Anti-spammers rally to fight lawsuit
Viv
<http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4423608%5e15319%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html>
Aussie spammer sues anti-spammer in world-first case
<http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000024993,20265640,00.htm>
Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
anti-spam activist alleging:
1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company "spammers"
was the person responsible for their IP details being
placed on a spammers-blacklist website
2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
him to cough up.
Interesting precedent. I suspect this case has the potential for
a lot of misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and thus may
generate ULish mutant offspring in the not-too-distant future.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Words were indeed insubstantial. They were as soft as water, but they
were also as powerful as water and now they were rushing over the
audience, eroding the levees of veracity and carrying away the past."
Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax sees the need for www.urbanlegends.com
Paul Blay
> Anti-spammers rally to fight lawsuit
> <http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4423608%5e15319%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html>
>
> Aussie spammer sues anti-spammer in world-first case
> <http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000024993,20265640,00.htm>
>
> Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
> anti-spam activist alleging:
> 1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company "spammers"
> was the person responsible for their IP details being
> placed on a spammers-blacklist website
> 2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
> him to cough up.
>
> Interesting precedent. I suspect this case has the potential for
> a lot of misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and thus may
> generate ULish mutant offspring in the not-too-distant future.
This reminds me of a story that allegedly was in UK newspaper(s)
but which I have not found in a google search.
Namely that a household was sued by the family of a vandal who
was hit in the head by a brick after it bounced off the double-glazed
window he threw it at.
Steve Smith
>
> Anti-spammers rally to fight lawsuit
> <http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4423608%5e15319%5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html>
>
> Aussie spammer sues anti-spammer in world-first case
> <http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000024993,20265640,00.htm>
>
> Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
> anti-spam activist alleging:
> 1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company "spammers"
> was the person responsible for their IP details being
> placed on a spammers-blacklist website
> 2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
> him to cough up.
>
> Interesting precedent. I suspect this case has the potential for
> a lot of misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and thus may
> generate ULish mutant offspring in the not-too-distant future.
Interesting. If it ever comes to trial, we'll get to see just how much
money one spammer *really* makes ...
I'm sure we've all gotten the spams saying "Make Big Bucks Sending
Spam!!!!!", but I've never seen any real numbers. I assume that
*somebody* reads and replies to spam.
--
Steve Smith s...@aginc.net
Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Lara Hopkins
> Interesting. If it ever comes to trial, we'll get to see just how much
> money one spammer *really* makes ...
This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD [1]) a
day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages totalling $43,750,
including $14,000 for replacing blocked identifying numbers, $5000 for a
new server computer and $20,000 lost income." according to the West
Australian Newspaper. More media links at
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
Lara
[1] which is about two-fifty in USAn dollars, and subject to regular
plunging.
--
"Of course, had you cited _three_ hazy memories, that would have been
acceptable."
Lee Ayrton explains the burden of proof on AFU
>>> Check out the shiny new AFU FAQ at http://www.tafkac.org/ <<<
Douglas Martin
"Lara Hopkins" <use...@waawa.cx> wrote in message
news:1fdcuzq.kg90pdlt70cqN%use...@waawa.cx...
> Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. If it ever comes to trial, we'll get to see just how much
> > money one spammer *really* makes ...
>
> This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD [1]) a
> day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages totalling $43,750,
> including $14,000 for replacing blocked identifying numbers, $5000 for a
> new server computer and $20,000 lost income." according to the West
> Australian Newspaper. More media links at
>
WHY would they need a new server in order to start spamming again?! Looks to
me like they're taking the opportunity to make someone else pay for their
hardware upgrades.
Lara Hopkins
> "Lara Hopkins" <use...@waawa.cx> wrote:
> > This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD [1]) a
> > day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages totalling $43,750,
> > including $14,000 for replacing blocked identifying numbers, $5000 for a
> > new server computer and $20,000 lost income." according to the West
> > Australian Newspaper. More media links at
> >
> The legal system is amazing (or maybe pitiful is a better word) at times.
> WHY would they need a new server in order to start spamming again?!
Note that the case has not been heard yet - this is merely a plaintiff's
Statement of Claim, which says nothing about the "legal system". You can
read the defendant's reply at the link you snipped.
Lara
Rosencrantz
Douglas Martin <doug...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:K1JL8.193962$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
for summary judgment - one of the many devices the system has to allow
defendants to quickly and cheaply defeat actions that don't have a
snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding.
HWM
> Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
> anti-spam activist alleging:
> 1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company "spammers"
> was the person responsible for their IP details being
> placed on a spammers-blacklist website
> 2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
> him to cough up.
Aww schucks. And the spammers-blacklist website isn't sued for libel or
whatnot? Oh well, I haven't received that much Oz spam really, only once
maybe, so I'm not worried*. Must be an antipodean thing.
* I think I once got an Italian, so I'm expecting Kaurismäki's "Rosso"
any day now...
--
Cheers, HWM
henry.w @ sanet.fi
Simon Slavin
"Paul Blay" <ra...@saotome.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> This reminds me of a story that allegedly was in UK newspaper(s)
> but which I have not found in a google search.
>
> Namely that a household was sued by the family of a vandal who
> was hit in the head by a brick after it bounced off the double-glazed
> window he threw it at.
There have been cases in the UK where criminals have sued the
owners of buildings when they've hurt themselves on ingress.
There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
(fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
American readers may need telling that our legal system doesn't
yield the multi-million-pound damages judgements that are possible
under the US legal system.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | [One] thing that worries me about Bush and
No junk email please. | Blair's "war on terrorism" is: how will they
| know when they've won it ? -- Terry Jones
THE FRENCH WAS THERE
Paul Cassel
"Simon Slavin" <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote in message
news:B925AB689...@0.0.0.0...
>
> There have been cases in the UK where criminals have sued the
> owners of buildings when they've hurt themselves on ingress.
> There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
> his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
> (fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
>
Not really. It was in the US and the suit was due to a booby trap. IIRC, the
judge said to the defendent (owner), "What if a troop of boyscouts had
entered the premises seeking shelter from the rain?".
Idiot judge here. The person shot was an admitted burglar. Then again, there
doesn't seem to be a thimbleful of intelligence left in the US court system.
-paul
Deborah Stevenson,,,
>"Simon Slavin" <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote in message
>news:B925AB689...@0.0.0.0...
>>
>> There have been cases in the UK where criminals have sued the
>> owners of buildings when they've hurt themselves on ingress.
>> There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
>> his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
>> (fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
>>
>Not really. It was in the US and the suit was due to a booby trap.
Why would it have to be an either/or? Can't the case you're talking about
be true alongside the cases Simon is talking about?
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Chris Clarke
"Paul Cassel" <pcas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Idiot judge here. The person shot was an admitted burglar. Then again, there
> doesn't seem to be a thimbleful of intelligence left in the US court system.
What part of BoP don't you understand?
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Bob Ward
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>-:In article <adkj55$o8v$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>-:"Paul Blay" <ra...@saotome.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>-:
>-:> This reminds me of a story that allegedly was in UK newspaper(s)
>-:> but which I have not found in a google search.
>-:>
>-:> Namely that a household was sued by the family of a vandal who
>-:> was hit in the head by a brick after it bounced off the double-glazed
>-:> window he threw it at.
>-:
>-:There have been cases in the UK where criminals have sued the
>-:owners of buildings when they've hurt themselves on ingress.
>-:There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
>-:his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
>-:(fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
>-:
Over here the police and prosecuters are two separate entities.
>-:American readers may need telling that our legal system doesn't
>-:yield the multi-million-pound damages judgements that are possible
>-:under the US legal system.
>-:
How would one win a multi-million pound settlement in the US?
>-:Simon.
--
This space left intentionally blank
Drew Lawson
Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> writes:
>On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:14:32 +0100,
>sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>
>>-:There have been cases in the UK where criminals have sued the
>>-:owners of buildings when they've hurt themselves on ingress.
>>-:There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
>>-:his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
>>-:(fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
>>-:
>
>Over here the police and prosecuters are two separate entities.
Not in the common rhetoric.
I can't count the times that I've heard USAians describe a "crime"
and say something about "the police wouldn't press charges."
Drew "but would they charge presses?" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | Though it's just a memory,
dr...@furrfu.com | some memories last forever
Hugh Gibbons
>
> Not really. It was in the US and the suit was due to a booby trap.
> IIRC, the judge said to the defendent (owner), "What if a troop of
> boyscouts had entered the premises seeking shelter from the rain?".
>
> Idiot judge here. The person shot was an admitted burglar. Then again,
> there doesn't seem to be a thimbleful of intelligence left in the US >
> court system.
mind that BoP.
But the judge was right about the law. It is illegal to set
booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
Tony Bailey
news:njcrfucjv7eiahiom...@4ax.com...
> Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
> anti-spam activist alleging:
> 1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company
"spammers"
> was the person responsible for their IP details being
> placed on a spammers-blacklist website
> 2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
> him to cough up.
