And, actually, there are those who think "professional" jurors (e.g., a panel of judges) would be better than 12-person panel of local residents annoyed because they couldn't get out of jury duty.
I do see your point better now, thanks for the clarification. However, I don't view them so much as being a sort of proxy for the defendant as I see them as a bunch of formal witnesses to make sure the state (as embodied by the judge) knows it's being watched. Nothing even close to be so personal as to inject some sort of sympathy/empathy/understanding of one side or the other. I do agree that, as human beings, their varied experiences and characters will come into play and color their respective views of the evidence in many ways.
In any case, as a formal element of the US judicial system, the jury is the finder of fact. Questions of fact go to the jury. The judge handles questions of law. But, as you've pointed out, as with any human activity, these roles are fulfilled by people who can't leave themselves out on the courthouse steps and act a some sort of cold, completely-objective machine. That's just not how we're wired.
This is a good point. The jurors don't know what else is going on. Setencing, for instance. The judge takes care of sentencing, and will take into account the mitigating factors that may cause a juror to want to vote "not guilty".
My own prefernce is to generally (not in every case) see these things handled in sentencing. If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your kids, I still think it's appropriate to convict you of the crime of theft, but the sentence can take into account the fact that you had exigent circumstances and let you off easy.
Certainly, the AHA is not selling goods with their mark on them.
I guess it could be they're claiming it's a certification mark. Like the UL (Underwriters Laboratory) mark. Basically certifying that the product so marked has met certain criteria.
I agree that it seems generic/descriptive. Might be different if the mark were "AHA Approved" or "AHA Harmless" or "Critter Friendly" or something like that.
In the US legal system, the jury is the finder of fact. Those are the only questions the courts asks them to answer. They are not there to put themselves in the defendant's shoes, anymore than they're there to put themselves in the victim's (or plaintiff's) shoes.
Your spelling and grammar lead me to believe you're posting from the UK, where it may very well be different.
I actually found my one time on a jury to be fairly rewarding. While certainly nobody WANTED to be there, it appeared to me that - even though everyone came to that deliberation room with their own varied life experiences that influenced how they looked at the evidence - my fellow jurors were all trying to be fair and to do a good job. I felt that the disagreements we had during deliberations were based on opinions each juror came by honestly, and that when we did reach a verdict, everyone was satisfied that we had done the right thing.
I see some later posts above with cites to early sources that, if they are not outright arguing for a "right" for jury nullification, are at least leaving room for it to exist in a sort of tolerated form. Interesting. I still believe that the Founding Fathers didn't look at the jury system as being a check EVERY TIME on EVERY LAW, but that it was a last-ditch effort that could be made in special circumstances. What good is the legal system if any random group of 12 citizens can effectively overturn any law they want to?
Certainly, as some have mentioned, there's nothing that prevents a juror to cast a vote based on personal opinion rather than an objective assessment of the evidence presented. However, would not that jury nullification can work both ways. If they've a mind to, a jury can convict, even if the evidence doesn't really support a conviction. Of course, that conviction can be appealed, but findings of fact in the trial court are generally given a lot of deference on appeal.
The jury is a finder of fact. The judge is the arbiter of the law, but needs the jury to tell him/her if the evidence presented fulfills the elements of the crime(s) charged.
The jury is not there to express its opinion regarding the law, and should not be arguing the merits of the law itself. Its function is purely one of factual determination.
What this "Fully Informed Jury Association" is doing is basically encouraging jury nullifcation. As presented here, they're not "informing" the jurors of anything. They are encouraging them to consider ignoring the law and misrepresent the facts in order to arrive at a verdict that is preferred by that juror - regardless of whether the defendant is actually guilty of the crime(s) charged.
As for the claim above that the Founding Fathers actually considered jury nullification to be a "fourth" check and balance, that's news to me. They were all very much law-and-order guys, and they expected disputes regarding our laws to be resolved within the rules they provided. I'm not aware of any of them considering that jury nullification was a useful way to deal with a law that got passed by Congress, who then overrode a Presidential veto, and the resulting law then survived judicial review. In fact, if the jury acquits a defendant based on jury nullification, the law might never actually get fixed, since it will not be subject to judicial review - since you can't appeal a verdict that never happened.
I look at remixing as perhaps "clever", but not really "creative". Sort of like the difference between really doing math and having a horse stamp its hoof to pretend to do math.
I look at remixing as perhaps "clever", but not really "creative". Sort of like the difference between really doing math and having a horse stamp its hoof to pretend to do math.
None of that stuff was actually made of copies of earlier material. Sure, certain scenes/shots look like recreations of earlier works, but that's a recreation, not a "copy" in the copyright (or remixing) sense.
In fact, it's an excellent example of the difference between ideas and expression. George Lucas, I think, has always been very up-front about having borrowed concepts from earlier works. He wanted the feel of old Flash Gordon serials, as well as material based on various myths, with some cowboy westerns and WWII moves thrown in. Well, he did his own versions of all of that. As far as I know, there's not a single frame of Star Wars that is copied from any other movie. Lucas did it all himself. So, he copied a bunch of ideas, but the expressions of those ideas were all arguably original.
This is quite different from the stereotypical remix, which (as the definition recited at the beginning of the video states) actually copies pre-existing works but adds (arguably) some level of creativity in re-arranging them and/or incorporating them with new/other material.
Re: Re: It's not really that .com is arguably "American"
No, those aren't really jurisdictional questions. They're valid, but not jurisdictional in nature. If you (or your property) are physically here, the local court (with few exceptions) has jurisdiction over you (or your property). Whether nor not what you are accused of doing is an illegal act under the laws in this jurisdiction is a necessary question, but not one of jurisdiction.
So, to the high-level question of how in the heck can a US agency seize a Spanish domain, the basic answer is, "because it's here". That's the core concept of jurisdiction.
The issue is likely one of jurisdiction, not nationality. If you (or your property) are physically within the geographical boundaries assigned to that court, it may exercise its jurisdiction over you (or your property).
On this particular point, it doesn't matter if the person or property is "American", "Spanish" or "Martian". It's not an issue of sovereignty. It's a matter of where they are physically located at the time the court is exercising its power (in the most simplistic approach to jurisdiction).
So, that doesn't change the fact that, yes, there would likely be cries of foul if the Spanish government were to arbitrariliy seize the .es domains of US companies, but if those domains are controlled in Spain, they arguably fall within Spain's jurisdiction.
This is a separate issue from whether or not the DHS seizures are or are not legal on other grounds.
I'm not sure what his duty hours have to do with this. The reporter doesn't have any sort of right, for instance, to knock on the door of his home at 2am.
If the reporter's repeated attempts to contact the sheriff went beyond what was reasonable, she can be called on the carpet to answer for it. I think it's fair to ask questions like whether her conduct was interfering with the sheriff's ability to do his job. Or whether her emails (which we haven't seen) strayed beyond merely asking questions and degenerated into outright accusations or something.
He has made the accusation that her conduct was harassing, rather than within the realm of what is reasonable in the context of a reporter and a public official. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We just don't know. However, the mere fact that he's a public figure doesn't mean he's got no rights at all and the fact that she's a reporter doesn't mean she's got immunity against prosecution for whatever she does in pursuit of a story.
The reporter doesn't have the right to engage in activity in her pursuit of answers from the sheriff that would be harassment if she were pursuing answers from you or me. The fact that he's a public servant doesn't mean it's not possible for a member of the press to harass him. I think it's valid to ask how far this reporter actually went in trying to get the sheriff to talk to her.
If she did try to talk to him in person and by telephone, and he declined both times, it may very well be "harassment" to then start sending him emails. The reporter doesn't have any greater right to get access to public officials than private citizens do, and I'd be willing to be that if you or I started with multiple attempts to get the time of the sheriff, we'd be looking at allegations of harassment and/or stalking.
Of course, we don't really know all of the facts. Her attempts to contact him may have been all very above-board and kosher. Then again, she may have crossed the line of professional journalism and engaged in behavior that no reasonable person would think was acceptable. We just don't know either way, based on the facts currently available.
Yes. The DM is not the "leader" in the sense that the prison officials seem to be thinking. He/she merely sets teh stage. The group of adventurers may, of course, have their own "leader", but my experience is that it was often fairly cooperative, rather than leader/follower.
I think this is a good point, generally, but I do wonder if the desk sergeant taking the report has the power to tell the aggrieved citizen to take a hike - or to at least descourage the citizen from filing a complaint that really has no merit. And, then, if the sheriff filed his own report, or had to go through that same desk sergeant.
It might be at least bad form - if not an abuse of power - if the sheriff's report cleared hurdles a similar report from you or me might stumble over
In any case, there are insufficient facts availble here to really assess whether either party has done anything wrong.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury is the finder of fact
I do see your point better now, thanks for the clarification. However, I don't view them so much as being a sort of proxy for the defendant as I see them as a bunch of formal witnesses to make sure the state (as embodied by the judge) knows it's being watched. Nothing even close to be so personal as to inject some sort of sympathy/empathy/understanding of one side or the other. I do agree that, as human beings, their varied experiences and characters will come into play and color their respective views of the evidence in many ways.
In any case, as a formal element of the US judicial system, the jury is the finder of fact. Questions of fact go to the jury. The judge handles questions of law. But, as you've pointed out, as with any human activity, these roles are fulfilled by people who can't leave themselves out on the courthouse steps and act a some sort of cold, completely-objective machine. That's just not how we're wired.
HM
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re:
My own prefernce is to generally (not in every case) see these things handled in sentencing. If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your kids, I still think it's appropriate to convict you of the crime of theft, but the sentence can take into account the fact that you had exigent circumstances and let you off easy.
HM
On the post: Humane Association Trademarked 'No Animals Were Harmed'; Threatens King's Speech With Infringement Claim
Maybe a certification mark
I guess it could be they're claiming it's a certification mark. Like the UL (Underwriters Laboratory) mark. Basically certifying that the product so marked has met certain criteria.
I agree that it seems generic/descriptive. Might be different if the mark were "AHA Approved" or "AHA Harmless" or "Critter Friendly" or something like that.
