Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway (Scents designed to draw the animal closer, clothing to mask or remove human odors, calls, etc) the idea of making it almost effortless is disturbing. If you want to kill an animal do it with your own hands on a weapon, not on a mouse button.
I don't hunt; I've never hunted. I disagree with this line of thinking, however. An animal already has the advantage of claws, teeth, a thick hide, speed, camouflage (did I spell that right? Probably not), strength, heightened senses of smell, hearing and sight, etc. Therefore, I see the use of guns, scents, and other tools as making up for our lack of natural abilities.
I like the racial PC stuff. Negro was once the proper term, it's spanish for black. Then people decided it was offensive. Then Black or Colored was the term, then it was decided it was offensive. Now its "African American".
I like to tell people that Charlize Theron is the most attractive African-American I have ever seen (I know she's from South Africa but I have no idea if she has ever become an American citizen). That's almost as funny as this story.
In racing, golf, any other sport the payouts roll all the way down.
No. In racing and golf, the payouts go SOME of the way down. In most other professional sports, the players are paid salaries with various incentive-based bonuses. There's a ton of kids out there who work their asses off in various sports, believing they'll be the next Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods but never make it even close to the pro level. This is not to imply that participation in sports is a waste of time - quite the opposite. I think it's infinitely more valuable than playing video games all day.
True enough. I believe you can own one of these weapons if you pay the tax and get your local law enforcement to approve it, but you can't purchase a new one from the manufacturer. You have to get one that is already in private hands. I could be wrong. At any rate, these weapons, however, are very rarely used in crime.
I'm not Jewish, but my understanding is that there's regular old "kosher" and then there's "kosher for Passover," which has much stricter dietary restrictions. During Passover, the rules severely restrict eating grain-based products like corn and its derivatives, including corn syrup. Thus, we have the "kosher" Coca-Cola - with no corn syrup - sold during Passover.
When you've got over a billion people in something 1/3 the size of the US, you can't really afford to be as careless with the environment as we are in North America.
Yes, this is why they take such good care of the Ganges River, well-known for its cleanliness and lack of fecal matter.
As a friend of mine once commented: "If everybody in China started started using Toilet Paper like we do, The Planet would run out of trees in 4 years."
If there is a reasonable probability that all of AT&T's equipment was evidence in the commission of the crime, then, yes, they can and should secure all the evidence, even if it screws the customers.
Look, I'm not saying the cops were or weren't overzealous or not cautious, or whatever (in fact, I didn't even read the original story so I don't know how far they went). Of course, if the warrant was too broad or if the cops went beyond the scope of the warrant, then there is something wrong.
But I have worked with police both in drafting warrants and executing them and I can tell you that they will take whatever they feel will help their investigation - nothing more. Keeping in mind that they have to carefully catalogue what they take, where they take it, what they do with it, how the examine it, etc., why would they want to create more paperwork?
Perhaps the blame should lay not with the authorities, but with the people who committed the crime.
Let's say I steal $1000 and put it in my business's client trust account. The cops figure it out and put a freeze on my account. Now the rest of my clients can't get their money. Who's to blame?
This guy changes stories more often than I change underwear (I know, I'm opening myself up for obvious jokes here). Not too long ago, he was blaming it on his father.
I, too, was wondering why you left the 2nd Amendment off the list, as allowing citizens to own firearms seems to be a prerequisite to guaranteeing them their other rights.
At any rate, Bush's is the first administration in many years to adopt, as official policy, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - not a collective one. See CBS news.
If anyone want to engage in a serious study of gun rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment, I suggest reading this site in its entirety as a starting point. Then do your own research.
But a cubic inch of chimp muscle is more or less as strong as our own.
I'm no biologist but I think that a cubic inch of chimp muscle is indeed stronger than a cubic inch of human muscle. Of course I'm probably wrong, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.
And just how much stronger could dino muscles have been than modern mammalian muscle? 140% stronger, 170%? That's really stretching it, and it still isn't nearly enough.
