Have you made efforts to privatize your email

[rexbobcat]

Until it's time for sentencing.

It's like that with a lot of things. Why does manslaughter have a different sentence than someone who committed outright murder? I mean, a person is dead either way, right?

Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional. Significant difference.

There's also a difference between a robbery-homocide and a homocide where the perpetrator carved "***" into the chest of the victim.

It might not seem significant, but I don't think those two people should be sentenced identically just because the outcome was the same.

The question "Why was this person killed" is relevant in all cases and should be considered.

That's an extreme example though. There's still a lot of people yelling hate crime as a reflexive reaction.

 

[Josh66]

I suppose I could have gotten an attorney and tried to sue the city or something, but to be honest I was just happy to be free and get back to work while I still had a job. "Sorry, I couldn't come in the last few days - I couldn't call in because I was in jail." doesn't usually go over so well.

I did lose what little respect I had left for the police though.

 

[Josh66]

It's like that with a lot of things. Why does manslaughter have a different sentence than someone who committed outright murder? I mean, a person is dead either way, right?

Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional. Significant difference.

There's also a difference between a robbery-homocide and a homocide where the perpetrator carved "***" into the chest of the victim.

It might not seem significant, but I don't think those two people should be sentenced identically just because the outcome was the same.

The question "Why was this person killed" is relevant in all cases and should be considered.

That's an extreme example though. There's still a lot of people yelling hate crime as a reflexive reaction.

Well ... of course. That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing.

A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective".
B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead.


I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one.


Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi. Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?

 

[rexbobcat]

Well ... of course. That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing. A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective". B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead. I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one. Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi. Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?

I cannot say if the trial would be fair without seeing the evidence. This is why appeals exist.

If the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime, then yes, I think he would get a fair trial.

Fairness on an objective level can only be determined by looking at the process.

Whether or not the jury give a fair verdict would be up for debate since humans are fallible and hold their own biases.

 

[Josh66]

Well ... of course. That's basically the same as the manslaughter/murder thing. A - Someone did some **** and someone died, although killing that person was not the "objective". B - Someone went out of their way to make someone dead. I don't really see what you are saying that is different than what I just said - a few posts up, the accidental/intentional one. Now, lets say that the victim was black or Jewish, or just "not white", and the assailant was a known neo-nazi. Do you think he would get a "fair" trial?

I cannot say if the trial would be fair without seeing the evidence. This is why appeals exist.

If the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime, then yes, I think he would get a fair trial.

Fairness on an objective level can only be determined by looking at the process.

Whether or not the jury give a fair verdict would be up for debate since humans are fallible and hold their own biases.

I think that you are missing the point and also have an idealized view of how things really work.

I think that in a situation like that the defense would be hard pressed to get an unbiased jury.

The "evidence" doesn't really matter for this "exercise". A known racist killed a minority - that's the only thing you know. Fair trial, yes or no?

(I do find it interesting though that you could only say that he would definitely get a fair trial if you already knew he was guilty. How fair is that?)

 

[Newtricks]

So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?

Since the Homeland Security Act was passed into law, everything you post, email or say has been monitored and checked, if anything you said was questionable... it was flagged. There is no private and confidential electronic communication.

 

[skieur]

Habeas corpus is a big one for me. If you are being detained, you should at the very least be told why, IMO.

I was arrested once, never charged, never arraigned, They just "let me go" after half a week. I never saw a judge, I was never told why I was being held...

And that is NORMAL now.

Well, coming soon you will probably be arrested for what you put in an email message to a friend.

 

[skieur]

And here's a fun fact. If there's a guy getting rich coming up with ways to keep you private, there are ten guys getting twice as rich invading that privacy. So stop trying to convince people they are in control. Right about now I consider that spam. Lol.

A guy is NOT getting rich coming up with ways to keep your private, when the software to do so is FREE.

 

[skieur]

So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?

Since the Homeland Security Act was passed into law, everything you post, email or say has been monitored and checked, if anything you said was questionable... it was flagged. There is no private and confidential electronic communication.

Only if your ISP is in the United States or subject to US law.

 

[table1349]

Until it's time for sentencing.

It's like that with a lot of things. Why does manslaughter have a different sentence than someone who committed outright murder? I mean, a person is dead either way, right?

Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional. Significant difference.

No. Manslaughter is the killing of a human being without the prior intention to kill ie. premeditated murder. Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person.

 

[skieur]

So, basic question: Do you consider your e-mail to be public and post accordingly or do you make efforts to ensure that your email is private and secure?

Since the Homeland Security Act was passed into law, everything you post, email or say has been monitored and checked, if anything you said was questionable... it was flagged. There is no private and confidential electronic communication.

Actually THERE IS. Outside of the North American continent and England, there are some countries NOT affected by the US Homeland Security Act, and therefore they do NOT hold on to any personal or confidential information. The icing on the cake so-to-speak is that email is encrypted so it canNOT be monitored either.

 

[EIngerson]

Smells like dead horses in here.

 

[skieur]

Smells like dead horses in here.

I guess it's time you left and stayed away.