Well, what could they do? Extradition requires the cooperation of the foreign government, and armed invasion would result in Mexico's allies shooting at the US.
US laws are actually okay with that, oddly enough. US courts are internationally notorious for not caring how a defendant came to be standing in the court room, only that the defendant is present.
The classic example being Manuel Noriega. The courts ignored the fact that he was legally a prisoner of war given how he was seized by military force upon a battlefield while he was the commander-in-chief of a foreign military. The courts ignored the fact that trying a prisoner of war under civilian laws is a war crime. They ignored the fact that if he were not a prisoner of war, then he was the victim of a kidnapping. They ignored the fact that if he had broken US laws, he had done so outside the US in a place where he was sovereign.
Instead, they looked only at the fact that he had broken US laws and was standing in a US court room, and convicted him. By that precedent, if someone were to kidnap a US citizen to stand trial in Mexico -- or to try a US soldier who was taken as a prisoner of war as a civilian -- it would not be illegal. Even though the law is clear that it would be, the case law precedent would supersede the written statute.
The thing about the phrase "I feared for my life" is that that is the standard under which ANY citizen may lawfully use deadly force to preserve their life. Supposedly, the aggressor in an altercation cannot use it to excuse themselves for killing their victim when the victim proves abnormally adept at self defense, but that is exactly how far too many cops use it.
But the definition remains the same for all citizens. When cops move those goalposts and the referees (prosecutors, judges and juries) approve the move, the goalposts are moved for EVERYONE. Unequal enforcement of the law is grounds for a court to strike it down, and all citizens -- police or not -- all fall under the same laws in this sort of incident.
So if punching someone without cause and them punching you back makes killing them lawful, then it's lawful for EVERYONE. I'm pretty sure that that isn't remotely the sort of legal precedent cops want to set, yet they keep setting it over and over again.
By the same logic, if someone puts a bumper sticker for a political position you dislike on your car without your knowledge or consent, removing it could be anything from theft to a hate crime.
But by the logic the court is applying, that until a judge rules a law is in effect it cannot be known to be in effect, it would not actually be illegal, since breaking the law requires both mens rea and actus rea, and until a judge makes a ruling there is no mens rea and actus rea cannot be known.
Since ex post facto laws are known to be illegal, the first person to pepper spray a judge like that should get away with it.
So use water from a super soaker, so there is no physical harm (unless one of them is the Wicked Witch of the West), then point out that by their logic it would be just as legal to use pepper spray.
There were two cases I read about that highlight the problem nicely.
First, there was a 14 year old girl that was violently raped at knife-point by a 13 year old boy. Because a 14 year old could conditionally give consent to sex in that state but a 13 year old never could, and sex had undoubtedly occurred whether consensual or not, the prosecutor charged the rape victim with statutory rape and gave the rapist immunity from the assault with a deadly weapon charge in exchange for testimony against his victim. Since the girl was under 18, she would have 'only' had to register as a sex offender for ten years if convicted. Thankfully a judge tossed the charges as soon as he heard them.
In another case, a man owned a house with a nice master bedroom on the ground floor, and an equally nice master bathroom. The back yard had very nice, thick privacy fences and hedges. So his habit of walking naked from his bathroom to his bedroom after showering should have been a wholly private matter. Except that one night, a woman and her pre-teen son were trespassing in the man's backyard, and he had no idea they were there due to being in a brightly lit room and them in a dark backyard, and they got an eye-full. The prosecutor charged him with exposing his genitals to a child in public. The fact that the woman and her son were both peeping toms who could not have seen those genitals without peeping into people's bedroom windows at night didn't seem to matter. Thankfully, again, the judge threw out the charges before the man could wind up on a sex offender registry for life for being the victim of a sex crime.
That's how silly the sex offender registry has become.
If the settlement for the Flywheel bike wasn't merely to stop selling the (allegedly) patent-infringing equipment but actually bricking the already-sold ones, I'd think that the customers who got screwed have a pretty good case for a class action lawsuit here.
After all, they were harmed by the actions of the company, and those actions were not mandated by a court.
Why is organized religion relevant? The first amendment does not protect your right to join the well-established, government-approved church of your choice, it protects the right to believe as you choose.
