Slashdot Mirror

I don't know if Florida laws qualify harassment in a similar way, but I doubt that.

You're right, they don't. Florida law allows for the use of deadly force if:

"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

with a "forcible felony" defined as

"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual"

I'm sure the FL Legislature's web site has just been getting *hammered* over the last few weeks. :-)

I don't know if Florida laws qualify harassment in a similar way, but I doubt that.

You're right, they don't. Florida law allows for the use of deadly force if:

"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

with a "forcible felony" defined as

"treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual"

I'm sure the FL Legislature's web site has just been getting *hammered* over the last few weeks. :-)

I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.

It looks increasingly likely that he will face a jury. And when he does, the jury will likely be informed of Fla. Stats. 776.041, which states:

776.041âfUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification [of self defense] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)âfIs attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)âfInitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)âfSuch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)âfIn good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

To be brutally honest, I think both his attackers and his defenders sound very silly to me in making bold statements before the facts are in. The prudent thing to do is to simply say that we are not going to condemn him or exonerate him until the process plays out and renders a verdict.

[ Note, I'm not saying that everyone must accept the results of the process -- just because it's the legal result doesn't mean we have to personally believe it. But there is a difference between disagreeing with the result after it happens and jumping to your own conclusion before it has been conducted. The former seems to me reasonable, the latter not so much. ]

It's still illegal. There's just no fine for it.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/annual/section2.html

The average time spent behind bars for someone who commits a violent crime in Florida is about 7.1 years.

Murder used to mean an average sentence of about 10 years. Lately it's an average sentence of about 20 years.

Sex crimes are around 6 years. This includes lewd acts on a child.

Armed Robbery is around 10 years.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

Violent crime is declining, even during a recession.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf

About 50% of state prisoners in 2006 were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.

About 90% of federal prisoners in 2008 were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.

America is very much a non-violent place. If you don't believe me, go live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Sudan or Israel or Syria or Libya or Iraq or Burma.

Other sites do the same more locally: in Alachua County, home to Gainesville and the University of Florida, the local newspaper runs a mugshot site at http://www.mugshotsgainesville.com/

From their site:

Why are mug shots posted here? For one thing, you have a right to see them. And, for another, this site was created as a public service, to record those taken into custody by local law enforcement. Booking information has been collected from the Alachua County Jail system. The site makes no assumptions or representations about guilt or innocence. In fact, in most cases, people pictured here have not been convicted of the charges indicated. In our system of justice, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further, the information available on this site should not be used to determine any person's actual criminal record. Mug shots are presented chronologically, by booking time and date. Records will remain online for a maximum of 90 days.

I don't know if they collaborate with any sort of removeslander.com or removearrest.com sites, but I imagine the lucrative possibilities of collaboration might be tempting to a local news agency strapped for cash.

The municipal and state governments also operate registries that let you see who's incarcerated.

1. Alachua County Sheriff's inmates: http://oldweb.circuit8.org/inmatelist.php .
2. Alachua County state Correctional Institute inmates, releases, escapes and outstanding warrants: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/facilities/region2/277.html .
3. All Florida Department of Corrections databases in one easy search: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateInfo/InmateInfoMenu.asp . You can view Casey Anthony's probation records (and mugshot when it goes up) there, and you can even sign up for phone or e-mail updates on any changes in her custody status (i.e. incarceration, not child custody, for obvious reasons).

Other sites do the same more locally: in Alachua County, home to Gainesville and the University of Florida, the local newspaper runs a mugshot site at http://www.mugshotsgainesville.com/

From their site:

Why are mug shots posted here? For one thing, you have a right to see them. And, for another, this site was created as a public service, to record those taken into custody by local law enforcement. Booking information has been collected from the Alachua County Jail system. The site makes no assumptions or representations about guilt or innocence. In fact, in most cases, people pictured here have not been convicted of the charges indicated. In our system of justice, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further, the information available on this site should not be used to determine any person's actual criminal record. Mug shots are presented chronologically, by booking time and date. Records will remain online for a maximum of 90 days.

I don't know if they collaborate with any sort of removeslander.com or removearrest.com sites, but I imagine the lucrative possibilities of collaboration might be tempting to a local news agency strapped for cash.

The municipal and state governments also operate registries that let you see who's incarcerated.

1. Alachua County Sheriff's inmates: http://oldweb.circuit8.org/inmatelist.php .
2. Alachua County state Correctional Institute inmates, releases, escapes and outstanding warrants: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/facilities/region2/277.html .
3. All Florida Department of Corrections databases in one easy search: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateInfo/InmateInfoMenu.asp . You can view Casey Anthony's probation records (and mugshot when it goes up) there, and you can even sign up for phone or e-mail updates on any changes in her custody status (i.e. incarceration, not child custody, for obvious reasons).

No. I think he is saying that the study is flawed because it attributes accidents to a certain cause without regard to any related factors and thus draws the wrong conclusions.
  What I say is that the only reason for studies like this is to continue out of control deficit spending by bureaucrats who have a misguided self preservation instinct.

Presuming you don't necessarily mean that, but this is /. , so have to examine.

Let's assume that the prisoners in question are young (so as to be physically capable of the trip), so we'll start at age 25. Let's also assume that their life expectancy in prison is 50 years. So, the math at that point is fairly simple, so long as we don't calculate for the additional expense of medical care that geriatric prisoners incur in their waning years.

Using the report at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html/ as our guide, let's assume that your average prisoner costs $55/day to house and feed.. So, discounting any other costs and inflation, the cost of keeping an average prisoner in jail for 50 years is around $1,000,000 (based on $55/day * 365 * 50).

Not sure, by that standard, that it would be cheaper to shoot them into space on a one-way trip to Mars, given the cost of fuel and the various other things to keep them alive. I mean, yeah, you get free labor and all, but unless the plan is to send them up as mere lab rats or unskilled labor, you'd presumably have to teach them to do stuff that they may not know, unless you pick an exceptional prisoner (someone w/ an MD or something like that..

Still, probably a good cost:benefit ratio, all told.

Personally I would prefer they sub-contract prisoners to do manual labor which nowadays is outsourced to other countries and pay them the same (so that companies are attracted).

And then, charge prisoners some rent from their hard earn cash.

That way tax payers do not have to pay to maintain those bastards.

This is a really nice idea that I have often thought would be a brilliant solution. Unfortunately it does not factor in just how bloody expensive prisons are.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_cost_to_house_a_prisoner_in_2008

This basically means that the third world will always be able to undercut slave labour incarcerated in the first world unless we can bring the cost of prison down by one hell of a lot. The best we can hope for is to reduce the amount of our taxes spent on prisons.

Then there is the problem that some of the scum bags we lock up cannot be trusted to do sweet FA. They are incredibly violent, will turn any tool you give them into a weapon, and are just lucky enough not to be caught doing anything that earns them a seat on old smoky. We have to find a way of dealing with these elements of our society.

Personally I am one of these liberal hippies being discussed so I would like to find away of stopping them get like this in the first place. That is by far the best way of limiting the amount we spend. There will always be some of them who slip through though and so some method of protecting the rest of us from them will always be needed and I am yet to understand how slapping an ankle bracelet on them will do that adequately.

A tag is all very well for knowing where the little critters were after the fact and determining if they can have committed a particular crime. As a law abiding member of society this is pretty much bugger all good to me if I am murdered by a socio-path wearing a tag.

No, what is needed is to actually deprive some elements of society of their liberty for my safety. Tags are only useful for people we are 99.9% sure about not re-offending or people who have finished their sentence but we still want to keep tabs on because we think they will re-offend but are unable to incarcerate for any longer without proof.

Florida has Online Sunshine - Their deep revision history is hidden, but the current text is reasonably well indexed. Interaction with Federal and Local laws is left in the domain of weasels for hire.

No, it's not that simple. Florida law says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.

//not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.

Yep, the residents of the state of Florida are now going to have to pay over $300,000 for this guy to not get killed on the street by the family of a person he murdered. I say let him out and let the situation take care of itself.

Well, we could always do something crazy and try to look at what little data there is out there about people carrying weapons. Take a state like Florida, where the CCW process isn't exactly hard. And, fortunately enough, the state law requires that statistics on permit revocations and crimes by CCW holders be tracked.

Looking at the published statistics, Florida has roughly 664,000 people currently running around with concealed weapons. Of the 1,647,823 licenses issued, since October 1987, 5,139 have been revoked (about 0.3%). Of those revocations, 4,420 of them were for crimes committed after the person received their license, and 167 of those involved a fire used in a crime. And, it would seem that Florida's average life expectancy is just over 77.

Now, what I want to know is: people like you keep predicting blood in the streets if average, law abiding, citizens are allowed to legally carry firearms anywhere they go. But, so far we've waited for 22 years for Florida to erupt into an all-out bloodbath of gunfire, when is it going to happen? I've been waiting 22 fucking years to see the news reports of Florida imploding in violence, I want my gory news clips now!

I'm not sure how much this helps, but that Progress bid has a cost breakdown in this application (somewhere in the last 5 pages):

http://www.psc.state.fl.us/library/filings/07/09467-07/09467-07.pdf

If we make it so that our enemies have to get a ship into one our harbors, it becomes a much simpler problem. We would need to have more Coast Guard people to basically board every ship, with neutron detectors, but, its something we can do.

They can't stop drug and firearm smugglers, they wouldn't be able to stop smugglers with a suitcase bomb either. Heck, the Mexican narco-terriorists have bazookas, grenades, and rocket launchers. And you can't blame the trade in those on the US, they are just as illegal here as they are there.

We can track ships as they are approaching the USA, track them as they leave ports, follow them, and pretty much monitor every boat on the ocean.

Drug runners use fast boats, just as the boats were used during Prohibition. Now though they can use Cigarette boats. Or small subs can be used. The US has thousands of miles of coastline,Florida alone has 1100 miles of beach, which doesn't include all of the coastline. Florida also has more than 700 airports.

People talk about how porous the US Mexican border is but the US Canadian border is even more porous. Forget all the roads that cross the border between Minnesota, I live in MN and can drive into Canada without ever seeing a single border crossing, and Washington state there are thousands of miles anyone can hike across the border. What can the US do to stop people from crossing a US border, build a Berlin Wall, er Apartheid Wall, and plant minefields? The Soviets weren't able to stop people who were desperate enough.

Falcon

Here's an example of a registered sex offender for taking a leak(s) 20+ years ago. http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=49272

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

So, in 5 years, they had 4 incidents of crimes, none resulting in injury. This was around the time that gun violence was peaking in the U.S. too, IIRC. Not exactly the picture of a bunch of gun-crazy guys that shoot someone at the drop of a hat that you're trying to convey, is it?

More official stats from Florida here. Seems that only about 1% of CC holders commited a crime with their weapon over the last 20+ years (166 in total, out of nearly 1.5 million).

This is why a cop can bust you in a parking lot even though they don't like to cite tickets for accidents that happen in them (they can and will get you for speeding and dangerous operation)

Perhaps in some places, but not in any state I've lived in. In Florida in particular, the law states that police can enforce state traffic laws on private property *only* when the owner has contracted with the appropriate agency for law enforcement services (see F.S. 316.006). For instance, the only reason you can get a speeding ticket at Walt Disney World is because Disney specifically contracts the Orange & Osceola County Sheriff's Offices and the Florida Highway Patrol for those services.

Really? From Florida Statute 316.293:

(2) OPERATING NOISE LIMITS.--No person shall operate or be permitted to operate a vehicle at any time or under any condition of roadway grade, load, acceleration, or deceleration in such a manner as to generate a sound level in excess of the following limit for the category of motor vehicle and applicable speed limit at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel under measurement procedures established under subsection (3).

(a) For motorcycles other than motor-driven cycles:
        Sound level limit
        Speed limit
35 mph or less Speed limit
over 35 mph
Before January 1, 1979 82 dB A 86 dB A
On or after January 1, 1979 78 dB A 82 dB A

(b) For any motor vehicle with a GVWR or GCWR of 10,000 pounds or more:
        Sound level limit
        Speed limit
35 mph or less Speed limit
over 35 mph
On or after January 1, 1975 86 dB A 90 dB A

(c) For motor-driven cycles and any other motor vehicle not included in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b):
        Sound level limit
        Speed limit
35 mph or less Speed limit
over 35 mph
Before January 1, 1979 76 dB A 82 dB A
On or after January 1, 1979 72 dB A 79 dB A

There is also

(a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor vehicle or any other noise-abatement device of a motor vehicle operated or to be operated upon the highways of this state in such a manner that the noise emitted by the motor vehicle is above that emitted by the vehicle as originally manufactured.

These are of course rather spottily enforced, and if you looked at the statistics I'm sure you'd find a large number of import cars cited and a much smaller number of domestics and motorcycles.

As I said, usually. While speeding in excess of 80mph my be a misdemeanor in VA, in FL it is a noncriminal offense.

Speeding in excess of a certain speed, generally anywhere from 15 to 25 miles over the posted speed limit depending on the state, might be a misdemeanor in any particular location.

Here in Florida, speeding is a non-criminal offense. But, one can be charged with reckless driving in addition to speeding, as well as fleeing and eluding, and other offenses depending on the situation.

As a side note, in Florida has pasted new laws: $1000 minimum fine for more than 50mph over the speed limit; $1000 fine for first offense for popping wheelies on a motorcycle with $5000, 6 months in jail, and loss of license for 10 years the max penalty for third offense.

Also, here in Florida, one can post a $10,000 bond with the state and be considered self-insured and thus not need insurance.

The laws vary greatly from state to state.

I am still looking for the actual statue that defines it. http://research.lawyers.com/Florida/Employment-Law-in-Florida.html I think this about covers it thought. Florida law stated you can not falsify employee records. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0435/SEC10.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0435-%3ESection%2010#0435.10

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, most of it predicated on learned helplessness, a pathological inability to trust, or a bullshit rationalization of laziness: "my vote doesn't matter"

why your vote matters:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

meanwhile, in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

8,752,717 to 6,138,765

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE= [state.fl.us]

thats two and half million florida voters, who thought "my vote doesn't matter"

they gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy, of going full retard on science policy (stem cells, creationism), etc. none of these things gore would have done (an argument, btw, against another bullshit rationalization not to vote: "the candidates are the same")

over two and a half million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush, since its usually the young and minorities who feel disenfrachized, and invent bullshit reasons not to vote

the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

in other words, parasitical attitudes about not voting destroy democracy

you MUST vote. otherwise, you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. you destroy this country by allowing less favored candidates win. and you really have NO right to complain about the next 4 years about anythign in politics if you do not vote. voting is your chance to let your beliefs sway who goes into the white house. if you choose not to do that, you are beneath withering contempt in my book, and have no right to complain anymore about the state of your world

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, most of it predicated on learned helplessness, a pathological inability to trust, or a bullshit rationalization of laziness: "my vote doesn't matter"

why your vote matters:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

meanwhile, in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

8,752,717 to 6,138,765

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE= [state.fl.us]

thats two and half million florida voters, who thought "my vote doesn't matter"

they gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy, of going full retard on science policy (stem cells, creationism), etc. none of these things gore would have done (an argument, btw, against another bullshit rationalization not to vote: "the candidates are the same")

over two and a half million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush, since its usually the young and minorities who feel disenfrachized, and invent bullshit reasons not to vote

the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

in other words, parasitical attitudes about not voting destroy democracy

you MUST vote. otherwise, you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. you destroy this country by allowing less favored candidates win. and you really have NO right to complain about the next 4 years about anythign in politics if you do not vote. voting is your chance to let your beliefs sway who goes into the white house. if you choose not to do that, you are beneath withering contempt in my book, and have no right to complain anymore about the state of your world

"Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste."

this is how you think about your vote

but if the way you think about your vote is logically valid, it is something we should all embrace. and if more people didn't vote simply because "my vote doesn't matter", then no one votes, or, more accurately, the election is decided by the random few who do vote. in places like california or new york (where i live, and i voted democratic, and new york is going democratic if i didn't vote), the state could swing republican if so many democrats think like you do (and in fact, many do, and it is a major problem, since it means republicans win where they otherwise wouldn't)

here is a direct demoonstration of that:

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

8,752,717 to 6,138,765

thats two million florida voters, who THINKING EXACTLY LIKE YOU THINK, gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy. over 2 million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=

people, who think just like you, are the kind of people who gave us 8 years of bush

the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, like you, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

in other words, parsitical attitudes like yours destroy democracy

you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. it is people who think just like you who destroy this country

"Once you are past the tipping point, any further votes are not warped, they are unnecessary and a waste."

this is how you think about your vote

but if the way you think about your vote is logically valid, it is something we should all embrace. and if more people didn't vote simply because "my vote doesn't matter", then no one votes, or, more accurately, the election is decided by the random few who do vote. in places like california or new york (where i live, and i voted democratic, and new york is going democratic if i didn't vote), the state could swing republican if so many democrats think like you do (and in fact, many do, and it is a major problem, since it means republicans win where they otherwise wouldn't)

here is a direct demoonstration of that:

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

that's 500 votes that decided the election for bush rather than gore

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/7/00&RACE=PRE&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=

it gave us the last 8 years of fail: 500 votes

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever:

8,752,717 to 6,138,765

thats two million florida voters, who THINKING EXACTLY LIKE YOU THINK, gave us 8 years of bush, of invading iraq, of not caring about katrina, of letting unregulated irresponsibility reign on wall street and detroy the economy. over 2 million people, who most certainly would have swayed the vote to gore instead of bush

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/TurnoutRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/00&DATAMODE=

people, who think just like you, are the kind of people who gave us 8 years of bush

the only morally and intellectually honest and valid opinion about the value of your vote is you must vote. because otherwise, like you, you become a parasite, depending upon other people to express your will for you. if enough people do that, an invalid will is expressed, a will that is not an accurate representation of the will of the people

in other words, parsitical attitudes like yours destroy democracy

you are a parasite. you are a major asshole. it is people who think just like you who destroy this country

but that doesn't matter

what matters is i VOTE

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

it gave us the last 8 years of fail

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever

next election, don't let the source of our failure be you

but that doesn't matter

what matters is i VOTE

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

it gave us the last 8 years of fail

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever

next election, don't let the source of our failure be you

No, in order to be a judge the law states they must sign it.

Nope, there is nothing in the law that says the actions taken by a judge who has not signed the loyalty are void. The law says basically a) refusal to sign the loyalty oath will result in discharge, and b) until they sign the oath they cannot receive a paycheck. Additionally, while the Florida Supreme Court has held that judges are to sign the loyalty oath, removal of judges is granted solely to the Supreme Court of Florida, after investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Jack Thompson was arguing not that there was a crime or a forgery, but that they never were judges at all to begin with.

Jack Thompson's legal skills are, in my opinion, subpar. I've read his argument as to the oath issue and it doesn't hold water. You can read the relevant statutes if you don't believe me. The judge's authority arises from their being elected or appointed, and from the oath of office they take.

but he might have had something with this and now the state wants him gone and the matter forgotten about.

The state thoroughly investigated the issue. They publicly released the results of the investigation. There is nothing here.

The issue is not just that the tires break loose and cause damage to natural reefs, although that's the major problem. Besides that, the tires themselves contain toxins that are damaging to sea life. Another learning from the Florida disaster is that marine life doesn't attach well to old tires anyway, even when they're filled with concrete so they don't wander.

You're right, I was talking about the Florida disaster, but if you go here and skip down to "South Asia mess", it's apparent that Indonesia is just now discovering that this is a bad idea. Florida got a decade head start and had an opportunity to see the consequences earlier.

I won't belabor the point. This is not really about man-made reefs, it's about our natural tendency to want to take action in a crisis, which is laudable, with expensive, inadequately tested solutions, which is not.

More info on Osborne Reef can be found here and here.

Why anyone would wish to pursue this before or instead of a (free or state funded) criminal prosecution I have no idea.

Because there are different remedies and a different burden of proof. In a state-funded criminal prosecution their main goal is to convict and punish the perpetrator, and they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You might get your property back, after it's languished in the evidence locker for a year or two. If the property was destroyed or lost, however, the state's not going to reimburse you. In a civil case you can either get the property back or damages, whether or not the property still exists or not, and you only have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence.

Anyway it's not an either/or proposition, you are allowed to sue in civil court at the same time the defendant is being prosecuted in criminal court.

My state even created civil actions for the victims of a wide variety of crimes.

I have never read a reputable article that shows organic to be any healthier for the consumer or the environment

Organics' not any healthier than conventional food? Face Off: Organic vs. Conventional. "Since 2001 more than 40 studies comparing the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods have been published. From those and some earlier studies, the Organic Center identified 236 scientifically-valid head-to-head match ups between an organic food and a conventional one. The nutrients included antioxidants (total phenolics, total antioxidant capacity, quercetin and kaempferol), three precursors of key vitamins (Vitamins A, C, and E), two minerals (potassium and phosphorous) and total protein."

Next, environment. So you haven't heard about estrogen mimics that mess with the reproduction of fish, alligators, and other wildlife?

ask nicely and you shall receive.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/tires/pages/osbornepilot.htm

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is partnering with the Broward County Environmental Protection Department, Navy Salvage Divers from Norfolk, VA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program to conduct a pilot project to remove waste tires from a site known as the Osborne Reef. Approximately 2 million tires covering 36 acres were placed in the water off Broward County in the 1970s to create artificial reefs. Today the tires are physically damaging coral reefs as storms move the tires toward the shore. A pilot project will collect sample tires to determine how the 2 million tire pile can be collected and disposed of properly.

That's really not fair. The cost of maintaining a network infrastructure is tiny compared with the cost of maintaining all of the nation's roads. The cost per mile of fiber is estimated at $16,000 per mile in rural areas. (Source: isp-planet.com) The cost of a two-lane road in Florida is $2.7 million dollars per mile. (Source: Florida DOT) Then, there's the maintenance. With fiber, you get to fix occasional cuts. With roads, you have to repave them every few years at a cost of almost another half million dollars for that same two-lane road. Then, there's the cost of buying the land for the road in the first place, whereas with fiber pulls, you don't have that initial cost since it is pulled along existing rights of way.

So the initial cost of roads is two orders of magnitude greater, and the maintenance costs are probably on average five or six orders of magnitude greater. Also, you only need one fiber to reach each house. This means that you don't need to be able to get from any house to any other house. You just need the main arteries and a single way to get to every house. That means that you only need to cover a road if you have at least one house that cannot be served by another road that is already served. This means that many short roads don't need poles or fiber pulls at all, but they still need asphalt.

Further, the cost of pulling the bundle doesn't depend that much on how many fibers you pull, so you pull extra infrastructure for decades of build-out. With roads, the cost is almost exactly proportional to the square footage covered, so you tend to build extra capacity on an as-needed basis.

I can't imagine the government doing a worse job than the telcos do now frankly, but the best solution would be to have the government buy it out and spin off a nonprofit to manage it similar to the way TVA works now. That's a generally well managed power generation and distribution infrastructure that provides cheap power to several states, all from a nonprofit that was created by the government and spun off.

Clarification: what legally constitutes an arrest; "unlawful" vs "excessive" force.

CLARIFICATION: what legally constitutes an arrest.

The Meyer situation raises the problem of police brutality. This raises troubling 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure issues. The 4th amendment to the Constitution literally bans "unreasonable searches and seizures." So the question becomes, was tasering Meyer an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Constitution? First, we need to know if what the police did to Meyer was a seizure.

Basically, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force. For example, the fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect by a cop is a seizure. If you read the Supreme Court cases, you see that the legal community tends to use the term "seizure" instead of the lay term of "arrest." I'll use "arrest" to help make the rest of this explanation clearer.

To repeat, a person is seized when the suspect either (A) submits to assertion of authority or (B) when there is physical force.

Under the US Supreme court case of Florida v. Bostick in 1991, one is not seized if a reasonable person in that person's situation would have felt free to decline officerâ(TM)s request or otherwise terminate the encounter with the officer. This case also establishes that a "reasonable person" is a "reasonable innocent person."

Determining whether a person has been seized (AKA arrested) can be tricky. The US Supreme court case of US v. Mendenhall in 1980 established a totality of circumstances test to determine whether a person has been arrested (seized). Factors to consider under the Mendenhall test include threatening presence of several officers, display of weapon by officer, physical touching of citizen, use or language or tone of voice indicating compliance possibly compelled.

Personally, I feel that unless doing so immediately interferes with the officer's duty, the officer should be legally required to answer the question "Am I under arrest?", however, I am not aware of any such legal requirement (such a law could be hidden in any of Constitutional, Federal, State, County, or City legal domains).

References:
Florida v. Bostick
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1717.ZS.html

US v. Mendenhall
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZS.html

CLARIFICATION: "unlawful" vs "excessive" force

Police force is *unlawful* if the police know they are committing an unlawful arrest, ie the police know Meyer is not breaking a law.

Police force is *excessive* if the police use more than reasonable needed. Specifically, the law states "[the law enforcement officer is justified in the use of any force] reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest". For the full text of the Florida law on use of force in arrests see: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

Legally, "unlawful" force and "excessive" force are two separate questions.

The remedy for unlawful force may be criminal (ie the officer goes to jail), the remedy for excessive force is civil (ie Meyer can sue the police officer for money).

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Me

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Me

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Me

Meyer was arrested (seized):
Under the circumstances here, Meyer was seized (arrested). He was both physically restrained and, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable innocent person would not think he was free to terminate the encounter with the police. Therefore he was arrested (seized) under both definitions.

Seizure with excessive force is unconstitutional:
One kind of Constitutionally unreasonable arrest is one with excessive force, in other words, police brutality. Therefore the next question is whether the police used excessive force in arresting Meyer.

Florida law limits the use of force by police:
Florida law allows the use of force when a person is resisting a lawful arrest. See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05
An arrest is only lawful when the police have probable cause to think that the suspect has violated the law. Therefore the question is whether the police reasonably believed that Meyer had committed some crime.

Police only allowed to use force for "lawful arrests:"
The crime(s) of which Meyer was accused (other than resisting arrest) are
apparently (depending on which newspaper article you read) inciting riot or obstructing an educational institution. A quick skim of those laws convinces me that it is unlikely that Meyer violated either one. See the text of these laws at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC13.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2013#0877.13

This arrest was not lawful, so the force was illegal:
Therefore the police were not entitled to use force against Meyer because the lacked probable cause to think he had violated the law. In the absence of probable cause, the arrest is not a "lawful arrest," and therefore force is not authorized under Florida law. Therefore the police's use of force was illegal. Furthermore, Florida law expressly makes the use of force unlawful in such situations, stating that "a law enforcement officer . . . is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is lawful and known by him or her to be unlawful." See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC051.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20051#0776.051

