 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-3-2009 2:19, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
>> us
>
> Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
> of a driver's license?
>
> It's not worth going further with it.
>
I agree, I don't see any reason to act for any of us ATM. It was just a
way to express that there may be other side effects as well if you tell
a group of people something like this. Things may e.g. change when in a
couple of years time someone meets him in person.
Shall we just forget this incident and then in a couple of weeks time
when p.o-t expires we can just pretend this never happened?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-3-2009 0:22, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I did act rashly; which probably wasn't a good idea. The presence of
> malicious tools on the system and lack of much else was to me, a pretty good
> indication that I had the right person.
I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP
that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious.
Anybody else know something better?
> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget easier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:19:53 +0100, andrel wrote:
> I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP
> that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious. Anybody
> else know something better?
Agreed. Let the network owner deal with the problem child internally -
generally the best route to go. If they don't, then report them to the
proper authorities.
>> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
>
> This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget
> easier.
LOL - Too true. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/18/2009 1:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez<nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> Reminded me of:
>
>> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
>
> While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
> 16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
> western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
> countries, eg. Finland).
> Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.
At least in the US, even when the age of consent is under 18 there is
still that pesky little "statutory rape," which states that you have to
be within a certain age range until older.
For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being
statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being
> statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.
Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
(Also, the way you worded the above paragraph makes it sound like two
15 year olds having sex would be committing statutory rape. Which one
exactly? Or maybe both? ;) )
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:58:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
>
>> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
>
> Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
> Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
know either. They just assume.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
>
>> Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
>
> I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
> know either. They just assume.
Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
better to err on the side of caution with something like this, lest you
end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY don't
like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that - especially
when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the general prison
population.
jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