I think you're underestimating how strong many animals really are. Our close relatives, the chimpanzees, are considerably stronger, pound-for-pound, than we are. Reptiles are also noted for being very muscular, even if they don't have much stamina.
Even that's probably not going to fly; as another comment pointed out, it's against the MRPC to do something like this.
In any event, you have a hard road to hoe if you're going to recover against the government for wrongful arrest/prosecution. You've got to prove that they acted with bad faith or acted maliciously. If this guy did indeed have illegal pr0n on his computer, the government was within their right of prosecutorial discretion to charge him.
How much ignorance do/have you seen with regards to somewhat obscure computer knowledge such as browser caches (or tmp files, or/var/log files)? I know you said you haven't dealt with sex crime_internet cases, but I'm more interested in the IT cases overall.
Who does the presiding judge tend to believe - those who can present the case in the terms the judge can understand, or the experts who really are cognizant of the technology involved? Is there a significant ratio?
(I know they are not mutually exclusive, I'm wondering about the cases where they weren't, which in IT patent cases seem to be too often.)
I don't know if you'll read this, since I went to bed last night before seeing your comment.
At any rate, my experience with computer evidence, as a prosecutor, is pretty thin. Because I was a CS major in college, I volunteered at my brother's office (at that time, he was also a prosecutor) to check defendants' computers for child porn. His office did not have access to modern forensic software that will find and preserve the chain of evidence for that kind of material.
I never went to trial in any case involving computerized evidence. At best, the most I can personally attest to are emails printed from a defendant's computer, the authenticity of which wasn't in dispute.
I have presented evidence requiring expert testimony, though, for different things (breath alcohol testing was common, as was accident reconstruction and medical opinions). You must remember that it's not the judge you have to convince, at least in my jurisdiction - it's the jury. You have to present it in terms the jury can understand because if you don't, the other side's expert will.
That's an interesting idea. The only problem with it is that many crimes would go unprosecuted, as the court system would be overwhelmed with cases. Right now, at least 95% of all cases end up in a plea and the courts are still overwhelmed.
No problem; I enjoy contributing to conversations I have some knowledge about, instead of just pretending like I normally do.
System-wide abuse is a lot less prevalent than it used to be. When I was a prosecutor (2000-2002), my jurisdiction had about 10 different police agencies that would submit cases to be prosecuted, in addition to some other specialized state agencies. For the most part, the police were pretty clean. A couple of the agencies had a reputation for shoddy police work, but nothing abusive. I learned pretty quickly which cops were honest and which weren't. Thankfully, there were only a few dishonest cops. A few more were just lazy, which can be just as bad as dishonest, but for the most part they did a good professional job.
Coincidentally, my father is a retired FBI agent. I've never dealt with the FBI in a professional setting, but I know a little of the history. The FBI under Hoover was used to keep track of all kinds of people that Hoover saw as a potential threat. Thus, the FBI investigated everyone from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Elvis Presley. They undoubtedly used means to discover information that, by today's standards, would be considered illegal and abusive. Most of the time, this would not be a problem for the FBI because the sanction for obtaining evidence illegally is to throw the evidence out. If they're just keeping tabs on you and you're never arrested, there's little chance that you'd ever know about it.
That said, the FBI was usually way ahead of its time when it came to ensuring that they got their man. For example, they were employing Miranda warnings long before the Supreme Court issed the Miranda v. Arizona decision, which required the police to read a defendant his rights before questioning him.
One of the really great contributions of the FBI is that, wherever they interacted with the local police, they would encourage the local cops to adopt the same practices. This ultimately led to the creation of the FBI National Academy, where local police forces send their cops for training on legal issues as well as investigation techniques.
Ummmm... I don't think "contingency" means what you think it means. A contingent fee is a fee that is collected based on the amount of the award. The most common use of contingent fees is in personal injury cases; if you've ever watched TV, you know darn well that Dewey Cheatham and Howe doesn't cost you a cent until and unless you collect.
