Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.
Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.
Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.
Otherwise, google 'detention versus arrest' and you'll find all sorts of legal jurisprudence about it. Like this.Or this.Or even this.
TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.
Ahmed was not detained. He was arrested. At no point would he have felt that he was free to go. Also, 'twenty minutes' seems to be the rule of thumb for how long somebody can be 'detained' before it turns into a de-facto arrest.
Ahmed was hauled off in cuffs, for zero reason. The American legal system specifically puts a dollar value on damages, as well as having the idea of putative awards. Ahmed deserves both.
I'm not talking about the University's rights to accept or deny students based on more-or-less arbitrary criteria.
I'm saying that if the University considers a person to be suspect of committing a crime, they probably have a legal duty to report that to law enforcement, not simply send the student somewhere else where they can continue. Especially in cases such as sexual assault, which have a major impact on victims.
If my daughter were raped on campus, and I found out that the accused had been expelled from another University for having multiple accusations piled up, but was never reported to the police, I'd be after them like something that goes after something else really fast and hard.
This assumes a) you happen to have a train radio and work for the train company, or b) you have a cell phone, you have cell service, you have the number of some sort of central switching office, they'll take your call, they'll believe who you are, you can describe where the train is and what signal needs to be changed in a way that they'll understand, that they'll believe you, that they'll do what you ask, that they have time to switch the signal, that there aren't further problems down the line that switching the train might just make worse (perhaps the carseat child is on a siding that currently holds a bunch of loaded cars waiting for a locomotive, say, 500 meters away and around a blind corner,) that the train can stop in time (Sir Issac Newton is still the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space) and so on.
Tech has done nothing here.
You can think of it, very basically, as Reuters insisting on a 4x6 physical print, rather than wanting the negative.
In this analogy, it's easier to work with the print than the negative, but if you want to scan it back to digital, blow it up, whatever, you're losing quality. With the negative, you have more work to do, but you have a higher-quality starting point, and you can do all sorts of work with it and get far better results than by working from the 4x6 print.
Ok, so either a) the university is simply going on accusations, which means anybody can have anybody expelled, or b) they need to let the legal system do it's job, and not act like a kangaroo court.
If a student has six accusations against him, the university should pass that along to law enforcement, let them do a proper investigation, and either charge or not charge the student, and let the legal system find him guilty or not guilty. They can't have it both ways, though; if he's suspect enough to expel, he's suspect enough to be properly investigated. If he's not suspect enough to be properly investigated, he's not suspect enough to be expelled.
I'd go one step further; if the university has what it considers to be a good-faith basis to believe that somebody has committed criminal sexual assault, and they don't pass that information on to law enforcement, doesn't that make them something like accessories after the fact? Culpable if the subject strikes again? Open to civil suit by a future victim?
The necessary corollary to the Golden Rule is 'be prepared to assume that the 'other' is also living by the Golden Rule.' In other words, at some point, you need to act as though the other person is fully aware of how they're treating you, and treat them as appropriate.
Freedom of religion is fine. Nobody is preventing you from practicing/worshiping. But if you want an optional license, one of the requirements being a clear, unobstructed photograph, you now have a choice to make between your religious requirements and your desire to get that license.
No, but that's just about what homeopaths will tell you. Only that's stupid, so they 'dilute' it down to about the level of distilled water, and start babbling about whatever it is they babble on about. I'm surprised they haven't gone for the 'the water is now quantum entangled with the harmful thing' gambit.
Though, if you drink deep from the toilet, and turn your guts into bacterial Thunderdome...e coli vs diphtheria...
No, this is the natural course of scientific progress.
You show me peer-reviewed, reproducible studies showing that homeopathic cures have better outcomes than placebos, and I'll be up in arms about any government kowtowing to profit-driven doctors and Big Pharma locking out simple, effective cures.
If you *can't* show me peer-reviewed, reproducible studies showing that *any* given treatment modality for a given issue has a better outcome than sugar pills, then nobody should be paying for that treatment, prescribing that treatment, relying on that treatment, or suggesting that treatment.
There are laws against prescribing untested/unapproved drugs. This is a logical, shouldn't-even-need-to-be-said extension of that idea.
Homeopathy relies on the Laws of Similarity and Contagion, in the folk magic sense. It is literally the old witch woman's potions, given a thin veneer of pseudoscience.
In Ontario a man was dinged for doing 17 kmph over the speed limit: 'you are breaking the law if you do even one kilometer over the speed limit' said the judge. He protested a month later by doing the exact speed limit, causing a 4km long traffic jam. He was hit with obstructing traffic and had his license suspended. Of note: he had a 'partner' that was nailed with the same fine, who was driving in tandem in the adjacent lane.
Wasn't it a Toronto Star reporter or some such? But yes, Ontario traffic law is to 'go with the flow of traffic.'
It wasn't clear that power armour can jump from buildings without taking damage
I distinctly remember the little 'helpful hints' window popping up and saying 'power armor eliminates all falling damage and reduces all other kinds of damage.' Doesn't get any clearer than that.
A man and a woman are working in a server room. The man tries to run a command, and gets an error indicating insufficient security clearance. He asks the woman for advice, and she says 'Check your privileges.'
See, here's the thing. Canada had the FLQ crisis, and yes, Trudeau called out the military.
But you know what he did when the crisis was over? He sent the military back to base. No USAPATRIOT act, no Homeland Security, no Transportation Safety Authority, no profiling of Quebecois, no 'terrorist threat level' colour coded chart, nothing. The problem got sorted out, and we, as a country, moved on.
When you axe the mandatory census, and start losing track of things like the population of towns, it's impossible to allocate funding on any basis other than throwing a handful of coins onto a large map of the country, and allocating based on what landed where.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.
Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.
Otherwise, google 'detention versus arrest' and you'll find all sorts of legal jurisprudence about it. Like this. Or this. Or even this.
TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.
Ahmed was not detained. He was arrested. At no point would he have felt that he was free to go. Also, 'twenty minutes' seems to be the rule of thumb for how long somebody can be 'detained' before it turns into a de-facto arrest.
Ahmed was hauled off in cuffs, for zero reason. The American legal system specifically puts a dollar value on damages, as well as having the idea of putative awards. Ahmed deserves both.
I'm not talking about the University's rights to accept or deny students based on more-or-less arbitrary criteria.
I'm saying that if the University considers a person to be suspect of committing a crime, they probably have a legal duty to report that to law enforcement, not simply send the student somewhere else where they can continue. Especially in cases such as sexual assault, which have a major impact on victims.
If my daughter were raped on campus, and I found out that the accused had been expelled from another University for having multiple accusations piled up, but was never reported to the police, I'd be after them like something that goes after something else really fast and hard.
This assumes a) you happen to have a train radio and work for the train company, or b) you have a cell phone, you have cell service, you have the number of some sort of central switching office, they'll take your call, they'll believe who you are, you can describe where the train is and what signal needs to be changed in a way that they'll understand, that they'll believe you, that they'll do what you ask, that they have time to switch the signal, that there aren't further problems down the line that switching the train might just make worse (perhaps the carseat child is on a siding that currently holds a bunch of loaded cars waiting for a locomotive, say, 500 meters away and around a blind corner,) that the train can stop in time (Sir Issac Newton is still the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space) and so on. Tech has done nothing here.
You can think of it, very basically, as Reuters insisting on a 4x6 physical print, rather than wanting the negative.
In this analogy, it's easier to work with the print than the negative, but if you want to scan it back to digital, blow it up, whatever, you're losing quality. With the negative, you have more work to do, but you have a higher-quality starting point, and you can do all sorts of work with it and get far better results than by working from the 4x6 print.
Ok, so either a) the university is simply going on accusations, which means anybody can have anybody expelled, or b) they need to let the legal system do it's job, and not act like a kangaroo court.
