Slashdot Mirror
A Balancing Force to Mass Surveilance?
moerty asks: "The advent and application of video surveillance by governments on its peoples has been a worrying trend in western society. The recent incident with the use of tasers on a UCLA student has highlighted a shift of power where surveillance in the hands of civilians can be used as an equalizing tool against government oppression. What are the best optic/sound capture devices for such a situation? A plus is having a device that is inconspicuous, since photographers are usually targeted due to the visibility of their cameras. What about off-site storage and the hosting of such videos? As a follow-up, what organizations exist that encourage the use of the camera as an equalizing tool?"
I've been a big supporter of cameras not to just protect my rights, but to prove my innocence and to protect me. Based on talking with slashdot user jdavidb, I've given up my guns and have fully accepted the pacifist way (I feel that it is the most Christian attitude). While I would not attempt to defend myself anymore, not even from the State, I do believe it is OK to document what happened if something bad happened. Plus, the two cameras I do have on my property have secondary uses that are even more of a benefit: I can see who is at the door without getting up, and I can see if my driveway needs to be shoveled before I get home (a quick call to a neighbor's kid). This works great.
I have videotaped local law enforcement a few times in the past year as I've been working on a "free" viral documentary I've been hoping to put on YouTube to gain some support for both citizen surveillance of the State, as well as the ridiculousness of the State most of the time. I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor. You can't beat that. But the fourth time I was actually questioned for a full 20 minutes by the officer (or a radio'd in backup) as to what exactly I was doing.
I explained that the officer was on private property (usually a parking lot), as was I. Just as the officer didn't ask for prior approval, neither had I, but I would happily leave if the owner of the property told me to (or posted signs to the effect of telling me I can't be there). Since neither occurred, I felt I had ever reason to watch the police who watch us. The officer said I could be arrested for trespass and for violating the officer's privacy. I explained to the near-arresting officer that no one has privacy of transport in public as long as they're on public property or on someone else's private property. I do believe you have the "right" to privacy within your home (close the shades), but the minute you leave your property, you're on someone's land, and that person has the right to dictate what can be done on their property. That didn't jive with the officer, but he let me go (as if he ever really had me in custody). Unbelievable.
I feel we should be watching ourselves more closely. I had a rear-camera on my old truck to back it up easier, and I'd happily use it to record if I felt I needed to. I've even come out supporting the idea of the State IF and ONLY IF everyone who works for the State had to be under constant surveillance -- constant. Public IP cameras in the mayor's office and car. Public IP cameras in the DMV. Public IP cameras following the President. Let amateurs watch them, if they wish, and tag them and bookmark them and watch those watching us. If the public official has a lot of power, they should be watched even on their private time -- no bribery, no scandals, no cheating, no lying. Get them in their kitchen, get them in their meetings. The public should have privacy, but the public official should have none. Zero. They're our employees, right? They have the power to tax/steal from us, right? They have the power to imprison/enslave us, right? We should know what they're doing -- all the time.
Nothing for you to see here, please move along.
Government oppression is alive and well, apparently.
In all seriousness, miniaturization of surveillance technology is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, we can have cell-phone cameras that can record police brutality. However, the government gets access to the same technology, allowing them to monitor us more easily as well.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
http://avidwireless.com/SuccessCamera.htm
even if you miss it, you can keep the last 30 seconds....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989
/. for sure.
If I recall, CNN used satellite phones with video to report the massacre.
It was kind of fun watching the images come in at a rate of a few images per minute. It was like watching a NASA planetary probe video-feed.
My how times have changed.
Damn, now I've done it, China will block
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There is some virtue in the idea of a totally "transparent" society. The problem with most disclosures of private information is that they put you at a disadvantage; either they are out of context, or they fall disproportionately on you but not others around you.
However, nobody who argues that we should chuck privacy argues that we should chuck it for everyone. They're really more interested in turning privacy from a right into a commodity, that some people can buy and others have to go without.
Sure, sometimes you can catch a bad cop in the act. Good. But you can't catch the people you really need to watch; the people who control the surveillance network.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://www.mydejaview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
""The advent and application of video surveillance by governments on its peoples has been a worrying trend in western society. "
You're a little late with that complaint. How long has Great Britian had cameras? Anyway the answer to your question is camera cellphones.
Don't use an incident where a moron defied authority (which was NOT being abused or applied unfairly), failed to follow justified, reasonable, simple requests from law enforcement, and suffered the consequences for his actions as an example of "government oppression." It's naive, and it detracts from what might otherwise be a vaguely interesting topic.
If you believe enforcing policy is oppression, you should be researching the role of government in public safety, not asking asinine, presumptuous questions on Slashdot.
You might be interested in http://wearcam.org/anonequity.htm
which isn't technically specific like you are interested in, but it explores the ideas you bring up.
As for the UCLA student, that bastard had it coming.
I hadn't heard of this incident but maybe students should start carrying their own tasers. Imagine if another student had tasered the rent-a-cop to get them to stop tasering the student over and over.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Looks like a PDA, is really a phone and communications device, but contains a 2MP camera that has a pretty good video mode and the sound pickup to go with it. Downside is that it either looks like you're using a camera or the picture gets taken sideways. I'm sure there's a MPEG-4 editor out there that can do the rotation though after the fact.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Check out http://digitalxtractions.net/
Imagine if another student had tasered the rent-a-cop to get them to stop tasering the student over and over.
I think the video camera was a far more effective weapon. Tasering the cop would have only resulting in the other cops either all tasering the guy dumb enough to taser cop #1, or more likely the other cops shooting and killing the student with the taser. The cops would then just claim the whole thing was in self defense, and without video of the incident they'd probbably get away with it. (Courts and officials tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt since they see them as an extension of their power).
AccountKiller
As popular as YouTube is, how long before video cell phones can provide 1-click uploads directly to YouTube? While it would be in the hands of a private corporation (Google), this would provide for what the poster is suggesting in a way that would be popularly accessible and justifiable from a business perspective. More compelling user-made video content means more un-incumbered video to serve ads with.
Of course by off-site hosting the poster presumably means getting the video persisted somewhere off the recording device so that even when the abuser or oppressor confiscates or destroys the device, the testimony is not lost.
It seems win-win.
But you can't catch the people you really need to watch; the people who control the surveillance network.
No, but you can make them liable for it. For instance, when a cop covers up their dashboard cam (or just turns it off in places where they're allowed to) and something happens, or when all of the footage in the subway station where the cops just shot some Brazilian guy mysteriously disappears, the people who were responsible for that should immediately and irrevocably lose their jobs. Sure, you might get a few bad apples, but once they fuck with the system once, they should be discarded. Add personal lawsuits to make sure that borderline cases don't get any ideas.
Police unions will never buy it though. Especially if you're permitted to sue the cop directly, and not just suck taxpayer money up by suing the office.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Just wait until a few generations of ipods away that anyone can easily record and upload video. Blogs and youtube are the big thing currently. Wait until some one combines the two with a wiki and maybe GPS. If it really catches on, it would bring an entirely new concept to eye-witness if most people have these things going all the time. There was early an article about VR and "false memory". As soon as everyone can easily record and review most of their life, we'd quickly see how much of our human memory is "fals memory" that didn't actually happen according to what we ourselves record. How would society change as everyone could replay accurate recordings? Would life get better or will people stop caring about the recorded past. The concept reminds me of this dead comic: http://cdc.comicgen.com/ In it, there is a species that records everything and trys to act good and behave better because they know that their species in the future will be looking back on them and they want to make a good impression.
I think http://www.witness.org/ is worth mentioning. They have articles and guides like Effective Strategies for Video Advocacy, "Tips & Techniques" Training Video and Manual and so forth that might help you get some ideas.
I dont believe that there is any shift in the power structure, especially with regards to survailance, in reality, although citezenry with survailance technology does hinder the government and policing forces somewhat, these incidents still occur, and furthermore, are only very rarely documented. We saw Rodney King on tape, but how many other simmiliar scenarios have we not seen, and we have seen the UCLA incident, but it is foolhardy to believe that this is and will be the only time something simmiliar has or will happen.