Furthermore, it's considered unethical (I know, I know, insert lawyer joke here) to collect a contingent fee in a criminal case. Why? Because then attorneys wouldn't take criminal cases they knew they would lose and poor Joe Child-Molester would never find competent counsel (contrary to popular belief, public defenders are only available to the indigent; most jurisdictions require a person seeking a public defender to disclose their financial information).
Well, I hope he appeals. And gets access to his hard drive, so he can have his own experts analyze the data.
What's he going to appeal? It was a plea bargain; he gave up most of his appellate rights. The only thing that stands out in my mind is that he could file an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In my experience, though, he wouldn't be likely to do this for two reasons: (1) appeals are extremely expensive; and (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has to be predicated on some kind of extreme negligence or malpractice on the part of the attorney. Bad advice alone isn't enough to warrant a reversal of his conviction.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a small-time lawyer and having just purchased a tiny house in the DC area, you are dead on.
I don't hunt; I've never hunted. I disagree with this line of thinking, however. An animal already has the advantage of claws, teeth, a thick hide, speed, camouflage (did I spell that right? Probably not), strength, heightened senses of smell, hearing and sight, etc. Therefore, I see the use of guns, scents, and other tools as making up for our lack of natural abilities.
I like to tell people that Charlize Theron is the most attractive African-American I have ever seen (I know she's from South Africa but I have no idea if she has ever become an American citizen). That's almost as funny as this story.
Chips? You probably mean the kind made with Olestra. 'Cuz they "may cause oily discharge." That would be pretty brutal.
No. In racing and golf, the payouts go SOME of the way down. In most other professional sports, the players are paid salaries with various incentive-based bonuses. There's a ton of kids out there who work their asses off in various sports, believing they'll be the next Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods but never make it even close to the pro level. This is not to imply that participation in sports is a waste of time - quite the opposite. I think it's infinitely more valuable than playing video games all day.
True enough. I believe you can own one of these weapons if you pay the tax and get your local law enforcement to approve it, but you can't purchase a new one from the manufacturer. You have to get one that is already in private hands. I could be wrong. At any rate, these weapons, however, are very rarely used in crime.
I'm not Jewish, but my understanding is that there's regular old "kosher" and then there's "kosher for Passover," which has much stricter dietary restrictions. During Passover, the rules severely restrict eating grain-based products like corn and its derivatives, including corn syrup. Thus, we have the "kosher" Coca-Cola - with no corn syrup - sold during Passover.
Yes, this is why they take such good care of the Ganges River, well-known for its cleanliness and lack of fecal matter.
As a friend of mine once commented: "If everybody in China started started using Toilet Paper like we do, The Planet would run out of trees in 4 years."On second thought, maybe you're right.
If there is a reasonable probability that all of AT&T's equipment was evidence in the commission of the crime, then, yes, they can and should secure all the evidence, even if it screws the customers.
Look, I'm not saying the cops were or weren't overzealous or not cautious, or whatever (in fact, I didn't even read the original story so I don't know how far they went). Of course, if the warrant was too broad or if the cops went beyond the scope of the warrant, then there is something wrong.
But I have worked with police both in drafting warrants and executing them and I can tell you that they will take whatever they feel will help their investigation - nothing more. Keeping in mind that they have to carefully catalogue what they take, where they take it, what they do with it, how the examine it, etc., why would they want to create more paperwork?
Let's say I steal $1000 and put it in my business's client trust account. The cops figure it out and put a freeze on my account. Now the rest of my clients can't get their money. Who's to blame?
Are there no civil laws to be broken?
In my experience, "dude" is definitely male. I've never heard someone refer to a chick as a "dude."
Oh, right, sorry I didn't mean to offend by use of the word "chick." I mean to say, "broad" or "dame."
Upset? Anyone who follows swimming knows Phelps didn't have a chance in the 200 free.
This guy changes stories more often than I change underwear (I know, I'm opening myself up for obvious jokes here). Not too long ago, he was blaming it on his father.
I, too, was wondering why you left the 2nd Amendment off the list, as allowing citizens to own firearms seems to be a prerequisite to guaranteeing them their other rights.
At any rate, Bush's is the first administration in many years to adopt, as official policy, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - not a collective one. See CBS news.
If anyone want to engage in a serious study of gun rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment, I suggest reading this site in its entirety as a starting point. Then do your own research.
But a cubic inch of chimp muscle is more or less as strong as our own.
I'm no biologist but I think that a cubic inch of chimp muscle is indeed stronger than a cubic inch of human muscle. Of course I'm probably wrong, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.
I think you're underestimating how strong many animals really are. Our close relatives, the chimpanzees, are considerably stronger, pound-for-pound, than we are. Reptiles are also noted for being very muscular, even if they don't have much stamina.
I bet there are a lot more than 12 "planet-killer" asteroids out there. Heck, I bet there are more than 12 of those in orbit around our sun.
So what's your point?
Outsource the job to India.
In any event, you have a hard road to hoe if you're going to recover against the government for wrongful arrest/prosecution. You've got to prove that they acted with bad faith or acted maliciously. If this guy did indeed have illegal pr0n on his computer, the government was within their right of prosecutorial discretion to charge him.
I don't know if you'll read this, since I went to bed last night before seeing your comment.
At any rate, my experience with computer evidence, as a prosecutor, is pretty thin. Because I was a CS major in college, I volunteered at my brother's office (at that time, he was also a prosecutor) to check defendants' computers for child porn. His office did not have access to modern forensic software that will find and preserve the chain of evidence for that kind of material.
I never went to trial in any case involving computerized evidence. At best, the most I can personally attest to are emails printed from a defendant's computer, the authenticity of which wasn't in dispute.
I have presented evidence requiring expert testimony, though, for different things (breath alcohol testing was common, as was accident reconstruction and medical opinions). You must remember that it's not the judge you have to convince, at least in my jurisdiction - it's the jury. You have to present it in terms the jury can understand because if you don't, the other side's expert will.
That's an interesting idea. The only problem with it is that many crimes would go unprosecuted, as the court system would be overwhelmed with cases. Right now, at least 95% of all cases end up in a plea and the courts are still overwhelmed.
Coincidentally, my father is a retired FBI agent. I've never dealt with the FBI in a professional setting, but I know a little of the history. The FBI under Hoover was used to keep track of all kinds of people that Hoover saw as a potential threat. Thus, the FBI investigated everyone from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Elvis Presley. They undoubtedly used means to discover information that, by today's standards, would be considered illegal and abusive. Most of the time, this would not be a problem for the FBI because the sanction for obtaining evidence illegally is to throw the evidence out. If they're just keeping tabs on you and you're never arrested, there's little chance that you'd ever know about it.
That said, the FBI was usually way ahead of its time when it came to ensuring that they got their man. For example, they were employing Miranda warnings long before the Supreme Court issed the Miranda v. Arizona decision, which required the police to read a defendant his rights before questioning him.
One of the really great contributions of the FBI is that, wherever they interacted with the local police, they would encourage the local cops to adopt the same practices. This ultimately led to the creation of the FBI National Academy, where local police forces send their cops for training on legal issues as well as investigation techniques.
Furthermore, it's considered unethical (I know, I know, insert lawyer joke here) to collect a contingent fee in a criminal case. Why? Because then attorneys wouldn't take criminal cases they knew they would lose and poor Joe Child-Molester would never find competent counsel (contrary to popular belief, public defenders are only available to the indigent; most jurisdictions require a person seeking a public defender to disclose their financial information).
What's he going to appeal? It was a plea bargain; he gave up most of his appellate rights. The only thing that stands out in my mind is that he could file an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In my experience, though, he wouldn't be likely to do this for two reasons: (1) appeals are extremely expensive; and (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has to be predicated on some kind of extreme negligence or malpractice on the part of the attorney. Bad advice alone isn't enough to warrant a reversal of his conviction.