I would imagine that if you are in the middle of a murder trial of a pig farmer who may have sent a threatening text... That they've got more than just that on the accused.
And the first person who sends a cute "I'm going to shoot you with my (water-gun emojii) tomorrow!" gets arrested for making a threat because the receiver doesn't have an iOS device will get to sue Apple for creating an incompatible standard which lead to legal issues.
FFS... They did many years ago... For a two year period only. After that those sticking around were on a month to month contract that wither could walk away from at anytime and for any reason.
I'm on Verizon and have an unlimited data plan (currently)... I also haven't been under contact with them for 4 years now... The entire time knowing that they could cancel my data plan.
With the entire history of Microsoft, RICO applies, because you can point out continual willful violations of the law for profit and flouting courts, plus tax evasion, etc.
From the above link:
So people on the Internet use "RICO" to sound tough. Do lawyers overuse it too?
Oh hell yes. And judges hate it. It's overcomplicated and most of the time it adds nothing to the case.
It's so overused — especially by crazy pro se plaintiffs — and so needless that a lot of federal judges have special RICO orders they issue in RICO cases demanding that the plaintiff explain, in painful detail, why they think they have a RICO claim. Like this one, for instance. Judges issue them automatically as soon as a RICO case hits their docket to gather information to dismiss the case because it's not fucking RICO you idiot.
Back to your nonsense though...
You must not be a bright lawyer if you can't piece shit together like this.
I never said I'm a lawyer.
If it was so easy to piece all of this together under RICO... you'd think someone, somewhere who has been injured by Microsoft due to racketeering would be able to find a bright lawyer who would bring a successful civil suit against them under RICO.
I'm seeing a settlement from a MS & Best Buy as defendants suit regarding unclear terms regarding MSN service from 99-04 which started out with a claim of RICO... yet still no legal findings to support an assertion under RICO yet, odd that?
I wonder what the lawyers & courts who have made such claims over the years kept failing? Not enough money? Surely there is a Peter Thiel who could be convinced to bankroll such a case... if they thought there was a case... right?
Right, nobody was ever talking about banning all guns.
Strange, I just got a call from Senator Dianne Feinstein, asking me to ask you not to misrepresent her view.
There are legitimate uses for them particularly in farming and rural areas.
And who exactly is going to be the arbiter of what is 'legitimate' or not? Also, I've got some Christians calling saying they would like to sign up to regulate the proper forms of relationships & sexual contact.
It was about banning the sort of guns that do not have legitimate uses in society, like assault rifles and automatic weapons.
True 'assuult rifles', like automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934... or did you mean 'assault weapons', in which case I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
I know you like to imagine the fantastical scenario where some punk pulls a weapon on you and you quickdraw your shit and put him down or some bigot goes on a shooting rampage and you'll nail his bitch ass with your handy AR15 and save the day but you need to wake up to reality.
On the contrary, I hope to die as an old and happy man never having to have drawn a weapon in anger or fear... ditto for calling the fire department saying my house is burning down and my kids are inside... but none the less I keep a few fire extinguishers, smoke detectors and firearms at hand... just in case the worst happens.
If you really are referring to the second ammendment then the point is to remove a defective government, but you're not going to do that,
Clearly there is a cultural problem with some who think it legitimate to go shoot up cops protecting a protest, a school or movie theater.
If it was simply access to firearms that caused such things, you'd think they'd be more prevalent in places where firearms aren't overly difficult to acquire... yet they aren't at the same rate.
There is also the constitutional issue, a new amendment being needed to be ratified in order to make such an operation legal.
Again, there are about as many firearms in this country as people... the only way to collect them is to go door to door, at the point of a gun to collect them... would the deaths resulting from that be more or less than those lost to unlawful use of firearms today? How then do you factor in the increase in deaths due to the inability to lawfully use arms for self-defense?
I've got an elderly white uncle who had police swarm him in his own yard because a passing driver didn't like how he was standing on the corner of his own property... when his wife ran out screaming "What are you doing? He's an army veteran, leave him alone!" they pointed several of their weapons at her... at which point she said "I'll go back inside"
He spent the next 45 minutes face down on the grass, handcuffed as they made sure he wasn't a threat.
The point is that if the bad guys don't have guns, those police would have been be alive.
True, however up until he died, legally speaking he was stilt a good guy (just like most of the rest of the American population... having not been convicted of any crimes or subject to any other legal process which would prevent him from buying a firearm (just like most of the rest of the American population who do not use firearms for evil. Had the military properly discharged him in a non honorable way (as it sounds like was their intention) then he wouldn't have been able to purchase something... so again, maybe it wasn't the gun which was to blame?
Guns are not like marijuana.
I live in Washington state... it's actually easier for me to buy marijuana than firearms (pot shops being closer to my house than stores which sell firearms or ammo... granted I can at least have ammo shipped to my house).
Block gunpowder and anything that contains it, and the gun problem is over.
Not quite, it just means those who own firearms aren't going to be shooting them as often, but will still likely have quite an inventory of ammo on hand.
More so, do you know what gunpowder is made of? Just some common ingredients one can purchase at your local home improvement store and/or grocery store... are you saying finding sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate is going to be that hard?
You can't grow gunpowder and brass in your yard.
Who says you need to grow it? As discussed, you can make your own gunpowder as the component materials are not at all hard to come across, hell, there was a Star Trek episode which pointed out just how easy it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There also is an entire class of firearm owners who reload their own ammo. Most simply combine over the counter brass, powder & bullets to make their own... I do know a few though who actually fabricate their own bullets & powder. In order to stop these people you'd actually have to crack down on primers... the chemistry & mechanics of which is a hair bit more difficult than powder, but not insurmountable.
Small problem... the United States is not Australia... and you ignored a whole lot of history.
Australia did have a gun buy back, but no where near all newly illegal firearms were turned in, and the mass shootings that the ban was imposed in response to were abnormal blips, not part of a trend.
One fact that most pointing to Australia forget is that guns aren't actually illegal there, just a few types are, and as a result they are still very popular: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Again, assuming you successfully repeal the second amendment, how exactly are you going to round up guns from all of those unwilling to turn them over? How many police and civilians will die as a result of the door to door searches?
I would do that... only given you failed to mention St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Atlanta, Cincinnati or Oakland... I'm pretty sure I understand the numbers... because if they were equally distributed, why does a place like Plano, TX have such a rather low homicide rate? (Nyeh! it's a small town!) San Diego has a population of ~1.3 million but has a rate a third that of San Antonio (~1.4 million), why?
Why does Philadelphia have a rate twice that of Las Vegas? And that when Vegas has a rate 2.5x that of San Diego?
Again, not uniformly distributed. Lots of random noise here & there, but also fairly obvious areas of concentration.
Well if nobody had guns, maybe you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself god damn it.
Nice circular logic you've got there.
How pray-tell do you expect to put the gun genie back in the bottle... even if you successfully repealed the second amendment and then legislatively banned all private ownership? There are over 300 million privately owned arms in the US, they can be built in a garage with simple tools from the hardware store, or you can get more advanced with a CNC or 3d printer if suddenly you can't buy any new ones. How many people would die as the police go door to door to collect non-turned in arms?
How many armed robbers take along 4yo girls in the backseat?
Kids don't always have a playdate schedule which is compatible with armed robbery, so yes, they sometimes are brought along for the ride: http://wreg.com/2016/04/02/pol...
If he "pulled a gun" the cops would be telling he pulled his gun.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the cops in MN have been pretty quiet thus far... not even confirming or denying if the deceased did in fact have a concealed carry permit.
The cops shot an innocent man for no reason.
... in your opinion. How about we wait for some more facts? Was the cop wearing a body cam? Was there a recording dashcam in the cop car?
Morans.
Do us all a favor... go look in the mirror real quick.
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, 50 Pulse patrons and many police would be alive right now.
Highly unlikely. Several states have similar or more restrictive controls on so called 'assault weapons'... and as we saw in San Bernardino, it didn't stop a thing.. and they even modified the rifles in a way which was illegal under California law. More so, during the 'ban', much the same rifles were still available, only with minor cosmetic changes to make them legal (ie thumb in hole stock instead of a pistol grip).
As it stands now, the US is in the world's top five countries when it comes to people being killed by guns.
And yet the gun deaths are not evenly distributed across the country, instead they are primarily centralized in in a handful of locations... which if you discount their influence, the actual national rate drops like a rock.
Maybe it's not the firearms which are the problem?
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
No doubt George Zimmerman agrees... only in his case he was able to draw his weapon and fend off an unlawful attacker who had him pinned to the ground.
The difference is that in this case, like it or not the cops did have the right to talk to the person (though they don't have to respond), even to detain him... and if you do end up resisting/fighting with police... bad things may end up happening, doubly so if you appear to be going for a weapon.
This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple.
Murder 1 usually requires some degree of forethought... and I highly doubt any jury would convict on the premise that simply drawing a weapon is 'forethought' given previous non compliance.
For example, some information that was marked "classified" was also reported to be public knowledge at the time and available from foreign newspapers, TV, etc. already. One may be able to claim that they got the info from such sources rather than classified documents.
So you have inside knowledge that each and every email came from such a source? If not, charges are still valid.
If Clinton's "power" gets her out of prosecution, that should not apply to underlings, and they should also be up for prosecution.
Which is why the whole lot of them are getting off. If they got charged, why not her? If she got charged, why not them? They opted for the easy route and said 'none of the above'.
So, which is it? Too big to jail, or too small not to jail?
Outright political corruption.
Personally, I can't stand Trump... but given the statute of limitations won't have expired on some of the things she was let off on today... I may just have to hold my nose in November, cast a vote for the stupid red hat and hope that he will bring charges if elected.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that if you are in the middle of a murder trial of a pig farmer who may have sent a threatening text... That they've got more than just that on the accused.
And the first person who sends a cute "I'm going to shoot you with my (water-gun emojii) tomorrow!" gets arrested for making a threat because the receiver doesn't have an iOS device will get to sue Apple for creating an incompatible standard which lead to legal issues.
FFS... They did many years ago... For a two year period only. After that those sticking around were on a month to month contract that wither could walk away from at anytime and for any reason.
I'm on Verizon and have an unlimited data plan (currently)... I also haven't been under contact with them for 4 years now... The entire time knowing that they could cancel my data plan.
I don't imagine the normal purchaser of a RPi being a normal member of the general public.
From the above link:
Back to your nonsense though...
I never said I'm a lawyer.
If it was so easy to piece all of this together under RICO... you'd think someone, somewhere who has been injured by Microsoft due to racketeering would be able to find a bright lawyer who would bring a successful civil suit against them under RICO.
I'm seeing a settlement from a MS & Best Buy as defendants suit regarding unclear terms regarding MSN service from 99-04 which started out with a claim of RICO... yet still no legal findings to support an assertion under RICO yet, odd that?
I wonder what the lawyers & courts who have made such claims over the years kept failing? Not enough money? Surely there is a Peter Thiel who could be convinced to bankroll such a case... if they thought there was a case... right?
IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT
DRM in some form has existed for years... Even the original Nintendo had it https://hackmii.com/2010/01/th...
Being stubborn in defense of individual liberty, how horrible and inexcusable!
Strange, I just got a call from Senator Dianne Feinstein, asking me to ask you not to misrepresent her view.
And who exactly is going to be the arbiter of what is 'legitimate' or not? Also, I've got some Christians calling saying they would like to sign up to regulate the proper forms of relationships & sexual contact.
True 'assuult rifles', like automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934... or did you mean 'assault weapons', in which case I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
On the contrary, I hope to die as an old and happy man never having to have drawn a weapon in anger or fear... ditto for calling the fire department saying my house is burning down and my kids are inside... but none the less I keep a few fire extinguishers, smoke detectors and firearms at hand... just in case the worst happens.
Except I haven't made that argument.
Clearly there is a cultural problem with some who think it legitimate to go shoot up cops protecting a protest, a school or movie theater.
If it was simply access to firearms that caused such things, you'd think they'd be more prevalent in places where firearms aren't overly difficult to acquire... yet they aren't at the same rate.
There is also the constitutional issue, a new amendment being needed to be ratified in order to make such an operation legal.
Again, there are about as many firearms in this country as people... the only way to collect them is to go door to door, at the point of a gun to collect them... would the deaths resulting from that be more or less than those lost to unlawful use of firearms today? How then do you factor in the increase in deaths due to the inability to lawfully use arms for self-defense?
I've got an elderly white uncle who had police swarm him in his own yard because a passing driver didn't like how he was standing on the corner of his own property... when his wife ran out screaming "What are you doing? He's an army veteran, leave him alone!" they pointed several of their weapons at her... at which point she said "I'll go back inside"
He spent the next 45 minutes face down on the grass, handcuffed as they made sure he wasn't a threat.
Sometimes, it's not about race.
True, however up until he died, legally speaking he was stilt a good guy (just like most of the rest of the American population... having not been convicted of any crimes or subject to any other legal process which would prevent him from buying a firearm (just like most of the rest of the American population who do not use firearms for evil. Had the military properly discharged him in a non honorable way (as it sounds like was their intention) then he wouldn't have been able to purchase something... so again, maybe it wasn't the gun which was to blame?
I live in Washington state... it's actually easier for me to buy marijuana than firearms (pot shops being closer to my house than stores which sell firearms or ammo... granted I can at least have ammo shipped to my house).
Not quite, it just means those who own firearms aren't going to be shooting them as often, but will still likely have quite an inventory of ammo on hand.
More so, do you know what gunpowder is made of? Just some common ingredients one can purchase at your local home improvement store and/or grocery store... are you saying finding sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate is going to be that hard?
Who says you need to grow it? As discussed, you can make your own gunpowder as the component materials are not at all hard to come across, hell, there was a Star Trek episode which pointed out just how easy it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There also is an entire class of firearm owners who reload their own ammo. Most simply combine over the counter brass, powder & bullets to make their own... I do know a few though who actually fabricate their own bullets & powder. In order to stop these people you'd actually have to crack down on primers... the chemistry & mechanics of which is a hair bit more difficult than powder, but not insurmountable.
Small problem... the United States is not Australia... and you ignored a whole lot of history.
Australia did have a gun buy back, but no where near all newly illegal firearms were turned in, and the mass shootings that the ban was imposed in response to were abnormal blips, not part of a trend.
One fact that most pointing to Australia forget is that guns aren't actually illegal there, just a few types are, and as a result they are still very popular: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Again, assuming you successfully repeal the second amendment, how exactly are you going to round up guns from all of those unwilling to turn them over? How many police and civilians will die as a result of the door to door searches?
The often used excuse is that many of those above us aren't industrialized first world countries... which somehow makes gun death ok?
I would do that... only given you failed to mention St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Atlanta, Cincinnati or Oakland... I'm pretty sure I understand the numbers... because if they were equally distributed, why does a place like Plano, TX have such a rather low homicide rate? (Nyeh! it's a small town!) San Diego has a population of ~1.3 million but has a rate a third that of San Antonio (~1.4 million), why?
Why does Philadelphia have a rate twice that of Las Vegas? And that when Vegas has a rate 2.5x that of San Diego?
Again, not uniformly distributed. Lots of random noise here & there, but also fairly obvious areas of concentration.
Nice circular logic you've got there.
How pray-tell do you expect to put the gun genie back in the bottle... even if you successfully repealed the second amendment and then legislatively banned all private ownership? There are over 300 million privately owned arms in the US, they can be built in a garage with simple tools from the hardware store, or you can get more advanced with a CNC or 3d printer if suddenly you can't buy any new ones. How many people would die as the police go door to door to collect non-turned in arms?
Kids don't always have a playdate schedule which is compatible with armed robbery, so yes, they sometimes are brought along for the ride: http://wreg.com/2016/04/02/pol...
I don't know if you've noticed, but the cops in MN have been pretty quiet thus far... not even confirming or denying if the deceased did in fact have a concealed carry permit.
Do us all a favor... go look in the mirror real quick.
Highly unlikely. Several states have similar or more restrictive controls on so called 'assault weapons'... and as we saw in San Bernardino, it didn't stop a thing.. and they even modified the rifles in a way which was illegal under California law. More so, during the 'ban', much the same rifles were still available, only with minor cosmetic changes to make them legal (ie thumb in hole stock instead of a pistol grip).
And yet the gun deaths are not evenly distributed across the country, instead they are primarily centralized in in a handful of locations... which if you discount their influence, the actual national rate drops like a rock.
Maybe it's not the firearms which are the problem?
Your #'s are a bit dated, at last check we* are the elite .7% of the market: http://www.theverge.com/2016/5...
*Yes, I still carry a Windows Phone, still debating what to switch to.
No doubt George Zimmerman agrees... only in his case he was able to draw his weapon and fend off an unlawful attacker who had him pinned to the ground.
The difference is that in this case, like it or not the cops did have the right to talk to the person (though they don't have to respond), even to detain him... and if you do end up resisting/fighting with police... bad things may end up happening, doubly so if you appear to be going for a weapon.
Murder 1 usually requires some degree of forethought... and I highly doubt any jury would convict on the premise that simply drawing a weapon is 'forethought' given previous non compliance.
We will see what the State Department opts to do regarding her existence clearance.
Only the Constitution, not statute can do that.
Democrats have made their choice.
If only Bernie had made a bigger issue of the emails...
Thank the Democrat(ic) nomination process & it's voters for her still being eligible.
Again, we'll see what the State Department says/does.
But... but... BOOOOOOOOSH!
Miss-handling classified information has been illegal for decades per 18 U.S. Code 793 (f)
How much does it pay to be a Clinton shill? I'm currently looking for a new gig and it seems, unlike you, I know a bit more about the law.
So you have inside knowledge that each and every email came from such a source? If not, charges are still valid.
Which is why the whole lot of them are getting off. If they got charged, why not her? If she got charged, why not them? They opted for the easy route and said 'none of the above'.
Outright political corruption.
Personally, I can't stand Trump... but given the statute of limitations won't have expired on some of the things she was let off on today... I may just have to hold my nose in November, cast a vote for the stupid red hat and hope that he will bring charges if elected.