If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking >about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
On 2/3/2024 1:06 PM, micky wrote:
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.
"micky" wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking >>about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
Only if you have a legitimate imminent fear that the person will commit >deadly force to harm you or someone else - otherwise I don't think even a >police officer can just shoot someone who isn't an immediate threat to
commit deadly force against someone.
--
On 2/3/2024 1:06 PM, micky wrote:
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.
you shoot one of them, and the other runs, can you shoot him to
stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
On February 4, Barry Gold wrote:
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.
The gummit pursues cases they believe they can win.
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
So there ya go, senility can be a mixed blessing -
--
Rich
On February 4, Barry Gold wrote:
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not
talking about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent
threat to someone's life or bodily integrity.
The gummit pursues cases they believe they can win.
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
On February 4, Barry Gold wrote:
If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.
The gummit pursues cases they believe they can win.
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
So there ya go, senility can be a mixed blessing -
RichD <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
[quoted text muted]
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
Actually that was in the commentary. The actual finding that there was evidence that he intentionally retained classified material, but no
evidence that he did it illegally. There was no evidence of intent (a necessary element of most crimes), and he fully cooperated with the investigation.
Change the subject if you want to continue this thread
RichD <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
[quoted text muted]
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
Actually that was in the commentary. The actual finding that there was evidence that he intentionally retained classified material, but no
evidence that he did it illegally. There was no evidence of intent (a necessary element of most crimes), and he fully cooperated with the investigation.
But doesn't that beg the question of how could someone in his position and with his extensive experience not know that you can't take classified documents with you when you leave a government position and just leave them in your garage? This isn’t someone in his first government job but a person
with several decades of experience in the federal government who should
know
perhaps better than anyone what a classified document is and what the
proper
way to store that document is. The logical inference is he either did it knowing fully well it was illegal or his mind had deteriorated to the point where he literally no longer saw any illegality in what he'd done.
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
On 2/10/2024 9:38 PM, RichD wrote:
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
Actually the report said that he didn't have the requisite intent ("mens
rea" in law). He took some classified documents home with him. When he >discovered them, he returned them to the government.
Some other Presidents and VPs have done the same. And they either
returned the docs unasked, or cooperated when the government asked for them.
By contrast, Trump intentionally hid some of the documents. He even
conspired with someone else to hide them. He didn't turn over everything
he had until the government agents showed up with a search warrant and >searched Mar-a-Lago.
The comment about Biden's senility was completely irrelevant to the
purpose of the investigation (whether or not he committed a crime) and
was gratuitously added by a Trump appointee who was given the job of >investigating Biden's handling of classified documents to make sure that >nobody could legitimately claim it was a cover-up.
On 2/13/2024 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:
But doesn't that beg the question of how could someone in his position
and
with his extensive experience not know that you can't take classified
documents with you when you leave a government position and just leave
them
in your garage? This isn’t someone in his first government job but a
person
with several decades of experience in the federal government who should
know
perhaps better than anyone what a classified document is and what the
proper
way to store that document is. The logical inference is he either did
it
knowing fully well it was illegal or his mind had deteriorated to the
point
where he literally no longer saw any illegality in what he'd done.
Except that he's not the only ex-Vice-President(or ex-President ) to bring >classified documents home at the end of his term. People tend to pack in a >hurry. The crime of mishandling docs requires intent, not mistake.
On 2/10/2024 9:38 PM, RichD wrote:
Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
Actually the report said that he didn't have the requisite intent ("mens
rea" in law). He took some classified documents home with him. When he >discovered them, he returned them to the government.
Some other Presidents and VPs have done the same. And they either returned >the docs unasked, or cooperated when the government asked for them.
By contrast, Trump intentionally hid some of the documents. He even
conspired with someone else to hide them. He didn't turn over everything he >had until the government agents showed up with a search warrant and
searched Mar-a-Lago.
The comment about Biden's senility was completely irrelevant to the purpose >of the investigation (whether or not he committed a crime) and was >gratuitously added by a Trump appointee who was given the job of , >investigating Biden's handling of classified documents to make sure that >nobody could legitimately claim it was a cover-up.
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there must be >procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >>location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there
must be procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
You might think so but I wouldn't count on it. Changeover day between presidents is quite chaotic. Mike Pence took classified stuff home,
too. As did Jimmy Carter.
Like Biden, and unlike Trump, they all promptly returned the documents
when they discovered them.
"John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >>>location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there
must be procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
You might think so but I wouldn't count on it. Changeover day between
presidents is quite chaotic. Mike Pence took classified stuff home,
too. As did Jimmy Carter.
