Hey lawyer types!

[GottaHavePride]

I have a question for you guys. Here's a (not so) hypothetical situation, and I'd like you to tell me just what action my friend could potentially take, if she were so inclined in this situation. (She's my girlfriend's roommate, btw.)



So she had been dating this guy for several years. A few years ago a couple of other guys were flirting with her, so this guy installs a keystroke-logger on her computer to get the passwords to her e-mail, facebook, etc. to monitor her.

Fast forward a bit, she's broken up with the guy and moved out of his place several months ago. She's changing jobs, under some stress, starts hanging out with this guy again. She's not interested in him, but wanted a familiar face around. So the guy got into her e-mail account and set it so absolutely everything she receives got forwarded to a second account so he can monitor her e-mails even if she's deleting stuff out of her inbox. He got into her facebook account and un-friended a guy she's been seeing since she broke up with him. And he flipped his **** when he found out she's been setting up a party with some friends and had someone else invite the new guy that had been unfriended. Oh, and he also checks her cell phone to monitor her call history and text messages while she's out of the room.

Oh, and when she confronted him about it he apparently said "I didn't think you'd mind because you didn't have anything to hide."


So there you go, oh great and powerful SO. What exactly could she do to this guy, legally, if she were so inclined. I just want to relay y'all's advice to her to show her how seriously wacked out this guy is.

[Collier11]

Id say you are a nosy, insecure azzhole who shoulda left the tramp along time ago :D

[Collier11]

Seriously though, I have no clue ;)

[Viking Kitten]

I don't know about legal recourse, but I can tell you what she needs to do is get the hell away from that guy as quick as she can for her own safety. Everything you described are the early warning signs of a physically abusive situation. The guy has serious control issues and is basically cyberstalking her. She needs to run more than anything else, and probably speak to someone ASAP who works for a local domestic violence intervention group to get further guidance.

[yermom]

never give your passwords to anyone. damn. and lock your cell phone.

she needs to change her passwords, get what data she needs and format her computer, assuming we are talking software keyloggers

i'm not sure how he might have forwarded mail, depending on what kind of account she has, but new ones are easy enough to set up

but yeah, sounds like she needs to cut ties.

[Okla-homey]

I have a question for you guys. Here's a (not so) hypothetical situation, and I'd like you to tell me just what action my friend could potentially take, if she were so inclined in this situation. (She's my girlfriend's roommate, btw.)



So she had been dating this guy for several years. A few years ago a couple of other guys were flirting with her, so this guy installs a keystroke-logger on her computer to get the passwords to her e-mail, facebook, etc. to monitor her.

Fast forward a bit, she's broken up with the guy and moved out of his place several months ago. She's changing jobs, under some stress, starts hanging out with this guy again. She's not interested in him, but wanted a familiar face around. So the guy got into her e-mail account and set it so absolutely everything she receives got forwarded to a second account so he can monitor her e-mails even if she's deleting stuff out of her inbox. He got into her facebook account and un-friended a guy she's been seeing since she broke up with him. And he flipped his **** when he found out she's been setting up a party with some friends and had someone else invite the new guy that had been unfriended. Oh, and he also checks her cell phone to monitor her call history and text messages while she's out of the room.

Oh, and when she confronted him about it he apparently said "I didn't think you'd mind because you didn't have anything to hide."


So there you go, oh great and powerful SO. What exactly could she do to this guy, legally, if she were so inclined. I just want to relay y'all's advice to her to show her how seriously wacked out this guy is.

First off, wimmenz who move in with guys to whom they are not joined in legal marriage are morons. For lots of reasons, not least of which this kind of crap.

Second off, yes, he prolly broke some electronic privacy laws. But that's not the important thing. The important thing is it sounds like this guy is bat-sh1t obsessed with this woman, and that often doesn't end well. As in someone could end up hurt or dead.

[Breadburner]

Tell her to get a protective order immeadiatleyl....

[Okla-homey]

Tell her to get a protective order immeadiatleyl....

Which are next to useless in the final analysis. They don't come with force-fields to protect the person who files one. All they do is provide grounds for a contempt charge if the subject of said order violates it. And bat-sh1t crazy people routinely ignore them.

But if it makes the stalked person feel better, then by all means.

[NormanPride]

isn't installing logging software like that a federal offense?

[JohnnyMack]

Could we have Olevet drive up and give the guy a country ***-whoopin'?

[XingTheRubicon]

Sometimes when I read about facebook un-friending and keystroke loggers I ponder two things: 1. I want to go Thoreau on everyone and move to the woods. 2. I am thankful that I was born in '68.

In 1984, when I was 16, if you wanted to flirt with a girl...you had to have the balls to walk up to her face to face. So, consequently, only athletes and daring young men ever got laid.

Now, any unsuspecting geek can harmlessly flirt with a girl that would normally make him involutarily urinate face to face. She gets exposed and saturated with the aforementioned nerds' personality, thoughts and feelings.

"Hey, how ya doin? Can't believe what Maddy said about your purse. That was BS, it's a cool purse, I saw one on Jersey Shore the other day...anyway she's a B and she's just jealous. well gotta study, talk to u later, k?"

Over time she falls for the passionate bi-spectacled nerd and eventually engages in something that can loosely be described as intercourse. This type of improbable action upsets the natural order of things. Little baby nerds multiplying and eventually voting and having grand nerds.

If you don't have the balls to break the ice to a chick face to face, then do the world a favor and masterbate into a sock and leave your reproductive fluids where they belong.

[NormanPride]

Aw, is the jock mad that all the nerds have adapted and his stupid small brain can't handle modern society? ;)

On topic, I looked briefly around the internet and there seems to be a case ongoing about a company keylogging its employees. Federal charges are implied, but no verdict has been given. Lawyer types may have a better answer. It certainly seems like it would fit into a number of cybercrime categories.

[XingTheRubicon]

No, I nailed all the chicks that you whacked it to, nerd. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

No, I nailed all the chicks that you whacked it to, nerd. ;)

[completely inappropriate]You nailed your sister?[/completely inappropriate]

disclaimer: I have no idea if XTR has a sister.

[XingTheRubicon]

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3399/donaldgibbogrerevengeof.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/donaldgibbogrerevengeof.jpg/)

[JohnnyMack]

Now that I'm a father of two boys, I can safely say that I'd rather them be nerds than jocks.

[olevetonahill]

Could we have Olevet drive up and give the guy a country ***-whoopin'?

Can NOW I gots a License again :D

[XingTheRubicon]

Now that I'm a father of two boys, I can safely say that I'd rather them be nerds than jocks.


Well, genetically, they almost have to be anyway don't they...



I'd rather my son be like Sam Bradford as opposed to a nerd. That's just me.

[NormanPride]

Sam is a nerd, though. How else do you explain the grades and ability to speak coherently? The ability to throw a ball well is a simple matter of physics and applied force.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford reportedly scored an impressive 36 on the Wonderlic Test.


Sam Bradford is a nerd.

[NormanPride]

This goes back to my theory that many top-level athletes are nerds in their own way. Who else but a nerd can devote themselves so fully to the nutrition, conditioning, and mental focus needed to attain success at the highest competitive levels?

[XingTheRubicon]

I know you nerds want to claim Sam and I don't blame you. You're nerds.

But Sam Bradford is not a nerd.

A nerd is a smart kid that sucks at everything else. Sam Bradford was/is an exceptional athlete, superior to most of his peers in every sport and is also very intelligent.


Sorry, nerds. We're keeping him.

[XingTheRubicon]

This goes back to my theory that many top-level athletes are nerds in their own way. Who else but a nerd can devote themselves so fully to the nutrition, conditioning, and mental focus needed to attain success at the highest competitive levels?

Everyone but nerds.

[NormanPride]

I know you jocks want to claim Sam and I don't blame you. You're jocks.

