Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The blow out preventer.
Answer my questions you fucking retard!!! A link does not answer my specific questions.
What mechanical device failed?
BP or one of its agents.
What crime was committed?
Violations of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act, like I've already pointed out.
Who committed the crime?
Violations of the aforementioned acts were committed by BP or one of its agents.
The blow out preventer.Answer my questions you fucking retard!!! A link does not answer my specific questions.
What mechanical device failed?
BP or one of its agents.
Violations of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act, like I've already pointed out.
Who committed the crime?
Violations of the aforementioned acts were committed by BP or one of its agents.
The blow out preventer wasn't the cause of the leak. But nice try.
In order to pursue criminal charges prosecutors have to be prepared to demonstrate companies "knowingly" violated the regulations.
The blow out preventer.
BP or one of its agents.
Violations of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act, like I've already pointed out.
Violations of the aforementioned acts were committed by BP or one of its agents.
The blow out preventer wasn't the cause of the leak. But nice try.
So are you contending that there wasn't a blow out?
In order to pursue criminal charges prosecutors have to be prepared to demonstrate companies "knowingly" violated the regulations.
That's not true for all the criminal laws in question. For instance, the crime of killing a bird protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is one of strict liability, it does not require intent or knowledge of the violation. Kill a pelican - pay up to $15,000 - period.
You have to show intent or neglect, period.
You have to show intent or neglect, period.
Not period. You don't have to show intent or neglect for for strict liability crimes. That's the definition of what a strict liability crime is.
No, strict liability means you don't have to show anything regarding the intent of accused.You have to show intent or neglect, period.
Not period. You don't have to show intent or neglect for for strict liability crimes. That's the definition of what a strict liability crime is.
Strict liability means you have to show that a person did not intend any harm by his actions and was completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act.
Killing a pelican is an illegal act under 16 USC 703. I've already pointed this out. Maybe you should go read the fucking law instead of just making it up as you go along.Key words here are "illegal act". BP nor any of its agents have committed an illegal act.
One more thing to note - the crime of killing a pelican is a misdemeanor in this case.One more thing should be noted "strict liability" in most cases are limited to minor infractions and misdemeanors with statutory rape being an exception.
You have to show intent or neglect, period.
Not period. You don't have to show intent or neglect for for strict liability crimes. That's the definition of what a strict liability crime is.
Strict liability means you have to show that a person did not intend any harm by his actions and was completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act. Key words here are "illegal act". BP nor any of its agents have committed an illegal act. One more thing should be noted "strict liability" in most cases are limited to minor infractions and misdemeanors with statutory rape being an exception.
No, strict liability means you don't have to show anything regarding the intent of accused.Not period. You don't have to show intent or neglect for for strict liability crimes. That's the definition of what a strict liability crime is.
Strict liability means you have to show that a person did not intend any harm by his actions and was completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act.Killing a pelican is an illegal act under 16 USC 703. I've already pointed this out. Maybe you should go read the fucking law instead of just making it up as you go along.Key words here are "illegal act". BP nor any of its agents have committed an illegal act.
One more thing to note - the crime of killing a pelican is a misdemeanor in this case.One more thing should be noted "strict liability" in most cases are limited to minor infractions and misdemeanors with statutory rape being an exception.
No, strict liability means you don't have to show anything regarding the intent of accused. Killing a pelican is an illegal act under 16 USC 703. I've already pointed this out. Maybe you should go read the fucking law instead of just making it up as you go along.Strict liability means you have to show that a person did not intend any harm by his actions and was completely unaware that he was committing an illegal act.
One more thing to note - the crime of killing a pelican is a misdemeanor in this case.One more thing should be noted "strict liability" in most cases are limited to minor infractions and misdemeanors with statutory rape being an exception.
Educate yourself.
Strict Liability in the Criminal Law - Criminal Liability
(a) In general
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702), the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936, the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 [FN1] and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976.
(b) Limitation on application to introduced species
(1) In general
This subchapter applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories.
(2) Native to the United States defined
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraph (B), in this subsection the term “native to the United States or its territories” means occurring in the United States or its territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.
(B) Treatment of introduced species
For purposes of paragraph (1), a migratory bird species that occurs in the United States or its territories solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction shall not be considered native to the United States or its territories unless--
(i) it was native to the United States or its territories and extant in 1918;
(ii) it was extirpated after 1918 throughout its range in the United States and its territories; and
(iii) after such extirpation, it was reintroduced in the United States or its territories as a part of a program carried out by a Federal agency.
No, strict liability means you don't have to show anything regarding the intent of accused. Killing a pelican is an illegal act under 16 USC 703. I've already pointed this out. Maybe you should go read the fucking law instead of just making it up as you go along.
One more thing to note - the crime of killing a pelican is a misdemeanor in this case.
