Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater
At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
Please note that the difference between:
"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime."
and
"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime."
is subtle at best.
Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby.
Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
jim bell wrote:
Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved.
How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. - Igor.
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
jim bell wrote:
Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved.
How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.
Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
Chudov , do you love me?
The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.
- Igor.
OKSAS <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
jim bell wrote:
Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (an other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the probl is solved.
How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.
Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
Chudov , do you love me?
Oksas, do you really believe in long-distance romance over the Internet? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
jim bell wrote:
Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved.
How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.
Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a friend is to lend him money.
Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.
Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running?
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available.
The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.
To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.
Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a friend is to lend him money.
Phill, in this example, is not my friend, but a lender.
Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.
Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running?
Mmm, likely the result will be that Toto will be impoverished (it is an example, do not take it personally) and will not only not be able to murder me, but also will be too afraid to sue me (because I would rather pay for a cheaper assassination than to pay damages).
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available.
... But would happen more often if it was.
The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.
To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those
Why, I will have a lot of money.
people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because:
1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).
This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default.
2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.
When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. - Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [some arguments deleted for lack of time to reply]
Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available.
... But would happen more often if it was.
Why, if AP was readily available, would she want to risk being hit by bad-mouthing you unnecessarily?
people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).
This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default.
Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman.
2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.
When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good.
We all know how people are framed, and we've seen the Hitchcockian murder scenarios on TV, in movies, etc. Certainly the CIA et al can create these scenarios, but what does that have to do with AP as used by ordinary persons?
participants (5)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
jim bell -
OKSAS