?

Log in

No account? Create an account
First Person Shooters - The Cover Story
October 2013
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
 
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:09 am
First Person Shooters

Internet-based Fire Control. Discuss the legal implications of such a system.

Current Mood: curious curious

13CommentReplyShare

pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 06:51 am (UTC)

Not quite in the realm of legal implications, but what happens if some sadistic SOB decides to use the setup to shoot the attendant collecting the bodies?


ReplyThread
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 07:09 am (UTC)

I imagine they'd engage the safety before stepping into the gun's tracking range. But if somebody did, what state would they be charged in, and with what?


ReplyThread Parent
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 07:40 am (UTC)

well murder[2] definitely comes to mind, as it was a voluntary act intended to bring about the death of a person and succeeded. Murder[1] Probably isn't viable as a charge, and there's needs to be some mitigation to bring murder[2] down to manslaughter...
if it were an accident, (the user tried to shoot the pig behind him but the attendant walked into the bullet path) maybe negligent homicide, maybe even nothing.


ReplyThread Parent
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 07:43 am (UTC)

Ah, but would they be charged in Texas, or in the state they issued the command from? Where did the crime actually occur?


ReplyThread Parent
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 07:50 am (UTC)

it depends on how each state defines murder. If it bans acts that result in death, probably TX. If it bans the conduct of killing, the state where the mouse-click occurred. Most all states use the result definition, so most likely TX.


ReplyThread Parent
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 08:48 am (UTC)

So is it possible to be charged in two states, if Texas uses the results rule and the source state uses the conduct rule?


ReplyThread Parent
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:10 am (UTC)

no. the 2 states would fight it out.


ReplyThread Parent
sirroxton
sirroxton
Adam Augusta
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:20 am (UTC)

What the heck does that entail?


ReplyThread Parent
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
pezzonovante
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 03:00 pm (UTC)

alot of threats and jockeying for position and "well I have this and I'm not givin it to you! Nah-nah-nah!"


ReplyThread Parent
egoism
egoism
E. Go
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:57 pm (UTC)

Texas may be big, but it'd better be wary, 'cause some of them smaller states like to fight dirty.


ReplyThread Parent
petercooperjr
petercooperjr
Peter Cooper Jr.
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:41 am (UTC)

I'm kinda curious why people would be up in arms about such a system... How is it different from having a prosthetic arm and hunting there using that? (This is just being a *really* long arm, that's all.)


ReplyThread
bronzite
bronzite
Robert Bronzite
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 09:55 am (UTC)

I don't think anybody is up in arms about it. It just raises interesting questions about security, since it is theoretically possible to commit a capital crime at ranges ususally reserved for major world militaries.


ReplyThread Parent
coopster22
coopster22
Wed, Nov. 17th, 2004 03:05 pm (UTC)

I was thinking that it would make a very useful security system. Sort of like what they have in Congo


ReplyThread Parent