Posted by f.barnes on February 23, 2009, 10:22 am
wrote:
> > > The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on prosecutors'
> > > aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to
> > > combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year,
> > > workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the
> > > more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication
> > > they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification
> > > numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.
> > I have to side with the illegal immigrant in this case. Two problems:
> > a)Intent. Why should a person just trying to hold a job illegally get hit
> > with identity theft charges?
> > b)Fairness. If Joe and Bob (typical first names of illegal immigrants, I'm
> > sure) both buy fake ID from William, their illegal ID dealer, and Joe gets
> > fake ID for someone deceased and Bob gets fake ID for someone alive, why
> > should Bob get in more trouble than Joe. The actions and intent of Joe and
> > Bob are identical.
> > The Lizard
> >If Joe and Bob each, in separate incidents, shoot a cop in the stomach
> >while trying to escape arrest but Bob's cop dies and Joe's doesn't,
> >why should Bob be in more trouble than Joe when their actions and
> >intent are identical?
> Unfortunately, I can't find fault with your analogy. Seems right.
> Identical illegal acts and intent, different outcomes, different penalties.
> I think you've got me pinned.
> The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
Thank you. Some people, quite a few people, on these newsgroups would
have "escaped" pinning by calling me a racist.
Posted by Jujitsu Lizard on February 23, 2009, 2:38 pm
> Unfortunately, I can't find fault with your analogy. Seems right.
> Identical illegal acts and intent, different outcomes, different
> penalties.
> I think you've got me pinned.
> The Lizard- Hide quoted text -
>Thank you. Some people, quite a few people, on these newsgroups would
>have "escaped" pinning by calling me a racist.
Hey, when the other guy is right, the other guy is right.
There is very little else to say.
: )
Posted by .p.jm on February 22, 2009, 9:01 pm
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:40:55 -0500, "Jujitsu Lizard"
>>
>> The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on prosecutors'
>> aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to
>> combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year,
>> workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the
>> more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication
>> they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification
>> numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.
>I have to side with the illegal immigrant in this case. Two problems:
>a)Intent. Why should a person just trying to hold a job illegally get hit
>with identity theft charges?
Because of what they did. They were committing a crime and
they knew it ( perhaps they didn't know exactly WHICH crime ), that of
forgery. If I go to rob a store with a gun, and the gun goes off and
kills an old lady in the parking lot, I get charged with her murder,
for the same reason.
>b)Fairness. If Joe and Bob (typical first names of illegal immigrants, I'm
>sure) both buy fake ID from William, their illegal ID dealer, and Joe gets
>fake ID for someone deceased and Bob gets fake ID for someone alive, why
>should Bob get in more trouble than Joe. The actions and intent of Joe and
>Bob are identical.
Fuck 'fairness'. If my co-robber's gun didn't go off at all,
he's STILL liable for that old lady's death.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Posted by Twibil on February 23, 2009, 1:25 am
> a)Intent. Why should a person just trying to hold a job illegally get hit
> with identity theft charges?
Er, because he was holding a job illegally and he stole someone's
identity.
> b)Fairness. If Joe and Bob (typical first names of illegal immigrants, I'm
> sure) both buy fake ID from William, their illegal ID dealer, and Joe gets
> fake ID for someone deceased and Bob gets fake ID for someone alive, why
> should Bob get in more trouble than Joe. The actions and intent of Joe and
> Bob are identical.
With luck, someone will swipe *your* identity and you'll find out.
After you've spent dozens of hours and a bunch of money trying to
straighten out the paperwork mess, get back to us and let us know if
you still think the guy swiping your ID is commiting a victimless
crime.
Posted by Lets Roll on February 23, 2009, 8:32 am
>>
>> The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on prosecutors'
>> aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to
>> combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year,
>> workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the
>> more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication
>> they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification
>> numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.
> I have to side with the illegal immigrant in this case. Two problems:
> a)Intent. Why should a person just trying to hold a job illegally get hit
> with identity theft charges?
> b)Fairness. If Joe and Bob (typical first names of illegal immigrants,
> I'm sure) both buy fake ID from William, their illegal ID dealer, and Joe
> gets fake ID for someone deceased and Bob gets fake ID for someone alive,
> why should Bob get in more trouble than Joe. The actions and intent of
> Joe and Bob are identical.
> The Lizard
They wanted to play Russian Roulette. One caught a bullet.
XML Sitemap
> > > aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to
> > > combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year,
> > > workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the
> > > more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication
> > > they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification
> > > numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.
> > I have to side with the illegal immigrant in this case. Two problems:
> > a)Intent. Why should a person just trying to hold a job illegally get hit
> > with identity theft charges?
> > b)Fairness. If Joe and Bob (typical first names of illegal immigrants, I'm
> > sure) both buy fake ID from William, their illegal ID dealer, and Joe gets
> > fake ID for someone deceased and Bob gets fake ID for someone alive, why
> > should Bob get in more trouble than Joe. The actions and intent of Joe and
> > Bob are identical.
> > The Lizard
> >If Joe and Bob each, in separate incidents, shoot a cop in the stomach
> >while trying to escape arrest but Bob's cop dies and Joe's doesn't,
> >why should Bob be in more trouble than Joe when their actions and
> >intent are identical?
> Unfortunately, I can't find fault with your analogy. Seems right.
> Identical illegal acts and intent, different outcomes, different penalties.
> I think you've got me pinned.
> The Lizard- Hide quoted text -