HM
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Jury is the finder of fact
Your spelling and grammar lead me to believe you're posting from the UK, where it may very well be different.
HM
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re:
HM
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Jury is the finder of fact
Certainly, as some have mentioned, there's nothing that prevents a juror to cast a vote based on personal opinion rather than an objective assessment of the evidence presented. However, would not that jury nullification can work both ways. If they've a mind to, a jury can convict, even if the evidence doesn't really support a conviction. Of course, that conviction can be appealed, but findings of fact in the trial court are generally given a lot of deference on appeal.
HM
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Jury is the finder of fact
The jury is not there to express its opinion regarding the law, and should not be arguing the merits of the law itself. Its function is purely one of factual determination.
What this "Fully Informed Jury Association" is doing is basically encouraging jury nullifcation. As presented here, they're not "informing" the jurors of anything. They are encouraging them to consider ignoring the law and misrepresent the facts in order to arrive at a verdict that is preferred by that juror - regardless of whether the defendant is actually guilty of the crime(s) charged.
As for the claim above that the Founding Fathers actually considered jury nullification to be a "fourth" check and balance, that's news to me. They were all very much law-and-order guys, and they expected disputes regarding our laws to be resolved within the rules they provided. I'm not aware of any of them considering that jury nullification was a useful way to deal with a law that got passed by Congress, who then overrode a Presidential veto, and the resulting law then survived judicial review. In fact, if the jury acquits a defendant based on jury nullification, the law might never actually get fixed, since it will not be subject to judicial review - since you can't appeal a verdict that never happened.
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re: Re: Re: ReMixing is not creating
However, if you try to pass them off as something other than your own work, you are not dealing with copyright issues anymore.
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Re: Re:
HM
On the post: Star Wars Is A Remix
Star Wars is not really a remix
In fact, it's an excellent example of the difference between ideas and expression. George Lucas, I think, has always been very up-front about having borrowed concepts from earlier works. He wanted the feel of old Flash Gordon serials, as well as material based on various myths, with some cowboy westerns and WWII moves thrown in. Well, he did his own versions of all of that. As far as I know, there's not a single frame of Star Wars that is copied from any other movie. Lucas did it all himself. So, he copied a bunch of ideas, but the expressions of those ideas were all arguably original.
This is quite different from the stereotypical remix, which (as the definition recited at the beginning of the video states) actually copies pre-existing works but adds (arguably) some level of creativity in re-arranging them and/or incorporating them with new/other material.
HM
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: It's not really that .com is arguably "American"
So, to the high-level question of how in the heck can a US agency seize a Spanish domain, the basic answer is, "because it's here". That's the core concept of jurisdiction.
HM
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
It's not really that .com is arguably "American"
On this particular point, it doesn't matter if the person or property is "American", "Spanish" or "Martian". It's not an issue of sovereignty. It's a matter of where they are physically located at the time the court is exercising its power (in the most simplistic approach to jurisdiction).
So, that doesn't change the fact that, yes, there would likely be cries of foul if the Spanish government were to arbitrariliy seize the .es domains of US companies, but if those domains are controlled in Spain, they arguably fall within Spain's jurisdiction.
This is a separate issue from whether or not the DHS seizures are or are not legal on other grounds.
HM
On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like
Re: 24 hour job
If the reporter's repeated attempts to contact the sheriff went beyond what was reasonable, she can be called on the carpet to answer for it. I think it's fair to ask questions like whether her conduct was interfering with the sheriff's ability to do his job. Or whether her emails (which we haven't seen) strayed beyond merely asking questions and degenerated into outright accusations or something.
He has made the accusation that her conduct was harassing, rather than within the realm of what is reasonable in the context of a reporter and a public official. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We just don't know. However, the mere fact that he's a public figure doesn't mean he's got no rights at all and the fact that she's a reporter doesn't mean she's got immunity against prosecution for whatever she does in pursuit of a story.
HM
On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like
Re: Re: Due process?
If she did try to talk to him in person and by telephone, and he declined both times, it may very well be "harassment" to then start sending him emails. The reporter doesn't have any greater right to get access to public officials than private citizens do, and I'd be willing to be that if you or I started with multiple attempts to get the time of the sheriff, we'd be looking at allegations of harassment and/or stalking.
Of course, we don't really know all of the facts. Her attempts to contact him may have been all very above-board and kosher. Then again, she may have crossed the line of professional journalism and engaged in behavior that no reasonable person would think was acceptable. We just don't know either way, based on the facts currently available.
HM
On the post: Court Says Playing Dungeons & Dragons In Prisons Represents Gang Behavior
Re: Next up: Going to Church
HM
On the post: Court Says Playing Dungeons & Dragons In Prisons Represents Gang Behavior
Re: Good GMs
HM
On the post: Court Says Playing Dungeons & Dragons In Prisons Represents Gang Behavior
Isn't the prison itself hierarchical?
Sounds like maybe the prison needs to become an autonomous collective.
HM
On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clear abuse of power?
It might be at least bad form - if not an abuse of power - if the sheriff's report cleared hurdles a similar report from you or me might stumble over
In any case, there are insufficient facts availble here to really assess whether either party has done anything wrong.
HM
Next >>