Like Biden, and unlike Trump, they all promptly returned the documents
when they discovered them.
I wonder if Biden could have properly taken those documents home while
he was VP, and just forgot he had them.
"John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >>>location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there
must be procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
You might think so but I wouldn't count on it. Changeover day between
presidents is quite chaotic. Mike Pence took classified stuff home,
too. As did Jimmy Carter.
Like Biden, and unlike Trump, they all promptly returned the documents
when they discovered them.
I wonder if Biden could have properly taken those documents home while he
was VP, and just forgot he had them.
So to stay on topic, I would quite happily accept mistake over malice.
Even (or especially 🙂 ) in Trumps case.
What I would like to find out is how this happened with all of these cases.
Many years ago I was in the Army as an intelligence analyst studying the >Warsaw Pact armies equipment.
When my service was over (1974) I had hundreds of classified documents >ranging from from TS/SCI to Secret. Every one of those had to be
inventoried and reassigned to another person. I only had a few TS/SCI
but after transferring them to a coworker, I left the SCIF and was
checked to make sure I wasn't carrying anything out. Finally my name
was removed from the access list. In the crypto vault everything Secret
and TS (documents, encryption keys, coding equipment) was inventoried
and the combination lock on the door was changed. My officemate
individually signed for all the Secret documents in my two safes (around
500) and then the combinations were changed. All of that took several
days. Security verified I had turned everything over and I left the
office to get my final paycheck.
So who cleared all of the documents Biden, Trump, etc to leave?
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:19:24 -0800 (PST), Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
What I would like to find out is how this happened with all of these cases. >>
Many years ago I was in the Army as an intelligence analyst studying the
Warsaw Pact armies equipment.
When my service was over (1974) I had hundreds of classified documents
ranging from from TS/SCI to Secret. Every one of those had to be
inventoried and reassigned to another person. I only had a few TS/SCI
but after transferring them to a coworker, I left the SCIF and was
checked to make sure I wasn't carrying anything out. Finally my name
was removed from the access list. In the crypto vault everything Secret
and TS (documents, encryption keys, coding equipment) was inventoried
and the combination lock on the door was changed. My officemate
individually signed for all the Secret documents in my two safes (around
500) and then the combinations were changed. All of that took several
days. Security verified I had turned everything over and I left the
office to get my final paycheck.
So who cleared all of the documents Biden, Trump, etc to leave?
Trump would take documents up to the "residence" and no one had nerve
enough to tell him not to. I don't think they were inventoried at all.
But that does not account for the scores of cartons of documents he eventually stole.
I don't think the President has to go to a SCIF to look at them.
(Similar ,maybe? to the fact that he doesn't have to pass an FBI
security test) Maybe not the VP either.
...
On 2/24/2024 1:21 PM, micky wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:19:24 -0800 (PST),
Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
What I would like to find out is how this happened with all of these
cases.
Many years ago I was in the Army as an intelligence analyst studying
the Warsaw Pact armies equipment.
When my service was over (1974) I had hundreds of classified
documents ranging from from TS/SCI to Secret. Every one of those had
to be inventoried and reassigned to another person. I only had a
few TS/SCI but after transferring them to a coworker, I left the
SCIF and was checked to make sure I wasn't carrying anything out.
Finally my name was removed from the access list. In the crypto
vault everything Secret and TS (documents, encryption keys, coding
equipment) was inventoried and the combination lock on the door was
changed. My officemate individually signed for all the Secret
documents in my two safes (around 500) and then the combinations
were changed. All of that took several days. Security verified I
had turned everything over and I left the office to get my final
paycheck.
So who cleared all of the documents Biden, Trump, etc to leave?
Trump would take documents up to the "residence" and no one had nerve
enough to tell him not to. I don't think they were inventoried at
all. But that does not account for the scores of cartons of documents
he eventually stole.
I don't think the President has to go to a SCIF to look at them.
(Similar ,maybe? to the fact that he doesn't have to pass an FBI
security test) Maybe not the VP either.
...
Ever see any pictures of safes in the Oval Office? All those
documents were stored somewhere secure. In the case of TS/SCI it was
a SCIF. Somebody had to sign for them. Every Secret or higher
document was inventoried and separately numbered. All of those
workers, secretaries, assistants had security clearances, including
with being told how to handle the stuff.
Perhaps the intelligence agencies are just anal about that stuff.
When I got a report about a Russian electronics van, someone had to
stick their neck out to get that info.
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message >news:[email protected]...
"John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >>>>location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there >>>>must be procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
You might think so but I wouldn't count on it. Changeover day between
presidents is quite chaotic. Mike Pence took classified stuff home,
too. As did Jimmy Carter.
