100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I think trying to detail the elements of a stalking crime makes for a very challenging endeavor to try to balance individual rights vs a persons perceived safety. I just dont think its possible for a law to be effective in this way, and also not violate citizens rights. The only protection which is effective, and does not violate anyone rights is personal protection via being armed. That form of protection is only taken up when the attacker has already decided to violate your rights, his end where yours begin. No infringement, no trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with a stalker law, and then have ignorance of law removing the actual ability for it to deter. With all the negatives, I just cant see it being worth while for the limited potential for effectiveness, and this is probably why this has been swatted down time after time in that particular legislature. I think laws are never absolute and vary in minute to grandiose ways from case to case and detail to detail no singular absolute consequence deters 100 percent of the time, and that sums up what the 'negative' is for me but that doesnt give me pause about laws being in place to deter crime and set standards for what is and is not acceptable behavior in our society,,,, the country is pretty big, the states are decent sizes, and even in smaller cities,, the chances of two people who dont WANT to be in the same place consistently being in view of each other depends greatly on the actual EFFORT one or both are making to do so its not an imposition to ask someone to stay away from me, its actually easier than asking them to follow me around its not an imposition for the law to back up my request once its made either if there is a 'perception' of threat on my part |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I she had been trained to use a gun properly,none of your exceptions apply and he would have been shot and killed. knowing how to use a gun properly still doesnt erase the human ability to be caught off gaurd since there is no way of knowing HOW the shooting happened or what preperation or warning she had preceeding her death, there is no way to know if she would have had the 'opportunity' to use those skills or not... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
making something a felony (meaning the minimum usually served is usually a year, unlike a misdemeanor where a year is usually the max)
Do you agree that most people do not know the law? Do you agree that knowledge of the penalty is required for the penalty to be a deterrent?
is a deterrent the same way that some feel owning a gun is a deterrent,,,,when and if people weigh potential consequences of their actions, they sometimes reconsider and choose another path a journalist SHOULD be a stalker if they are following around someone who has taken the time to get a TRO that they STAY AWAY from them,,, being a journalist shouldn't give someone a pass to violate my space if not wanted anymore than a doctor has a pass to rape me the distance would be based upon frequency and seriousness of the 'threat' So I would think 100 yards would be excessive for a journalist anyplace close enough that I would have a flash in my face though,,,is too close for me for someone who had verbally threatened bodily harm or who had physically harmed me in the past,, a distance far enough to give me reasonable time to get to safety would be reasonable so 100 yards wouldnt be quite as excessive in that case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
Its funny to me you guys are arguing copyright when SOPA was not really about copyright laws, it is about the power to censor based on the POSSIBILITY of a copy right violation. No changes to copy right law itself was posed, only the power of IP holders to request sites be taken down that had POSSIBLE copyright violations, and the ability to take action against any sites which hosted links or material which could possibly have such violations. This preemptive enforcement policy would make it very risky to host ANY links to ANY material which could be used under fair use. Which would have "a chilling effect" on user generated content, fair use criticisms, and just about all of the various LEGAL ways to make use of copy righted materials. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. I didnt see 'possible' anywhere in the SOPA text,,, have you read the bill? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
Declining sales and loss of propaganda monopoly has the establishment media in a panic.
The last thing the elite want is for the sheeple to continue to have easy access to alternative sources of information.. And that is just a side effect they try to keep away from us... but instead of making use of the internet as a decent way to market your product (the music, the movie) at almost no marketing price (no burning, no packaging, no transport, no storage), they try to make us pay almost the same for a legal download product as we do for a physical... and after doing so, they rant about "Online Piracy". Stealing music IS a theft, but making the customer pay all the costs you don't even have is fraud... last I checked, online downloads run as low as ninety nine cents, and purchase of cds on amazon cost half or less of what a physical cd at a store does,,so Im not sure about this statement at all if someone else produces it, noone should have the right to just 'Take' it,,, even college doesnt allow us to do that, why should media? I am sure that you recall the days of radios with tape players that allowed you to copy songs being played over the air. If you had a dual tape deck you could buy a tape and copy it as many times as you wanted.. Again.. I don't recall anyone being sued to stop producing radios with dual tape decks.. I go and buy a car.. Can I be sued if I let someone borrow it because the rights of the technology always belong to the manufacturer? I think not.. This is a power grab by the entertainment and media conglomerates pure and simple. They want a monopoly on distribution of information. Period. the problem with that analoty is, even in copying a tape, you need a physical medium to do so (other tapes)) and I doubt anyone would have the resources to buy hundreds and thousands of 'tapes' just to give away music to complete strangers cyber media allows one to truly pay for a thing once and then pass it out at no cost to themself or anyone else hundreds,thousands, and even millions of times,,, if you let someone use your car, that is again ONE driver per car, the driver may switch but the use was paid for once because it is ONE car being driven(whomever the driver is) duplicating a car by chrysler and passing it out randomly to hundreds and thousands of users,, would cause an issue with Chrysler for sure,,, The analogy I used is perfect. I can buy a car and I can loan the car and I can sell the car without being considered a pirate. I can buy a DVD and if I loan it or sell it I am considered a pirate. That is their interpretation of copyright infringement.. Their entire argument is based on the idea that someone offering something to someone else takes away earning potential.Instead of a free copy they would have to go out and buy it.. I can give my car to a charity am I a pirate since my giving it for free takes away the possibility that the charity would otherwise have to go out and purchase the car from the manufacturer? Your argument of its only one person or one car doesn't fit because they can sue for downloading 1 song or movie without paying for it. no,, loaning and even selling (trading of ownership) of a product is not the same as REPRODUCTION of a product you can buy a car and RESELL it (transfer the ownership) you can buy a cd and sell it (transfer the ownership) you can even buy a movie and sell it (transfer the ownership) in all those cases, you bought the product and then you use that ONE product that you own the way you wish to use it, or let someone else use it if you REPRODUCE the product though, you are now using the product you own and allowing others to have a product they DONT own and have no permission to have,,,,while you continue to own and use the copy you paid for,,,, ,,,thats the difference Here is why you are wrong.. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUPAP KIRTSAENG, doing business as BLUECHRISTINE99, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 34 August Term, 2010 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Donald C. Pogue, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation), following a jury trial, awarding statutory damages to plaintiff publisher for copyright infringement. Defendant claims on appeal that the District Court denied him a defense under the “first sale doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), and erred in evidentiary rulings which, he alleges, led to the award of unduly high damages. In a case of first impression in our Court, we hold (1) that the first sale doctrine,which allows a person who buys a legally produced copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the work as he sees fit, does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States, and (2) that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. Affirmed. https://www.eff.org/files/Wiley-v-Kirtsaeng_2ndCir_8-15-11.pdf/ Based on this ruling.. Anything made outside the United States CANNOT be resold by using the first sale doctrine.. Therefore, since my car was made outside of the United States I could be sued for illegally selling the car. a car is not a 'copyrighted' product, so thats an irrelevant comparison people sale their NOT MADE IN AMERICA cars all the time, Im sure you wont find a case of anyone being sued for it,, we also have SOME countries which we have copyright agreements with and others we dont, which would make the issue of an INTERNATIONAL type situation become something that was case by case and country by country Each car manufacturer has copyrighted software that controls the electrical and electronic components of every car they build. and IM sure that software is protected by copyright laws,, the physical components however, would be protected by patents... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... "It will get over turned because they aleady verify you are a registered voter when you walk in to the voter booth. So it isn't needed." -------------------------- The bank verifies that I am a registered account holder EVERY time I use the account. I want them to ask for my ID when I step to the booth. It means the next person in the door also has the right to vote. If you got here by breaking my laws... I sure don't want you voteing for anything... As long as the states are asking for a State ID and not a Federal one the Feds have no business interferring. It is a 'reserving' by the state for its people and so exempt from federal interference. its called the 10th. States Rights. I think it DOES vary by state. But more and more states have bought into the most recent fear tactics and began to switch from no id requirement to a mandate. How is it fear tactics when all they are doing is requiring you to prove who you are? Sure it my not put an end to voter fraud, but it will stop some of