>Interesting thread... My laptop came with a Lo-jack CD. After reading
>all the discussions so far, I'm wondering what the consensus is as far
>as loading the Lo-jack program onto my laptop?
If the thief lives in a large city I doubt you'll be able to get their
police to escort you to the thief's home with a search warrant to
retrieve your laptop.
On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present for
>> a case to go forward.
>
> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
is up to the state.
Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3od4e$6f2$1@news.datemas.de...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in
>>> message news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a
>>>>>> substitute teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and
>>>>>> had been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another
>>>>>> student at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the
>>>>>> laptop at a bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was
>>>>>> stolen, and turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for
>>>>>> $60. Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at
>>>>>> Kiefer, says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given
>>>>>> him the laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a
>>>>>> new one.
>>>>>> She asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old
>>>>>> widow, had recently renewed a romance with her high school
>>>>>> sweetheart,
>>>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just
>>>>>> purchased. What she didn't know was that Clark County School
>>>>>> District, which
>>>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense
>>>>> is gonna fly.
>>>>
>>>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>>>
>>> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in
>>> court.
>>
>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
>> present for a case to go forward.
>
> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
It doesn't quite work that way, but it's not an important distinction,
so there's no need to have a long non-topical discussion.
>>> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
>>> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.
>>
>> Actually, people aren't found innocent. They are found "not guilty."
>
> True, they are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
>
> [...]
>
>> On the other hand, having the charges dropped often means the case
>> was a non-starter.
>
> Often. Also sometimes a PR move on the part of the complainant.
> Bring charges to teach them a lesson, drop them for PR purposes.
Goes back to what I said above. Briefly, it is not the aggrieved party
that brings the charge but the State. Victims do not get to decide
willy-nilly to "drop the charges." (Consider the consequences if that
were how our legal system worked.)
What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty
complaints in situations where the police have declined to charge anyone
because they deem it a non-starter for whatever reason--most often
because there's no evidence but merely s/he said, s/he said. If the
putative victim insists, s/he can still have his day in court, but s/he
brings the complaint in his or her own name.
> [...]
unruh wrote:
> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
>>> present for a case to go forward.
>>
>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>
> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges.
> It is up to the state.
> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
Are you Howard, back from the grave?
Bullwinkle. wrote:
> LOL and how old is this laptop?
>
>fat sloppy ass
>
Did you just see yourself in the mirror again?
Curious,
Buffalo
"unruh" <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnj5vvrm.6b3.unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca. ..
> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present
>>> for
>>> a case to go forward.
>>
>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>
> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
> is up to the state.
> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
Which also means that the "I didn't know it was stolen" claim went
untested on that charge. Despite picking nits, I still don't think it flies.
The price, and the source, and the serial number being obliterated
seem to be enough clues for anyone.
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:j3p0kk$29d$1@news.datemas.de...
[...]
> What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty complaints in
> situations where the police have declined to charge anyone because they deem
> it a non-starter for whatever reason--most often because there's no evidence
> but merely s/he said, s/he said. If the putative victim insists, s/he can
> still have his day in court, but s/he brings the complaint in his or her own
> name.
I was only thinking that "dropped charges" does not mean
that the "I didn't know it was stolen property" claim was
even tested.
FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3p0kk$29d$1@news.datemas.de...
> [...]
>> What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty
>> complaints in situations where the police have declined to charge
>> anyone because they deem it a non-starter for whatever reason--most
>> often because there's no evidence but merely s/he said, s/he said.
>> If the putative victim insists, s/he can still have his day in
>> court, but s/he brings the complaint in his or her own name.
>
> I was only thinking that "dropped charges" does not mean
> that the "I didn't know it was stolen property" claim was
> even tested.
Apparently she was credible, and they believed her story. Although it
seems to happen often that cops will get a hardon for the innocent, it
rarely goes the other way. If they think your story makes sense, it
probably does.
I would suspect that her lack of clue about the live security features
was a big selling point in her favor. She would have known that they
existed, and the fact that she ignored them indicates she was operating
under the theory that they had been disabled or removed at the time the
computer was removed from service. This would lead to the conclusion
that she genuinely believed her purchase to be a licit transaction.
The other possible theory is that she is just too ****ing stupid to be
walking the streets unattended. Always possible, but in her case, not
all that likely.
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
On 2011-09-02, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
> "unruh" <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnj5vvrm.6b3.unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca. ..
>> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present
>>>> for
>>>> a case to go forward.
>>>
>>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>>
>> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
>> is up to the state.
>> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
>> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
>
> Which also means that the "I didn't know it was stolen" claim went
> untested on that charge. Despite picking nits, I still don't think it flies.
> The price, and the source, and the serial number being obliterated
> seem to be enough clues for anyone.
It was tested, by the prosecutor. Who is a lawyer.
>
>
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>The other possible theory is that she is just too ****ing stupid to be
>walking the streets unattended. Always possible, but in her case, not
>all that likely.
Well, she is a substitute teacher. Even full time teachers are not
producing literate graduates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote