mr2mk1g

Not in Europe yet... but don't get me started on the C.A.P.

You people really need to read what I wrote on page 4. These points have already been answered. If you talk to a cop and believe they are a kid then when you solicit sex from them you are attempting to solicit sex from a minor. You are not actually soliciting sex from a minor because you're really talking to some cop... but you are attempting to do so. There is nothing wrong with there being an offence of attempting to do something. There is no suspension of civil rights involved in such an offence; it really is quite a common situation and legally the same principle involved is the same as that in cases of attempting to shoot someone, or attempting to blow up a plane.

I already answered that point. I pointed out that Kallend is actually saying that if the accused is actually intelligent enough to figure out that he's talking to a cop posing as a kid rather than an actual kid then no offence will have been committed. If he's being charged with attempting to solicit sex from a minor then it stands to reason that if he solicits sex from someone who he believes to be a cop merely pretending to be a kid then he hasn't actually done anything wrong. In the alternative, (and probably more common), he may actually have believed he's talking to a 30 year old housewife who likes to have fantasies and pretend she's a 13 year old girl on line. If he honestly believes this then he's not attempting to solicit sex from a minor but from someone he believes to be a 30 year old mother. That's why who he actually believes he's talking to, over and above who he's been told he's talking to, is important. That is a question for the jury to consider.

Lets just ignore the names for a moment and look at just the system, I really do not want to be seen as criticizing these individual appointments - I have no idea who they are and couldn't care less if they're appointed. I just want to look for a moment at a system which appoints people with NO judicial experience to the HIGHEST judicial positions in the land. I don't understand how can that be right? Say the most senior general in the army is killed and you need to replace him. Do you replace him with: a) the most competent of the more senior generals in the country, b) the most competent of all generals in the country, c) any army officer, d) any soldier, e) Dave, he did 3 years in the National Guard and used to be real good at D&D. Lawyers are not judges. You don't get experience as a judge by working as a lawyer. Just because you are a good lawyer it does not necessarily follow that you're going to be a good judge. Until you've worked as a judge no one knows how good you're going to be as a judge. I simply cannot fathom the logic behind putting people in the highest, most powerful court in the land when they have NEVER sat as a judge before. It really is like handing the whole army over to Dave.

Well I can only really speak authoritatively from UK standpoint, but I’ll give my views. Over here for certain offences we wouldn’t mind that he hasn’t actually committed a crime so long as he thought he was committing a crime but this approach only extends to certain very limited crimes - usually only inchoate offences such as conspiracy, attempt etc. The leading case is that of R. v. Shivpury. Here S. thought he was importing dope from Amsterdam and when stopped by customs and asked if he was carrying stupidly admitted to it and gave them the drugs. Turns out he’d actually been screwed by the dealer in Amsterdam and all he really had was snuff. He did honestly think it was dope though. Unfortunately for S. as he had honestly believed he had imported drugs we know that S, given the right opportunity would be a drug smuggler. His actions have already proved that he is willing to do this. But this is not what he is found guilty of – as you say that is penalizing thought. Thus he was actually guilty of attempting to import a controlled substance. The fact that it was really impossible to do so (given that he only had snuff) does not detract from the illegality of his actions in attempting to do so. Here then I suppose it may well be that what he has actually been charged with is attempting to solicit sex with a minor. The physical act of this is soliciting sex with someone who he believes to be a minor. The fact that the person isn’t actually a minor doesn’t stop him being guilty of the attempt to do so – as for all he knew he was doing so. As I said though – this is a guess based on UK law… it may simply be that you can be guilty of soliciting sex from a minor in the US despite impossibility issues.

Same here... but I have to put my hand up and simply say I can only guess at the US Constitution. Under the circumstances it does not appear possible to reconcile these two rights (ignoring all those arguments about whether or not the right actually exist in the first place etc that have already been done ad infinitum in other threads). It would certainly seem though that there are simply two sets of rights which conflict. Not holding any seat in any US court I can't say for sure which right wins. As an Englishman however I certainly have an instinctive wish to say an "Englishman's home is his castle" and side with the landowner. What greater right can there be for a man than the right to own land and deal with it as he wishes so long as he does not harm his neighbour? I certainly wouldn't wish to start doffing my cap to someone who wished to enter my land simply on the grounds that he had a gun with him. Indeed, I suspect in other circumstances many gun rights activists would suggest that they would be well within their rights to open fire upon any such individuals. It's an odd thing when rights conflict.

Equally though landowners have the right to determine who steps onto their property - that right isn't fettered by a clause which reads "unless they have a gun in which case you have to let them on".

When it comes to owning land it doesn't matter if it's a corporal entity or an individual - they're still the land owner and they still get all the rights over that land that the individual would get.

Essentially you have two opposing rights. 1) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms 2) the right of a landowner to decide who is allowed onto their land Who's right trumps who's?

From earlier posts in the thread, he appears to have been charged with soliciting sex with a minor. I'm guessing that the crime would thus be complete when he asks the minor for sex. It requires no contact between him and the minor, only that he does the soliciting. Thus under the circumstances the physical act part of the crime is asking certain things of someone they believe to be a minor. Him turning up at the meeting point is merely a nice way of delivering him into police custody - the crime itself would have already been committed days ago. This is all based on a couple of presumptions however of what this guys been charged with and also notably that those charges broadly mirror those found in my jurisdiction.

