HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Shooting Gettingaway Carjackers Legal?
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:32:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov21.002211.27696@netcom.com>, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
> Now that carjacking is a federal crime, I'm wondering about the
> legality of shooting a carjacker as he drives away with his stolen car.
> This question occurred to me when I realized that the best time to
> shoot would be after the carjacker thinks he's succeeded. Most legal
> cases I've heard about say that shooting a fleeing person is
> essentially manslaughter or murder.
> 
> Speak Up, Net Lawyers!
> -- 
> Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>

It depends on the state.  In California, the use of deadly force
to stop a fleeing felon is legal, provided the crime was a felony
at common law.  (At least, this was the position taken in Vallejo
last year when a man shot and killed a fleeing burglar, who had
attempted forced entry into house of the mother of the shooter).

It is certainly true that IF you are going to use deadly force
against a carjacker, it is much safer to do so after he has gotten
into the car, and you have gotten out.  Of course, it might be
safer, all in all, to just turn over the car.  But dead carjackers
tend to discourage repetition of such a crime...
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
From: alvin@top.cis.syr.edu (Alvin Leung)
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Organization: Syracuse University CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:21:24 EST


In article <92321.113821MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
|> Assuming that the neighbor is playing the radio (AM or FM), and the houses
|> are close to each other, it may be possible to interfere (unintentially, of
|> course) with his reception by tuning to a station 455kHz below the one they
|> are listening to...
|>
 
A practical experiment to determine the existance of Fourier series:

Basic equipment and conditions for this experiment:
A personal computer
A neighbor, who listen to radio at late night and lives close to the student
of this experiment
A student, who kept up by the neighbor's generous radio boardcast

Procedure:

Unshield the computer by taking it out of its case.  Do the same with
you key board. Then turn on your computer, and play you favor game.

Obervations:

1) The neighbor's radio should receive huge amount of interference. The
theoretical basis of this claim is left to the student. (Hint: take a Fourier
transformation of a 50% duty cycle square wave. Then compute the amount of
energy reeceived by your neighbor's radio.)

2) The neighbor's radio output reminds loud and clear.  Apperiently, your neighbor
put in more energy generating sound wave then your computer can genertate radio
wave.  (Note: both suffer the inverse square law to signal lost.)  Repeat the
experiment but increase the number of personal computer.  Moving the computer
closer to the neighbor also helps. Additional suggestion, you can play the
networked computer games on the personal computers, such as Falcon 3.1.

Final note: Since this experiment only shows Fourier series exists under
a particular set of experiment conditions, such as room temperature varience,
the computer game played, etc.  The student should redo the experiment as often
as the opportunity allowed.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

aleung@mailbox.syr.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.african.american
From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Non-existent White Pride?  Give me a BREAK!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
 
   I've been half-following (so this is probably a half-answer) several
   Now, why is this important?  People tend to invest in what they believe
   Even children who are never told they are good stop believing they are
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:22:39 GMT

  Let the facts speak for themselves.  There is plenty of material to
idolize, and to abhor, in every culture.  We will repeat the mistakes of
the past if we fail to even acknowledge them.

Peace

Bill  
   
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20191 alt.activism:19023 misc.headlines:7106 ny.general:456
From: ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:27:07 GMT

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:

>In article <1992Nov18.194549.7488@socrates.umd.edu> ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:
>>The United Methodist Church, which founded the National Coalition to
>>Ban Handguns (NCBH), declares that people should submit to rape and
>>robbery rather than endanger the criminal's life by shooting him.  The
>>Presbyterian Church, another NCBH affiliate, supports a complete ban
>>on handguns because it opposes "the killing of anyone, anywhere, for
>>any reason", including defense of others against a life-threatening
>>attack.
>>
>>I don't think either church is known for having liberal views...
>>Interestingly, to me it seems that the Presbyterian Church would want
>>to disarm *everyone*, including the police and the military.  I'm sure
>>that criminals and hostile countries wholeheartedly support that idea.

>I've been a member of our local Presbyterian church for 2 years now and
>I've never heard either of these positions mentioned, discussed, etc.
>I'm not saying that the upper echelon leadership might not hold these
>views, but I think the statements above are rather wide in scope, to
>say the least.  Guess I'll have to ask my minister what he might know
>about this.  The one thing I'd find very disturbing would be for the
>church to hold to such an extreme position as "opposes the killing of
>anyone, anywhere, for any reason, including defense of others against
>life threatening attack."  

