"Wilson: Um, they had been walking in the middle. I remember seeing two cars I believe go around them and they moved. I pulled up to them, stopped with them about at my hood as they kept walking towards me. I told them, “Hey guys, why don’t you walk on the sidewalk.” The first one said, um, “We’re almost to our destination,” and pointed this direction. So, I guess that’s northeast.
Detective: Okay. Wilson: Um Detective: So, you’re pointed into the complex there? Wilson: Yes. Detective: Okay. Wilson: I said, “Okay, but what’s wrong with the sidewalk?” And then that was as they were passing my window the second subject said, “Fuck what you have to say.”
Detective: Okay.
Wilson: And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to them, ah, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said, “Frank 21, out with two, send me another car.” Um"
---- Only later did he try to make the association to the cigars. He initially says the reason he went back is because of what they said, not because he ID's them as suspects.
As to grand juries *routinely* opting to not indict:
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
I wouldn't classify %0.0006% a routine.
Not saying that he should have been indicted or if he should have even been sent to the GJ. Just that the prosecutor clearly did not want to go to trial with this case. He presented evidence that a defense attorney would salivate over, and a lot of it. That's not what prosecutors do.
As for his motivations for not wanting to go to trial, we can only guess but having people who rely on police officers all day every day and work with them closely be in charge of building a criminal case is probably not a good idea.
Wrong, in his statement he went back because they talked smack as he drove away. He only mentions the cigarillos in passing later. Might want to ease up on calling people liars when you don't have your facts straight.
As to the GJ *routinely* not handing down indictments:
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
Simply put by an ex-prosecutor: "The only reason a prosecutor will not get an indictment is becasue they don't want one."
I'm not saying there should have been a GJ hearing at all or if Wilson is guilty. Just that this prosecutor did not want an indictment. He produced evidence of an eyewitness who completely lied and recanted and a lot of other evidence that the defense in a criminal trial would produce.
There needs to be an office with access that reviews requests for their validity and type that is completely unrelated to the entire legal system.
To much FOIA information is used solely for the purpose of entertainment at the expense of *suspects*.
Merely being accused of a crime regardless of the merits is pretty much a life sentence when your mugshot is plastered on 500 websites and magazines. It's definitely something that needs to be dealt with in a very careful way. Allowing the PDs discretion is the worst case scenario.
Isn't this just taking two existing technologies and bolting them together? Asking seriously because that's what it seems like to my know-nothing self.
Find the place that's fired when the left finger is pressed and then via the internet tell the TMS to fire on the region in that person that will cause the finger to flex.
That's not the way I have ever seen it work. Usually as part of the hiring/on-boarding process they will instruct you to go (usually immediately) and get a test. I have never heard of them waiting 30 days from any point to test you. The whole point is the element of surprise from what I have seen.
I actually know someone who had a job offer rescinded because they misunderstood and waited a couple days before going to take the test.
Drug testing is another one of those things that has been perverted by lawyers and insurance companies. Most employers could care less what you do in your off time.
This should be dead in the water but walmart customers have proven they do not care about anything more than saving a buck. If they incentivize its use, because they are saving so much from credit/debit transaction fees, I could see it taking off there. Just a fraction of their customers using it would give it mainstream status and other stores will start doing the same to compete.
Yes people educated about the flaws in the payment method see it as a terrible idea and not use it. People who will abandon their local stores, who offer their employees (neighbors) a livable wage, and drive 10 miles to a circus of terrible people, underpaid employees, and terrible customer service to save 5-10% have already sold their soul so this is just another benefit from the walmart to them.
I wouldn't care but I hate to see good ideas get shelved for bad ideas. Whoever can get the biggest userbase first is going to win ultimately and I can see walmart doing that easily.
Was any of this done on school grounds or using school equipment? From what I read it was all done at their homes.
The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school. That's a massive slippery slope and them compelling him to make a statement is now a legal problem for him and his parents.
We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.
National Academy of Engineering (1973) National Academy of Sciences, IEEE Edison Medal (1989) National Medal of Science (1990) National Medal of Technology (2002) IEEE Medal of Honor (2003) Lemelson-MIT Prize (2004) National Inventors Hall of Fame (2008)
All of our criminal code in the US with regards to sex crimes needs to be scrapped and rewritten by people from another planet who haven't been influenced by religion and/or tradition.
Pretty much every app wants to have some update service or helper or whatever. Most of the time "cleaning" a PC that's dragging is a simple as running msconfig and unchecking most of the startup app and services.
I usually get a "b-bbut the last guy/tech/business said I have to reformat and reinstall!:( "
True security will happen when we have law enforcement monitoring everyone everywhere all the time. I mean we're 1/2 way there anyway, why not go the last mile and commit to absolutely zero personal privacy.
Maybe they could streamline the whole process and have members of the public be required to serve on sorting duty at the dumps, kind of like jury duty. I mean it's for the environment so who cares that it's at the behest of a for profit company?
I it all depends on the context, really. Was it a large majority of the populace that acted or felt that way or was it a bunch of local thugs? Did they announce their intent beforehand or just show up unannounced so the people had no idea what the intent was?
I guess my point is that I'm not going to write off whole populations of people because the actions of a few. There are and always will be risks in dealing in tribal areas that have been used and abuse for centuries. Maybe better organization and security could mitigate the dangers? I don't know, but I have a feeling the answer is yes.
At lot of the mistrust of outside people in those regions is very, very well deserved. Even when it's their own "government".
And your sentiment isn't really a new idea it's pretty much how the world has treated most of Africa for a really long time, the same Africa most of the world has exploited for long periods at one time or another.
It was only different because the death toll didn't have any direct affect on us. An extremely deadly virus left unchecked to mutate could in VERY bad ways.
So the simple answer is selfish interests. We don't care when people are dying as long as it doesn't affect us.
Slashdot Mirror
"Wilson: Um, they had been walking in the middle. I remember seeing two cars I believe go around them and they moved. I pulled up to them, stopped with them about at my hood as they kept walking towards me. I told them, “Hey guys, why don’t you walk on the sidewalk.” The first one said, um, “We’re almost to our destination,” and pointed this direction. So, I guess that’s northeast.
Detective: Okay.
Wilson: Um
Detective: So, you’re pointed into the complex there?
Wilson: Yes.
Detective: Okay.
Wilson: I said, “Okay, but what’s wrong with the sidewalk?” And then that was as they were passing my window the second subject said, “Fuck what you have to say.”
Detective: Okay.
Wilson: And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to them, ah, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said, “Frank 21, out with two, send me another car.” Um"
----
Only later did he try to make the association to the cigars. He initially says the reason he went back is because of what they said, not because he ID's them as suspects.
As to grand juries *routinely* opting to not indict:
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
I wouldn't classify %0.0006% a routine.
Not saying that he should have been indicted or if he should have even been sent to the GJ. Just that the prosecutor clearly did not want to go to trial with this case. He presented evidence that a defense attorney would salivate over, and a lot of it. That's not what prosecutors do.
As for his motivations for not wanting to go to trial, we can only guess but having people who rely on police officers all day every day and work with them closely be in charge of building a criminal case is probably not a good idea.
Wrong, in his statement he went back because they talked smack as he drove away. He only mentions the cigarillos in passing later. Might want to ease up on calling people liars when you don't have your facts straight.
https://www.documentcloud.org/... (page 4)
As to the GJ *routinely* not handing down indictments:
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
Simply put by an ex-prosecutor: "The only reason a prosecutor will not get an indictment is becasue they don't want one."
I'm not saying there should have been a GJ hearing at all or if Wilson is guilty. Just that this prosecutor did not want an indictment. He produced evidence of an eyewitness who completely lied and recanted and a lot of other evidence that the defense in a criminal trial would produce.
There needs to be an office with access that reviews requests for their validity and type that is completely unrelated to the entire legal system.
To much FOIA information is used solely for the purpose of entertainment at the expense of *suspects*.
Merely being accused of a crime regardless of the merits is pretty much a life sentence when your mugshot is plastered on 500 websites and magazines. It's definitely something that needs to be dealt with in a very careful way. Allowing the PDs discretion is the worst case scenario.
And usage per active user. It's declining and has been for a while.
No it's not going anywhere anytime soon but younger users are the life blood of these sites and they've been peeling off for a while.
Isn't this just taking two existing technologies and bolting them together? Asking seriously because that's what it seems like to my know-nothing self.
Find the place that's fired when the left finger is pressed and then via the internet tell the TMS to fire on the region in that person that will cause the finger to flex.
That's not the way I have ever seen it work. Usually as part of the hiring/on-boarding process they will instruct you to go (usually immediately) and get a test. I have never heard of them waiting 30 days from any point to test you. The whole point is the element of surprise from what I have seen.
I actually know someone who had a job offer rescinded because they misunderstood and waited a couple days before going to take the test.
Drug testing is another one of those things that has been perverted by lawyers and insurance companies. Most employers could care less what you do in your off time.
Really dude? Why not at least say you had a virus/botnet on your machine. At least that gives a reasonable doubt.
This should be dead in the water but walmart customers have proven they do not care about anything more than saving a buck. If they incentivize its use, because they are saving so much from credit/debit transaction fees, I could see it taking off there. Just a fraction of their customers using it would give it mainstream status and other stores will start doing the same to compete.
Yes people educated about the flaws in the payment method see it as a terrible idea and not use it. People who will abandon their local stores, who offer their employees (neighbors) a livable wage, and drive 10 miles to a circus of terrible people, underpaid employees, and terrible customer service to save 5-10% have already sold their soul so this is just another benefit from the walmart to them.
I wouldn't care but I hate to see good ideas get shelved for bad ideas. Whoever can get the biggest userbase first is going to win ultimately and I can see walmart doing that easily.
In the link it says they only deleted it after they filed the lawsuit.
Was any of this done on school grounds or using school equipment? From what I read it was all done at their homes.
The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school. That's a massive slippery slope and them compelling him to make a statement is now a legal problem for him and his parents.
We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.
It doesn't say when they did, just that they did and that it was taken down.
" It wasn’t deleted until Facebook deactivated the account at the urging of the girl’s parents, "
I have a feeling the parents are rich lawyer types.
That is all.
"fiercely competitive,"....aww.
"Give us monopolies and then you can regulate us. Deal?"
Easily.
They will have to use sock puppets and crayons to argue this case with these judges.
National Academy of Engineering (1973)
National Academy of Sciences,
IEEE Edison Medal (1989)
National Medal of Science (1990)
National Medal of Technology (2002)
IEEE Medal of Honor (2003)
Lemelson-MIT Prize (2004)
National Inventors Hall of Fame (2008)
No one cares about my contributions! :(
...when you codify morality.
All of our criminal code in the US with regards to sex crimes needs to be scrapped and rewritten by people from another planet who haven't been influenced by religion and/or tradition.
Pretty much every app wants to have some update service or helper or whatever. Most of the time "cleaning" a PC that's dragging is a simple as running msconfig and unchecking most of the startup app and services.
I usually get a "b-bbut the last guy/tech/business said I have to reformat and reinstall! :( "
True security will happen when we have law enforcement monitoring everyone everywhere all the time. I mean we're 1/2 way there anyway, why not go the last mile and commit to absolutely zero personal privacy.
Maybe they could streamline the whole process and have members of the public be required to serve on sorting duty at the dumps, kind of like jury duty. I mean it's for the environment so who cares that it's at the behest of a for profit company?
So you are saying it analogous to businesses directly dealing in bitcoin then? :P
A company owned by paypal the does like zero business relatively is considering allowing partners that deal in bitcoin. Woohoo!
Saying paypal has anything to do with this is like saying you like chocolate because your brothers, wifes, uncles dog does.
I it all depends on the context, really. Was it a large majority of the populace that acted or felt that way or was it a bunch of local thugs? Did they announce their intent beforehand or just show up unannounced so the people had no idea what the intent was?
I guess my point is that I'm not going to write off whole populations of people because the actions of a few. There are and always will be risks in dealing in tribal areas that have been used and abuse for centuries. Maybe better organization and security could mitigate the dangers? I don't know, but I have a feeling the answer is yes.
At lot of the mistrust of outside people in those regions is very, very well deserved. Even when it's their own "government".
And your sentiment isn't really a new idea it's pretty much how the world has treated most of Africa for a really long time, the same Africa most of the world has exploited for long periods at one time or another.
It was only different because the death toll didn't have any direct affect on us. An extremely deadly virus left unchecked to mutate could in VERY bad ways.
So the simple answer is selfish interests. We don't care when people are dying as long as it doesn't affect us.