NY Times Magazine this weekend

[cynicalflyer]

I am not defending his behavior,

Except to the extent you are blaming the victim.

only that it has no bearing on the now and wanted to point out other facets, other ideals for consideration regarding that incident.

I disagree. It demonstrates that when it comes to the income tax, Pete wants what Pete wants, Pete will do what Pete wants to do, and to heck with whomever gets hurt by it,

Just wanted to state that he could have placed a counter claim against the petitioner or some other party so long as it is relevant to the case.

No, that is absolutely false. You cannot blame a victim or hold the victim of the crime civilly liable,

Think about the good Samaritan rule,

Which is wholly irrelevant to a CRIME and the civil liabilities of the PERPETRATOR. Next.

[The Operative]

No one here said it was not used until the appeal. No one here said it was not used in the actual trial. The appeals court decision was probably easier to look up. Demo quoted the appeals court decision to point out that the "bomb" injured two people. A short time later you respond with, "which you all have somehow determined to be a “fire bomb”." I simply point out that we did not "determine" the device to be a "fire bomb". In fact, other than my responses to you and the quote from the appeals court, the term "fire bomb" has not been used by anyone in this thread other than YOU.

But that is the only place that you say that is was used at, thus everything else it ruled out. You all have mentioned that in prior posts I have read. And no see page 2, it was included within somebody post a quote, thus they used that word to aid in the message they were conveying within their own post.

You really have a reading comprehension problem. On page 2, where the word "firebomb" is used, look at the line above the "quote". What does that line say? It says, "from the appellate decision:" doesn't it?

I, and no one else in this thread, ever said that the appeals court decision was the ONLY place it was used at. I said the only place it was used IN THIS THREAD was in a quote of the appeals court decision, in your posts, and in my responses to your posts. You made a comment that we had somehow "determined" it to be a "fire bomb". I pointed out that the term was not used by us but was in the appeal court decision. From that, you jump to the conclusion that I said it wasn't used anywhere else, which is wrong.

[Nikki]

Could it be long past time to place Weston on moderated status?

He has long since stepped over the boundaries.

[Demosthenes]

Could it be long past time to place Weston on moderated status?

No.

[Number Six]

Too bad David Cay Johnston is no longer working at the NYT. His knowledge of the TPs and the tax system in general is phenomenal. The magazine article is not particulary helpful in bringing to light how serious a problem tax fraud has become in the US, and how much Hendrickson's brand of fraud has cost the country. The sooner this man is on a chain gang, the better.

[Gregg]

The sooner this man is on a chain gang, the better.

What? He's gonna get off that easy?

I was hoping we could send him up to Webhick with a bag of ping pong balls, a burlap sack, two pints of lard and a few badgers on Ritalin.

[Weston White]

I have to agree.

Sorry Weston, but a bomber (smoke, fire or otherwise) has no cause of action against a victim because of the victim's actions.

To borrow a legal phrase, you take your victim as you find them. If the person is an explosives expert or the average postal worker or a 6 year old. To somehow blame the victim is nonsense on stilts. To somehow claim the PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME could sue the victim all the more so.

I burglar that breaks into your home could turn around and sue you (thereby committing a felony), under the right conditions could rightfully sue you and win.

[Weston White]

Except to the extent you are blaming the victim.

No, I am blaming poor preparation and training by pointing out other facets. I am not blaming the victim, as in shame on them, though I do think that person is an absolute moron for what they did.

I disagree. It demonstrates that when it comes to the income tax, Pete wants what Pete wants, Pete will do what Pete wants to do, and to heck with whomever gets hurt by it,

No, it really only discredits him now and serves to create a stigmata, it greatly diminishes his chances for an impartial trial. If he has put his heart into what he believes and has a valid point, that point gets lost somewhere in his past wrongful actions.

If the government truly has a good case of wrongdoing for tax crimes, they should not need nor desire a "mega-bonus" point to aid them without any effort on their part. They should want to play fair and even. If their case is truly that strong and Hendrickson is truly that wrong, then justice will work to serve itself.

No, that is absolutely false. You cannot blame a victim or hold the victim of the crime civilly liable,

It depends upon the victims actions, a victim can turn into a perpetrator or suspect, that is a two way street. It just depends upon the circumstances.

Which is wholly irrelevant to a CRIME and the civil liabilities of the PERPETRATOR. Next.

I was referring to the 2nd party that was injured if it was caused by the actions of the postal employee, not to Hendrickson himself.

[cynicalflyer]

I burglar that breaks into your home could turn around and sue you (thereby committing a felony), under the right conditions could rightfully sue you and win.

So the suit would be the commission of a felony?
Wha?

Seriously, the above makes no sense, grammatically, logically or otherwise.

You are simply wrong Weston. The victim cannot be sued successfully by the perpetrator. I am sure in your wonderful mythical world you can concoct a situation where this may occur, but here on Planet Earth, no dice.

Moreover, your original contention, that Pete could sue the Post Office because the Post Office failed to train Pete's victim, is simply unfathomably moronic.

I have to concur with the assessment of others, both in this thread and others; you are why the ignore feature was invented.

[Dezcad]

Except to the extent you are blaming the victim.

No, I am blaming poor preparation and training by pointing out other facets. I am not blaming the victim, as in shame on them, though I do think that person is an absolute moron for what they did.

I disagree. It demonstrates that when it comes to the income tax, Pete wants what Pete wants, Pete will do what Pete wants to do, and to heck with whomever gets hurt by it,

No, it really only discredits him now and serves to create a stigmata,

(bolding added)

Now that there is an interesting slip. I'm sure WW meant "stigma" but I can see where he might also mean "stigmata", at least from PH's perspective.

[Duke2Earl]

The current "person" arguing here and in several other threads I've had the misfortune to read today seemingly desperately wants to be in a world of hurt. He has invested much of his life into getting there. He seems to want more than anything to demolish what little passes for his life. Who are we to stop him? I just sincerely hope he doesn't bring down any innocents with him in his flaming attempt to crash and burn.

[mutter]

jeez, a guy goes off to the fortress of solitude for a weekend and everyone goes WW on me

[Famspear]

jeez, a guy goes off to the fortress of solitude for a weekend and everyone goes WW on me

Yeah, but we ain't forgotten about ya!

[Arthur Rubin]

I burglar that breaks into your home could turn around and sue you (thereby committing a felony), under the right conditions could rightfully sue you and win.

Actually, it's likely that Weston intended to say:

A burglar that breaks into your home (thereby committing a felony), under the right conditions, could rightfully sue you and win.

That would be true. It would also be because of actions you committed or situations you prepared. I think the burgler who fell through an improperly maintained skylight lost, but the automatic shotgun (or even pail of acid over the door) doesn't seem to be something a responsible homeowner should do.

Unless, of course, Weston is expected.

[Nikki]

Just remember. Over 50% of the body must fall inside the door to support a reasonable self-defense claim.

If that doesn't happen, the police who come to investigate the break-in are usually happy to help with the heavy lifting.

[webhick]

Just remember. Over 50% of the body must fall inside the door to support a reasonable self-defense claim.

If that doesn't happen, the police who come to investigate the break-in are usually happy to help with the heavy lifting.

What if more than 50% of the body is reduced to sprayed gore? Will the cops also help me squeegee the perpetrator off the walls and respray it inside the premises?

[webhick]

Just remember. Over 50% of the body must fall inside the door to support a reasonable self-defense claim.

If that doesn't happen, the police who come to investigate the break-in are usually happy to help with the heavy lifting.

What if more than 50% of the body is reduced to sprayed gore? Will the cops also help me squeegee the perpetrator off the walls and respray it inside the premises?

Isn't that what you have mindless minions for? I mean why even bother having mindless enthralled minions if they won't do your scut work?

You feeling okay Webhick? Normally you would have thought of that....... probably not enough fiberglass and Coca-Cola in your diet.

There are some cases where minions would be a hindrance. When those situations arise, it's important to plan ahead.

[grixit]

Liberal household here. No shotgun, any intruder will get a long lecture on social responsibility.

[Nikki]

Who said anything about a shotgun? They can seriously mess up the wallpaper.

A hunting bow, on the other hand ...

And if the nasty person gets too close to use the bow, the arrows work well by themselves.

Even if the first arrow doesn't do the job, it's REALLY disconcerting to a bad guy to stand there watching himself do a bad Steve Martin impersonation.

On the other hand, (except for the feed cost being rather high) you could always buy one of Webhicks patented Wolverone-O-Matics: Six shots, each one guaranteed to do fatal damage if aimed within six feet of the target.

[Imalawman]

Liberal household here. No shotgun, any intruder will get a long lecture on social responsibility.

You sick, sick son of a bitch. That's going too far.