|
Alchenar posted:something the Yorker really buries in that piece is the I AM EVIL I KILLED THEM confession note they found in her house which kinda seals the deal on whether she did it. quote:In an interview two days later, an officer asked why one of her notes had the word “hate” in bold letters, circled. “What’s the significance of that?” Frankly its pretty understandable watching half a dozen babies die, then being accused of killing them will probably drive anyone insane.
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
False confessions are extremely common, for a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Frankly its pretty understandable watching half a dozen babies die, then being accused of killing them will probably drive anyone insane. Funnily enough an Australian woman just had her conviction vacated based on new medical evidence. Almost identical diary entries had been found and were heavily influential in her conviction except whoops, it was "depression from four dead babies" talking. It's honestly a super hosed and depressing case.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 14:06
|
|
|
Also, UK lawyers. Why are y'all letting 10-1 jury convictions be allowed? Non unanimous juries are bullshit and should be undone.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Frankly its pretty understandable watching half a dozen babies die, then being accused of killing them will probably drive anyone insane. Nope those 8 words sealed the deal. No explanation necessary. No need to know how the babies died or what the circumstances are at that hospital. Don’t even need the other words written on the same piece of paper.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
https://falseconfessions.org/fact-sheet/ posted:In about 30% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. It's US data and most are because of police coercion, but false confessions happen all the time for many reasons, including mental illness. After having several neonatal babies die in a short period as a young nurse and the lovely pediatricians make up medically impossible diagnoses to pin the blame on you, PTSD, depression and anxiety is almost sure to happen. Bad poo poo happens in good hospitals, not every patient can be saved. This is especially true with infants in a NICU because they're literally not done growing and have no immune systems, among other factors. Everything reported shows this was not a good hospital, so deaths will occur. vvvv yep, hosed up it lasted in a couple states that long, too Slaan fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Also, UK lawyers. Why are y'all letting 10-1 jury convictions be allowed? Non unanimous juries are bullshit and should be undone. Non-unanimous criminal juries were only banned (mostly) in the US in 2020 by a 6-3 SupCt decision.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
statistical evidence is not trustworthy enough to convict people mentally unwell people cannot be trusted to testify honestly forced/false confessions are common cops making poo poo up/exploiting situations for personal gain rather than any pursuit of justice doctors/experts are often wrong doctors/experts can see an answer to a question and then get blinded trying to prove that answer correct rather than answer the question itself etc
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
I'm loving these replies from this Attorney to the LAPD attempting to DMCA someone who sells "gently caress the LAPD" merch. Shot: https://bsky.app/profile/cola.baby/post/3kqgp557dhg2d   Chaser: https://bsky.app/profile/cola.baby/post/3ksffq2k5kb22    
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
This Mike Dunford, PhD seems like a pretty good dude.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
So was there an end result?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
7/12 should be enough for a criminal conviction. 2/12 should be enough for a civil judgment, if there really wasn’t any liability it should be trivial to get 0/12.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So was there an end result? Not that i've found yet.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So was there an end result? They would have probably insisted that it not be disclosed that they had to pay this Now I want to make a bunch of fake merch to troll police departments Is that illegal?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
parody is a legal exception to copyright, trademark only applies where there's the potential for confusion by customers, and cops are the government and you get to be critical of the government but I imagine it's possible you could break a law if you try hard enough so I doubt any lawyers here are gonna tell you carte blanche that whatever you have in mind is totally fine iinal
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:parody is a legal exception to copyright, trademark only applies where there's the potential for confusion by customers, and cops are the government and you get to be critical of the government Also, trademark has its own fair use exceptions, in particular for nominative fair use - when you use a mark not as a source identifier for your product, but rather to refer to the trademarked item itself.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:So was there an end result? https://twitter.com/colachicago/status/1786401825920278978 And I'm sure the good doctor's first letter was to his client and was to the effect of, "holy poo poo, shut down your etsy or whatever RIGHT THE gently caress NOW because while the LAPD is full of poo poo, the Lakers absolutely will not be."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