If it did in fact only protect well-established religions, if Jesus Christ were born to Mary and Joseph today instead of 2000-odd years ago, Christianity (and all follow-on religions) would die in the cradle because nobody would have a right to believe in them.
They hide needles in needlestacks instead of haystacks. Sure, they get served ads intended for needles instead of hay, but good luck to ANYONE trying to figure out which needle is which.
That's pretty much the basic concept of spam right there -- because they CAN send you a message at little expense to them and with most of the expense borne by the recipients, they feel they have morality on their side when they do so.
Your own post would require a warning notice for those reasons, because just like religious zealots, you cannot prove your beliefs. You just have faith that you're right.
On the post: Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico
Re: 'It only okay when WE do it.'
Well, what could they do? Extradition requires the cooperation of the foreign government, and armed invasion would result in Mexico's allies shooting at the US.
On the post: Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico
Re: More Equal under Law
More to the point, what would happen if a member of the Mexican Federal Police shot a US Border Patrol officer across the border?
On the post: Supreme Court Says It's OK For Border Patrol Agents To Kill Mexican Citizens As Long As They Die In Mexico
Re: Sounds like it is time to kidnap a murderer
US laws are actually okay with that, oddly enough. US courts are internationally notorious for not caring how a defendant came to be standing in the court room, only that the defendant is present.
The classic example being Manuel Noriega. The courts ignored the fact that he was legally a prisoner of war given how he was seized by military force upon a battlefield while he was the commander-in-chief of a foreign military. The courts ignored the fact that trying a prisoner of war under civilian laws is a war crime. They ignored the fact that if he were not a prisoner of war, then he was the victim of a kidnapping. They ignored the fact that if he had broken US laws, he had done so outside the US in a place where he was sovereign.
Instead, they looked only at the fact that he had broken US laws and was standing in a US court room, and convicted him. By that precedent, if someone were to kidnap a US citizen to stand trial in Mexico -- or to try a US soldier who was taken as a prisoner of war as a civilian -- it would not be illegal. Even though the law is clear that it would be, the case law precedent would supersede the written statute.
On the post: Judge Tears Into Cops For Beating A Man Who Dared To Question Their Words And Actions
Re: Re: Re:
The thing about the phrase "I feared for my life" is that that is the standard under which ANY citizen may lawfully use deadly force to preserve their life. Supposedly, the aggressor in an altercation cannot use it to excuse themselves for killing their victim when the victim proves abnormally adept at self defense, but that is exactly how far too many cops use it.
But the definition remains the same for all citizens. When cops move those goalposts and the referees (prosecutors, judges and juries) approve the move, the goalposts are moved for EVERYONE. Unequal enforcement of the law is grounds for a court to strike it down, and all citizens -- police or not -- all fall under the same laws in this sort of incident.
So if punching someone without cause and them punching you back makes killing them lawful, then it's lawful for EVERYONE. I'm pretty sure that that isn't remotely the sort of legal precedent cops want to set, yet they keep setting it over and over again.
On the post: State Court Says It Isn't Theft To Remove An Unmarked Law Enforcement Tracking Device From Your Car
Re:
By the same logic, if someone puts a bumper sticker for a political position you dislike on your car without your knowledge or consent, removing it could be anything from theft to a hate crime.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Re: Re: Re:
There is a risk of death every time you drink a glass of water.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Re: Re: To the best of my knowledge
Not by the rules they are applying, and unequal enforcement of law is grounds for a constitutional challenge.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Re: Re: To the best of my knowledge
But by the logic the court is applying, that until a judge rules a law is in effect it cannot be known to be in effect, it would not actually be illegal, since breaking the law requires both mens rea and actus rea, and until a judge makes a ruling there is no mens rea and actus rea cannot be known.
Since ex post facto laws are known to be illegal, the first person to pepper spray a judge like that should get away with it.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
Re: Re: Re: To the best of my knowledge
So use water from a super soaker, so there is no physical harm (unless one of them is the Wicked Witch of the West), then point out that by their logic it would be just as legal to use pepper spray.
