I can guarantee you neither of these things you mention were any problem for him at all. They'll have taken up some amount of time over the years, but they won't have stopped him working on many other cases as well.
How can they be absolutely sure that it didn't happen? Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Saying, "I don't believe it happened." is quite different than saying, "It didn't happen."
Clearly you don't object to shills. Most of us do. And most of us have the intelligence not to accept their writings.
You think he has a point. More the fool you.
Lets be clear, there will obviously be vertifiable points of fact in what he wrote. But he will have concentrated on those things that put Microsoft in a good light, and ignored those things that put any competitor in a good light. And constructed any opinion or argument arising from those facts in Microsoft's favour, where a proper independent security expert would be even handed.
Do you accept what's claimed in advertisements without question too?
No...a hate crime murder, is by definition, a first degree murder.
Why is there a "No" there. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. And in fact you're wrong anyway. It's perfectly possible to have for example a manslaugter as a hate crime. If someone meant to injure but not kill someone because of their race, but the victim ended up dying.
It is already covered under existing laws. Anything else added on top of it...makes killing a minority a 'worse' crime, than killing someone of the majority race.
You STILL don't get it. It's not about "killing someone of a minority race". It's about killing someone because of their race. If a black man (minority) killed a white man (majority) bcause if his race, it'd be just as much of a hate crime.
In this day in age, there isn't the *terror* instilled by a racial murder....there is no KKK running door to door dragging people out an lynching them...people don't get scared this day in age, and move out of the city or quit their daily lives. This doesn't happen anymore...
There are still race murders, and the only reason you don't know about the fear they give to their communities is because you haven't experienced it.
but there is not terrorism like there was over a 100 years ago...
Nor indeed 50 years ago. Things are getting better BECAUSE recent generations have increasingly chosen to oppose discrimination and race hate through law. And in another 50 years time people will be commenting about how things aren't as bad as they were in 2012. This is a good thing.
The small print isn't superseding the large print. The iPad you buy WILL be a 4G model. And if and when you are somewhere with 4G it'll be able to use it.
Australia currently isn't one of those places. That's a limitation of Australia not the iPad.
As has been explained by others in other posts we already have several different levels of homicide based on the intention of the person doing the killing. In the USA: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, felony murder, intentional manslaughter, unintentional manslaugther. So racial intention just adds another dimension to the level of seriousness attached to a killing.
Furthermore a murder with racial hatred is like two crimes, compared to the same murder with other motivation. The deceased is a victim in either case. But in the former case, everyone of that race is also a victim of the intended hatred and terror.
Yes, everyone is equal under the law. A person of any race can be guilty of racial hatred.
If it sounds fucked up to you, you haven't really thought it through.
I have a problem with that. Suppose I say that as a black man? Do I still get put in jail?
I don't care whether you have a problem with it.
There is of course no immunity from the law for black men. Or indeed any other race.
If anyone said such a thing about their own race, the law isn't any different, but of course a jury may be more likely to accept that it wasn't meant literally. That he doesn't actually hate his own race. Just as a family member jemmying the door of a family house is less likely to get convicted of attempted burglary than someone who is a stranger.
Slander and libel have very narrow definitions so their not over used, we actually don't have a lot of problems with people using them to shout down other opinions or dissent. Same thing with the Chinese fire drill scenario. Yes, people who sell bogus products get prosecuted. The main point here is that we are still floored by your continued defense of YOUR laws that condemn speech. This particular news item is most certainly not libel, fire drill or false advertising. Its opinion. How can you be so scared of one man's opinion?
You're admitting there is no such thing as freedom of speech, even in America. At that point all you are doing is asserting that where one country decides to draw it's particular lines in the sand on what is sayable is right and another one with slightly different lines in the sand is wrong.
If you were a UK citizen rather than a US citizen chances are you'd be arguing the other way. It's just a cultural difference.
No you don't get it. Possibly because you've been misled by a previous poster. The crime is "incitement to racial hatred". It's not "incitement to racial violence".
