(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
"intentional" is pretty easy - nobody "accidentally" sets up a private server...the only way out of that is "I didn't know anything I ever looked at was really classified", which, based on the requirements of the job to protect classified information and being able to recognize it, certainly hits "gross negligence". Heck, even if you drive to work every day for ten years and only have one accident out of the thousands of trips, if it's due to you negligently taking your eyes off the road and fiddling with your zipper, that's still gross negligence.
It's a lose-lose, really - she's either incompetent, or malicious, and *both* of those are grounds for criminal prosecution under the statute.
The FBI apparently did not think that information was mishandled neither intentionally nor in a grossly negligent way.
By using the term "extremely careless", Comey pretty much copped to "gross negligence" - there is no legal distinction between those two phrases. The case was rock solid, specifically because the bar was lower than "intent".
That being said, being unwilling to prosecute someone because they're so politically powerful they may be able to escape conviction by a jury of their peers is a gross miscarriage of justice.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
1) a private email server was not a proper place of custody 2) "extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"
Intent is not required to be prosecuted under this statute.
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Money quote:
"a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"
Money word:
"or"
The standard in question does not require intent at all.
tl;dr - she did break the law, but we're declining to prosecute her
Actually, this was Sanders' last chance at the whitehouse. If Hillary had been forced to step aside, he'd have been the last man standing.
#thebern here wasn't against trump at all - Trump wins either way, with an indicted criminal as an opponent, or a corrupt plutocrat who rigged the system to avoid indictment.
...which would mean both prosecution and conviction for anyone besides Hillary.
Comey gives her an out because he can't prove intent, but the statute itself doesn't require intent, period.
It's almost like Comey was forced to decline prosecution, but found enough courage to share enough details to make it obvious she should have been prosecuted.
So say there is a population of people that don't want to overcome the terrible handicap - should we interfere with their natural predilections and force them to do something they don't want?
Having choices is privilege - why would we want to take away people's free choices?
Women don't have to be aggressive, competitive leaders to be valued in our society - they have inherent value simply by being women, and we would never admonish a little girl who didn't want to compete to "man up".
Men, on the other hand, must compete with each other and demonstrate, through action, that they have value.
While you might feel like calling a girl "bossy" can be damaging to a girl, boys get it even worse - "boys don't cry", "never hit girls", "man up".
If you're really going to get women used to competing, they need to be able to survive the converse - "girls don't cry", "never hit boys", "woman up". They're also going to have to survive, on their own, when anyone calls them "bossy":)
tl;dr - if girls can't handle being called "bossy", they'll never be able to compete
If you're looking to build a consensus driven organization, that cares about feelings, work life balance, and considers a functional team by their internal happiness, then by all means, women are often the ticket (though, there are cases of severe feminine dysfunction as well).
If you're looking to get product delivered, quality built in, and durability of your deliverables, then maybe going with second and third string techs is truly dysfunction. You'll need strong management that can handle conflict, but there's an argument that conflict can actually drive progress faster than kumbayah consensus.
Exactly - the trouble here is that it exposes female privilege, and according to the powers that be, that doesn't exist.
At some point, some enlightened civilization of the future will have a culture that accepts that men and women are different, and that's perfectly okay and not due to any sort of nefarious mythical patriarchy.
.223 has very little recoil actually, but you're right in terms of power - while good guys don't want high-power in a small room, bad guys don't care about hitting people, so their behaviors are different. In particular, bad guys don't follow rule #4:
1) treat every weapon as if it is loaded 2) don't point at anything you aren't willing to destroy 3) keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire 4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
For good guys, in a small room you'd want something like a silenced MP5, throwing 9mm hollowpoint that won't penetrate as much (typical for HRT). For bad guys, they don't care about hitting things they're not aiming at - in fact, it's a bonus.
That all being said, AC poster has it right - we need to stop shooters, not guns.
1) it's a bipod, not a tripod 2) a scope is a perfectly reasonable attachment for any 5.56/.223 rifle - effective range can go out to 100 to 200m, and a good scope is helpful at those ranges 3) whether or not it uses a drum magazine, or a simple double stack magazine, the weapon still functions like any other semi-automatic rifle -> one trigger pull, one shot.
Now, you can choose to define an "assault weapon" as something black and scary looking, but nothing you've pointed out is any different than the much kinder, gentler looking mini 14 (http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/images/line-top.jpg). During the san bernardino terrorist attack, you can see LEOs using it: http://media.gettyimages.com/p... - it's functionally identical to the AR15 style weapons the terrorists were using, chambering the same round, firing at the same rate.
A common sense definition of an "assault weapon" is a fully automatic (not semi-automatic) belt fed machine gun...something like the m60 (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/5/58/M60.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20070330224515)
But you really weren't looking for the truth, now were you?:)
Well, assume for every group of five guys, one is a designated driver. Cut down the ratio for those people using cabs (say half), and you've got 10%.
Say only 10% of people are willing to properly train and obtain CCW - now you've got 1%.
In a group of 100+, that's at least one more good guy with a gun than before.
Now, of course the first few seconds of mayhem cannot be stopped - people are going to die. But for every good guy with a gun, ready to respond, more lives are saved.
A sober, well trained, designated CCW may not have the body armor, or legal department, or the union a SWAT guy has, but as in the rest of life, 80% is just being there.
"annual rates of 69.2 for bathtubs for those under 5 to 58.2 for accidental firearm deaths for those under 15."
Should we get bathtub insurance as well?
Insurance only works when there is a large enough pool to justify the overhead - neither bathtub accidents or firearm accidents are common enough to justify it.
Agreed - CCW means no drinking, period, even if you're at a club. That being said, we allow designated drivers in bars, who stay sober, no reason not to have designated CCW.
One guy with a rifle and a pistol, and over a hundred unarmed civilians, and one armed defender, ended up as some pretty stupid shit.
Adding in SWAT guys (more guns) to the situation, didn't create more stupid shit, it *ended* it.
If there had been even *one* more good guy with a gun at the beginning of the carnage, we'd have had *less* stupid shit.
Now, I'm fully okay with making it illegal to drink and carry concealed, but if you can have a designated driver, then you should be able to have a designated CCW too.
We sacrificed 50 people in a "gun free zone", in addition to the hundreds of others killed over the years with the same situation.
So...should we be able to get insurance for drunk driving? Or attempted murder? Or shoplifting?
Insuring against crime that you commit seems beyond any actuarial possibility...and the sheer rate of auto accidents in comparison to firearm accidents makes an insurance market for the latter unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
18 U.S. Code 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
"gross negligence" == "extremely careless"
"intentional" is pretty easy - nobody "accidentally" sets up a private server...the only way out of that is "I didn't know anything I ever looked at was really classified", which, based on the requirements of the job to protect classified information and being able to recognize it, certainly hits "gross negligence". Heck, even if you drive to work every day for ten years and only have one accident out of the thousands of trips, if it's due to you negligently taking your eyes off the road and fiddling with your zipper, that's still gross negligence.
It's a lose-lose, really - she's either incompetent, or malicious, and *both* of those are grounds for criminal prosecution under the statute.
By using the term "extremely careless", Comey pretty much copped to "gross negligence" - there is no legal distinction between those two phrases. The case was rock solid, specifically because the bar was lower than "intent".
That being said, being unwilling to prosecute someone because they're so politically powerful they may be able to escape conviction by a jury of their peers is a gross miscarriage of justice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
1) a private email server was not a proper place of custody
2) "extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"
Intent is not required to be prosecuted under this statute.
Full context:
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Money quote:
"a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"
Money word:
"or"
The standard in question does not require intent at all.
tl;dr - she did break the law, but we're declining to prosecute her
Anyone But Clinton
Trump, sure, he's an ass.
Sanders, sure, he's a crazy keneysian.
But I'd pick out any random felon from prison to be POTUS before picking Clinton.
Actually, this was Sanders' last chance at the whitehouse. If Hillary had been forced to step aside, he'd have been the last man standing.
#thebern here wasn't against trump at all - Trump wins either way, with an indicted criminal as an opponent, or a corrupt plutocrat who rigged the system to avoid indictment.
...which would mean both prosecution and conviction for anyone besides Hillary.
Comey gives her an out because he can't prove intent, but the statute itself doesn't require intent, period.
It's almost like Comey was forced to decline prosecution, but found enough courage to share enough details to make it obvious she should have been prosecuted.
Conflict can be managed well by good managers.
You can have a happy low performing team based on feelings and consensus.
You can have an unhappy high performing team with properly managed conflict and leadership.
You can have an unhappy low performing team with improper management and conflict.
Apple didn't thrive under Steve Jobs because he was a kumbayah manager. He both encouraged and managed conflict well.
So say there is a population of people that don't want to overcome the terrible handicap - should we interfere with their natural predilections and force them to do something they don't want?
Having choices is privilege - why would we want to take away people's free choices?
What if society is perpetually encouraging both boys and girls to be mavericks, but boys and girls have different reactions to that encouragement?
Bonus question - what if the way society is working with our boys and girls is actually depressing male achievement in academia?
...women are sheltered from competition.
Women don't have to be aggressive, competitive leaders to be valued in our society - they have inherent value simply by being women, and we would never admonish a little girl who didn't want to compete to "man up".
Men, on the other hand, must compete with each other and demonstrate, through action, that they have value.
While you might feel like calling a girl "bossy" can be damaging to a girl, boys get it even worse - "boys don't cry", "never hit girls", "man up".
