It would not. He didn't "take" it at that point. It was still under the owner's control. It was not theft until after the first murder. Back to the car analogy, if you took the keys for the car, with the intention of stealing the car later, did you already steal the car because you have the keys to it and "want" to take it later? She left the gun unsecured in her house. At the time of her death, the gun was unsecured in her house. It's hard to say Adam stole it when the item was still in the same condition as she left it. Like a car in the garage. It's not "stolen" until it's removed. And as the owner was dead, there was nobody to steal it from. As her heir, it seems like he would be the likely owner after her death.
In this case, the government informed them of the problem,
No. Read TFA. The government explicitly asked Facebook to act. They didn't "inform" them. They reached out as the government and requested an act from Facebook, which Facebook immediately performed.
You claim 15 in 20 years is a large number (your only link with any list of breaches lists 15)? I'm well aware of the actual numbers. You disagree with an opinion, and you are the one that doesn't understand the facts.
Having to use $90k of specialty gear to trick a sensor doesn't sound like something that is a likely inadvertent operational condition, or they'd have used a cheaper/easier way to trigger the misoperation.
We need an AI smart enough to identify their own misoperation before it's affected operation. That's how human's generally work. You recognize when you get tired, before it causes errors, but will still generate errors if you choose to operate machinery while impaired. You recognize when oncoming lights are blinding, but press on, knowing it's temporary, and you use other clues to continue driving.
So what if the government takes illegal action to strip people of their Consitutional rights? Really? That's what you are going for this time?
Oh, right - fucked-up libertarian point of view. Go suck some more Ayn Rand dick.
You must be confusing me with someone else. The right accuses me of being left The left accuses me of being right. I think I'm somewhere in the middle, and that seems to piss everyone off.
Yes, someone going through great effort can cause a crash. I've know cases where people stoodn on overpasses and threw down bricks to cause crashes. Nobody published papers on the "brick loophole" in car security. In most of the examples, it'd have been easier to just cut the brake lines. But we have to target the sensors to get media attention, for a non-story.
Yes, that works. "Convert" means "become legal owner of". So if you "steal" someone's car for a joyride, and leave it broken by the side of the road when you are done, that's not actually theft. That's why GTA was invented (the criminal charge, not the game). It's simply not theft. It may be auto-theft, a non-theft crime with "theft" in the title, but it isn't theft.
If the son took the car to sell it to steal the money from the sale, it's theft. But just because a person is banned from using your things doesn't mean that temporary use of them is "theft".
Your definition exactly matches what I said. An actual law may have made it more clear.
http://www.statutes.legis.stat... "A person commits an offense if he unlawfully [transfers the title of] property with intent to [withhold property from the owner permanently]."
That's the uniform definition of theft. I just like using TX laws because they are all online, and easily searchable.
I called the cops on crimes in progress multiple times. Thankfully, I never put anyone in danger. The police never came. Though detectives came 6 months later to ask questions about the armed robbery the cops didn't respond to at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cops interrupted a shootout in progress, and shot nobody. BLM isn't about Black Lives Matter More, but that All Lives Matter, but Black Lives are suffering the most at the moment.
And the statistichs show that an unarmed and compliant black person is killed about 5 times more often than an unarmed and compliant white person. The difference isn't as great with the armed comparison, because as you say, everyone gets shot. Except Koresh. He waited months for the FBI to storm in with tear gas and such. "But he had hostages" Yeah? So what was the child shot by police? He was an innocent bystander/hostage, shot by police to ensure the mother was executed.
You have to understand that when a judge issues a constitutionally sound warrant and execution order, the police are obligated to serve it.
Nope. The cops have sued in court that they have no duty to stop a crime in progress, prevent a planned crime they have the details, or take any action that may put them in any kind of risk. I don't think the judgements specifically included or excluded serving a warrant, but they would imply inclusion.
They have no choice in the matter
Cops have complete discretion. There are millions of unserved warrants in the US. Cops are under no duty or obligation to serve them all by next Tuesday.
The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.
Your wording sounds like Facebook made that decision independently. That doesn't seem to fit the facts here. The government found out that she was communicating with people outside her home. The government contacted Facebook and proactively notified them of the situation (wink-nudge) or asked them to cut off access. Facebook didn't independently run across the situation and cut off access independently.
" Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts"
FTA, TFS, and the title clearly indicate that the police reached out to Facebook and pro-actively made the request.
1) Facebook was acting on official request by the government, making it a government action.
2) Given it was a government censorship, point 2 is invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'm not going to bother to LexusNexus some case law for you. If you know what case law actually is, you'd be able to find the answer. You either don't know, or wouldn't change your mind if the case law was given.
Ah, so if you don't approve of the means of speech, it shouldn't be protected. Glad we have you dictating our acceptable means of communication, and expecting the government to shut down speech you don't like.
Obviously the police killed her AFTER SHE SHOT AT THEM WITH A 12 GAUGE.
She shot at the police after the police stormed her home. Yes it's unwise to fight the police, but there was no reason to storm in. She was a danger to nobody, until the cops came. She would have been a danger to nobody after the cops left. Executing her for a traffic stop doesn't seem a reasonable outcome. But fighting was the only option she saw when they broke in and charged her with guns up, threatening her and her child.
Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Nobody was in danger until the police came. The police killed someone, rather than backing off. The "crime" was a traffic stop. No spin. Yet no reason for the cops to rush in. White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.
Does not matter. If you break into your neighbor's house because you think he killed his wife, and you find her head in a hat-box, then you can give the head to the police and they can use it against him in court. If you tell the government your suspicions, and they ask you to get the hatbox, and you break a law in doing so (that the government would have broken, had it been an agent/employee doing it), then it can't be used against the neighbor. It doesn't matter if they asked nicely, or allowed you to decline. It's still legally considered a government action.
The government's "request" was the reason the private company complied. That makes it a government action. The government, not facebook, shut down her speech, though obviously Facebook was involved..
Slashdot Mirror
Would that not constitute theft?
It would not. He didn't "take" it at that point. It was still under the owner's control. It was not theft until after the first murder. Back to the car analogy, if you took the keys for the car, with the intention of stealing the car later, did you already steal the car because you have the keys to it and "want" to take it later? She left the gun unsecured in her house. At the time of her death, the gun was unsecured in her house. It's hard to say Adam stole it when the item was still in the same condition as she left it. Like a car in the garage. It's not "stolen" until it's removed. And as the owner was dead, there was nobody to steal it from. As her heir, it seems like he would be the likely owner after her death.
In this case, the government informed them of the problem,
No. Read TFA. The government explicitly asked Facebook to act. They didn't "inform" them. They reached out as the government and requested an act from Facebook, which Facebook immediately performed.
You claim 15 in 20 years is a large number (your only link with any list of breaches lists 15)? I'm well aware of the actual numbers. You disagree with an opinion, and you are the one that doesn't understand the facts.
Having to use $90k of specialty gear to trick a sensor doesn't sound like something that is a likely inadvertent operational condition, or they'd have used a cheaper/easier way to trigger the misoperation.
We need an AI smart enough to identify their own misoperation before it's affected operation. That's how human's generally work. You recognize when you get tired, before it causes errors, but will still generate errors if you choose to operate machinery while impaired. You recognize when oncoming lights are blinding, but press on, knowing it's temporary, and you use other clues to continue driving.
The $90,000 of equipment set up, and the logs of it being used would be "evidence".
Oh, right - fucked-up libertarian point of view. Go suck some more Ayn Rand dick.
You must be confusing me with someone else. The right accuses me of being left The left accuses me of being right. I think I'm somewhere in the middle, and that seems to piss everyone off.
I'd rather walk than drive a Geo Metro. I'll get there faster, too.
Yes, someone going through great effort can cause a crash. I've know cases where people stoodn on overpasses and threw down bricks to cause crashes. Nobody published papers on the "brick loophole" in car security. In most of the examples, it'd have been easier to just cut the brake lines. But we have to target the sensors to get media attention, for a non-story.
Yes, that works. "Convert" means "become legal owner of". So if you "steal" someone's car for a joyride, and leave it broken by the side of the road when you are done, that's not actually theft. That's why GTA was invented (the criminal charge, not the game). It's simply not theft. It may be auto-theft, a non-theft crime with "theft" in the title, but it isn't theft.
