None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions.
And why would they? We are talking about the percentage of home invader that actually harm people, not the odds of you coming face to face with a home invader.
My post: "They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof."
Your post: "All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home."
Go read a book on statistics.
I suggest you go read one. Ever hear of "anecdotal evidence"? Because you gave a great example:
...a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded,..
Well, hell, I don't know anybody that's died in a car accident, so it must be rare! Oh, wait, 35,000 people die every year in car wrecks. But... but.. I don't KNOW anybody that's died in one, so it must only happen a few times a year! At least, according to the statistical theories of gfreeman.
According to a Statistics Canada Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey,...In 47% of home invasion incidents, the victim reported sustaining some kind of physical injuries.
And that's in freakin' CANADA!
http://mysecuritydog.com/wordpress/?p=388
According to the United States Department of Justice, 38 % of all assaults and 60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion.
Would you like to continue your made-up bullshit that people breaking into your home rarely ever hurt people in that home?
...and those are just a few recent ones I found searching ONLY in California. I don't know your definition of 'rare', but those are enough to make it a distinct possibility.
you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof
A person has illegally entered my home. They are there for one of two reasons:
1. Steal stuff
2. Rape/murder/assault
I have to 'jump' to one of two conclusions. How do I make a determination if it is scenario #1 or #2??? You never really answered my question:
What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Until you can answer this, your argument isn't going to sway me one bit if I am faced with an intruder in my house.
You see nothing wrong with that?
No, I don't, because the person responsible is the guy that broke into my home.
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof. What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
I've never understood how these hunger strikes are suppose to work. I mean, these people are keeping THEMSELVES from eating, so why would I put any blame on the person/group that they are striking against? If I was a Google exec, I'd show up with a bunch of pizzas to deliver to the strikers to look like I was a caring guy ("See? I don't want these poor people to starve!").
Or I might just eat the pizza in front of them to get them hungry enough to go eat something. Depends on how much or how little I thought of their "cause".
History? How often does that get used outside of school?
Science?
Art?
Literature?
Geography?
Once you get the basics of reading, writing, and math down, you can function in society. But I'd rather not have a society full of people that can just barely get by. I mean, we are TRYING to teach way more than the basics, and look how dumb our country is!
...the result of the current Republican candidate has an impact on the chances of future Republican candidates, which are real.
So by your logic, I we SHOULD vote for our third party candidates, as the higher their vote total is, the better their chances in future elections.
And the next (R) candidate is NOT going to win California. I mean, we are about to elect a crazy old man (Jerry Brown) to run our state, simply because he has a (D) next to his name. If we'll pick him over ANYBODY simply because of his party affiliation, then there is not a chance for any (R) to win the state.
I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just as effective.
And the Republicans and Democrats both thank you for continuing to prevent any competition.
I'm always amazed at people who believe the "voting for a 3rd party is like throwing your vote away". Are you really saying that because your particular candidate didn't win, that you wasted your vote?
I had a conversation with a co-worker about our recent vote. I said that I had voted Libertarian (Bob Barr) for president. He laughed and claimed that I wasted my vote. I then asked him who HE had voted for. He then stopped laughing and quietly mumbled, "John McCain". I then proceeded to laugh, as we live in California, and Barr and McCain had roughly the same chances of winning the state (about 0% chance). Was his vote for McCain a "wasted vote", simply because McCain didn't win? Or was his vote OK, since it fell into your acceptable category of being a (R) or a (D)?
"...a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2)."
Yeah, I much preferred the original's plot about a killer robot sent back in time to kill the mother of mankind's savior. T2's plot of a killer robot sent back in time to kill mankind's savior was weak...
"...like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel."
Exactly how high are you right now? T2 and Aliens are some of the BEST sequels ever made. Matrix reloaded was... alright. It was the third movie in these franchises that turned the suck up to 11. So the rule is, never, EVER make a third movie.
I've never understood why anyone, EXCEPT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR(S) OF THE BILL, can make any changes to the bill, period. If I'm submitting a bill, it's MY bill. You want an internet kill switch? Write your own goddamn bill!
This is the reason that I only have four passwords based on the type of login:
1. Financial websites 2. Personal-critical (login to my computer, main email, etc.) 3. Personal-don't give a crap (slashdot, fantasy football, etc.) 4. Work
This system has worked well for me. Sometimes they have some lame requirement, but I just have a number that I add to the end of the password. Even if I haven't been to a particular website in a long time, I can usually login with no trouble.
I quote your post where you said the exact opposite of what the link said. Please point me to a post where you explained CORRECTLY what is required for a valid arrest.
Or are illiterate....you are a lying prick...A lying egotistical prick...ally-oops for pricks...If you weren't a lying prick...stroking your pathetic little ego...all about your master-debating with yourself...while being a prick...stroking your pathetic little ego...pathetic shell of a man you've always been (And by "man" I mean teenager living it his mom's basement who makes the Comic Book Guy look like a thin ladies man).