I agree that it is a rather extreme position, and I would hope that it
is *far* from how people in general feel about self-defense.  
FYI, the quote above is by Rev. Young, Director of Criminal Justice
Program for Presbyterian Church, testifying in 1985-1986 hearings on
Legislation to Modify the 1968 Gun Control Act, House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime, vol. I, p. 128.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Socratic Method
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

My favorite Socratic Method story, probably apochryphal.

The professor calls out for a student to relate the facts of the case, and 
calls on Student 1.  Student 1 says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared."  (For 
you non-law student, this is law school's mortal sin.)

The professor calls on Student 2.   Student 2 says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not 
prepared."
 
 . .

The professor calls on Student [n-1].   Student [n-1] says, "I'm sorry, but 
I'm not prepared."    
 
The professor calls on Student [n].   Student [n] says, "I don't have 
anything to add to what has already been said".

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: bank errors - who's r
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Distribution: misc
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:29:59 GMT

In <1992Nov16.1297.20323@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

>Laird P. Broadfield, in a message to All on 11-15-92 at 10:01am, said:
>LP>|Is this really the case if it is the depositor's error, not the
>   |institution's?  This seems goofy.  What is the train of logic here?
>   |___________________________________________________________________

>          The principle is called, alternatively, "money paid by mis-
>          take," which is an old common count, and "unjust enrichment." 
>          At common law, if you pay money by mistake to someone who was
>          not entitled to it, you can recover it by a suit at law. 

I was right.  It is goofy.  If I'm enough of a dummy to put the wrong 
number on the slip, then too bad.  (Oh well.)

>          Today, there is usually a contract (which no one ever reads)
>          between the bank and its depositor which gives the bank the
>          right to charge the customer's account for mistaken credits. 
>          Also, you might take a look at UCC  4-212 et seq.

:-)  What mistake?  They put it in according to the instructions on the slip!

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Subject: Re: supreme ct. insurance
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.1297.20230@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:
>
>David C Daye, in a message to All on 11-12-92 at 10:36am, said:
>
>DC>|My wife, a former insurance claims adjuster, contends that since the fo
>   |insurance co. had been paid for coverage, and since a claim had been fi
>   |under that policy, the former co. should have been liable for treating
>   |the disease.
>   |_______________________________________________________________________
>
>               Your wife has an interesting point that was missed
>               by everyone else who responded.  

[....]                                Group health plans, in most
>               cases, provide benefits on a "claims made" rather
>               than "occurrence" basis.

> I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut

Thanks.  That is the precise logic I was groping for.  My wife had worked
with auto claims where there is often a clearly defined "incident" that
is to be resolved, which is very different from health matters as you
show. 

For other respondents, it had nothing to do with getting something "free,"
considering that over the years we've paid kilobucks for protection either
out of pocket or in the form of reduced wages.  But thanks everyone in
any case.

David Daye.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Socratic Method
From: jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:17:15 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <8cUF02Hx2bl601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>My favorite Socratic Method story, probably apochryphal.

>The professor calls out for a student to relate the facts of the case, and 
>calls on Student 1.  Student 1 says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared."  (For 
>you non-law student, this is law school's mortal sin.)

>The professor calls on Student 2.   Student 2 says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not 
>prepared."
> 
> . .

>The professor calls on Student [n-1].   Student [n-1] says, "I'm sorry, but 
>I'm not prepared."    
> 
>The professor calls on Student [n].   Student [n] says, "I don't have 
>anything to add to what has already been said".

>Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
>The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.

Yet another:

Student A brings his parents to a first year class. Unprepared, he sits, 
with his parents, in the back row, said by all to be a safe haven. Wrong. 
Professor X calls upon hapless student A, who admits "I am not prepared." 
Undaunted, Professor X calls upon the person seated next to Student A. 
Student A says, "Sorry, Professor. That is my father." Undaunted, Professor 
X calls upon the next person. Student A says," Sorry, Professor. That is my 
mother."

Undaunted, Professor X says to Student A, "Is there no one in your family 
who knows anything about the law"?

John E. Finn
Wesleyan University
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:22:40 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <bhayden.722379271@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
> 
> >In my personal opinion though, I agree that states or the federal 
> >government have no right to intrude on the activities of two consenting
> >adults, whether hetero or homosexual.
> 
> I think you are mistaking what should be versus what is. It is 
> obvious that the states and federal government do have the right
> to intrude. Just look at the decision you are arguing about.
> What you are really saying is that your interpretation of the
> Constitution would lead to a different result. In this case
> might (or 5 justices) make right.
> 
> Bruce E. Hayden
> (303) 758-8400
> bhayden@csn.org

You obviously did not read my post clearly enough.  I said that I was in
agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.
They rightly ruled that they could find no where in the Constitution where it
stated that the right to homosexuality could not be abridged.  And, if I were
deciding the case, I would give the same decision if asked the same question.
However, personally I would not be able to support my decision, though in a
purely objective and legal standpoint, I would not be able to give a decision
other than that which was given.

--
"It takes a big man to cry.
but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
				Jack Handy


judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:04:38 GMT

In article <24066@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:

>O.K., it was my mistake in that I incorectly labeled Hardwick as the
>petitioner; he was the appellee.  However, my argument is still valid.

Uh, that was your smallest mistake. Your biggest was in supposing that
that the defendant didn't make the right-of-privacy argument you think
he should have made. Next time, try reading the brief before you start
making statements about it.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Shooting Gettingaway Carjackers Legal?
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:22:11 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting


Now that carjacking is a federal crime, I'm wondering about the
legality of shooting a carjacker as he drives away with his stolen car.
This question occurred to me when I realized that the best time to
shoot would be after the carjacker thinks he's succeeded. Most legal
cases I've heard about say that shooting a fleeing person is
essentially manslaughter or murder.

Speak Up, Net Lawyers!
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
GE knew there was lots of money to be made in the diagnostic medical
machine field since it was only a matter of time before people started
getting sick from the effects of all of GE's toxic and radioactive
waste dumping. I expect GE to get into the Mortuary business next.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:51:32 GMT

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:

>In article <By2t7H.3DF@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)  
>writes:
>> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> 
>> >I think [the Hardwick] decision was wrong.  What two consenting adults
>> >do in private is none of the government's business.
>> 
>> But that has nothing to do with what the court was asked to decide.

>Mr. Miller, I don't mean to insult your intelligence as a J.D...

You haven't, Mike, because...

>...the petitioner did not ask the right question.  He
>wanted the Court to rule that homosexuality is a Constitutional right,
>and the Court could not find any basis for this and ruled against him.

...restates my analysis exactly.  Good for you for understanding the
difference between the powers our government ought to have, and the
powers it is granted by the Constitution.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20032 misc.misc:3812
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc
Subject: Re: A Canadian Asks a Question
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:33:18 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov14.173056.12202@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
writes:
> Yes, but if the Liberal Party's electors are not the same as the
> Democratic Party's electors, then Clinton could conceivably get the
> plurality of votes in NY State, and not get any electoral votes if the
> Liberal party electors get a significant portion of the Clinton votes
> but don't get enough to win.

I think that's correct.  In a follow-up email, Doug posed the specific 
question,

> Suppose the popular vote goes as follows:
> 
>   29% for Liberal Electors    (Candidate Clinton) 
>   31% for Democratic Electors (Candidate Clinton) 
>   40% for Republican Electors (Candidate Bush)
> 
> Which slate of electors gets to vote?

I would have to assume the Republican electors get to vote: they won more 
votes than any other slate.  I suppose this could vary from state to state 
(the office of elector is a state, not federal, office), but I don't think it 
would.

I'm surprised that most states don't have a ballot requirement that a party 
may not place a candidate on the ballot who has already been placed by 
another party, i.e., a one party-per-candidate rule.  Perhaps some do; I've 
never looked into it.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:00:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.153839.4351@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.141632.11832@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>>In Bauer vs. Hardwick (about 1982 or '83) the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's
>>anti-sodomy law.  Mr. Hardwick was arrested in his bedroom (by a policeman who
>>had no warrant to enter) and charged with violating Georgia's sodomy law (along
>>with his partner).  The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court by the State
>>of Georgia and the supreme court ruled that even though the policeman had
>>invaded Mr. Hardwick's privacy, there were certain things that were so vile
>>and therefore prohibited by law (and the church) that privacy was not an
>>issue.

