Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Just As Guilty In Terry Childs Case
snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia follows up on the Terry Childs sentencing, stating that the City of San Francisco is as much at fault in this case as Childs is. 'The way that the San Francisco IT department has been run is nothing short of abysmal, and that has been pointed out time and again by anyone paying attention to this case,' Venezia writes. 'Plenty of dirty laundry was aired out in court as well, yet through it all, the city has had a full-court press on Childs, and being both the plaintiff and the prosecution it spared no expense to drill Childs into the ground.' Worse, perhaps, is the disproportion of the sentence, when compared with recent convictions for intended malfeasance on the part of several notable rogue IT admins."
"Printable version". TFS's link is to a two page version with six paragraphs per page.
Free Martian Whores!
"rogue IT admins" - I find that phrase humorous for reasons I cannot explain.
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
San Francisco is in California, after all. Land of the bleeding heart liberals why cry foul any time someone does a good job. Perhaps Child's did overstep himself, but I still can't say I wouldn't do the same. Any time a productive, talented person gets promoted over for political reasons, it's bound to cause bad blood.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Frisco's policy in this case is: "Punish what you can't understand".
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
(1) Childs was wrong. You don't withhold passwords from your employer. It's his property, and he's allowed to be an idiot with his own property.
(2) Having been convicted, I would have run away. There are a lot of decent IT jobs in the Northeast..... almost 3000 miles away from the SF Government's reach. No different than running from Spain to Poland to start a new life.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Jail the city!
Every time I read something positive pertaining to the American justice system I seem to be two years older than the last time. How does he possibly deserve four years in prison for this?
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
You can skip reading TFA; all of it that's relevant to the headline is in the article summary.
Most of the article is pointing out other people who did worse things and got lighter sentences. Frankly, I think that's a useless argument; for any crime, you can just about always find someone who committed a greater crime and received a lesser sentence. So what?
I think there's a lot of an interesting dialogue to be had about the Terry Childs case, but this particular article doesn't add anything to that discussion.
I don't like the way my company is run. I'm going to rob them - because it's justified in my fucked-up imagination.
Rot in jail asshole.
Sure, the SF IT department may be getting managed into the ground. Sure, maybe the city is as much to blame for everything as Childs is. But none of that matters now, does it? Nobody is going to file a case against SF city. Nobody is going to punish the SF IT department. Nah, the city will get to walk away scott free, continuing to practice poor procedures. All the wild, Childs has to live with his sentence as a convenient scapegoat. This case just serves a little more proof the the justice system, on all levels in this country (at least if you live in California) is completely FUBAR.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
It's good to be the king.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Wow, a nuanced view of the problems.
Before this post gets modded as a troll or flamebait, it is my humble and sincere view as someone born and raised outside the USA, that Americans are often obsessed by finding a single cause for a problem and the idea that there might be multiple causes is rarely explored.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We may not be able to bring any sense of "justice" to this act, but there should never be another computer-related event in San Francisco, and anyone with any sense of what really happened to Childs (regardless of his own aggravation of the incident) should also boycott the city.
The slightly smaller number of tourist and convention dollars will take decades to balance the scales, but it's worth a try.
So here's a question. If people are concerned about the magnitude of the sentence, what's the REAL problem? Some people say "others got light sentences so he should too"... I would ask "is the real problem that others' sentences were too light and this is the first time the punishment fit the crime?"
Now, whether Childs is actually guilty of a crime is another matter. I wasn't in the jury; neither was anyone else here. We don't have all the facts, and the facts we ARE seeing are carefully picked by people with an (understandable) bias. A jury has convicted him of essentially holding a city's IT infrastructure hostage, and if he is in fact guilty of that, probation or "time served" is inadequate. If he's guilty, I believe the sentence is wholly appropriate, and may even be on the light side. If he was, in fact, concerned about IT security, he certainly bungled how he handled it and certainly forced a lot of spending, but would be lacking the "guilty mind" that the law requires for a conviction of this sort.
What it all comes down to is intention. If he intended something malicious, the sentence is entirely appropriate. If he did not, he should not serve any prison at all. There's really not a lot of room for gray areas here.
