This guy was a juror and heard all the evidence, you did not. What makes you think you are more informed than he is? Please explain to me and everyone on Slashdot what makes you think your limited information gleaned from summarizations by uninformed people allows you to make a better decision in this case than someone who was provided all the facts and is trained in the subjects concerned in this case.
The real question should be "Who, if anyone, was harmed by Terry Childs's actions?"
So, if someone goes up into a building with a rifle and a bunch of ammunition and starts firing randomly, should he be let go as long as he didn't actually hit anyone?
How about if someone gives drug laced cookies and brownies to some kids? If they don't get sick or die, should she be let go with no charges?
How about if someone spits in your hamburger? After all, you weren't harmed by it.
In the real world, it is not "no harm, no foul". When you do something wrong, even if no one was hurt, you can, and should, be punished.
If one enters a country without following said country's entry and immigration laws, one is an illegal alien. In many other countries, it is a criminal offense.
The real problem is that said illegal alien entered the country illegally. As someone else mentioned, said person may be nice to his landlord and neighbors and still be a wanted criminal, a child molester, or carrying a contagious disease. How often do you see a surprised friend and/or neighbor on the news saying "He was such a nice guy. I can't believe he did that." If we want to go down the road of terrorism, remember that according to reports the 9/11 conspirators were good neighbors and tenants.
Now, let me demonstrate the fallacy of your argument:
They will be forced to remove it when ti goes to court.
Only if they lose in court, and it is not clear they will lose. And, state law can be more restrictive than federal law.
I would rather have illegal immigration then have to show papers.
Why would you need to? Do you speak little or no American English and don't know your own address or how to spell your name?
You don't go to jail.
Depends on where you are and what you were doing.
So? any law forcing them to show it just because would be wrong.
Why is it wrong to require someone who is required to have and provide on demand identification and status papers actually provide those papers. How is it different from requiring someone to provide any other form of identification, such as a driver's license or ID card? Remember, these people (H1-Bs, etc.) are required to have this documentation, just like one may be required to have proof of insurance while driving. To be required to display this proof on demand does not seem like a great hardship.
I like living in a free country, even if that means people can walk down the street illegally.
If the event never took place, then no crime occurred, therefore you should have had a great case so pleading guilty was stupid on your part.
The fact that you think only stupid people serve on juries shows your arrogance and disrespect. Some people serve on juries because it is there civic duty, something with which you are obviously unacquainted.
Stop blaming other people and the system for your shortcomings as a human being and a citizen.
You are not on trial now because you already pleaded guilty. Therefore I don't have to worry about "evidence, due process, Rules of Criminal Procedure or mens rea". You have admitted guilt during your due process, therefore the evidence is that you are guilty.
At the mention of mens rea, are we to believe you didn't know what you were doing when you shot up that port-a-potty? Are you claiming temporary insanity?
Really, explain why, after you stated you were tried and you plead guilty, you think you are entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt. The time for you getting the benefit of the doubt was during your trail, you dumbass.
What did you learn in your education? I hope it was not to be a dumbass who shoots up port-a-potties.
No one forced you to plead out. Sounds like you shot up a port-a-potty for fun, got busted, was convicted, and are now a paranoid, tin-foil-hat wearer.
The net effect for the states will be either zero or positive if they don't comply. The states can raise the tax rate and/or step up enforcement by subpoenaing the sales records for their states.
You say you are aware of the split in federal and state powers, but apparently you do not understand that state and federal governments are two separate entities. Sales taxes and use taxes are not taxes on the seller, they are taxes on the buyer. The tax you are proposing would be in addition to state use and/or sales taxes and the federal government has no ability to force a change in state sales and/or use taxes specifically because those laws were written to apply to buyers in the individual states. One would still be required by state law to pay the state tax, regardless of the federal tax. While the sellers in a state are not paying the tax, they are required to collect the tax for the state.
