Comments on: Flood the zone http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:12:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14125 Xrlq Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:41:37 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14125 There is no criminal equivalent of <i>negligence per se.</i> I agree that in theory, a crime technically was committed. However, since that crime carries no penalty whatsoever, it would be felony stupid for the ATF to get involved beyond the level I advocated before - a strongly worded "don't do this again, or else" letter. It would be nice, though, if Fox News would pick up the story, just to make sure everyone understands what CNN's defense is. There is no criminal equivalent of negligence per se. I agree that in theory, a crime technically was committed. However, since that crime carries no penalty whatsoever, it would be felony stupid for the ATF to get involved beyond the level I advocated before – a strongly worded “don’t do this again, or else” letter. It would be nice, though, if Fox News would pick up the story, just to make sure everyone understands what CNN’s defense is.

]]> By: countertop http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14101 countertop Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:05:26 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14101 Xrlq - while it appears that indeed there are no provisions for imposing penalties without a willful volation, the fact that a violation actually occurred may still give rise to a separate action. I am thinking something along the lines of negligence per se but in a criminal sense. My understaning is that some of the recent Corporate Governance statutes include those types of provisions - though I have no knowledge of what the provisions actually are (and may be completely off base here) In any case, as SU keeps pointing out (correctly) just because there is no penalty available under the act doesn't mean that a violation didn't occur (though, of course, this would provide some support to ATFs claim that they wouldn't prosecute because intent was missing) Xrlq – while it appears that indeed there are no provisions for imposing penalties without a willful volation, the fact that a violation actually occurred may still give rise to a separate action.

I am thinking something along the lines of negligence per se but in a criminal sense. My understaning is that some of the recent Corporate Governance statutes include those types of provisions – though I have no knowledge of what the provisions actually are (and may be completely off base here)

In any case, as SU keeps pointing out (correctly) just because there is no penalty available under the act doesn’t mean that a violation didn’t occur (though, of course, this would provide some support to ATFs claim that they wouldn’t prosecute because intent was missing)

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14100 Xrlq Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:20:59 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14100 Technically, that's true. Assuming the gun left Texas in Griffin's possession, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) was broken, and 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) probably was also. But it doesn't mean much if these violations were not willful, as 922 doesn't have any enforcement mechanisms of its own. So CNN could come out tomorrow and saY "Yup, we broke the law all right! Watcha gonna do about it?!" Technically, that’s true. Assuming the gun left Texas in Griffin’s possession, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) was broken, and 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) probably was also. But it doesn’t mean much if these violations were not willful, as 922 doesn’t have any enforcement mechanisms of its own. So CNN could come out tomorrow and saY “Yup, we broke the law all right! Watcha gonna do about it?!”

]]> By: SayUncle http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14099 SayUncle Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:45:00 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14099 A defense doesn't mean the law wasn't broken necessarily. A defense doesn’t mean the law wasn’t broken necessarily.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14098 Xrlq Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:29:49 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14098 Neither. See Matt Rustler's latest. Apparently, CNN has a "we were too damned stupid to know we were breaking the law" defense. Neither. See Matt Rustler’s latest. Apparently, CNN has a “we were too damned stupid to know we were breaking the law” defense.

]]> By: Les Jones http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/02/24/flood_the_zone/comment-page-1/#comment-14096 Les Jones Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:09:02 +0000 /?p=4927#comment-14096 It really does look like an either/or situation. Either they broke the law or they misled their viewers. It really does look like an either/or situation. Either they broke the law or they misled their viewers.

]]>