HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Shooting Gettingaway Carjackers Legal?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:03:12 GMT


In article <1992Nov21.002211.27696@netcom.com>, 
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) said:

> 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.

First of all, I don't believe that the "federalization" of the crime
has any effect on the matter; it's still all controlled by the local
(that is, state) laws regarding the use of deadly force, justifiable
homicide, etc.

Secondly, laws can and do vary, sometimes a _lot_, from state to state.

Thirdly, within a given state the laws might vary depending upon the
status of the shooter, especially whether the person is a civilian or
a (presumably) trained law enforcement officer.

Given all that, my general **GUESS** (this is NOT an official legal
opinion or advice!) is that for most people in most states you're
justified in shooting at a fleeing person who presents no immediate
threat to you or other bystanders only in an incredibly narrow field
of circumstances... basically, you have to have **damned good** reason
to believe that the fleeing person intends to cause, and is capable of
causing, serious injury or death to another person if he is not
stopped immediately.  This is not the sort of thing that comes up in
most carjacking situations.

(Of course, I'm only talking about the technical legal side of
things... in practice, a district attorney has wide discretion in
deciding whether to prosecute, and, of course, the defendant in a
criminal case has the right to a trial by a jury which might be more
interested in pinning a medal on him than in convicting him.  (And,
equally of course, non-prosecution or non-conviction on criminal
charges would not shelter the shooter at all from a wrongful death
civil lawsuit brought against him by the shootee's family...))

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Rapists should not be executed
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:39:47 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

Before you flame, read on.

A rapist is usually after one thing, and that is to rape a woman
(or man).  Then, if he gets caught, which is not very frequent since
many women chose not to testify, he will get a few years sentence
maximum.  However, what if he were given a much harsher sentence, such
as life imprisonment or the death penalty?  If rapists knew that they
may face the death penalty for such a crime, what would make them not
want to kill the only witness?  The death penalty is only used in
murder convictions.  Thus, if rape and murder are given the same
sentence, why would the rapist decide to not murder the victim?  Thus,
For the protection of rape victims, rapists should not be given overly
harsh sentences.

Comments?  Flames?

--
"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: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Dead Candidates
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:54:34 GMT

In <14NOV199211025495@utkvx2.utk.edu> dchatham@utkvx2.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.020431.4627@wdl.loral.com>, mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes...
>>In article <1992Nov9.122950.44551@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> bryan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>Since we're on the subject of dead candidates...

>>Now suppose that Clinton, Gore, the Speaker and the PPT are all killed
>>on Christmas day.  In that case we have a major Constuitional Crises, because
>>on inaguration day the old cabnet is disolved and the new cabnet is not 
>>officially in office, so that is no one left in the succession, OOPS.

>	Since the new Congress meets in early January, and George Bush keeps
>his office until Inauguration Day, the Congress has time to elect a new
>Speaker and PPT, so there will be persons in the line of succession, if the
>above scenario happens.

Suppose Clinton, Gore, the new Speaker and the new PPT are all killed on
January 21st, i.e. after inauguration day, but before the new cabinet has
been confirmed by the Senate.  Then who succeeds?

--
Hans Mulder				hansm@cs.kun.nl
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: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:18:49 EST

In article <QLF=Ak+@engin.umich.edu>, hpang@engin.umich.edu (Ho Sun Pang) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.202124.9141@newstand.syr.edu> alvin@top.cis.syr.edu (Alvin Leung) writes:
|> > 
|> > [a little tutorial about Fourier series deleted]
|> >
|> 
|> But still this is quite useless since the guy is probably playing CD or
|> cassette tape (LP is too out of line as of 1992!).
|> 
|> Any *practical* idea?
|> 
|> 

Call the police.  You pay for them. It is about time they do some work for you.

Alvin

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

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

aleung@mailbox.syr.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:16:12 EST
From: <SIMCOEE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject:    Microsoft and Anti-trust

I am writing a paper on anti-compettive practices in the computer
industry. Specifically, I am examining the practice of "bundling"
an operating system with the sale of a new personal computer.
Does anyone have install-base numbers (or market share percentages)
for Windows vs. OS/2?
I am also examining the practice of selling a "suite" of programs
(eg. Lotus SmartSuite, Microsoft Office) and its effects on the
marketplace.  Does anyone have any good anti-trust points to add with
respect to these (or other) tied selling practices?

Please reply by e-mail.  Thank you.  Elliott Simcoe
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20015 soc.culture.hongkong:14466
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
From: David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:38:21 EST
Organization: Hidden - I don't speak for them...

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...

You could also check alt.radio.pirate for other ideas.

   - David
(I don't advocate any illegal acts, just suggesting them for discussion).
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:12:51 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <24071@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) 
writes:
> My source is taken from the opinion of the Court.  Here is how the opinion
> started:
> 
> "The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a
> fundamental right upon homosexuality to engage in sodomy and hence 
> invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct
> illegal and have done so for a very long time."
> 
> Further on, he continues:
> 
> "Respondent would have us announce a fundamental right to engage in 
> homosexual sodomy."