The ubiquity of cameras is diminishing our right to privacey, which is something most people take for granted, to such a degree that no one really argues much about placing cameras on the interstate or in the city. At any given time, the people who are using these technologies, know where you are. National geographic had a show about survailance technology last night, and in one of the scenes, they followed a man through london as he entered the city, went to an office building, crossed the street to get a cup of coffee, and finally sat by a fountain to drink it. His entire day was chronicled through the use of cameras. Further, in Penn and Teller's Bullshit, the two magicians did a BS experiment to determine how trustworthy people were behind a camera, they set people up with survailance equipment to watch a truck at a house - telling the people they were working for a u.s. intelegence group. Without exception the people watched not the truck, but the people in the next house where a very lurid sexual scene was being enacted. The problem with cameras is not so much their existence as the people behind them. People would much rather watch something interesting than a truck, it's human nature, and there is no way to mitigate that.
By adding survailence to the citezenry, we are only declining the volume of our private spheres. Humans may be social animals, but our psychology demands that we have time alone - even married couples who spend their lives together have to get away from one another. By inculcating the world with cameras, whoever they may be hin the hands of, we are doing a disservice to this trait.
Finally, our whole structure of discipline is now determined by the panopticon that we currently live in. We do not behave because it is right or moral (and this is, i realize, a vast generalization) but becaus we are constantly being watched. These watching forces coerce us into action, and although we might agree that the actions we are taking are appropriate, being forced to take them adds a tension that, when released, is bound to have some catastrophic repricutions. Disallowing people to exist as private entities, disallows them to have an inner-life free of that feeling that someone is watching them. Granted the survailance that is in the hands of the government should be countered, by countering it with more survailance, is trying to right a wrong with another wrong.
He predicted that, as technology increased, the panopticon would become ever more pervasive and ever more invasive. That was a few decades ago. Sure enough!
The trick is, as others have mentioned,that as technology becomes more and more advanced, that people who were traditionally in the position of "guards" are now safely monitored in their own panopticon. Case in point, the nanny-cam.
I say let it roll! I say let's get every politician, police officer, judge, corporate CEO, etc. wired for audio and video and have it stream to the internet 24/7! If we can't hide, then neither can they.
"If he has no sword, he should sell his cloak and buy one."
That is one that a lot of Christians are confused on, IMHO. Christ was telling them these things in order to fulfill prophecy -- the prophecy that he would reside among criminals. Also remember that he told his followers to steal a purse, too. Do you use scripture to promote theft? Read it for what it is -- fulfillent of prophecy, not the right to harm another.
It doesn't surprise me that the Christian Right is so wrong -- they seem to have read the Bible wrong based on the history of others reading the Bible wrong (Scofield, Moody, Dobson, etc).
>against one who's morays are not in line with the west, well I'll take a .45
Yeah, those damn eels are nasty bastards, what with those teeth and big jaw muscles. I usually don't carry my .45 underwater even though it's stainless. Your dive knife is good enough for most problems, but a bang stick can be handy. Just keep your hands out of the holes, and you'll be OK.
Or, were you talking about "mores"?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
It would seem to me that he used the whip against sheep and cattle, not against the money changers (although the translation to English is a bit difficult). Look at the verb tense and the translation of "all" and you can see the difficulty in the translation. I'd say, though, based on Christ's other words and actions, it would seem that the translation WOULD say the whips were used to move the animals out.
As for why He told people to leave the temple, there IS a debate as to whether or not He was doing it to fulfill prophecy: he had to be arrested by the Romans, correct? The only way to do this was to do something that would get them to come and get him, in this case it may have been the temple act.
Nonetheless, the actions of Jesus revolve around two processes: what did He do as God, and what did He do as an example? He said blessed are the peacemakers (not the peacekeepers). He said the meek would inherit the Kingdom (not salvation, just the Kingdom, which came after his final return). His words to others said pacifism is the key to the Kingdom -- and therefore that is what we go on.