it. And if you think there is no voter fraud think again. Like I have said before, if there is 1 case of voter fraud that take away 1 legitimate vote. And that 1 persons rights had been infringed upon. I consider it fear tactics because the elevated alarm doesnt correlate with any actual FACTS indicating that voter fraud is anymore serious a problem now than it ever was or that ids will solve or even diminish said problem.... its just more of the usual "'those folks' are trying to attack american values,,,,," sensationalism used every election cycle to invoke people and distract them from real issues,,,in my opinion and its kind of sad,,, So if it will solvenothing and it's not a big enough issue to worry about then why is the DOJ getting involved and trying to stop states from passing voter ID laws? And don't give me the line that it disenfranchises certain ethnic groups because there is no proof of that either. maybe to disrupt the effects of the fear being sold,,,,, first mandatory id at voting booths,, next mandatory id at all times? fear can grow into an ugly monster if left unchecked.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
See? And concidents like these made life (and evolution, if you ask me) possible... ;) I agree with that. Science and Creation go together, because the designer created the science that humans constantly try to understand and the features which help living things adapt which some scientists want to believe are just coincidental. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 08:49 AM
|
|
Dragoness said... "It will get over turned because they aleady verify you are a registered voter when you walk in to the voter booth. So it isn't needed." -------------------------- The bank verifies that I am a registered account holder EVERY time I use the account. I want them to ask for my ID when I step to the booth. It means the next person in the door also has the right to vote. If you got here by breaking my laws... I sure don't want you voteing for anything... As long as the states are asking for a State ID and not a Federal one the Feds have no business interferring. It is a 'reserving' by the state for its people and so exempt from federal interference. its called the 10th. States Rights. I think it DOES vary by state. But more and more states have bought into the most recent fear tactics and began to switch from no id requirement to a mandate. There is another way to look at it (than buying the fear). There ARE more criminal entrants into the US than were in the past... so states that did not need to worry about them are now 'adjusting' to the numbers. Not fear... rather a facing of reality. where can I find information on this rising number of 'criminal entrants'? (actual documented numbers, not commentaries or opinion pieces) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She should have had a gun and been trained how to use it. hard to shoot if not given a chance to aim,,,it would have been no guarantee but it would be justified if she had made that choice as long as she was responsible enough to keep it away from where the children could harm themself or others,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 08:36 AM
|
|
Dragoness said... "It will get over turned because they aleady verify you are a registered voter when you walk in to the voter booth. So it isn't needed." -------------------------- The bank verifies that I am a registered account holder EVERY time I use the account. I want them to ask for my ID when I step to the booth. It means the next person in the door also has the right to vote. If you got here by breaking my laws... I sure don't want you voteing for anything... As long as the states are asking for a State ID and not a Federal one the Feds have no business interferring. It is a 'reserving' by the state for its people and so exempt from federal interference. its called the 10th. States Rights. I think it DOES vary by state. But more and more states have bought into the most recent fear tactics and began to switch from no id requirement to a mandate. How is it fear tactics when all they are doing is requiring you to prove who you are? Sure it my not put an end to voter fraud, but it will stop some of it. And if you think there is no voter fraud think again. Like I have said before, if there is 1 case of voter fraud that take away 1 legitimate vote. And that 1 persons rights had been infringed upon. I consider it fear tactics because the elevated alarm doesnt correlate with any actual FACTS indicating that voter fraud is anymore serious a problem now than it ever was or that ids will solve or even diminish said problem.... its just more of the usual "'those folks' are trying to attack american values,,,,," sensationalism used every election cycle to invoke people and distract them from real issues,,,in my opinion and its kind of sad,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Inter racial dating
|
|
The term interracial applies to many cultures. More commonly known as IR... My family is quite diverse and an argument can be made for the strong and weak relationships between all concerned, which have spawned generations of mixed race children. I date black women, just not ugly ones. I'd tear that *** up too! Asian women actually marry more white men than white women marry black men. White women have an issue with latinos because many are Mexican and have limited education. They don't even bother to date them because Mexican men are rumored to be traditional. I'm Spanish-Portuguese btw, but I actually know more about black culture and history than most because I read more and interact with many black folks. If your just looking to date and shag a white woman don't play up your culture. Just play some Rick James and tell them what a wonderful relationship he had with Teena Marie because it was audio-centric. Women buy into black men because: a. they think black men are a fix. b. they want to be excessively complimented. c. they think there is something disarming about the physicality of the black male. d. they wish to set a pattern of self destruction. They only issue is within the minds of the persons dating. Mating is a virtual given. So why would someone date out of their race? ..because they are attracted to or interested in or enjoy the company of someone who happens to not be of their race,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but nothing will stop all murder everywhere,,people will continue to murder regardless of laws but that doesnt mean laws and other deterrents arent necessary to minimize those potential numbers Ok . . this is stating the obvious. I do not see how this is answering the questions central to this threads OP.