As for the City of San Francisco being "as guilty"... well, yeah. Maybe someone should be sharing a cell with Childs. That's a separate matter, though. If Childs was malicious, it doesn't let him off the hook. And if Childs wasn't malicious, it doesn't excuse how he handled it. The smart play would have been to immediately give the passwords (and the reason for holding them, as well as the modems) to the FBI and then let the city and feds slug it out. The fact that he did nothing of the sort is probably what convinced the jury that there was malice, and therefore the "guilty mind". Whatever else Childs may or may not be, he handled this whole thing like an idiot.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Lots of people have to work under supervisors who are total idiots. That doesn't give anyone the right to sabotage their supervisor or their company. What he did was basically blackmail: "Let me talk ot the mayor or I'll keep you locked out of your network." You can't let the guy off easy just because he happened to be harmless. Next time, you might not be so lucky.
The problem lies in that most US people seem to equal justice with revenge.
FTA: "When faced with dangerously incompetent management, it's best to just look for another job."
I found this a very telling statement. If your management are bozos, don't try to change them or point out their bozo-ness. Just pack up and move on. They hold all the cards. You will be punished for trying to fix anything that makes them look bad.
How very sad and defeatist.
- Jasen.
I would suggest it isn't so much an "American" trait as it is a convenient news tactic in America. People naturally want answers to questions. The neater and tighter the answer, the more readily it is accepted by the masses, which, of course, means that the news makes more money because they are more trusted. Simplicity is a hallmark of human (not just American) thinking - this takes different forms in different cultures. The main Western logical process is distinct from Eastern varieties but simplicity within the given culture is the tendency. Looking at modern history books covering the Renaissance and comparing them with 19th century history books of the same, we have a much broader viewpoint than those writing in the 1800s had. This is in part due to different access to resources, but in part due to the development of thought over time away from the natural reaction: Simplicity.
Now, with all that said, this is only... one facet of the change in thought patterns over the past century.
Most Americans I've met are actually very rational people who are willing to consider others' viewpoints. It's not until you get into the court and political systems that things start to fall apart.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Another episode of lawyers fucking over a geek.
Let the nerd rage spew forth.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I'm not against a nuanced view of a problem, but I don't think this article actually is that.
It's more like the equivalent of grounding your kid for two weeks for shoplifting and having to hear about how all his friends got punished less for stealing bigger things. It's more a misdirection than a thoughtful examination of the issue at hand.
That's not to say that I'm advocating for what happens to Childs as fair/appropriate, incidentally -- only that I think this article makes a very weak argument against it.
Well, guess what. No matter how much you may think it, generalized poor management is not actually a criminal offense. Whereas, denial of service is.
Justice is not about fairness. It's "did you break the law, and if so what's the stated punishment?"
Was the ordinance used to convict him fair and reasonably applied? The only opinion that matters is the jury's, and they thought it so.
IMHO, Childs may have started out with the best of intentions in his "stand", but it escalated into a pissing match. And you really can't out-piss senior municipal managers and politicians, so you can indict Childs for picking a losing fight.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The Economist ripped the US a new one last week for locking up too many people, many of them non violent offences. It wasn't so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, but we backed off from excess punishment (probably a little too far in some cases). But the United States the trend seems to be regressing thanks to grandstanding politicians and bloodthirsty voters who won't countenance even the slightest hint of being "soft on crime". With the way things are going, I truly think that the US will soon bring back public executions before long and will be indistinguishable from countries like Iran in how they deal with crime.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
QED
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The problem lies in that most US people seem to equal justice with revenge.
Oh great. Another example of us not understanding equals!
I think idiots worldwide seem to equal justice with revenge. It's just that in the USA it is hard to avoid these people. They flaunt themselves in public and on TV. There is no stigma to being an idiot in the USA, outside of academic circles. It's encouraged.
It is NOT your duty or place to punish your employer for their actions. If you don't agree you shut the hell up, do what you are told, and document it if it's questionable - but YOU do NOT ask the questions! The ONLY people your employer has to answer to are the STOCKHOLDERS and the LAW. *NOT YOU*. So get over yourself, shut the fuck up, do what you're told, and don't ask questions or make comments. If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to find a job somewhere else.
What if you worked at a nuke plan and your boss wanted the codes over the speakerphone and you did not know if people on the other end where able to run the system and you know that your boss was not able to run the systems.
Who hired that idiot? I keep seeing people here state that Childs is a total egomaniac and deserves punishment for that. But who is responsible for Childs? His managers, of course.
Managers exist to manage people. Childs had the obligation to know how to manage routers, his managers had the obligation to know how to manage Childs.
Childs was one part in a big system, if he wasn't performing correctly someone else should have noticed this and replaced him, just like Childs should replace a router that wasn't performing correctly in the network he managed.
The linked thread is really interesting -- I'd missed it the first time around and it adds a lot to this discussion.