In your example, I am guessing the buyer is in Hawaii and the seller is in Washington. Even if the tax you suggest were implemented, the buyer would be required under Hawaii law to pay the sales or use tax as defined by Hawaii law. They would also end up paying the federal tax you suggest. The reason for this is that the federal government can not say to Hawaii "You can not have this in your law" because the law only applies to people in the state of Hawaii.
OK, then get a government job and try the same thing, because I know for a fact that the government takes both seriously and in very similar manner as one would be denying access to the items password protected in the manner represented in the case.
Here, I will clarify it so even you can understand it:
Even if a national use tax is implemented, it would not prevent states from implementing a state sales and/or use tax. The federal government does not have the power to prevent such taxes from being levied by the state as long as the tax is only applied to entities within the state. (See Article 1 and Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America)
What you suggest would not over-ride a state sales tax. In order for it to do so, the law would have to make state sales taxes illegal, and Congress doesn't have that authority. The states would sue because the federal government would be overstepping their constitutional bounds.
A state sales tax is not an interstate trade issue because of the wording of the law. Sellers in the state collect the tax. If an item is bought out of state and shipped in state, the tax is the burden of the purchaser. The burdens of paying and collecting the tax is solely on those in the state, therefore interstate trade is not an issue and so beyond the authority of the federal government.
There is nothing "ntirely confusing and desperately unnecessary" about a state sales tax. Try reading the law, it is usually pretty straight forward. I am sure even you can understand it.
Except, the law in NC that states that one must pay sales tax on items bought by mail has probably been around since before the internet. Ignorance of said law is no excuse. There is nothing unfair about this. No one is being retroactively screwed.
Oh, and NC can not go after most of these retailers because they do not have a physical presence in the state. Business in the state are required to collect the tax. Taxes on items bought by mail (or, in some cases, items bought in from out of state) are the responsibility of the purchaser.
Most state governments have no jurisdiction over the "Wall Street ratings agencies". If the rating agency does not have a physical presence in a particular state, then the agency is not under the jurisdiction of said state. The states could sue the agencies, if the state itself lost money. But, did the state, or did the independent retirement fund lose money. If the latter, then it would be the fund that would have to sue.
Yeah, hate to break it to you, but the law of the land is not "finders, keepers". The law requires the finder of a lost item to attempt to return said item to the owner, generally by turning it over to the police. After a period of time, which is set by law, unclaimed property is turned over to the finder.
The crime was not in finding the item, but in selling it to a third party. The third party can be liable if he knew or reasonably should have known said item was not the sellers, i.e. if one purchases a top of the line blu-ray disc player, new in the box, for $100 from a guy selling several of them out of the trunk of his car, one can reasonably assume that they are stolen. Failing to ask if the seller is the owner or an authorized agent is no excuse and can be seen as willful ignorance which, in turn, is evidence of guilt.
Refusing to return found property is theft. Selling found property without following the found property laws is theft. Demanding a reward to return found property is extortion.
Maybe you should check out your local laws and post them here. Or, if you are too lazy, post what state and city you live in and I will post them.
The only problem would be if the sales tax does not apply to all items. The tax may apply to books, but not, for example, religious books like the bible, koran, etc. In that instance, it does matter what book, DVD, etc. one has purchased.
If you raise your daughter right, you don't have to worry about it. But, apparently, you are too busy to actually be a parent so you are relying on the government and outrage groups to do it for you.
If you are too busy thinking of yourself and your life to properly raise a child, you shouldn't have children. Stop being selfish and childish and start being a parent.
You are the irrational one. You are making shit up and then saying "You are crazy for not believing what I just made up." It is as simple as that. You are, in fact, so delusional that you refuse to see the obvious failure in your post even when it is pointed out to you. You are either a liar or delusional, so, which is it?
I made my point, namely that there is no active commercial space company that can provide the lift capability we need. Now, stop your whining, you little bitch, because I gave you a chance to prove me wrong and all you did was piss yourself and prove me right.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but did you say this guy failed?
This guy was a juror and heard all the evidence, you did not. What makes you think you are more informed than he is? Please explain to me and everyone on Slashdot what makes you think your limited information gleaned from summarizations by uninformed people allows you to make a better decision in this case than someone who was provided all the facts and is trained in the subjects concerned in this case.