On the post: Not Clearly Established A Jailer Can't Spray A Prisoner In The Eyes With Pepper Spray For No Reason, Says Fifth Circuit
To the best of my knowledge
no one has ever pepper sprayed a judge sitting on the bench in a court room before, therefore I cannot reasonably know that doing so would be illegal.
Doesn't that mean I lack mens rea if I go pepper spray a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in open court?
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There were two cases I read about that highlight the problem nicely.
First, there was a 14 year old girl that was violently raped at knife-point by a 13 year old boy. Because a 14 year old could conditionally give consent to sex in that state but a 13 year old never could, and sex had undoubtedly occurred whether consensual or not, the prosecutor charged the rape victim with statutory rape and gave the rapist immunity from the assault with a deadly weapon charge in exchange for testimony against his victim. Since the girl was under 18, she would have 'only' had to register as a sex offender for ten years if convicted. Thankfully a judge tossed the charges as soon as he heard them.
In another case, a man owned a house with a nice master bedroom on the ground floor, and an equally nice master bathroom. The back yard had very nice, thick privacy fences and hedges. So his habit of walking naked from his bathroom to his bedroom after showering should have been a wholly private matter. Except that one night, a woman and her pre-teen son were trespassing in the man's backyard, and he had no idea they were there due to being in a brightly lit room and them in a dark backyard, and they got an eye-full. The prosecutor charged him with exposing his genitals to a child in public. The fact that the woman and her son were both peeping toms who could not have seen those genitals without peeping into people's bedroom windows at night didn't seem to matter. Thankfully, again, the judge threw out the charges before the man could wind up on a sex offender registry for life for being the victim of a sex crime.
That's how silly the sex offender registry has become.
On the post: The Next Risk In Buying An IOT Product Is Having It Bricked By A Patent Dispute
Possibly a class action here
If the settlement for the Flywheel bike wasn't merely to stop selling the (allegedly) patent-infringing equipment but actually bricking the already-sold ones, I'd think that the customers who got screwed have a pretty good case for a class action lawsuit here.
After all, they were harmed by the actions of the company, and those actions were not mandated by a court.
On the post: CBP Memo Confirms Bus Drivers Have A Right To Deny Agents Permission To Search Buses And Passengers
Re: Re:
If you didn't think there was reason to worry about what you say and to whom, why are you posting anonymously?
On the post: Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics
Re: 'Oh no, we only like that one when it helps us you see.'
Everybody does this to some extent. Other people have special interests and agendas, your deeply held beliefs are just good sense.
On the post: Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics
Re: There is no such religious exemption
Why is organized religion relevant? The first amendment does not protect your right to join the well-established, government-approved church of your choice, it protects the right to believe as you choose.
If it did in fact only protect well-established religions, if Jesus Christ were born to Mary and Joseph today instead of 2000-odd years ago, Christianity (and all follow-on religions) would die in the cradle because nobody would have a right to believe in them.
On the post: Activision Tries To Bury Cover Art For New CoD Game Via Copyright Threat...So Let's All Look At It Together, Shall We?
Re: Re: Gotta love the news reporting fair use rule
And the internet is strictly for military communications. So go enlist before you post again.
On the post: Activision Tries To Bury Cover Art For New CoD Game Via Copyright Threat...So Let's All Look At It Together, Shall We?
Gotta love the news reporting fair use rule
Like the subject says. We'll see if the original Reddit post was DMCA'd as a publicity stunt if this one gets one too.
On the post: As The World Frets Over Social Media Tracking For Advertising, Young People Are Turning Fooling Sites Into Sport
Re:
They hide needles in needlestacks instead of haystacks. Sure, they get served ads intended for needles instead of hay, but good luck to ANYONE trying to figure out which needle is which.
Privacy is mostly a myth these days.
On the post: Appeals Court Rules That People Can't Be Locked Up Indefinitely For Refusing To Decrypt Devices
Re:
That's pretty much the basic concept of spam right there -- because they CAN send you a message at little expense to them and with most of the expense borne by the recipients, they feel they have morality on their side when they do so.
On the post: Utah State Rep Unveils Bill To Force Porn To Come With A Warning Label
Re: Okay, but only if...
Your own post would require a warning notice for those reasons, because just like religious zealots, you cannot prove your beliefs. You just have faith that you're right.
Next >>