joat mon posted:https://twitter.com/colachicago/status/1786401825920278978 https://www.thecolacorporation.com/collections/relaxed-fit-tees/products/adidas-uzi?variant=47849584099635 i dont think they care
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
A pardoned murderer is still legally a murderer, right? Pardon doesn't take away all of the found facts by the jury that someone is a cold blooded psychopath.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:10
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:A pardoned murderer is still legally a murderer, right? Interesting question technically I think. Murder is generally defined as unlawful homicide. If you're pardoned, it was arguably a lawful homicide. If you mean that murderer that abbot just pardoned tho gently caress that guy
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
You can still call them a convicted murderer even after the pardon, sure, because they were convicted of murder
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
I've been thinking a lot about what's going to happen next time people see a known murderer driving at their protest. Part of that is the question of whether he is still a "known murderer"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:A pardoned murderer is still legally a murderer, right? A pardoned murderer has still been found guilty of murder. An unconditional pardon in Texas "serves to release the grantee from the conditions of his or her sentence and from any disabilities imposed by law thereby." The pardon also authorizes the grantee to ask to have their record expunged. But they were still found guilty of murder.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Interesting question technically I think. Murder is generally defined as unlawful homicide. If you're pardoned, it was arguably a lawful homicide. I'd love to see the argument for why it would be arguably lawful. To my mind, under the assumption that a pardon works like our prosecutorial waivers and pardons, a pardon is a thing that is offered to someone who is indicted in a crime the prosecutor is convinced they are guilty of (waiver) or someone convicted of a crime (pardon) that establishes the question of guilt but waives any punishment. The offer can be declined, which it typically would be if the defendant considers themselves innocent. The waiver/pardon is then an admission of guilt, defendant is formally (legally) guilty of the crime, but punishment is waived for whatever reason (usually humanitarian grounds). This is in effect the same as being convicted in court and then simply released afterwards. The conviction is on their record, and they are civilly liable for anything they are convicted of (if applicable). The e.g. murderer is then a absolutely a murderer even if no actual punishment was doled out. In contrast, a legally insane murderer would be legally innocent (although not factually innocent) of the murder. If a previously convicted murderer who is later acquitted due to factual innocence, they would legally have been a murderer right up until they weren't. So I don't see how a pardon would make the action lawful. Per definition it's a pardon of an illegal act (why else would a pardon be needed), and the pardon itself only waives punishment, right? I get the point that there's not much point to illegality if there isn't any punishment, but a criminal conviction in and of itself still matters. If the tree fell in the forest, but nobody was around, the tree still loving fell over. What it does make murder though is inconsequential through failure to uphold legal equality, which is fundamental to the rule of law. Which is another way of saying if you pardon a murderer you had better have a crazy good reason, or you're inviting a massive loss of faith in the "justice" part of the justice system. And that's a great recipe for vendettas. Ok, rant over. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:https://twitter.com/colachicago/status/1786401825920278978
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'd love to see the argument for why it would be arguably lawful. I mean you're not wrong. The counterargument is that legality and illegality are ultimately defined by whether or not the legal system actually binds your actions. If you can kill people and have foreknowledge that you are going to be pardoned for it, and you are correct in that knowledge, then the legal system did not bind your actions; functionally, your actions were legal. Said another way, we have to recognize that lynching was functionally legal until it wasn't; cops are legally allowed to get away with murder; so forth. That's not an excuse but it is necessary to clearly describe the system we have before we can intelligently change it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Mike Dunford is a specialist in IP law who leaps at the opportunity to defend certain free-speech cases. More likely his response was, "This is going to be a painful battle, but I'm up for it if you are." Probably both, given his first footnote.