I'm not really talking about murderers, treasonists, terrorist, or rapists.. i already think they could use a public hanging...
I'm talking more along the lines of plain Stupid people..
like a guy that Drowns in a lake becuase he was drunk.. and there were no laws that said he couldnt swim while intoxicated.. did he deserve his death?
Or people chasing a tornado..
or going past the 'do not enter' sign at the zoo to get a closer picture of the Bear...
k im done ranting on stupid people for a while.. but really! Whats ur thought on Stupid people?
Answers:
no. we do stupid things all the time. "stupid" people don't know or understand the consequences of their actions. but that doesn't mean they deserve death.
Waht does dis have to do with the Poilitiks?
Sure. It's called purifying the gene pool.
Interesting question.
I wouldn't say that people like that "deserve" to die. But it frustrates me when people do stupid things, get killed and then people try and blame other people for their deaths.
No less or no more than anyone else, we all bite the dust eventually.
It's why there are "Darwin Awards".
You should look them up. Makes great reading.
yes they do, It's called natural selection, and the world has plenty of people who need no help in bumping themselves off.
God Bless the dumb one's... it's the selfish one's that should hang high!
we all do things in our lives that draw us closer to our inevitable fate...some more than others, and occasionally they pay the price.
would you consider an astronaut stupid?
Well I havent read the Darwin Awards in a few years but if you have ever ever ever read that you know that the point you are making has some merit.
My favorite is the guy who got ahold of some military JATO rocket boosters and put them on his Chevy Impala, he took it out intot he desert and took off... he hit a bump... flew through the air for a mile or so and left a crater in the side of a hill.. I belive all they found of him was some fingernails embedded into the stearing wheel.
I believe someone like that was gonna go out in some crazy way or another and its good he didnt take anyone else with him.
sounds like God's way of pouring bleach in the gene pool.
i think there should be a law that stupid people must have the word "stupid" tatooed on thier foreheads so you know up front what you are dealing with.
but then my case-load is 95% stupid people so i get the pleasure of dealing with stupid people every day! yea me!
all people die
I believe in natural selection. If I'm stupid enough to fall off a 5 foot ladder at work and die somehow I deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
If ur stupid like believe Bush lies and refuse to accpet they are setting up concentration camps and kill America and it's Constiution for a New World Order.
I think the mindless zombies that believe whatever they are told and refuse to read a book, deserve to lose their rights that they don't stand up for, their life savings, their private properties and whatever else the Neo Fascists decide to do to them. Maybe microwave gun them to death.
They deserve to pay the price for their ignorance and folly whatever that may be and whatever God may hand down on them for their stupidity
Remember that people do stupid things.
Like sign up for VONAGE ;-)
I'm not sure. Yeah, I think that if they are not smart enough to not swim while drinking, and so on then the probaby do.
I think some "stupid" people just don't realise that what they are doing is dangerous. For example, children -- I don't think they deserve to die. You try to stop them, of course. Some adults too, but with the adults, I say if you've told them heaps of times and they STILL go and do dumb stuff, they really, really, really deserve to die. For example, smokers. ;-)
Hell yes they deserved to die. If you're too stupid to stay alive, you deserve it. Darwinism at it's finest. God's way of weeding out the dumbasses.
Do you ever speed, drive when tired, drive after drinking, drive while on phone? Do you smoke, eat bad {junk} food, drink alcohol, do drugs, snowboard, ski, bungee jump, etc, etc, etc,. What you think is stupid someone else may not. While I like to chase storms someone that snowboards I think may be nuts. I am careful and aware of my surroundings and limits when I do things that may be considered stupid. Name somethings that aren't stupid. I think it is an each to there own. If I die chasing a storm then I died happy doing something I enjoyed.
Absolutely NO.
There are plenty of stupid people and you or I could be one depending on what another person thinks of us.
Ask yourself this: have I ever done anything that was dangerous or without thinking it through?
This man drowning was intoxicated; how can you in your heart, say, yeah, he deserved to die.
If those people weren't chasing tornado's, you and the rest of us wouldn't have that exciting and informative tape to watch as well as them alerting towns and cities of its direction to prevent deaths.
We all do things without complete thought, but my personal opinion is that every person is a human being with kids, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers who will suffer enough.
True, it seems as though some things could have been prevented, but have a heart. Let's say you had a child and he was playing with your brothers dog and suddenly the dog viciously attacked that child (God for bid). People would say: what's wrong with people; why don't they watch their children; why do they let them play with dogs; they know a dog can turn on a person. We don't know the whole story; do we? It happens, say a prayer if you choose to or remember that person was a human being.
