He was instructed not to get out of the car (by signs), did so anyway, and when verbally instructed to get back in his car, refused. That was the crime for which he was convicted.
He stepped out of his car and refused to return to it when ordered to do so in an area where it was posted that one should not leave their vehicle unless instructed to do so. I'm not trolling.
You have no basis for assuming that just because Peters appears to just have been an asshole at border patrol that those guards had no reason to assume otherwise at the time. Hindsight is 50/50; you either learn from it or you don't. Peters hopefully has learned not to give police officers a reason to beat him.
The fact that the Candadien border is not the Mexican border has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of a threat. It simply means that since the criminal (he was convicted, remember) was being a criminal in english, that he probably wasn't trying to smuggle anything over the mexican border at that time.
I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down. They are waiting for a perceived threat and using these items in a manner consistent with official police policy (or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy).
Who cares if police are using money set aside for extra police work? I'm not saying its helping our economy, nor is it necessarily an incentive for people to enter the police field who otherwise would not remain unemployed, but if you don't like your government, run for office.
'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.
Not really my point. Most publicly traded companies do the same thing with mission statements (albeit with their own specific purposes). Its more of CYA than anything else. I'm fairly certain that both officers and civilians have these expectations whether its written on the patrol car or not.
The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service. The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.
To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.
There was time when police officers let drunk drivers continue to drive because "the car knows where its going."
Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower. This change is what is sad, not my attitude regarding the realization of how the world currently works. It is sad that officers have to resort to pepper spray or tasers because these cause less harm than beating someone senseless as a safety precaution.
How exactly have you not accepted this (willingly or begrudgingly)?
If you don't want to take on the risks associated with being a cab driver, get a cab with bulletproof glass separating the driver and the passengers, install a microphone for communication and door locking system and a money swivel, like they have in gas stations.
On the other hand, a cab driver is perfectly within their rights to get a conceal carry permit or train to legally carry a taser, just like police, for defensive purposes. Furthermore, innapropriate use will result in losing your ability to drive a licensed cab and may have further legal repercussions.
It seems like cab drivers just don't require gun safety or taser training, making their jobs less safe than that of a police officer. Granted, cabs aren't financed through tax dollars, but why would they be?
Actually working to be the price leader for a commodity is a perfectly legal competitive measure. As long as they aren't losing money on sales in order to be the price leader, its practically the definition of competition.
There are plenty of other ways to describe it. Accurate is probably the best way to describe part of a quote that you think is idiotic. I think that partially quoting me is idiotic.
If you fully quote me, you would note that this is the logic of why you don't give police a reason to beat you. As I have elsewhere pointed out, police do not and should wait for you to prove that you are a threat, they need only act when they perceive a threat. If you get out of your car after being instructed not to do so, you are a threat. You should know better. Its not nuclear physics dammit.
So you don't like police officers because their policies and procedures allow them to be safe.
Look at the job description between policeman and firefighter. One is to keep cities orderly. The other is to end fires. Gee, I wonder why one of them is perceived to be more dangerous (and only recently has become more dangerous).
Officers claim they have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way because they actually don't.
That officer was terminated because he acted outside of the policy required for use of force or threat of use of force. No one is arguing that when police act outside of their abilities that such action is justified.
The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physical threat existed at the time, and acted as one should; that is, as if a real threat in fact did exist.
You, on the other hand, should not have called a police officer names to his face when he was acting like a psychotic. You could have asked the supervisor to make sure that your statement that the officer in question was acting in such a manner, perhaps with examples, be placed a written police report, and gone to court and asked that the offending officer be dismissed based on such behaviour. Instead, you added fuel to the fire, so to speak. Way to be just as much of a jackass.
I realize it was twenty years ago and maybe your cellphone didnt exist, nevermind take video, but if you hadn't called him an asshole, maybe your friend wouldn't have suffered and had to file a suit. Maybe the supervisor would have recognized how the other officer was acting and taken remedial action, and maybe the psychotic might have been able to get training or help instead of dismissed. Maybe the officer would have threatened someone else twenty minutes later and the same actions would be taken. Regardless, you had no reason to agitate the officer.
You would think with all the news about police beatings of people with curiosity that people wouldn't be curious anymore. Really, the common sense that is taught in pretty much all education is don't do things to give police a reason to wonder whether or not they should beat you, because they are within their rights to beat you well before that, as they should be, because what if you have a gun?
I recently took a defensive driving course (because my insurance offered me a sizeable discount for doing so) and they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle unless instructed to do so by the officer. There really is no excuse.
