Slashdot Mirror

From Professor Mark Stevens' page in California State University

Suing the government is the second most popular indoor sport in America, and police are often the targets of lawsuits, with over 30,000 civil actions filed against them every year, between 4-8% of them resulting in an unfavorable verdict, where the average jury award is $2 million. This isn't even counting the hundreds of cases settled thru out-of-court settlements, which probably runs in the hundreds of millions and involves about half of all cases filed. It may take up to five years to settle a police liability case.

She's not being punished for expressing what she thinks. She is being punished for violating a sworn oath and thus making it impossible for the defendant to have a fair trial. I realize we live in a world where American citizens can be executed without any due process, but that policy is under attack because it violates due process. This story just adds to my worry about the constant attack on our rights at seemingly every level, from smart nefarious pricks in office, to retards on juries.

As for the punishment, $250 is an utterly insufficient fine. Even at minimum wage, it's only a week's labor at most. She should be taxed with the costs associated with the trial. To put this into a bad car analogy, it's like she intentionally smashed into another car with her own, totaling the other car, but is only being required to cover the cost of the left taillight on the victims auto.

The Changing Relationship between Income and Crime Victimization
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheChangingRelationship1999.pdf

Poverty, Inequality, and Crime
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOCONNOR/301/301lect07.htm

And my favorite example: Per Capita Income vs. Property Crime
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/1015722

Sorry, people, but animals are (or should be treated as) property like shoes, cars, and computers.

You're right that PETA has no traction on their slippery slope (how may bugs died transporting your hummus to the store?) but that's not a reason for your above argument.

If I wanted to open up a store on Times Square where people could come in off the street, plunk down $100 and be issued a pair of Nike's and a soldering iron, after which they would spend the afternoon poking the Nikes with the soldering iron and disfiguring it in any why they pleased, you'd probably be OK with that (rightly shaking your head at the absurdity of it all, no doubt).

But what if I were issuing puppies instead of Nike's? My guess is you'd see that as something different. If not, that's a diagnostic indicator for psychopathy.

American vigilantism arose in the Deep South and Old West during the 1700s when, in the absence of a formal criminal justice system, certain volunteer associations (called vigilance committees) got together to blacklist, harass, banish, "tar and feather," flog, mutilate, torture, or kill people who were perceived as threats to their communities, families, or privileges (Karmen 1968). By the late 1700s, these committees became known as lynch mobs because almost all the time, the punishment handed out was a summary execution by hanging. In some states, like South Carolina, these mobs had exotic names like the Regulators. During the 1800's, most American towns with seaports had vigilante groups that worked to identify and punish suspected thieves, alcoholics, and gamblers among recently arrived immigrants. The state of Montana, however, holds the record for the bloodiest vigilante movement from 1863 to 1865 when hundreds of suspected horse thieves were rounded up and killed in massive mob action. Texas, Montana, California, and the Deep South, especially the city of New Orleans, were hotbeds of vigilante activity in American history.

If you look at the traits of sociopathy, and the traits which make up a "good CEO", you will find that both share the majority of similar traits. The fact is, "good" CEOs tend to be sociopathic. By "good", I don't mean "for all of mankind", I mean for the sake of the business (and shareholders, if there are any). Whether Ballmer is APD, psychopathic, or sociopathic, I don't know - I am not a psychologist. But he, like many other CEOs, likely falls on the spectrum somewhere...

The heartland turned vicious this week when an Oklahoma town...

I'm shocked at this report of such profound ignorance and stupidity on the part of a government official in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is normally such a liberal, tolerant, open-minded place.

Case law provides numerous specific allowance criteria for probable cause:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm

Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request. IANAL, but doesn't that mean they can no longer sue the child?

It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem in this case is the mother therefore they can't sue her.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Phrase meaning "For the Proceeding" referring to adults who look after the welfare of a child and represent their legal interests; usually volunteers who are also officers of the court. If the GAL is not an attorney, they must hire one for the child, but some states are starting to allow GALs to do the actual legal work. GALs are also responsible for medical care of the child.

