- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: One of Ohio's best HS football teams/town going to be all over the news
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:05 pm to Jcorye1
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:05 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
but I don't think it gives private citizens the right to shite on the 4th amendment either.
Like how the 2nd amendment is being shite all over by citizens and government?
2
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:05 pm to TheOcean
It's a legit debate for the topic. I'm not suprised there are differences in opinion on the matter. However, hacking someones computer and stealing files is only slightly less of an offense than breaking into someones house and stealing their harddrive with the same files on it.
Is it jusitified in this case? That's the problem. Who decides when its justified? Anon? Who elected them?
Is it jusitified in this case? That's the problem. Who decides when its justified? Anon? Who elected them?
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
not really
but that varies by state. some states have "good samaritan" laws
but it seems they want anybody who was simply AT the party
I'm not talking about good samaritan laws. I'm talking about good old fashioned accessory.
In other words, if you witnessed John Doe rape a woman, and you don't report it, then you are committing the crime of accessory.
quote:
An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:06 pm to rmc
quote:
Who decides when its justified? Anon? Who elected them?
what is our redress against them, also?
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:08 pm to WikiTiger
i'm looking up ohio law and i can only find accessory after the fact initially
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:09 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
The 4th amendment doesn't apply to private actors.
I know, I was talking more about the principles. Sneaking into other peoples private information is pretty freaking disgusting.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:10 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
Like how the 2nd amendment is being shite all over by citizens and government?
Yeah, because that has something to do with this debate.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what is our redress against them, also?
Exactly. There are sometimes 3-4 levels of appeal, but we are just going to let anon and lulzsec to do what they wish and that's cool because they are a part of the counter culture. I think they have done enough by exposing the story. I learned about this AM from Jason Whitlock's twitter. I think the MSM has got a hold of it and hopefully the appropriate actions will be taken by the appropriate parties. Judges and prosecutors have recused themselves. Let someone from another part of the state handle it from here.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Complicity
quote:
(A) No person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense, shall do any of the following:
(1) Solicit or procure another to commit the offense;
(2) Aid or abet another in committing the offense;
(3) Conspire with another to commit the offense in violation of section 2923.01 of the Revised Code;
(4) Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense.
(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that no person with whom the accused was in complicity has been convicted as a principal offender.
(C) No person shall be convicted of complicity under this section unless an offense is actually committed, but a person may be convicted of complicity in an attempt to commit an offense in violation of section 2923.02 of the Revised Code.
(D) If an alleged accomplice of the defendant testifies against the defendant in a case in which the defendant is charged with complicity in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, an attempt to commit an offense, or an offense, the court, when it charges the jury, shall state substantially the following:
“The testimony of an accomplice does not become inadmissible because of his complicity, moral turpitude, or self-interest, but the admitted or claimed complicity of a witness may affect his credibility and make his testimony subject to grave suspicion, and require that it be weighed with great caution.
It is for you, as jurors, in the light of all the facts presented to you from the witness stand, to evaluate such testimony and to determine its quality and worth or its lack of quality and worth.”
(E) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section that, prior to the commission of or attempt to commit the offense, the actor terminated his complicity, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense.
This post was edited on 12/24/12 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:11 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
Like how the 2nd amendment is being shite all over by citizens and government?
Christ on a crawfish
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:12 pm to rmc
quote:
I think the MSM has got a hold of it
that NYT article was from December 16, 2012
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:12 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
Yeah, because that has something to do with this debate.
Then stop mentioning your view on 4th amendment rights being shite on when there is another amendment being shite on at the same time at a much higher level.
It happens.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:12 pm to CatsGoneWild
Oh boy.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Aid or abet another in committing the offense
so then we need the Ohio legal definition of "aid or abet"
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:13 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
when there is another amendment being shite on at the same time at a much higher level.
you're wrong about this on many levels, fwiw
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
No.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:14 pm to rmc
there will never be perfect security on the internet. I have a feeling we will be seeing issues like this pop up more and more.
whether or not it's justified becomes a moral debate, in my opinion. I also don't think it's that far-fetched to see a school cover something like this up.
whether or not it's justified becomes a moral debate, in my opinion. I also don't think it's that far-fetched to see a school cover something like this up.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:16 pm to TheOcean
quote:
I also don't think it's that far-fetched to see a school cover something like this up.
It should be understood by all educated people that the default action of any group, organization, business, government, etc. is to preserve itself which means that cover ups are actually the norm and not the exception.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:16 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
so then we need the Ohio legal definition of "aid or abet"
it's wishy washy, per a summary i just read
but i did find this
quote:
As stated in the text and in this case, “mere presence” is not enough to satisfy the actus reus requirement.
here are parts of the discussion
quote:
In State v. Sims (10 Ohio App. 3d 56, 1983), the Ohio Court of Appeal for the Eighth District provided numerous definitions of “aid” and “abet.” The court stated that,
…one is not an aider or abettor unless he knowingly does something which assists or
tends in some way to affect the doing of the thing which the law forbids (p. 59).
quote:
a person is not an accessory before the fact, unless there is some sort of active
proceeding on his part; he must incite, or procure, or encourage the criminal act,
or assist or enable it to be done, or engage or counsel, or command the principal
to do it (p. 59).
quote:
The mens rea for the crime of complicity can be confusing and, as seen in Ohio law, there are no
levels of culpability mentioned. Generally, intent is inferred from the behavior of the players involved in the crime. In State v. Cartellone (3 Ohio App. 3d 145, 1981), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District indicated that intent can be discerned from both direct and circumstantial
evidence:
…participation in criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship,
and conduct before and after the offense is committed…[it] may also be established
by overt acts of assistance such as driving a getaway car or serving as a lookout (p. 150).
Thus, courts will look at the actions of those involved in the crime to determine if intent is
present.
Posted on 12/24/12 at 4:17 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
No.
the 4th amendment has been shite on for decades, namely due to developments in the law in response to drugs and cars
the 2nd amendment had its first ruling as to application a few years ago, and it offered sweeping protections
Page 5 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News