In what way does making stalking laws felonies influence murders. How can law enforcement determine if a stalker is a stalker and not just a citizen driving around with a camera, would journalist be stalkers with possible felony violations for waiting around to get a picture? What are the ramifications of these kinds of laws, and would they really be a deterrent. Would a stalker even know about these laws prior to being convicted? If not how would that be a deterrent? The real questions are much harder to answer than the obvious ones . . . yet, IM still gonna take a shot,,lol I Wasnt answering the OP, I Was responding to this statement "So making a felony of stalking is going to prevent murder?" a stalker, is kind of like a rapist, its determined when the victim says its unwanted and files the charges/complaint making something a felony (meaning the minimum usually served is usually a year, unlike a misdemeanor where a year is usually the max) is a deterrent the same way that some feel owning a gun is a deterrent,,,,when and if people weigh potential consequences of their actions, they sometimes reconsider and choose another path a journalist SHOULD be a stalker if they are following around someone who has taken the time to get a TRO that they STAY AWAY from them,,, being a journalist shouldnt give someone a pass to violate my space if not wanted anymore than a doctor has a pass to rape me a stalker convicted of stalking would no doubt be explained their rights and the consequences of violations along with what constitutes violations and this could very well deter them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spell check is not letting me correct that spelling. UGH. This is a serious question. Let's say you are dating this amazing person. They are smart and funny and great in bed BUT they have to tendency to go off on really depressed negative rants. I mean no matter how good the sex or dinner or whatever, they go back to some negative. Is that grounds to break up with them? I mean we all have something in our lives, some more serious than other, that we can choose to dwell on and be negative about. Some real, some imagined. I mean when I was a teenager, I was so lame I felt bad for myself because I didn't look like Christie Brinkley (showing my age). But really I feel like no matter what happens, you have to try very hard to put a positive spin on things. I find it very hard to live with people who dwell on the negative. But is it grounds to leave someone? I mean I try so hard my sister's boyfriend went to prison for murder so I asked my friend who knows a lot about law, etc. about his charges and said, "Please put a positive spin on that for me" (this is just an example). He read the charges and it clearly stated it was a crime of passion and not pre-meditated. He did not plan to and kill someone that day. Now I know that may sound horrible but my friend who did that for me really put my mind at ease that is if my sister had to be with this person at least he wasn't a cold blooded calculated killer. And I rely a lot on this particular friend because he is so good at putting a positive spin on things, he helps me a lot in life (no not someone I would date). thats a pretty subjective matter for me, a relationship is two people working together sometimes one is growing and maturing faster than the other, and thats when the two have to work a bit harder to maintain some common ground that being said, If it was a marital commitment, leaving would be the last option I would try....I would personally make the attempt at a middle ground and see if the person was willing to meet me halfway in trying to deal with and move past whatever was causing their negativity if they insisted upon remaining negative and not TRYING to grow past it , than I would leave to save my own emotional health (even if it was just a seperation to give them time to get themself together without the distraction of a relationship) in a dating situation, all bets are off, Im getting too old to waste alot of time that I dont have to waste on things that are so sure to drain my life force instead of adding to my life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing prevents murder, humans have murdered since the beginning of their existence Self defense does. When the murderer is dead or held at gun point, he/she finds it very hard to complete the crime. Same goes for rape, robbery and well every other freaking crime imaginable. that prevents SOME murders sometimes,, so does the deterrent of jail but nothing will stop all murder everywhere,,people will continue to murder regardless of laws but that doesnt mean laws and other deterrents arent necessary to minimize those potential numbers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness said... "It will get over turned because they aleady verify you are a registered voter when you walk in to the voter booth. So it isn't needed." -------------------------- The bank verifies that I am a registered account holder EVERY time I use the account. I want them to ask for my ID when I step to the booth. It means the next person in the door also has the right to vote. If you got here by breaking my laws... I sure don't want you voteing for anything... As long as the states are asking for a State ID and not a Federal one the Feds have no business interferring. It is a 'reserving' by the state for its people and so exempt from federal interference. its called the 10th. States Rights. I think it DOES vary by state. But more and more states have bought into the most recent fear tactics and began to switch from no id requirement to a mandate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, it makes the most sense... you have to have an ID for everything else, including a stinking library card, but not to elect our leaders? why are all you libs so against this? sounds like yall are scared of losing an election, by having the election running fairly. but you dont have to have id to check out a book, ONCE you have a library card its the same concept behind registration for voting, many places send you a voting card (like having a library card) and thats all you need to go vote,,NOT an id |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Marrage