Fall back position is: fine - let the daughter sign the waiver, hell he can sign too if he likes. Then don't take her for a tandem anyway. It's your business, no one can force you to extend services to anyone you don't want to. Nor can the law require you to allow them onto your property – ie ask them to leave. Of course there are far better ways of dealing with the situation which don't make the whole skydiving world seem like arseholes... but if he insists on being a moron there's nothing in the law which gives him the power to make you do something you don't want to do.

I think he's drawing from my response and suggesting that there is perhaps a defense out there for those who are caught in this sort of sting. If they honestly believe that the party they had been chatting to was actually an adult merely pretending to be a child then they would not be guilty of soliciting sex with a minor as they would have honestly believed they were soliciting an adult. Whether or not that belief was honestly held I would presume would be a matter for the jury and probably the most difficult element of any subsequent trial... but it would be a point the prosecution would have to address. This all depends on the drafting of the law though – it may be one of strict liability in some instances, I don't know. If the law requires a mental element to the crime though it is possible that such a defence would have merit.

Two things I really don't understand about the US legal system. 1) How can someone with no experience on the Supreme Court be appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? 2) How can someone with no prior judicial experience be appointed to the Supreme Court? Over here, judges must have years of experience sitting in the lower courts before they are appointed to our House of Lords and then must have years of experience sitting in the Lords before they stand any chance of being appointed as the Senior Law Lord. Doing otherwise just seems... well... dumb.

Bad idea. Ignore the question of gun rights - I don't care. It's the employers private property. They should be able to say who enters that property and mandate rules for behavior once there. If they feel it's unacceptable to carry a firearm on their property - well, it's their property. If that means they lose money then capitalism and the almighty free market economy will kick in.

Yes - that they honestly believed at the time that they had sex that the other party was above 16. ie: if a 24 year old has sex with a 15 year old while honestly believing them to be at least 16 they will not be guilty of an offence. The law does not recognize that proviso for older offenders and the crime becomes one of strict liability, nor does it extend to minors younger than 14. Whether or not the belief is honestly held is a matter for the jury. The same rules apply in the rest of Britain.

Yes, but they must do so in line with their own rules. The USPA received a letter from B&C's lawyer (although my impression was not that it was any formal request for a review of their decision and more just a bitch). The USPA accepted that letter as a request for an appeal. I think that's a very intelligent decision on behalf of the USPA because it means they're going not just by the letter of the book, but are seen to be going above and beyond and thus cannot be criticized for not giving B&C a fair time. It's also entirely fair that a proportion the board didn't vote. Those who didn't are DZO's; they could be seen as having a conflict of interest. It is again a very intelligent call keeping them out of the voting procedure. I'm amazed some point to this decision as a way of suggesting the vote in some way lacked legitimacy – it's the very thing that maintained the legitimacy of the board's decision. I would be surprised if the decision was not upheld on appeal. But the very fact that the USPA took the letter as a request for an appeal will in itself only add to the weight of their final decision. I welcome the move as it will remove any scope for reasoned criticism of the final outcome.

There's plenty enough farmland to grow all the food we need AND a load of fuel too. Each year we pay farmers millions not to grow food because we produce too much... that latent capacity could easily be harnessed to add to GDP rather than drain taxpayers money.

This thread is about self defence law. The law in question is materially the same in the UK as it is in Florida. Are you afraid to visit the UK because of that?

The point of the "jointly and severally" clause in the contract is that the landlord doesn't have to care who pays up. If the flatmate's difficult to trace and Kelly's still arround then Kelly gets the full 100% of the outstanding bill... even if the flatmate owes 50% of that. Now how US judges look at the situation or maybe there's something in the rules of equity you guys have over there, I don't know. Maybe the judge would take pitty on the flatmate left behind... but that's not required by the "jointly and severally" clause.

The French authorities have a responsability to stop it now they know of it and to punish those responsible... but I'm not sure if it's exactly all their fault: http://www.reunionmagic.net/images/RM%20Locator.jpg

Course... if you get your electricity from solar, hydro wind and nuclear sources it doesn't matter a great deal how much electricity you use to power up your buses.

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?op=article&ac=details&article_id=751475

In all practical terms yes. In order for oil to be made massive movements of rock have to take place within the earth's crust. Have these movements stopped? No. Cool, how fast are they moving? Couple of mm per year. Hmm... me thinks ya'll gonna be waiting a while if you're hoping the earth's gonna have an annual "crop" of oil you can harvest. What little oil is "made" per year is a pathetic drop in the ocean of what we use. No - this is why opinions vary on how long what we have is going to last. What we do know is we're steadily running out of places to look... sooner or later we're just gonna be left with down the back of the sofa.

That has been my understanding of the law also. As such it brings Florida law in line with those found in the UK... so as I said, the Brady Campaign tactics seem a little odd to say the least.

Same kind of extreme adventure... but the chicks are hotter in Miami.