"If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid. Thus, resisting it was justified."
First, you have no idea what a 'valid arrest' is. Second, this ain't 'Minority Report'. The cops don't KNOW if you are innocent or guilty at the time of the arrest. They simply arrest a likely suspect if they have sufficient evidence on hand at the time. By your logic, everybody should fight arrest, every time. Because, hey, I'm 'innocent'.
And why do you think being arrested is some type of horrible event that must be fought? An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.
"You understand there's a difference between charging someone with a crime and convicting them of it, right? "
Yes, I do. But you said you wanted people charged with crimes that they are innocent of. You do realize that once you charge someone with a crime, the next step is PROSECUTING them, right? The only other possible outcome is to drop the charges. And if you are simply going to drop the charges, why did you take the time to charge them in the first place?
"There's even a difference between charging them and then dropping the charges or not charging them at all. I'm advocating for the former, because then you have a record of what happened."
So you want time and resources wasted charging innocent people... for record-keeping? I would think the report that has the resisting arrest charge would also contain the reason that the officer was arresting you for. And couldn't you simply keep a running total of an officer's "resisting arrest only" incidents?
"...but he certainly cannot charge him with resisting arrest if the person is shown to be not guilty of the robbery."
Why not? If the person resisted arrest, aren't they guilty of resisting arrest?
"Its the same as having your house raided and the cops finding drugs, only to find out the raid was done illegally...the drug evidence is null and void because the raid was illegal in the first place"
No, it's not the same thing. Throwing out the drug evidence does NOT make the original drug possession charge go away. You could still be prosecuted for that same drug charge, they just can't use that particular piece of evidence anymore. Why would not pressing charges for one thing instantly nullify the resisting arrest charge?
"I think the person should either be arrested and charged with the burglary, or not arrested at all."
So, if an officer on scene makes the call to arrest someone, then that charge should be carried through to the end, EVEN IF LATER EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PERSON DIDN'T DO IT??? Seriously?
"If there's not enough probable cause to charge the person with the crime, then there wasn't enough probable cause for the arrest either."
Really? So the cops have to magically know in advance who is guilty? How does that work?
Cops can only make judgment calls with the information they have at the time of the arrest. Further investigation can sometimes clear a person before any charges are made.
Why was it unlawful? He had a suspect that matched the description he was given. Are you saying that person SHOULDN'T be arrested in that situation? Under what circumstances could you arrest somebody then?
No paradox. Officer gets a report of a burglary. He see's that you fit the description. He attempts to arrest you. You resist. He hauls you to jail. Later they realize that you aren't the burglar. They still charge you with resisting arrest, and nothing else.
"What do you do now for a trip that's more than you can drive in a day?"
Fly. Why the hell would I drive for several days, and have to pony up for meals and lodging? And what does a multi-day trip have to do with my post? I'm just talking about drives that are longer than about three hours, which I do on weekends very frequently.
"Lots of people will get along fine with a car that can only go 100-200 miles on a charge."
Not if they EVER want to drive more than 200 miles, which is a lot of people.
"Ever heard of a car rental agency?"
So I now need to take the time and money to go rent a car? This electric car is making less and less financial sense all the time.
"How about you just borrow one from your immediate family?"
Assuming I have family nearby (nope), and that they aren't using it, and assuming that they also don't have an electric car.
"They can get an electric for commuting and a fueled car for the other stuff."
This is probably the one thing that does make some sense. Hopefully, there are enough families that will try this system and get electric cars into mass production, and provide incentive to improve batteries. One reason I would love to see electric cars get put into use for commuting is to cut down on all the fuel wasted while idling in stop and go traffic.
Too bad I live farther than 10 seconds from work. Look, until we can pack enough power into cheap batteries to go more than 100-200 miles on a charge (or charge those packs in a few minutes), electric cars are just a short range novelty.
And don't go spouting off about how 90% of trips are less than 50 miles. What do I do for the other 10% of my trips? Sit around and wish I had a long range car?
But that your argument is null and void once they save the nude 12 year old girl's picture. Since the only VALID use of that picture is to determine if the girl has a bomb, etc. on her, keeping the picture after that search is done is pornography. End of story.
Alright, I spell this out slooooowly: Assume I have some asset that I expect to appreciate at 10% annually. Your 90% tax effectively reduces this to 1%. Who the hell is going to invest with that type of return? And that's for a HIGH return investment. Also, my investment could go down. So, you have taken away any potential upside (reward), but left the downside (risk). So, EFFECTIVELY, you have outlawed it.
And I still stand by my 99.9% statement. If you think 90% is good, isn't 99.9% better? What's wrong with 100% then?
"Who is going to sell something at >1year if they know they'll receive almost zero profit. " "After >1 year, they can make a lot of profit because then the taxes go down."
Oops, I had meant to type 1year (less than one year) on my original post.
"You might tax gains on assets held less than a year at 90%"
Then you are effectively outlawing it. Who is going to sell something at >1year if they know they'll receive almost zero profit. Hell, why not just tax it at 99.9%, and then you can still claim it isn't outlawed!
Ah, I love people who know nothing about economics. You created $25,000 a day, eh? What was the profit margin on those suckers? If it costs $20,000 in parts, you've really only made $5,000 for your company. Oh, and they still have to cover costs like rent, utilities, advertising, insurance, etc.
If you think you can make $25k/day, go ahead and start advertising your condensers, and front the money to buy the parts to make them. Not a damn thing stopping you.
I know what your point is: the US invaded Iraq to get access to more, cheap oil. However, you have shown absolutely no proof that you are correct. Everything points to the US being WORSE off in both regards.
"I SUSPECT they might be higher, now."
You can 'suspect' all you want, but so could I.
The real reason we invaded was to prevent Iraq from attacking us with a WMD. I SUSPECT Saddam would have acquired a WMD by now and used it against the US via terrorist groups.
Now, I have absolutely no proof to back that up, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Sorry, prices have NOT come down since the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Gas prices were about $2.00/gal around the 2001-2003 period, and now sit above $3.00. Crude prices were in the $20-$30 per barrel range, and now sit around $50-$60. What is your definition of "prices have come down"?
As for "oil flowing more freely": http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html Iraq hasn't really upped it's production in the last decade, and in fact has dropped from it's peek prior to the war.
I think you need to research your points, as you seem to just make assumptions based on no evidence.
Well, if we didn't pay for trillions of dollars in war expanses to protect oil sources, wouldn't prices rise for everybody? Oil is sold on the open world market, so there is no "USA price".
"if every person who posted "the economy is in the shitter and it's so-and-so's fault" would just *get a job* we probably wouldn't have a recession any more to complain about."
Yes, because the current problem with our economy is too many jobs and not enough people to fill them...
"the state is now not only tacitly accepting racism, it is in fact being used to actively support it."
Well, it is actually supporting private property and enforcing trespassing laws. If a person you don't like (for whatever reason) refuses to leave your house, wouldn't you want the police to come haul him out of your home?
Slashdot Mirror
"If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid. Thus, resisting it was justified."
First, you have no idea what a 'valid arrest' is. Second, this ain't 'Minority Report'. The cops don't KNOW if you are innocent or guilty at the time of the arrest. They simply arrest a likely suspect if they have sufficient evidence on hand at the time. By your logic, everybody should fight arrest, every time. Because, hey, I'm 'innocent'.
And why do you think being arrested is some type of horrible event that must be fought? An arrest is nothing more than taking you in for proper booking, questioning, etc. Arrest and imprisonment are NOT the same thing.
"You understand there's a difference between charging someone with a crime and convicting them of it, right? "
Yes, I do. But you said you wanted people charged with crimes that they are innocent of. You do realize that once you charge someone with a crime, the next step is PROSECUTING them, right? The only other possible outcome is to drop the charges. And if you are simply going to drop the charges, why did you take the time to charge them in the first place?
"There's even a difference between charging them and then dropping the charges or not charging them at all. I'm advocating for the former, because then you have a record of what happened."
So you want time and resources wasted charging innocent people... for record-keeping? I would think the report that has the resisting arrest charge would also contain the reason that the officer was arresting you for. And couldn't you simply keep a running total of an officer's "resisting arrest only" incidents?
"...but he certainly cannot charge him with resisting arrest if the person is shown to be not guilty of the robbery."
Why not? If the person resisted arrest, aren't they guilty of resisting arrest?
"Its the same as having your house raided and the cops finding drugs, only to find out the raid was done illegally...the drug evidence is null and void because the raid was illegal in the first place"
No, it's not the same thing. Throwing out the drug evidence does NOT make the original drug possession charge go away. You could still be prosecuted for that same drug charge, they just can't use that particular piece of evidence anymore. Why would not pressing charges for one thing instantly nullify the resisting arrest charge?
"I think the person should either be arrested and charged with the burglary, or not arrested at all."
So, if an officer on scene makes the call to arrest someone, then that charge should be carried through to the end, EVEN IF LATER EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PERSON DIDN'T DO IT??? Seriously?
"If there's not enough probable cause to charge the person with the crime, then there wasn't enough probable cause for the arrest either."
Really? So the cops have to magically know in advance who is guilty? How does that work?
Cops can only make judgment calls with the information they have at the time of the arrest. Further investigation can sometimes clear a person before any charges are made.
Why was it unlawful? He had a suspect that matched the description he was given. Are you saying that person SHOULDN'T be arrested in that situation? Under what circumstances could you arrest somebody then?
No paradox. Officer gets a report of a burglary. He see's that you fit the description. He attempts to arrest you. You resist. He hauls you to jail. Later they realize that you aren't the burglar. They still charge you with resisting arrest, and nothing else.
Well, it was good enough for the Nobel committee last year...
"What do you do now for a trip that's more than you can drive in a day?"
