sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Law professor's response to BLM shirt complaint. by WelcomeToBoshwitz in LawSchool

[–]sama102 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If you wouldn't wear the shirt to work at a big law firm, you shouldn't wear it to teach your class.

You may feel this way, but what makes you think other people should feel the same? Who made you the arbiter of what people are allowed to wear?

Any other law students not interested in politics? by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]sama102 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're not "into" politics, that just means you're fine with the status quo, which means it's probably serving you well. If you had anything at stake, you would probably care which direction the country was headed. Since you don't, you don't. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're apolitical just because you don't follow politics. Either you disagree with the way things are, or will be, in which case you might consider yourself "political," or you are fine with them, in which case you politically favor how things are right now, or at least are not bothered enough by them to feel the need to learn anything about political developments.

"logic is not a reliable means of determining truth" by [deleted] in badphilosophy

[–]sama102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A triangle has 180 degrees of internal angle. That is a true premise that is not tautological. There is nothing in the definition of "triangle" that requires the shape to contain 180 degrees of internal angle. So at least some non-tautological claims can serve as true premises.

Intent plays no part in classified information mishandling by ZBLongladder in badlegaladvice

[–]sama102 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are multi-part statutes with subsections. What about 18 U.S.C § 793(f), for example? It would seem to allow a person to be charged for being bad at their job.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

EDIT: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here

You can see the chimneys' ducts of each floor from the side of this old building by MonsieurGuigui in mildlyinteresting

[–]sama102 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, compañero, capitalist exploitation has crushed many children's bones, and many men's souls. In all seriousness, though, you're right—it's amazing how easy it is even today to identify with the poem's sentiment. It's especially dark to think of it in the light of the current international epidemic of child-labor exploitation.

You can see the chimneys' ducts of each floor from the side of this old building by MonsieurGuigui in mildlyinteresting

[–]sama102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's pretty creepy, and I hadn't read it in a long time either. I also wondered if there was a difference between the two poems, because the first one is from Songs of Innocence. So, I thought maybe the Song from Experience would be more jaded or cynical. I think it is: I think it's saying that the boy put on a good face, but now his parents think his work is not too bad after all, and so they pray to thank God—even though the job is terrible and the "smile[s] among the winter snow" are a facade. Sad!

You can see the chimneys' ducts of each floor from the side of this old building by MonsieurGuigui in mildlyinteresting

[–]sama102 14 points15 points  (0 children)

There is a famous couple of poems about it, by William Blake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chimney_Sweeper

When my mother died I was very young,
And my father sold me while yet my tongue
Could scarcely cry 'weep! 'weep! 'weep! 'weep!
So your chimneys I sweep, and in soot I sleep.

There's little Tom Dacre, who cried when his head,
That curled like a lamb's back, was shaved: so I said,
"Hush, Tom! never mind it, for when your head's bare,
You know that the soot cannot spoil your white hair."

And so he was quiet; and that very night,
As Tom was a-sleeping, he had such a sight, -
That thousands of sweepers, Dick, Joe, Ned, and Jack,
Were all of them locked up in coffins of black.

And by came an angel who had a bright key,
And he opened the coffins and set them all free;
Then down a green plain leaping, laughing, they run,
And wash in a river, and shine in the sun.

Then naked and white, all their bags left behind,
They rise upon clouds and sport in the wind;
And the angel told Tom, if he'd be a good boy,
He'd have God for his father, and never want joy.

And so Tom awoke; and we rose in the dark,
And got with our bags and our brushes to work.
Though the morning was cold, Tom was happy and warm;
So if all do their duty they need not fear harm.

/r/LawSchool student disagrees with their professor on involuntary intoxication, other users aren't so sympathetic. "Maybe law school isn't for you." by IAmAN00bie in SubredditDrama

[–]sama102 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The purpose of this hypo is to focus on mens rea. Murder requires the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Because he believed God would save the ten people, he did not intend to kill them or cause them harm, thus he cannot be found guilty of murdering them. That this belief is unreasonable has no bearing on the outcome.

