Yet another member of the blame America crowd. Those in the blame America crowd will always see and hear exactly what they want, and use regrettable mistakes like this to proclaim that this is proof they were always right about America. Get off the high horse and remember you've never had to be in a combat zone, and worry about if that possible threat you see is about to shoot down one of your fellow soldiers.

Again, you can't judge what you would have done versus what they did, because you can't exclude your advance knowledge of what you seeing from your evaluation. They did not have that benefit. And did you see the raw video footage? Not exactly hidef, so perhaps we shouldnt be jumping to conclusions when you have absolutely no basis to justify them.

Well said. Points often missed by the large number of people on this site who feel that slanted news is justified when it supports their views.

Remember, you are watching the video with preknowledge of the contents. You know its a camera, and thus will see it as such. This is a war zone, and frankly, the soldiers in the line deserve the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes will, regrettably, occur when in a zone of hostilities. There is NO WAY to conduct any war where you eliminate the possibilities of things like this happening. Hesitate too much, wait too long, in order to get conclusive proof of what you believe you are seeing can result in loss of lives, often much larger loss of lives than the number lost in this regrettable and unfortunate error. Lastly, the leaking of confidential and top secret material, regardless of the motivation, is and should always be treated as a serious criminal matter. The person leaking has no idea of what the full consequences of those leaks may end up being, regardless of whatever idealistic justifications they feel in doing it.

TFA misrepresented the case, and didnt get his facts correct. Go read the PDF of the decision, and that will be clear. For example, he didnt even understand that the lower court ruled that the license was invalid, saying the appeals court AFFIRMED the lower court ruling, when in fact they vacated and remanded. If the TFA was written by an attorney, it was written by one who didnt read any of the actual case material.

The only thing that stands as a precedent is the very very very narrow decision by the appeals court, which is not very substantive at all. In the end, all they decided was to vacate the previous court's ruling that the license's broad terms were overly broad and thus couldn't rise to the standard required for a financial liability and enforcement. That was the ONLY ruling in by the appellate court, and it is very narrow, and applies only to the federal courts, who even the appellate court explained barely had jurisdiction in this case.

Again, go back, reread with comprehension enabled. Commercial theft was not the charge. The charge was Commercial Burglary, which is vastly different and can carry a State Prison sentence of 16 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. The crime he committed was shoplifting, and with no priors should have remained that. With priors, it would then be felony theft with priors. There was no reason to charge him with felony burglary, even if he met the legal definition of it, because the burglary law was not crafted to cover that type of crime. It's a case of law being too loosely worded, and not narrowly defined enough, and thus allowing the system to abuse its application.

A loss prevention worker has no say in what the charges filed are. The fact is that the overcharging of minor crimes like that happens every day, and NOT only in California. That definition of burglary exists in every one of 10 other states I checked. The amount stolen is not relevant except for the charge of theft. Burglary typically has no modifiers for amount stolen, and doesn't even have to involve a theft of any kind. The case I mentioned is an actual one. And I could follow it up with many more. A 18 year old girl, lifted a bottle of liquor from a liquor store, was asked the same question (the police are trained in this), and faced the same charge of burglary. Felony theft may start at $500 in value, felony burglary starts at Zero, it requires only your intent when you entered the premises, even if no theft occurred.

$35 for the Ion, and it is mountable on the back of any LCD TV or Monitor. The difference in price is not nearly as much as people here are portraying, and the difference in functionality is so huge that the small difference is barely mentionable.

Go back, reread, and with some reading comprehension enabled =) The example you cite from my comment, the petty thief was charged with Felony Burglary, BECAUSE of his statement to police when questioned. Not petty theft.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

While he was certainly GUILTY of the felony, it was a blatant overcharge of the level of the crime (provided he didn't have priors).

Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.

In the context of having done the act, he is guilty of it whether the system found him guilty or not. But in the example noted, the person said "innocent people CONVICTED" meaning having been found guilty. Either way, presumption of innocence isn't the point here.

Completely irrelevant examples. The car was capable of it, and you are not stealing anything by modifying it. This is so obviously not on point, it is almost silly. Utility example is the same. As long as you are paying for what you use, there is no stealing of water resulting from you doing your own work. You really need to stay on point.

No, technically he WAS guilty of the stated crime, he entered the premises with the intent to commit larceny.

It's not that they charge crimes that were not committed, its that the overcharge the level of the offense.

Huge difference.

Knowing filing charges they know the individual did no commit would lead to sanctions and disbarment.

"getting innocent people convicted"

The guy was not innocent.

He was guilty, just that the charge was overstated for the offense.

Keep things in perspective.