Ullallulloo

joined 1 year ago
[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Everything has some rate of death. That doesn't make it reckless. Are you saying anyone who owns another dog or who rides a bikes or who has a tree in his yard or who cooks food or who performs surgery which leads to someone's death should also get [5–10 years in prison] no matter what?

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Drunk driving has an incomparably higher fatality rate though. (Like 1 in 600 vs pits' 1 in 500,000)

And you can't be charged with murder for drunk driving. That's reckless homicide.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 3 points 6 months ago

Technically pit bulls are some terrier.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 2 points 6 months ago

Ohh, my bad. Y'all mean like "given notice", not like "disturbing the owner". I read that too fast.

Common law is still valid in every state in the US (except maybe Louisiana), although obviously statutory law usually overrides it. You're right that there's no federal common law since Erie v. Tompkins though.

And I agree with your analysis of that statute. That is interesting too, since my state, Illinois, does not require explicitly being forbidden by the owner. It's much more in line with the common law idea of trespassing as simply being going somewhere without authority, express or implied.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

~~No, at least common law trespass definitely does not require any noticing. Can you show me any statutory form that does? Obviously crimes are hard to prosecute without witnesses, but very few crimes require someone to notice at the time for it to be a crime.~~

Edit: I read that too fast.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 0 points 6 months ago

Yes, many of them committed the crime as well.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 1 points 6 months ago (6 children)

You obviously aren't legally guilty of it until you've been charged and convicted, but that doesn't mean you haven't actually done it in the meantime.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 6 points 6 months ago

I'm pretty sure the Supremacy Clause would make it a very bad time for whoever is unconstitutionally trying to block federal agents from protecting the criminal-in-chief.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 1 points 7 months ago

My bad, that's true. I guess it's that private foundations are more limited in how much you can deduct. To qualify as a public charity, a foundation needs to get at least a third of its funding from the public and have other board members, so they can't just be self-funded and self-directed. A private foundation still has to be for a qualified charitable purpose but only lets you deduct half as much of contributions.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Foundations aren't deductible though. You have to give it away to an honest-to-God charity approved by the IRS for it to do anything. And even then, you can never get more money by donating it than you would just keeping the money.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Stocks are basically a percentage of ownership. The share price as a dollar amount is meaningless because it could be 1% of a company or 0.000000001%. The relevant number here is that Reddit is IPOing at a valuation of $5 billion (that stock buys a ¹⁄₁₅₀₀₀₀₀₀₀ interest), which all I can reply with is hahahahahahahaha

view more: ‹ prev next ›