Democracies die behind closed doors bubba. Your attitude about public records being the exception rather than the rule is unfortunately too wide spread among government agencies. Thankfully, the law usually doesn't share your opinion.
I've never pulled CCW permit lists to look for mistakes on the forms. I did pull 'em to prove that the sheriff, who had a pretty restrictive policy about issuing them, made a habit of approving them to people who donated money to his reelection campaign.
the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was.
If it's a government record, it's a public record. That should always be the assumption. Exceptions need to be exceedingly rare.
In the case of concealed carry permits, there's lot of room for malfesance by the issuing authority. You'll never find out about it if those records are exempt from disclosure.
Of course a better solution is to not require a government permit for exercising your second amendment rights.
I really despise how often this "they are just stupid" perception is passed off as true. No, they are not stupid. They may not tell you the _real_ reason why they are doing something, but you can bet your ass they have considered major aspects.
It should really hurt your head to believe that all of these laws and rulings are accidental. No, they are not. Someone has considered most of the consequences. How they are selling it to the general public probably has little to do with the result they are actually looking for. Used car salesmen love people like you!
I have covered the state legislature in three different states. I can say that actually, they really are that stupid. Though stupid is a bit over broad: most of the state legislators I've known lack perspective and experience. They also tend to be either a) ideologes or b) careerists or c) both. And many are indeed just stupid.
When you think of state government, picture a half bright real estate hustler in wayyyyy over their head, overscheduled and floundering as they try to pander effectively for the rich people back in their district. If it wasn't for leadership and lobbyists, they wouldn't know which way they're supposed to vote most the time. I almost wish they were competent enough to be the sort of Machiavelian politicos you're describing.
by providing incredibly expensive data runs to people the rest of the industry can't be bothered servicing because there's not enough of them to make a profit on.
I seem to recall that we paid the telcos and MSOs to do just that. They then pocketed the money, bought off the regulators, and told us with a straight face that further network upgrades are too expensive and we should all just rely on LTE or something.
Link to Original Source
Pointing out that something the powers that be consider a crime may actually be an act of extra-legal social justice is a perfectly legitamate comment. Sometimes, the 'victim' really did have it coming. In no way is that the same thing as saying rape victims are at fault for dressing sexy. Nor is it necessarily "blaming the victim for having something a criminal wanted"; would you say the same if the victim was the Sheriff of Notingham?
I know almost nothing about the people involved in this case, but if I had to I'd bet that your read on the situation is correct and the commenter you reacted to is an idiot. Still, attacking anyone who questions the rights and wrongs of the situation is kinda dickish.
And your particular phrasing of "having something the criminal wanted" combined with your assumption that the commenter's 'life choices' are the sole cause of his present level of poverty or affluence strongly suggests your a right wing asshat who should be taken out and shot for the good of the nation.
Does he know of some nuclear option the rest of us aren't aware of?
I'd suggest Tyler Durden's approach. Bonus points for no radioactive fallout.
What's an unbonded bank?
if you know who stole your inheritance, why didn't you handle it? All I can figure is 1) it was a really small inheritance and you're not willing to stand on the principle of the thing 2) You're a punk or 3) You're an idiot who actually did kill the guy/gal in question but will then admit motive on
Depends. In general that won't happen because you're never going to talk to the cops period.
If they've got a case, then you're going to be paying for the lawyer anyway. If they don't then you walk. If they're fishing, then this means you don't talk your way into a charge.
Unless you're actively under investigation it's pointless to have an attorney represent you at this point anyway. All he or she will do is tell you to ignore anything the pigs say to you and keep your mouth shut.
It's important to remember that there's absent an actual ticking bomb, there's nothing you can get from talking to the pigs now that you couldn't get later -- the difference is that later you'll know exactly how strong or (usually) weak the case is against you.
There's nothing more depressing than reading a police report and realizing that the cops had little to nothing until the defendant -- now facing serious charges -- talked to them. This happens over and over and over and over again.
Also if you are charged it'll cost you much more than $1000 to hire a decent defense attorney. Try $5000-$10,000 minimum for a minor leauge felony or serious misdemeanor, even if you don't go to trial. My ex-brother in law and his father spent almost $200,000 for a highly regarded defense attorney to fight a federal dope case -- and that was without actually going to trial.