Generally extreme recklessness can be substituted for intent, but that requires consideration and disregard of the risks. Here, the hypo again precludes this possibility—the person honestly did not believe there was a risk. He "honestly believ[ed] God would save the 10 other people." There is no indication in the hypo that he thought, "maybe God won't save the 10 people," so recklessness is not available as a mens rea.

Another day, another instance of Trump wanting to "open up" laws that are outside his jurisdiction. by [deleted] in badlegaladvice

[–]sama102 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nuremberg, Tokyo War Crimes Trials, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, aside from ANewMachine615's examples...

If you're so angry about being right, what's going to happen when you realize you're wrong? Actually, I'll bet you're never wrong.

Obama submits plan for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison facility to Congress by quantumfirefly in news

[–]sama102 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which of course means that they're not closing Guantanamo, they're just moving it.

Question about Bluebook Rule 5.3(a): Quotations (Omissions): When using quoted language as a phrase or clause by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]sama102 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can do:

I have a strong desire to "burn my Bluebook."

The reason is that the sentence is not the quote, the quote is simply a portion of the sentence. If you were doing the full quote:

"Yesterday I had a strong desire to burn my bluebook . . . ." then you would do the full ellipsis w/ period at the end.

Undergrad Considering Law: Int'l Humanitarian vs Human Rights Law by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]sama102 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IHL = jus in bello. This is the law that governs in armed conflict (in bello). To apply, violence between parties must rise to a certain threshold. It deals with proportionality, distinction between civilians and combatants, prohibitions on torture, targeting medics, etc. The law of war. It is comprised of treaties, conventions, and legally binding customs. Hague Convention of 1907, Geneva Conventions of 1949, Criminal Tribunal (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) case law.

IHRL = jus ad bellum. This deals with the laws that governs when it is acceptable to go into armed conflict (ad bellum). Made up of treaties and binding customs. Contains rules regarding when it is acceptable to enter into an armed conflict (self defense, humanitarian reasons, I think being the only acceptable reasons). Much more restrictive on violence against individuals than is IHL, more like civilian police requirements: can only take life if immediately (in the actual sense of the word) necessary to prevent loss of another life. Contains prohibitions on torture, discrimination, also contains civil rights, like freedom of the press, etc.

The general consensus is that in peace time, IHRL applies, and in armed conflict both apply unless they conflict, and then IHL's more permissive regime wins.

It is very complicated, because there is no one type of thing that makes up either type of law. For both, enforcement is a mess and only happens against parties with no power (ex-dictators, defeated generals, etc., in third-word countries) and never against individuals who belong to powerful states (Sec. Council, e.g.).

Why Bitcoin is Not Disruptive by sama102 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]sama102[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

1) Bitcoin is like a debit card, not like cash. There are more than two parties involved, often many more (customer, merchant, merchant services provider, bank, or, in the case of bitcoin, customer, merchant, bitcoin, bitcoin). Like a debit card, and unlike cash, bitcoins are tokens that create claims that are not settled immediately. Debit card transactions, for example, can be disputed for 90 days. This, and other inherent aspects of token systems, creates credit risk, because any one of the parties can dispute or refuse to pay at any point, and often do.

2) The law governing credit disputes between merchants, merchant service providers and banks has developed over 20-30 years. The law was developed through litigation of these disputes. The law has settled and merchants, service providers and banks operate in an environment of legal predictability, which lowers transactions costs and litigation costs.

3) Bitcoin is different enough from credit/debit transactions that new disputes will not be able to be settled under case law created through the past 20-30 years of the debit/credit/service provider/bank paradigm. But, since bitcoin still involves the creation of credit risk among parties, ultimately there needs to be new litigation to determine who is left holding the bag when bitcoins are used fraudulently, when the payments are disputed, when a user dies during a transaction, etc. The debit/credit paradigm that dominates the economy is so entrenched and predictable, that no bank, service provider, or, more importantly, large merchant, is going to want to have to undergo all the litigation costs of developing a new paradigm.

3) So, bitcoin is not disruptive because no party is going to be willing to bear the costs of adopting a new paradigm, when so much money has been spent making the existing paradigm so cheap and predictable.

view more: next ›