Kaemaril’s Techdirt Profile

kaemaril

About Kaemaril




Kaemaril’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 25th, 2014 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re:

    I can, yes.

    I'm not sure who the final paragraph is referring to, but given it ends with the nonsensical "And you are not far." ... well, I think you should be asking yourself if you can actually read what *you* post.

  • Mar 25th, 2014 @ 6:28am

    Re: Re:

    So, if you as person X comes along and reads this tweet it's going to put you in fear for your life or your immediate family's life?

    How?

    How is "I'm a gonna shoot someone if I get enough retweets" an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific threat to you that has an immediate prospect of execution?

    There's nothing in that specific statute which says 'Oh, and by the way, if it's just a rather vague undirected threat that's isn't specific and isn't immediate it still totally counts.'

    Oh, and if people did retweet him ... will they be charged as accessories to his crime since he only said he'd do it if he got enough tweets? :)

  • Mar 25th, 2014 @ 12:58am

    (untitled comment)

    This seems to be the "criminal threat" statute in California.

    California Code - Title 11.5: CRIMINAL THREATS

    Section 422

    (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

    Seems like a vague threat to "shoot somebody" fails the test at being an actual threat to an actual person. It's certainly not an "unequivocal, unconditional, immediate" specific threat with an "immediate prospect of execution" that's likely to put a specific person in "sustained fear" of their safety or their family's safety.

    Guy's a bit of an ass, clearly, and hopefully he can be slapped with something to deter him from going around going 'Ha! Gonna shoot somebody!" but if they're actually gonna prosecute under this section as opposed to something else a half competent lawyer should surely be able to generate reasonable doubt on this one pretty easily?

    But IANAL so what do I know? :)

  • Mar 3rd, 2014 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Come now, if you want to troll surely you can be a bit more sophisticated than that? Five seconds of searching in any search engine would put the lie to your words.

  • Feb 24th, 2014 @ 3:52am

    (untitled comment)

    I'm looking forward to the appeal on this one. It ought to be scathing.

  • Jan 25th, 2014 @ 2:27am

    Slightly old news?

    This was was covered over on "Photography is not a Crime" back on January 13th.

    See http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/01/13/aspiring-deputy-coming-fire-vowing-beat-citizens-sheer- joy/ for details.

    In updates to the original story, it's alleged that the guy in question didn't post that screed. First it's claimed somebody staying at his place did it, then it's claimed that his facebook page was 'hacked'. Yeah, of course it was ;)

  • Jan 4th, 2014 @ 10:10am

    (untitled comment)

    Para 49:

    "Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe held plaintiff against his consent when they forced him off the public road into the parking lot, held upon under conditions that plaintiff reasonably believed that he would be subject to arrest and prosecution if he were to leave without Jane Doe’s consent"

    "Jane Doe"'s activities are documented in paras 20 to 30.

    "Jane Doe" wasn't actually a party to the car being forced off the public road into the parking lot. "John Doe" did that. "Jane Doe" only explained that he hadn't been pulled over, and tried to get a cheek swab. She did not tell him that he had to provide a cheek swab, and indeed stated that he would be paid for the cheek swab. There's nothing in those paragraphs to show that "Jane Doe" did or said anything to make the plaintiff believe he was being held against his will by her.

    I see nothing to suggest that "John Doe" was acting upon the explicit instructions of "Jane Doe". I don't see anything alleging she's responsible for these suspicionless stops.

    Absent that, what did Jane Doe do wrong, other than be paid to rock up to people and explain that if they hand over a cheek swab they'll get some money? She could be completely innocent in all this, and indeed (unless PIRE gets its management to do the dirty work) probably is.

    Incidentally ...

    Para 50:
    "50. The actions of John Doe and Jane Doe were taken with the express"

    The express what?

    Do American lawsuits just sue everybody, just in case? Otherwise, absent any facts to suggest knowing wrongdoing, I don't actually see why 'Jane Doe' is being sued. But IANAL. Can anyone explain?

  • Jan 4th, 2014 @ 4:06am

    Re:

    I don't understand. If all charges were dropped, what were you fined $50 for?

  • Jan 1st, 2014 @ 1:53am

    Re: This is Repugant

    Hmm. I don't think that last sentence makes much sense.

    Why not try 'I find making a public spectacle of the mentally ill to be repugnant'?

  • Dec 20th, 2013 @ 10:25pm

    Re: Typo?

    Or, possibly, 'the couple'?

  • Oct 30th, 2013 @ 5:19pm

    Re:

    The FISA court would. All you need do is have an NSA representative swear an affadavit confirming that they had firm intelligence that, somewhere in Washington DC, an agent of a foreign power was conducting clandestine meetings with another agent of another foreign power in a woman's restroom, although the exact one was currently unknown.

    The NSA would then request a warrant to conduct surveillance on all women's restrooms.

    The FISA court would then authorize it, on the STRICT UNDERSTANDING that ONLY foreign persons would be recorded, to which the NSA would agree.

    The NSA would then come to the conclusion that, sure, they may be meant to be monitoring only foreign persons, but actually it was impractical to attempt to identify foreigners based on the shapes of their bottoms, and besides there's nothing to stop them using information on Americans they 'inadvertently' record.

    And besides, it's not really spying until somebody actually watches the footage.

    Boom. Job done. All legal and above board, for the NSA says it is so. And if the NSA says it's conducting all its operations perfectly legally and above board well then ... who are we to question the NSA? There's bound to be a US senator they can get to tell the press it's all legal.

    Provided, of course, that leader of a foreign country isn't snapped in a restroom. That's when it all will hit the fan.

  • Oct 30th, 2013 @ 1:45pm

    The appropriate response to any intelligence official's answer ...

    Must now surely be 'Is that a truthful answer, or the least untruthful answer?'

  • Oct 3rd, 2013 @ 3:36am

    Re: Re:

    It's still up (for now, at least ...) but no longer appears to be updating.

    Which is a damn shame, as I found it one of the most useful and informative sites on the entire worldwide web.

  • Jul 30th, 2012 @ 2:59pm

    Personal information?

    So NBC claimed that this dude posted 'personal information' and that personal information was ... a corporate e-mail account that a five-year old could have figured out? This fails the smell test.

    This isn't a genuine complaint, this is NBC wanting this guy shut up.

  • Jul 10th, 2012 @ 1:31am

    Re: Re:

    Not only that, the chances of the US being ready to go to trial upon your arrival will be pretty slim, so you either sit in a jail cell for x months awaiting trial or you wind up sitting in a strange country for x months ...

    And I'd be willing to bet the US would oppose bail, too. You know, what with being a foreigner with significant resources (allegedly) and thus a flight risk ...