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean you're not wrong. I can see the argument, sure. I wonder if I want to take it a step further though. In legal philosophy, a rule’s serious immorality or injustice destroys the moral obligation of a subject to adhere to that rule. Another way of putting it is if your system allows someone to commit murder with the knowledge that they will be pardoned, the fundamental immorality of the system removes a subjects moral obligation to adhere to the rule (murder is illegal, unless we don't feel like it). We see this in practice all the time, "oh, he's allowed to do that under those circumstances, but this is kinda similar so stands to reason...". And then... Well, see above. The endpoint to this state is a vendetta society. In a certain positivist-based system, I think we might say that such a system isn't a justice system at all. Law is something more than the sum of society's moral whims at any given time. We are more, and law is more. Lynching was always illegal. Cops murdering were always murderers. The lack of ability to react appropriately is a human failing, not a failing of legal theory. I think the distinction between a legalized moral indefensibility and an illegal one is still important. If we consider the lack of enforcement to legalize a crime, we're attacking the very idea of law, that it has an answer and that this answer matters. If we instead of considering it a failure of law consider it a failure of humans, well... I consider that easier to live with. In summary, law is a land of contrast and I just spent more words regurgitating my previous point. 0,25 giving written reply on legal query
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
TL;DR
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:The endpoint to this state is a vendetta society. Well. . . yup. I mean, I long ago stopped using the term "justice system." I don't think America has one; this pardon is just another data point on that trend line. In other countries the term might still be appropriate.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
After reading about the Letby case I read a bit about the similar Dutch case, and then SBS. I'm quite curious now how different legal systems handle medical/statistical/"scientific" issues - does anyone have any reading recommendations? It seems like there must be some engagement with this in order for forensics to be used (and I'd hope to incorporate modern understandings of memory!) and I'd love to read more about it. Ideally in article form or at least a short book if possible. I guess the sub-postmasters scandal had similar issues involving witnesses with specialist knowledge.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Let's say there's an apartment building where all the owners pay condo fees to a management company. The management company is owned by a wife and husband. The wife coordinates maintenance of the property, holds all the association meetings, writes the minutes, and collects the condo fees from the owners. The husband is a lawyer and says that he represents all of the owners. Some of the owners disputed a plumbing repair charge that was assessed to individual units, but later a plumber investigated the leak and found it was only in the common areas, not those units. The wife disagreed with the investigation, then the husband-lawyer says "since you aren't paying that repair on time, I am assessing an $800 collection fee to each of you, and a lien will be put on your apartments if not paid." The wife and husband have different last names and the relationship was never disclosed to the owners. It seems like a conflict of interest for the husband to say he legally represents the owners, but can fine the owners an arbitrary amount during a dispute, which then gets paid, ostensibly, back to that couple in the end. Is that only just sleazy, or is there something in the US that makes it illegal?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
distortion park posted:After reading about the Letby case I read a bit about the similar Dutch case, and then SBS. I'm quite curious now how different legal systems handle medical/statistical/"scientific" issues - does anyone have any reading recommendations? It seems like there must be some engagement with this in order for forensics to be used (and I'd hope to incorporate modern understandings of memory!) and I'd love to read more about it. Ideally in article form or at least a short book if possible. At least for the U.S., all of this sort of thing falls under expert witnesses and the Daubert decision is where I’d start.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
There's a game in my library that does not run on newer hardware, as having too many cpu cores apparently confuses and frightens it, causing it to abort launching. The patch to fix it is relatively simple, say a matter of editing a few bytes in the .exe file to replace the number of cores reported by the system with a smaller number that can be handled. Simple workarounds like forcing a single core affinity won't work, because it's the reported number of cores that breaks it, not the number it is actually given, so only patching the exe will do. The game is effectively abandoned by the publisher, who still exists and still owns the IP to my knowledge, so it isn't true abandonware. The publisher has not, however, used the IP in some time, and there don't appear to be any plans to start using it again. What is the legality of publicly providing a patch to modify the .exe to work for newer systems? What about providing an already patched .exe file? I've seen various games that seem to live in this position with modified files on random websites. Is that generally just a matter of the holding company not really caring about a few nerds fixing a title that isn't even sold anymore? Is providing a way to modify the binary to fix it legal, as long as it doesn't affect copy protection? Am I going to get a better answer than "ask a lawyer for real lol?" Volmarias fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:At least for the U.S., all of this sort of thing falls under expert witnesses and the Daubert decision is where I’d start. Or Frye.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 03:17
