tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post3725657985428424932..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: "Disrupting Public Services"Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-12016002608286104712011-02-24T08:21:49.102-05:002011-02-24T08:21:49.102-05:00Disrupting public service is really a serious thin...Disrupting public service is really a serious thing to deal about. It is something that needs an attention. So we need to be aware about this one.Armil@phone providers in my areahttp://www.allconnect.com/sc-phone/phone-services.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-64819424607036643802010-06-11T22:25:28.487-04:002010-06-11T22:25:28.487-04:00Dear Professor Brenner,
I really enjoyed this case...Dear Professor Brenner,<br />I really enjoyed this case, and I'd like to tell you that we do have the exact crime you've written about "Disrupting Public Services" in our Criminal Code (Iranian Islamic Criminal Code)and also we do have this crime [Disrupting] against individual properties and services too. I'm not sure if disrupting individual properties or services is a crime in the US or no. <br />I'll find the exact translation of these articles and send you if you are interested in.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15401382511217619743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-58750696663639096862010-06-11T09:50:44.376-04:002010-06-11T09:50:44.376-04:00Thanks for the comment putting the charge in conte...Thanks for the comment putting the charge in context. I assumed something similar to the Robinson case was going on here, since I was pretty police didn't just arrest him for breaking a cell phone.<br /><br />As I think I mentioned in the post, the Court of Appeals says in its opinion that "[i]n the case before us, we do not know what particular actions Harrison took to render a cell phone inoperable". . . so I assumed they didn't know much about the facts . . . perhaps because it was a no contest plea. That would seem to leave only an issue of law.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-30504414116961719622010-06-11T09:45:21.136-04:002010-06-11T09:45:21.136-04:00This seems like a pretty simple plea bargain off o...This seems like a pretty simple plea bargain off of an assault case. Likely an unsympathetic victim who didn't want to testify. As a former assault-family violence prosecutor, I can tell you we used similar statutes to prosecute people who (also) interfered with 911 calls in similar ways. I don't know why you say the Harrison court had no facts to work with; when prosecution and defense write their appellate briefs, they always include a statement of the facts of the case. Just because the court did not include them in the opinion, albeit strange, doesn't mean they didn't know what the facts were.Georgettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08705282002904234217noreply@blogger.com