Like Biden, and unlike Trump, they all promptly returned the documents
when they discovered them.
I wonder if Biden could have properly taken those documents home while he >>was VP, and just forgot he had them.
You're overlooking the important point from the Hua report that Biden had >�willfully retained and disclosed classified materials to his ghost writer >(Zwonitzer) after his vice presidency� for his memoirs. So that tends to >undermine the argument that he either forgot about the documents or didn't >realize he still had them.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:09:59 -0800 (PST),
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message >>news:[email protected]...
"John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
... Surely, when you move possessions from a high-security government >>>>>location like the President or VP's office and living quarters there >>>>>must be procedures in place to audit and record what gets moved.
You might think so but I wouldn't count on it. Changeover day between
presidents is quite chaotic. Mike Pence took classified stuff home,
too. As did Jimmy Carter.
Like Biden, and unlike Trump, they all promptly returned the documents >>>> when they discovered them.
I wonder if Biden could have properly taken those documents home while he >>>was VP, and just forgot he had them.
You're overlooking the important point from the Hua report that Biden had >>“willfully retained and disclosed classified materials to his ghost writer >>(Zwonitzer) after his vice presidency” for his memoirs. So that tends to >>undermine the argument that he either forgot about the documents or didn't >>realize he still had them.
I'm not overlooking that, and I don't think the prosecutor's report said
that happened. That refers to his own hand-written notes and not other >documents.
What the Hur report says about Biden’s ‘willful retention’ of documents >Notebooks used for a memoir
.....Biden kept notes on key meetings and then worked with a ghostwriter, >Mark Zwonitzer, on a book, “Promise Me, Dad,” which covers a 14-month >period of his vice presidency during which his older son, Beau, died.
The report says “the evidence shows convincingly” that Biden knew the >notebooks contained classified information.
“During many of the interviews with his ghostwriter, Mr. Biden read from >his notebooks nearly verbatim, sometimes for an hour or more at a time,” >the report says, quoting from audio recordings and transcripts. “At
times during these interviews, Mr. Biden took steps to ensure that
Zwonitzer did not read or have access to the classified portions of the >notebooks. … At other times, however, Mr. Biden read his notes from >classified meetings to Zwonitzer nearly word-for-word.”
The report notes that one defense Biden would have for retaining the >notebooks is that the Justice Department took no action after it was >discovered that former president Ronald Reagan had kept eight years’
worth of handwritten diaries that contained classified information. In
his interview with Hur, Biden brought up the Reagan example.
The report says that Biden could credibly claim he thought his notebooks
were his personal property and that he was allowed to take them home
after his vice presidency. As a result, the report said, “we do not
believe there are viable criminal charges against Mr. Biden for
willfully retaining classified information in the notebooks.”
Biden also retained some notecards, contending in an interview with
Zwonitzer that they were in a “gray area” and did not to have to go the >National Archives. “That Mr. Biden was mistaken in his legal judgment is >not enough to prove he acted willfully, which requires intent to do
something the law forbids,” the report says.
The report says that there is evidence that Biden, on three occasions,
may have disclosed classified information to Zwonitzer, who did not have >clearance. But, the report says, “we do not believe the evidence
supports charges of willful disclosure beyond a reasonable doubt.”
That’s because Biden, while speaking to Zwonitzer, indicated uncertainty >about whether the passages in his notebook that he was reading were >classified. As a result, “we conclude that the evidence does not
establish that Mr. Biden willfully disclosed national defense
information to Zwonitzer.”
Bottom Line: This is the strongest example of Biden possibly mishandling >classified information. But the report concludes that the case would be
weak, given the Reagan example and given that Biden generally appeared
to be careful to not repeat classified information to someone not
cleared to receive it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/10/what-hur-report-says-about-bidens-willful-retention-documents/?utm_campaign=wp_fact_checker&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_fact
This seems like a comprehensive article, and iiuc, goes over all the >allegations discussed by the report and gives similar answers to all of
them, that clear Biden.
To me there are only two choices: either sharp legal mind Biden knew the materials were classified and did it anyway, or Biden showing serious mental decline did it without realizing what he was doing. You can't have it both ways.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:48:54 -0800 (PST), Rick wrote:
To me there are only two choices: either sharp legal mind Biden knew the
materials were classified and did it anyway, or Biden showing serious
mental
decline did it without realizing what he was doing. You can't have it
both
ways.
What's the statute of limitations for mishandling classified
materials?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 142:31:51 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,998 |
| Messages: | 6,517,452 |