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:The wife and husband have different last names and the relationship was never disclosed to the owners. It seems like a conflict of interest for the husband to say he legally represents the owners, but can fine the owners an arbitrary amount during a dispute, which then gets paid, ostensibly, back to that couple in the end. He probably represents the "owner's association" which can be colloquially referred to as representing 'the owners' but is not the same thing, legally. It would, however, be at least a little stinky if he, on behalf of the association, sided with his wife and her financial interests, over those of the condo association. You can ask a local lawyer for advice regarding the assessment. If 10 of your co-owners got together, they could afford the lawyer bill to fight the $800/owner assessment. Edit: I'm also certain there are facts being left out, i.e. the extra damage caused by the leaks, the association having to front the money to pay for the repairs and that's why it's $800, etc. In the end, you should get a lawyer if you think the money is wrong. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 03:24 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:He probably represents the "owner's association" which can be colloquially referred to as representing 'the owners' but is not the same thing, legally. Sure but the owner's association is still comprised entirely of owners (the wife and husband have no ownership) and a bank account, and dictated with bylaws (which, it turns out, were written by the same lawyer two decades ago). If the lawyer charges a legal/collection fee at uppity owners to quell a dispute and that fee is paid to a Corporation with the wife and him as the only directors, it seems like they're incentivized to fine as much and as often as they think they can get away with it. It's not as much a question on whether the money is wrong (it is), more that I'm wondering if this arrangement was supposed to be allowed in the first place. There's only 2 owners who are being fined (because they're above the commercial space which took the water damage from the common area pipe issue) and 4 billable hours with a lawyer would wipe out the benefit of having those $800 fines deleted. So I just wanted to check there's not some well-known "no way can they have that setup" clause that can be pointed at and make them back down. Volmarias posted:What is the legality of publicly providing a patch to modify the .exe to work for newer systems? I am not a lawyer but what's the problem with finding a way to provide the patch both publicly and anonymously at the same time? I'm assuming if you have the technical knowledge to write a patch, you could also fire up TOR and make an untraceable GitHub with the source code and compiled EXE, or whatever you youngsters do. Then even if this abandonware holding company awakens, it's never going to be your problem. edit: does your patch bypass the system specs check but not the game's other DRM? You mentioned a holding company, is it just a game on Steam that gets sales paid to a dormant company that picks up the checks occasionally? If people still need to buy the game then why would the company care? You'd be doing them a favor to expand the systems it can run on. In any event, don't release a pre-patched EXE, that can be construed as redistributing their copyrighted stuff. Anyone who cares that much can run a patcher, especially if you have it verify the checksum afterwards. Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 04:09
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:because they're above the commercial space which took the water damage from the common area pipe issue. I found the thing I knew was being left out. So you're really fighting over whether the leak is your responsibility or the COAs?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 04:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I found the thing I knew was being left out. A licensed plumber we hired out of pocket had determined the leak was in the void of the common area, not the two units. The management company said "whatever, pay it" and threw those fines. It's really not about any of that. It's about why is this power couple able to make calls like this unilaterally. Anyway, I just found some cases on Trellis 20 minutes ago that showed the management company was sued a few years ago by another condo association (husband lawyering for the wife) and the court found "unfair and deceptive practices" "holding up payment of funds in an attempt to force signing of a release benefiting [wife]". I knew it wasn't my loving imagination. I'm going to keep digging.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Zero VGS posted:A licensed plumber we hired out of pocket had determined the leak was in the void of the common area, not the two units. The management company said "whatever, pay it" and threw those fines. I don't understand what the issue is with them being married? Why is it any different to any other strata company acting like a strata company? Like I don't know if they're doing anything wrong in this case in terms of the leak and who pays for it but what necessitates all this emphasis on husband and wife?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 05:14
|
|