Saying "Black guys are all cunts" could indeed put you in the slammer, if you broadcast it in such a way that you are going to encourage other people to say similar words of racial hatred.
(If you both intended to pass on the literal meaning of those sentences, rather than as we are doing, just using them as example texts for discussion.)
Do you honestly think that anti-discrimination laws are never imposed just under the assumption that it must have happened because of the person being a minority since the person was a minority (or in the case of women a majority but with discrimination in their past)?
No, he just thinks that the particular story you retold is complete shit. And he's right.
I don't get it...why should there be hate crimes at all?
Because society doesn't want there to be groups who are discriminated against based on who they are (colour/sexuality etc.) And society (via it's legislature) makes laws to make the world more like they want it to be.
No he wasn't. He was imprisoned for inciting racial hatred. That doesn't necessarily mean encouraging other people to do racial violence. It only means encouraging other people to hate.
If one persons hate speech encourages another person to make hate speech that would qualify. It could be as little as other people retweeting him.
Ah, one might say, it's not his fault that others might retweet him. But it is... he chose the medium. He chose to broadcast it on Twitter, rather than mutter to himself, or speak to people that wouldn't let it go any further.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion).
I'm afraid your personal notion of that a crime is isn't generally recognisable. The action doesn't have to be aggression or coercion, and it's perfectly possible for the victims to be multiple, a group, society in general or even potential.
He admitted it's hearsay. There's no difference between hearsay and "there's absolutely no indication that this thing or anything like it ever really happened."
Did you never notice that when passing on stories "I" changes to "a friend" to "a friend of a friend", but never any further.
Did you never play chinese whispers?
Did you never notice that some people just make stuff up. Or summarise something that they once read in a newspaper, with virtually all the facts changed.
When you add to that the fact that punching someone who is mugging you isn't a crime in any country, the bullshit-o-meter goes well into the red.
We don't have to be sure such things didn't happen. We can safely assume they didn't unless and until there's some evidence presented. Rather like the scientific method or the law.
Roger A. Grimes immediately rings a bell as a Microsoft shill, second rate, just behind the first ier of Paul Thurrott and Robert Enderle. But looking in his iog it's worse even than that. He's a Microsoft employee working on security.
What the hell else is he going to say other than Windows is more secure than OSX?
Te weakness of your citation doubly underlines the ludicrousness of your claim.
There is no absolute as "freedom of speech", it's all relative. There are plenty of things that you cannot say in America without fear of state action. All you mean is "The same particular set of rules about what is unsayable as in the USA."
In the UK we tend more towards being liberal and less towards being libertarian. In Britain we tend more towards protecting the injured parties from the assholes. Whereas in the USA you tend more towards protecting assholes rights to do whatever they damn well please.
Neither is right nor wrong, they are just a different set of cultural values, and the ones you prefer will be highly influenced by which you grew up with.
Moron yourself. What Zimmerman did was not self defense.
He was in the protective environment of his car. He dialled 911, and all he had to offer by way of complain was that he looked funny, had a hoodie, and was looking around at houses whist he walked. He got out out of his car to follow Martin on foot, and the dispatcher told him not to. It's not that he stood his ground at all. He provoked an altercation by following an innocent, unarmed person and then shot him dead. That's murder, not self-defense, nor standing your ground.
In your own house, well that's a whole different scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
all of their current beliefs are completely invalid.
Indeed.
How long do you imagine he spent in jail for filming the police?
Do you know what his job is? Heres a clue.
http://gliklaw.com/gliklaw/About_Me.html
I can guarantee you neither of these things you mention were any problem for him at all. They'll have taken up some amount of time over the years, but they won't have stopped him working on many other cases as well.
How can they be absolutely sure that it didn't happen? Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Saying, "I don't believe it happened." is quite different than saying, "It didn't happen."
Bertrand Russell showed what's wrong with your line of argument 60 years ago. There's little point in revisiting it now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Clearly you don't object to shills. Most of us do. And most of us have the intelligence not to accept their writings.
You think he has a point. More the fool you.
