 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US, when
>>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
>> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
>
> Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".
Well, you can *always* refuse to answer. The only question is whether they
get to hold you there until you do. :-)
Even if you're in handcuffs behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, you can still
refuse to answer.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/27/10 20:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 01/27/10 18:49, Darren New wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>> Little known fact (little known to Americans, even): In the US,
>>>> when
>>>> you're questioned (but not detained/charged), you're not entitled to
>>>> having a lawyer present. You're entitled to refuse to answer, though.
>>> And you're free to leave if you're not being detained. :-)
>>
>> Well, yes. That's what I meant by "refuse to answer".
>
> Well, you can *always* refuse to answer. The only question is whether
> they get to hold you there until you do. :-)
>
> Even if you're in handcuffs behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, you can
> still refuse to answer.
I meant legally.
I'd make analogies on how we don't say stuff like "I can walk into a
store and eat some food without paying for it", but I guess this topic
is rife with misunderstandings...
--
"Once again, Mr. Cutlet fulfilled the sacred oath of the public
educator: To take an inherently fun activity, and sap it of every ounce
of pleasure."
-- Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I meant legally.
Me too. About the only time you're required to talk to anyone is if a judge
instructs it. IANAL, but I don't think you ever have to talk to cops
without a lawyer around, regardless of whether you're arrested. If you're
not allowed to walk away, then you can take the fifth.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:4B6### [at] hotmailcom...
> I think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a
> (probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover
> policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast.
> Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road,
> charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving
> more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
> The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have
> seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they
> arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding,
> two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
> The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new
> instructions.
Can speed without repercussions so long as he has good grounds to belive
that he is being followed?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:42:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> About the only time you're required to talk to anyone is if a judge
> instructs it.
Even then it's not required, but there may be consequences to not (like
earning a contempt citation).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:46:26 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/27/10 16:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Here's the thing. In some parts of the US, there is a problem with
>> drug trafficking. There's a stretch of I-80, for example, between
>> Omaha and Nebraska where the cops wait for cars with out of state
>> license plates.
>
> How can you be between Omaha and Nebraska?
Brain fart. I meant Omaha and Lincoln. :-)
>> I consent to let them search the car. They find the coat; I match the
>> suspect's description, drive a car that vaguely matches the description
>> of the car leaving the scene - now I'm a suspect in a double homicide.
>> Just for drifting out of my lane.
>
> I would think that your matching the description, as well as your
car,
> would be sufficient enough reason to stop, but am not sure.
It generally wouldn't be enough for probable cause, in the case of these
random drug stops. But in the hypothetical case I put forth, yes, it
might be.
>> That's why US citizens who are smart will not answer any questions -
>> because even if the cop says they're investigating an accident and
>> think you might've been in the area, you don't know for certain if in
>> fact that is what it is.
>
> Refusing to allow them to search your car is usually within your
right.
> However, it can lead to an inconvenience. I remember years ago
> reading/being told that if you refuse, they have the right to hold you
> there until sniffing dogs come and sniff. The following seems to concur:
Oh, sure, and they often will inconvenience you for not cooperating as a
tactic to get you to cooperate.
> http://flexyourrights.org/supreme_court/illinois_v_caballes
>
> Although it implies a limit to how long you have to wait.
>
> I should add that the site actually encourages you to decline a
search.
That is almost always the best thing you can do. If you consent to a
search, *anything* they find can be used against you. But nothing they
find can be required to be used to help you.
>> in his car and sits there. He's writing down everything from the
>> conversation in case you decide to challenge the ticket.
>
> I think that's quite fair - I don't see a problem in that.
Oh, I don't see a problem with that either. But most people don't
understand that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I meet
> with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community organization. He
> often will tell stories after the meeting to those who are sticking
> around about the dumb things people confess to.
That is why a confession is not enough to convict here. That has to be
backed up with independent evidence. Sure that rule is sometimes not
followed, but that can lead to later complications for the police or the
judge. How often it gets uncaught I don't know for obvious reasons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2010 11:21, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4B6### [at] hotmailcom...
