Missles and Jetliners

I believe it has - especially if the offense is one of society's current "hot topics." e.g. "sexual offenses", "spousal abuse", "terrorism", and apparently, anything having to do with "missiles".

You guys may want to check out

for stories about third graders being pulled out of class and being charged with making "terroristic threats".

Why am I not surprised?

Jerry

I wonder if they will be tried as adults due to the seriousness of their crimes?

Jerry

What I wanna know is how this whole "zero tolerance" trip got started, and how the term was introduced into the public vernacular in the first place. (Someone I know said it first appeared in a speech by Nancy Reagan - can anyone confirm this?)

Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the trend probably won't reverse until some parent sues a school's brains out and finds a jury willing to make it stick.

-dave w

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news:IJAr0uYpgv+ snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:

That's why the police only apprehended the guy when he -travelled- to make the meet.Something about crossing state lines with the intent to commit a felony,I believe.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news:bX4Zng7zFTP+@eisner.encompasserve.org:

Well,I suspect that the authorities have copies of communications between the guy and the 'minor'.Which would reveal any entrapment if there was any.

Scott Schuckert wrote in news:190820030923387076% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:

The JURORS will get to see transcripts of the communications.

And we do NOT have to blindly accept what 'reporting' the media deigns to present to us.

It's all part of the "Nerf World" mentality that has taken over modern soceity.

Yes, now be quiet before you get yourself into trouble. They are listening.

Patrick

(big snip)

Ask Randy Weaver or his (surviving) kids.

Don't know who he is? Google on "Ruby Ridge".

-Scott

Which as a matter of practice would be made inadmissible so that the people with jurisdiction cannot make the claim. All they (the cops) have to do to make it inadmissible, is to claim they made a minor error in one of the 5 or so policy procedures needed for a wiretap.

Jerry

Victim of reality.

David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

Well,for starters,one rum&coke is not going to put you anywhere near the BAC for 'drunk driving'. ;-)

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

The authorities would need the transcripts as evidence to support their case. The plaintiff's lawyers would have access to any evidence admitted. The lawyers can also subpoena any evidence they can find to clear their client,so they could easily get the transcripts from either ISP regardless of what the police claim about them.After all,they ARE the property of the ISP.

Reality,Jerry?

And I'm not even a lawyer!

Key word "admitted". Only the plaintiff can admit prosecutorial evidence.

Key word, "they can find" AND is admissible once found. But if the prosecution finds a legally valid and morally offensive way to invalidate ket exculpatory evidence it cannot be admitted. I have seen it numerous times as an expert witness in explosives trials. It is truly scary what the government can do. It is in that court every day

24/7 and the defendant attorney is in there maybe once every month or three. Plaintiff counsil has UNLIMITED legal and investagatory funds and DEFENDANT has precisely as much as CDEFENDANT can afford and even when appointed public defenders they have nearly ZERO budget for investigation and about 1/10 the effective work day as a dedicated commercial attoeney who usually also has nearly zero investigative budget, OJ and Clinton notwithstanding.

Reply to that!

One of mine might. 7-11 has those thirsty-two ouncers :)

Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

Since Internet communications have both beginning and ending points,there are -TWO- ISPs that record them.(perhaps more?) And ISPs are not going to eliminate evidence for the police or government.I suspect they would be more likely to -broadcast- the fact that police/gov't asked them to cover up or dispose of evidence. This case of child molestation was not a Federal case,I believe,thus the Feds would not be involved in any 'coverup',and I don't believe a State has the moxie to do this.

Actually the government has a black program to do precisely that. I am not privy to knowing how complete and effective it is, but with the various nodes they have access to for collection, I think it is fair to say they collect better than 99% of all traffic.

I agree (obviously). I'm sure the NSA (No Such Agency) is tasked with this task that doesn't exist and probably do so legally by having our allies (GBR, Canada, etc.) do it for them.....not that I am a conspiracy theorist....more likely a realist.....

Jerry Irv> >

that is different. companies record CC information and related info for JUST the purpose you describe.

this is not so for non sensitive data.

ALL internet traffic is recorded. EVERY LAST BYTE but most of it has a very short TTL before it is killed off.

if you can get to it soon enough you can extract it but usually by the time you realize you NEED it it is already gone.

except for CC info. this info is required to be kept I think for 3 or 4 years by federal law (not sure on the length but their is a length where it must be kept)

also they did not record the info about the fradulent user. they recorded the IP address and from that it is Easy to tell what ISP and what geographical area it came from.

from their they can subpoena the ISP for info on WHO was connected with that IP at that time.