But Sam Bradford is not a jock.

A jock is a strong kid that sucks at everything else. Sam Bradford was/is an exceptional student, superior to most of his peers in every subject and is also very athletic.


Sorry, jocks. We're keeping him.

[Breadburner]

Which are next to useless in the final analysis. They don't come with force-fields to protect the person who files one. All they do is provide grounds for a contempt charge if the subject of said order violates it. And bat-sh1t crazy people routinely ignore them.

But if it makes the stalked person feel better, then by all means.

Thanks for the insight....But they do work....Not in all cases but more often than not.....

[XingTheRubicon]

This will make it simpler.


This is Sam Bradford
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/74/bradford250250.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/i/bradford250250.jpg/)


and these are nerds
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1661/revengenerdsmovie02.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/revengenerdsmovie02.jpg/)

[JohnnyMack]

Sam Bradford is actually transcendent of either category.

Jocks are strong and athletic and then burn out and go sell insurance.

Nerds are weak and smart and then own the company that develops the software that is sold to the insurance company that employs the jock.

[XingTheRubicon]

I know you jocks want to claim Sam and I don't blame you. You're jocks.

But Sam Bradford is not a jock.

A jock is a strong kid that sucks at everything else. Sam Bradford was/is an exceptional student, superior to most of his peers in every subject and is also very athletic.


Sorry, jocks. We're keeping him.

He's getting ready to make 50 million guaranteed for playing football.

He's a jock that's also smart.


Sorry, nerd.

[NormanPride]

Well if it's money...


Is It Better To Be A Jock Or A Nerd?

The answer to the eternal question “Is it better to be a jock or a nerd?”:
Michael Jordan made over $300,000 a game. That equals $10,000 a minute, at an average of 30 minutes per game.

With $40 million in endorsements, he made $178,100 a day, working or not.

If he sleeps 7 hours a night, he makes $52,000 every night while visions of sugarplums dance in his head.

If he goes to see a movie, it’ll cost him $9.50, but he’ll make $18,550 while he’s there.

If he decides to have a 5 minute egg, he’ll make $618 while boiling it.

He makes $7,415/hr more than minimum wage.

He’d make $3,710 while watching each episode of Friends.

If he wanted to save up for a new Acura SLX (about $90,000) it would take him a whole 12 hours.

If someone were to hand him his salary and endorsement money, they would have to do it at the rate of $2.00 every second.

He’d probably pay around $200 for a nice round of golf, but will be reimbursed around $30,000 during that round.

Assuming he puts the federal maximum of 15% of his income into a tax deferred account (401k), he will hit the federal cap of $9500 at 8:30 a.m. on January 1st.

If you were given a penny for every 10 dollars he made, you’d be living comfortably at $65,000 a year.

He’d make about $19.60 while watching the 100 meter dash in the Olympics.

He’d make about $15,600 during the Boston Marathon.

While the common person is spending about $20 for a meal in his trendy Chicago restaurant, he’d pull in about $5600.

In his last year, he made more than twice as much as all U.S. past presidents for all of their terms combined.

… However…

… If Jordan saves 100% of his income for the next 250 years, he’ll still have less than Bill Gates has today.

Game over. Nerd wins.

[KC//CRIMSON]

This will make it simpler.


This is Sam Bradford
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/74/bradford250250.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/i/bradford250250.jpg/)


and these are nerds
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1661/revengenerdsmovie02.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/revengenerdsmovie02.jpg/)


and this is a nerd getting ready to bang your girlfriend.....

http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/6a00d83451b05569e20120a69266be970c-800wi.jpg

[XingTheRubicon]

Sam Bradford is actually transcendent of either category.

Jocks are strong and athletic and then burn out and go sell insurance.

Nerds are weak and smart and then own the company that develops the software that is sold to the insurance company that employs the jock.


Most sucessful business owners that I've met are not weak and are not now, nor have they ever been nerds.

Are we talking about the same thing? Have nerds changed? A really cool guy that happens to be smart is not a nerd. A really successful and personable guy who happens to be smart is not a nerd. A really shy, scared of his own shadow and can't walk and chew gum that happens to be smart is a nerd.


Sorry nerds, but you're nerds.

[XingTheRubicon]

and this is a nerd getting ready to bang your girlfriend.....

http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/6a00d83451b05569e20120a69266be970c-800wi.jpg

that's just in the movies, nerd

[KC//CRIMSON]

I say we blow the *uckers up!

[NormanPride]

Most sucessful business owners that I've met are not weak and are not now, nor have they ever been nerds.

Are we talking about the same thing? Have nerds changed? A really cool guy that happens to be smart is not a nerd. A really successful and personable guy who happens to be smart is not a nerd. A really shy, scared of his own shadow and can't walk and chew gum that happens to be smart is a nerd.


Sorry nerds, but you're nerds.

Well hell, by that narrow definition, the only jocks in the world are those big dumb idiots that just knew how to hit people and fail at spelling their own name.

[XingTheRubicon]

Well if it's money...


I love the "bill gates defense."


99.99% of actual true nerds sit in a cubicle somewhere with black pants and browns shoes and fantasizes that some way somehow Bill Gates makes them cool

[XingTheRubicon]

Well hell, by that narrow definition, the only jocks in the world are those big dumb idiots that just knew how to hit people and fail at spelling their own name.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3399/donaldgibbogrerevengeof.jpg (http://img294.imageshack.us/i/donaldgibbogrerevengeof.jpg/)

[NormanPride]

Just like 99.99% of all jocks sit in some office with pants that no longer fit and some dusty medal from their high school days and fantasize about how Sam Bradford makes them cool?

[XingTheRubicon]

Just like 99.99% of all jocks sit in some office with pants that no longer fit and some dusty medal from their high school days and fantasize about how Sam Bradford makes them cool?

No, the jocks already were/are cool. They don't have to fantasize about it.

Understand, nerd?

[JohnnyMack]

Just like 99.99% of all jocks sit in some office with pants that no longer fit and some dusty medal from their high school days and fantasize about how Sam Bradford makes them cool?

Or they turn into "softball guy" or "YMCA basketball guy".

[JohnnyMack]

No, the jocks already were/are cool. They don't have to fantasize about it.

Understand, nerd?

And cool is important.

[XingTheRubicon]

heh ^^^^^

some do, unfortunately


edit:

this was referring to softball, YMCA guy

my anti-nerd-dom has hindered my innerwebs

[KC//CRIMSON]

Or they turn into "softball guy" or "YMCA basketball guy".


or "psycho little league baseball coach guy."

[XingTheRubicon]

And cool is important.


have to wonder if it's better than being a nerd

[olevetonahill]

One thing I have NEVER been nor will I be accused of. Being a nerd ;)

[JohnnyMack]

have to wonder if it's better than being a nerd

The only two things that are important on this here planet earth are being a good person and being a good parent. Cool doesn't factor in.

[XingTheRubicon]

The only two things that are important on this here planet earth are being a good person and being a good parent. Cool doesn't factor in.

Those are the same thing.


The 2nd thing is being cool.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Being cool doesn't pay the bills.

Why do you think Fonzie was always broke and living above the Cunninghams in an attic apartment?

[NormanPride]

Haha, because living above the Cunninghams with no money is cool...

[tommieharris91]

One thing I have NEVER been nor will I be accused of. Being a nerd ;)

Ohh, there's a few people here that could call you a nerd. Nerd. :cool:

[XingTheRubicon]

again, you nerds are getting real life confused with what happens on your tee vee.

[XingTheRubicon]

Ohh, there's a few people here that could call you a nerd. Nerd. :cool:

uh oh

[KC//CRIMSON]

again, you nerds are getting real life confused with what happens on your tee vee.


Whatever you say, Biff.