Your arrogance is amazing and you need to STFU.
So, if someone goes up into a building with a rifle and a bunch of ammunition and starts firing randomly, should he be let go as long as he didn't actually hit anyone?
How about if someone gives drug laced cookies and brownies to some kids? If they don't get sick or die, should she be let go with no charges?
How about if someone spits in your hamburger? After all, you weren't harmed by it.
In the real world, it is not "no harm, no foul". When you do something wrong, even if no one was hurt, you can, and should, be punished.
Oh come on!?! You don't actually expect someone on /. to read the fucking article do you? That is just crazy talk.
Here, I think you dropped your tin foil hat.
If one enters a country without following said country's entry and immigration laws, one is an illegal alien. In many other countries, it is a criminal offense.
The real problem is that said illegal alien entered the country illegally. As someone else mentioned, said person may be nice to his landlord and neighbors and still be a wanted criminal, a child molester, or carrying a contagious disease. How often do you see a surprised friend and/or neighbor on the news saying "He was such a nice guy. I can't believe he did that." If we want to go down the road of terrorism, remember that according to reports the 9/11 conspirators were good neighbors and tenants.
Now, let me demonstrate the fallacy of your argument:
Do you see the problem with "supposing"? Even if you point to a specific person, it is still cherry-picking.
Only if they lose in court, and it is not clear they will lose. And, state law can be more restrictive than federal law.
Why would you need to? Do you speak little or no American English and don't know your own address or how to spell your name?
Depends on where you are and what you were doing.
Why is it wrong to require someone who is required to have and provide on demand identification and status papers actually provide those papers. How is it different from requiring someone to provide any other form of identification, such as a driver's license or ID card? Remember, these people (H1-Bs, etc.) are required to have this documentation, just like one may be required to have proof of insurance while driving. To be required to display this proof on demand does not seem like a great hardship.
The country is no less free for this law.
If the event never took place, then no crime occurred, therefore you should have had a great case so pleading guilty was stupid on your part.
The fact that you think only stupid people serve on juries shows your arrogance and disrespect. Some people serve on juries because it is there civic duty, something with which you are obviously unacquainted.
Stop blaming other people and the system for your shortcomings as a human being and a citizen.
You are not on trial now because you already pleaded guilty. Therefore I don't have to worry about "evidence, due process, Rules of Criminal Procedure or mens rea". You have admitted guilt during your due process, therefore the evidence is that you are guilty.
At the mention of mens rea, are we to believe you didn't know what you were doing when you shot up that port-a-potty? Are you claiming temporary insanity?
Really, explain why, after you stated you were tried and you plead guilty, you think you are entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt. The time for you getting the benefit of the doubt was during your trail, you dumbass.
What did you learn in your education? I hope it was not to be a dumbass who shoots up port-a-potties.
No one forced you to plead out. Sounds like you shot up a port-a-potty for fun, got busted, was convicted, and are now a paranoid, tin-foil-hat wearer.
The net effect for the states will be either zero or positive if they don't comply. The states can raise the tax rate and/or step up enforcement by subpoenaing the sales records for their states.
You say you are aware of the split in federal and state powers, but apparently you do not understand that state and federal governments are two separate entities. Sales taxes and use taxes are not taxes on the seller, they are taxes on the buyer. The tax you are proposing would be in addition to state use and/or sales taxes and the federal government has no ability to force a change in state sales and/or use taxes specifically because those laws were written to apply to buyers in the individual states. One would still be required by state law to pay the state tax, regardless of the federal tax. While the sellers in a state are not paying the tax, they are required to collect the tax for the state.
In your example, I am guessing the buyer is in Hawaii and the seller is in Washington. Even if the tax you suggest were implemented, the buyer would be required under Hawaii law to pay the sales or use tax as defined by Hawaii law. They would also end up paying the federal tax you suggest. The reason for this is that the federal government can not say to Hawaii "You can not have this in your law" because the law only applies to people in the state of Hawaii.
OK, then get a government job and try the same thing, because I know for a fact that the government takes both seriously and in very similar manner as one would be denying access to the items password protected in the manner represented in the case.
Apparently, you did not understand my post.
Here, I will clarify it so even you can understand it:
Even if a national use tax is implemented, it would not prevent states from implementing a state sales and/or use tax. The federal government does not have the power to prevent such taxes from being levied by the state as long as the tax is only applied to entities within the state. (See Article 1 and Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America)
Now, please shut the fuck up, dumbass.
It was not his job to refuse to turn over the passwords to his boss and/or when he was terminated.
As if that makes it all right to withhold the passwords. Tell you what, get a company car and get fired and refuse to return it and see what happens.
What you suggest would not over-ride a state sales tax. In order for it to do so, the law would have to make state sales taxes illegal, and Congress doesn't have that authority. The states would sue because the federal government would be overstepping their constitutional bounds.
A state sales tax is not an interstate trade issue because of the wording of the law. Sellers in the state collect the tax. If an item is bought out of state and shipped in state, the tax is the burden of the purchaser. The burdens of paying and collecting the tax is solely on those in the state, therefore interstate trade is not an issue and so beyond the authority of the federal government.
There is nothing "ntirely confusing and desperately unnecessary" about a state sales tax. Try reading the law, it is usually pretty straight forward. I am sure even you can understand it.
Except, the law in NC that states that one must pay sales tax on items bought by mail has probably been around since before the internet. Ignorance of said law is no excuse. There is nothing unfair about this. No one is being retroactively screwed.
Oh, and NC can not go after most of these retailers because they do not have a physical presence in the state. Business in the state are required to collect the tax. Taxes on items bought by mail (or, in some cases, items bought in from out of state) are the responsibility of the purchaser.
Most state governments have no jurisdiction over the "Wall Street ratings agencies". If the rating agency does not have a physical presence in a particular state, then the agency is not under the jurisdiction of said state. The states could sue the agencies, if the state itself lost money. But, did the state, or did the independent retirement fund lose money. If the latter, then it would be the fund that would have to sue.
Yeah, hate to break it to you, but the law of the land is not "finders, keepers". The law requires the finder of a lost item to attempt to return said item to the owner, generally by turning it over to the police. After a period of time, which is set by law, unclaimed property is turned over to the finder.
The crime was not in finding the item, but in selling it to a third party. The third party can be liable if he knew or reasonably should have known said item was not the sellers, i.e. if one purchases a top of the line blu-ray disc player, new in the box, for $100 from a guy selling several of them out of the trunk of his car, one can reasonably assume that they are stolen. Failing to ask if the seller is the owner or an authorized agent is no excuse and can be seen as willful ignorance which, in turn, is evidence of guilt.
Refusing to return found property is theft.
Selling found property without following the found property laws is theft.
Demanding a reward to return found property is extortion.
Maybe you should check out your local laws and post them here. Or, if you are too lazy, post what state and city you live in and I will post them.
The only problem would be if the sales tax does not apply to all items. The tax may apply to books, but not, for example, religious books like the bible, koran, etc. In that instance, it does matter what book, DVD, etc. one has purchased.
They are games, duh.
If you raise your daughter right, you don't have to worry about it. But, apparently, you are too busy to actually be a parent so you are relying on the government and outrage groups to do it for you.
If you are too busy thinking of yourself and your life to properly raise a child, you shouldn't have children. Stop being selfish and childish and start being a parent.
No, it wasn't and the fact that you and them believe it does shows your immaturity and the fact that you are uncomfortable with the human body.
Grow the fuck up, people.
You are the irrational one. You are making shit up and then saying "You are crazy for not believing what I just made up." It is as simple as that. You are, in fact, so delusional that you refuse to see the obvious failure in your post even when it is pointed out to you. You are either a liar or delusional, so, which is it?
I made my point, namely that there is no active commercial space company that can provide the lift capability we need. Now, stop your whining, you little bitch, because I gave you a chance to prove me wrong and all you did was piss yourself and prove me right.