Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#91

Post by rolph »

cle wrote: post #78
felipemnoa wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, you are assuming (a big if since the poster made no mention of this) that 12g includes the weight of the paper and if you were to discount that weight then you would get a lesser amount of LSD? i.e. If the paper weighs 11 g then the actual LSD amount would be 1g.

It's not a big if, this is standard practice in the US legal system. They weigh the drug + medium. If you have 1-9 grams, including the paper, minimum first offender sentence is 5 years. With the paper that's only a few doses.

so the impurities/media are considered to be the drug as well as substance itself. Im not very confident with the idea that 1gram of pure crystaline LSD would bring a lesser sentence than a sheet of blotter with one drop on it.

it seems the war on drugs has caused more brain damage than any recreational drug. This is similar to stunts like draining the drizzle from beer cans into one empty can and declaring an open alcoholic beverage was concealed in a vehicle. LEOs can have thier respect back when they stop this sort of nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Hogg

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#92

Post by ensignavenger »

ebg13 wrote: post #84
felipemnoa wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, you are assuming (a big if since the poster made no mention of this) that 12g includes the weight of the paper and if you were to discount that weight then you would get a lesser amount of LSD? i.e. If the paper weighs 11 g then the actual LSD amount would be 1g.

Having been myself on grand juries for drug prosecution and subsequently reading more about the process, this is not just a baseless assumption. Including carrier weight is SOP from police+DA for drug charges, and they're not upfront about that fact when talking to the jury. When they say "X grams of Y" what they always mean is "X grams of thing containing Y" which could mean anywhere from X grams of Y to X femtogram…

According to the previously cited case linked at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/453/, the law is actually very specific about the weight being the whole mixture.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#93

Post by esoterica »

tome wrote: post #28

Top comment: unfairly lenient Second-top comment: unfairly strict https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989843

It's kinda funny how the both the criticisms of the punishment as being too strict and too lenient are being constructed from the same left-leaning perspective.

1. It's inequitable that white collar criminals face lower sentences than blue collar criminals despite the nominal values involved being way higher

2. It's inequitable that people are being threatened with years in prison for non-violent property crimes against mega corporations.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#94

Post by cle »

ensignavenger wrote: post #87
cle wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when you include the blotter paper in the weight, which is what police often do, in that case it'd likely be <10 doses.

According to the below linked case, 5.7 grams, including th e paper, was 1,000 doses. So 12 grams probably closer to 2,000 doses, depending on the weight of the paper. ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/453/ )

Yeah that's a good callout. Some heavy cardstock vs. scritta paper would have dramatically different weights.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#96

Post by zerr »

random314 wrote: post #70
zerr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might say, spreading the IP so that it doesn't belong to a single monopoly is a good thing for the society in general - jail time for this sounds ridiculous.

Intent matters in criminal prosecution. I don't think his intention was social good.

Another thing to take in count - he didn't ruin anyone's life so his life shouldn't be ruined either.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#97

Post by ch4s3 »

esoterica wrote: post #93
tome wrote: post #28

Top comment: unfairly lenient Second-top comment: unfairly strict https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989843

It's kinda funny how the both the criticisms of the punishment as being too strict and too lenient are being constructed from the same left-leaning perspective. 1. It's inequitable that white collar criminals face lower sentences than blue collar criminals despite the nominal values involved being way higher 2. It's inequitable that people are being threatened with years in prison for non-violent property crimes agai…

I think there are a few different angles here for it being too strict.

1. There's are large elements of randomness and bias in our legal system which make it incredibly uncertain if someone will go to jail for a crime they commit, and sentences are given at times months to years after a crime is committed. This means long sentences provide only marginally more disincentive than a shorter sentence.

2. It is incredibly expensive to imprison people, so we should aim to keep people jailed for the smallest amount of time necessary to protect society and/or deter crime.

3. It is simply inhumane to put any non-violent person in jail for a quarter century.

4. Corporatism incentivizes this kind of crime and society should address the root of the problem rather than focus on people who respond to the perverse incentives of systems we live in.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#98

Post by zacksinclair »

> “It is, unfortunately, no exaggeration to say that a prison sentence today can amount to the imposition of a serious health crisis, even a death sentence, given the BOP’s (Federal Bureau of Prisons) current inability to control the spread of the coronavirus,” Levandowski’s attorneys wrote.

I find this ridiculous for his attorneys to use as a defense against his potential incarceration. While likely true (and certainly deplorable on its own), this applies to anyone going through the criminal justice system and Levandowski is no special case. Conditions in prison should hardly be an excuse for house arrest vs incarceration.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#99

Post by ebg13 »

ensignavenger wrote: post #92
ebg13 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been myself on grand juries for drug prosecution and subsequently reading more about the process, this is not just a baseless assumption. Including carrier weight is SOP from police+DA for drug charges, and they're not upfront about that fact when talking to the jury. When they say "X grams of Y" what they always mean is "X grams of thing containing Y" which could mean anywhere from X grams of Y to X femtogram…

According to the previously cited case linked at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/453/ , the law is actually very specific about the weight being the whole mixture.

Yes, sorry, that part of what I wrote was unclear, but that's what I meant. I edited to hopefully clarify.

Re: U.S. prosecutors seek 27 months imprisonment for former Uber self-driving head

#100

Post by ensignavenger »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #34
ilikehurdles wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's any smarter than me (and he clearly seems a lot smarter than me), he probably keeps many of his assets in bankruptcy-protected accounts/LLCs.

LLCs aren't protected against bankruptcies. The protection they offer only goes the other way: if someone gets a $170 million judgement against an LLC you own, that liability (usually) does not extend to assets you personally own. In this case, any (share in) LLCs he may own would be part of the assets, together with shares/cars/cash/etc., subject to be auctioned off with the proceeds being divided among his creditor…

Actually, it depends on your state. https://www.limitedliabilitycompanycenter.com/llc/charging-o...
Post reply on HN