And I also know that the indicators that suggest a person has BDP are different from the indicators that suggest a person is psychopathic. Both are clinical terms with specific meanings. While there may be overlap between people that meet the criteria for each disorder, if women were truly psychopathic, they would be diagnosed as such alongside the diagnosis of BPD rather than be given the diagnosis of BPD instead of being determined to be psychopathic.

Psychopaths are a subset of sociopaths who are a subset of persons with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Successfully being able to hide one's psychopathic behavior, as in your example, doesn't make one a sociopath as the indicator is one's behavior and not being able to successfully hide one's behavior. The difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is largely being able to control the impulses towards psychopathic behavior. Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy is a good overview.

The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license.

Sorry but this is wrong. You do not automatically agree to allow cops to search your vehicle simply because they want to. They must either have your explicit permission or have probable cause. If they have probable cause then they don't have to ask your permission. If they don't, then they either have to get a warrant or your permission before searching.

Probable cause is a gray area of the law but it is real. Without going into all of the detail, read this brief definition. If you refuse to agree to a search, this does not constitute probable cause to go ahead and search anyway (you're not automatically guilty if you refuse to grant permission).

I'm a radical when it comes to privacy these days. I no longer cooperate with all of these intrusions fostered on us by so called "security measures". If they have the authority then you don't have to ask me for permission. If they don't then any evidence will get thrown out as inadmissible.

Let me guess: YANAL (You Are Not A Lawyer). The US court system is not this clear on the issue of free speech, and free speech is open to a lot of interpretation. You even admit this is the case for yelling "Fire" in a theater or slander but you conveniently choose to not mention another case where speech is not free! Either you're misinformed, or your purposefully being deceitful. According to this:

The following areas have NEVER been protected by the Constitution. There are NO barriers to government interference or regulation. The ONLY constraints on government are that officials must be engaged in a legitimate purpose (doing their duty), the law to be enforced must not be too broad or vague (void for vagueness), the law must be content neutral (not impinging upon a suspect class), not intervene before the fact unless extraordinary circumstances exist (prior restraint), and not have a "chilling effect" (which makes people fearful of engaging in legitimate activities).

(1) OBSCENITY

Despite having grappled with the definition of this term, the Court has consistently ruled that obscenity is not protected. The English common law definition is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence." For many years, this definition was taken to mean that the crime of obscenity consisted of distributing material to youth which might have an immoral impact. To this day, anything directed to, or involving youth (such as child pornography) brings down a quick, suppressive response from government. Organized pornography didn't start in America until the 1950s, and that's when the Court started to get involved, and it left a lot of power in the hands of juries to decide.

So, in short, Freedom of Speech != Freedom to be Vulgar. It depends on whether the court determines if your particular vulgarity is obscene or not. Don't be surprised if some particular court determines that some particular vulgar speech is obscene. I however wouldn't be surprised if they ruled it wasn't. It just depends on the judge and what they feel is obscene.

Note: This stuff is open to a lot of interpretation! What one judge feels is obscene, another may feel is not, hence why judges rarely make the same types of rulings, and also why if one judge rules against you, you can just appeal until you find a judge that rules for you. You'll eventually find what you want unless you can't appeal to a higher court.

Untrue. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" has a very clear legal meaning, and the "communities" opinion of "reasonable" does matter in court. see here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm

The "reasonable expectation" test is a two-prong test based on:
(1) the first prong -- subjective privacy -- is whether the person exhibited a personal expectation to be left alone from government intrusion
(2) the second prong -- objective privacy -- is whether the personal expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable and several areas have already been determined to be beyond what society is willing to recognize ("exceptions" to what constitutes a search or requires a warrant to seize)

Fact 1: National ID cards were used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to track, then torture and kill people who said "bad things" about Hussein.

Fact 2: National ID cards were used to oppress citizens of the Soviet Union (do a find on "7. INTERNAL PASSPORTS").

Fact 3: Eastern Europeans experienced oppression and idiocy via national ID cards too.

Rumor 1 ("rumor", because it comes from prisonplanet.com rather than a more-reliable source): The Dept. of Homeland Security has hired the former head of socialist East Germany's infamous "Stasi" domestic spy agency - the same man who architected their national ID program.

Fact 4: Today, the U.S. House has approved by a 261-161 vote to institute an electronic national ID card system for all Americans.

Chances are good that President Bush will sign this into law, claiming that it will help fight terrorism and other boogeymen, nevermind the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used IDs as legit as anybody else's.

Question: From whom are you "free" of observation and interference when you are required to possess means of constant monitoring? Where is your right to be left alone, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in his famous dissent in 1928?

Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized the danger of national ID cards, albeit, from the perspective of Biblical prophecy. What about today's Republicans? Oh, that's right, Reagan Republicanism is dead, except in convenient revivals of peoples' dreams of a (relatively) freer, happier, more-hopeful America for which Reagan is so well remembered. No, the new cheer among Republicans is "long live big government totalitarian bureaucracy!" as imposed by President Bush.

Most Republicans in government are fuckwads. If they want my vote, or the vote of anybody who is even *remotely* interested in protecting the civil liberties and Constitutional protections for which the U.S. has been so famous and well-regarded, then they'd do well to listen to one of their own.

Until then, fuck that coke-snorting, basement-level-IQ RINO running the country, fuck those groupthink RINOs in Congress. Real Republicans vote against totalitarianism and in favor of federalism -- precisely the opposite traits of any national ID program we could ever institute.

Fucking commie pinko red-staters, every one of them.

Hmmm, I don't belive hearsay is allowed in criminal cases in the US period.

Here's a summary of hearsay and exceptions in the US. Similar to Canada.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be required to reveal the names of customers who may be distributing illegal wares on peer-to-peer networks.

There goes 'presumption of innocence.'

For hundreds of years our justice system has based its investigations on the concept of "probable cause." According to this well-written document, "probable cause" means either "more likely than not" or "substantial possibility". There are thousands of non-offending uses of P2P programs, many of which are beneficial - but lets face it, the vast majority of p2p use is illegal. If you're an ISP and you see someone using limewire to download 50 gigs of data - is it really likely that that person decided to download 75 linux ISOs? Probably not.

Do I like this law? Not really. But to say that it totally destroys "presumption of innocence" - when they take you to court, you're still presumed innocent until proven guilty, that has not changed.

Besides, if we lived in a land where people could only be searched if we were 100% sure they had broken the law, well, we wouldn't catch very many criminals that way.

The officer has arrested you. You are not free to leave. Arrested. They stopped you after personally observing your behavior in a public place and determined you performed an illegal act under the state or local vehicle codes. An officer personally observing you break a law in a public place is probable cause and does not require a warrant for further action. Then they arrest you. This isn't rocket science. Unless perhaps you are arguing that an officer personally observing illegal behavior is not probable cause for an arrest? In that case, here is some documentation on the subject.

Rather than sqawking about it, lets do a little experiment. You go ahead and get pulled over by your local highway patrol or state trooper. Calmly and in a timely fashion hand over your documents. Then while the nice officer is in his car entering your information, go ahead and drive away. Then come back and tell us how far they shoved their clubs up your ass.

I'm no expert on that, but a google for "determine age bones" turns up http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=45647 and http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect17.htm and http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs /Yakpro/SessionE9.htm.

Agreed that it would be harder for a new species, but there are things to go on - it's a lot more complex than "short, therefor child".

No, it isn't. Is it? What institute, body, or power exists to uphold this right? Who bestowed this right?

This is a quote from the ACLU site...

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right.

And I found this link that says Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis made the following declaration in 1928...

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect. Every violation of the right to privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I presume that even though it isn't stated straighforwardly, the combination of laws as interpreted by the courts gives the right to privacy.

