And yet you are convinced the teens are criminals who are better off dead. Mallethead.
Yeah, I don’t have my “complete tax code for all 50 states” handy but in the commonwealth of Virginia you only have to register to pay the use tax if you qualify as a “dealer” as spelled out in the code. Casual purchases don’t have to be reported.
And by the way, when I said “typically” that was an admission that it isn’t that way everywhere, which makes your entire post a stupid misunderstanding.
Furthermore in Virginia even if I was one of the people who was required to pay the use tax on internet sales and purchases then it isn’t a criminal matter, I’d be assessed a penalty on my taxes, not charged with a crime.
are you claiming that you’ve always cataloged such purchase then, to insure that you indeed didn’t go over the limit? Theif.
really? you’re claiming tax fraud is not a crime. (it still, however would be a theft to your state)
theif.
It isn’t a matter of a limit.
Tax fraud is a crime because it is deliberate effort to withhold taxes. If it’s a genuine mistake (and typically it isn’t difficult for the government agency in quesiton to tell the difference between a mistake and an intentional fraud) based on misunderstanding it isn’t a crime but a mistake with filing. Filing mistakes typically mean you have to pay higher taxes but typically do not mean you will be charged with a crime (because it isn’t a crime.)
And anyways, I’ve already explained to you that you are quite mistaken about the use tax and how it is applied in Virginia.
I’ll be sure to bust out this defense the next time I get pulled over.
Anyway, back to trying to deal with reasonable people instead of numbnut psychopaths like Mr. Hyde, we’ll have to look at the forensic evidence of the bulletholes in the SUV, I think, to figure this one out.
(bolding added)
so unless you’re claiming that you’ve never made more than one hundred dollars in internet and catalog orders in any year, you, indeed, are a theif. Naturally, you’ve kept careful records of all such purchases to insure that you’ve never made more than 100$ in purchases.
theif.
“Thief,” wring. It’s spelled “thief.”
(Sorry for the utterly trivial nitpick, but much like a steering wheel in the pants of a pirate, it’s been driving me nuts. Great posts otherwise.)
thanks, Miller, - my parents always loved the fact that during intensive testing while in middle school, the results showed that I was in the 95+ percentile in nearly all of the 14 measurements - the most notable exception was 47th percentile in Spelling.
As I said in the other thread, and son-of-a-bitch who believs that $26 worth of pancakes are worth a man’s life is completely, utterly worthless.
Did I miss it?
Ok, maybe not. So here I go again with more feeling…
Does anyone know if the kid has been verified as a thief?
If not, wouldn’t it be even more heinous than it already is to have shot him over $26 in pancakes?? Certainly if he’d been something like, I dunno, asleep in the car, walking down to Taco Hell, chatting with his girlfriend on his cell, reading a magazine. 
It’s Og awful no matter what, but if he truly were a bystander in the above sense (and not an accomplice) then the officer needs to have more done to him than I’d care to repeat out loud.
-
Still not a criminal matter. To be a criminal matter there would have to be evidence that I deliberately mislead the government, if it’s a mistake I have to pay a tax penalty, it is not considered a crime.
-
It is also not theft if there isn’t the intentional aspects involved. Read almost any statute on what constitutes larceny and what does not.
If I walk out of someone’s house with their jacket on, which looks identical to mine, because I thought it was mine, I’m not a thief.
Also, no, I don’t think I’ve ever spent more than $100 in a single calendar year on internet orders for which I didn’t pay tax. So you’re wrong.
Nice playing with you, though.
I’m even more sure I’ve never violated the tax code in this manner now that I’ve read the specifics. It has to be over $100 in tangible goods (a lot of what I buy being intangible in nature over the internet) and also doesn’t include magazine or newspaper subscriptions or shipping and handling charges.
Has anybody said this?
Martin’s come pretty damn close.
Yes.
Martin’s complete lack of sympathy for a dead teenager (whom he’s tried to compare to both John Gotti and Jeffrey Dahmer :rolleyes: ) directly implies that he thinks that the cop was perfectly justified in shooting the kid dead over a stack of pancakes. There has, after all, not been any evidence that the cop was in any danger at all. So yes, Martin has directly implied the above. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
No, police officers shouldn’t be judge, jury, and executioner. They should only shoot to protect others or themselves, period.
I’ve never said a single thing contradictory to that.
I’ve simply said that whatever happened, even if the cop was acting inappropriately, that doesn’t change the fact that one less criminal in society isn’t a bad thing.
One less deluded asshole in society isn’t a bad thing either, but i don’t think you should be shot.