If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order.
Except snatching something is robbery. If the value of the object is small enough, then it's a misdemeanor robbery, if it's expensive enough, it's a felony robbery.
No one seems to have difficulty understanding that if you steal a candy bar, that it's a misdemeanor, while if you steal an expensive television it's a felony... so, why does anyone have trouble differentiating misdemeanor vs felony robbery?
... and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.
.
While I agree that the prison-industrial complex is out of hand. If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act. It's clearly an expensive object, taken by force, and then damaged.
As others have noted, it's not about excessive criminal sentences for snatching and damaging another's expensive property, it's about gauging the proper value of an "overpriced electronic toy".
Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery. (Just like civil battery is the same tort of "battery" regardless of if it results in grievous bodily injury or is just an ear flick, or a poke.)
The difference is most people let a lot of misdemeanors and/or torts go by, because doing something about it would cost more than the harm done.
I learned about this because I actually had a piece of evidence snatched out of my hands in the halls of a court house. Pissed me off to no end, and the cops didn't understand what criminal act could have been committed. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it was technically robbery. (Same guy later went on to break into our apartment and steal more evidence, and my netbook just 2 days before the hearing about my protection order against him.)
It's worth noting here that an employer has a responsibility to the employee that a criminal doesn't have to his victim. Such as, the employer will not impose onerous conditions after hiring or fire someone for frivolous reasons such as what social groupings the employee happens to be part of.
Why not? A murder is charged more harshly for killing a police officer (in some states, it's a special circumstance that allows for capital punishment). Assault of a police officer is always more harshly punished than simple assault. What is so special about the police, that they should get special protections?
After all, by your argument "[t]he crime is the same. The harm is the same."
1. To retell something real as if it were fiction, especially by fabricating falsehoods
2. To convert something into a novel or other dramatic work
He took real events, and turned them into a dramatic fictional work, and he obviously fabricated a number of falsehoods. Did he grotesquely fictionalize, and stray widely from the source material? Yeah, I think that argument could be made. Did he lie? Did Edgar Rice Burroughs lie when he wrote his Barsoomian novels? Of course, the difference is that E.R. Burroughs wasn't presenting his stories as factual. Daisey obviously was in part presenting it as factual, and This American Life most certainly did present it as if it were factual. They've honed up to the mistake.
But Daisey isn't a journalist, and he isn't bound by an ethical commitment to tell the truth... he's a performer, giving a dramatic monologue. Should we chastise actors of Shakespeare for not telling the truth?... at some point, he was just trying to provide entertainment, and expose behaviors that were at least extant. And to generate outrage and dramatic appeal, he conjured up stories, and exaggerated details, and prevalence in order to persuade people.
But then none of that really matters... I don't have to even defend his position, and I could say outright that he was a lying sack of garbage, and everything that you claim and worse.... However, regardless of my opinions about the ethical or moral qualities of his actions, I can still point out that the statement "Underage workers were also only rumors." is also a falsehood.
Shall I tell you that you're lying because you apparently knew that Apple had found underage workers and done something about it? Because something cannot be "only rumor" and also have actually happened.
So, I ask you. Were you lying when you told everyone that the underage workers were only a rumor? Or were you just mistaken, or not yet fully informed? But there is certainly one thing that you were not: correct.
I would imagine he converted it into dollars...65,000.00 USD = 49,692.50 EUR, which is a good salary from the UK point of view (41,372.50 pounds)
Except that pounds is different form euros, and from dollars.... Ah, but only about 1,20€ per 1 £... and I see that you did convert it...
Ah, I see that Americans just expect to be paid disproportionately more... probably because... you know... they have to pay everything out of pocket...
I consider that small difference. I don't see homophobia or bigotry as a valid aggravating circumstance any more than if the plaintiff had been a jealous lover. The existence of such a mindset might have supported a claim that the plaintiff intended the sort of harm (including suicide) that he inflicted, but that's a different matter and not an institutionally created crime or aggravating circumstance.
Ravi would have committed his act against any gay roommate. There was nothing that his roommate did that provoked Ravi's criminal behavior except for being gay.
It's not ok to commit crimes, but it's especially not ok to commit those crimes against people just because of who they are. They're not committing a crime against an individual, they're committing a crime against a whole class of people, that we already agree it is unacceptable to discriminate against...
Or do you think it should be ok to fire a person because they're black, white, female, male, gay, straight, transgender, disabled, old, young, etc?
There should be other crimes that he could be charged with (invasion of privacy laws, etc.), but to charge someone having a particular belief system is wrong.
You seem to be confused. They did charge him with invasion of privacy, and intimidation. The "hate crime" aspect was an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, not what he was charged with. Namely, he wasn't charged with "bias intimidation", he was charged with "intimidation", and then "also with an aggravating factor, that being a bias of hate."
No one was prosecuting Ravi for holding a particular belief system, they charged him because he committed criminal acts. The hate crime aspect just made the consequences for those criminal acts worse.
Moving on, I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.
These charges would have stood regardless of there being any "hate crime" law. Namely, he broke ACTUAL laws, and not some "hate crime law", or something that wouldn't have been illegal if he hadn't done it because his roommate were gay.
Hate crime legislation is typically of the form of aggravating circumstances, and/or sentence enhancement which you apparently already understand given the paragraph prior to the one that I quoted.
And the actions of his mother did not? And the actions of all the other people whom we don't even know but who certainly exist, in a world populated with homophobes to a certain degree? Yet none of these are being prosecuted. Why?
Because what those persons did were either: a) not criminal, or b) had no evidence to prosecute a crime.
No, it's not. Or rather, not all intimidation is hate-crime biased.
Say, someone is dating your ex-girlfriend, but you still have a thing for her, so you want them to break up. So you start intimidating him to get him to leave her. There you go: non-hate-crime-biased intimidation.
However, if you're intimidating someone just because they're black, then it didn't matter WHO your victim was, they didn't do anything to deserve any particular distinction or targeting except for being black. At that point, you're committing a crime against ALL black people, not just the single black person.
The issue here is that the gay kid responded is such an over-the-top, unforseen way. Ravi should not be punished for that. What's next - if you flame someone's slashdot comment and then they kill themselves is it now YOUR fault because you were a big meanie?
What Ravi did would be illegal regardless of the gay kid killing himself. He's also not being held responsible for the roommate's death, that's why Ravi isn't being charged with a homicide.
Please check out the Eggshell skull rule, it holds that once you commit to performing a criminal act, you are responsible for all damages as a result of that act, even if the results are exaggerated beyond all expectations.
Namely, pushing someone over is a relatively benign assault, and unlikely to cause serious injury. But wait! The victim has an eggshell skull, and thus his brains splatter all over the pavement, and he's dead on impact. Congratulations, you're charged with 2nd degree murder!
So, no, it's not unfair or unfortunate that Ravi will get at most 10 years in prison, and possibly deported for a punch in the nose wrong... the fact that the victim was unstable and unable to cope with the bullying does not mitigate the harm caused by Ravi.
Exactly. To think, that a media outlet would have the balls to admit they were wrong, then explain how they made the mistake. That is rare these days...
Well, as they note on NPR, the stories checked out, and were real events... it just turns out that Daisey didn't personally witness them.
It's like getting all worked up over a story that is based on real events, and it's like "good! but remember, it's still fictionalized..." They took a theater act and turned it into a journal piece without any augmentation to ensure that viewers understood that while these events were true, they were being dramatized.
Yes. He did exactly what he said that FOX News would have done. Ironic, not to mention hypocritical.
But Fox News didn't uncover the story. He said that Fox News would have had a coordinated attack to smear who ever brought it to light, and he didn't smear American Public Media's Marketplace... he smeared someone completely unrelated.
It's unlikely that he's being paid in USD. So, his salary is probably 65k€, which works out to about $79k. A reasonable salary in places of the country that have a reasonable cost of living.
Also, who in Silicon valley is offering 30 days paid leave a year right from the start? As well, who in Silicon Valley is ensuring that you don't work more than 40 hr/week including lunch time?
I would rather take a lower pay for less stress at any job.
I'm curious that neutrinos went the speed of light at all. IIRC, don't neutrinos have mass?
Yes, but it's very small. For example, while the electron has a mass of about 0.5 MeV, the neutrino upper-bound has been pushed down from 50 eV, down to the prediction that the combined mass of all flavors of neutrinos must be under 0.3 eV.
So, it's around less than a millionth the mass of an electron. This means that it can obtain much faster speeds with the same amount of force.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's unprovoked, simple battery might be in order.
Except snatching something is robbery. If the value of the object is small enough, then it's a misdemeanor robbery, if it's expensive enough, it's a felony robbery.
No one seems to have difficulty understanding that if you steal a candy bar, that it's a misdemeanor, while if you steal an expensive television it's a felony... so, why does anyone have trouble differentiating misdemeanor vs felony robbery?
... and a prison industrial complex that encourages and indeed forces the criminal justice system to impose multi-year prison terms for petty offences for the sake of profit.
.
While I agree that the prison-industrial complex is out of hand. If someone snatched a Fabergé egg out of someone's hand and threw it, no one would be doubting if it were a felonious act. It's clearly an expensive object, taken by force, and then damaged.
As others have noted, it's not about excessive criminal sentences for snatching and damaging another's expensive property, it's about gauging the proper value of an "overpriced electronic toy".
Hell, if force is used it becomes robbery.
Snatching anything out of anyone's hand is legally considered force, and is thus automatically a robbery. (Just like civil battery is the same tort of "battery" regardless of if it results in grievous bodily injury or is just an ear flick, or a poke.)
The difference is most people let a lot of misdemeanors and/or torts go by, because doing something about it would cost more than the harm done.
I learned about this because I actually had a piece of evidence snatched out of my hands in the halls of a court house. Pissed me off to no end, and the cops didn't understand what criminal act could have been committed. It wasn't until much later that I learned that it was technically robbery. (Same guy later went on to break into our apartment and steal more evidence, and my netbook just 2 days before the hearing about my protection order against him.)
the stories checked out, and were real events... it just turns out that Daisey didn't personally witness them.
And that they didn't involve Apple products or Foxxcon.
wait... what?
This American Life checked the gross facts of his monologue, and THEY CHECKED OUT. Apple has had trouble with n-hexane poisonings, and child labor.
Sure neither of those involved Foxxcon, but they did involve Apple products.
It's worth noting here that an employer has a responsibility to the employee that a criminal doesn't have to his victim. Such as, the employer will not impose onerous conditions after hiring or fire someone for frivolous reasons such as what social groupings the employee happens to be part of.
Why not? A murder is charged more harshly for killing a police officer (in some states, it's a special circumstance that allows for capital punishment). Assault of a police officer is always more harshly punished than simple assault. What is so special about the police, that they should get special protections?
After all, by your argument "[t]he crime is the same. The harm is the same."
fictionalize: (v.t.)
1. To retell something real as if it were fiction, especially by fabricating falsehoods
2. To convert something into a novel or other dramatic work
He took real events, and turned them into a dramatic fictional work, and he obviously fabricated a number of falsehoods. Did he grotesquely fictionalize, and stray widely from the source material? Yeah, I think that argument could be made. Did he lie? Did Edgar Rice Burroughs lie when he wrote his Barsoomian novels? Of course, the difference is that E.R. Burroughs wasn't presenting his stories as factual. Daisey obviously was in part presenting it as factual, and This American Life most certainly did present it as if it were factual. They've honed up to the mistake.
But Daisey isn't a journalist, and he isn't bound by an ethical commitment to tell the truth... he's a performer, giving a dramatic monologue. Should we chastise actors of Shakespeare for not telling the truth? ... at some point, he was just trying to provide entertainment, and expose behaviors that were at least extant. And to generate outrage and dramatic appeal, he conjured up stories, and exaggerated details, and prevalence in order to persuade people.
But then none of that really matters... I don't have to even defend his position, and I could say outright that he was a lying sack of garbage, and everything that you claim and worse. ... However, regardless of my opinions about the ethical or moral qualities of his actions, I can still point out that the statement "Underage workers were also only rumors." is also a falsehood.
Shall I tell you that you're lying because you apparently knew that Apple had found underage workers and done something about it? Because something cannot be "only rumor" and also have actually happened.
So, I ask you. Were you lying when you told everyone that the underage workers were only a rumor? Or were you just mistaken, or not yet fully informed? But there is certainly one thing that you were not: correct.
I would imagine he converted it into dollars ...65,000.00 USD = 49,692.50 EUR, which is a good salary from the UK point of view (41,372.50 pounds)
Except that pounds is different form euros, and from dollars. ... Ah, but only about 1,20€ per 1 £... and I see that you did convert it...
Ah, I see that Americans just expect to be paid disproportionately more... probably because... you know... they have to pay everything out of pocket...
s/they/we/ I'm American...
I consider that small difference. I don't see homophobia or bigotry as a valid aggravating circumstance any more than if the plaintiff had been a jealous lover. The existence of such a mindset might have supported a claim that the plaintiff intended the sort of harm (including suicide) that he inflicted, but that's a different matter and not an institutionally created crime or aggravating circumstance.
Ravi would have committed his act against any gay roommate. There was nothing that his roommate did that provoked Ravi's criminal behavior except for being gay.
It's not ok to commit crimes, but it's especially not ok to commit those crimes against people just because of who they are. They're not committing a crime against an individual, they're committing a crime against a whole class of people, that we already agree it is unacceptable to discriminate against...
Or do you think it should be ok to fire a person because they're black, white, female, male, gay, straight, transgender, disabled, old, young, etc?
The picture that was presented by Daisey is different.
Of course, it's fictionalized. That doesn't mean: "Underage workers were also only rumors. [emphasis mine]"
Energy, not force. You were doing so well until that point :)
(force relates to change in momentum, energy to velocity)
So, if I apply force to an object, and increase it's momentum, it will not actually be traveling any faster?
There should be other crimes that he could be charged with (invasion of privacy laws, etc.), but to charge someone having a particular belief system is wrong.
You seem to be confused. They did charge him with invasion of privacy, and intimidation. The "hate crime" aspect was an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, not what he was charged with. Namely, he wasn't charged with "bias intimidation", he was charged with "intimidation", and then "also with an aggravating factor, that being a bias of hate."
