Yes I agree and if the judge doesn't then they need that ability. Now I think that if they can't excuse people then maybe bumping the pay to handle the minimum wage amount if they are on duty for 2 days or more.
I agree with you. Jury duty is an important part of our society obligations and I can't count how many times I have heard people get out of it just because. I have had 4 jury duty notices and each time I get them in all honesty I get happy. 3 of the 4 have been canceled just before trial. So that was always a let down. However, the other jury duty I have had before I was on to be selected but was nixed because my parents were both police officers. While I got 6.00 for being there the pay sucked when I paid 5.00 in parking and used a gallon of gas. I am not complaining about doing the job but the expense of performing were better paid then I think you would have more people WILLING to serve then those ditching to make more money. Hardship or not we should be able to live while serving on a jury. No one on the jury should worry if they will be able to put food on the table because they have to help justice.
I think the challenge to this as well is what if in the end we (BIG IF here folks) defeat the Taliban and they become an ally? I think what we are missing here is that when they become an ally we don't want to continue to make a "war" out of them or have that reminder.
The other side to this is that using a general term (OpFor) gives them the ability to let the gamer choose what/who their enemy is. If we go to war with the penguins well that would cause problems but if we go to war with another country then it is easier to let the gamer see the OpFor as the other side.
One of the things I have learned on Slashdot is someone may say something and define it later. I have also had a pleasure of both learning others sides to issues as well as being lucky to have people comment back professionally or at least not disrespectful. This is much importance to note because I feel and have seen others who get down right rude. I appreciate your respect in your response.
I couldn't agree more with alcohol (honestly my post was a little different to begin with but later revised.). I believe that the control of alcohol should be limited to in a persons home where they can drink all night long but keeping themselves out of general harm to the public. If given outside of the area of ones home then rules and responsibilities to those giving such drinks should be stricter. I do not believe nor do I think it is fair that drunks can get in their cars and drive off without someone ensuring their ability to drive without being a danger to the public. Sadly prohibition didn't work well out as we all know.
I believe that at least with what little knowledge I have (I am not afraid to admit lack of knowledge) that the difference is we failed because of the wide spread popularity of alcohol. This helped in making enforcement harder as so many people were well on their way to work around the system for what they wanted. However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana. Which to me is the equivalent of some areas not even enforcing prohibition or seat belt laws . To me "personally" I feel Marijuana and Alcohol are one and the same as far as effects to the average Joe. While I have never used marijuana, the studying I have done on it for school projects show that the effects can have almost like effects to people. For example drivers driving drunk don't clearly see, have delayed reaction time, and possible blackouts, and those who are high are unable to determine what actions to do, hallucinations, and decreased response time.
I do not for reasons agree with cigarettes (I do however see your point). I have not heard of a person driving after smoking a cigarette have an accident because they couldn't clearly tell the line or had decreased reaction time. Granted those incidents I am sure with people dropping them in their lap may not help the cause it is different to marijuana in the sense of the reactions to one's mental abilities. While I do agree it is addictive (both my parents smoke) the effects are felt by the person and the impact to society from say someone driving is far less. I do support the laws prohibiting smoking from the work place and minimizing the attempt to target minors. I agree on public offices (Government Owned or those dealing with the public) should not allow smoking inside of them. However that is the end of my agreeing. I dislike and feel that the law makers have overstepped the rights of the people by requiring (Here in Texas 3 cities I know of have city ordinances on the books) private business that while deal with the public are required to stop smoking from taking place. If a non-smoker doesn't wish for their health to be impacted that way then their choice to go to a place where such restrictions are in place and spend their money there. Forcing restaurants or bars from allowing smokers to smoke is wrong because they are "privately" owned and no one is required to go to them for a service.
My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.
I think their is a disservice to people and getting the truth out by not having a study on the impact of Marijuana and gathering of stats (if available) to prove and back the point why we have made marijuana illegal. I think everything at some point needs to be revisited to ensure the necessity of due diligence when faced with such situations of lack of scientific proof with drugs.
Well AC I disagree. The police are trained and while accidents of human error happen it would be far more apparent with random stoners and opium addicts. Just think they had their dignity robbed but at least they got the drugs off the street so one day they won't have to worry about someone being so stoned that they end their lives.
Another sad argument... If they are going to do it anyway then make it legal. How many people in society do marijuana? The problem with this thought process is if we do it for this then we have to do it others. We can't combat murders so we should make it legal for them to do. We can't combat burglary so we should make a law that allows it if they do it and it is under a certain amount. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Regardless of the amount of people committing the crime. Now if the majority of people say okay this should be allowed and the risk to society or the risk to harm to yourself to the point we (society) will have to take care of you is non-existent or can't be offset some how (Taxes to cover mental help professional salary and the staff salary to take care of you etc) then I would be all for it.