Lets be clear, there will obviously be vertifiable points of fact in what he wrote. But he will have concentrated on those things that put Microsoft in a good light, and ignored those things that put any competitor in a good light. And constructed any opinion or argument arising from those facts in Microsoft's favour, where a proper independent security expert would be even handed.
Do you accept what's claimed in advertisements without question too?
No...a hate crime murder, is by definition, a first degree murder.
Why is there a "No" there. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. And in fact you're wrong anyway. It's perfectly possible to have for example a manslaugter as a hate crime. If someone meant to injure but not kill someone because of their race, but the victim ended up dying.
It is already covered under existing laws. Anything else added on top of it...makes killing a minority a 'worse' crime, than killing someone of the majority race.
You STILL don't get it. It's not about "killing someone of a minority race". It's about killing someone because of their race. If a black man (minority) killed a white man (majority) bcause if his race, it'd be just as much of a hate crime.
In this day in age, there isn't the *terror* instilled by a racial murder....there is no KKK running door to door dragging people out an lynching them...people don't get scared this day in age, and move out of the city or quit their daily lives. This doesn't happen anymore...
There are still race murders, and the only reason you don't know about the fear they give to their communities is because you haven't experienced it.
but there is not terrorism like there was over a 100 years ago...
Nor indeed 50 years ago. Things are getting better BECAUSE recent generations have increasingly chosen to oppose discrimination and race hate through law. And in another 50 years time people will be commenting about how things aren't as bad as they were in 2012. This is a good thing.
The small print isn't superseding the large print. The iPad you buy WILL be a 4G model. And if and when you are somewhere with 4G it'll be able to use it.
Australia currently isn't one of those places. That's a limitation of Australia not the iPad.
As has been explained by others in other posts we already have several different levels of homicide based on the intention of the person doing the killing. In the USA: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, felony murder, intentional manslaughter, unintentional manslaugther. So racial intention just adds another dimension to the level of seriousness attached to a killing.
Furthermore a murder with racial hatred is like two crimes, compared to the same murder with other motivation. The deceased is a victim in either case. But in the former case, everyone of that race is also a victim of the intended hatred and terror.
Yes, everyone is equal under the law. A person of any race can be guilty of racial hatred.
If it sounds fucked up to you, you haven't really thought it through.
What does it matter what sex, race or sexual preference?
You're less likely to understand the need for laws to combat discrimination against minorities if you are not affected by such discrimination.
Are we all not supposed to be equal under the rule of law?
Exactly. And race hate laws are there to help progress to a time when we are all equal in society too.
I have a problem with that. Suppose I say that as a black man? Do I still get put in jail?
I don't care whether you have a problem with it.
There is of course no immunity from the law for black men. Or indeed any other race.
If anyone said such a thing about their own race, the law isn't any different, but of course a jury may be more likely to accept that it wasn't meant literally. That he doesn't actually hate his own race. Just as a family member jemmying the door of a family house is less likely to get convicted of attempted burglary than someone who is a stranger.
Your argument is akin to US military being weaker than the one from the fiji islands, simply because there have been more attacks to the US.
I've made no such argument.
Damn, how I hate ignorant fanboys.
Ah, so it's the "fanboy"'s fault that you are quoting stuff from a shill who works for Microsoft.
Slander and libel have very narrow definitions so their not over used, we actually don't have a lot of problems with people using them to shout down other opinions or dissent. Same thing with the Chinese fire drill scenario. Yes, people who sell bogus products get prosecuted. The main point here is that we are still floored by your continued defense of YOUR laws that condemn speech. This particular news item is most certainly not libel, fire drill or false advertising. Its opinion. How can you be so scared of one man's opinion?
You're admitting there is no such thing as freedom of speech, even in America. At that point all you are doing is asserting that where one country decides to draw it's particular lines in the sand on what is sayable is right and another one with slightly different lines in the sand is wrong.
If you were a UK citizen rather than a US citizen chances are you'd be arguing the other way. It's just a cultural difference.
He used racially offensive terms, and if that encouraged others to do the same then he is guilty of incitement to racial hatred.