If a student has six accusations against him, the university should pass that along to law enforcement, let them do a proper investigation, and either charge or not charge the student, and let the legal system find him guilty or not guilty. They can't have it both ways, though; if he's suspect enough to expel, he's suspect enough to be properly investigated. If he's not suspect enough to be properly investigated, he's not suspect enough to be expelled.
That or those drag-racing speedboats that go flying if the wind changes.
I'd go one step further; if the university has what it considers to be a good-faith basis to believe that somebody has committed criminal sexual assault, and they don't pass that information on to law enforcement, doesn't that make them something like accessories after the fact? Culpable if the subject strikes again? Open to civil suit by a future victim?
Except that polygraphs are utterly ineffective in any event, other than as a prop to induce facilitate the Milgram effect.
This is kinda what I thought. It's the equivalent of your kid sister yelling 'OMG Johnny has a dirty magazine under his mattress!'
The necessary corollary to the Golden Rule is 'be prepared to assume that the 'other' is also living by the Golden Rule.' In other words, at some point, you need to act as though the other person is fully aware of how they're treating you, and treat them as appropriate.
Freedom of religion is fine. Nobody is preventing you from practicing/worshiping. But if you want an optional license, one of the requirements being a clear, unobstructed photograph, you now have a choice to make between your religious requirements and your desire to get that license.
No, but that's just about what homeopaths will tell you. Only that's stupid, so they 'dilute' it down to about the level of distilled water, and start babbling about whatever it is they babble on about. I'm surprised they haven't gone for the 'the water is now quantum entangled with the harmful thing' gambit.
Though, if you drink deep from the toilet, and turn your guts into bacterial Thunderdome...e coli vs diphtheria...
No, this is the natural course of scientific progress.
You show me peer-reviewed, reproducible studies showing that homeopathic cures have better outcomes than placebos, and I'll be up in arms about any government kowtowing to profit-driven doctors and Big Pharma locking out simple, effective cures.
If you *can't* show me peer-reviewed, reproducible studies showing that *any* given treatment modality for a given issue has a better outcome than sugar pills, then nobody should be paying for that treatment, prescribing that treatment, relying on that treatment, or suggesting that treatment.
There are laws against prescribing untested/unapproved drugs. This is a logical, shouldn't-even-need-to-be-said extension of that idea.
Homeopathy relies on the Laws of Similarity and Contagion, in the folk magic sense. It is literally the old witch woman's potions, given a thin veneer of pseudoscience.
"We have a term for alternative medicine that actually works. We call it medicine."
Wasn't it a Toronto Star reporter or some such? But yes, Ontario traffic law is to 'go with the flow of traffic.'
I distinctly remember the little 'helpful hints' window popping up and saying 'power armor eliminates all falling damage and reduces all other kinds of damage.' Doesn't get any clearer than that.
A man and a woman are working in a server room. The man tries to run a command, and gets an error indicating insufficient security clearance. He asks the woman for advice, and she says 'Check your privileges.'
See, here's the thing. Canada had the FLQ crisis, and yes, Trudeau called out the military.
But you know what he did when the crisis was over? He sent the military back to base. No USAPATRIOT act, no Homeland Security, no Transportation Safety Authority, no profiling of Quebecois, no 'terrorist threat level' colour coded chart, nothing. The problem got sorted out, and we, as a country, moved on.
MILLIONS of dollars to ADVERTISE 'Canada's Economic Action Plan' when those dollars would have funded an awful lot of infrastructure upgrades.
Ahem. Cough.
When you axe the mandatory census, and start losing track of things like the population of towns, it's impossible to allocate funding on any basis other than throwing a handful of coins onto a large map of the country, and allocating based on what landed where.
Bah, do it the Gurkha way. Use your arm to trap and take away the attacker's knife.
"Hey, Siri, tango tango tango."
Also, one cannot conflate 'socialism' with 'Soviet-style 'communism'.