If the son took the car to sell it to steal the money from the sale, it's theft. But just because a person is banned from using your things doesn't mean that temporary use of them is "theft".
Your definition exactly matches what I said. An actual law may have made it more clear.
http://www.statutes.legis.stat...
"A person commits an offense if he unlawfully [transfers the title of] property with intent to [withhold property from the owner permanently]."
That's the uniform definition of theft. I just like using TX laws because they are all online, and easily searchable.
I called the cops on crimes in progress multiple times. Thankfully, I never put anyone in danger. The police never came. Though detectives came 6 months later to ask questions about the armed robbery the cops didn't respond to at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cops interrupted a shootout in progress, and shot nobody. BLM isn't about Black Lives Matter More, but that All Lives Matter, but Black Lives are suffering the most at the moment.
And the statistichs show that an unarmed and compliant black person is killed about 5 times more often than an unarmed and compliant white person. The difference isn't as great with the armed comparison, because as you say, everyone gets shot. Except Koresh. He waited months for the FBI to storm in with tear gas and such. "But he had hostages" Yeah? So what was the child shot by police? He was an innocent bystander/hostage, shot by police to ensure the mother was executed.
Nobody was in danger until the cops charged her home with guns drawn. The cops threw the first violence. They always do.
You have to understand that when a judge issues a constitutionally sound warrant and execution order, the police are obligated to serve it.
Nope. The cops have sued in court that they have no duty to stop a crime in progress, prevent a planned crime they have the details, or take any action that may put them in any kind of risk. I don't think the judgements specifically included or excluded serving a warrant, but they would imply inclusion.
They have no choice in the matter
Cops have complete discretion. There are millions of unserved warrants in the US. Cops are under no duty or obligation to serve them all by next Tuesday.
How is that stupider than the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" comments. That's what it was based on.
The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.
Your wording sounds like Facebook made that decision independently. That doesn't seem to fit the facts here. The government found out that she was communicating with people outside her home. The government contacted Facebook and proactively notified them of the situation (wink-nudge) or asked them to cut off access. Facebook didn't independently run across the situation and cut off access independently.
" Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts"
FTA, TFS, and the title clearly indicate that the police reached out to Facebook and pro-actively made the request.
1) Facebook was acting on official request by the government, making it a government action.
2) Given it was a government censorship, point 2 is invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'm not going to bother to LexusNexus some case law for you. If you know what case law actually is, you'd be able to find the answer. You either don't know, or wouldn't change your mind if the case law was given.
Ah, so if you don't approve of the means of speech, it shouldn't be protected. Glad we have you dictating our acceptable means of communication, and expecting the government to shut down speech you don't like.
They pointed first.
At some point, the cops should try some tactic other than always escalating the situation.
Obviously the police killed her AFTER SHE SHOT AT THEM WITH A 12 GAUGE.
She shot at the police after the police stormed her home. Yes it's unwise to fight the police, but there was no reason to storm in. She was a danger to nobody, until the cops came. She would have been a danger to nobody after the cops left. Executing her for a traffic stop doesn't seem a reasonable outcome. But fighting was the only option she saw when they broke in and charged her with guns up, threatening her and her child.
Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Nobody was in danger until the police came. The police killed someone, rather than backing off. The "crime" was a traffic stop. No spin. Yet no reason for the cops to rush in. White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.
Does not matter. If you break into your neighbor's house because you think he killed his wife, and you find her head in a hat-box, then you can give the head to the police and they can use it against him in court. If you tell the government your suspicions, and they ask you to get the hatbox, and you break a law in doing so (that the government would have broken, had it been an agent/employee doing it), then it can't be used against the neighbor. It doesn't matter if they asked nicely, or allowed you to decline. It's still legally considered a government action.
The government's "request" was the reason the private company complied. That makes it a government action. The government, not facebook, shut down her speech, though obviously Facebook was involved..
They didn't silence the free press, they just confiscated the presses and the ink.
statistically speaking white people are more likely to get killed then black
Statistically unarmed, complying Black people are about 5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a white person.