>
>> I think I even know a Dutch case along this lines: a random guy in a
>> (probably flashy, if I know him well) car is followed by two under cover
>> policeman that think he might be a person that will drive to fast.
>> Indeed he does and after an hour they put him to the side of the road,
>> charge him with speeding and confiscate his car because he is driving
>> more than 50 kilometer per hour too fast.
>> The case comes for a judge and the guy defends himself saying: i have
>> seen these two guys already in that town 100km from the place where they
>> arrested me. I have seen them repeatedly and of course I was speeding,
>> two dodgy looking guys were following me all this time.
>> The guy gets cleared, gets his car back and the police gets new
>> instructions.
>
> Can speed without repercussions so long as he has good grounds to belive
> that he is being followed?
>
In this case it was easy to *prove* that he was being followed. And in
this case it was also clear that he was speeding because of the actions
of the police. So he has to be acquitted. It is, or is close to, what
the Americans call entrapment.
If there is a *really* good reason for speeding, you may get away with
it. E.g if your wife is in the process of giving birth and you get
pulled over you get a stern lecture on why you should not do that and
what to do instead, and a police escort to the next hospital.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> and a police escort to the next hospital.
And hopefully not a ticket for following the escort at a speed above the
speed limit. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:36:32 +0100, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I
>> meet with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community
>> organization. He often will tell stories after the meeting to those
>> who are sticking around about the dumb things people confess to.
>
> That is why a confession is not enough to convict here. That has to be
> backed up with independent evidence. Sure that rule is sometimes not
> followed, but that can lead to later complications for the police or the
> judge. How often it gets uncaught I don't know for obvious reasons.
That makes sense to me - and I think here in the US, if a defense
attorney introduces reasonable doubt in spite of a confession, a
conviction could be avoided, too. For example, if a suspect confesses to
something they didn't do, and the defense introduces a witness who gives
undeniable evidence that the person couldn't have committed the crime,
that would weigh pretty heavily for the jury.
And ISTR that a judge can overturn or set aside a jury's verdict if the
judge determines that the jury convicted wrongly - though I don't think
the judge can set aside a "not guilty" verdict.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:36:32 +0100, andrel wrote:
> On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Once a month I meet with our local police liaison officer (in fact, I
>> meet with him tomorrow night)
So I had a really interesting discussion with our liaison officer
tonight; he's a detective who has worked several different parts of the
department, and has friends in law enforcement agencies around the
world. Very interesting and enlightening discussion - and he announced
at the meeting that the SLC Police Department was offering some "citizen
academy" classes that I think I'm going to try to go to - the idea is to
help the public understand what the job actually entails.
Though I won't be able to attend the first class since I'm going to be
out of town; but it's 7 weeks long (I assume one evening a week) and
should be interesting.
I asked him about the use of deception, and what he told me was that they
are allowed to use it, but they usually don't have to. His experience
(both personal and anecdotal from talking to others around the country)
is that usually you have enough evidence or you don't - and if you don't,
it's clear they're not going to get more by running a long interrogation,
which is usually what would lead to that kind of deception.
With regards to entrapment, he said it's pretty straightforward: If an
officer (identified or not) entices someone to commit a crime they would
not be predisposed to commit and they do it anyways, then it's
entrapment. If they entice someone to commit a crime (again, identified
or not) and they are predisposed to commit it (ie, have some sort of
history that shows they would be likely to do it), then it's not
entrapment.
So, thinking about this (on my own), I guess if someone were to say they
were going to do something illegal (say as part of being argumentative
with a cop) to a cop, and the cop said "go ahead if you think that's a
good idea" - that's not entrapment. The cop wouldn't be giving them
permission to do so, wouldn't be promising they would look the other way,
or anything like that. Wouldn't matter if the cop identified himself as
a cop or not.
But, what my contact told me would be likely if law enforcement used
deception in some way is that if it went to court, the cop's deception
would likely be brought up. And on the stand, the cop would most likely
say "yes, that is exactly what I said" - the truthfulness of the
statement to the defendant would be irrelevant to the crime. The
prosecution would have to demonstrate the predisposition of the defendant
to commit the crime (which would happen certainly if the defense were to
claim entrapment) and the defense would have to provide evidence that the
defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime.