He could have a knife, a baseball bat in the passenger seat, he could be on drugs, he could be a terrorist, he could just be some civil rights jackass who will make a routine stop take two hours instead of two minutes (plus everyone else gets to wait). I assure you, if he has a bazooka in the back seat, one way or another, he is not getting across the border.
Meanwhile, having everyone get out of their vehicle and following a procedure to be searched (because once out of a vehicle, you must be searched) at a border is absurd. You would have to have everyone waiting in line watch a video regarding procedure (in 20 different languages), take an exam on it, and then make it a felony to do other than procedure, which, while not just ludicrously expensive, would also not make it any safer for officers or travelers.
If you are border patrol and you think someone might have gun, the phrase is "hand where I can see em while you have yours drawn and the vehicle surrounded.
Well, standing too close to an officer could very easily be a crime, for example if by doing so you are interefering with an investigation, or with an arrest, or stopping a police officer from otherwise completing their official duties. You obviously aren't going to get arrested for being in the next over at the doughnut shop.
For all you know, the officers in question may have reasonably believed that he had a weapon. Or that he was fighting back and needed to be restrained and that beating him senseless was the only safe solution. Or they may have been assholes. I wasn't there, I don't know. A jury found him guilty of felony non-compliance, so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car (in fact we know that he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers, so a higher reaction would be expected than in, for example, Canada).
Cops do have to explain their use of taser just as much as their use of a baton or chemical weapon (pepper spray). It is less than that of a gun because it is not to be used in situations requiring lethal force. The decision to use a taser is dependent on the actions of the threat facing the officers, explicitly as a defensive weapon. For example, if the officer says "stay in your car" and you get out of your car, the officer is correct to use a taser. Always.
To be fair, he got out of his car while it was being searched in a routine border search. Not randomly on the street, but to make sure that you have declared everything you may be bringing across borders (you should recognize that this would be reasonable). Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol. Never mind that its posted 100 times in plain sight that you are to remain in your vehicle at all times.
The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF. Neither did a jury which found him guilty of felony non-compliance (which I have to assume is the reason he was overly restrained). This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer, and his punishment is correctly somewhere in the middle (less than 2 years in prison, more than nothing).
To be accurate, however, we would have to read the judge's notes on the case to understand the judge's thought process. There is no basis for assuming that the judge thought the case was a waste of taxpayer money (if a judge thinks this, they tend to throw the case out, not wait for a jury to come back with a verdict).
Price fixing is legal in the US when you can prove that it is not anti-competitive. For all practical purposes, international law follows the US precedent. Making all of your prices conform as to form (but not materially as to purpose), is not illegal.
For example, see the dollar store. If you thought of the store that sells all products for $1, it just as legal as the store whose products are all costing multiples of $1.The store owned by Mr. Dollar could be either one or neither, so long as pricing is not for the purposes of anti-competition.
This move by apples reeks of a competitive move, not anti-competitive.
That being said, I still won't buy any apple products because they are all overpriced crap with cheaper, better alternatives. Its not a political view, its just common sense.
Also, we do not know whether there are an infinite number of equivalent universes. That may be the case, however, we cannot assume that it is.
That isn't relevant to my point, or your point, or OP's point.
On the other hand, claiming that we can't assume a given is absurd. Read up on quantum mechanics and the multiverse and try again (statistically, there is no difference between very large and infinite).
Based on how badly the OP was written, its clear that english is not poster's first language. You do have to guess the meaning from the context, as responding to gibberish would just be stupid on your part.
The underlying point was relevant to the concept of an infinite number of universes. Statistics, however, refers to a sample from a population, which can always be extrapolated to an infinitely sized population because it refers to characteristics of a population, not raw numbers. Likewise, given the subset of the sample of universes that you might encounter, which is assumed to be random, etc, etc etc.
The short answer is that yes, basing your response on the argument made, when you don't understand it (whether because it is above your head or simply gibberish) is a fallacy. Please don't do it anymore.
Actually, BSA merit badges related to shooting requires professional training in weapon safety and an understanding of the basic engineering of those items. http://troop509.org/riflembsup.htm - Link to rifle shooting merit badge requirements (note - not part of cub scouts, who can earn a video game belt loop and pin). Absolutely nothing even remotely related to military enlistment.
Slashdot Mirror
He was instructed not to get out of the car (by signs), did so anyway, and when verbally instructed to get back in his car, refused. That was the crime for which he was convicted.
Try again, this time reading more than just the first sentence in my post. Then, you can respond in context.
Wow, you quoted me out of context and made it say something completely different. Shame on you.