Geez, I actually got a little tired pasting all of your insults. Do you think this is helping anything on your end? Your new strategy of calling me a prick repeatedly is an interesting one, but I don't know if it will be all that effective.
You also called me a liar about 20 times, but I doubt you could come up with one example. You seem to think that whatever you type is instantly the truth, no source or examples required.
"You just wanted prove me wrong when I didn't say anything wrong." What? I CLEARLY showed where you were wrong. I showed your post of "arrest of innocent man is invalid", and the link that said "arrest of innocent man is valid". Are you saying the link is wrong? If so, please present SOME shred of evidence.
"You are a prick." Good to see that your debating skills are still sharp as ever.
"And you are the one that's wrong." Why? About what? Where is your proof?
"I've already explained why." No, you never have. Ever.
"Oh, and for asserting that knowing the difference between innocent, presumed innocent, and found not guilty is more clear than what it takes for an arrest, you are an idiot." Well, considering that you managed to present a definition of innocent, guilty, etc, WHEN NO ONE ASKED YOU FOR IT, and are unable to tell me the requirements for a valid arrest, AFTER SEVERAL POSTS OF ME ASKING FOR IT, I'd say your actions prove that I'm actually right in this case.
"...you are an idiot." The money you spent on debating classes has paid off well.
"Or are you admitting you are wrong with that?" Um, no. Why would you think I'm admitting that?
Here, let me help answer your question, since you are obviously too stupid to understand..."
I never said that I didn't know what the legal requirements were for an arrest. I was just pointing out that you didn't know. When I asked you what you thought constituted a valid arrest, you started talking about anything but that.
You said:
If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid.
"...I explain the difference between being found guilty and being guilty,..."
Which I never asked you to do, and I know what the difference is because it IS obvious.
"...he legal requirements for an arrest, something I think is much more obvious..."
You think the requirements for an arrest is more obvious? Seriously?
"...I think I'll just answer "fuck you" and leave it at that."
So, you DON'T know the legal requirements for an arrest? Why else would you write so many posts without actually answering the one question I asked? Hell, most of this thread has been wasted typing, all because you didn't want to type "The requirements to make an arrest are blah, blah, blah, etc."
"...it always feels good to spread love and logic to the illiterate masses such as yourself."
You called me a 'whiny bitch', told me to fuck off, and you consider that spreading the love? And I've been typing posts and reading yours this whole time, and you call me illiterate? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
And I haven't seen one logical argument from you yet. In fact one of you previous posts stated that you didn't agree with the logic of something that I wrote, but you never clarified why. I even ASKED you to clarify, and you just ignored it.
""Sufficient evidence" is never a requirement. I'd go into the actual requirement, but you not only attack me..."
Actually, I WANT you to explain what the requirement is to make an arrest. You said that "If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid.". I said that a cop can't know at that time who is innocent or guilty. You've never explained under what circumstances an officer can make an arrest.
OK, you used a lot of words to say nothing and avoid my arguments. My main argument is that the cops don't know if a person is innocent or guilty at the time they are confronting them. At no point do you ever even come close to addressing this.
"I understand and I disagree with both your premise and their logic."
Because....?
"Someone who committed the crime...because you assert so."
Jeez, you took a whole paragraph to explain guilty and innocent? Did typing that long-winded explanation make you feel smarter?
"Being found guilty or being acquitted is a finding of law"
I know you didn't mean to, but you actually proved my point. It is a finding of law AFTER the arrest, not during. There is no guilty or innocent at the time of arrest. Only suspects or not suspects.
"One is holding you against your will, while the other is holding you against your will. Yes, I see the distinction you are trying to make in showing me that the two are unrelated."
Wow, for a guy that can type a whole paragraph to differentiate between guilty and innocent, I'm surprised that you think that arrest and imprisonment are the same thing. I'll try to use less than a paragraph to explain the difference:
Arrest: Innocent until proven guilty, can post bail, no criminal record. Imprisoned: Guilty (unless you can come up with new evidence to prove your innocence). CAN'T post bail to get out, mark on your criminal record.
Slashdot Mirror
None of those figures refers to the rarity of home invasions.
And why would they? We are talking about the percentage of home invader that actually harm people, not the odds of you coming face to face with a home invader. My post: "They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof." Your post: "All the proof you have is that they have broken into your home."
Go read a book on statistics.
I suggest you go read one. Ever hear of "anecdotal evidence"? Because you gave a great example:
...a couple of dozen of friends and none of them have ever been home invaded,..
Well, hell, I don't know anybody that's died in a car accident, so it must be rare! Oh, wait, 35,000 people die every year in car wrecks. But... but.. I don't KNOW anybody that's died in one, so it must only happen a few times a year! At least, according to the statistical theories of gfreeman.
Oh, and while I'm at it, I guess I'll even disprove your "home invasions are rare, period" crap: http://www.nationsearch.com/criminal-news-global-criminal-statistics/?Tag=home%20invasion
According to Statistics U.S.A., there was an average of 3,600,000 home invasions annually between 1994 and 2000.
Also, a population of 37 million does not mean there were 37 million home invasions.
Try again.
http://www.professorshouse.com/your-home/decorating-design/home-invasions-facts-statistics.aspx
According to a Statistics Canada Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey, ...In 47% of home invasion incidents, the victim reported sustaining some kind of physical injuries.
And that's in freakin' CANADA!
http://mysecuritydog.com/wordpress/?p=388
According to the United States Department of Justice, 38 % of all assaults and 60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion.
Would you like to continue your made-up bullshit that people breaking into your home rarely ever hurt people in that home?
Premeditated attacks in the home are hugely rare despite what you see on CSI...
First, I don't watch that crappy show. Second, you have no idea what you are talking about:
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13466322
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/11/03/2144651/man-shot-killed-in-downey-home.html
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/10886/764/
http://www.10news.com/news/18911128/detail.html
...and those are just a few recent ones I found searching ONLY in California. I don't know your definition of 'rare', but those are enough to make it a distinct possibility.
you've already jump a few conclusions past the proof
A person has illegally entered my home. They are there for one of two reasons: 1. Steal stuff 2. Rape/murder/assault I have to 'jump' to one of two conclusions. How do I make a determination if it is scenario #1 or #2??? You never really answered my question:
What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Until you can answer this, your argument isn't going to sway me one bit if I am faced with an intruder in my house.
You see nothing wrong with that?
No, I don't, because the person responsible is the guy that broke into my home.
How do I determine if they are there to steal food?
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof. What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Or I might just eat the pizza in front of them to get them hungry enough to go eat something. Depends on how much or how little I thought of their "cause".
God, I hate when Democrats post on /.
History? How often does that get used outside of school? Science? Art? Literature? Geography? Once you get the basics of reading, writing, and math down, you can function in society. But I'd rather not have a society full of people that can just barely get by. I mean, we are TRYING to teach way more than the basics, and look how dumb our country is!
...the result of the current Republican candidate has an impact on the chances of future Republican candidates, which are real.
So by your logic, I we SHOULD vote for our third party candidates, as the higher their vote total is, the better their chances in future elections.
And the next (R) candidate is NOT going to win California. I mean, we are about to elect a crazy old man (Jerry Brown) to run our state, simply because he has a (D) next to his name. If we'll pick him over ANYBODY simply because of his party affiliation, then there is not a chance for any (R) to win the state.
I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just as effective.
And the Republicans and Democrats both thank you for continuing to prevent any competition.
I'm always amazed at people who believe the "voting for a 3rd party is like throwing your vote away". Are you really saying that because your particular candidate didn't win, that you wasted your vote?
I had a conversation with a co-worker about our recent vote. I said that I had voted Libertarian (Bob Barr) for president. He laughed and claimed that I wasted my vote. I then asked him who HE had voted for. He then stopped laughing and quietly mumbled, "John McCain". I then proceeded to laugh, as we live in California, and Barr and McCain had roughly the same chances of winning the state (about 0% chance). Was his vote for McCain a "wasted vote", simply because McCain didn't win? Or was his vote OK, since it fell into your acceptable category of being a (R) or a (D)?
"...that allows homebrew games to be played without the need to burn to disc" Was this really a big problem? Burning discs?
"...a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2)."
Yeah, I much preferred the original's plot about a killer robot sent back in time to kill the mother of mankind's savior. T2's plot of a killer robot sent back in time to kill mankind's savior was weak...
"...like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel."
Exactly how high are you right now? T2 and Aliens are some of the BEST sequels ever made. Matrix reloaded was... alright. It was the third movie in these franchises that turned the suck up to 11. So the rule is, never, EVER make a third movie.
Good.
I've never understood why anyone, EXCEPT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR(S) OF THE BILL, can make any changes to the bill, period. If I'm submitting a bill, it's MY bill. You want an internet kill switch? Write your own goddamn bill!
If seen the Terminator movies. As far as I can tell, Skynet runs YOU in pretty much every country!
That's a great idea. However, I'm not sure what you mean by 'questionable content'. Would you mind emailing me a few examples?
This is the reason that I only have four passwords based on the type of login:
1. Financial websites
2. Personal-critical (login to my computer, main email, etc.)
3. Personal-don't give a crap (slashdot, fantasy football, etc.)
4. Work
This system has worked well for me. Sometimes they have some lame requirement, but I just have a number that I add to the end of the password. Even if I haven't been to a particular website in a long time, I can usually login with no trouble.
No. The link is right. And so am I.
