Dishwasher at Yale destroys "racist" art

[IronWing]

I know you're probably a product of the public education system so I'll go easy on you and Ironwing:



By what other legal mechanism would they be able to decide if they will pursue charges? It's a public university. I wouldn't care at all if he vandalized some private art gallery and they decided not to press charges, that would be between them. Public resources were destroyed in this case, however.

Yale is not a public university.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yale is not a public university.

They take public funds. Any member of the public who makes the cut can attend, in fact, because they take said monies.

 

[BudAshes]

You just lost your right to be outraged when some liberal pos art gets destroyed because some nutter feels triggers by it.

Are you saying that this is art piece contained conservative values?

 

[brycejones]

They take public funds. Any member of the public who makes the cut can attend, in fact, because they take said monies.

Lol no. They are private.

 

[IronWing]

They take public funds. Any member of the public who makes the cut can attend, in fact, because they take said monies.

Yale is not a public university. Yale takes public funds in the form of research grants and contracts. Unless specified in a research contract, ownership of property purchased under contract remains with the university. Students take public funds in the form of grants and loans. None of this confers an ownership interest in university property unless specified in contract.

 

[Joepublic2]

Lol no. They are private.

Then how is the state able to pursue charges, if no common resources are involved? The answer is they can because public money is involved in some way thus the state is an injured party.

 

[IronWing]

Then how is the state able to pursue charges, if no common resources are involved? The answer is they can because public money is involved in some way thus the state is an injured party.

We'd have to dig into Connecticut state law to find out what a prosecutor's authority is to bring charges in a vandalism case where the property owner doesn't want to file charges. The suspect's admission of committing the crime may be sufficient grounds for prosecution even if Yale declines to press charges.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Then how is the state able to pursue charges, if no common resources are involved? The answer is they can because public money is involved in some way thus the state is an injured party.

Read Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University

It may be because they are considering the property value damaged to be higher if the property has historical significance... For instance, if they somehow registered it with the historical societies, etc...

 

[Joepublic2]

We'd have to dig into Connecticut state law to find out what a prosecutor's authority is to bring charges in a vandalism case where the property owner doesn't want to file charges. The suspect's admission of committing the crime may be sufficient grounds for prosecution even if Yale declines to press charges.

I'll conceded I was incorrect in my initial statement. It's still a perverse application of the law if they're able to utilize public resources to private ends. For the record I think think any research conducted with public funds should be owned by and available to the public in its raw, unedited form. I understand that journals perform editing and bear additional (private) costs.

 

[brycejones]

Then how is the state able to pursue charges, if no common resources are involved? The answer is they can because public money is involved in some way thus the state is an injured party.

The state has no ownership rights to Yale therefore it is not an injured party. There may be other aspects at work here but your theory is crap.

 

[IronWing]

I'll conceded I was incorrect in my initial statement. It's still a perverse application of the law if they're able to utilize public resources to private ends. For the record I think think any research conducted with public funds should be owned by and available to the public in its raw, unedited form. I understand that journals perform editing and bear additional (private) costs.

Public release of research results has almost always* been part of research agreements. If public funds are used in research leading to patentable techniques or products, patent ownership is hashed out in the agreement. Newer agreements generally require the release of raw data as well, sometimes after a proprietary period to allow researchers dibs on their own data.

* Publicly funded secret squirrel research results generally aren't available to the public but ownership of the results and data generally is 100% with the government.

 

[glenn1]

The state has no ownership rights to Yale therefore it is not an injured party. There may be other aspects at work here but your theory is crap.

Would still fall under disorderly conduct would it not?

 

[werepossum]

I know you're probably a product of the public education system so I'll go easy on you and Ironwing:

By what other legal mechanism would they be able to decide if they will pursue charges? It's a public university. I wouldn't care at all if he vandalized some private art gallery and they decided not to press charges, that would be between them. Public resources were destroyed in this case, however.

Yale is NOT a publicly owned university. The state can still choose to prosecute because the state has a compelling mandate to preserve law and order, not because making contributions to a private entity confers partial ownership.

 

[Dannar26]

Fear no art

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk

 

[TheGardener]

Reminds me of the students who were protesting, because the building on campus, Lynch Memorial Hall, is named after the man who paid for it, in addition to his having been the past college president. They were offended by the name, because they weren't in their safe place when they had to enter or walk by the building. I wonder if any students have told the current US AG that her name offends them? Maybe there will be Loretta Lynch protesters in Philly, demanding she change her name.