The more technically inclined may be interested in the Eyetap. http://www.eyetap.org/ It's still under development, but would be exactly what you are looking for, as well as having many other applications.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
One, because the law says to stop at a Stop sign. There are a good number of folks out there who stop because obeying traffic laws is the right thing to do. Let's just skip right over the obligatory /. moral relativism--there are people in the real world who don't feel a juvenile compulsion to break any and every law to prove they are somehow fighting "the violence inherent in the system." There are nonsensical laws, even laws that deserve to be ignored, but generally traffic laws don't fall into that category.
Secondly, they stop because they're aware of their fallibility. Just because it's three o'clock in the morning and they didn't notice any headlights on the cross street while they were approaching the intersection doesn't mean that there's no oncoming traffic.
I've been surprised by supposedly intelligent people I ride with who don't use their signals when changing lanes. The rationale is frequently "I already looked and there's nobody there, so I don't need to signal." My response is invariably the same "Haven't you ever started to change lanes and then seen someone you didn't realize was in your blind spot? That person has no way of knowing you're about to clobber them if you don't signal." The response is usually a non sequitur.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
People should have equal access to cameras. And in the face of criminal charges, the accused does have the right of subpoena and full access to any and all exculpatory evidence. When the Persecutor isn't being malfeasant, as they frequently are on TV.
Much as I dislike the theory of loading up cellphones with tons of crap, the higher-resolution, streaming-capable phones are almost the perfect tool in this case. Many cameraphones exist with decent megapixel ratings, and camera that can capture+broadcast live video. Of course, the data-plans are currently expensive, but I'd imagine that as such things move more and more into the mainstream they will become more reasonable.
I'm not sure 100% how the video works, but I'd be very pleased if providers offered a "picture/video server" option so that you could live-upload/stream your pictures and/or videos to a safe off-site location. That way, if you catch somebody doing something bad, and camera them... you still have the pics/video even if they steal or break your phone. This applies to all sorts of criminals including cops (because if you're breaking the law - i.e. by taking somebody's phone - you're a criminal, even if you're also a cop at the time).
That's the best reply to the old "why can't we all just be pacifists!" argument I've seen.
It drives me crazy the people that advocate a single solution (their own personal form of extremism) to the problems of the world. "Passive resistance worked for Ghandi, it must always work!." Or "War worked for the American Revolution, it must always work!". Or "Capitalism works to lower the price of tube socks to $2 a dozen, it must always work!".
AccountKiller
I can give an example from personal experience:
Back in 1994, I was asked to go along with some logging protesters to video the protest. I called this 'safety video' because the intention was to visibly document the protest to discourage loggers from engaging in vigilante violence. We never considered the possibility of violence on the part of the police.
There were actually two of us doing video. Two people had chained themselves into cement barrels, and a couple of other people. Apparently there was a 3 year old injunction discouraging people from blocking the logging, so the cops showed up with the rep from the logging company and held us on the bridge while the logging company guy read the injunction to us and handed us copies. The second video guy was actually eager to get off the bridge and left as soon as the police allowed him to. I moved a bit more slowly (dealing with power problems on my camera).
As I got off of the bridge, I heard a disturbance behind me. It turns out that the RCMP had arrested the other camera guy as he was leaving the bridge. I turned around to film him being stuffed into a police car as he protested "but I was trying to leave!". The lead officer (Sgt. Bruce Waite) turned around, saw me filming and challenged me "I thought I told you to to leave!".
"OK", I said. I shrugged, put down my camera (but did not turn it off) and turned to walk further down the road. As I was walking away, he ordered another police officer to arrest me. I turned around and protested that I was (a) off of the bridge and off the road, and (b) walking away, but after he insisted (3 or 4 times) that the other officer arrest me, I was finally arrested.
I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction). In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
After me and the other cameraman were arrested, and out of the way, the Seargent Waite ) turned around and assaulted the two people who were chained into barrels. It turns out that he had a history of being sued for assaulting prisoners (mostly natives).
If it hadn't been for my video to put Sgt. Waite's testimony into question, the whole case would have probably turned out a whole lot different.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
This is a strange way of thinking. I think you have an incomplete understanding of "defense."
You say you can defend yourself with a sword against another sword. Typical of the gun banner mentality, this treats the weapon as a being, and ignores the problem. Yes, when I swing my sword at you, you can swing your blade in such a way as to prevent mine from cleaving you crown to crotch. However, you have not defended yourself against me: I am still here, I still want to kill you, and I am still capable of killing you. I swing again, you block again, rinse lather repeat. At some point, you are going to have to do me bodily harm, disable me to the point where I can no longer swing my sword at you, or you will end up dead, having failed to do more the prolong your life by a few moments. Anything less is not really an option. "Self Defense" is an end, not a means. The end result is to prevent harm that would otherwise be done to you. Ask any police officer who has shot someone who pulled a gun on them, if they thought it was "self defense". If they had not fired, they would have been shot by the bad guy. Since they did fire, they were not. Harm was prevented, "self" was "defended" from bodily harm.
As far as Deterrence:
"You can use a gun as a deterrent, but that's a drastically different thing, and frequently not a very useful one." IF a man comes at a women with a knife intending to rape her, and she pulls a gun and he runs, one, this is indeed self defense. She prevented harm with her gun, even though she did not have to pull the trigger. "Deterrence" is based on an unknown. A sign in a liquor store that says, I carry a .44 magnum three days a week, you guess which three, is "deterrence." The THREAT of the gun, not the actuality, is deterrence.
You say that it is frequently not very useful. According to the FBI, (who should know,) of all the things you can do when faced with a criminal, the MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent harm to self, is to resist with a gun. You are more likely to get hurt if you resist with a knife sword, or club. You are more likely to get hurt if you run. You are more likely to get hurt if you cooperate. You are least likely to get hurt if you pull a gun. That is a simple undeniable fact.
When you swim ina da sea
And an Eel bites your knee,
That's a morey.
When our habits are strange
And our customs deranged
That's our mores.
A New Zealander man
with a permanent tan,
That's a Maori.
Thanks Spider, I'd never have known the difference without ya!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This entire fucking thread is offtopic.
Mod this whole meta-judeochristian-philisophical-wtfbbqry down. Including this post.
BOMBS AWAY. Make sure to use all five of your points. Thanks.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
SF author David Brin came out years ago with the same idea. That while cameras in all public areas that only the government enforcement agencies receive the feed from would likely be oppressive, cameras in all public areas that the public at large can tap the feed any time they wish would be a liberating advance. Just giving credit where it's due.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
One of my favorite authors, David Brin, discusses precisely this in one of his books, The Transparent Society.
I've been interested in ideas like Sousveillance and the Transparent Society for a while -- just see my sig. I'm curious though: Does anybody know of ways to record images/video on something like a cellphone cam and have them automatically uploaded on-the-fly to a server someplace? I imagine that would be useful for situations where there's a high probability of having the recording device seized, such as when you're recording a protest or abuse of authority.
Is to alienate them in the same way we're getting alienated.
;)
Surveil our senators, department secretaries, everyone. At all times.
After a quarter of them gets caught with hookers, the whole surveillance thing will go tits up RIGHT quick
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
Wow, the cop/anarchist thread is starting to throw sparks. Let me swing a baton at it...
McGuyver has real experience which counts for 'a lot' with me, but let's be pseudo-scientific.
Electrical energy travels differently through different media. Fact. (still with me?)
Salt water, copper wire, rubber boot, whiny elitist punk high on education and red bull;
each have different RESISTANCES due to molecular composition. Like a 100W bulb vs a 25W.
Judging by the tone of the student's screaming, let's call him 150 lbs and over-caffienated.
Not a linebacker. Not a cop. The douche has a Ph balance of 5.8 and he obviously had to pee.
Compare that with your average cop/deputy/fireman/military/garbageman... Beefy. Paid to work out.
Most cops tread the line between beefy and TOO beefy. Male cops anyway. No further comment.