Picking twitter to broadcast his racial hatred wasn't very bright as people don't need huge amounts of inciting to hit retweet.
No you don't get it. Possibly because you've been misled by a previous poster. The crime is "incitement to racial hatred". It's not "incitement to racial violence".
Saying "Black guys are all cunts" could indeed put you in the slammer, if you broadcast it in such a way that you are going to encourage other people to say similar words of racial hatred.
(If you both intended to pass on the literal meaning of those sentences, rather than as we are doing, just using them as example texts for discussion.)
Let me guess. You're white and straight?
Ah, another of your hearsay bullshit stories.
Do you honestly think that anti-discrimination laws are never imposed just under the assumption that it must have happened because of the person being a minority since the person was a minority (or in the case of women a majority but with discrimination in their past)?
No, he just thinks that the particular story you retold is complete shit. And he's right.
I don't get it...why should there be hate crimes at all?
Because society doesn't want there to be groups who are discriminated against based on who they are (colour/sexuality etc.) And society (via it's legislature) makes laws to make the world more like they want it to be.
No he wasn't. He was imprisoned for inciting racial hatred. That doesn't necessarily mean encouraging other people to do racial violence. It only means encouraging other people to hate.
If one persons hate speech encourages another person to make hate speech that would qualify. It could be as little as other people retweeting him.
Ah, one might say, it's not his fault that others might retweet him. But it is... he chose the medium. He chose to broadcast it on Twitter, rather than mutter to himself, or speak to people that wouldn't let it go any further.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion).
I'm afraid your personal notion of that a crime is isn't generally recognisable. The action doesn't have to be aggression or coercion, and it's perfectly possible for the victims to be multiple, a group, society in general or even potential.
He admitted it's hearsay. There's no difference between hearsay and "there's absolutely no indication that this thing or anything like it ever really happened."
Did you never notice that when passing on stories "I" changes to "a friend" to "a friend of a friend", but never any further.
Did you never play chinese whispers?
Did you never notice that some people just make stuff up. Or summarise something that they once read in a newspaper, with virtually all the facts changed.
When you add to that the fact that punching someone who is mugging you isn't a crime in any country, the bullshit-o-meter goes well into the red.
We don't have to be sure such things didn't happen. We can safely assume they didn't unless and until there's some evidence presented. Rather like the scientific method or the law.
Roger A. Grimes immediately rings a bell as a Microsoft shill, second rate, just behind the first ier of Paul Thurrott and Robert Enderle. But looking in his iog it's worse even than that. He's a Microsoft employee working on security.
What the hell else is he going to say other than Windows is more secure than OSX?
Te weakness of your citation doubly underlines the ludicrousness of your claim.
It's a bonus on top of whatever his ordinary salary is, not a replacement. I dare say most people would be happy with a bonus of $34,000 a year.
But, apparently, not freedom of speech.
There is no absolute as "freedom of speech", it's all relative. There are plenty of things that you cannot say in America without fear of state action. All you mean is "The same particular set of rules about what is unsayable as in the USA."
In the UK we tend more towards being liberal and less towards being libertarian. In Britain we tend more towards protecting the injured parties from the assholes. Whereas in the USA you tend more towards protecting assholes rights to do whatever they damn well please.
Neither is right nor wrong, they are just a different set of cultural values, and the ones you prefer will be highly influenced by which you grew up with.
Moron. Murder by definition is not defensive.
Moron yourself. What Zimmerman did was not self defense.
He was in the protective environment of his car. He dialled 911, and all he had to offer by way of complain was that he looked funny, had a hoodie, and was looking around at houses whist he walked. He got out out of his car to follow Martin on foot, and the dispatcher told him not to. It's not that he stood his ground at all. He provoked an altercation by following an innocent, unarmed person and then shot him dead. That's murder, not self-defense, nor standing your ground.
In your own house, well that's a whole different scenario.
So what you're saying is that an armed man's right no not run away is more important than an unarmed but possibly scary man's right to life.
(We're not waiting to see who was and who wasn't armed in the Zimmerman case.)