2) Having been convicted, I would have run away. There are a lot of decent IT jobs in the Northeast..... almost 3000 miles away from the SF Government's reach. No different than running from Spain to Poland to start a new life.
US Constitution, Article 4, Section II, Clause 2:
"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
You achieve nothing in your interstate flight but a quarantee of conviction on a new and stiffer felony charge.
You will be doing hard time even if your prior conviction is overturned.
You mean kind of like how a lot of non-Americans like to find the property of "being an American" as somehow intrinsically to blame in so many situations?
All people need to simplify. You will never understand everything, so you research carefully the things that interest you, and everything else needs to be ignored or fit into a bite-sized piece of intellectualism that you don't need to give any thought to. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
What do you mean "so what"?
First there's the question of precedent.
Second there's the question of just punishment
While the city may have a shitty IT setup, is that illegal? Probably not. However what Childs did WAS illegal.
That is the difference. I know that some geek types seem to think the law should be whatever strikes them personally as fair but that isn't how it works. Childs broke the law, he was tried and convicted of it (and one of his jurors had a CCIE so none of this "stupid jury" bullshit).
If the city is being negligent then a lawsuit can, and should, be brought against them. None of that makes what Childs did right or legal.
Please, please would all Slashdot posters go and READ UP ON THE CASE before posting. The facts please, not the opinions form mother Slashdotters. So much uninformed kneejerk here. Slashdot itself had some good links, including one to an interview with aforementioned CCIE juror. How are you any better than the people you like to look down upon if you cannot be bothered to get your facts straight for something you have strong emotions about?
"The problem lies in that most US people seem to equal justice with revenge."
There being insufficient order, turning up the pain until there is order is reasonable.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The dude wouldn't turn over passwords when ordered by his Senior Associate. That's just insubordinate in any circumstance, regardless of the job, and will get your ass fired in most places. Terry could have handled things differently if he didn't trust his immediate supervisor, but he didn't. He chose to lie all the way up the food chain and took the for-the-good-of-the-network chip on his shoulder with him.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
What's he going to do, get another IT job and offend again? They should have given him community service. The guy's career has already been wrecked.
We are way too much about jail in California and the US. You shouldn't go to jail unless you are violent, or an incorrigible repeat offender. California is bankrupting itself putting taxpayers in jail for crimes like these and for smoking, it is fucking crazy.
You haven't talked to any religious people as an atheist, have you?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I would disagree with that assessment. I have had multiple conversations in which the topic is "THE cause of ..." while it seems perfectly obvious to me that there are multiple causes. So I don't think it is limited to the media.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I was told in jury selection that my case was one where only the guilt would be deliberated, the sentence was (due to legal reasons) not to be set by the jury. Basically if we found guilty the person was getting life imprisonment, and if we found not guilty the left the courtroom free.
Odds are the lawyers didn't like this, and the Judge may not have liked it; but, this is the state the courts are in after yet another round of overzealous legislation to "fight crime." In Jury selection questioning, I told the prosecuting attorney that I had reservations about the two extremes of the outcome. He asked me if I thought he was guilty but not deserving of a life sentence, would I be tempted to declare him not guilty, to which I replied "Yes, because the Jury shouldn't have the choice of sentencing stripped from it's duties." Naturally, I was excused from Jury duty.
So that man's trial was populated by people who were all right having the determination of degree of punishment stripped from them; in other words, they had people who selected with a bias to send him away for life before hearing the facts. Was he guilty? Who knows? But I guarantee you that nobody on that Jury was allowed to determine if extenuating circumstances meant he should only get 20 years instead of life.
Say it ain't so! The socialist capital of the US would never abuse its power for petty revenge, SF is a utopia where all people are treated as equals, including the homeless when they are arrested for having shopping carts.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You haven't talked to any religious people as an atheist, have you?
I'm agnostic, so not really. One of my good friends is a priest though, and we get into some good discussions. One thing we agree on is that anyone who tries to force or shame others into following their religion rather than leading by example is either very insecure in the veracity of their claims or simply a fool.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Furthermore, justice AND revenge both do not mandate prison and/or being subject to physical or sexual abuse. There are many things that can be done in BOTH cases besides the obvious one. Prisons cost too much money and have too much lobbying pressure to maintain or grow the punishment/revenge system we have today.
Having pedophile tattooed on your forehead should be enough...
Terry Childs is going to have career problems for life, no need to waste money holding him in a cage as if he was a wild animal threatening the peace - or even put an invisible fence around his house is not worth it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The city of San Francisco owns the network; they can run it as poorly as they choose, until voters kick out those responsible or the government accounting office charges them with something.
Childs was an employee and bound by his contract and his duty to his employer.
"equate" typo more like
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
"Boss, I can't give you those codes over speakerphone. Call me back on a regular phone and I'll give them to you.
Doesn't matter. It's his system. You hand over the codes. And if you truly believe he can't run it, you quickly drive out of the blast radius.
Who want's to work for the city of SF now? Not that I think Childs was anywhere in the right but I know I would not take a job with them.
Why do people attribute to one country's people things that obviously apply to all people? Why do people think this post is in any way insightful?
Do I just need to start my inane generalizations with "Before this post gets modded as a troll or flamebait, it is my humble and sincere view..." to substantiate my otherwise vaguely hypocritical flamebait post?
But for plan B you can go to jail / be given the blame for doing it.
I think the problem is that people like yourself keep trying to pretend its not.
In every justice system the world over, 'justice' does equate to some form of revenge.
Its just the way nature works, you should probably accept it, it'll be a whole lot easier than trying to pretend that the instincts that have evolved into all life on Earth can be ignored.
People are animals. Animals will do as much as they can for themselves until something pushes back against them. Revenge or retribution is one of those things we do to self regulate our species ... its instinct, its natural, its not going away no matter how much you try to pretend you're 'better' than that.
When some serious crime is committed against you, you will want revenge and theres nothing you can say or do that will stop that.
Its always fun to pretend though.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
China is criticised for its human rights. When a female a couple years back was convicted of killing several children her sentence was a bullet fired at close range to the back of the head from an AK47.
It amazes me the number of posts about the Terry Childs case that simply imply: "This sysadmin did things sysadmins shouldnt. *I* shall stand on this soap box and not question the proportion of his offending against the sentence."
Short of the bullet to the back of the head I suspect some on here think he should serve a life sentence.
And these same people denounce other countries for their human rights. Amazing.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Before this post gets modded as a troll or flamebait, it is my humble and sincere view as someone born and raised outside the USA, that Americans are often obsessed by finding a single cause for a problem and the idea that there might be multiple causes is rarely explored.
As opposed to what distinguished country, where every man is a philosopher king who never makes a snap decision?
Plenty of dirty laundry was aired out in court as well, yet through it all, the city has had a full-court press on Childs, and being both the plaintiff and the prosecution it spared no expense to drill Childs into the ground.
Wow, that metaphor is more confused than an eel at a hovercraft convention. The word on the street is that Infoworld editors are sharper than tacks, but when the rubber hits the road it seems the prose flies like a banana.
You protest, you make damn sure your protest is written down on paper so you have a copy and rejected, and then you hand them over. When the shit hits the fan, you're covered. As sad as that may sound, this case has proven exactly that.
Once said nuke codes have been turned over to the incompetent moron, all bets are off. My advice is to get as far the hell away from the potential fallout area as possible, as quickly as possible. When they question why, you explain "I was forced to give the passwords to the reactor to a guy I wouldn't trust with a potato gun, under protest. Once I was forced to comply, under law, I wanted the hell away."
Only if you don't know what you're doing.
You have the boss send the request in writing. Print it out before running to your car.
Only bad sysadmins do not have a CYA file where every moronic management decision is documented thoroughly.
"I can see how Childs might have been convicted by a largely nontechnical jury." That doesn't jive at all with one of their previous articles "Terry Childs juror explains why he voted to convict" http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/terry-childs-juror-explains-why-he-voted-convict-212 . I'd hardly say a jury containing a CCIE non-technical.
Ya Terry is getting screwed way more than he should be, but he is not innocent.
When the writer refers to the "plaintiff" in a criminal case. If he's that clueless (the plaintiff is part of a civil case; there is no plaintff in a criminal case) one such a simple point, what else is he using words he doesn't know the meaning of about.
Yeah, Childs' manager was, apparently, an asshole and an idiot. What he was not, however, was in criminal violation of the law. He was, in fact, specifically entititled to demand the passwords from Childs, and Childs was specifically required to fork them over.
The sentence might have been a little harsh, but IIRC, the network in question was configured in such a way that if it lost power longer than the UPS's could handle, it couldn't boot back up without Childs' help, and didn't this network handle the 911 system for the city?
If thats what happened we might consider thinking about it that way, but thats not what happened.
