Absent an agreement to the contrary, specifically stating otherwise, they can fire him at will, for any reason, provided the reason is not prohibited by law (i.e. discrimination laws).
Suspicion alone IS grounds for dismissal in almost any employment at will state.
Yet another member of the blame America crowd. Those in the blame America crowd will always see and hear exactly what they want, and use regrettable mistakes like this to proclaim that this is proof they were always right about America.
Get off the high horse and remember you've never had to be in a combat zone, and worry about if that possible threat you see is about to shoot down one of your fellow soldiers.
Again, you can't judge what you would have done versus what they did, because you can't exclude your advance knowledge of what you seeing from your evaluation. They did not have that benefit. And did you see the raw video footage? Not exactly hidef, so perhaps we shouldnt be jumping to conclusions when you have absolutely no basis to justify them.
Remember, you are watching the video with preknowledge of the contents. You know its a camera, and thus will see it as such.
This is a war zone, and frankly, the soldiers in the line deserve the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes will, regrettably, occur when in a zone of hostilities. There is NO WAY to conduct any war where you eliminate the possibilities of things like this happening. Hesitate too much, wait too long, in order to get conclusive proof of what you believe you are seeing can result in loss of lives, often much larger loss of lives than the number lost in this regrettable and unfortunate error.
Lastly, the leaking of confidential and top secret material, regardless of the motivation, is and should always be treated as a serious criminal matter. The person leaking has no idea of what the full consequences of those leaks may end up being, regardless of whatever idealistic justifications they feel in doing it.
TFA misrepresented the case, and didnt get his facts correct. Go read the PDF of the decision, and that will be clear. For example, he didnt even understand that the lower court ruled that the license was invalid, saying the appeals court AFFIRMED the lower court ruling, when in fact they vacated and remanded.
If the TFA was written by an attorney, it was written by one who didnt read any of the actual case material.
The only thing that stands as a precedent is the very very very narrow decision by the appeals court, which is not very substantive at all.
In the end, all they decided was to vacate the previous court's ruling that the license's broad terms were overly broad and thus couldn't rise to the standard required for a financial liability and enforcement. That was the ONLY ruling in by the appellate court, and it is very narrow, and applies only to the federal courts, who even the appellate court explained barely had jurisdiction in this case.
Again, go back, reread with comprehension enabled.
Commercial theft was not the charge. The charge was Commercial Burglary, which is vastly different and can carry a State Prison sentence of 16 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years.
The crime he committed was shoplifting, and with no priors should have remained that. With priors, it would then be felony theft with priors. There was no reason to charge him with felony burglary, even if he met the legal definition of it, because the burglary law was not crafted to cover that type of crime. It's a case of law being too loosely worded, and not narrowly defined enough, and thus allowing the system to abuse its application.
A loss prevention worker has no say in what the charges filed are.
The fact is that the overcharging of minor crimes like that happens every day, and NOT only in California. That definition of burglary exists in every one of 10 other states I checked. The amount stolen is not relevant except for the charge of theft. Burglary typically has no modifiers for amount stolen, and doesn't even have to involve a theft of any kind.
The case I mentioned is an actual one. And I could follow it up with many more. A 18 year old girl, lifted a bottle of liquor from a liquor store, was asked the same question (the police are trained in this), and faced the same charge of burglary.
Felony theft may start at $500 in value, felony burglary starts at Zero, it requires only your intent when you entered the premises, even if no theft occurred.
$35 for the Ion, and it is mountable on the back of any LCD TV or Monitor. The difference in price is not nearly as much as people here are portraying, and the difference in functionality is so huge that the small difference is barely mentionable.
Go back, reread, and with some reading comprehension enabled =)
The example you cite from my comment, the petty thief was charged with Felony Burglary, BECAUSE of his statement to police when questioned.
Not petty theft.
While he was certainly GUILTY of the felony, it was a blatant overcharge of the level of the crime (provided he didn't have priors).
Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.
In the context of having done the act, he is guilty of it whether the system found him guilty or not. But in the example noted, the person said "innocent people CONVICTED" meaning having been found guilty.
Either way, presumption of innocence isn't the point here.
Completely irrelevant examples. The car was capable of it, and you are not stealing anything by modifying it. This is so obviously not on point, it is almost silly.
Utility example is the same. As long as you are paying for what you use, there is no stealing of water resulting from you doing your own work.
You really need to stay on point.
Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing. Morally and legally.
And the argument that just because (fill in the blank) is going on and is much more serious, we shouldn't prosecuted lesser crimes...well, that's not exactly logical or desirable either.
Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier, just because we have bank robberies going on, does that mean police shouldn't arrest shoplifters? If it was my music store, I'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me.
Now, do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers?
A shoplifter is told that the court will look positively on his cooperation after being arested, and then is asked did he intend to steal the item(s) when he entered the store, or did he decide to steal them once inside the store.
He admits he went there to steal the item.
Petting theft just turned into Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny).
Will it get pled down? Now he HAS to plea it down and take whatever they offer to avoid a felony record.
Saw this exact scenario play out when a college student was busted stealing a $20 CD.
Beagleboard includes 256MB of DDR RAM, and 256MB of NAND Flash.
1GB of DDR2 ram is $15.00 for the Ion board.
So yeah, maybe a little off, but the small amount more gives you a huge difference in system performance, and for HiDef media, the difference would be night and day for what amounts to a small difference in cost.
Forgot to mention the $172 and $190 prices include a mini-pci-e wireless card installed. And with a low cost M350 Mini-ITX case, you can mount the system on the tv itself using the wall mounts.
Personally, I think this isn't a very attractive option at all. The Beagleboard is.roughly $150?
The Zatec Ion board (Intel Atom dual core processor using Nvidia's Ion chipset) is around $172 ($190 with the powerbrick), cheaper if you go for the single core version.
And would far out perform the Beagleboard.
Not just complicated, but impossible. You can't pass laws that retroactively revoke immunity. The immunity for acts committed up until the enactment of any law that removes the immunity cannot be revoked.
The most they could do is make it so that any future acts are not covered by immunity.
There isn't even any room to wiggle on this point, it is a simple fact of US Constitutional law.
The constitution does not call for "separation of church and state" as it is so often misrepresented. It simply says that the Government cannot respect one religion over another.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion
(And for the record, I'm not a believer in any religion)
Not all legal judgments can be discharged via bankruptcies. The judgment holder can file an adversary complaint and oppose the discharge of the judgment debt.
Judgments related to normal debt issues can almost always be discharged via bankruptcies (i.e., you own a credit card company, they sue, get a judgment, that judgment can be resolved via the bankruptcy), but since the RIAA judgment alleges injury related to misconduct, they can argue to have their judgment considered outside of the bankruptcy process, and avoid its discharge.
You miss the point. You seem to think that discussing the bad decisions by a software publisher and being annoyed/angry about them, and discussing the hows and whys is because of a sense of entitlement.
You are wrong to make that leap.
Does Google have the RIGHT to require you to run an updater to use their software? Sure, provided they are DISCLOSING what they are doing and what you are agreeing to (something that was NOT the case until the last couple of days).
Slashdot Mirror
Indiana is an employment at will state.
Absent an agreement to the contrary, specifically stating otherwise, they can fire him at will, for any reason, provided the reason is not prohibited by law (i.e. discrimination laws).
Suspicion alone IS grounds for dismissal in almost any employment at will state.
Yet another member of the blame America crowd. Those in the blame America crowd will always see and hear exactly what they want, and use regrettable mistakes like this to proclaim that this is proof they were always right about America. Get off the high horse and remember you've never had to be in a combat zone, and worry about if that possible threat you see is about to shoot down one of your fellow soldiers.
Again, you can't judge what you would have done versus what they did, because you can't exclude your advance knowledge of what you seeing from your evaluation. They did not have that benefit. And did you see the raw video footage? Not exactly hidef, so perhaps we shouldnt be jumping to conclusions when you have absolutely no basis to justify them.
Well said. Points often missed by the large number of people on this site who feel that slanted news is justified when it supports their views.
Remember, you are watching the video with preknowledge of the contents. You know its a camera, and thus will see it as such. This is a war zone, and frankly, the soldiers in the line deserve the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes will, regrettably, occur when in a zone of hostilities. There is NO WAY to conduct any war where you eliminate the possibilities of things like this happening. Hesitate too much, wait too long, in order to get conclusive proof of what you believe you are seeing can result in loss of lives, often much larger loss of lives than the number lost in this regrettable and unfortunate error. Lastly, the leaking of confidential and top secret material, regardless of the motivation, is and should always be treated as a serious criminal matter. The person leaking has no idea of what the full consequences of those leaks may end up being, regardless of whatever idealistic justifications they feel in doing it.
TFA misrepresented the case, and didnt get his facts correct. Go read the PDF of the decision, and that will be clear. For example, he didnt even understand that the lower court ruled that the license was invalid, saying the appeals court AFFIRMED the lower court ruling, when in fact they vacated and remanded. If the TFA was written by an attorney, it was written by one who didnt read any of the actual case material.
The only thing that stands as a precedent is the very very very narrow decision by the appeals court, which is not very substantive at all. In the end, all they decided was to vacate the previous court's ruling that the license's broad terms were overly broad and thus couldn't rise to the standard required for a financial liability and enforcement. That was the ONLY ruling in by the appellate court, and it is very narrow, and applies only to the federal courts, who even the appellate court explained barely had jurisdiction in this case.
