271–280 of 295 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is barely in the top 50 if you are talking as a percentage of land mass that is forest. (Russia 49, Canada 73, and Brazil 27... US is 89) Finland, Sweden and Japan are the top 3 fully industiralized nations for forested land as a percentage of land mass. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/r...
Your source gives quite different numbers: Russia 49.78% Canada 38.70% Brazil 59.42% US 33.87%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans.
Actually, everyone. Even stereotypical food snobs like the French https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/19/the-french-have-fallen-in-lo... The world would be much better if fast food were a US-only phenomenon but that's trivially untrue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
"but penalties stack :)" Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT? "not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass" True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"but penalties stack :)" Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT? "not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass" True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down. Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat. When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause…
> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change. REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases. > There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down. No, there are costs and profits and if you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubtful that the mass ranched cattle is raised to the same quality standards as in America, especially if they know their beef is going to fast food. Ex. Grass fed, hormone-free Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
This is why I mentioned the word debatable. Brazil has high-quality standards for cattle; I specifically live in an agribusiness state in Brazil (very far away from the Amazon, although still having ecological problems). The absolute majority of cattle here are raised in free-range being grass-fed, without any hormones, and this is exactly the problem, free-ranging demands a lot of land, and ultimately this land is b…
I am asking a different question than what is demonstrated by the article, intentionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.
This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.
Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant. A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy. This is not…
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas