3 ms·

> It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggress

by p_ing 1y ago

> It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggressive, fearful, and self-protective/self-interested police force. Not one for the 'good of the people'. > Do you think people in the military have different or special rights? Yes, there are two classes of people in the US -- civilians and military. You're one of two, not that individuals in the military can violate civilian law, but they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians. Along with limits on their rights that they would otherwise have under the US Constitution.

mmooss 1y ago
> there are two classes of people in the US Where do you get that? > they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are. Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.
- p_ing 1y ago
  You should have read the rest of my comment -- whoo boy it would have cut your comment down to zero words. UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. False. It applies “In time of declared war or a contingency operation” to civilians “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”, 10 USC § 802(a)(10). This was one of several “gap-filling” changes to US federal law adopted to address problems with effectively holding contractors and others associated with the military accountable for crimes overseas in the '00s (among the others was the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which extended federal civilian criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed outside the United States that did not previously have extraterritorial application, when the offender was either a civilian accompanying the US military in certain capacities or a former military member subject to the UCMJ at the time of the act but not at the time of prosecution.) See, related, this DoD memo (hosted at DoJ) on the subject: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/legacy/2011/02/04/03-10-08dod-ucmj.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/le...
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity. There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations - their free speech is curtailed. Doctors and other healthcare professionals, in some places, are excluded from the 'good Samaritan' exception to injuring someone (i.e., if you find someone injured and try to help, and accidentally cause more harm, you can't be prosecuted).
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations For giving legal advice, that's mostly backwards (in most US jurisdictions); its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice (this is one of many things that constitutes unauthorized practice of law), whereas for a lawyer they are allowed to within certain ethical bounds.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        > its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice People give legal advice on HN all the time, for example; lawyers on HN have to say 'but none of this should be construed as legal advice', etc. Non-lawyers can't charge for legal advice, but they love to give it!
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        You have observed a pattern of behavior on HN, and conjectured a plausible legal framework that explains that behavior. That's great. But, as is going to be the case probably more than 99% of the time that you try to infer the law from how people behave on HN, the rule you seemed to have inferred ("anyone except a lawyer is free to give legal advice in any situation, but lawyers are more restricted") is very much not the actual legal rule. i suspect part of the error is that your conjecture about the rule implicitly assumed that both lawyer's and non-lawyer's behaviors reflected the same degree of knowledge of, and concern for adhering to, the applicable legal rules.

by p_ing 1y ago

mmooss 1y ago

> there are two classes of people in the US Where do you get that? > they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are. Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.

p_ing 1y ago
You should have read the rest of my comment -- whoo boy it would have cut your comment down to zero words. UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. False. It applies “In time of declared war or a contingency operation” to civilians “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”, 10 USC § 802(a)(10). This was one of several “gap-filling” changes to US federal law adopted to address problems with effectively holding contractors and others associated with the military accountable for crimes overseas in the '00s (among the others was the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which extended federal civilian criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed outside the United States that did not previously have extraterritorial application, when the offender was either a civilian accompanying the US military in certain capacities or a former military member subject to the UCMJ at the time of the act but not at the time of prosecution.) See, related, this DoD memo (hosted at DoJ) on the subject: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/legacy/2011/02/04/03-10-08dod-ucmj.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/le...
- mmooss 1y ago
  > SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity. There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations - their free speech is curtailed. Doctors and other healthcare professionals, in some places, are excluded from the 'good Samaritan' exception to injuring someone (i.e., if you find someone injured and try to help, and accidentally cause more harm, you can't be prosecuted).
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations For giving legal advice, that's mostly backwards (in most US jurisdictions); its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice (this is one of many things that constitutes unauthorized practice of law), whereas for a lawyer they are allowed to within certain ethical bounds.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice People give legal advice on HN all the time, for example; lawyers on HN have to say 'but none of this should be construed as legal advice', etc. Non-lawyers can't charge for legal advice, but they love to give it!
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        You have observed a pattern of behavior on HN, and conjectured a plausible legal framework that explains that behavior. That's great. But, as is going to be the case probably more than 99% of the time that you try to infer the law from how people behave on HN, the rule you seemed to have inferred ("anyone except a lawyer is free to give legal advice in any situation, but lawyers are more restricted") is very much not the actual legal rule. i suspect part of the error is that your conjecture about the rule implicitly assumed that both lawyer's and non-lawyer's behaviors reflected the same degree of knowledge of, and concern for adhering to, the applicable legal rules.