3 ms·
I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about st
by giantg2 3y ago
I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
- singleshot_ 3y agoTalking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results. Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.
- giantg2 3y agoThe principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"? If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.
- singleshot_ 3y agoSounds like the principle isn’t too well understood if you’re