This is the words of the majority, not of Hardwick.  If someone used this 
logic on usenet, he'd be flamed for attacking a straw man.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Keywords: _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:19:17 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <19394@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
writes:
> >Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  [Ted Frank]
> 
> We have it from Justice William Douglas's opinion for the U. S. 
> Supreme Court in _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942),
> that legislation taking away the right to procreate affects
> "one of the basic civil rights of man," because marriage and
> procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival
> of the race.

Yes, but notice Douglas' reference is to "marriage and procreation", not to 
"no marriage and procreation" or to "marriage and sex without procreation".  
Given that, this comment (which is not in itself a statement of law, just a 
supporting argument) might not be interpreted as saying a state may not ban 
consensual sex, particularly in certain circumstances (e.g., unmarried).

I think Griswold and subsequent cases are more supportive.

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: ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman)
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:45:49 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.200443.14525@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
># Rape is grevious injury.  Hence, is not deadly force directed against an
># attacker while htey are attempting rape permitted throughout the US?

>It should be, but there are a lot of people in America (liberals)
>who seem to think that rape is preferable to dead rapists.

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.
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Who's monstrous?
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:57:05 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <13246@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>eyes to what sick, screwed up, depraved people homosexuals are.

	I've stared at this for days, and I know this isn't really
the forum for this, but I have to say that I haven't noticed any 
difference as far as screwed-up-ness and depravity betwen my straight
friends and my gay friends...  Clayton, this Mission from God of yours
gets really old after a couple of years...  Why don't you take the time
to make friends with someone of the "wrong" sexual preference and find out
that they're just like you?

	We now return you to your regularly scheduled...discusssion... :-)

						"I mean, it was good enough
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: janet@ntmtv.UUCP (Janet Jakstys)
Subject: Date of Separation
Organization: Northern Telecom Incorporated
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:59:55 GMT

I'm a new reader of this newsgroup so please excuse me if this question
should not really be posted here.

About 5 months ago I separated from my husband.  I will be filing for
divorce around the first of the new year.  My question is what date
is the date of separation...legally?  I left 5 months ago, but since
I haven't filed, am I legally separated yet?

I ask this question in regards to another related subject and that is
I need to buy a car soon, but if I buy it now, is it considered 
community property since I'm not legally separated yet or divorced yet?
BYW...my residence is in California.

Thanks for any and all help.
-- 
**********************************************************************
Janet Jakstys         UUCP:{ames,pyramid!amdahl,hplabs}!ntmtv!janet
Northern Telecom      INTERNET:ntmtv!janet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Mtn. View, CA.

**********************************************************************
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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

}My source is taken from the opinion of the Court.  Here is how the opinion
}started:

}"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a
}fundamental right upon homosexuality to engage in sodomy and hence 
}invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct
}illegal and have done so for a very long time."

}Further on, he continues:

}"Respondent would have us announce a fundamental right to engage in 
}homosexual sodomy."

}Is that evidence enough to show that Hardwick was claiming a fundamental
}right to homosexuality?  

Well, others have already pointed out that this opinion is not an accurate
summary of the brief, but I don't even see that this opinion supports your
contention.  You say that Hardwick "was claiming a fundamental right to
homosexuality", and the opinion clearly refers to homosexual *acts*.  Even
I can see a big difference between a right to be a homosexual and a right
to engage in homosexual acts.  It's kind of like the difference between the
right to think about murdering someone and the right to murder someone.

--James Preston
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Nelson trial documentary
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:28:22 GMT

This Monday (23 NOV 92) at 9:30 pm New York One and Court TV will
have a special on the trial of Lemrick Nelson, including interviews
with trial participants.  Promotional spots hyped "why the jury
acquitted" as the focus of the program.

I'll be taping this and will find out what Court TV's position is
on lending the tape to folks whose cable service doesn't offer
Court TV.

Ordinarily I don't think much of media trial coverage.  But, I watch
Court TV from time-to-time and find it to be above average as a source
of legal information.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: HELP. ACCUSED OF FELONY. ASK FOR JURY TRIAL.
Keywords: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:07:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov22.010718.28050
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

Why don't you have your attorney handle this?  You are not thinking of
defending a drunk driving case in front of a jury without having an
attorney, are you?

--Tim Smith
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Keywords: _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <5au1021m2cx001@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <19394@smoke.brl.mil>, matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:
>> >Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?  [Ted Frank]
>> 
>> We have it from Justice William Douglas's opinion for the U. S. 
>> Supreme Court in _Skinner v. Oklahoma_, 316 U.S. 535 (1942),
>> that legislation taking away the right to procreate affects
>> "one of the basic civil rights of man," because marriage and
>> procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival
>> of the race.
>
>Yes, but notice Douglas' reference is to "marriage and procreation", not to 
>"no marriage and procreation" or to "marriage and sex without procreation".  
>Given that, this comment (which is not in itself a statement of law, just a 
>supporting argument) might not be interpreted as saying a state may not ban 
>consensual sex, particularly in certain circumstances (e.g., unmarried).
>
>I think Griswold and subsequent cases are more supportive.

Yes, but Griswold relies on a reading of the Constitution that we have been
told is _verboten_.  I'm looking for a constitutional right to heterosexual
sex in the text of the Constitution, just as those supporting the Hardwick
decision claim that the decision is correct because there's nothing 
specifically in the Constitution supporting oral sex between consenting
adults.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal,justice.usa,misc.headlines,sc.general,alt.activism
From: hpang@engin.umich.edu (Ho Sun Pang)
Subject: Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:46:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov18.021146.13539@news.acns.nwu.edu> daikit@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daisuke Kitamura) writes:
>LP's may be fading out, but when you reach the top end of both, CD's will
>never reproduce the sound as brilliaintly as a record player! 
>

I heard many experts and well-experienced Hi-Fi fans said that as well.
Unfortunately, to most laymen and the people who can't afford buying very
expensive Hi-Fis, CD is the best alternative in getting thrilling playbacks.

(I've heard people spent like HK$20000 just for a record-player's playing
 pin-head, that's pretty impressive!)

- Louis





Xref: sparky misc.legal:20014 alt.folklore.urban:28712
From: rhadden@isdres.er.usgs.gov
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: RE: Supreme Ct. Insurance non-ruling
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:58:29 GMT
Organization: U.S. Geological Survey

The quote was heard by me from a newscast from Detroit, at least two years
ago. The man interviewed was obviously impaired, but the quote was too good to be
passed up by the TV crew. It was s a street interview about the S&L mess.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: 4 Q's: Deadly Self-Defense Against Rape
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:31:15 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov18.194549.7488@socrates.umd.edu>, ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov13.200443.14525@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
# ## Rape is grevious injury.  Hence, is not deadly force directed against an
# ## attacker while htey are attempting rape permitted throughout the US?
# 
# #It should be, but there are a lot of people in America (liberals)
# #who seem to think that rape is preferable to dead rapists.
# 
# 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...

They certainly are.  The United Marxist^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMethodist
Church in particular is noted for being extremely liberal.  Haven't
they even ordained homosexuals as ministers?  Not surprisingly,
the UMC supports a wide variety of governmental power expansion
programs.

# 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.

Of course.  You've just defined liberalism perfectly: no touch with
reality, but full of good intentions.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:20049 alt.politics.elections:23997 alt.politics.clinton:17322
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Censoring information , Is it possible tomorrow?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:07:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (william e raftery) says:

>In article <1992Nov10.020925.22734@irscscm.UUCP> rshwake@irscscm.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:
>>In article <Bx769K.2tG@intcorp.mn.org> jdf@intcorp.mn.org (Joel D. Flatt) writes:
>>>What about Hawaii and Alaska?  How about not counting ANY ballots until 
>>>the day after the election?  
>>
>>	Here's another alternative: Two-day voting (Saturday thru Sunday).
>>	This avoids the pre-work after-work crush at the polling place
>>	resulting from workday voting; it provides plenty of opportunity for
>>	west coasters (including those in Alaska and Hawaii) to get their
>>	votes in before east coast counting begins; it even avoids the
>>	Sabbath problem that might be present if only one weekend voting
>>	day were provided. 
>>
>>	Costs might be somewhat higher, but most of those manning the booths
>>	are volunteers anyway. 
>
>
>	This is my first time posting here or anywhere for that manner, so
>please bear with me. Wouldn't there need to be a constituional amendment to
>change the day of voting. I don't have a copy of the Constituion handy, but
>I seem to remember that the second Tuesday in November is in there
>somewhere. Besides, even if this happened, we would still have the problem
>of the media making projections with only 2% of the vote in, or worse, with
>0% of the vote in and projections via exit polls. The Federal Election
>Commission can't exactlly tell them to not project for fear  of having a
>"First Amendment-fight-for-your-right-to-project" bloodbath. About the only
>thing that can be done, short of killing all pollsters (an idea perhaps
>
No, the Constitution merely empowers the Congress to set the day for
federal elections, and specifies that it must be a uniform date throughout
the country.
 
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: A Canadian Asks a Question
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.182520.9646@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:

>Could we please have a clarification from a New York registered voter?  
>
>Were there indeed multiple switches for Clinton/Gore and for Bush/Quayle?

They appeared on multiple lines.  I don't know whether the set of
electors was the same.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: AZ7408A@auvm.american.edu (Aimee J. Zeltzer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Actual lawyers on this group?
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:09:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: auvm.92322.040908AZ7408A
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

Does anyone have any ideas of what one can do with a law degree besides practic
e law?  Is there anyone in California who is hiring a law clerk?  I am thinking
of moving to L.A. for my last semester, as I cannot stand to be in D.C. another
semester.  I am looking for work as a research assistant, telephone receptionis
t, or any other non-detail oriented employment..
Newsgroups: misc.legal