Fly. Why the hell would I drive for several days, and have to pony up for meals and lodging? And what does a multi-day trip have to do with my post? I'm just talking about drives that are longer than about three hours, which I do on weekends very frequently.
"Lots of people will get along fine with a car that can only go 100-200 miles on a charge."
Not if they EVER want to drive more than 200 miles, which is a lot of people.
"Ever heard of a car rental agency?"
So I now need to take the time and money to go rent a car? This electric car is making less and less financial sense all the time.
"How about you just borrow one from your immediate family?"
Assuming I have family nearby (nope), and that they aren't using it, and assuming that they also don't have an electric car.
"They can get an electric for commuting and a fueled car for the other stuff."
This is probably the one thing that does make some sense. Hopefully, there are enough families that will try this system and get electric cars into mass production, and provide incentive to improve batteries. One reason I would love to see electric cars get put into use for commuting is to cut down on all the fuel wasted while idling in stop and go traffic.
"...built a 10 second car..."
Too bad I live farther than 10 seconds from work. Look, until we can pack enough power into cheap batteries to go more than 100-200 miles on a charge (or charge those packs in a few minutes), electric cars are just a short range novelty.
And don't go spouting off about how 90% of trips are less than 50 miles. What do I do for the other 10% of my trips? Sit around and wish I had a long range car?
Man, if I got a ticket for one of those ships, I'd be the luckiest man alive!
But that your argument is null and void once they save the nude 12 year old girl's picture. Since the only VALID use of that picture is to determine if the girl has a bomb, etc. on her, keeping the picture after that search is done is pornography. End of story.
Alright, I spell this out slooooowly: Assume I have some asset that I expect to appreciate at 10% annually. Your 90% tax effectively reduces this to 1%. Who the hell is going to invest with that type of return? And that's for a HIGH return investment. Also, my investment could go down. So, you have taken away any potential upside (reward), but left the downside (risk). So, EFFECTIVELY, you have outlawed it.
And I still stand by my 99.9% statement. If you think 90% is good, isn't 99.9% better? What's wrong with 100% then?
"Who is going to sell something at >1year if they know they'll receive almost zero profit. "
"After >1 year, they can make a lot of profit because then the taxes go down."
Oops, I had meant to type 1year (less than one year) on my original post.
"You might tax gains on assets held less than a year at 90%"
Then you are effectively outlawing it. Who is going to sell something at >1year if they know they'll receive almost zero profit. Hell, why not just tax it at 99.9%, and then you can still claim it isn't outlawed!
Ah, I love people who know nothing about economics. You created $25,000 a day, eh? What was the profit margin on those suckers? If it costs $20,000 in parts, you've really only made $5,000 for your company. Oh, and they still have to cover costs like rent, utilities, advertising, insurance, etc.
If you think you can make $25k/day, go ahead and start advertising your condensers, and front the money to buy the parts to make them. Not a damn thing stopping you.
I agree. They should get a little competition going between several ISPs. What are they, a bunch of communists?
I know what your point is: the US invaded Iraq to get access to more, cheap oil. However, you have shown absolutely no proof that you are correct. Everything points to the US being WORSE off in both regards.
"I SUSPECT they might be higher, now."
You can 'suspect' all you want, but so could I.
The real reason we invaded was to prevent Iraq from attacking us with a WMD. I SUSPECT Saddam would have acquired a WMD by now and used it against the US via terrorist groups.
Now, I have absolutely no proof to back that up, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Sorry, prices have NOT come down since the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Gas prices were about $2.00/gal around the 2001-2003 period, and now sit above $3.00. Crude prices were in the $20-$30 per barrel range, and now sit around $50-$60. What is your definition of "prices have come down"?
As for "oil flowing more freely": http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
Iraq hasn't really upped it's production in the last decade, and in fact has dropped from it's peek prior to the war.
I think you need to research your points, as you seem to just make assumptions based on no evidence.
So, that works out to about 25 cents per gallon (135 billion gallons consumed in US per year). Still doesn't get us anywhere near European gas prices.
Yes, because the surest way to get oil prices to drop is to start a war in the middle east...
Well, if we didn't pay for trillions of dollars in war expanses to protect oil sources, wouldn't prices rise for everybody? Oil is sold on the open world market, so there is no "USA price".
Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?
"if every person who posted "the economy is in the shitter and it's so-and-so's fault" would just *get a job* we probably wouldn't have a recession any more to complain about."
Yes, because the current problem with our economy is too many jobs and not enough people to fill them...
What the hell is "hydrogen space"?? And why would I want to shoot it out of a gun?
"the state is now not only tacitly accepting racism, it is in fact being used to actively support it."
Well, it is actually supporting private property and enforcing trespassing laws. If a person you don't like (for whatever reason) refuses to leave your house, wouldn't you want the police to come haul him out of your home?
Yes. When in doubt, err on the side of caution. An email from a government account will reach the recipient just as well as a gmail account emai.