What happened is the nuke plants policy is to put all those codes in a known secured location so that authorized personal can get to them. Instead he didn't do that, then when they wanted to move him over to being a janitor since he clearly wasn't a good admin he continued to refuse to follow policy and then refused to do anything else citing policy as his excuse.
You don't get to not follow policy then use it as your excuse.
You either follow it or you don't, he was picking and choosing to suit his agenda at the time.
He also would never have been hired to work at such a location because they have better screening policies to prevent megalomaniacs from being that close to such potentially dangerous equipment.
This situation wouldn't arise at a nuclear plant ... they would have shot him much earlier on for all the shit he was doing against policy.
You might want to get some facts about the case ... like what he actually did and what policies he was/wasnt' following.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
but when you busy yourself holding the usa responsible for crimes which are essentially human failures, not uniquely american failures, as if americans somehow had a monopoly on hubris or ego or arrogance in this world, then you reveal yourself to have some sort of chip on your shoulder and complex about americans and americanness
but don't worry about it. in your life time, china will be the new bully on the block. and then you can busy yourself blaming every neurosis you can identify about the human condition as something that is uniquely a chinese crime. what blazing insight (rolls eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You can self-project all you want, but the people most worthy of respect are always the ones who make the attempt to forgive the murderers who killed a family member. Knowing you, you call these people pussies and bleeding-heart liberals.
The law is not perfect, but at least it has an adequate sense of justice not always based on revenge, and it serves to protect us from people like you.
I would presume either he or his lawyer didn't want one. I can find no speedy trial motion from his lawyer. Generally speaking, the defense wants to time to prepare and such a motion is not filed. However if they feel things are taking too long or as a certain kind of tactic, they can file one. At that point the judge tells the state "Ok get your shit ready we are going to trial soon," and sets a date. I can't find the California law on the matter (though I know they are a state that has one) but 6 months is pretty typical for a felony. If the state is not ready to present by that time, the court will give them no choice, they can go to trial unprepared or drop the charges.
However this only applies when the defense files for it. The court doesn't force a speedy trial if both sides are happy with a later date. Nor normally in that event it is either because the defendant is out on bail or because the defense has a really weak case, but regardless. Unless his lawyer filed a motion and it was ignored, which isn't likely because the appeals courts hear those things as a priority, then it is not an issue.
It is one of those rights you have to assert. If you want a speedy trial, you have to ask for it. Same deal as a right to council during questioning. You have to tell them you are not answering questions and want a lawyer. I mean you can just not answer questions, but if you don't ask for a lawyer they don't have to get you one.
I want to clarify that I didn't use the term "scapegoat" to imply that Childs was a completely innocent victim being raped and pillaged by the big evil city. What I was trying to say is that it would be a pity of the city's IT department used Childs as a scapegoat for fixing their own incompetence. As in, "Well, now that he is gone, things will be working out fine and dandy around here from now on."
In other words, my point was that the problems with the SF city procedures are not fixed yet and I hope the Childs ruling does not keep them from getting fixed (in other words, being used as a scapegoat to avoid an overhaul of the city procedures). Perhaps that explanation will quell some of you respondents that are insisting that I neither know the facts or that I am making an uninformed assertion.;)
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
But was it denial of service if physical access was never denied? If you have physical access to a machine, you can get the root password, or at least reset it. This is why they lock these things up.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
what about the policies that left him as the only admin for the network or that woman who has snooping around the IT office / his desk and takeing disks and no one told him the she was the new IT person.
1/12 is still largely non technical. In fact it's the smallest proportion of technical that you can have on a jury which isn't entirely non-technical. And as he says, he didn't make any technical considerations anyway. All the knowledge & experience in the world is worthless if you choose not to use it.
FGD 135
doing the limit when others are doing 70+ is not safe.
Try doing 55 on I-294, I-355, I-88, Tri-State Tollway, Jane Addams Memorial Tollway and other roads.
Most cars + trucks are doing 70+ in a 55 and cops let you get away with at least 60-65 and likely 69-70. and on I-94 after the state line you can get away with 70 in a 65.
"Moved to a legal system"? I think it's better said "finally recognized the fundamental character of our (and all) government."
We are the people the Constitution was written both to protect, and to protect against.
So, what you're saying is that people will more easily believe a big lie then a small one.