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 03/15/12 01:58 AM
|
|
Hi everyone, my name is Daniel and i am engaged to "Purplecat" (Kelly Thomas). i love her very much. My question is? Is Marrage okay in this day and age? why wouldnt it be ok? do you mean morally? or are you talking about in terms of its safety, so to speak.....? I Think marriage is perfectly ok morally I think its in trouble as a a family and community foundation socially |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Just wondering......about
|
|
Oh, cars and technics used in them are not copyrighted? I bet the people at General Motors, Mitsubishi, BMW and Volkswagen would hate to hear that... let alone the people at Apple and HTC, when it comes to cell phones. I should go and find another field to make money in ASAP. Intellectual property doesn't end with music, movies and books, you know... that's just the part Jane Doe notices most. And the reports on that topic may be exaggerated, but I know at least one company in the U.S. that cares about IP matters abroad enough to hire a pretty expensive lawyer from Germany (me *curtsy*) to take care of such matters in Europe, let alone in areas like Asia - here in Europe, we just LOVE chinese fotographers on any kind of trade fair, knowing we will soon see the works of our R&D departments coming back to us from there... R&D is essential for many branches, and taking a picture is WAY cheaper than developing the stuff yourself, you know!? I won't even go far enough to point out the Echelon installations all over the world... car parts (or at least their blueprints) are probably 'patented',,,, not 'copyrighted' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fascination
|
|
how people can be so different and still so much alike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think the kid was just telling the truth, even tho i feel it was in poor taste on his part. the British police are taking this to far, because they are saying people shouldn't have their own opinion. No wonder we kicked their ***** out and sent them packing. its not so much about having an opinion, so much as the manner and tone and PLACE in which the opinion is expressed I can , for instance, think a us president is dumb I can say to my friends I think he is dumb in the US , I can probably post on the internet that I think he is dumb I could not stand in the middle of a fourth of july white house celebration shouting 'the President is an idiot, why are you listening to him, if you listen to him you deserve,,,,etc,,etc,,etc,,' the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace than they become much more serious than just an 'opinion' i would disagree with that... i hear of more and more people getting in trouble over facebook posting than anything else nowadays. To say our MIC is an idiot is an opinion, nothing else. and no one is saying you have to agree or disagree with the statement, same with facebook postings. just like i get upset with people bashing jews, it is just my opinion and that is where it ends. these British leaders are scared of losing control, so they try to edit out what they don't like. just like when bush was in office and he tried to control what people were saying about the iraqi war, he was scared of losing control then too. the government is for the people, not the other way around. Just like the article was saying, what freedoms in our home countries are they protecting in Afghanistan and Iraq? well, I dont consider our current president anything close to an idiot, but Im sure others do and thats their opinion I dont know of any trouble people can legally get in over facebook unless its a matter of libel or copyright an opinion becomes something more when it is expressed in a manner that 'incites' or encourages violence or disturbs the safe or peaceful environment of others its not having opinions thats the issue, it is how we carry ourself, how we impact upon the lives of others, (And where we carry ourself) while we express those opinions,,, "the expression of opinions sometimes imposes u[on other peoples space , time, safety, and obstruct the peace" that seems to be an opinion also... did this teen cause or do any of that? ID say, he could impact upon others safety by posting that all soldiers should die,,,, not saying he WILL, but I admire the attempts to use preventive measure as opposed to reactionary measures after the damage is done that is just an excuse... "could" could mean a lot of things... people have been crucified because of the word "could"... anything can be abused, any existing law can be abused, and sometimes will be but preventative measures are still far more admirable than they are risky, in my opinion |
|
|
|
|
Previous