>I don't recall the Supreme Court using the word "vile" in their 
>opinion. The issue before the court was not whether or not 
>homosexuality is evil or whether or not prohibiting it was a
>good idea. The case raised the question of whether a state
>legislature would be allowed by the U.S. Constitution to proscribe 
>certain activities. Considering that the court has in recent
>years taken a very narrow view of any "privacy" rights we have
>and that they generally bend over backwards to uphold actions
>of the states. It is not that surprising (in retrospect -- I was
>pretty shocked at the time) that the court found for the state
>of Georgia. 

>This is not to say that personal biases of court members do not
>affect their opinions. I am quite sure that if two-thirds of
>the Supreme Court were gay, they would manage to find a fundamental 
>right that Georgia violated. And that if the case had arisen at
>an earlier date when homosexuality was almost universally
>considered a sin, the vote would have been nowhere near as close
>as it was.

>This still doesn't make it fair or accurate to say that the
>Supreme Court ruled that sodomy is vile.

I may have gotten a little carried away in describing their description.
I believe the kinds of words they did use were that since the general
public considered it an unsavory act, and since the bible and church
leaders were against it, who were they to approve?

It's interesting that you mention the "sin".  I thought the constitution
provided for separation of church and state.  It's interesting that the
Republicans think the government shouldn't interfere in business but it's
OK to interefere in bedrooms.  The Democrats think the bedroom is sanctuary
but the business world should toe the line.

Charlie


Xref: sparky misc.legal:20046 misc.legal.computing:2268
From: muddy@gatecom.UUCP (steven alexsy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Can someone explain UUC Filings?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 22:53:34 EST
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

> 
> >Can someone explain what a UCC filing is, and what rights it might give
> >to the person who files one?  I've noticed these on credit reports for
> >companies; the UCC is typically filed by someone who is leasing
> >equipment.
> 
> I think what you are asking about are UCC security interests. You
> can file what is essentially a lien (like the mortgage on your house)
> against personal property. In Colorado, the UCC filings are in the
> Secretary of State's office.
> 
> Just like a mortgage, one can do the equivalent of foreclose on
> UCC security interests. They are especially important if the party
> giving the security enters bankruptcy. At such a time, the party
> with the UCC interest is a secured party to the extent of the 
> value of the security.
> 
> >What I'm wondering is if the UCC has some general applicability as a
> >tool to enforce non-compliance clauses in a software development contract
> >(i.e., pertaining to the ownership of "soft" assets).  Or do UCCs only
> >apply to tangible assets like a copy machine?
> 
> Most of the time a UCC security interest is in hard assets like 
> physical inventory. However, I see nothing wrong with getting a lien
> against software. Note however, that at least some IP interests
> should be filed in the Copyright Office or the Patent and Trademark 
> Office. 
> 
> This is not a legal opinion.
> 
> Bruce Hayden
> bhayden@csn.org
In fact a security interest in software must be "perfected" by filing 
in the U.S. Copyright Office.
Article 9 of the UCC has a list of various categories of assets 
tangible and intangible.  Depending on what type of thing you are talking 
about i.e. what category the thing fits in will determine how you 
perfect your security interest in the asset.

This is a legal opinion.  But since it's free--please don't tell
my malpractice carrier.

Steven Alexsy.  May, Simpson and Strote, P.C. (313) 646-9500.
gatecom!muddy@netcom.com
From: tolleson@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Chuck Tolleson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: need info on marriage laws
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:55:14 GMT
Reply-To: tolleson@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Chuck Tolleson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tandem Computers; Austin TX
Originator: tolleson@viking

I need some help to settle a bet.  Some states allow marriages
between first cousins.  I contend that Texas is one of those 
states that allow this.  Does anyone know for sure?  If not 
Texas, then what states in the US do allow first cousins to
still marry without being zapped for incest?  Thanks for any
help, $20 rides on the answer.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
| Worship the sun! 	  Internet: tolleson@devnull.mpd.tandem.com     |
| Opinions are mine, all mine.  	So bugger off.			|
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american