SO THE POINT : A 150-lb Ph-acid punk having to pee and sweating balls from all the cops around him
is going to have a SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER conductivity than a 230-lb walking burger joint of a cop.
His nervous system will be less well insulated in addition to having ~1/3 the capacitance.
Hence, possible difficulty standing compared to the university of california's finest bored jocks.
Tazers affect different people... DIFFERENTLY! Makes a certain ironic sense...
Not only that, but were you ever shocked 3, 4, 5 times within 20 mins? And not just in the arm?
Some combinations of targets might cause different effects than your experienced single tazing.
But since "you've done it" you know exactly how it's going to work for everyone else too I guess.
We don't fully understand how high voltage affects the body - and I say we need more volunteers.
I would certainly volunteer myself to taze a cop for science. Standing offer, you name it.
Scientific progress smells like bacon. MacGuyver, the ball is in your court.
What you need is a RoboEye3000. Our patented eye implant broadcasts a wireless signal to your recording device, and can be installed in as little as 10 minutes.* Couple that with our Dell & Howel AcoustiAss audio recording suppository, which also receives and records the video "feed" (no pun intended), and you'll have all the surveillance technology you can stand. It's made by Dell & Howel, so you know it's a quality product. AND our receiver is so squishy and life-like that we provide a "Money Back Cavity Search Guarantee" in case of accidental arrest or indefinate detention.** You'll never again have to worry about whether or not you have a cell phone handy or, God forbid, have to carry around a heavy video camera. And if you act now, you'll get a second RoboEye3000 and AcoustiAss receiver, ABSOLUTELY FREE, and well qualified buyers can make easy payments of just $795.95/mo.*** That's right, just $795.95/mo., plus $499.99 S&H.
* May take longer if connection to optic nerve is desired. Original eye may not be reinstalled.
** Items must be returned in original packaging, free from foreign material including, but not limited to, intestinal flora, tears, hair, and corn.
*** Price does not include installation. Please contact us if you would like a quote for a qualified installer in your area.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In addition to the comments about SF author David Brin, David Drake's "Lacey stories" (Nation Without Walls, The Predators, Underground) are exactly as proposed here. Surveillance of everyone all the time, everywhere, and the average citizen can use a public terminal to watch any public figure. Though of course the super-rich have some ways around it. They are excellent stories, if a bit grim.
Speaking of which, the original three longish short-stories are long out of print, but they have been reprinted in Grimmer than Hell , which is/was supposed to make it into the excellent and non-DRM'd Baen Free Library, but hasn't yet. Also great stories, though as the title suggests, not exactly uplifting ones.
Disclaimer: I am associated with Baen and Drake only as a very happy customer and fan.1 mac latop = $2400
1 audacity software package = $0
1 felony for secret recording = 2-4 in fed pen, thousands in fines
A clear audio recording your soon to be ex-wife telling you that she wants
you to have no access to your children = priceless
youtube
at the point maybe
wetube
(mod redundant)
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
A:Show student what happens when your wrist bends in ways it's not supposed to
B:Place handcuffs on disruptive student
C:Drag very noisy, whiny student out of the building because he's tresspassing and needs to leave
how was that not a plausible scenario? I don't sympahtize with that student's misbehavior (and can't help but wonder if it was not instigated by the student as some kind of Sheehanesque attention-getting 'fighting the man' thing) at all, but I think it's very, very important to question the police using such a disproportionate level of force against somebody who was simply not a threat. If you've been tasered, you *WILL* not be getting up and walking outside very quickly; and for those police to do what they did was an act of punishment. It is not the police's job to punish anybody.
There were plenty of less violent ways the police could have removed that student from the building, and I think that people under the jurisdiction of that police force have every right to demand to know why they chose the most violent and dangerous, and why they crossed the line from serving and protecting to what seems awfully close to inflicting an extra-judicial punishment.
The one-L lama, he's a priest.
The two-L llama, he's a beast.
But I will bet a silk pyjama
There's no such thing as a three-L lllama.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The officer said I could be arrested for trespass and for violating the officer's privacy.
Violating the officer's privacy? They're public servants for christ's sake. They work for us.