See the following:

Starting around 1835, a series of industrial and race riots began sweeping across America, mostly involving Irish and Native Americans. Cities responded by assigning their police forces the riot control function, but they soon discovered that a volunteer, night-oriented watch system was inadequate. Day watches were likewise ineffective. Full-time, salaried police officers were needed. 1845 in New York City is the generally accepted date and place for the start of paid, professional policing in America.

• proposing laws to strip American suspects of their citizenship,
• imprisoning American citizens arrested on American soil as "enemy combatants" without recourse to civilian courts or legal counsel despite the contrary dictates of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and
• sending non-citizens arrested in the U.S. to be tortured in third countries at the whim of U.S. authorities.

• hasn't bothered to reform an FBI that in the days before September 11th intentionally destroyed translated intercepted terrorist conversations, in order to get the FBI budget increased,
• apparently preferred to invade Iraq rather than deal with the more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden after September 11th,
• and now in the ultimate on ironies, while ignoring the Sixth amendment (and the Fourth) is telling us that a top priority should be, not Iraq, not Osama, but passing a Constitutional Amendment to marginalize gays!

The EFF says the vigilantes may be committing a crime.

Vigilantes are, by definition, committing crimes.

A vigilante is a private citizen who acts outside the law, taking the law into their own hands.

Some people (e.g. the vigilantes themselves) see this as a Good Thing -- enforcing Justice, where Justice would otherwise go unenforced.

Others (such as myself) see vigilantism as the roots of rebellion and chaos -- acting as a private government, in defiance of duly constituted authority.

Not that I have a hell of a lot of respect for duly constituted authority. Most of the cops I've met have been decent people, however, there's a long, sad history of cops acting as vigilantes, outside the law. Not to mention police states, governments run by mobsters, etc. etc.

-kgj

you forgot some of the others lumped under feds:

NSA
USCIS
DHS
Border Patrol
ATF
DOJ
IRS
Customs
Secret Service
Postal Inpector
USFWS
FTC
Indian Affairs

~GoAT~

Surprisingly, I actually agree with your definition of terrorism.

check this out, it is very interesting http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm

The hatred that most Palestinians have for the Israelis is rooted in the frustration caused by decades of oppression. They are not in a position to compromise, they have very little to lose (not to be interpreted that i agree with the terrorist activities of some).

The Israelis, on the other hand, have everything to gain - their terrorism (using your definition) is just as widespread as that of the Palestinian militants, except that it is presented as "collateral damage" in pursuing military targets or "retribution" (obviously Israel has a far better PR spin machine than the Palestinians do). Bottom line, the IDF kill far more Palestinian civilians than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa MB.

Golda Meir put it quite eloquently, but only presented half of the solution - the other half would go something like "... they hate us, and we love our children more than we hate them."

I'm glad somebody else said it. You notice they're not actually taking anybody to court, just threatening to if you don't give them your milk money. I predict they will NEVER take anybody to court over this because they will lose, plain and simple. They have to capitalize on the threat, because the nature of the threat itself is clearly not enforceable. The only question I have is if this has crossed over into extortion. There's a decent definition of extortion here. That said, IANAL and I'm unsure what it would take to argue a case like this (other than $$$ for lawyers). In particular, I'm not sure if threat of legal action can be the basis for extortion. This differs from an obvious case of extortion as in if SCO were to say, "pay our licensing fees or we'll break your kneecaps".

Read this explanation from a political science professor, for instance, and try not to be confused. The author, in attempting to reconcile the absurd acts of modern legislatures with actual legal theory, has even managed to confuse himself:

It's useful to think of Criminal Law as a set of both Proscriptive (prohibited) AND Prescriptive (preferred) rules for conduct. This is best understood by the oxymoron "crimes of omission"...

What? He admits that a crime of omission cannot exist because it is an oxymoron. This conclusion is dependent upon the basic definition of crime that has existed since time immemorial: crime requires injury. An injury is an act committed against someone that results in harm to them.

Not doing something is not a crime; it isn't even an act. Yet, implicit also in the acceptance of "prescribed" rules of conduct being punishable as "crimes" is the acceptance of "crimes of omission," which he himself states is an oxymoron.

