23 Nov 08
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
23 Nov 08
Enough will never be enough until we get back to what the role of the state is, i.e. to protect you from me, and to protect me from you. Not to protect the individual from themself.
For there to be a crime there needs to be a victim and a perpetrator and they need to be separate entities, all laws not fitting this criteria can be turfed out.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaA former police chief in Argentina, wanted for alleged crimes against human rights, has shot himself dead in front of television cameras.
For there to be a crime there needs to be a victim and a perpetrator and they need to be separate entities, all laws not fitting this criteria can be turfed out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
Mario Ferreyra was giving an interview on top of a water tank at his home in the northern province of Tucuman. Police were coming to arrest him when he killed himself. Mr Ferreyra was wearing his customary black shirt and cowboy hat and told the interviewer that he was innocent and had not committed any crimes. He then told his wife, Maria, that he would love her forever, pulled a pistol from his boot and shot himself behind the ear.
One wonders if the position of police chief, and such crimes against human rights as he was accused of, should be phased out too, along with interviewing a public official on top of a water tank, so that such a thing could never happen again.
23 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFPosition of police chief - victim? No Perpetrator? No
A former police chief in Argentina, wanted for alleged crimes against human rights, has shot himself dead in front of television cameras.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
[i]Mario Ferreyra was giving an interview on top of a water tank at his home in the northern province of Tucuman. Police were coming to arrest him when he killed himself. Mr ...[text shortened]... viewing a public official on top of a water tank, so that such a thing could never happen again.
Crimes against human rights - victims? Yes Perpetrator? Yes Victims and perpetrators are separate entities, come down hard on the perpetrator.
Being interviewed on a water tank - victims? 0 Perpetrator? 0
Shooting oneself behind the ear - victims? 1 Perpetrator? 1 Victim and perpetrator are the same person, no crime here.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaAstronauts from the International Space Station have completed a third spacewalk to solve the latest glitch.
Victim? No Perpetrator? No
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7744318.stm
Shouldn't what happened to the tool box have been illegal? But apparently it wasn't. Now see what's happened.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFA matter of employer/employee contract. If some young vandals happened to be passing by, saw the unattended tool box then commenced to throw it into space, then there would be victims and perpetrators and hence a crime.
Astronauts from the International Space Station have completed a third spacewalk to solve the latest glitch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7744318.stm
Shouldn't what happened to the tool box have been illegal? But apparently it wasn't. Now see what's happened.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaAgreed, completely and entirely.
Enough will never be enough until we get back to what the role of the state is, i.e. to protect you from me, and to protect me from you. Not to protect the individual from themself.
For there to be a crime there needs to be a victim and a perpetrator and they need to be separate entities, all laws not fitting this criteria can be turfed out.
23 Nov 08
Citigroup plunges on uncertainty
Shares in Citigroup, one of the biggest banks in the US, fell on Friday amid uncertainty about the firm's future.
Uncertainty has countless victims. In cold hard cash terms. Should it be illegal under civil law or under criminal law?
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFWere the shares guaranteed?
[b]Citigroup plunges on uncertainty
Shares in Citigroup, one of the biggest banks in the US, fell on Friday amid uncertainty about the firm's future.
Uncertainty has countless victims. In cold hard cash terms. Should it be illegal under civil law or under criminal law?[/b]
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaIf people acted rationally, this would be a good policy. However, since most people tend to be retarded, some protection of the individual against himself is required and people cannot and should not always be expected to act responsibly. Examples are mandatory safety belts in cars, helmets on construction sites, etc.
Enough will never be enough until we get back to what the role of the state is, i.e. to protect you from me, and to protect me from you. Not to protect the individual from themself.
For there to be a crime there needs to be a victim and a perpetrator and they need to be separate entities, all laws not fitting this criteria can be turfed out.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPolice in parts of North Queensland Aus will be ticketing drivers for leaving their car unlocked.
If people acted rationally, this would be a good policy. However, since most people tend to be retarded, some protection of the individual against himself is required and people cannot and should not always be expected to act responsibly. Examples are mandatory safety belts in cars, helmets on construction sites, etc.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFIf people want to kill themselves on in public, that's fine by me.
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
Hell, bring back gladiatoral fights for all I care.
As for people egging people on... if the police can find out who they are... arrest them and do them for manslaughter.
Unless it's a conservative who's killed himself, then folks should be rewarded for doing great deeds.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaThis raises an interesting point. Or, possibilities, rather...
Police in parts of North Queensland Aus will be ticketing drivers for leaving their car unlocked.
Should there be a law that says that the police will not investigate a crime caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked?
Or should the owners of an unlocked car be liable to being charged - with wasting police time, perhaps - if they report a crime in which the unlockedness of their car was deemed to have caused, or made possible, the crime?
Or should crimes caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked simply be investigated like any other crime?
Or is the most efficient way of avoiding a waste of so called 'tax payers' money' to simply ticket drivers for leaving their car unlocked so that most cars end up being locked and fewer crimes are committed, fewer crimes are reported, and fewer crimes need to be investigated?
How does the North Queensland Case you raise fit into your Victim-Perpetrator model? Joking aside, your model makes sense. But which of the above options (or other option you suggest) fits in with it?
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFYou do not have the right to take away webcams or restrain people from suicide if they feel their life isn't worth living.
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm