Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Don't rely on this poorly-reported story for your facts, and definitely not for your legal information.

For those who prefer a more lawyerly take on prosecutorial discretion (or the lack thereof) displayed here, there's an article about this on Popehat:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/26/an-exercise-of-prosecutori...

Which is, if anything, more egregious because the author is pandering to readers' prejudices even though he knows better, and does absolutely nothing to correct the inevitable misapprehensions.

If you mean the charged with != sentenced to thing, I should hope that anyone reading Popehat would know the difference. There are plenty of countries that do not do things that way and even though that is perfectly normal here, that doesn't mean it's not broken.

What makes you say that? The reporting in the OP's article seems quite accurate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-californ...

I refer you to the reast of the thread, and to the other thread; but as a general rule, you shouldn't use one sensationalist semi-tabloid news source to confirm another.

I refer to your constant stream of rolling your eyes about discussions you don't actually enter in any sustained way. There's an awful lot of that here lately, it's lame.

Apart from my citing the relevant bits of the penal code, explaining the differences between questions of law and of fact, how California law governs responsibility for sidewalks, sure. So I'm a guy who likes having my facts straight instead of going off on an emotional tirade, shoot me.

Most of the outrage porn that gets posted to HN is very poorly founded in fact.

Again, correct the facts, if you will. I live in San Diego, I used to do criminal law here, and I know for a fact that thetq

Oops, iPhone slipped. Any way, the city attorney office in San Diego is one of the worst. If they could execute you for jaywalking, they would, and they drag everything to trial.

I'm not at all enthused about the guy being prosecuted. But we both know that he's not facing 13 years, and that if the judge rules the first amendment isn't a valid defense in a prosecution for vandalism of private property and then tells his lawyer that he can't try that argument on the jury, it doesn't mean the Constitution is being murdered in the judge's chambers.

I'm not arguing for the prosecution here. I'm arguing for the inclusion of relevant context in news reporting, and for people to engage their critical faculties in discussions of legal issues.

Thanks for your concern, but I prefer to rely on paying attention to the world I live in for my guesstimates. It's so much nicer than not seeing the woods for all the trees.

Don't rely on drive-by one-liners that point out some random point at best to be anything but transparent. If you have any additional facts, what are they? If you don't, what is this?

I made experiences with chalk and cops that have actual criminals to catch, and cops that have big fat property and malls to patrol. Anecdotal, yes, random, maybe, but still mostly for those who get the point, or have experiences of their own to contribute; anything more than just cheap shots from cheap seats to stifle discussion you don't like to see others having.

What legal claims did I even make? What exactly is that supposed to be a response to?

He's talking about the OP, not you. (I think anyway.)

Read my other posts to this thread, and to the other thread. I'm sick of correcting the same basic factual errors over and over for people too lazy to do it themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com