If you're really going to get women used to competing, they need to be able to survive the converse - "girls don't cry", "never hit boys", "woman up". They're also going to have to survive, on their own, when anyone calls them "bossy" :)
tl;dr - if girls can't handle being called "bossy", they'll never be able to compete
...to have the choice to give up and leave.
When you're desperate, and nobody is going to stick around to take care of you, giving up isn't an option.
Having options is privilege.
The obvious conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
...on what you consider "disfunction".
If you're looking to build a consensus driven organization, that cares about feelings, work life balance, and considers a functional team by their internal happiness, then by all means, women are often the ticket (though, there are cases of severe feminine dysfunction as well).
If you're looking to get product delivered, quality built in, and durability of your deliverables, then maybe going with second and third string techs is truly dysfunction. You'll need strong management that can handle conflict, but there's an argument that conflict can actually drive progress faster than kumbayah consensus.
Exactly - the trouble here is that it exposes female privilege, and according to the powers that be, that doesn't exist.
At some point, some enlightened civilization of the future will have a culture that accepts that men and women are different, and that's perfectly okay and not due to any sort of nefarious mythical patriarchy.
.223 has very little recoil actually, but you're right in terms of power - while good guys don't want high-power in a small room, bad guys don't care about hitting people, so their behaviors are different. In particular, bad guys don't follow rule #4:
1) treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2) don't point at anything you aren't willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
For good guys, in a small room you'd want something like a silenced MP5, throwing 9mm hollowpoint that won't penetrate as much (typical for HRT). For bad guys, they don't care about hitting things they're not aiming at - in fact, it's a bonus.
That all being said, AC poster has it right - we need to stop shooters, not guns.
Here, a proper tripod mount for a machine gun for you:
http://www.zastava-arms.rs/sit...
1) it's a bipod, not a tripod
2) a scope is a perfectly reasonable attachment for any 5.56/.223 rifle - effective range can go out to 100 to 200m, and a good scope is helpful at those ranges
3) whether or not it uses a drum magazine, or a simple double stack magazine, the weapon still functions like any other semi-automatic rifle -> one trigger pull, one shot.
Now, you can choose to define an "assault weapon" as something black and scary looking, but nothing you've pointed out is any different than the much kinder, gentler looking mini 14 (http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/images/line-top.jpg). During the san bernardino terrorist attack, you can see LEOs using it: http://media.gettyimages.com/p... - it's functionally identical to the AR15 style weapons the terrorists were using, chambering the same round, firing at the same rate.
A common sense definition of an "assault weapon" is a fully automatic (not semi-automatic) belt fed machine gun...something like the m60 (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/5/58/M60.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20070330224515)
But you really weren't looking for the truth, now were you? :)
Well, assume for every group of five guys, one is a designated driver. Cut down the ratio for those people using cabs (say half), and you've got 10%.
Say only 10% of people are willing to properly train and obtain CCW - now you've got 1%.
In a group of 100+, that's at least one more good guy with a gun than before.
Now, of course the first few seconds of mayhem cannot be stopped - people are going to die. But for every good guy with a gun, ready to respond, more lives are saved.
A sober, well trained, designated CCW may not have the body armor, or legal department, or the union a SWAT guy has, but as in the rest of life, 80% is just being there.
First, let's look at the reason why car insurance happens:
http://asirt.org/initiatives/i...
"Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year"
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/...
"annual rates of 69.2 for bathtubs for those under 5 to 58.2 for accidental firearm deaths for those under 15."
Should we get bathtub insurance as well?
Insurance only works when there is a large enough pool to justify the overhead - neither bathtub accidents or firearm accidents are common enough to justify it.
Agreed - CCW means no drinking, period, even if you're at a club. That being said, we allow designated drivers in bars, who stay sober, no reason not to have designated CCW.
One guy with a rifle and a pistol, and over a hundred unarmed civilians, and one armed defender, ended up as some pretty stupid shit.
Adding in SWAT guys (more guns) to the situation, didn't create more stupid shit, it *ended* it.
If there had been even *one* more good guy with a gun at the beginning of the carnage, we'd have had *less* stupid shit.
Now, I'm fully okay with making it illegal to drink and carry concealed, but if you can have a designated driver, then you should be able to have a designated CCW too.
We sacrificed 50 people in a "gun free zone", in addition to the hundreds of others killed over the years with the same situation.
So...should we be able to get insurance for drunk driving? Or attempted murder? Or shoplifting?
Insuring against crime that you commit seems beyond any actuarial possibility...and the sheer rate of auto accidents in comparison to firearm accidents makes an insurance market for the latter unlikely.
So, only rich people should be allowed to protect themselves?
What if we said only gainfully employed security guards should be allowed to carry?
Oh wait...