Try again, this time without lying about what I said or how it makes you feel about me.
For the second point, police officers do not need to wait until someone takes action against them. Quit being an idiot.
He stepped out of his car and refused to return to it when ordered to do so in an area where it was posted that one should not leave their vehicle unless instructed to do so. I'm not trolling.
You have no basis for assuming that just because Peters appears to just have been an asshole at border patrol that those guards had no reason to assume otherwise at the time. Hindsight is 50/50; you either learn from it or you don't. Peters hopefully has learned not to give police officers a reason to beat him.
The fact that the Candadien border is not the Mexican border has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of a threat. It simply means that since the criminal (he was convicted, remember) was being a criminal in english, that he probably wasn't trying to smuggle anything over the mexican border at that time.
That is not what happened.
I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down. They are waiting for a perceived threat and using these items in a manner consistent with official police policy (or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy).
Who cares if police are using money set aside for extra police work? I'm not saying its helping our economy, nor is it necessarily an incentive for people to enter the police field who otherwise would not remain unemployed, but if you don't like your government, run for office.
'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.
Not really my point. Most publicly traded companies do the same thing with mission statements (albeit with their own specific purposes). Its more of CYA than anything else. I'm fairly certain that both officers and civilians have these expectations whether its written on the patrol car or not.
The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service. The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.
To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.
How could I do that when I haven't left my car?
There was time when police officers let drunk drivers continue to drive because "the car knows where its going."
Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower. This change is what is sad, not my attitude regarding the realization of how the world currently works. It is sad that officers have to resort to pepper spray or tasers because these cause less harm than beating someone senseless as a safety precaution.
How exactly have you not accepted this (willingly or begrudgingly)?
Well, no, not really.
If you don't want to take on the risks associated with being a cab driver, get a cab with bulletproof glass separating the driver and the passengers, install a microphone for communication and door locking system and a money swivel, like they have in gas stations.
On the other hand, a cab driver is perfectly within their rights to get a conceal carry permit or train to legally carry a taser, just like police, for defensive purposes. Furthermore, innapropriate use will result in losing your ability to drive a licensed cab and may have further legal repercussions.
It seems like cab drivers just don't require gun safety or taser training, making their jobs less safe than that of a police officer. Granted, cabs aren't financed through tax dollars, but why would they be?
Actually working to be the price leader for a commodity is a perfectly legal competitive measure. As long as they aren't losing money on sales in order to be the price leader, its practically the definition of competition.
I do find it odd that you feel otherwise.
There are plenty of other ways to describe it. Accurate is probably the best way to describe part of a quote that you think is idiotic. I think that partially quoting me is idiotic.
If you fully quote me, you would note that this is the logic of why you don't give police a reason to beat you. As I have elsewhere pointed out, police do not and should wait for you to prove that you are a threat, they need only act when they perceive a threat. If you get out of your car after being instructed not to do so, you are a threat. You should know better. Its not nuclear physics dammit.
Thanks :)
So you don't like police officers because their policies and procedures allow them to be safe.
Look at the job description between policeman and firefighter. One is to keep cities orderly. The other is to end fires. Gee, I wonder why one of them is perceived to be more dangerous (and only recently has become more dangerous).
Officers claim they have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way because they actually don't.
Its not cowardice, and crutality isn't a word.
That officer was terminated because he acted outside of the policy required for use of force or threat of use of force. No one is arguing that when police act outside of their abilities that such action is justified.
The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physical threat existed at the time, and acted as one should; that is, as if a real threat in fact did exist.
You, on the other hand, should not have called a police officer names to his face when he was acting like a psychotic. You could have asked the supervisor to make sure that your statement that the officer in question was acting in such a manner, perhaps with examples, be placed a written police report, and gone to court and asked that the offending officer be dismissed based on such behaviour. Instead, you added fuel to the fire, so to speak. Way to be just as much of a jackass.
I realize it was twenty years ago and maybe your cellphone didnt exist, nevermind take video, but if you hadn't called him an asshole, maybe your friend wouldn't have suffered and had to file a suit. Maybe the supervisor would have recognized how the other officer was acting and taken remedial action, and maybe the psychotic might have been able to get training or help instead of dismissed. Maybe the officer would have threatened someone else twenty minutes later and the same actions would be taken. Regardless, you had no reason to agitate the officer.
You would think with all the news about police beatings of people with curiosity that people wouldn't be curious anymore. Really, the common sense that is taught in pretty much all education is don't do things to give police a reason to wonder whether or not they should beat you, because they are within their rights to beat you well before that, as they should be, because what if you have a gun?