No one was prosecuting Ravi for holding a particular belief system, they charged him because he committed criminal acts. The hate crime aspect just made the consequences for those criminal acts worse.
Moving on, I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.
These charges would have stood regardless of there being any "hate crime" law. Namely, he broke ACTUAL laws, and not some "hate crime law", or something that wouldn't have been illegal if he hadn't done it because his roommate were gay.
Hate crime legislation is typically of the form of aggravating circumstances, and/or sentence enhancement which you apparently already understand given the paragraph prior to the one that I quoted.
And the actions of his mother did not? And the actions of all the other people whom we don't even know but who certainly exist, in a world populated with homophobes to a certain degree? Yet none of these are being prosecuted. Why?
Because what those persons did were either: a) not criminal, or b) had no evidence to prosecute a crime.
I think the entire concept of a "hate crime" is wrong. Isn't stuff like this already covered by "making threats" and "intimidation"?
Yes, and that's the crime he was charged with. The "hate crime" was an aggravating factor to the ALREADY CRIMINAL ACT.
All intimidation is biased,
No, it's not. Or rather, not all intimidation is hate-crime biased.
Say, someone is dating your ex-girlfriend, but you still have a thing for her, so you want them to break up. So you start intimidating him to get him to leave her. There you go: non-hate-crime-biased intimidation.
However, if you're intimidating someone just because they're black, then it didn't matter WHO your victim was, they didn't do anything to deserve any particular distinction or targeting except for being black. At that point, you're committing a crime against ALL black people, not just the single black person.
The issue here is that the gay kid responded is such an over-the-top, unforseen way. Ravi should not be punished for that. What's next - if you flame someone's slashdot comment and then they kill themselves is it now YOUR fault because you were a big meanie?
What Ravi did would be illegal regardless of the gay kid killing himself. He's also not being held responsible for the roommate's death, that's why Ravi isn't being charged with a homicide.
All that being said though, there is specific legal doctrine that holds that you're responsible for all the harm that your illegal act causes regardless of any special susceptibility the victim has.
Please check out the Eggshell skull rule, it holds that once you commit to performing a criminal act, you are responsible for all damages as a result of that act, even if the results are exaggerated beyond all expectations.
Namely, pushing someone over is a relatively benign assault, and unlikely to cause serious injury. But wait! The victim has an eggshell skull, and thus his brains splatter all over the pavement, and he's dead on impact. Congratulations, you're charged with 2nd degree murder!
So, no, it's not unfair or unfortunate that Ravi will get at most 10 years in prison, and possibly deported for a punch in the nose wrong... the fact that the victim was unstable and unable to cope with the bullying does not mitigate the harm caused by Ravi.
"gay" is homophobic.
"retarded" and "lame" are ableist.
WHOOOSH!
Underage workers were also only rumors.
Apple's own audits show (PDF) the company has caught underage workers at a handful of its suppliers.
Exactly. To think, that a media outlet would have the balls to admit they were wrong, then explain how they made the mistake. That is rare these days...
Well, as they note on NPR, the stories checked out, and were real events... it just turns out that Daisey didn't personally witness them.
It's like getting all worked up over a story that is based on real events, and it's like "good! but remember, it's still fictionalized..." They took a theater act and turned it into a journal piece without any augmentation to ensure that viewers understood that while these events were true, they were being dramatized.
Yes. He did exactly what he said that FOX News would have done. Ironic, not to mention hypocritical.
But Fox News didn't uncover the story. He said that Fox News would have had a coordinated attack to smear who ever brought it to light, and he didn't smear American Public Media's Marketplace... he smeared someone completely unrelated.
So, no. Not hypocritical.
It's unlikely that he's being paid in USD. So, his salary is probably 65k€, which works out to about $79k. A reasonable salary in places of the country that have a reasonable cost of living.
Also, who in Silicon valley is offering 30 days paid leave a year right from the start? As well, who in Silicon Valley is ensuring that you don't work more than 40 hr/week including lunch time?
I would rather take a lower pay for less stress at any job.
A salary of $65.000 a Year (before taxes, after taxes I still keep about $40.000 a year,
Did you actually convert this to $, or are you paid in €? Because if you're being paid 65.000€, then you're really getting about a $79,000 salary.
I'm curious that neutrinos went the speed of light at all. IIRC, don't neutrinos have mass?
Yes, but it's very small. For example, while the electron has a mass of about 0.5 MeV, the neutrino upper-bound has been pushed down from 50 eV, down to the prediction that the combined mass of all flavors of neutrinos must be under 0.3 eV.
So, it's around less than a millionth the mass of an electron. This means that it can obtain much faster speeds with the same amount of force.
And I don't think that should happen in the first place.
Well, regardless of if I agree with you or not, the current US legal system disagrees with you. Guess who wins.