It was a very interesting discussion. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's
> entrapment. If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I kill
> you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment. If the second
> party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then it's not.
I don't think that's right. Even if you have the right to decline to buy
drugs, but the (undercover unidentified cop) insists repeatedly in getting
you to buy, that may be enough to call it entrapment.
Without the ability to test alternate realities, it's hard to know whether
you'd have committed the crime otherwise or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:51:11 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If the person is given no choice in committing the crime, then it's
>> entrapment. If the cop says to the second party "kill that guy or I
>> kill you" and then arrests the second party, that's entrapment. If the
>> second party has a reasonable chance of declining to participate, then
>> it's not.
>
> I don't think that's right. Even if you have the right to decline to buy
> drugs, but the (undercover unidentified cop) insists repeatedly in
> getting you to buy, that may be enough to call it entrapment.
That would probably be, yes - if they walk away from it, it seems to me
that the sting ends there.
> Without the ability to test alternate realities, it's hard to know
> whether you'd have committed the crime otherwise or not.
The idea is that if there's a precedent. With drug users, that precedent
is driven in part by the addiction from many drugs, so it becomes a
predictor.
Interestingly, the cop I talked to about this said he prefers civil cases
rather than criminal cases, because the law is a lot more clear-cut in
civil court, in part because the standards of "reasonable doubt" are
different - I think that's because the judgments are financial rather
than, say, prison - you can't put someone in prison "part time" (though
you can reduce the sentence, but that's not quite the same), but you can
reduce a financial judgment based on evidence given.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think that's because the judgments are financial rather
> than, say, prison
I always thought that was bogus, myself. The original distinction in the
amount of evidence needed was based on the fact that if it's the government
making the prosecution's case, they have basically unlimited funds and
power. In a civil case between (say) two corporations, each corporation is
spending their own money to hire lawyers, figure out evidence, etc, so it's
more balanced.
The idea that the government prefers to fine the crap out of you instead of
actually having to prove their case seems wrong to me.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:10:07 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> The idea that the government prefers to fine the crap out of you instead
> of actually having to prove their case seems wrong to me.
I could see that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Speaking of jury duty...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/Cat_Called_for_Jury_Duty_All__National_.html
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:26:51 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Speaking of jury duty...
>
> http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/
Cat_Called_for_Jury_Duty_All__National_.html
Yeah, I saw that story a couple of places - really odd that the judge
didn't dismiss the cat....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:26:51 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Speaking of jury duty...
> >
> > http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/
> Cat_Called_for_Jury_Duty_All__National_.html
> Yeah, I saw that story a couple of places - really odd that the judge
> didn't dismiss the cat....
It also demonstrates a problem in the USA: Nobody knows the exact number
of natural-born citizens in the country.
Here the number is known exactly, and there's no need for such a thing as
a census to get an estimate.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:25:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Yeah, I saw that story a couple of places - really odd that the judge
>> didn't dismiss the cat....
>
> It also demonstrates a problem in the USA: Nobody knows the exact
> number
> of natural-born citizens in the country.
Wait, what? That a cat was called to jury duty proves a census problem?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:25:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >> Yeah, I saw that story a couple of places - really odd that the judge
> >> didn't dismiss the cat....
> >
> > It also demonstrates a problem in the USA: Nobody knows the exact
> > number
> > of natural-born citizens in the country.
> Wait, what? That a cat was called to jury duty proves a census problem?
The need to have censuses in order to know who is a natural born citizen
(so that they can be called to jury duty) demonstrates the problem.
In Finland there would be no need for that. The government knows every
single citizen and can call them (for whatever) if needed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The need to have censuses in order to know who is a natural born citizen
> (so that they can be called to jury duty) demonstrates the problem.
We don't. The census is for figuring out how many seats on the legislature
each area needs. Most times jury duty is based on driver licenses, voter
registration, or other state-level information like that. Maybe even state
income tax or property tax forms, if that's legal in their state.