Thinking about doing something isn't an act, either. It would be more properly termed a thought crime, regardless of what Mr. Gates says.

It should be obvious that even the intellectual charlatans who affix themselves to the coattails of oppressive governments and attempt to explain logically it's actions cannot, in the process, help but become confused themselves.

It is not unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment does not say that searches can only be conducted with a warrant, it just sets the conditions under which a warrant can be issued. In certain situations, as long as Probable Cause is met, no warrant is necessary, and the Supreme Court has ruled that to be constitutional in several cases.

This page should clear things up for you.

I believe I said "practically invented", which I meant as "it gained popularity as a tool for terror during that time", not that the first ever drive-by shootings were committed by prohibition-era gangs.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect04.htm refers briefly to the problems of drive-by shootings during the prohibition era as a new problem to that time.

I love it when people read what they want instead of what is written.

• Check up on your law. Refusing a search can NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be grounds for a search

Probable cause can be established based on how you refuse the search. Saying "I refuse the search" isn't probable cause... unless you say it too calmly, or too excitedly or protest too much or (bizarrely) don't protest enough. And who determines and records your attitude and the degree of your protest? Why, the arresting officer! All they have to do is to say that you were acting excessively calmly or excessively nervously when you refused, and bingo, that's their probable cause right there.

After all, if you refuse a search, isn't it probably because you've got something to hide?

I didn't think so. I'm formally trained in niether psychology nor psychiatry, nor have I met Eric Yang; but I am a member of MENSA and a student of human behavior. I think I know a sociopath [slashdot.org] when I see one.

And DAMN you know how to pound your dick on the table to try and convince everyone you are right!

Being a student of behavior doesn't really make you any more qualified than anyone else to make the observation of if someone is a sociopath or not. And a MENSA membership doesn't qualify you either - which kinda makes me question your wisdom of posting that you are a MENSA member. Plus, anyway - 2% of the world can be a MENSA member. If you would have said you were a IQuadrivium member, I might have been more impressed ;-) (only .1% of the world can qualify for that one. And there's ones with even more stringent restrictions on IQ - of course, there's certain problems with quantifying extremely high IQ's in the first place!)

In other words - please, if you are going to try and use something to prove your point, how about I dunno... use the wonderful ability to hyperlink to relavant information instead of trying to turn this into an "I'm smarter than you" style contest. More people listen when relevant information is presented, while attempting to make people believe you have a bigger dick really doesn't do anything but make people scoff at you, and totally disreguard your statements completely.

What's really IRONIC (damned if I'm not havin' some fun now!) about this is that you've claimed Eric Yang to be a sociopath. However, you've already exhibited at least one sign of a sociopath - excessive boasting. More likely than not based on your MENSA comment, you could also potentially have a second problem that's commonly exhibited: Grandiose sense of self-worth.

So quit callin' people names and flingin' terms when you think the ignorant masses don't really follow what you are saying. You might be surprised - a really large number of us are actually somewhat intellectual ourselves, and do know the definition and meaning of large words.

(Ok, I SWEAR - that's the only time I've ever used the term 'intellectual' attached to a group of people that includes myself. Sheesh.)

It sounds a bit funny that France of all countries is complaining about Echelon. Even though a system like Echelon would not exist in an ideal world, the fact is that all countries have similar espionage systems. France in particular is one of the countries which is known to be one of the worst culprits.

I for one, am sick of the French and their hypocrisy. Our company, which was trying to expand in the European Union about two years ago, participated in a number of bids. Somehow we lost all the bids. By strange coincidence, the winner in all the cases was a French company whos proposals looked remarkably similar to ours! And their price was about 1% lower than ours! If this isn't espionage, what is?

What right do the French have to complain about Echelon? It is the right of the United States, and Great Britain (which shares the information, and has the European Echelon headquarters), in order to defend their industries. If the French have a problem, they should create their own Internet, and their own Echelon to monitor it.

AC (for obvious reasons)