Even if the arrest was lawful, the force was excessive:
Further, even if we assume that Meyer had violated some criminal law, such that the police were entitled to use some force in the arrest, they are only entitled to use force reasonable under the circumstances. See the applicable Florida law on the use of force. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%2005#0776.05

In this case Meyer was trying to avoid arrest but he threatened nobody. That is, Meyer was just yelling and trying to get away (by flailing around, yelling, and trying to walk away and evade the police's grasp). He didn't bite, kick, have a weapon, etc.

Therefore under the circumstances, the use of the taser was excessive force. Since excessive force was used in accomplishing the seizure of Meyer, Me

BZZT, Wrong!

Why don't you do a little research before you post next time?

Florida Statutes Look at Section 3(b). I didn't say they couldn't pull you over, I said they couldn't fine you.

In the US, no model release is required for images taken in public.

Especially if you don't mind leaving yourself open to suit from the people who appear in the images, if they can find a way to demonstrate something like defamation or privacy infringement as a result of your use and correlation of their image and identity. Privacy laws regarding images vary state-to-state, but laws like Florida's are common.

Thanks for playing, anonymous coward.

For those of you who want to check traffic before you leave, usually a state's highway patrol will list accidents and obstructions. I have this site bookmarked and check it before i drive anywhere long distance. http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/traffic/ Look for ones in your state.

The only requirement that pertains to a specified amount of time between registration and voting in an election is that new registrations must occur at least 29 days before voting in an election. Doesn't matter if its a Republican or Democratic primary.

Florida Voter Registration Application

Forget the media; I've been trying to find the bill. Would someone be kind enough to provide the section of the Florida or Utah Code so that I can see the exact wording? Nothing relevant comes up at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/, which seems as if it ought to have it, and the Utah Legislature's list of 2007 commerce bills does not seem to contain anything even dimly resembling the Ars Technica story. Could someone with access to LexisNexis or Westlaw please confirm whether these bills even exist, let alone passed?

Forget the media; I've been trying to find the bill. Would someone be kind enough to provide the section of the Florida or Utah Code so that I can see the exact wording? Nothing relevant comes up at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/, which seems as if it ought to have it, and the Utah Legislature's list of 2007 commerce bills does not seem to contain anything even dimly resembling the Ars Technica story. Could someone with access to LexisNexis or Westlaw please confirm whether these bills even exist, let alone passed?

He faces up to 10 years in a US jail

Some sample states:

Florida: In Fiscal Year 2004-05, it cost $18,108 a year or $49.61 a day to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide medical services for an inmate at a major prison, which is only $486 more per year than it cost the previous fiscal year. For more inmate cost per day information, go to http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/0405/budget.h tml.

New Hampshire: "$28,000 annual per inmate."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200704 26171735AAB9pAf

Utah: It costs about $23,000 a year to incarcerate the average inmate.
http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/faq.html

Couldn't find Virginia, but let's be ridiculously conservative and say it's $10,000/year. Let's say he gets off on good behavior in 5.

Who's paying this $50,000? And who gets the half-million in fines, which I'm sure is pocket change for this guy?

If they would simply give up the use (and we could legislate this away very easily) of gypsum phosphate based fertilizers on tobacco crops we could cut cancer from smoking by more than 80% (some say 90%).

Do you have a single published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up this assertion?

I was courious about this as well so I did a search. Google didn't return anything but the first result with Alta Vista, there are 49, returned this: SENATE STAFF ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT(pdf). The summary is:

This bill authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abate imminent hazards from phosphogypsum stack systems through the use of funds from the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund (NLRTF). The bill provides registration fees and financial responsibility requirements. It also provides for a right of action and lien to seek reimbursement of expended funds and provides for the closure of abandoned stack systems. It also repeals provisions exempting certain small mines from review as developments of regional impact.