This couple is just guessing the jury duty call came off the census. I'd be
surprised if that was the case, given that such information isn't generally
released by the federal government in a way that could be used to identify
individuals.
It might have easily come off the paperwork you use to prove your pets have
had rabies vaccinations, if someone filled out the wrong name on the wrong
line, for example.
But no, the census here isn't so the government can keep track of who is
here. It's supposedly purely so we know how many representatives each state
gets. They're really not authorized to use the information for anything
else, altho they do.
> In Finland there would be no need for that. The government knows every
> single citizen and can call them (for whatever) if needed.
It must make things much easier to have a government that's trusted. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > In Finland there would be no need for that. The government knows every
> > single citizen and can call them (for whatever) if needed.
> It must make things much easier to have a government that's trusted. :-)
Distrust in the government and the government knowing all citizens are
not mutually exclusive things.
It would be rather difficult, and foolish, to try to have a child
without the government knowing. (It would be foolish because you would
be forgoing child support, tons of free services, and making your child's
life a nightmare later.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-2-2010 22:38, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> In Finland there would be no need for that. The government knows every
>>> single citizen and can call them (for whatever) if needed.
>
>> It must make things much easier to have a government that's trusted. :-)
>
> Distrust in the government and the government knowing all citizens are
> not mutually exclusive things.
>
> It would be rather difficult, and foolish, to try to have a child
> without the government knowing. (It would be foolish because you would
> be forgoing child support, tons of free services, and making your child's
> life a nightmare later.)
Indeed, although this might sound that it is a recent invention. Even a
one century or more ago it was useful to register your children. It is
easy to see that if you track children born and their parents for a few
generations (and register all immigrants) you know every legal person in
the country.
I have often wondered why the US do not track all citizens. E.g. why
does one city not notify the city someone has come from when they go to
live in that new city? It would also be handy to get useful information
like if someone was convicted for a serious crime and has therefore no
right to vote. Or is that precisely the reason why they are not allowed
to share information?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Distrust in the government and the government knowing all citizens are
> not mutually exclusive things.
Somewhat true. I don't want to Godwin the thread, but it *has* been abused
in the past when things went horribly wrong. :-)
> It would be rather difficult, and foolish, to try to have a child
> without the government knowing. (It would be foolish because you would
> be forgoing child support, tons of free services, and making your child's
> life a nightmare later.)
Sure. That doesn't mean the government knows where that kid is living 30
years later and how to get in touch with her. Adults are paying taxes, kids
have to get vaccines to go to school, etc.
However, we have a rather compartmentalized government here. The state
government knows what kids are born and going to school, the federal
government knows who is paying federal taxes, and the counties
(approximately city-sized areas for cities, or large for rural areas) are
the ones responsible for collecting people for juries.
The government knows John Smith was born 30 years ago. They don't
necessarily know he's homeless in San Diego right now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Indeed, although this might sound that it is a recent invention.
Not really. Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census? There's
a reason it's a latin word. :-)
> Even a
> one century or more ago it was useful to register your children. It is
> easy to see that if you track children born and their parents for a few
> generations (and register all immigrants) you know every legal person in
> the country.
Yes. It's just not centralized. If you're born in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, people might have to actually travel to Philadelphia to prove
it. Just follow any of the Obama birth certificate nonsense.
> I have often wondered why the US do not track all citizens. E.g. why
> does one city not notify the city someone has come from when they go to
> live in that new city?
Because we have many levels of government. City, county, state, federal. How
would you recommend you get every city and town in the country doing this?
And yes, maybe now that everything is on computers, it might be easier, but
roll back 50 years when stuff was done on paper, and you can see where the
records today wouldn't be anywhere near accurate.
> It would also be handy to get useful information
> like if someone was convicted for a serious crime and has therefore no
> right to vote.
We have that information. It's just not given to the people who make up jury
lists, for example.
Plus, I just don't see where it's valuable for me, personally, to have the
government track where I live. The people in the government that need to
know about different parts of my life already get to know that: the
governments where I have to pay taxes know how much money I make, the
governments that run the schools know how many kids I have, the governments
where I own property know who owns the property, etc. What benefit is it to
me to have Texas know how much my house in San Diego costs, or how many
children I have and how old they are?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sure. That doesn't mean the government knows where that kid is living 30
> years later and how to get in touch with her.
