law Institute and has been influential among state courts, a plaintiff must prove four elements. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plain-tiff. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication. Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages."

Sounds like the burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. You may want to rethink your own perception of reality.

In 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court told the City of Minneapolis that their Red Light cameras were violating state law. The Supreme Court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. Minneapolis had to pay back the money they had collected in Red Light Tickets from the system, around 2.6 million dollars. The court also struck down the "rebuttable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rebuttable-presumption/ They stated: "The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid." Text of the Ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1356.asp

A computer is a device that computes, often a programmable machine, which can perform a programmed list of instructions and respond to new instructions given to it. An electronic computer accepts data, manipulates data, produces results, and stores results.

The [1] rejection of an offer to buy or sell that [2] makes a different offer during the course of negotiations, [3] changing the terms in some way.

I'm not in the UK (Highways Act of 1980), but I wonder what something to do with highways has to do with stopping at a stop sign?
Ideally no one would ever stop on a freeway, and I've never seen an actual permenant emplaced stop sign in a freeway, at least not in the USA.

Here's a generic definition though, from the US:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rolling-stop/

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

"If you know that there is a crime being committed, then YOU are obligated to report it. If you know that they are illegal and you do not report them, then you are a criminal for obstructing justice."

Got supporting evidence for that statement?

Non-reporting does not equal "obstruction". Non-reporting is not an action. "Obstruction" is an action.

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/obstruction-o f-justice.html

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-ju stice/

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18 /usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html

As other people have noted, "terroristic" is a well-defined legalese term. If you're going to blame some dialect for growing out of control, it's the extremely precise demands of law that cause it, rather than the typical American bastardization of English. (And yes, I am American.)

From uslegal.com: "It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harrassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief."