Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
You seem to be implying here that a grand jury proceeding is not “an actual criminal proceeding.”
You misunderstand. I'm not implying that a grand jury proceeding is not an actual criminal proceeding, I'm flat out saying that a grand jury proceeding is not a criminal proceeding.
"A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct..." Source
A grand jury is "[a] panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime." Source
"A grand jury's purpose is to investigate alleged crimes, examine evidence, and issue indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. They are an impartial panel of citizens who must determine whether reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed exists. The grand jury acts as a check on the prosecutorial power of the state." Source
So, no, a grand jury is not an "actual criminal proceeding." It is the precursor for and determinant of whether an actual criminal proceeding should occur.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
“The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.”
Ok. And ...? I would posit that "professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert" medical examiner in determining the cause of death is most definitely "beyond the ken of the typical juror." That seems to only support my position.
Are you totally misunderstanding your own citation again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
It doesn't matter as far as the grand jury is concerned. It is up to the actual jury in an actual criminal proceeding to determine if the homicide was criminal.
Don't you get it? If the grand jury in this case was operating correctly its sole responsibility was to determine if there was enough plausible potential evidence to proceed with a criminal trial, determined (in this case) by a) was there a homicide? (yes, according to expert testimony); and b) was Ofc. Panteleo there/involved? (yes, according to multiple witnesses and video recording).
They just have to figure out if a homicide occurred, not whether it was criminal. That's up to the jury in the criminal proceeding to determine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
You are missing the point. At least the point of the article which is what you seem to be trying to refute. Your focus on the exact definition of whether homicide is criminal or not is irrelevant. I'm tempted to think that you are intentionally obfuscating the issue by focusing on that particular part of the definition, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
By the definition you yourself quoted, a homicide is a human death that occurs by the action or inaction of another person. The determination of the coroner, a highly trained and educated and (let's assume) very experienced person, is that a homicide occurred. In a court of law that qualifies as expert testimony. Expert testimony is (usually) also accepted as fact.
We can then agree that a fact of the case is that a homicide occurred, can't we? Therefore, what the grand jury has done then is either: 1) completely ignored this particular fact of the case, or; 2) accepted that a homicide did occur, but that Orc. Pantaleo could not possibly have been the responsible party ... but then who the hell else could it have been?
For the purposes of a grand jury it doesn't matter if it was criminal homicide; that's what an actual trial and jury is supposed to determine.
Fact: a homicide occurred (I understand that this could be argued by opposing "expert testimony", but for the time being that's the only conclusion, and the only conclusion presented to the grand jury) Fact: Ofc. Pantaleo was very much present when it happened.
It defies logic to try to argue that Pantaleo should not be indicted and face a jury to determine if his actions were criminal and/or negligent.
Open-source software is great, but its not locked down.
I'd hate to be the Principal dealing with the angry mother who storms into his office "I caught little Johnny beating the bologna watching goatse on this school provided laptop, I want compensated for emotional distress!"
You're missing the point.
First off, Open Source software can be just as "locked down" as any proprietary software if what you're talking about is blocking access to certain sites/services, which you most definitely seem to be. In fact, OSS could be even more locked down (in this regard) because you could take the source code and change it to enable greater blocking/filtering.
What's actually going on is this school (Penn Manor) has trusted their students enough to give them full control over their laptops. There's an agreement among school-students-parents barring certain behaviors, and if they break that it's on them. No lawsuit possible.
Secondly, trying to block/filter is a game of whack-a-mole and a total waste of time/money.
I'm sure their policy on locking them down ("Students are given full control of their laptops. They are permitted to install programs and experiment with software.") has quite a bit to do with the program's success.
Also note that, "[b]y using open source software exclusively, we estimate an initial cost savings of at least $360,000 on licensing fees." contrasted to the billions SPENT by LASD.
Lastly, the corporation will pay income taxes using the same rate as a non-married individual, both state and federal, on all income, not just profit at the appropriately scaled rate, going back to original tax ratios defined to scale as the amount of income climbs.
You should listen to this episode of Planet Money (and follow-up episodes) where one of the things they discuss is how economists from both ends of the political spectrum agree that there should be zero corporate tax. It's also summed up here in text.
I'll admit that I was repelled by the idea at first. But as I learned more about it it makes total sense. In a nutshell:
Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
Or, hey, maybe just burst into their rooms while they're sleeping occasionally and scream, "You probably won't be nearly as successful as you think you will!" and then run away, just to get them used to the disappointment of life.
I usually get (at least) a good chuckle out of reading your articles, but that one is legendary! Well done!
Don't even listen this shithead trying to pretend he advocates the "use of machinery for the protection of others" because he's already proven his propensity for and love of violence, eg: beatings with sticks and punches to the face
This is the guy that that makes all cops look bad (not that they need any help).
He told the judges they were the last defense against tyranny...
I'm sure the sarcastic, "Riiiight" following Klayman's rant was focused on the entirety of it, but that one statement there holds a lot of truth. Of course, judges could also be the cause of tyranny, depending on how they choose to exercise their power.