They do here. The government must know where to send tax forms, for
instance. (When you move you have to inform the government about it.
Doing that is actually a lot more beneficial than one could hastily think.
That's because your info will be automatically updated in a ton of places,
so you don't have to report your new address to a million places.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6f130e@news.povray.org...
> In Finland there would be no need for that. The government knows
every
> single citizen and can call them (for whatever) if needed.
Seems Finland has had two of them...
From Wikipedia:
Finland:
The first population census was taken in 1749 when Finland was a part
of Sweden. The most recent census took place on December 31, 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census#Finland
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Sure. That doesn't mean the government knows where that kid is living 30
>> years later and how to get in touch with her.
>
> They do here. The government must know where to send tax forms, for
> instance.
Yes. I understand that most people in Finland (and many other european
countries) manage to get away with the pre-filled-out form for taxes that
the government sends. I saw a study where they said 60% to 70% of the people
in the USA file taxes with no information other than what the tax authority
already knows.
> (When you move you have to inform the government about it.
Your mistake is treating it as if the USA has one government. "The
government" does know where you live, for the most part. Just not the folks
who do the jury duty.
When you move, you (usually) tell the post office where to forward your
mail. Your name is on the deed. But the post office doesn't tell the county
land registrar, and vice versa, that you've moved.
It also breaks down if (for example) you are in the military getting
reassigned, away at college for a few months, etc.
And regardless of all that, a cat shouldn't be called to jury duty. ;-)
> Doing that is actually a lot more beneficial than one could hastily think.
> That's because your info will be automatically updated in a ton of places,
> so you don't have to report your new address to a million places.)
Sure, having a central registry like that would be handy in many ways.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-2-2010 5:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Indeed, although this might sound that it is a recent invention.
>
> Not really. Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census?
> There's a reason it's a latin word. :-)
Funny, I was referring to the idea that it is useful to register your
children not the census.
>> Even a one century or more ago it was useful to register your
>> children. It is easy to see that if you track children born and their
>> parents for a few generations (and register all immigrants) you know
>> every legal person in the country.
>
> Yes. It's just not centralized. If you're born in Philadelphia,
> Pennsylvania, people might have to actually travel to Philadelphia to
> prove it. Just follow any of the Obama birth certificate nonsense.
>
>> I have often wondered why the US do not track all citizens. E.g. why
>> does one city not notify the city someone has come from when they go
>> to live in that new city?
>
> Because we have many levels of government. City, county, state, federal.
> How would you recommend you get every city and town in the country doing
> this? And yes, maybe now that everything is on computers, it might be
> easier, but roll back 50 years when stuff was done on paper, and you can
> see where the records today wouldn't be anywhere near accurate.
The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
>> It would also be handy to get useful information like if someone was
>> convicted for a serious crime and has therefore no right to vote.
>
> We have that information. It's just not given to the people who make up
> jury lists, for example.
>
> Plus, I just don't see where it's valuable for me, personally, to have
> the government track where I live. The people in the government that
> need to know about different parts of my life already get to know that:
> the governments where I have to pay taxes know how much money I make,
> the governments that run the schools know how many kids I have, the
> governments where I own property know who owns the property, etc. What
> benefit is it to me to have Texas know how much my house in San Diego
> costs, or how many children I have and how old they are?
A very American remark. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
> for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
We never had a dictator to set that stuff up for us, yes. :-)
> A very American remark. ;)
Yes, very much. We have a long history of not trusting our government. Our
revolution is still young enough to be alive and well, especially given that
the founders of the country didn't trust the very government they were
setting up. I think many here look at individual conveniences (such as only
having one place where you need to change your address) as much less
important than the slim likelihood that something disastrous (such as
rounding up all the <ethnic>s) will happen. (Note: I'm not saying this is
right, logical, reasonable, etc. I'm just saying how it is. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
> for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
Actually, I think the difference is two-fold:
1) People actually get a benefit out of reporting to a central authority
immediately when they move. Here, the government only knows where you live
after you've moved, when you file taxes or register your car or whatever.