I recently took a defensive driving course (because my insurance offered me a sizeable discount for doing so) and they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle unless instructed to do so by the officer. There really is no excuse.
Its not just a gun.
He could have a knife, a baseball bat in the passenger seat, he could be on drugs, he could be a terrorist, he could just be some civil rights jackass who will make a routine stop take two hours instead of two minutes (plus everyone else gets to wait). I assure you, if he has a bazooka in the back seat, one way or another, he is not getting across the border.
Meanwhile, having everyone get out of their vehicle and following a procedure to be searched (because once out of a vehicle, you must be searched) at a border is absurd. You would have to have everyone waiting in line watch a video regarding procedure (in 20 different languages), take an exam on it, and then make it a felony to do other than procedure, which, while not just ludicrously expensive, would also not make it any safer for officers or travelers.
If you are border patrol and you think someone might have gun, the phrase is "hand where I can see em while you have yours drawn and the vehicle surrounded.
Well, standing too close to an officer could very easily be a crime, for example if by doing so you are interefering with an investigation, or with an arrest, or stopping a police officer from otherwise completing their official duties. You obviously aren't going to get arrested for being in the next over at the doughnut shop.
For all you know, the officers in question may have reasonably believed that he had a weapon. Or that he was fighting back and needed to be restrained and that beating him senseless was the only safe solution. Or they may have been assholes. I wasn't there, I don't know. A jury found him guilty of felony non-compliance, so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car (in fact we know that he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers, so a higher reaction would be expected than in, for example, Canada).
Neither.
Try reading it again, in context.
Cops do have to explain their use of taser just as much as their use of a baton or chemical weapon (pepper spray). It is less than that of a gun because it is not to be used in situations requiring lethal force. The decision to use a taser is dependent on the actions of the threat facing the officers, explicitly as a defensive weapon. For example, if the officer says "stay in your car" and you get out of your car, the officer is correct to use a taser. Always.
Here's the policy:
http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/vwebauthor/B1771739182D96E085256D550047F938
To be fair, he got out of his car while it was being searched in a routine border search. Not randomly on the street, but to make sure that you have declared everything you may be bringing across borders (you should recognize that this would be reasonable). Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol. Never mind that its posted 100 times in plain sight that you are to remain in your vehicle at all times.
The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF. Neither did a jury which found him guilty of felony non-compliance (which I have to assume is the reason he was overly restrained). This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer, and his punishment is correctly somewhere in the middle (less than 2 years in prison, more than nothing).
To be accurate, however, we would have to read the judge's notes on the case to understand the judge's thought process. There is no basis for assuming that the judge thought the case was a waste of taxpayer money (if a judge thinks this, they tend to throw the case out, not wait for a jury to come back with a verdict).
Price fixing is legal in the US when you can prove that it is not anti-competitive. For all practical purposes, international law follows the US precedent. Making all of your prices conform as to form (but not materially as to purpose), is not illegal.
For example, see the dollar store. If you thought of the store that sells all products for $1, it just as legal as the store whose products are all costing multiples of $1.The store owned by Mr. Dollar could be either one or neither, so long as pricing is not for the purposes of anti-competition.
This move by apples reeks of a competitive move, not anti-competitive.
That being said, I still won't buy any apple products because they are all overpriced crap with cheaper, better alternatives. Its not a political view, its just common sense.
Also, we do not know whether there are an infinite number of equivalent universes. That may be the case, however, we cannot assume that it is.
That isn't relevant to my point, or your point, or OP's point.
On the other hand, claiming that we can't assume a given is absurd. Read up on quantum mechanics and the multiverse and try again (statistically, there is no difference between very large and infinite).
Based on how badly the OP was written, its clear that english is not poster's first language. You do have to guess the meaning from the context, as responding to gibberish would just be stupid on your part.
The underlying point was relevant to the concept of an infinite number of universes. Statistics, however, refers to a sample from a population, which can always be extrapolated to an infinitely sized population because it refers to characteristics of a population, not raw numbers. Likewise, given the subset of the sample of universes that you might encounter, which is assumed to be random, etc, etc etc.
The short answer is that yes, basing your response on the argument made, when you don't understand it (whether because it is above your head or simply gibberish) is a fallacy. Please don't do it anymore.
Actually, BSA merit badges related to shooting requires professional training in weapon safety and an understanding of the basic engineering of those items. http://troop509.org/riflembsup.htm - Link to rifle shooting merit badge requirements (note - not part of cub scouts, who can earn a video game belt loop and pin). Absolutely nothing even remotely related to military enlistment.
Quit being a troll.