>
I've just been listening to a radio interview with the bloke being sued, and
his solicitor: apparently the support, and offers of help, that they have
received from around the world have been phenomenal.
It will be very interesting to hear the result.
--
Tony Bailey
Mercury World Travel
Mercury Travel Books
mercur...@optushome.com.au
Paul Blay
TWIAVBP, the big UK case involved a farmer shooting someone in the back,
[possibly twice] when chasing him _out_. But don't take my memory for it,
(I certainly don't) let's see what the magic of instant 'research' can do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_718000/718129.stm
Hmm, so it was two trespassers, only one of which died, and the first shot
probably didn't hit anybody. I give that a 5.5 / 10 for memory.
Rob Poole
ra...@saotome.fsnet.co.uk says...
I know the possibility was discussed in the UK media that Tony Martin,
the farmer in the above link, may be sued by either the family of
Fred Barras who was killed or Brendon Fearon who was wounded but
I do not know if anything has happened yet.
It may be that Simon was thinking of Ted Newbery who was sued
by the person he wounded, see:
<URL:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4218797,00.html>
<begin quote>
The proposals, the cuttings tell us, would allow the Norfolk farmer
Tony Martin to be sued for damages by the family of the teenage
burglar he shot and killed. "Not merely a bad idea but a mad one"
pronounced one paper. The more prosaic and less headline-grabbing
truth is that the family of the teenage burglar Tony Martin killed
already have a right to sue under existing law. As long ago as 1994,
pensioner Ted Newbery was ordered to pay £4,000 for seriously
wounding Mark Revill, a burglar on his allotment, with his shotgun.
<end quote>
The Guardian article starts with:
<begin quote>
Carlo Vellino is paralysed for life after jumping from a window in
his second-floor flat in a bid to escape two police officers who
were trying to arrest him for evading fines. Now Vellino is suing
the police for damages because of his catastrophic injuries.
<end quote>
From bit of googling it seems that Vellino did not win his case
<URL:http://www.lawreports.co.uk/civjul3.1.htm>
<begin quote>
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
CA: Schiemann and Sedley LJJ and Sir Murray Stewart-Smith:
31 July 2001
The police did not owe a duty to an arrested person to take care
that he was not injured in a foreseeable attempt by him to
escape from lawful custody. The prisoner's action for personal
injury sustained as a result of his escape arose ex turpi causa[1]
because it was founded on his own criminal act. The Court of
Appeal by a majority (Sedley LJ dissenting) so held in dismissing
an appeal by the claimant, Carlo Vellino, against the dismissal
by Elias J on 22 June 2000 of his action for damages for personal
injury against the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police.
<end quote>
Rob.
[1] This must fall under a BO of some sort and since I did not
have the faintest idea what it meant anyway:
<URL:http://www.giffenleelaw.com/article1.htm>
<begin quote>
... ex turpi causa non oritur actio (illigal or immoral conduct
cannot give rise to a cause of action)...
<end quote>
--
Rob Poole, Computer Technician, Civil Engineering, Aston Uni
R.H....@aston.ac.uk Tel 0121 359 3611 x4385
<http://www.aston.ac.uk/~poolerh> Pager 07669 007423
Charles A Lieberman
<adosrj$15j5a$1...@ID-135891.news.dfncis.de>
>> There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
>> his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
>> (fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
>>
>
>Not really. It was in the US and the suit was due to a booby trap.
"Not really"? You can produce documents showing this case never happened
in the UK?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Don't poop on the homeless!"
Brooklyn, New York, USA | -Meredith Robbins
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Rick Burger
> In article <devvfuopdhm6iha17...@4ax.com>
> Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> writes:
> >On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:14:32 +0100,
> >sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> >
> >>-:There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
> >>-:his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
> >>-:(fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
> >>-:
> >
> >Over here the police and prosecuters are two separate entities.
>
> Not in the common rhetoric.
> I can't count the times that I've heard USAians describe a "crime"
> and say something about "the police wouldn't press charges."
A disheartening number of citizens of the USA fail to comprehend that
in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two
separate yet equally important groups -- the police, who investigate
crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
Perhaps if someone said it over and over on televison for years upon
years they'd get the idea.
Rick "...naaah" Burger
Dr H
Doesn't change the fact that gun-traps are illegal. In Oregon there
are circumstances under which you'll be let off for shooting someone
who has entered your home illegally, but only if you pull the trigger
yourself.
Dr H
Dr H
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Clarke wrote:
}In article <adosrj$15j5a$1...@ID-135891.news.dfncis.de>,
} "Paul Cassel" <pcas...@comcast.net> wrote:
}
}> Idiot judge here. The person shot was an admitted burglar. Then again, there
}> doesn't seem to be a thimbleful of intelligence left in the US court system.
}
}What part of BoP don't you understand?
I've never understood the "B" part, myself.
Dr H
Chris Clarke
Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
Hold your head sideways.
Nospam9212
mercury...@optusnet.com.au wrote...
If I could jump in here for a moment...
>"Viv" <wy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:njcrfucjv7eiahiom...@4ax.com...
>
>> Summary: A Western Australian direct marketing company is suing an
>> anti-spam activist alleging:
>> 1. That he as a known critic who had publicly called the company
>"spammers"
A large supply of "spam" from T3 is now being collected and archived to
document their activities as known spammers.
Apparently Mark Reynolds, who is president of Western Australia Internet
Association,
has publicly gone on record stating...
..the group (WAIA) has received many complaints about T3 over the years. He
said the case is
the first of its kind he has heard of.
"It's the first time a known spam organization is suing an end user who made
public complaints about receiving spam," he said.
It would seem a rather easy task to show T3 as spammers.
>> was the person responsible for their IP details being
>> placed on a spammers-blacklist website
Can't be done, in this case. The blacklist is one that does not take
nominations and does not even accept email. The admins of the list reamain
anonymous and cant' be contacted. The way an IP address seems to get listed on
the list known as Spews (Spam Prevention and Early Warning System) is to hit an
email address maintained by Spews with spam. Thru a method only known to the
admins of Spews the spam goes thru a process of abuse reports and failure by
the offending ISPs and/or senders to do anything about the spam being sent from
their systems, they get listed as abusive and uncooperative.
See the homepage at http://www.spews.org
from the FAQ..
---
Q41: How does one contact SPEWS?
A41: One does not. SPEWS does not receive email - it's just an automated system
and website, SPEWS and other blocklist issues can be discussed in the public
forums mentioned above. The newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email (NANAE) is a
good choice, and Google makes it quite easy to post messages there via the Web
as M@ilGate does via email. Note that posting messages in these newsgroups &
lists will not have any effect on SPEWS listings, only the discontinuation of
spam and/or spam support will.
---
>> 2. That said blacklisting lost them lots of money which they want
>> him to cough up.
The collection of spams sent by T3 in the recent past are helping to prove that
T3 never stopped their so-called "business" (spamming). A major mistake by T3
to keep spamming while claiming to be "damaged".
>I've just been listening to a radio interview with the bloke being sued, and
>his solicitor: apparently the support, and offers of help, that they have
>received from around the world have been phenomenal.
>
>It will be very interesting to hear the result.
It's actually very interesting now.
One development is that allegedly, someone (I won't use names) who once worked
for Swan Christian Education Association may have smuggled out a password for
their network when leaving as an admin for that organization and used "stolen"
IP addresses belonging to Swan Christian Education Association while working
for T3. This was stated/posted publicly by someone claiming to be from Swan
Christian Education Association. Has yet to be proven but is now a topic of
discussion and thought to be factual.
Another point that shows T3 has brought about the lawsuit maliciously (probably
thought the whole deal would never go this far) is to claim that some of the IP
addresses damaged are in the area of 192.68.xxx.xxx
Now anyone that knows anything about those IP addresses knows that those
addresses are reserved for internal use on a LAN. Those addresse would never be
used by a mail server to access the Internet. Think of it as having a home
intercom in your house and stating your phone company blocked that system so
you couldn't use it among your family members. Couldn't be done, right....
well, same thing. I have a small network setup here at home. Just two systems.
One Linux, one WINDOWS98. The Linux IP address is 192.68.10.2 and the WIN IP
address is 192.68.10.3 They only person who can block me from them is me.
T3 cannot claim they owned any IP addresses in the range of anything starting
with 192.xxx.xxx.xxx I want to see, just how they are going to show, by using a
"whois" tool, that those IP addresses are registered to them.
There are many things at the core of this lawsuit that just "ain't right". T3
will have to back down or take a beating.
ok, I'm done.. carry on.. :)
-= Francis Yarra =-
fyarraATjunoDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/fyarra001/ads - My drywall website
http://members.aol.com/fyarra - My C64 website
http://members.aol.com/prsnl99 - My personal website
Tomas Söderlund
"Nospam9212" <nospa...@aol.commune> wrote in message
news:20020608030203...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> Another point that shows T3 has brought about the lawsuit maliciously
(probably
> thought the whole deal would never go this far) is to claim that some
of the IP
> addresses damaged are in the area of 192.68.xxx.xxx
Nothing wrong with that range.
>
> Now anyone that knows anything about those IP addresses knows that
those
> addresses are reserved for internal use on a LAN.
Nope, they're not.
> Those addresse would never be
> used by a mail server to access the Internet. Think of it as having a
home
> intercom in your house and stating your phone company blocked that
system so
> you couldn't use it among your family members. Couldn't be done,
right....
> well, same thing. I have a small network setup here at home. Just two
systems.
> One Linux, one WINDOWS98. The Linux IP address is 192.68.10.2 and the
WIN IP
> address is 192.68.10.3 They only person who can block me from them is
me.
True, but by using those addresses you effectively block yourself from
the real 192.68.10.x network
>
> T3 cannot claim they owned any IP addresses in the range of anything
starting
> with 192.xxx.xxx.xxx I want to see, just how they are going to show,
by using a
> "whois" tool, that those IP addresses are registered to them.
>
192.168.0.0/16 is reserved for private addressing not the entire
192.0.0.0/8 range.
I suggest you find a new "whois" tool as yours seem to be defective ; )
Search results for: 192.68.0.0
netCS Informationstechnik GmbH (NETBLK-NETCS-68C)
Feuerbachstrasse 47-49
D-1000 Berlin 41
DE
Netname: NETCS-68C
Netblock: 192.68.0.0 - 192.68.3.255
Coordinator:
Schrimpe, Clemens (CS218-ARIN) cs...@KIEZ.NET
+49 30 78703573 (FAX) +49 30 78703575
Record last updated on 06-Dec-1995.
Database last updated on 7-Jun-2002 19:59:23 EDT.
Search results for: 192.68.10.0
AEG Aktiengesellschaft, Fachbereich Grundstoffindustrie
(NET-NETCS-CNET10)
Feuerbachstrasse 47/49
D-1000 Berlin 41
DE
Netname: AEG-AAS
Netblock: 192.68.10.0 - 192.68.10.255
Coordinator:
Hafemeister, Bernd (BH175-ARIN) [No mailbox]
+49-30-828 2434 (FAX) +49-30-828 2227
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
GATEWAY.AEG-AAS.DE 192.68.10.251
NS.GERMANY.EU.NET 192.76.144.66
NS.EUNET.CH 146.228.10.16
Record last updated on 19-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 7-Jun-2002 19:59:23 EDT.
Lara Hopkins
> "Nospam9212" <nospa...@aol.commune> wrote:
> > Another point that shows T3 has brought about the lawsuit maliciously
> > (probably thought the whole deal would never go this far) is to claim
> > that some of the IP addresses damaged are in the area of 192.68.xxx.xxx
>
> Nothing wrong with that range.
>
> > Now anyone that knows anything about those IP addresses knows that
> > those addresses are reserved for internal use on a LAN.
>
> Nope, they're not.
The IP addresses of which Nospam speaks are
192.168.1.10
192.168.2.10
The full list can be viewed in the plaintiff's initial summons which is
publicly available at
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
There's not much point bickering past each other if you haven't read the
relevant documents.
Drew Lawson
It sinks in a lot. So much so that after living a very large portion
of my life in Virginia, I was confused about what this "Commonwealth's
Attorney" was that I'd hear about in the news. I was certain that
we had District Attorneys, cause that's what is on TV.
Drew "you mean TV isn't *real*?" Lawson
Simon Slavin
Rob Poole <R.H....@aston.ac.uk> wrote:
> It may be that Simon was thinking of Ted Newbery who was sued
> by the person he wounded, see:
> <URL:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4218797,00.html>
That's the one. I think. I probably had the Ted Newbery and
Tony Martin cases conflated.
Nospam9212
soderlu...@telia.com wrote...
>> Now anyone that knows anything about those IP addresses knows that those
>> addresses are reserved for internal use on a LAN.
>
>Nope, they're not.
>
>> Those addresse would never be
>> used by a mail server to access the Internet.
>True, but by using those addresses you effectively block yourself from
>the real 192.68.10.x network
Which is not registered to T3.
I knew that there was a "real" range of 192.68/xx This was explained to me a
while back in another newsgroup. I just didn't feel the need to explain on that
level. I was just trying to make a point, not geek attack the group with
technical banter. Point being... the IP addresses, 192.168.1.10 and
192.168.2.10 that T3 is claiming damage to, do *not* belong to them, other than
on their own network. Do they "have" these IP addresses as part of their
network.. yep. Can a blacklist block them... nope. No need to get technical
other than do they actually own 192.68/xx.. nope. They're claiming damage to a
couple of internal IP addresses. I hope the judge is computer literate.
>Search results for: 192.68.0.0
>
>netCS Informationstechnik GmbH (NETBLK-NETCS-68C)
> Feuerbachstrasse 47-49
> D-1000 Berlin 41
> DE
>
> Netname: NETCS-68C
> Netblock: 192.68.0.0 - 192.68.3.255
(snipped)
See, you knew that. You see T3 in there as a registered owner, somewhere..?? I
don't. I guess they can't claim damage to those assigned/registered IP addies
either. :(
The people behind T3 are either really stupid or thought they could bluff. This
will be fun to watch...
milk
"Hugh Gibbons" <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote in message
news:20020606234...@news.axs4u.net...
Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a no
tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if you dare come
near?
Just a thought
Patty
milk
"Rick Burger" <deep...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9c1f4bca.02060...@posting.google.com...
Good point, but where have i heard that before? It sound so familar.
LOL
Patty
Tom Scalf
wrote:
Only if you surrounded it with a high security fence and posted a
bunch of signs declaring it a hazardous area.
The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
Tom
>Just a thought
>Patty
>
Dan Fingerman
<news:ug6f3m2...@corp.supernews.com>:
> "Hugh Gibbons" <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote in message
> news:20020606234...@news.axs4u.net...
>>
>> But the judge was right about the law. It is illegal to set
>> booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
>
> Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
> no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
> you dare come near?
Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
--
DTM :<|
Dan Fingerman
<news:1fdcuzq.kg90pdlt70cqN%use...@waawa.cx>:
> Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. If it ever comes to trial, we'll get to see just
>> how much money one spammer *really* makes ...
>
> This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD
> [1]) a day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages
> totalling $43,750, including $14,000 for replacing blocked
> identifying numbers, $5000 for a new server computer and $20,000
> lost income." according to the West Australian Newspaper. More
> media links at
>
> http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
Unfortunately, the summons refers only to "income," not revenue or
profit.
--
DTM :<|
danny burstein
>> [1]) a day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages
>> totalling $43,750, including $14,000 for replacing blocked
>> identifying numbers, $5000 for a new server computer and $20,000
>> lost income." according to the West Australian Newspaper. More
>> media links at
>>
>> http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
keep in mind he's probably referring to (or claiming...) the money people
paid him to spam out. And there are, alas, many people who contract out
for these services.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Charles A Lieberman
Dan Fingerman <dtmSS...@bu.edu> wrote:
> > Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
> > no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
> > you dare come near?
>
> Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
Not really comparable (well, you can compare it until the cows come
home, I suppose.) If I put up a sign that says, let's say, "anyone who
backs their car over this grate will find their tires severely damaged,"
I am giving you a clear choice of whether or not to take a certain
action, setting forth the consequences if you do. If I say "I'm going to
slash your tires because I'm a dastardly-type person," I'm not giving
you the choice. I don't know how well the analogy would hold up if the
consequences were fatal.
Charles "But I know how _Katko_ turned out" Lieberman
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "I guess you can't guarantee supernatural
Brooklyn, New York, USA | phenomena." --Rian from Newfoundland
http://calieber.tripod.com/index.html cali...@bigfoot.com
Sherilyn
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns922889B67109Fw...@130.133.1.4>,
> Dan Fingerman <dtmSS...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
>> > no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
>> > you dare come near?
>>
>> Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
>
> Not really comparable (well, you can compare it until the cows come
> home, I suppose.) If I put up a sign that says, let's say, "anyone who
> backs their car over this grate will find their tires severely damaged,"
> I am giving you a clear choice of whether or not to take a certain
> action, setting forth the consequences if you do. If I say "I'm going to
> slash your tires because I'm a dastardly-type person," I'm not giving
> you the choice. I don't know how well the analogy would hold up if the
> consequences were fatal.
>
> Charles "But I know how _Katko_ turned out" Lieberman
Isn't their something called mens rea? If a court can prove that you
intended your actions cause the death of an individual, identity
unspecified, the fact that you warned people that a course of action would
lead to his death does not remove the fact that you planned to cause the
death of an individual.
Of course, in some cases it might be a reasonable defence that mens rea
cannot be proven. If you place a pack of slug pellets on a low shelf in
your garage and a neighbor's kid gobbles them, you do not necessarily
have mens rea. There are gray areas as the actions taken merge into
those of what a reasonable person might think to be defensible actions.
--
Sherilyn
Jonathan Miller
wrote:
>
>Douglas Martin <doug...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:K1JL8.193962$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>
>> "Lara Hopkins" <use...@waawa.cx> wrote in message
>> news:1fdcuzq.kg90pdlt70cqN%use...@waawa.cx...
>> > Steve Smith <s...@aginc.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Interesting. If it ever comes to trial, we'll get to see just how
>much
>> > > money one spammer *really* makes ...
>> >
>> > This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD [1]) a
>> > day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages totalling $43,750,
>> > including $14,000 for replacing blocked identifying numbers, $5000 for a
>> > new server computer and $20,000 lost income." according to the West
>> > Australian Newspaper. More media links at
>> >
>> The legal system is amazing (or maybe pitiful is a better word) at times.
>> WHY would they need a new server in order to start spamming again?! Looks
>to
>> me like they're taking the opportunity to make someone else pay for their
>> hardware upgrades.
>>
>Oh, it's not necessarily the fault of the system. The defendant has applied
>for summary judgment - one of the many devices the system has to allow
>defendants to quickly and cheaply defeat actions that don't have a
>snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding.
>
On the other hand, it does indicate that Austria doesn't have a "loser
pays legal fees of winner" legal system. Or that the spam^H^H^H^H
direct marketer is practically bankrupt and is willing to add the
defendant's lawyers to his list of creditors.
Jon Miller
Rob Poole
deep...@my-deja.com says...
There are two similar elements to the criminal justice system in
the UK, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is
usually the police who decide what offence the person will be
charged with and it is then up to the CPS to prosecute the case.
It seems the government is proposing to change this:
<url:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4426910,00.html>
<begin quote>
Radical plans to shift responsibility for the charging of
suspects from the police to crown prosecution service lawyers
will be announced soon by the government after it won the backing
of Britain's most senior police officers, the Guardian has learned.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) believes the
change is an important way to cut the huge number of cases that
fail in court, even though the move is likely to enrage junior
officers, who will regard it as an erosion of power and a lack
of faith in their competence.
<end quote>
Rob.
Rob Poole
R.H....@aston.ac.uk says...
> In article <9c1f4bca.02060...@posting.google.com>,
> deep...@my-deja.com says...
> > dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) wrote in message news:<adpd8o$ko8$1...@home.eCynic.com>...
> > > In article <devvfuopdhm6iha17...@4ax.com>
> > > Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> writes:
> > > >On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:14:32 +0100,
> > > >sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>-:There was another case where a farmer shot someone creaking into
> > > >>-:his home and as well as having been prosecuted by the police
> > > >>-:(fair enough) was sued by the person he shot at.
> > > >>-:
> > > >
> > > >Over here the police and prosecuters are two separate entities.
> > >
> > > Not in the common rhetoric.
> > > I can't count the times that I've heard USAians describe a "crime"
> > > and say something about "the police wouldn't press charges."
> >
> > A disheartening number of citizens of the USA fail to comprehend that
> > in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two
> > separate yet equally important groups -- the police, who investigate
> > crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
> > Perhaps if someone said it over and over on televison for years upon
> > years they'd get the idea.
>
> There are two similar elements to the criminal justice system in
> the UK, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is
Sorry, of course I meant in England and Wales, in Scotland the
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service provides similar
services to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Tomas Söderlund
"Nospam9212" <nospa...@aol.commune> wrote in message
> See, you knew that. You see T3 in there as a registered owner,
somewhere..?? I
> don't. I guess they can't claim damage to those assigned/registered IP
addies
> either. :(
Appologies if I came off the wrong way, I'm a bit anal about network
stuff : )
>
> The people behind T3 are either really stupid or thought they could
bluff. This
> will be fun to watch...
That I agree with. They're stupid to sue someone for disrupting their
spamming in the first place, any reasonable court with some common sense
would laugh at them.
Regards
/Tomas
Tomas Söderlund
>
> The IP addresses of which Nospam speaks are
> 192.168.1.10
> 192.168.2.10
>
> The full list can be viewed in the plaintiff's initial summons which
is
> publicly available at
> http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
>
> There's not much point bickering past each other if you haven't read
the
> relevant documents.
You're absolutely correct of course. My bad for not checking up the
facts before correcting him, I'd still have corrected him though but
that's just me being picky.
Regards
/Tomas
Lee Ayrton
> In article <9c1f4bca.02060...@posting.google.com>,
> deep...@my-deja.com says...
[ctrl]^
> > in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two
> > separate yet equally important groups -- the police, who investigate
> > crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
[ctrl]^
> > Perhaps if someone said it over and over on televison for years upon
> > years they'd get the idea.
>
> There are two similar elements to the criminal justice system in
> the UK, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is
TWIAVBP, and SomeJokesDon'tTravelWell.
The text marked above between the controls-carat is the voice-over
introduction to a fantastically successful[1] Merican TeeVee show named
"Law & Order". That's where deepstblu's comment about "years and years"
comes from.
Lee "And it styles itself as ripped from the headlines" Ayrton
[1] For the value of "fantastically successful" read "The show has been
running for a dozen years and in my market I can watch the show at least
once in first-run, and four more times on various syndication outlets
every day."
--
"It astounds me that even with the incandescent light of cluefulness
pervading the porch of AFU that so many gormless moths are twatting
their empty little heads against it."
Paul Sweeney ponders the infinite in AFU.
Dr H
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Clarke wrote:
}In article <Pine.GSU.4.21.020607...@garcia.efn.org>,
} Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
}
}> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Clarke wrote:
}>
}> }What part of BoP don't you understand?
}>
}> I've never understood the "B" part, myself.
}
}Hold your head sideways.
Ah! I see! Those are the eyes!
Thanks.
Dr H
Dr H
}> booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
}>
}
}Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a no
}tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if you dare come
}near?
No. Illegal is illegal, regardless of whether you announce your intent
in advance or not. I can't post a sign on my door saying "I kill every
fourth person who asks to borrow a tool, and the third one just left,"
and expect to get away with murdering my neighbor when he comes over to
borrow a hammer.
Dr H
Rick Tyler
wrote:
>The text marked above between the controls-carat is the voice-over
>introduction to a fantastically successful[1] Merican TeeVee show named
>"Law & Order". That's where deepstblu's comment about "years and years"
>comes from.
>
>Lee "And it styles itself as ripped from the headlines" Ayrton
Fantastically successful barely begins to describe it. Not only does
"Law and Order" air once and sometimes twice a week in first-run, it
has spawned "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" and "Law and Order:
Criminal Intent." The A&E cable channel is practically the "Law and
Order Rerun Channel." For a series I always thought was pretty
mediocre, I stand in awe of their success.
-- Rick "I [heart] Jill Hennessey and S. Epatha Merkerson" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Dave Petterson
Rick Tyler <rht...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:oscagukem0ed95559...@4ax.com...
> Fantastically successful barely begins to describe it. Not only does
> "Law and Order" air once and sometimes twice a week in first-run, it
> has spawned "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" and "Law and Order:
> Criminal Intent." The A&E cable channel is practically the "Law and
> Order Rerun Channel." For a series I always thought was pretty
> mediocre, I stand in awe of their success.
And lest we forget, Nutragena(?) skin care adds starring L&O haughtie Angie
Harmon
Dave Petterson
alice faber
I know that spelling flames are lame, so this isn't a spelling flame.
I just really hope you did that on purpose.
Alice "haughty hottie (NOT!)" Faber
--
"it's good to know that this country hasn't lost touch with its
founding values and principles: freedom for all, a government of the
people, for the people and by the people and a personal relationship
with Loki." -- sam h shares his vision of the American Dream
petterd
news:ae3f0t$cjm$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> I know that spelling flames are lame, so this isn't a spelling flame.
> I just really hope you did that on purpose.
>
> Alice "haughty hottie (NOT!)" Faber
Indeed. a small ode to my favorite inaccesible uppity lawyer babe.
Dave Petterson
Aaron Davies
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:12:12 -0400, Lee Ayrton <lay...@ntplx.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The text marked above between the controls-carat is the voice-over
> >introduction to a fantastically successful[1] Merican TeeVee show named
> >"Law & Order". That's where deepstblu's comment about "years and years"
> >comes from.
> >
> >Lee "And it styles itself as ripped from the headlines" Ayrton
>
> Fantastically successful barely begins to describe it. Not only does
> "Law and Order" air once and sometimes twice a week in first-run, it
> has spawned "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" and "Law and Order:
> Criminal Intent." The A&E cable channel is practically the "Law and
> Order Rerun Channel." For a series I always thought was pretty
> mediocre, I stand in awe of their success.
Not to mention TNT's daily blocks of up to four hours of L&O.
--
Aaron Davies
Save a cow, eat a vegan.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html>
Fred Klein
I'll get jumped on (BoP and all that), but: YES.
But we don't call it 'murder'. We call it 'Self Defense'. As in "Don't
come any closer or I'll shoot".
Fred "Do not back up. Severe tire damage." Klein
Fred Klein
>
> The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
> our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
> deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
"Innocent parties"?
Um, they're *trespassers*.
Traspassing is against the law.
They are trespassing.
Therefore, they are breaking the law.
People who break the law are not 'innocent'.
They are breaking they law.
Therefore, they are not innocent.
Fred "Logic 101" Klein
Paul Blay
> Tom Scalf wrote:
<restore snippage>
> > Only if you surrounded it with a high security fence and posted a
> > bunch of signs declaring it a hazardous area.
So, Joe Bloggs is driving past your isolated farmstead (or whatever) and
his car breaks down. He enters your land (maybe climbing over a short fence
that doesn't have warning signs) to ask if he can use your phone and promptly
steps on a land mine.
Or, police turn up with a warrant to search your house and (nobody being
there) break open the door triggering a handgrenade booby trap.
Or maybe, the next door neighbours kid kicks his ball into your yard and tries
to climb your (high voltage electrified) fence to get it back.
Ron Saarna
"Paul Blay" <ra...@saotome.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ae4ic2$jvh$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Fred Klein" wrote ...
> > People who break the law are not 'innocent'.
> > They are breaking they law.
> > Therefore, they are not innocent.
>
> So, Joe Bloggs is driving past your isolated farmstead (or whatever) and
> his car breaks down. He enters your land (maybe climbing over a short
fence
> that doesn't have warning signs) to ask if he can use your phone and
promptly
> steps on a land mine.
>
> Or, police turn up with a warrant to search your house and (nobody being
> there) break open the door triggering a handgrenade booby trap.
>
> Or maybe, the next door neighbours kid kicks his ball into your yard and
tries
> to climb your (high voltage electrified) fence to get it back.
A word to the wise, Paul. The best Booby Trap is your kill-file. Just lock
the Booby up and he won't bother the rest of us again.
Ron Saarna
Charles A Lieberman
<3D04D7F1...@hotmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com>
>> The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
>> our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
>> deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
>
>"Innocent parties"?
>
>Um, they're *trespassers*.
>
>Traspassing is against the law.
>They are trespassing.
>Therefore, they are breaking the law.
Yabbut you can only defend your property proportionately to the threat.
Killing people is almost always out.
And, as Paul Blay points out, they're not always guilty of the crime of
trespassing.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "[T]he targets of Jesus' exhortation are not so
Brooklyn, NY, USA | much moralizing as tossing bloody great stones at
calieber.tripod.com | a woman caught in adultery."
cali...@bigfoot.com | -- Sherilyn exegetes John 8:7
Charles A Lieberman
<3d053b16$1...@news.teranews.com>
>And lest we forget, Nutragena(?) skin care adds starring L&O haughtie Angie
>Harmon
Mighty prescient of Nutragena, one might say.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Don't poop on the homeless!"
Brooklyn, New York, USA | -Meredith Robbins
cali...@bigfoot.com
http://calieber.tripod.com/
Bob Ward
<kdml...@hotmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com> wrote:
>-:Tom Scalf wrote:
>-:>
>-:
>-:> The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
>-:> our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
>-:> deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
>-:
>-:"Innocent parties"?
>-:
>-:Um, they're *trespassers*.
>-:
>-:Traspassing is against the law.
>-:They are trespassing.
>-:Therefore, they are breaking the law.
>-:
>-:People who break the law are not 'innocent'.
>-:They are breaking they law.
>-:Therefore, they are not innocent.
>-:
>-:
>-:
>-:Fred "Logic 101" Klein
Flawed logic 102... according to the Constitution (US, at least) they
are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
--
This space left intentionally blank
Dr H
Trespassing is not usually a capital crime.
Dr H
Narelle
>>>>
>>>>mmer *really* makes ...
>>>>>
>>>>This particular "direct marketer" is claiming to make $1000 (AUD [1]) a
>>>>day. The Statment of Claim asks for "loss and damages totalling $43,750,
>>>>including $14,000 for replacing blocked identifying numbers, $5000 for a
>>>>new server computer and $20,000 lost income." according to the West
>>>>Australian Newspaper. More media links at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The legal system is amazing (or maybe pitiful is a better word) at times.
>>>WHY would they need a new server in order to start spamming again?! Looks
>>>
>>to
>>
>>>me like they're taking the opportunity to make someone else pay for their
>>>hardware upgrades.
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, it's not necessarily the fault of the system. The defendant has applied
>>for summary judgment - one of the many devices the system has to allow
>>defendants to quickly and cheaply defeat actions that don't have a
>>snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding.
>>
>>
> On the other hand, it does indicate that Austria doesn't have a "loser
> pays legal fees of winner" legal system. Or that the spam^H^H^H^H
> direct marketer is practically bankrupt and is willing to add the
> defendant's lawyers to his list of creditors.
>
> Jon Miller
>
Seems like they have shot themselves in the foot anyway. They've now
lost their internet connection:
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4490153%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
Lara Hopkins
> On the other hand, it does indicate that Austria doesn't have a "loser
> pays legal fees of winner" legal system.
Nope. According to a lo cal lawyer buddy, there is definitely a
mechanism for costs to be awarded in civil cases, for summary judgment,
and even for a people to be declared vexatious litigants (though this is
rare).
As this "direct marketer" is claiming to be making $1000 a day, I'll be
amused when & if they try to cry poor on the costs issue.
Lara
--
"Of course, had you cited _three_ hazy memories, that would have been
acceptable."
Lee Ayrton explains the burden of proof on AFU
>>> Check out the shiny new AFU FAQ at http://www.tafkac.org/ <<<
Fred Klein
>
> "Fred Klein" wrote ...
> > Tom Scalf wrote:
> <restore snippage>
> > > Only if you surrounded it with a high security fence and posted a
> > > bunch of signs declaring it a hazardous area.
> </restore snippage>
> >
> > > The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
> > > our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
> > > deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
> >
> > "Innocent parties"?
> >
> > Um, they're *trespassers*.
> >
> > Traspassing is against the law.
> > They are trespassing.
> > Therefore, they are breaking the law.
> >
> > People who break the law are not 'innocent'.
> > They are breaking they law.
> > Therefore, they are not innocent.
>
> So, Joe Bloggs is driving past your isolated farmstead (or whatever) and
> his car breaks down. He enters your land (maybe climbing over a short fence
> that doesn't have warning signs) to ask if he can use your phone and promptly
> steps on a land mine.
Read the quoted text above. See where it says "surrounded it with a high
security fence and posted a bunch of signs"?
How do you get from that to "maybe a short fence that doesn't have
warning signs"?
> Or, police turn up with a warrant to search your house and (nobody being
> there) break open the door triggering a handgrenade booby trap.
If they ignore the "bunch of signs", then too bad.
> Or maybe, the next door neighbours kid kicks his ball into your yard and tries
> to climb your (high voltage electrified) fence to get it back.
No one said anything about an electrified fence, just a "high" fence.
Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
dispute that?
Fred Klein
Brian
....
> As this "direct marketer" is claiming to be making $1000 a day, I'll be
> amused when & if they try to cry poor on the costs issue.
The claim is a lost income of $1000 per day due to the
claimed damage, not profit, not gross receipts.
If convenient, they can easily produce business expenses
much larger than the income. [CEOs need their Lotuses]
Brian "What is 2 plus 2?
The accountant answered, "what do you want it to be."
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> Paul Blay wrote:
> > Or, police turn up with a warrant to search your house and (nobody being
> > there) break open the door triggering a handgrenade booby trap.
>
> If they ignore the "bunch of signs", then too bad.
Tell it to the guy with the lethal injection needle; he'll
say "too bad" right back. Prosecutors and juries are not
generally very sympathetic to copkillers.
> > Or maybe, the next door neighbours kid kicks his ball into your yard and tries
> > to climb your (high voltage electrified) fence to get it back.
>
> No one said anything about an electrified fence, just a "high" fence.
>
> Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
> someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
> dispute that?
But mechanical devices cannot distinguish between
trespassers and the innocent.
Sheesh, yourself!
--
Michael J. Lowrey
grown-up
(not prone to adolescent deadfall/boobytrap fantasies)
dave...@spamcop.net
> Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
> someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
> dispute that?
How does your automatic device differentiate between trespassers, and
police or someone walking up your front walk exactly?
Dave Petterson
news:ae8bvb$50l93$5...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
ObThreadCrossover:
The discussion of more and less elaborate security measures on the "choosing
passwords" thread next door causes me to reflect that I have heard voracious
tales of security devices that have active physical components. Specifically
an FOAF story about a chamber in some sort of high tech lab that could be
flooded with "knockout gas" in case of burglary. As this thread has fairly
conclusively argued that such deterrents are illegal, does anyone know of
such systems that actually exist?
Dave 'always believed there was a spring-loaded metal spear under the power
switch cover in our server room' Petterson
Drew Lawson
"Dave Petterson" <pet...@attbi.com> writes:
><dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:ae8bvb$50l93$5...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
>> Someone who looks an awful lot like Fred Klein
><kdml...@hotmailsaynotospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
>> > someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
>> > dispute that?
>>
>> How does your automatic device differentiate between trespassers, and
>> police or someone walking up your front walk exactly?
>
>ObThreadCrossover:
>The discussion of more and less elaborate security measures on the "choosing
>passwords" thread next door causes me to reflect that I have heard voracious
>tales of security devices that have active physical components. Specifically
>an FOAF story about a chamber in some sort of high tech lab that could be
>flooded with "knockout gas" in case of burglary. As this thread has fairly
>conclusively argued that such deterrents are illegal, does anyone know of
>such systems that actually exist?
The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
of randomly killing.
I've heard stories of physical restraint security on "early" computer
systems. These are from older cow orkers who tend to win the
"computers aren't what they used to be" bullshiting sessions. One
that comes to mind is of access cages for terminals. If you get
the password wrong three times, the cage locks and you have to wait
for security to confirm you aren't a ruskie spy.
Drew "these stories were not reviewed by QA" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | Though it's just a memory,
dr...@furrfu.com | some memories last forever
Tony Prochazka
dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) wrote:
> The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
> that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
> unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
> of randomly killing.
Which reminded me of a rumour I have heard many times: that European
trains were subject to occasional attacks by robbers using "knockout
gas" to anaesthetise passengers and then ransack their personal
possessions. The most sophisticated versions had the Mafia (natch)
colluding with train staff to gas particular sleeper cabins. Victims
would wake with a headache and less jewellery.
Couldn't find anything about it on Snopes or the FAQ, but as I'm (takes
deep breath and screws up eyes) a newbie, I wonder whether it's been
discussed here before?
ps - I'm an MD, not an anaesthetist, but halothane gas will certainly
knock you out without killing you. Filling the operating theatre with it
would also knock out the surgeon and the anaesthetist, which might kill
you by secondary intention.....r
Tony Prochazka
David Wnsemius
news:ae8fl8$139e$1...@home.eCynic.com:
> In article <3d07b793$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>
> "Dave Petterson" <pet...@attbi.com> writes:
>><dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>news:ae8bvb$50l93$5...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
>>> Someone who looks an awful lot like Fred Klein
>><kdml...@hotmailsaynotospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police,
>>> > NOT someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does
>>> > anyone dispute that?
>>>
>>> How does your automatic device differentiate between trespassers,
>>> and police or someone walking up your front walk exactly?
>>
>>ObThreadCrossover:
>>The discussion of more and less elaborate security measures on the
>>"choosing passwords" thread next door causes me to reflect that I have
>>heard voracious tales of security devices that have active physical
>>components. Specifically an FOAF story about a chamber in some sort of
>>high tech lab that could be flooded with "knockout gas" in case of
>>burglary. As this thread has fairly conclusively argued that such
>>deterrents are illegal, does anyone know of such systems that actually
>>exist?
>
> The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
> that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
> unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
> of randomly killing.
>
My introduction to the anesthesiology rotation included the description of
the specialty as " poisoning people to within an inch of death, keeping
them breathing, and then rescuing them from the brink".
David " oops, now the anesthesia Cabal will hunt me down with a
handkerchief soaked in TCE" Winsemius.
Lara Hopkins
> Drew Lawson wrote:
> > The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
> > that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
> > unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
> > of randomly killing.
>
> ps - I'm an MD, not an anaesthetist, but halothane gas will certainly
> knock you out without killing you.
In the correct doses, under controlled conditions, which was Drew's
point. How are you going to control the dose when you're filling a room
with the stuff?
Lara Hopkins
> My introduction to the anesthesiology rotation included the description of
> the specialty as " poisoning people to within an inch of death, keeping
> them breathing, and then rescuing them from the brink".
Mine was "anaesthesia is the half asleep watching the half awake being
half murdered by the half witted."
But maybe it wasn't an anaesthetist talking; I don't remember.
deacon b.
message that said, at least in part:
>ps - I'm an MD, not an anaesthetist, but halothane gas will certainly
>knock you out without killing you.
You might want to take a look at "Homicidal poisoning with halothane" by
Madea B, Musshoff F. in Int J Legal Med 1999;113(1):47-9
Anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists don't get paid for putting you to sleep.
They get paid for waking you up.
deke
--
"We at the 'Daily Show' are as concerned about drugs
as the next show - which happens to be a 'Saturday
Night Live' rerun" -- Stephen Colbert
Scarecrow
>milk wrote at Sun 09 Jun 2002 10:11:43, in
><news:ug6f3m2...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> "Hugh Gibbons" <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote in message
>> news:20020606234...@news.axs4u.net...
>>>
>>> But the judge was right about the law. It is illegal to set
>>> booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
>>
>> Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
>> no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
>> you dare come near?
>
>Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
Warning: electrified fence
Stop, or I'll shoot.
yep, I think you can.
**********************************************
* _ *
* _/_\_ *
* __\"/__ *
* "--\_/--" Oh Joy! Rapture! I have a brain!*
* /_\ *
* //|\\ Scarecrow *
* "` | `" *
*jgs __|__ *
**********************************************
Drew Lawson
Scarecrow <ban...@2hee.com> writes:
>On 9 Jun 2002 17:32:29 GMT, Dan Fingerman <dtmSS...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>>milk wrote at Sun 09 Jun 2002 10:11:43, in
>><news:ug6f3m2...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> "Hugh Gibbons" <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20020606234...@news.axs4u.net...
>>>>
>>>> But the judge was right about the law. It is illegal to set
>>>> booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
>>>
>>> Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
>>> no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
>>> you dare come near?
>>
>>Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
>
>Warning: electrified fence
>Stop, or I'll shoot.
>
>yep, I think you can.
I believe that Dan's intended semantic message was "Can I murder
you *and* bear no criminal liability if I warn you first."
Neither of your examples qualify, even for the cases where TV shows
make you think they do.
Drew "only double-0 agents are licensed to kill" Lawson
Hatunen
wrote:
>Tony Prochazka <ant...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Drew Lawson wrote:
>> > The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
>> > that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
>> > unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
>> > of randomly killing.
>>
>> ps - I'm an MD, not an anaesthetist, but halothane gas will certainly
>> knock you out without killing you.
>
>In the correct doses, under controlled conditions, which was Drew's
>point. How are you going to control the dose when you're filling a room
>with the stuff?
Hm. The only jury I ever served on was for a wrongful death action
against a pharmaceutical company, the claim being that the use of
halothane had killed plaintiffs' daughter and the company was
responsible because the package insert did not properly indicate the
danger of using halothane a second time on a person. As part of our
deliberations we read the insert and ruled that the insert was indeed
defective and found for the plaintiffs.
******* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@worldnet.att.net) *******
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Hatunen
>On 9 Jun 2002 17:32:29 GMT, Dan Fingerman <dtmSS...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>>milk wrote at Sun 09 Jun 2002 10:11:43, in
>><news:ug6f3m2...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> "Hugh Gibbons" <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20020606234...@news.axs4u.net...
>>>>
>>>> But the judge was right about the law. It is illegal to set
>>>> booby traps in every jurisdiction of the United States.
>>>
>>> Would it be legal if you posted that there are booby traps? Like a
>>> no tresspassing sign that states you will come to bodily harm if
>>> you dare come near?
>>
>>Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
>
>Warning: electrified fence
>Stop, or I'll shoot.
>
>yep, I think you can.
No. You can't.
lerae
> you *and* bear no criminal liability if I warn you first."
Hear, Hear!!!!! I vote for that option.
Thanks for the space.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>David Wnsemius <dwin$emiu$@attbi.com.not> wrote:
>
>> My introduction to the anesthesiology rotation included the description of
>> the specialty as " poisoning people to within an inch of death, keeping
>> them breathing, and then rescuing them from the brink".
>
>Mine was "anaesthesia is the half asleep watching the half awake being
>half murdered by the half witted."
>
>But maybe it wasn't an anaesthetist talking; I don't remember.
My grandfather was an anesthesiologist in Boston. His claim to fame
was that he developed a cure for hiccups after the use of ether.
Lizz 'And no, I don't know what it was' Holmans
--
Boys is easier, and if you have sons it's worth trying for three.
Nanny Ogg
Rosencrantz
Jonathan Miller <jonandma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3d0407a8...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> >Oh, it's not necessarily the fault of the system. The defendant has
applied
> >for summary judgment - one of the many devices the system has to allow
> >defendants to quickly and cheaply defeat actions that don't have a
> >snowflakes chance in hell of succeeding.
> >
> On the other hand, it does indicate that Austria doesn't have a "loser
> pays legal fees of winner" legal system. Or that the spam^H^H^H^H
> direct marketer is practically bankrupt and is willing to add the
> defendant's lawyers to his list of creditors.
Actually, we do have "loser pays" legal costs in Western Australia. You have
to do something incredible wrong not to be awarded costs for successfully
"winning" a court case.
As for the "alleged" spammer being bankrupt - not close enough. Mind you,
the spammer's law firm has a fairly solid reputation in Perth - but for all
the wrong reasons.
And I certainly hope that the reference to Austria was an innocent typo :)
Lara Hopkins
> Actually, we do have "loser pays" legal costs in Western Australia.[...]
> And I certainly hope that the reference to Austria was an innocent typo :)
Ouch, I hate it when a neighbour & ISPmate stumbles at the shibboleth
obstacle, then falls in the em*ticon pond.
Lara "didn't that hurt?" Hopkins
Charles A Lieberman
<ae98gs$1cop$1...@home.eCynic.com>
>>Warning: electrified fence
>>Stop, or I'll shoot.
>>
>>yep, I think you can.
>
>I believe that Dan's intended semantic message was "Can I murder
>you *and* bear no criminal liability if I warn you first."
>
>Neither of your examples qualify, even for the cases where TV shows
>make you think they do.
I think "warning, electrified fence" might do it. Certainly it would
limit tort liability.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "French people are so weird."
Fred Klein
*Legally*, yes.
However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
broken the law.
Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
matter.
Fred Klein
Fred Klein
If it was, I bet there would be a lot less of it....
But this (de@th Pen@lty) is BoP-able.
Fred Klein
Chris Clarke
Fred Klein <kdml...@hotmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com> wrote:
> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
> broken the law.
>
> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
> matter.
If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
caribou.
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Timothy A. McDaniel
Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org> wrote:
>If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
>caribou.
*mwah* again.
The lo-cal cow-orker suggests "camels" as more prototypical of
oil-producing regions, and I note that "scalp"->"cranium" would
increase the alliteration (though perhaps too much).
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Charles A Lieberman
<cclarke-F2B663...@netnews.attbi.com>
>> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
>> broken the law.
>>
>> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
>> matter.
>
>If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
>caribou.
I don't see why he's wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to
criminal liability, surely. If you're trespassing on my land, you're
trespassing on my land, whether or not the state can prove that you
ought to be put in prison for trespassing on my land. If I put up a sign
saying "trespassers will be shot" it won't make any difference to the
legality of my actions if I hold fire pending the outcome of the trial.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "How do two men who abduct and murder a
Brooklyn, New York, USA | German prostitute find someone to sell
calieber.tripod.com | their video to?" --Laurence Doering is
cali...@bigfoot.com | concerned for the small businessman
Hatunen
<cali...@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
>Chris Clarke Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:52:57 GMT
><cclarke-F2B663...@netnews.attbi.com>
>>> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
>>> broken the law.
>>>
>>> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
>>> matter.
>>
>>If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
>>caribou.
>
>I don't see why he's wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to
>criminal liability, surely. If you're trespassing on my land, you're
>trespassing on my land, whether or not the state can prove that you
>ought to be put in prison for trespassing on my land.
Simpy being on land not yours does not constitute trespass. Trespass
is a legal term describing certain conditions surrounding that
presence on another's land. For instance, a fireman entering private
land to extinguish a fire on that land is not trespassing even if
signs are posted saying "No Trespassing". The fact that YOU happen to
think a certain person's presence on your land is trespass does not
make it so.
And as far as prison goes, there is a difference between criminal
trespass and civil trespass; most trespass would be non-criminal.
>I put up a sign
>saying "trespassers will be shot" it won't make any difference to the
>legality of my actions if I hold fire pending the outcome of the trial.
Just don't actually shoot them unless you want to be in really deep
doo-doo.
Charles A Lieberman
<3d0a2552...@news.west.cox.net>
>>I don't see why he's wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to
>>criminal liability, surely. If you're trespassing on my land, you're
>>trespassing on my land, whether or not the state can prove that you
>>ought to be put in prison for trespassing on my land.
>
>Simpy being on land not yours does not constitute trespass. Trespass
>is a legal term describing certain conditions surrounding that
>presence on another's land
My point was that the key part of the mantra "innocent until proven
guilty" is the "proven" part. What matters for my response to a
trespasser is that the conditions you refer to are met, not that a jury
has agreed that the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
those conditions are met.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "French people are so weird."
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
cali...@bigfoot.com | -Meredith Robbins
http://calieber.tripod.com/
Hatunen
<cali...@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
>Hatunen Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:21:13 GMT
><3d0a2552...@news.west.cox.net>
>>>I don't see why he's wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to
>>>criminal liability, surely. If you're trespassing on my land, you're
>>>trespassing on my land, whether or not the state can prove that you
>>>ought to be put in prison for trespassing on my land.
>>
>>Simpy being on land not yours does not constitute trespass. Trespass
>>is a legal term describing certain conditions surrounding that
>>presence on another's land
>
>My point was that the key part of the mantra "innocent until proven
>guilty" is the "proven" part. What matters for my response to a
>trespasser is that the conditions you refer to are met, not that a jury
>has agreed that the prosecutor has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
>those conditions are met.
You assume you know all the conditions and how they are met. There is
an abstract sense in which one is guilty of a crime because, in fact,
the elements of that crime have been met, whetehr known by anyone or
not, but your statement is then rendered as a truism: a person is
guilty because he is guilty, a rather useless bit of truth, not
requiring one to know a damn thing about the situation.
For instance, an element of criminal trespass in the Maine code
(http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec402.html)
requires that the trespasser be personally notified that he is
trespassing and that he be told to leave; under this code your
personal intervention is required in order to make the trespass
criminal.
And that's for criminal trespass; crimes are carefully defined in law
and have elemets stated in the law that must be met before a crime has
been committed. Civil trespass, a tort, has so many variables that one
would be hard pressed to apply your proposition at all. But, then, one
need not since there is no "guilt" or "innocence" in a tort, and there
are generally no codified elements to be met.
Joseph M. Shair
exclaim:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> >
<hack/>
> > are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
>
> *Legally*, yes.
>
> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
> broken the law.
IANAL.
"..., if you catch..." requires that you *know* the law. Not just
that you have a good idea of it. Unless you are a lawyer who
specializes in that particular area of law, in the particular locale
in which the possible infraction occurred, the chances that you know
the law are minimal. (Rather than "the law" as presented on various
TV shows, think: Federal, State, Local, Case [and any areas I don't
know enough to include] in the U.S.)
For example, in the trespassing situation you cited, do you know the
rights of various officials to enter your property without (or even
against) your permission in the conduct of their duties? If your
house is on fire, do the firemen require your permission to enter
your property to fight the fire? Even if you are not present to give
or deny such permission?[1]
>
> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
> matter.
That said, I reluctantly agree with Fred (the millennium *has* arrived).
Whether someone has broken the law or not is usually a matter of fact.
Whether they are or can be (or even should be) convicted of it is a
matter of circumstances. That people can and have been convicted for
infractions they didn't commit and vice versa is a matter of fact.
Joe "All I know about the law is:
'If they really want you, they can get you.'" Shair
1: How about law enforcement agents, immigration officials, paramedics,
etc.? Even if they've been given the wrong address? If they've
been given the right address but by a crank caller?
--
Remove invisible fnord words to reply.
"Jury: Twelve people who determine which
client has the better attorney." -- ?
cms
wrote:
>In article <cclarke-F2B663...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>Chris Clarke <ccl...@faultline.org> wrote:
>>If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
>>caribou.
>
>*mwah* again.
>
>The lo-cal cow-orker suggests "camels" as more prototypical of
>oil-producing regions, and I note that "scalp"->"cranium" would
>increase the alliteration (though perhaps too much).
True, but camel substitution is not so assonant.
cms ---- lug the guts into the neighbor room
Simon Slavin
use...@waawa.cx (Lara Hopkins) wrote:
> Tony Prochazka <ant...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Drew Lawson wrote:
> > > The MDs here will correct me if needed, but it is my understanding
> > > that "knockout gas" is a fiction. Anything that will render
> > > unconscious a random human of any body weight will have a good chance
> > > of randomly killing.
>
> In the correct doses, under controlled conditions, which was Drew's
> point. How are you going to control the dose when you're filling a room
> with the stuff?
Also, how are you going to get the dose right for both the
90 pound woman on who skipped lunch and the 200 pound man
chugging a cheeseburger in the same carriage ?
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | [One] thing that worries me about Bush and
No junk email please. | Blair's "war on terrorism" is: how will they
| know when they've won it ? -- Terry Jones
THE FRENCH WAS THERE
Simon Slavin
Scarecrow <ban...@2hee.com> wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2002 17:32:29 GMT, Dan Fingerman <dtmSS...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Think about that for a minute: Can I murder you if I warn you first?
>
> Warning: electrified fence
> Stop, or I'll shoot.
>
> yep, I think you can.
Yep, you can put up the sign. No, you can't actually electrocute
someone just for putting their hands on a fence at the border of
your property.
Yes, you can say "Stop, or I'll shoot.". No, you can't actually
shoot them just because they didn't stop when you said it.
Timothy A. McDaniel
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>In article <kuvegus2tophcgr3r...@4ax.com>,
>Scarecrow <ban...@2hee.com> wrote:
>> Warning: electrified fence
>> Stop, or I'll shoot.
>>
>> yep, I think you can.
>
>Yep, you can put up the sign. No, you can't actually electrocute
>someone just for putting their hands on a fence at the border of
>your property.
>
>Yes, you can say "Stop, or I'll shoot.". No, you can't actually
>shoot them just because they didn't stop when you said it.
I have not read much of this thread, so perhaps I am misunderstanding
the context. My apologies if I am doing so.
Texas Is A Very Big Place. I will use it just as one example; Your
Gummint May Vary.
The search function of the Texas Statutes site is not currently
operative, but chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code ("Justification
Excluding Criminal Responsibility") covers use of force and deadly
force. E.g., sec. 9.44:
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to
the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property
if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor
to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious
bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the
circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be
when he installs the device.
(9.41 and 9.43 deal with use of force in protection of land or
tangible, movable property.) So under some unspecified "always
reasonable" circumstances (it's an "and"), electrifying a fence with a
non-serious charge would not be a charge.
9.42 deals with use of deadly force:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.41 [the general use-of-force allowance];
and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during
the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the
nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or
theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered
by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or
recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious
bodily injury.
So, for example, in Texas if someone were fleeing after committing
forcible theft during the night, and it looked like they'd get away
unless you put a dangerous charge on the electric fence, I think
you could charge it up to a dangerous level.
Or, under the same circumstances, if your gun appears to be the only
way to stop them, you could say "Stop or I'll shoot" ("cannot be
protected or recovered by any other means": if they stop, there may be
another means of recovery) and shoot them for non-compliance.
Note: Your Laws May Vary.
Note: Any discussion in alt.folklore.urban of whether these are good
laws or not goes immediately into the Ban On Politics area.
Don't go there.
Tim "or I'll shoot" McDaniel
deacon b.
posted a message that said, at least in part:
>Chris Clarke Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:52:57 GMT
><cclarke-F2B663...@netnews.attbi.com>
>>> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
>>> broken the law.
>>> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
>>> matter.
>>If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
>>caribou.
>I don't see why he's wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to
>criminal liability, surely. If you're trespassing on my land, you're
>trespassing on my land, whether or not the state can prove that you
>ought to be put in prison for trespassing on my land. If I put up a sign
>saying "trespassers will be shot" it won't make any difference to the
>legality of my actions if I hold fire pending the outcome of the trial.
Trespass requires that you *knowingly* be on someone's land without permission.
A child, or a person of limited mental capacity may see there's a sign there;
and might even be able to read it. It's quite possible that the person in such
circumstances is unable to fully comprehend the sign.
Even if you post "Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be prosecuted", a
person of limited capacity may think, "Oh, that means *bad* guys go to jail. I
know Mr. Lieberman. As long as I call him Charles instead of Charley, he won't
mind my looking around."
Furthermore, trespass is a rather minor infraction - in Ohio, it's only a
fourth-degree misdemeanor. While you are entitled to protect your person and
your property and that of your family, that doesn't mean you are allowed to use
unnecessary force.
In Indianapolis, in the late 1980s (L), a popular teacher was called upon by a
police officer to discuss a barking dog. The discussion rather rapidly rose to
an unsatisfactory level of discord, and the teacher decided to cool it. Am I
under arrest, he asked. The officer said no. In that case, I'm going inside; you
aren't invited. The teacher went inside. The officer called for backups. The
officers forced their way inside, and the teacher ordered them out at the point
of a shotgun. There was a scuffle, resulting in one officer getting shot in the
back; as best I recall, it was a fatal wound. It seemed to me that the officers
provoked the incident with blatantly unlawful acts, but the courts decided that
the teacher was not acting within his rights.
And that's someone admired for his judgement, exercising his best judgement in
time of crisis. Setting a booby trap that threatens life or limb for a simple
trespass is quite obviously imprudent both in that it can affect a child or
simpleton (who is incapable of trespassing) and in that it is a disproportionate
response (serious felony versus minor misdemeanor) to someone who is quite
capable of knowing he's a ne'er-do-well.
Chris Clarke
Charles A Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.co.m> wrote:
> Chris Clarke Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:52:57 GMT
> <cclarke-F2B663...@netnews.attbi.com>
> >> However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
> >> broken the law.
> >>
> >> Whether or not a jury/judge 'decides' they broke the law is another
> >> matter.
> >
> >If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with
> >caribou.
>
> I don't see why he's wrong.
It's a straw man, is why. And a non-sequitur. And a red herring. He's
conflating the act with the body of law describing the conditions under
which the act is forbidden, and then conflating both of those with the
legal power of judge/jury to determine guilt and assign penalty, and
then - in the context of the thread - throwing all that out and saying
that a capricious, ad hoc imposition of the d*|th p*n|lty by a private
individual is not just a reasonable response to a petty offense, but the
*only* reasonable response.
That aside, there was nothing wrong with his post at all.
David Wnsemius
news:a9dcgu4vvfa9150oj...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:14:50 GMT, Fred Klein
> <kdml...@hotmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>-:Tom Scalf wrote:
>>-:>
>>-:
>>-:> The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
>>-:> our property, we cannot protect the property by leaving unattended
>>-:> deadly devices which could cause harm to innocent parties
>>-:
>>-:"Innocent parties"?
>>-:
>>-:Um, they're *trespassers*.
>>-:
>>-:Traspassing is against the law.
>>-:They are trespassing.
>>-:Therefore, they are breaking the law.
>>-:
>>-:People who break the law are not 'innocent'.
>>-:They are breaking they law.
>>-:Therefore, they are not innocent.
>>-:
>>-:
>>-:
>>-:Fred "Logic 101" Klein
>
>
> Flawed logic 102... according to the Constitution (US, at least) they
> are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
> --
Please tell us how many times you find the word "innocent" or "guilty" in
the US Constitution or its Amendments.
(Not that I am supporting Fred, either.)
David "not a lawyer" Winsemius.
Fred Klein
>
> Fred Klein wrote:
> >
<snippity>
> > Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
> > someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
> > dispute that?
>
> But mechanical devices cannot distinguish between
> trespassers and the innocent.
'Innocent' people don't climb the "high security fence" and ignore the
"warning signs". Therefore, anyone who does is a trespasser.
Fred Klein
Fred Klein
>
> Fred Klein Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:14:50 GMT
> <3D04D7F1...@hotmailSAYNOTOSPAM.com>
> >> The point of the ruling was that while we have the right to protect
> >
> >
> >Um, they're *trespassers*.
> >
> >Therefore, they are breaking the law.
>
What exactly does this mean? If I have a fence topped with barbed wire
or 'razor wire', do I have to remain constantly ready to instantaneously
remove it if the person climbing my fence is a 'lesser' threat?? Of
course not. Barbed wire gets put up, and remains in place no matter
_who_ is climbing the fence- a burglar, a kid looking for his ball, or a
cop. No proportionality there.
> Killing people is almost always out.
> And, as Paul Blay points out, they're not always guilty of the crime of
> trespassing.
If they make it past the "high security fence" and the "warning signs",
I'd bet they were.
Fred Klein
Fred Klein
>
> Someone who looks an awful lot like Fred Klein <kdml...@hotmailsaynotospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Sheesh. All I did was point out that _trespassers_ (NOT Police, NOT
> > someone walking up my front walk) were breaking the law. Does anyone
> > dispute that?
>
> police or someone walking up your front walk exactly?
The quote was:
"Only if you surrounded it with a high security fence and posted a bunch
of signs declaring it a hazardous area."
Anyone who scales the "high" fence and ignores the signs is a
trespasser.
As for the front walk, they wouldn't be on it unless 1) I opened a gate
to let them onto my property, in which case I'd have turned off the
security, or 2) they are trespassing.
Fred Klein
Fred Klein
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:31:22 GMT, Fred Klein felt it necessary to
> exclaim:
> > Bob Ward wrote:
> > >
> <hack/>
> > > Flawed logic 102... according to the Constitution (US, at least) they
> > > are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
> >
> > *Legally*, yes.
> >
> > However, if you catch someone breaking the law, they have, *in fact*,
> > broken the law.
>
> IANAL.
>
> "..., if you catch..." requires that you *know* the law. Not just
> that you have a good idea of it. Unless you are a lawyer who
> specializes in that particular area of law, in the particular locale
> in which the possible infraction occurred, the chances that you know
> the law are minimal. (Rather than "the law" as presented on various
> TV shows, think: Federal, State, Local, Case [and any areas I don't
> know enough to include] in the U.S.)
This is getting BoP-able, what with the definitions of 'law' etc, but
I'd have to say that, when it comes to Wrong vs Right, "I know it when I
see it". As for "Legal" vs "Illegal", that's landshark territory, and
they are welcome to it.
I much prefer "Right" over "Legal".
> For example, in the trespassing situation you cited, do you know the
> rights of various officials to enter your property without (or even
> against) your permission in the conduct of their duties? If your
> house is on fire, do the firemen require your permission to enter
> your property to fight the fire? Even if you are not present to give
> or deny such permission?[1]
Actually, I would think so. Unless the blaze threatens to spread to
other properties unless stopped. If I wanna let my house burn down, I
should be allowed to.
<snip>
> That said, I reluctantly agree with Fred (the millennium *has* arrived).
> Whether someone has broken the law or not is usually a matter of fact.
> Whether they are or can be (or even should be) convicted of it is a
> matter of circumstances.
Thank you for seeing my point.
Fred Klein