Again, go back, reread with comprehension enabled. Commercial theft was not the charge. The charge was Commercial Burglary, which is vastly different and can carry a State Prison sentence of 16 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. The crime he committed was shoplifting, and with no priors should have remained that. With priors, it would then be felony theft with priors. There was no reason to charge him with felony burglary, even if he met the legal definition of it, because the burglary law was not crafted to cover that type of crime. It's a case of law being too loosely worded, and not narrowly defined enough, and thus allowing the system to abuse its application.
A loss prevention worker has no say in what the charges filed are. The fact is that the overcharging of minor crimes like that happens every day, and NOT only in California. That definition of burglary exists in every one of 10 other states I checked. The amount stolen is not relevant except for the charge of theft. Burglary typically has no modifiers for amount stolen, and doesn't even have to involve a theft of any kind. The case I mentioned is an actual one. And I could follow it up with many more. A 18 year old girl, lifted a bottle of liquor from a liquor store, was asked the same question (the police are trained in this), and faced the same charge of burglary. Felony theft may start at $500 in value, felony burglary starts at Zero, it requires only your intent when you entered the premises, even if no theft occurred.
$35 for the Ion, and it is mountable on the back of any LCD TV or Monitor. The difference in price is not nearly as much as people here are portraying, and the difference in functionality is so huge that the small difference is barely mentionable.
Go back, reread, and with some reading comprehension enabled =) The example you cite from my comment, the petty thief was charged with Felony Burglary, BECAUSE of his statement to police when questioned. Not petty theft.
While he was certainly GUILTY of the felony, it was a blatant overcharge of the level of the crime (provided he didn't have priors).
Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.
In the context of having done the act, he is guilty of it whether the system found him guilty or not. But in the example noted, the person said "innocent people CONVICTED" meaning having been found guilty. Either way, presumption of innocence isn't the point here.
Completely irrelevant examples. The car was capable of it, and you are not stealing anything by modifying it. This is so obviously not on point, it is almost silly. Utility example is the same. As long as you are paying for what you use, there is no stealing of water resulting from you doing your own work. You really need to stay on point.
It's not that they charge crimes that were not committed, its that the overcharge the level of the offense.
Huge difference.
Knowing filing charges they know the individual did no commit would lead to sanctions and disbarment.
The guy was not innocent.
He was guilty, just that the charge was overstated for the offense.
Keep things in perspective.
And the argument that just because (fill in the blank) is going on and is much more serious, we shouldn't prosecuted lesser crimes...well, that's not exactly logical or desirable either.
Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier, just because we have bank robberies going on, does that mean police shouldn't arrest shoplifters? If it was my music store, I'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me.
Now, do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers?
Absolutely not.
He admits he went there to steal the item.
Petting theft just turned into Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny).
Will it get pled down? Now he HAS to plea it down and take whatever they offer to avoid a felony record.
Saw this exact scenario play out when a college student was busted stealing a $20 CD.
Beagleboard includes 256MB of DDR RAM, and 256MB of NAND Flash. 1GB of DDR2 ram is $15.00 for the Ion board. So yeah, maybe a little off, but the small amount more gives you a huge difference in system performance, and for HiDef media, the difference would be night and day for what amounts to a small difference in cost.
Forgot to mention the $172 and $190 prices include a mini-pci-e wireless card installed. And with a low cost M350 Mini-ITX case, you can mount the system on the tv itself using the wall mounts.
Personally, I think this isn't a very attractive option at all. The Beagleboard is.roughly $150? The Zatec Ion board (Intel Atom dual core processor using Nvidia's Ion chipset) is around $172 ($190 with the powerbrick), cheaper if you go for the single core version. And would far out perform the Beagleboard.
Not just complicated, but impossible. You can't pass laws that retroactively revoke immunity. The immunity for acts committed up until the enactment of any law that removes the immunity cannot be revoked.
The most they could do is make it so that any future acts are not covered by immunity.
There isn't even any room to wiggle on this point, it is a simple fact of US Constitutional law.
The constitution does not call for "separation of church and state" as it is so often misrepresented. It simply says that the Government cannot respect one religion over another. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion (And for the record, I'm not a believer in any religion)
Not all legal judgments can be discharged via bankruptcies. The judgment holder can file an adversary complaint and oppose the discharge of the judgment debt. Judgments related to normal debt issues can almost always be discharged via bankruptcies (i.e., you own a credit card company, they sue, get a judgment, that judgment can be resolved via the bankruptcy), but since the RIAA judgment alleges injury related to misconduct, they can argue to have their judgment considered outside of the bankruptcy process, and avoid its discharge.
You miss the point. You seem to think that discussing the bad decisions by a software publisher and being annoyed/angry about them, and discussing the hows and whys is because of a sense of entitlement.
You are wrong to make that leap.
Does Google have the RIGHT to require you to run an updater to use their software? Sure, provided they are DISCLOSING what they are doing and what you are agreeing to (something that was NOT the case until the last couple of days).
Does that make their demand acceptable?
No.