diane o'thirst wrote:Fact: The arsonist and his buddies made sure and doubly sure that nobody was around in case things took a turn for the worse and minimized the chance of anyone getting hurt. This is probably due more towards pragmatism than any real compassion: the arsonist was a lawyer so he <i>KNEW</i> exactly how screwed up the river he'd be if someone got hurt or killed during his little escapade.
Jordan 10-E wrote:While I agree with much of what you said (and so succinctly too) this point about taking measures to make sure no one was under there are only the words of the accused himself, which are extremely doubtful. All indications from the words of others that were there is that this was not the case at all. And who are "they", no one has reported being prompted by anybody of what was going to occur. What did they say, "Hey my buddy is about to burn the Man down so you better stop your meditating and conversations and leave." Did they give them five minutes to compute what they were being told to do? If someone suddenly told me to move before there was an actual fire I probably would not immediately comply.
Jordan 10-E wrote:Are you certain of that? Think you should be careful what you wish for since it really is quite clear that you don't know the law very well and you definately don't have a very good idea of how it works in the real world. I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon. We can do this like they would in a court of law, based on the law as it is written. Hate to tell you but you will lose so I am not too worried about "proving beyond a reasonable doubt". Oh and by the way if you are ever caught up in the judicial system I would advise you to let your lawyer do all the talking.
diane o'thirst wrote:Fact: The arsonist and his buddies made sure and doubly sure that nobody was around in case things took a turn for the worse and minimized the chance of anyone getting hurt....
spectabillis wrote:so jordan 10-E, i asked to post something directly relevant, like an example of someone who's life was at serious risk while taking into account the environment. gave you a couple of days so i can only guess your latest couple of posts here is the response. is it?
i hope not, thats disappointing since i dont see anything resembling what you agreed to.Jordan 10-E wrote:Are you certain of that? Think you should be careful what you wish for since it really is quite clear that you don't know the law very well and you definately don't have a very good idea of how it works in the real world. I will be happy to put it in context for you quite soon. We can do this like they would in a court of law, based on the law as it is written. Hate to tell you but you will lose so I am not too worried about "proving beyond a reasonable doubt". Oh and by the way if you are ever caught up in the judicial system I would advise you to let your lawyer do all the talking.
andy wrote:I don't see this primarily as a discussion of safety...
spectabillis wrote:andy wrote:I don't see this primarily as a discussion of safety...
thats the current thing i am focusing on since many are attempting to apply it, and it doesnt stick no matter how much rhetorical glue they use.
Jordan 10-E wrote:Dude sounds like you are waiting for me to come up with specific people that were potentially harmed. You're holding onto that because that is all you have to work with. That is not what I will be doing.
you are asking me to come up with specific examples, why don't you?
spectabillis wrote:i would think this is evident, but if people were not put in serious harms way then there isnt a crime.
Digital-Dragonfly wrote:Actually... only a claim made by "the arsonist" himself, after the fact. No one who was warned (as asserted) before act has come forward. I think the idea of the warning was created while in jail, after realizing the charges included "reckless endangerment"
spectabillis wrote:Jordan 10-E wrote:...but they will follow previous cases and the generally accepted understanding of the law as determined by precedence. ...
yep, pretty much what i said.
ZaphodBurner wrote:That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?
mdmf007 wrote:Machine guns arent illegal either. You just have to have the requisite paperwork to own.
Because of the perceived popularity of submachine guns such as the Thompson with gangsters in the 1920s and 1930s, the United States Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934. Among its provisions, all owners of any fully-automatic firearm were required to register them with the predecessor agency of the modern Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The law also placed severe restrictions on the possession, transfer and transport of the weapons.
All prospective buyers had to register with the government and pay the $200/item transfer tax. Registration required the prospective buyer to declare a reasonable need for owning the weapon, to supply a citizenship certification, photographs and fingerprints. In addition, a certification from state or local law enforcement or court officers the buyer is not under investigation for a crime and possession of the weapon will not violate state or local law is required. Once the paperwork is submitted to the ATF, the FBI performs a thorough background check. Only after the purchase had been cleared (a process normally taking at least four months), may the new owner take possession of the weapon.
Owners are forbidden to move the gun out of their state of residence without obtaining prior permission from the ATF. The owner is required to keep the weapon within their exclusive control and may not loan it without their immediate supervision to anyone. Thompsons, as well as all other kinds of fully automatic weapons, are under a legal ban in at least nine states and the District of Columbia.
There are several U.S. made semi-automatic variants. These are less regulated at the federal level but are still banned in several states because of their resemblance to the fully-automatic version.
Notwithstanding the legality of ownership, hundreds, if not thousands, of these and other weapons of World War II are in the possession of veterans as "bring back" items. With the number of veterans decreasing rapidly, these weapons fall into the possession of the families as illegal weapons, usually unbeknownst to them. Current law does not allow any of these weapons to be registered. Congress is considering an amnesty law which would permit "bring backs" to be registered and thus save these historic and valuable arms.
If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground. They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
[CDS] topher wrote:ZaphodBurner wrote:Would that have been cool in the context of the argument that it wasn't a safety issue because nobody was hurt? That's how HUNTER FUCKIN THOMPSON would do it, right? He didn't set fires, he used machine guns. What was Addis thinking?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests