1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording. 2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, members shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording. 3. A person’s recording of members’ activity from a safe distance, and absent any attendant action that obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of the member(s), does not constitute interference. 4. A person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed. So long as that expression does not jeopardize the safety of any member, suspect or bystander; and so long as that expression does not violate the law or incite others to violate the law, the expression does not constitute interference.
1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording. 2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, members shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording. 3. A person’s recording of members’ activity from a safe distance, and absent any attendant action that obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of the member(s), does not constitute interference. 4. A person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed. So long as that expression does not jeopardize the safety of any member, suspect or bystander; and so long as that expression does not violate the law or incite others to violate the law, the expression does not constitute interference.
I know one struggling indie singer, she's refused to play ball with the labels that have come sniffing around (refused to be slutted up) and her record sales are the difference between making a living as a musician, or having to give it up. It's easy to justify pirating music from big-name artists, but in reality, most people don't bother to make that distinction, they just want free music, they don't care the slightest about the repercussions.
I don't know any gay marriage advocates who would be against polygamy as long as all participants are of age and willingly consent. I think you should be talking to some of the same people who oppose gay marriage.
Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."
There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. This is merely a way to get Creationism taught in public schools.
Also after reading the article again, I see the guy was deliberately disobeying the open carry law. He was provably in the wrong but you're still defending him. You are deluded.
I'm not going to take any chances. There is no reason to be carrying a rifle in a mall unless you just bought it. I'll take my life over inconveniencing the moron who was carrying the rifle.
Ah, hyperbole. "Every couple of weeks"? Since I installed Win 7 on my PC, I've been asked to authorize it exactly *once* and I've even swapped out the motherboard since the initial install.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, you didn't read it.
1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, members shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
3. A person’s recording of members’ activity from a safe distance, and absent any attendant action that obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of the member(s), does not constitute interference.
4. A person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed. So long as that expression does not jeopardize the safety of any member, suspect or bystander; and so long as that expression does not violate the law or incite others to violate the law, the expression does not constitute interference.
You're an idiot.
1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, members shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
3. A person’s recording of members’ activity from a safe distance, and absent any attendant action that obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of the member(s), does not constitute interference.
4. A person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed. So long as that expression does not jeopardize the safety of any member, suspect or bystander; and so long as that expression does not violate the law or incite others to violate the law, the expression does not constitute interference.
People like you are what is wrong with this country. You didn't read a damn thing past the summary.
I know one struggling indie singer, she's refused to play ball with the labels that have come sniffing around (refused to be slutted up) and her record sales are the difference between making a living as a musician, or having to give it up.
It's easy to justify pirating music from big-name artists, but in reality, most people don't bother to make that distinction, they just want free music, they don't care the slightest about the repercussions.
If a musician wants to release their music for free, it's their right. YOU do not have the right to make that decision for them. Period.
Not a strawman, just an example of the same "logic"
What the fuck are you talking about? Gays can't get married, heterosexual couples can. That's a very clear-cut inequality.
Funny, I don't see gays wanting *more* rights than heterosexuals. Just *equal* rights.
I don't know any gay marriage advocates who would be against polygamy as long as all participants are of age and willingly consent. I think you should be talking to some of the same people who oppose gay marriage.
Why does the majority need to be promoted?
So Google shouldn't hire black people because it might offend a racist?
Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
Explain away this one:
"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."
There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. This is merely a way to get Creationism taught in public schools.
Also after reading the article again, I see the guy was deliberately disobeying the open carry law. He was provably in the wrong but you're still defending him. You are deluded.
I'm not going to take any chances. There is no reason to be carrying a rifle in a mall unless you just bought it.
I'll take my life over inconveniencing the moron who was carrying the rifle.
So people are supposed to know that your assault rifle that you're carrying in a mall is unloaded?
That's right, I forgot, all firearms owners are well-intentioned angels.
So brave.
You expect too much from the man-children of Slashdot.
Nothing but gossip, and scaremongering.
So the politicians and captains of industry want us to quit polluting and care for the environment? Cool!
and you know "God's will" right? Everyone else who claims to be a christian is wrong except for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Ah, hyperbole. "Every couple of weeks"? Since I installed Win 7 on my PC, I've been asked to authorize it exactly *once* and I've even swapped out the motherboard since the initial install.
is one of these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100
Has Wi-Fi, bluetooth, USB 2.0 and is very low-profile. Picked it up for $75
and it wasn't the entire "left" making the Santorum comment was it?