I quote your post where you said the exact opposite of what the link said. Please point me to a post where you explained CORRECTLY what is required for a valid arrest.
Or are illiterate....you are a lying prick...A lying egotistical prick...ally-oops for pricks...If you weren't a lying prick...stroking your pathetic little ego...all about your master-debating with yourself...while being a prick...stroking your pathetic little ego...pathetic shell of a man you've always been (And by "man" I mean teenager living it his mom's basement who makes the Comic Book Guy look like a thin ladies man).
Geez, I actually got a little tired pasting all of your insults. Do you think this is helping anything on your end? Your new strategy of calling me a prick repeatedly is an interesting one, but I don't know if it will be all that effective. You also called me a liar about 20 times, but I doubt you could come up with one example. You seem to think that whatever you type is instantly the truth, no source or examples required.
"You just wanted prove me wrong when I didn't say anything wrong."
What? I CLEARLY showed where you were wrong. I showed your post of "arrest of innocent man is invalid", and the link that said "arrest of innocent man is valid". Are you saying the link is wrong? If so, please present SOME shred of evidence.
"You are a prick."
Good to see that your debating skills are still sharp as ever.
"And you are the one that's wrong."
Why? About what? Where is your proof?
"I've already explained why."
No, you never have. Ever.
"Oh, and for asserting that knowing the difference between innocent, presumed innocent, and found not guilty is more clear than what it takes for an arrest, you are an idiot."
Well, considering that you managed to present a definition of innocent, guilty, etc, WHEN NO ONE ASKED YOU FOR IT, and are unable to tell me the requirements for a valid arrest, AFTER SEVERAL POSTS OF ME ASKING FOR IT, I'd say your actions prove that I'm actually right in this case.
"...you are an idiot."
The money you spent on debating classes has paid off well.
"Or are you admitting you are wrong with that?"
Um, no. Why would you think I'm admitting that?
Here, let me help answer your question, since you are obviously too stupid to understand..."
I never said that I didn't know what the legal requirements were for an arrest. I was just pointing out that you didn't know. When I asked you what you thought constituted a valid arrest, you started talking about anything but that.
You said:
If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid.
From the search results that you provided http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/knowing-when-an-arrest-is-legal.html:
Put differently, an arrest is valid if it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent.
Well, gosh, it seems that I was right and you were wrong. You've just spent the last several posts trying to avoid admitting it.
"...I explain the difference between being found guilty and being guilty,..."
Which I never asked you to do, and I know what the difference is because it IS obvious.
"...he legal requirements for an arrest, something I think is much more obvious..."
You think the requirements for an arrest is more obvious? Seriously?
"...I think I'll just answer "fuck you" and leave it at that."
So, you DON'T know the legal requirements for an arrest? Why else would you write so many posts without actually answering the one question I asked? Hell, most of this thread has been wasted typing, all because you didn't want to type "The requirements to make an arrest are blah, blah, blah, etc."
"...it always feels good to spread love and logic to the illiterate masses such as yourself."
You called me a 'whiny bitch', told me to fuck off, and you consider that spreading the love? And I've been typing posts and reading yours this whole time, and you call me illiterate? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
And I haven't seen one logical argument from you yet. In fact one of you previous posts stated that you didn't agree with the logic of something that I wrote, but you never clarified why. I even ASKED you to clarify, and you just ignored it.
"...whiny little bitch..."
Fine arguing skills you have there.
""Sufficient evidence" is never a requirement. I'd go into the actual requirement, but you not only attack me..."
Actually, I WANT you to explain what the requirement is to make an arrest. You said that "If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid.". I said that a cop can't know at that time who is innocent or guilty. You've never explained under what circumstances an officer can make an arrest.
OK, you used a lot of words to say nothing and avoid my arguments. My main argument is that the cops don't know if a person is innocent or guilty at the time they are confronting them. At no point do you ever even come close to addressing this.
"I understand and I disagree with both your premise and their logic."
Because....?
"Someone who committed the crime ...because you assert so."
Jeez, you took a whole paragraph to explain guilty and innocent? Did typing that long-winded explanation make you feel smarter?
"Being found guilty or being acquitted is a finding of law"
I know you didn't mean to, but you actually proved my point. It is a finding of law AFTER the arrest, not during. There is no guilty or innocent at the time of arrest. Only suspects or not suspects.
"One is holding you against your will, while the other is holding you against your will. Yes, I see the distinction you are trying to make in showing me that the two are unrelated."
Wow, for a guy that can type a whole paragraph to differentiate between guilty and innocent, I'm surprised that you think that arrest and imprisonment are the same thing. I'll try to use less than a paragraph to explain the difference:
Arrest: Innocent until proven guilty, can post bail, no criminal record.
Imprisoned: Guilty (unless you can come up with new evidence to prove your innocence). CAN'T post bail to get out, mark on your criminal record.