Educate yourself.
Strict Liability in the Criminal Law - Criminal Liability
Thanks, but I already know what strict liability crimes are. From what you've said so far its you that should be reading your link. Start with the first sentence, you don't even understand that much.
Since you steadfastly refuse to look it up yourself, I'm going to show you the law that makes it a misdemeanor crime to kill a pelican. This law does not require intent. If you don't like it, too fucking bad, don't gripe to me.
(a) In general
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702), the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936, the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 [FN1] and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976.
(b) Limitation on application to introduced species
(1) In general
This subchapter applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories.
(2) Native to the United States defined
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraph (B), in this subsection the term native to the United States or its territories means occurring in the United States or its territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.
(B) Treatment of introduced species
For purposes of paragraph (1), a migratory bird species that occurs in the United States or its territories solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction shall not be considered native to the United States or its territories unless--
(i) it was native to the United States or its territories and extant in 1918;
(ii) it was extirpated after 1918 throughout its range in the United States and its territories; and
(iii) after such extirpation, it was reintroduced in the United States or its territories as a part of a program carried out by a Federal agency.
16 USC 703
Thanks, but I already know what strict liability crimes are. From what you've said so far its you that should be reading your link. Start with the first sentence, you don't even understand that much.
Since you steadfastly refuse to look it up yourself, I'm going to show you the law that makes it a misdemeanor crime to kill a pelican. This law does not require intent. If you don't like it, too fucking bad, don't gripe to me.
(a) In general
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702), the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936, the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 [FN1] and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976.
(b) Limitation on application to introduced species
(1) In general
This subchapter applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories.
(2) Native to the United States defined
(A) In general
Subject to subparagraph (B), in this subsection the term native to the United States or its territories means occurring in the United States or its territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.
(B) Treatment of introduced species
For purposes of paragraph (1), a migratory bird species that occurs in the United States or its territories solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction shall not be considered native to the United States or its territories unless--
(i) it was native to the United States or its territories and extant in 1918;
(ii) it was extirpated after 1918 throughout its range in the United States and its territories; and
(iii) after such extirpation, it was reintroduced in the United States or its territories as a part of a program carried out by a Federal agency.
16 USC 703
Let me get this straight, your entire argument is based on killing pelicans? Of which you, yourself claimed was a misdemeanor.
Thanks, but I already know what strict liability crimes are. From what you've said so far its you that should be reading your link. Start with the first sentence, you don't even understand that much.
Since you steadfastly refuse to look it up yourself, I'm going to show you the law that makes it a misdemeanor crime to kill a pelican. This law does not require intent. If you don't like it, too fucking bad, don't gripe to me.
16 USC 703
Let me get this straight, your entire argument is based on killing pelicans? Of which you, yourself claimed was a misdemeanor.
No. I was asked for an example of laws which BP has violated. They clearly violated this one. Do you want me to do your work for you and find others?
Doesn't just apply to pelicans, but any bird on a list of about 800. And its not just a single misdemeanor. Its one misdemeanor for every bird killed. At $15,000 a pop that can add up.
You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor.
You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor.
Its a violation of law to commit a misdemeanor.
You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor.
Its a violation of law to commit a misdemeanor.
Well the next time my Gulfstream sucks up a brown pelican or I run over a Barton Springs Salamander I'll be sure to report myself.
Its a violation of law to commit a misdemeanor.
Well the next time my Gulfstream sucks up a brown pelican or I run over a Barton Springs Salamander I'll be sure to report myself.
How many pelicans have you killed?
Well the next time my Gulfstream sucks up a brown pelican or I run over a Barton Springs Salamander I'll be sure to report myself.
How many pelicans have you killed?
Accidently or on purpose?
The cumulative effect of legislation protects 836 species. Federal enforcement may seem strong on its face. Current policy states “while any ‘incidental, accidental or unintentional take’ of migratory birds is not permitted by the Service and is a criminal violation of the Bird Migratory Treaty Act, the Service attempts to work with those industries and individuals whose actions result in bird deaths, rather than pursuing criminal prosecution first.”[9]
How many pelicans have you killed?
Accidently or on purpose?
Either one.
Its a criminal violation either way. Doubtful you'd be prosecuted if it was an honest mistake
The cumulative effect of legislation protects 836 species. Federal enforcement may seem strong on its face. Current policy states while any incidental, accidental or unintentional take of migratory birds is not permitted by the Service and is a criminal violation of the Bird Migratory Treaty Act, the Service attempts to work with those industries and individuals whose actions result in bird deaths, rather than pursuing criminal prosecution first.[9]
Legal Challenges to Wind Power Development: Potential Unlawful conduct regulated by Federal agencies: How are environmental laws enforced by the Federal agencies?
