9/29    Is there any possibility of trying GWB as a war criminal?
        \_ In the US the only possibility of a politician being tried as a
           criminal is when you publicly sodomize an underaged girl, watch
           little boy porns, or when your intern sucks your dick.
        \_ In the US or in Europe? In the US, probably no chance,
           in Europe, probably very easy.
        \_ In Europe very difficult, as improbable as in the US.  In the
           countries whose governments officially call for that sort of
           stupidity, probably very easy, but then again it's usually
           posturing by two-bit thugs and tyrants.  -John
           \_ Difficult in Europe? Really? I thought the ICC had already
              received indictments against Bush, Blair, Tommy Franks, &c.
              under the Belgium universal jx provision.
              \_ It depends on what sort of trial you want.  If you just want
                 "a" trial, then go ahead and have one at the next CSUA
                 meeting.  If you're talking about a trial with the teeth to
                     \_ This would be fucking hilarious.
                 enforce it's decision, then not a chance in hell is any one in
                 the US government ever going to be tried.
              \_ Indictment != trial.  This is the same as Euro scandal rags
                 screaming that "you can sue ANYONE FOR ANYTHING in
                 America!!111"  -John
        \_ nope you can't.  You have to lose a war first.  Even if you lost
           a war, if the victims are not white, you have a very good chance
           get away with it.
           \_ Who are these war criminals who got away with it?  Can you name
              a few?  And no, dying in prison during your trial doesn't count
              as getting away with it.  Nor does taking poison in your bunker.
              \_ Emperor Hirohito of Japan, Shiro Ishii of Unit 731,
                 Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, the list can go on and on.

9/30    http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com
        URL is self explanitory. God Bless.

9/30    HAW HAW HAW
        "It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with
         such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual
         addiction."
        -Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following
        release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.
        \_ Maybe it's just me but when anyone molests a child or attempts to
           it doesn't make me laugh.
           \_ Oh, I'm crying as much as laughing.  I'm mostly laughing because
              it's the only thing you can do, besides cry.  These guys really
              are just pathetic and horrible.
              TPM has great coverage of the whole sorry mess, by the way:
              http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
              \_ tpm?  So you see this as a political event?  Sigh....  Anyway,
                 child molesting shouldn't make you laugh or cry.  It should
                 piss you off.
                 \_ Make no mistake, this IS a political event.
                    \_ My question of the day is, was Democrat behinded all
                       this?  ABC is not known for its "liberal bias," and
                       so far, more explicit SMS and AOL IM has not yet being
                       released.  Let say Mark Foley did send nasty emails,
                       SMS, AOL IM and try to penetrate some 16 years old's
                       ass, so what?  Is he doing anything illegal?
                       Yes, he is a hyprocrite (along with much of those who
                       kept "traditional family value" on their mouth), but
                       I simply don't see anything he did which he need to
                       resign for.
                       \_ Solicitation of a minor is a crime. Get your head
                          out of your ass.
           \_ Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to stick _real_ child molestation
              in a different category than mailing lewd emails to a 16-year-old.
               \_ Especially considering that in DC the age of consent is 16.
                  The only real crime is that he used the evil internet to
                  send the messages.  -Not a GOP fan, not a over-reacting and
                  calling everything skeezy that involves children "child
                  molestation" fan.
                  \_ Oh and for the irony of it all, Foley was the co-sponsor
                     of the bill that made it a crime.
                  \_ Isn't there a federal law now that says if under 18 it's
                     a crime, no matter what the age of consent is in the
                     state?  I agree it's dumb.
        \_ I think the media has a Conservative bias.  The Starr Report
           gave all the glory details.  How come the more explicit SMS
           and IM messages are not made public?
           \_ Are you the same tool who thought Pearl Harbor was biased against
              the Japanese because the memorial there doesn't talk about the
              atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

9/30    Question for the Motd:  If you see someone being held up by someone
        with a gun, and you attempt to help that person (aka attacking thier
        attacker, grabbing the gun, throwing something at the attacker etc).
        If the person gets shot, can they sue you for negligence?  If the
        person dies, can you be charged criminally with murder, what about
        civilly?  This was bugging me as I was thinking about it the other
        day on my way home.  -mrauser
        \_ Answers:
           1) Yes, anyone can find a sleazy plaintiff's attorney to sue for
              just about anything, including negligence.  This is assuming
              that you as the Good Samaritan have deep pockets, or an insurer
              steps in to foot the bill.  But they'll lose on this one.
           2) Very little likelihood of any criminal charges against you.  In
              California, we have the felony-murder rule, which means that if
              a criminal is in the act of committing a felony (like an armed
              robbery), and a victim gets killed during that felony, then that
              criminal is responsible for both the felony (here, armed robbery)
              and murder.  So as the Good Samaritan, you generally will not be
              charged with murder or any of its lesser variants (like negligent
              homicide, aka involuntary manslaughter), but the criminal can and
              will get charged with both armed robbery and murder.
           3) Yes, anyone can find a sleazy plaintiff's attorney to sue for
              just about anything, inluding wrongful death.  This is assuming
              that you as the Good Samaritan have deep pockets, or an insurer
              steps in to foot the bill.  But they'll lose on this one.
              --richard
        \_ If the person getting killed as a result of your failed heroic
           attempt is a normal citizen, then you'd be ok. If however that
           person is famous, is connected to a wealthy family (16-year old
           girl whos dad is well connected), has enough money to buy the
           Dream Team, so on and so forth, then yes they can sue your ass
           and you'd be totally fucked.
        \_ I imagine that they could sue you.  You can sue for just about
           anything in this country - it's part of what makes America great.
           That's not saying that you will win, of course.  Why were you
           thinking about it?  Those sorts of heroics are almost always a
           Really Bad Idea (tm).
        \_ 1) pp is correct that a) anyone can sue or 2) anyone can bring
           criminal charges against you and that the real question is "can
           these charges/suits be pursued successfully" and that 2) this
           sort of thing is usually ill-advised.  But, the law permits
           one to protect oneself against threats to life/limb when there
           is no opportunity to escape (other states dont have the "must
           take opportunity to escape" condition), and allows that right
           to be extended to loved ones, family, and even bystanders in
           certain cases.  An almost as big question is "did you take
           reasonable action?"  If you have reasonable belief that you
           have time to call the police so that they will arrive in time
           to be of use, and you just charge in, you have a problem.  The
           general criteria for "reasonable action" consists of training,
           ability, safety of others.  You are clearly acting with a
           reasonable expectation that your action will increase the
           safety of others, but are you trained/able/equipped to deal
           with this in a way that will not unreasonably exacerbate the
           situation beyond what would otherwise happen?  And if we're
           talking about the assailant getting hurt, they lose any legal
           recourse for injury/loss sustained while they commit a felony.
           \_ You mean if somebody robs me and I throw a brick at their
              head as they are leaving they cannot sue me?
              \_ No.  At that point you're no longer in danger.
        \_ Civil negligence requires the following four elements to exist:
           1. Duty: Does the defendant owe duty of care to the plaintiff?
           2. Breach: Was that duty breached?
           3. Cause: a. Actual: "But for the breach..." and also
                     b. Proximate: Was the injury reasonably foreseeable?
           4. Injury: Was the plaintiff injured as a result?
           I think this would be a hard case for the plaintiff to win. --dim
        \_ Re Negligence: dim is correct re the elements. The question
                          really is then, did you breach your duty of
                          reasonable care under the circumstances? Maybe,
                          maybe not - it really depends on the facts. [I
                          do not really think causation is a big problem
                          here, b/c it is reasonably foreseeable that an
                          attacking an armed assailant can cause the gun
                          to go off.
           Re Murder: Doubtful that you would be charged for murder. The
                      armed robber was the murder. Probably in CA he would
                      be charged w/ 1st degree murder b/c he was committing
                      a enumerated felony. You might be considered an acco-
                      mplice to his murder, but it is doubtful unless you
                      acted recklessly (ie didn't really take into account
                      the effect of your actions).
                      If charged as an accomplice, you really only have one
                      defense open to you - defense of others. But this is
                      a sketchy defense b/c it doesn't apply if the person
                      who was being held up wasn't really in danger.
           Re Wrongful Death: Similar to negligence. Probably hard to win
                              unless they can show that you acted w/o
                              regard for the consequences of your actions.
           [ I could have some of the details wrong b/c it has been 2 yrs
             since I took these courses and I haven't refreshed for the
             bar yet ]
        \_ California has a 'good samaritan' law to cover situations like this.
           \_ No, it doesn't.  Just ask David Cash, one of the more infamous
              undergraduate students to attend UC Berkeley in recent years.
              If you are too young or too old to remember who he is, just
              google "Jeremy Strohmeyer Sherrice Iverson David Cash".