2) And this is the big one: That info is made available to everyone else. I
tell lots of people inside and not inside the government where I live.
There's just no central repository that's authoritative and that is
generally available to the public, such that others could use that
information for purposes other than why it was collected.
That latter point is more my statement. It's not that we have lots of
jurisdictions. It's that we have lots of competing governments. The federal
government often has to threaten the state governments to pass laws the
federal government isn't allowed to pass. And there's constantly battles,
threats by the states to overthrow the federal government, relatively little
cooperation between distant states, etc. For example, most states have
agreements with their neighbors that if I get a traffic ticket in (say) New
York, Pennsylvania will be informed. But if I get a traffic ticket in New
York, chances are good California will never hear about it. So it's not
just that "the government" doesn't know where I am, but that there's no part
of the government specifically assigned the duty of tracking where I am. And
there's nothing in the constitution (quite to the contrary, actually) that
says the federal government is allowed to provide that service, and doing it
on a state level would only work for the states.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> Seems Finland has had two of them...
Probably a lot more than two, although...
> From Wikipedia:
> Finland:
> The first population census was taken in 1749 when Finland was a part
> of Sweden. The most recent census took place on December 31, 2000.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census#Finland
... I honestly don't know what's referring to. I have never seen any kind
of "census" in any shape or form in my life. In Finland the role of the
"census" is filled by your legal duty to report when you move to another
address.
Historically there have probably been censuses in the classical format,
but not in a rather long time, AFAIK.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-2-2010 18:55, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
>> for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
>
> Actually, I think the difference is two-fold:
>
> 1) People actually get a benefit out of reporting to a central authority
> immediately when they move. Here, the government only knows where you
> live after you've moved, when you file taxes or register your car or
> whatever.
>
> 2) And this is the big one: That info is made available to everyone
> else. I tell lots of people inside and not inside the government where I
> live. There's just no central repository that's authoritative and that
> is generally available to the public, such that others could use that
> information for purposes other than why it was collected.
>
> That latter point is more my statement. It's not that we have lots of
> jurisdictions. It's that we have lots of competing governments. The
> federal government often has to threaten the state governments to pass
> laws the federal government isn't allowed to pass. And there's
> constantly battles, threats by the states to overthrow the federal
> government, relatively little cooperation between distant states, etc.
> For example, most states have agreements with their neighbors that if I
> get a traffic ticket in (say) New York, Pennsylvania will be informed.
> But if I get a traffic ticket in New York, chances are good California
> will never hear about it. So it's not just that "the government"
> doesn't know where I am, but that there's no part of the government
> specifically assigned the duty of tracking where I am. And there's
> nothing in the constitution (quite to the contrary, actually) that says
> the federal government is allowed to provide that service, and doing it
> on a state level would only work for the states.
Indeed mind boggling but very American.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
> > for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
>
> We never had a dictator to set that stuff up for us, yes. :-)
>
> > A very American remark. ;)
>
> Yes, very much. We have a long history of not trusting our government. Our
> revolution is still young enough to be alive and well, especially given that
> the founders of the country didn't trust the very government they were
> setting up. I think many here look at individual conveniences (such as only
> having one place where you need to change your address) as much less
> important than the slim likelihood that something disastrous (such as
> rounding up all the <ethnic>s) will happen. (Note: I'm not saying this is
> right, logical, reasonable, etc. I'm just saying how it is. :-)
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
> I get "focus follows gaze"?
I think a better way of thinking is that in these United States we have a strong
individualism. Each state is to some extent sovereign and separate. There are
strong divisions between each government entity. The fed cannot interfere with
state activity unless it violates something to do with the federal constitution.
In fact each state has its own constitution. Each state sets its own taxes. And
each state sets its own law about jury duty and entrapment. In Oklahoma my
trailers do not need tags but just 30 miles south of me in Texas they have to
tag their trailers. Most of the southwest states allow guns without the need for
permits but in the northeast that is unheard of. Most people outside of the US
and even some inside forget this is a collection of states not a single state.