I think I rather re-phrase that word of your's stupid, those people you mention for me are not stupid, they are rather eccentric and adventurous, like that one entering 'donot enter' sign in the zoo to get closer picture of the bear or lion and suddenly bitten by one of them, i think he died of misadventure.
In clinical psychology there is no definite meaning of stupid anyway. For instant, I left my car keys in my office drawers and i have to take 109 floors down to the garage of the office building, suddenly when I reach for my pocket for the keys i realise i donot have it, so i have to returned back 109 floors up to retrieve it. Am i stupid?
Your example of that guy who is intoxicated and was drown in the river. Did he deserve his death? I guess so. Don't swim while drinking. Those are accident. And accident do happen sometimes. Those people chasing tornado? Probably reporters or scientist, its their job to do that or even dance with the thing. They are being paid for it don't worry, and if they died doing it, well that for me its part of the job. Soldiers send to Iraq for peace mission, suddenly step on a mine, blow his self up, you think he's stupid? Those Palestinians who wear bombs to blow up discotheque, restaurant and other military barracks in Israel. You think they are stupid? They are fighting for something, which we donot understand sometimes.
Next time give me clear, identifiable meaning of what is stupid really mean.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Do states attorneys typically handle federal crimes?
Okay, so to keep it short.. If someone is charges with a crime that is a federal crime but not a specific state crime, does a states attorney typically handle the prosecution?
Crime at mention is theft/scheme $500+... and MD is the state where the SA is attempting to prosecute.
Thank you for any help on this one.
Answers:
Federal crimes are always prosecuted by a prosecutor from the federal attorney general's office in that region, no matter what state.
it can happen if they are try ing to make an example out of you...
The U.S. Attorneys have jurisdiction, not the state - it will be up to the regional field office to prosecute the crime.
Crime at mention is theft/scheme $500+... and MD is the state where the SA is attempting to prosecute.
Thank you for any help on this one.
Answers:
Federal crimes are always prosecuted by a prosecutor from the federal attorney general's office in that region, no matter what state.
it can happen if they are try ing to make an example out of you...
The U.S. Attorneys have jurisdiction, not the state - it will be up to the regional field office to prosecute the crime.
Do states attorneys handle federal crimes?Part 2!?
So, the answers to my question were 2 for no, that federal attorneys handle federal crimes and 1 for "to make an example out of you".. I am unclear about this. If all federal crimes are handled by the fed's, then how can a states attorney try the case? Details... Theft/Scheme 500+, in MD. It was never considered by the police or SA to be anything lower than Theft/Scheme 500+. I read somewhere that if it originally was a misdemeanor that progressed to T/S500+ then the state could prosecute, but it this was never the case. They were trying to accuse of the big felony from the beginning. What are your thoughts?
Also, how is is that someone accused of stealing $800K is charged with the same crime as someone accused of stealing $1000. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Let me know and thank you for your help.
Answers:
In some jurisdictions, some state's attorneys are cross-sworn as special United States Attorneys so that state and federal efforts can be coordinated. Every state and the feds draw lines for felony prosecution. In my state it is $250. So a $251 and $250,000 theft are the same crime, but they are ordinarily distinguished at sentencing. Most criminal cases, about 90 percent are resolved by negotiation. Customarily, the prosecutor starts with the highest charge and negotiates downward instead of starting with a lower charge and then changing it if the defendant refuse to plead guilty. I have noticed more than a few people who confuse terms. They think they are charged with a "federal" crime, when in fact they are charged with a "felony" crime in a state court.
Federal cases have to be tried in federal courts. District and state attorneys often work closely with federal prosecutors in cases that fall into both jurisdictions.
Also, how is is that someone accused of stealing $800K is charged with the same crime as someone accused of stealing $1000. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Let me know and thank you for your help.
Answers:
In some jurisdictions, some state's attorneys are cross-sworn as special United States Attorneys so that state and federal efforts can be coordinated. Every state and the feds draw lines for felony prosecution. In my state it is $250. So a $251 and $250,000 theft are the same crime, but they are ordinarily distinguished at sentencing. Most criminal cases, about 90 percent are resolved by negotiation. Customarily, the prosecutor starts with the highest charge and negotiates downward instead of starting with a lower charge and then changing it if the defendant refuse to plead guilty. I have noticed more than a few people who confuse terms. They think they are charged with a "federal" crime, when in fact they are charged with a "felony" crime in a state court.
Federal cases have to be tried in federal courts. District and state attorneys often work closely with federal prosecutors in cases that fall into both jurisdictions.
Do state retirement systems have immunity from lawsuits?
Answers:
I think the answer will depend on the legislation creating the retirement system. If the "system" is actually a subdivision of state government, immunity may exist if it has not been waived by some other legislation.
Additionally most states subscribe to the principle that when the government contracts with individuals, they waive their immunity from liability for enforcement of the contract provisions. If participation in the retirement system encompasses a contract between the system and the employee an argument could be made that immunity from liability has been waived.
There also exists immunity from suit. This principle holds that the government cannot be sued in state courts without its consent. Therefore you must look to the legislation within the particular state permitting suit, or to state case authority regarding this principle in that it can be applied differently by different state courts.
If the "system" is not a governmental entity or subdivision of government, you probably have no immunity problems.
not that i know of.
Do pro-life people euthanize their sick pets?
Sorry for opening a can-of-worms...
Answers:
Good Question...and yes I bet they do...hypocrites!
Personally I'm pro-choice, but Ihave to ask... Why are you comparing humans to animals?
Yes they do. They have species blinders like so many of us. From their point of view, it's all about humans. Guess what, even from a theological perspective, I don't think it is.
I often notice that MOST people who are "pro life" are often against the death penalty, BUT for stem cell reaserch from aborted fetuses, so i am going to say that pro life people PROBABLY (well most) will kill thier pets.
No problem here.
We've had several cats euthanized. In all cases, the cat was very ill and the Dr did not expect the cat to survive much longer.
My father died last Dec. By Wed it was rather obvious, and the Dr allowed nothing by mouth, or medication other than oxygen and morphine. He died Friday.This was not euthanasia it was palliative care
,i e ,allowing nature to take its course without intervention, other than providing relief from pain.
With both the cats and my father, death was just around the corner. Life could have been extended, but for only a few days.
Quite all right.No worms here. it needs to be talked about.
wait...
let me understand.
you are comparing human babies to dogs? cats? a horse with a broken leg.
are you kidding?
I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical question .... but a good one.
Thanks for the smile ... well thought out.
No, I never have.
Oh yeah, I forgot that dogs and cats and fish and worms and flies and ants and zebras and butterflies and chickens and...and...and...probably protozoa, are all just as important as a beautiful human baby.
Come on get real. Oh and you'd better not fish with that can-of-worms.
The last time I saw a dog volunteer to help feed the hungry I was standing in line at the mission right behind Big Foot!
Euthanasia, as it would be practiced against humans, will quickly devolve into a matter of convenience for the healthy and vital. A similar procedure known as abortion, which has been touted as a medical procedure to be used to protect the woman in health related situation or to resolve a situation resulting from a rape, is practiced in the vast majority of cases as birth control (convienience of the living).
It is very easy for those of us who are still young in vital to celebrate the "freedom" of "death with dignity" until that day when we are euthenized because of our wealth not because of our pain.
BTW...euthianization is very effective. Aldolf Hitler and his Nazi regime practiced it for 12 years and managed to effectively "euthanize" over 16 million people.
Answers:
Good Question...and yes I bet they do...hypocrites!
Personally I'm pro-choice, but Ihave to ask... Why are you comparing humans to animals?
Yes they do. They have species blinders like so many of us. From their point of view, it's all about humans. Guess what, even from a theological perspective, I don't think it is.
I often notice that MOST people who are "pro life" are often against the death penalty, BUT for stem cell reaserch from aborted fetuses, so i am going to say that pro life people PROBABLY (well most) will kill thier pets.
No problem here.
We've had several cats euthanized. In all cases, the cat was very ill and the Dr did not expect the cat to survive much longer.
My father died last Dec. By Wed it was rather obvious, and the Dr allowed nothing by mouth, or medication other than oxygen and morphine. He died Friday.This was not euthanasia it was palliative care
,i e ,allowing nature to take its course without intervention, other than providing relief from pain.
With both the cats and my father, death was just around the corner. Life could have been extended, but for only a few days.
Quite all right.No worms here. it needs to be talked about.
wait...
let me understand.
you are comparing human babies to dogs? cats? a horse with a broken leg.
are you kidding?
I'm assuming that this is a rhetorical question .... but a good one.
Thanks for the smile ... well thought out.
No, I never have.
Oh yeah, I forgot that dogs and cats and fish and worms and flies and ants and zebras and butterflies and chickens and...and...and...probably protozoa, are all just as important as a beautiful human baby.
Come on get real. Oh and you'd better not fish with that can-of-worms.
The last time I saw a dog volunteer to help feed the hungry I was standing in line at the mission right behind Big Foot!
Euthanasia, as it would be practiced against humans, will quickly devolve into a matter of convenience for the healthy and vital. A similar procedure known as abortion, which has been touted as a medical procedure to be used to protect the woman in health related situation or to resolve a situation resulting from a rape, is practiced in the vast majority of cases as birth control (convienience of the living).
It is very easy for those of us who are still young in vital to celebrate the "freedom" of "death with dignity" until that day when we are euthenized because of our wealth not because of our pain.
BTW...euthianization is very effective. Aldolf Hitler and his Nazi regime practiced it for 12 years and managed to effectively "euthanize" over 16 million people.
Do politicians after one term get paid for the rest of their life?
When State, and Federal politicians serve for one term, do they receive benefits and pay for the rest of their live's?
Answers:
That would be yes in Canada if they get appointed to the Senate.
Usually, No. However, it does happen. It depends on the position, the length of appointment (if appointed for more than one term, etc.), and other factors as well.
As far as I know, no. Or at least if they are, they aren't supposed to. Politicians should only be paid for the length of time they serve as public servants. Thus, they are getting just compensation for their troubles. Other than that, they shouldn't be getting benefits since they technically aren't being employed by the government.
I don't think many politicians have a problem with this though, since most are already quite wealthy. A political campaign costs well over a couple million dollars.
In the manner politicians, no matter what party, strive for survival they're constantly being paid though not necessarily in cash. Otherwise no, after serving one term, cash tends to stop pouring in. Then again it depends on which politician we're talking about here.
In the United States, state laws in regards to this vary.
The members of the US Congress can receive benefits if they serve two terms.
Answers:
That would be yes in Canada if they get appointed to the Senate.
Usually, No. However, it does happen. It depends on the position, the length of appointment (if appointed for more than one term, etc.), and other factors as well.
As far as I know, no. Or at least if they are, they aren't supposed to. Politicians should only be paid for the length of time they serve as public servants. Thus, they are getting just compensation for their troubles. Other than that, they shouldn't be getting benefits since they technically aren't being employed by the government.
I don't think many politicians have a problem with this though, since most are already quite wealthy. A political campaign costs well over a couple million dollars.
In the manner politicians, no matter what party, strive for survival they're constantly being paid though not necessarily in cash. Otherwise no, after serving one term, cash tends to stop pouring in. Then again it depends on which politician we're talking about here.
In the United States, state laws in regards to this vary.
The members of the US Congress can receive benefits if they serve two terms.
Do political detainees deserve human rights?
Rallies across the country, including Detroit, by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are focusing on human rights.
This includes the restoration of habeas corpus for political detainees, end torture of political detainees, and and end to indefinite detention of detainees at facilities like Guntanmo Bay.
One such ralley took place in Detroit today, but they're happending nationwide.
What do you think?
Answers:
Ofcourse they deserve rights! These people haven't been tried and I bet some are just in there because of mistakes. Some of these people are probably innocent, and anyway, innocent until proven guilty, PERIOD! Give them their rights definatly!
Yes. If they are human.
Political detainees? They're criminals, terrorists and no they don't. They want us dead. I don't care about their "RIGHTS".
Edit: I'd rather they stay detained until it's for certain that they mean us no harm. In my experience, where there's smoke there's fire.
NO! The government should first detain the ACLU- they are destroying our country!!!
I really hate the ACLU!!
Yes - The Bill of Rights (and anyone with basic human decency) says that people have basic human rights that the government cannot give you, nor take away. I take that to mean that people of all countries deserve these basic rights, since our (or any, in our eyes) government cannot grant them, nor take them. If these people are guilty, then try them and lock 'em up, and throw away the key. However, if many are innocent, it's their basic human right to be free.
We wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam so badly, that we're putting our soldiers lives at risk; but we're locking up innocent Iraqis and throwing away the key - and that's somehow OK? We're trying to give these people the 'gift' of democracy, however, we're not allowing them democratic rights? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Edit: Seriously people - tell me how you know they are ALL terrorists?! Do you read a newspaper? Iraqis are turning people in to collect on the reward money being offered, or they're taken in for any suspicious reason. These people then sit in jail without being told why, without being presented evidence against them, and no hope for a trial. I'm glad I'm American and get this 'innocent until proven guilty' thing - 'cause I guess everyone else is just f'ed. Sucks for you!
Ken C: I understand the Bill of Rights applies to Americans - I'm saying that I interpret "basic human rights" as just that. HUMAN rights, not AMERICAN rights. If the Bill of Rights is saying that you have these rights regardless of government (including ours!); wouldn't that then apply to all people? How can we follow international law if we haven't proven these people are in fact terrorists! If they are terrorists, fine, shoot 'em for all I care. My point to verifying that they ARE in fact terrorists. Being that we're the greatest country on earth, how about we treat people as well as we treat ourselves - rather than whatever international law wants us to do. Really, I don't think 'international law' will mind...
I'd have to agree with mojo jo jo. If they're trying to kill us, why should we show any compassion?
Well if we use the Geneva Convention as a Guidebook it says no, they do not deserve those rights. Since they wear no uniform, nor are they part of a Military Operation, or recognized Army, they gave up all their rights.
If we followed the Letter of the Law in the Geneva Convention, they would be shot as spies.
So, in light of what they chose to do, and the Laws of the Geneva Convention, it would appear they are getting more rights than they deserve.
Shelly: The Bill of Rights applies to Americans. Not spies and terrorists as defined by International Law.
The US demands it of other countries. The answer would be yes.
The ACLU is notoriously treacherous in such matters. When it comes to issues of Terrorism, i'm inclined to believe that the ACLU would rather see the US bombed again, than have the suspects questioned at gitmo.
6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Note: I believe everyone should be entitled to this right, wherever they came from. We have a democratic government, we must show that to others. We also do need to have habeas corpus in place.
I guess it depends; are they human? If so, then yes.
This includes the restoration of habeas corpus for political detainees, end torture of political detainees, and and end to indefinite detention of detainees at facilities like Guntanmo Bay.
One such ralley took place in Detroit today, but they're happending nationwide.
What do you think?
Answers:
Ofcourse they deserve rights! These people haven't been tried and I bet some are just in there because of mistakes. Some of these people are probably innocent, and anyway, innocent until proven guilty, PERIOD! Give them their rights definatly!
Yes. If they are human.
Political detainees? They're criminals, terrorists and no they don't. They want us dead. I don't care about their "RIGHTS".
Edit: I'd rather they stay detained until it's for certain that they mean us no harm. In my experience, where there's smoke there's fire.
NO! The government should first detain the ACLU- they are destroying our country!!!
I really hate the ACLU!!
Yes - The Bill of Rights (and anyone with basic human decency) says that people have basic human rights that the government cannot give you, nor take away. I take that to mean that people of all countries deserve these basic rights, since our (or any, in our eyes) government cannot grant them, nor take them. If these people are guilty, then try them and lock 'em up, and throw away the key. However, if many are innocent, it's their basic human right to be free.
We wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam so badly, that we're putting our soldiers lives at risk; but we're locking up innocent Iraqis and throwing away the key - and that's somehow OK? We're trying to give these people the 'gift' of democracy, however, we're not allowing them democratic rights? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Edit: Seriously people - tell me how you know they are ALL terrorists?! Do you read a newspaper? Iraqis are turning people in to collect on the reward money being offered, or they're taken in for any suspicious reason. These people then sit in jail without being told why, without being presented evidence against them, and no hope for a trial. I'm glad I'm American and get this 'innocent until proven guilty' thing - 'cause I guess everyone else is just f'ed. Sucks for you!
Ken C: I understand the Bill of Rights applies to Americans - I'm saying that I interpret "basic human rights" as just that. HUMAN rights, not AMERICAN rights. If the Bill of Rights is saying that you have these rights regardless of government (including ours!); wouldn't that then apply to all people? How can we follow international law if we haven't proven these people are in fact terrorists! If they are terrorists, fine, shoot 'em for all I care. My point to verifying that they ARE in fact terrorists. Being that we're the greatest country on earth, how about we treat people as well as we treat ourselves - rather than whatever international law wants us to do. Really, I don't think 'international law' will mind...
I'd have to agree with mojo jo jo. If they're trying to kill us, why should we show any compassion?
Well if we use the Geneva Convention as a Guidebook it says no, they do not deserve those rights. Since they wear no uniform, nor are they part of a Military Operation, or recognized Army, they gave up all their rights.
If we followed the Letter of the Law in the Geneva Convention, they would be shot as spies.
So, in light of what they chose to do, and the Laws of the Geneva Convention, it would appear they are getting more rights than they deserve.
Shelly: The Bill of Rights applies to Americans. Not spies and terrorists as defined by International Law.
The US demands it of other countries. The answer would be yes.
The ACLU is notoriously treacherous in such matters. When it comes to issues of Terrorism, i'm inclined to believe that the ACLU would rather see the US bombed again, than have the suspects questioned at gitmo.
6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Note: I believe everyone should be entitled to this right, wherever they came from. We have a democratic government, we must show that to others. We also do need to have habeas corpus in place.
I guess it depends; are they human? If so, then yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)