[GottaHavePride]

Well, luckily I think this most recent crap has finally convinced the girl to kick this jerk to the curb for good. I just wanted to give her some other opinions as a wake-up call.

[NormanPride]

Well, you sure have a great discussion on nerds versus jocks to go on.

[virginiasooner]

My advice to the girl -- First run as far away as you can. Second, get a new computer and change ALL YOUR PASSWORDS. Third, get a new bank account. Fourth, get new credit cards. Maybe I'm being ultra paranoid, but I did all the above when I left my husband (in the days before home computers) and I've never heard from him again. And have an expert check your computer on a regular basis to make sure that a Trojan Horse hasn't somehow been installed. Finally, talk to an attorney to find out what sort of laws this uber creep has broken (because he probably has).

[OhU1]

The coolest guy I knew in high school died driving his motorcycle while drunk when he was 20. His equally cool brother died exactly the same way at the ripe old age of 25. Both of these guys were high school quarterbacks back in the day.

I ran into another cool jock I used to know 20 years ago. He was gray, ruddy faced, and looked much older than me. I didn't recognize him and wondered who this loser was that thought he knew me. When I found out who he was I was shocked. Apparently the combination of booze and middle age wasn't working out too well for him.

High school cool is the most overrated "virtue" I can think of.

[olevetonahill]

Ohh, there's a few people here that could call you a nerd. Nerd. :cool:

Dayum ! Foiled again :eek: :D

[XingTheRubicon]

The coolest guy I knew in high school died driving his motorcycle while drunk when he was 20. His equally cool brother died exactly the same way at the ripe old age of 25. Both of these guys were high school quarterbacks back in the day.




You enter this world naked and bare...

you travel through life without a care

you leave this world, you not know where

but, if you were cool here...you'll be cool there.

[TUSooner]

Which are next to useless in the final analysis. They don't come with force-fields to protect the person who files one. All they do is provide grounds for a contempt charge if the subject of said order violates it. And bat-sh1t crazy people routinely ignore them.

But if it makes the stalked person feel better, then by all means.

Disagree! Of course, if some batsh!t creep is determioned to do bad, a piece of paper won't stop him. But a protective order draws a line and gets creepy clearly on the wrong side of the law and the victim on the right side. It is step one in getting his serious attention -- Sometimes a chat with a detective clears a person's mind wonderfully. (My former boss found it very effective in putting a full stop on a nascent stalker.) It's also a step toward getting creepy locked up if he ignores the order. I assume an order can also force him to give up all his electronical spying as well. But I don't know the substantive law. Any way, having one is better than not having one.

[Leroy Lizard]

The jock, in old age:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6s6CdLQRCP0/SUXZKln88UI/AAAAAAAAAVA/BxNce9v-gQc/s400/Al_Bundy.jpeg

[TUSooner]

Excuse me/ I just want to apologize for addressing the original topic of this threar after it has been totally and irretrievably hijacked. :O

:D

[soonerboomer93]

No, the jocks already were/are cool. They don't have to fantasize about it.

Understand, nerd?

And then they grew past the age where they woke up every morning alone, and stuck to the bed. Sign onto to the internet, play tough guy and act cool.

[Okla-homey]

isn't installing logging software like that a federal offense?

only if it involves unconsented monitoring of commerce/commercial activity.

[Frozen Sooner]

only if it involves unconsented monitoring of commerce/commercial activity.

And as we now know, Congress has no power to punish two Virginia Tech football players who rape and beat the **** out of a woman.

[Leroy Lizard]

And as we now know, Congress has no power to punish two Virginia Tech football players who rape and beat the **** out of a white woman.

FIFY

[Frozen Sooner]

Boy, you really read something into Rehnquist's opinion that wasn't there.

[Leroy Lizard]

Boy, you really read something into Rehnquist's opinion that wasn't there.

I know how these things play out in real life.

Like that double jeopardy thing that was supposed to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime. Just words.

[Frozen Sooner]

I know how these things play out in real life.

Like that double jeopardy thing that was supposed to prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime. Just words.

Just so we're on the same page here, could you provide a definition of what you think double jeopardy means and an example of its violation?

[Leroy Lizard]

Just so we're on the same page here, could you provide a definition of what you think double jeopardy means and an example of its violation?

I beat on someone. I am tried for the beating. A jury acquits me. Another agency doesn't like the verdict, so they try me again for the same action.

That's double jeopardy.

[Collier11]

no, thats not double jeopardy

[olevetonahill]

no, thats not double jeopardy

Yea it is Bro , But the other agency IE Da Feds. aint gonna try him fer da beatin , they gonna try him fer Civil right s **** er something . Hence it aint DJ cause hes NOT on Trial fer the same Crime

[Leroy Lizard]

no, thats not double jeopardy

Sure looks like it to me. What's the point of being acquitted?

[Collier11]

I thought jeopardy was only in cases of murder? My mistake if im wrong

[Frozen Sooner]

I beat on someone. I am tried for the beating. A jury acquits me. Another agency doesn't like the verdict, so they try me again for the same action.

That's double jeopardy.

No. It's not. Double jeopardy is trying someone twice for the same crime, not the same act. Olevet has the right idea.

Collier, jeopardy attaches in non-murder crimes.

[Collier11]

Gotcha, I was wrong

[Frozen Sooner]

It happens.

[Leroy Lizard]

No. It's not. Double jeopardy is trying someone twice for the same crime, not the same act. Olevet has the right idea.

Collier, jeopardy attaches in non-murder crimes.

First off, offense, not crime.

To prove that the accused violated the "victim"'s civil rights during a beating one needs to prove that the accused beat the "victim" in the first place. But the accused has already been acquitted of beating the "victim".

By bringing up evidence to demonstrate that a beating took place, you are in effect trying the person for that offense once again. Sure, you may not be seeking a judgment against the defendant for the beating, but you are arguing that he did beat the defendant and expecting the defendant to defend his actions. But evidence was already presented in a previous trial; the defendant already defended his actions in a previous trial.

I hire GKeeper to assassinate one of my many enemies with his katana. I am tried for first-degree murder, but acquitted. The day after the verdict, I am arrested for second-degree murder. I am acquitted. The next day, I am arrested and tried for manslaughter.

And why? Because the government does not like the verdicts handed down by a jury. This is the type of tyranny that we are supposed to guard against.

[Frozen Sooner]

You know, I said to myself as I typed originally "Leroy is going to try to argue with me what double jeopardy is."

Your hypothetical with GKeeper is incorrect. Look up Blockburger (Horror! Frozen Sooner cited a case to counter someone's incorrect apprehension of the law!) A lesser included crime is subject to double jeopardy.

[yermom]

just hope you don't get sued for wrongful death after getting acquitted for murder :rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

just hope you don't get sued for wrongful death after getting acquitted for murder :rolleyes:

Double jeopardy does not apply to civil trials. Which only makes sense, as the burdens of proof are substantially different.

[GottaHavePride]

I mean, it's pretty standard now that you can be on trial for criminal charges at the same time as you're being sued for damages in civil court, all stemming from the same act.

[Leroy Lizard]

You know, I said to myself as I typed originally "Leroy is going to try to argue with me what double jeopardy is."

Your hypothetical with GKeeper is incorrect. Look up Blockburger (Horror! Frozen Sooner cited a case to counter someone's incorrect apprehension of the law!) A lesser included crime is subject to double jeopardy.

Offense, not crime:

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nothing in there says that double jeopardy can be violated for lesser crimes.

The Fifth Amendment is very clear: nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Sure, I know how the feds got around this by pretending that the Founding Fathers really meant that a person could not be tried twice by the same level of governance. That doesn't make them right. (Unless you believe that they are always right inherently. And tyrannies love that perspective.)