On entrapment; if an individual can be talked into or pressured to commit a
crime by another person who is not police it will still be prosecuted as a
crime. So why would that change if it was now a police officer that did the
pressuring? This is just another twist on the entrapment discussion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m1j wrote:
> Each state is to some extent sovereign and separate.
Indeed, the states all started off sovereign and then banded together in the
federal system.
Not unlike the nations in europe and the EU in modern times. If one moves
from France to Germany, I don't imagine Germany would tell France of all
your future moves, etc.
It's only relatively recently (like, since the early 1900's or so) that the
federal government has been more powerful than the states here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:22:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> The need to have censuses in order to know who is a natural born
> citizen
> (so that they can be called to jury duty) demonstrates the problem.
I'd have to check, but I don't think there's a requirement that you be a
"natural born citizen" to serve on a jury in the US. So are you saying
that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen wouldn't
qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born there?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:49:51 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census?
I think you mean "Joseph and Mary", don't you?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:18:51 -0500, m1j wrote:
> Most of the southwest states allow guns without the need for permits but
> in the northeast that is unheard of.
I live in Utah, and AFAIK, permits are required here. Perhaps I'm just
not "southwest" enough? I seem to recall that they're required in
Arizona, though, and it's hard to get much more SW than Arizona....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So are you saying
> that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen wouldn't
> qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born there?
We don't have a jury system here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So are you saying
>> that someone who emigrates to your country and becomes a citizen
>> wouldn't qualify to be on a jury because they weren't actually born
>> there?
>
> We don't have a jury system here.
I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous
situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant by
"natural born citizen".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous
> situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant by
> "natural born citizen".
One who can become the president of the United States.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I live in Utah, and AFAIK, permits are required here. Perhaps I'm just
> not "southwest" enough? I seem to recall that they're required in
> Arizona, though, and it's hard to get much more SW than Arizona....
Just for owning the gun? Or for carrying it? Or for concealing it? Three
different levels of paranoia there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census?
> I think you mean "Joseph and Mary", don't you?
I haven't memorized those tales. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous
>> situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant by
>> "natural born citizen".
>
> One who can become the president of the United States.
And in Finland the equivalent would be.....?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:01:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>> Wasn't Jesus supposedly traveling for the roman census?
>> I think you mean "Joseph and Mary", don't you?
>
> I haven't memorized those tales. :-)
I was subjected to them in my youth. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:01:00 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I live in Utah, and AFAIK, permits are required here. Perhaps I'm just
>> not "southwest" enough? I seem to recall that they're required in
>> Arizona, though, and it's hard to get much more SW than Arizona....
>
> Just for owning the gun? Or for carrying it? Or for concealing it? Three
> different levels of paranoia there.
AFAIK, to own a gun here in Utah, you have to have a permit. I believe
it's the same in Arizona.
Of course, there are plenty of people who do own them without permits,
but the question isn't whether people break the law, but whether it's
legal.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> AFAIK, to own a gun here in Utah, you have to have a permit. I believe
> it's the same in Arizona.
Even long guns? That's surprising. Most places allow rifles and shot guns
without permits, given you cannot conceal them.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:12:22 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> AFAIK, to own a gun here in Utah, you have to have a permit. I believe
>> it's the same in Arizona.
>
> Even long guns? That's surprising. Most places allow rifles and shot
> guns without permits, given you cannot conceal them.
That might be the case here, never looked into that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous
> >> situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant by
> >> "natural born citizen".
> >
> > One who can become the president of the United States.
> And in Finland the equivalent would be.....?
The same as in the US? In other words, one who was born inside Finland.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:10:11 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I guess that would make the question moot...OK, so pick an analogous
>> >> situation, then, I really just wanted to understand what you meant
>> >> by "natural born citizen".
>> >
>> > One who can become the president of the United States.
>
>> And in Finland the equivalent would be.....?
>
> The same as in the US? In other words, one who was born inside
> Finland.
How about an equivalent thing that only someone born in Finland can do?
(Sheesh, what we really have here is a serious failure to communicate)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
