From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:44:42 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Anonymous proxies & ITAR question (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199706162250.RAA01843@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199706162330.SAA25461@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199706162250.RAA01843@einstein.ssz.com>, on 06/16/97 
   at 05:50 PM, Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> said:

>Hi,

>Forwarded message:

>> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 17:48:52 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Anonymous proxies & ITAR question

>> >>The renter of a car or truck is not responsible for the contents. The
>> >>driver of a truck is
>> >          ^^^^^^

>The renter is not responsible until they take contractual possession of
>the truck. From that point until placed on the companies property and the
>key is placed in the lock-box hanging on the fence (or whatever system
>they use where you live) it is the responsibility of the
>renter/driver/physical possessor of the truck for its behaviour or
>contents.

>> If I went and rented a truck and there was a "roach" in the ashtray I
>> should not be held accountable for possesion unless it could be proved
>> that it was mine and not from someone else that had used the truck or even
>> a worker at the retal shop.
>> 
>> Ofcource if I had the trailer loaded with 100K of coke it would be a
>> little hard to say that someone else left it there. :)

>Why should coke be treated any different than pot? How much pot should I
>be able to put in such a truck and 'get away' with as a function of SOP?
>How much coke?

>No, ambiguity like this has no place in law. The litmus test should be
>whether a person or their property were damaged without their prior
>permission. Crimes should be a function of physical interaction and not
>some qualitative or even quantitative test. If it is a crime to do 100 of
>them then it should be a crime to do 1/10 (assuming it should be a crime
>in the first place).

This point I was trying to make was that the renter of property should not
be held resposable for "illegal" items that may be on that property
without his knowledge.

Since every truck I have ever rented included a physical inspection of the
truck (basically to note all the dents and dings that were already there)
it would be hard to say that you had no knowldge of the trailer being
filled with coke (well it would be easy to say but no one would beleive
you). Such inspections do not include checking ashtrays, cracks between
the seats, taking off the door pannels, ...ect and the renter should not
be held responcible unless it could be *proved* that he was the one that
put the items there and not someone else.

>I can see it now,

>"Sorry sir, we had to let him go. He only 1/4 raped her."

Now you are being silly and not to the point of the disscusion. This was
not about wether possession of a "roach" should be more or less legal than
100K of coke. The point was wether the renter should be held accountable
for possesion of "illegal" substances that he had no prior knowledge of.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM6XNTI9Co1n+aLhhAQFY8wP/WXKyKIh9esbM+y+siAHQ5NhUokDpAN42
0wCKwtnmZsyz78nLJknJ+aGLs2VPZnLrwolAZA0M3RNE8Wr1nrJZ+oA17y/Xa898
GM/b6y2P14FWkoJ0ePzCCLomgjTHaT+GeXbaFtmDRXeh4JSDzgokFw1+5uonb5Dg
Qlxgqshzz4Q=
=rWiu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----