I mean, it's pretty standard now that you can be on trial for criminal charges at the same time as you're being sued for damages in civil court, all stemming from the same act.

This discussion is only about criminal trials.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'll repeat this, since you didn't understand it:

A lesser included offense (since you're hung up on offense vs. crime) is subject to double jeopardy. You may not be tried for a lesser included offense when acquitted of the greater offense. Your hypothetical situation with GKeeper would be thrown out of court.

HOWEVER, if you walked into GKeeper's house with a gun, shot him, and were somehow acquitted for murder, you could still be tried for burglary without violating double jeopardy for the same actions. Why? Because burglary is not a lesser-included crime to murder. You seem to think that this would be double jeopardy. It's not.

Similarly, someone can beat someone up and be acquitted of assault. Perhaps they didn't have the requisite mental state for assault, whatever. However, you can still be charged with a crime that doesn't include the same elements as assault.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'll repeat this, since you didn't understand it:

A lesser included offense (since you're hung up on offense vs. crime) is subject to double jeopardy.

Not according to the Fifth Amendment.

Bastardizations of our Bill of Rights take place constantly.


You may not be tried for a lesser included offense when acquitted of the greater offense. Your hypothetical situation with GKeeper would be thrown out of court.

HOWEVER, if you walked into GKeeper's house with a gun, shot him, and were somehow acquitted for murder, you could still be tried for burglary without violating double jeopardy for the same actions. Why? Because burglary is not a lesser-included crime to murder. You seem to think that this would be double jeopardy. It's not.

First of all, I would expect to be tried for burglary in the same trial with the same jury. I would not expect you as prosecutor to keep trying me perpetually in separate trials until you got a guilty verdict for something.

But your example is flawed anyway: There is no need to prove that a murder took place in order to try GKeeper for burglary.

Finally, the act of burglarizing is distinct from murder. However, the act of needlessly beating someone as an assault crime is the same act as that which constituted civil rights violation.


Similarly, someone can beat someone up and be acquitted of assault. Perhaps they didn't have the requisite mental state for assault, whatever. However, you can still be charged with a crime that doesn't include the same elements as assault.

Not if you believe in the Fifth Amendment.

Froze, we know how the Justice Department views this. I say their complete contempt for the Constitution is wrong. To offer what current law states to support your claim is begging the question.

[yermom]

Double jeopardy does not apply to civil trials. Which only makes sense, as the burdens of proof are substantially different.

FREE OJ!

[olevetonahill]

Hey Mike
Limptard aint gonna give it up. Hell you know he will argue with himself if he has to.

[Frozen Sooner]

Not according to the Fifth Amendment.

Bastardizations of our Bill of Rights take place constantly.

Unfortunately for you, you're not the one who gets to say when they do. I'll leave that to the Supreme Court.


First of all, I would expect to be tried for burglary in the same trial with the same jury. I would not expect you as prosecutor to keep trying me perpetually in separate trials until you got a guilty verdict for something.

But your example is flawed anyway: There is no need to prove that a murder took place in order to try GKeeper for burglary.

You're right. There is also no need to prove that an assault took place to try someone for a civil rights violation. I would expect a prosecutor to bring both trials at the same time as well, simply as a matter of efficiency. To not do so, however, does not violate double jeopardy.


Finally, the act of burglarizing is distinct from murder. However, the act of needlessly beating someone as an assault crime is the same act as that which constituted civil rights violation.

No, it is not. The civil rights violation could have occurred without the beating. An acquittal for assault does not mean that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a beating occurred or even that the defendant did it. The beating is only one component of the crime of assault. For illustrative purposes, here's the Alabama statute on assault:
(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if:

(1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes serious physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
(2) With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his body, he causes such an injury to any person; or
(3) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to any person; or
(4) In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life, or of immediate flight therefrom, he causes a serious physical injury to another person; or
(5) While driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or any combination thereof in violation of Section 32-5A-191 he causes serious bodily injury to the person of another with a motor vehicle.