I disagree, in many western cultures there is an attitude against just "accepting" the "truth" (smiles and nods). Hence the saying "truth is stranger then fiction". This is why we have such insane laws around misrepresenting the truth in media. As for eastern culture, well define simple. A Thai girl seems to operate on simple things, if she's hungry, she eats, if she's tired, she sleeps but this all goes out the window when you try to understand the social dynamic, who is higher, lower, indebted, honoured, distrusted, and try doing this without speaking Thai (oh the joys of tonal language). It may look simple on the outside, until a Thai girl spends three hours explaining what happened in a 10 minute conversation with one of her friends. Even in the west we have quite complex social systems (games people play in the office, sociopaths, even just finding a girl friend)
The thinking that humans crave simplicity is flawed as we tend to fill our lives with complexity be it a complex social systems, complex technologies, complex learning or many other complex systems. If we had a primal drive for simplicity, we'd have never left the trees.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a yank bash, I think American society is as nuanced as most societies, maybe a bit more open then say Thai or Japanese but just as complex. But your news channels tend to be full of crap and not indicative of your society as a whole, more a product of a bad subset of Americans.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
city IT config management was not in place when he started the job and over the time from when he stared to him going to jail lots of staff where going though layoffs and he was doing big time over time at the same time.
Remember that after he was asked in a room full of people not authorised to know the passwords he was stuck in prison and had to wait for somebody to come to him. Just because it was the Mayor, a PR guy and TV cameras doesn't mean he asked for that.
Where is the evidence that he actually would not agree to turn it over to anyone else? It's been asserted a lot, but remember some of the early claims that tunred out to be utter bullshit.
"The great strength of political Conservatives at this time (and for a generation) is that they are open to the thought that matters are Complex. Liberals got into a reflexive pattern of denying this. I had hoped twelve years in the wilderness might have changed this; it may be it has only reinforced it. If this is so, the current revival of liberalism will be brief and inconsequential." -Senator Patrick Moynihan, 1996.
Take that for what you will.
It's not equivalent. The state has an obligation to treat similar cases similarly. Equal Protection and Due Process and all that, you know. Therefore pointing out that Childs' sentence is way out of line with sentences handed out in similar cases is a a compelling argument that his punishment was, in fact, unfair.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
When some serious crime is committed against you, you will want revenge and theres nothing you can say or do that will stop that.
There are lots of thing that I want on an instinctual level. When I see a very attractive woman walking on the street I'd really like to have sex with her. When I hear someone spouting ignorant nonsense I'd very much like to bring my fist into sharp contact with their nose.
We're not animals. We have the ability to think rationally and make a conscious decision to not give in the reptile riding on the back of a monkey. Well, most of us anyway. Whether we actually do so is mostly a matter of choice.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
If the speed limit is dangerously slow, then why is the limit set there instead of at a safe level? I'm not suggesting that there's a good reason for it being there, I'm just wondering why limits aren't just set at the limit of what will be tolerated, and people drive accordingly? I'm sure that people would respond to a story like "Speed limits across the country raised to match what people actually drive; police ready to write tickets for even 1 mph over these new limits."
Separately, "cops let you get away with" is not good enough for me. There's something about the idea of a cop being able to legally give me a speeding ticket at a whim ("got a ticket quota to meet by tomorrow... guess I'll go to the freeway and ticket a few speeders today") that turns me off to the idea, regardless of how "safe" you think it is. In my mind, it's more dangerous to break laws that are posted every mile or so than it is to go less quickly than people on the same road as I am.
Saying Americans often do X does not necessarily mean that non-Americans do not often do X.
Before this post gets modded as insightful or informative, it is my humble and sincere view as someone born and raised inside the USA, that we're royally and truly fucked.
Occam's Razor, the hidden culprit.
Therefore pointing out that Childs' sentence is way out of line with sentences handed out in similar cases is a a compelling argument that his punishment was, in fact, unfair.
That's just it -- the author didn't manage that. All of those sentences were pretty well on the same order of magnitude.
Did he just say "Fuck Occam and his rusty ass razor?" Sounded just like it...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
+1 irony
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
That's more like it. However read it, consider the Mayor's showmanship in court and you'll see that good or bad Terry Childs was a toy in a nasty little profile boosting game in a disfunctional city government. He deserved to lose his job, but not prison time. I still stand by it being a ridiculous beatup over office politics gone wrong which we would never have seen in an organisation that didn't have cops on the payroll or somebody that wanted to look like a hero in front of the cameras.
His employer wanted to hurt him and went law shopping until they found something they could make fit, after a few tries and some truly outragous claims. That is not justice, it's Chinese Communist style "might is right".
Should you get jail time for speeding?
You get a fine.
Why can't he get a fine? or be barred from IT work for X years? What is the point of locking him in a cage like a rabid animal? punishment can take many forms.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news