Now, can you see how someone could be acquitted of assault when they did, in fact, beat someone up?


Not if you believe in the Fifth Amendment.

Froze, we know how the Justice Department views this. I say their complete contempt for the Constitution is wrong. To offer what current law states to support your claim is begging the question.

Actually, it's an appeal to authority, not begging the question. I'm not presupposing any of my conclusions, I'm saying "this is what authority says."

This isn't the Justice Department's view, this is the view of the Supreme Court of the United States. Fortunately for my appeal to authority, their view of what the Fifth Amendment means trumps yours and everybody else's.

You, however, are arguing from flawed premises (I think I spelled that wrong.)

[Frozen Sooner]

Hey Mike
Limptard aint gonna give it up. Hell you know he will argue with himself if he has to.

Yeah, I know, but it's better than trying to come up with 10 pages of things to say on Swiss Anti-money Laundering legislation.

"Article 305bis: Please don't do that."

[olevetonahill]

:D :D :D ;)

[XingTheRubicon]

And then they grew past the age where they woke up every morning alone, and stuck to the bed. Sign onto to the internet, play tough guy and act cool.

No, I'm acting normal. It just seems tough and cool to you, 'cause you're a nerd.

[Leroy Lizard]

Unfortunately for you, you're not the one who gets to say when they do. I'll leave that to the Supreme Court.

What was the SC's reasoning on this issue, btw?


You're right. There is also no need to prove that an assault took place to try someone for a civil rights violation.

It would be very difficult to do otherwise. How could the perpetrator inflict a violation of civil rights if he didn't assault him?

At some point, you have to prove that the perpetrator committed some act that violated the victim's civil rights. If the perpetrator has already been found not guilty of those acts, then we're back to square one.


No, it is not. The civil rights violation could have occurred without the beating.

An acquittal for assault does not mean that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a beating occurred or even that the defendant did it. The beating is only one component of the crime of assault. For illustrative purposes, here's the Alabama statute on assault:
(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if:

(1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes serious physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
(2) With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his body, he causes such an injury to any person; or
(3) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to any person; or
(4) In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life, or of immediate flight therefrom, he causes a serious physical injury to another person; or
(5) While driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or any combination thereof in violation of Section 32-5A-191 he causes serious bodily injury to the person of another with a motor vehicle.

Now, can you see how someone could be acquitted of assault when they did, in fact, beat someone up?



Where did this "in the first degree come from? I don't recall this being mentioned before.

But it matters little. The cases in question arise from California.

California Penal Code 240 - 248 : 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

The police officers in the Rodney King trial were tried for using excessive force and were acquitted. So how is one expected to prove that they violated Rodney King's civil rights if their actions fell within acceptable uses of force?


Actually, it's an appeal to authority, not begging the question. I'm not presupposing any of my conclusions, I'm saying "this is what authority says."

But whether the authority is right is the issue here. So it is begging the question.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land. But the Supreme Court can be wrong, even if their decision carry legal weight.

[XingTheRubicon]

not nerd
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1394/baseballweb7.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/baseballweb7.jpg/)

[XingTheRubicon]

nerd
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4120/swingmiss.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/swingmiss.jpg/)

[Frozen Sooner]

I gave you the case name already, Leroy. Look it up yourself.

[SunnySooner]

I don't know about legal recourse, but I can tell you what she needs to do is get the hell away from that guy as quick as she can for her own safety. Everything you described are the early warning signs of a physically abusive situation. The guy has serious control issues and is basically cyberstalking her. She needs to run more than anything else, and probably speak to someone ASAP who works for a local domestic violence intervention group to get further guidance.

THIS!!!!! Control and isolation is textbook in abusive relationships. Dude is a LOOOOOOOSSSSERRRRRR and she can do better, there are still some nice guys in the world.

[GottaHavePride]

Anyone have a suggestion on a guy for her? Hell, even doleo would be a serious step up for her. :D

[yermom]

we're gonna need pics to be sure