What about those that commit crimes that result in the ending of a life? What will you do then? You can't punish them with double life sentences... The point is to deter in our laws from people committing those crimes. If you speed you choose to do that we punish you with a fine to pay and the results of your inability to make safe decisions will impact your future ability to drive and your insurance will rise because of your not making safe decisions. When those people sit down and think about the impact logically to their own life and the decisions that they may carry out while high, drunk, stoned, etc when they aren't in those settings maybe then they can say it shouldn't be risk for others for my dumb actions.
While I enjoy your comments I do object to your second to last comment.
There should be a law to protect me if the activity you choose to do will infringe on my rights to a healthy, happy, and safe life. You can choose to eat junk food and watch too much TV. I am fine with that. But if you are eating junk food causes harm to my life such as let us say such as alcohol with an impaired driver (you in such example) then I should be protected from that action. I am all for you drinking, smoking pot, doing crack, and living on Burger King if that is your choice. But if your choice means that I will have to worry about driving down the road and you are unable to clearly drive or make a responsible choice because your decision or cognitive functions are diminished then I have the right to say my safety and thus of the safety of society is to deem activities unlawful then I see no problem with it.
The other side is that the public is not trained medically to make decisions about the effects of such drugs on the population. If the drug itself may harm your mental state and you then need to be placed in a state center to be cared for because you killed off your brain cells to the point you have no ability to safely care for yourself then my tax money or society's money as a whole has to be used to now care for your "right to do what you want" has caused you harm and it is unethical along with immoral to let you die or cause harm to yourself/others then yes I/We (Society) have the right to tell you what activities you can't do to prevent harm to yourself, to others, and to society money.
Professor: While this is all off subject I would also like to applaud you for allowing the use of open notes. I can tell you as a student myself those far more benefit me then the use of remembering every possible sentence in my book or lectures given. It is sad that schools can't pursue more effort in cheat prevention and that of consequences if you do. I feel a student caught cheating should get the F for the class if they attempt to cheat and get caught doing so.
Good luck Professor and while many may not think to say this Thank you for doing your job. If it was not for our Teachers and Professors I would be no where close in the knowledge I have obtained over the years. Thank you.
I know I might get modded down but I do want to say a few things.
Being a former Abuse Manager and Abuse Member for 2 very large hosting companies (one shared hosting and one of the big Dedicated Server companies) I get where they are coming from. This was no different when back in the day Rackshack/Ev1Servers hosted a Jew hating website. They got attacked hourly. Rackshack/Ev1Servers didn't just remove it because someone hated it but because it targeted people in real life. The difference here is like the alta said its a double standard. Personally, the Muslim community is quick to attack at anyone that doesn't agree with their rules, laws, and overall religion.
While I personally do not agree with the burning I do agree with the Church people's right to do this. Maybe if people were to get more outraged at the other things going on from the other side then we would see some improvement to the situation and overall tolerance of other religions and get some respect ourselves.
I am really tired of those crying for the Muslims and how we need to be understanding and not do things like this yet where is the media when flags are being burned? Where is the media when they are burning bibles? Where is the outrage when they spread their hate messages?
We don't get upset at the other religions being made fun of because they won't send suicide bombers or kids with guns after you. They may send hate mail, or responses back but you don't fear death.
Is it the right of the hosting company to shutdown the site? Sure we all have the right to shut down a website for any reason. In this case I am sorry but I don't agree with the shutting down of this site. This is a protest not them saying "Kill all Muslims!" Or them hosting a site targeting Muslims.
Why is it that we are not having these problems with people like Westboro Baptist Church? Why isn't the Government stating how their message of picketing funerals could cause problems and moral issues for the soldiers fighting? Guess it isn't that important. We let them have the stage to boast their free speech but someone says lets burn a book and we get all kinds of fired up to stop and protect them.
While I tend to not feed the trolls this comment seems to be more of an attack. You must not understand what Linux is about. It is not about anti-copyright thieves or pirates. I think you will find if you take the time to look beyond what someone is spoon feeding to you that you might see it is actually the opposite. Most Linux users (be it system admins or the Linux home user) respects copyrights. We relay on those same evil copyright laws to enforce companies and individuals to follow the agreement for the use of our code or project. While the "releasing" of the code is different in each case (GPL BSD etc) they all have the same request for copyright as most people. The Linux community has even taken cases to court in which code was "used" without their permission or in a way not intended in their agreement for the right to use the code.
With that being said how can you say that linux users are against copyright if we want it enforced on our own products. Yes there are people who use linux to "break" copyright and move around things. However, this happens in the Apple world as well as the Microsoft world. May I remind you that majority of the copyright cases filled by the RIAA are users using programs that were developed for a Windows Operating system.
There are just as many people out there using the other operating systems who don't give a crap about copyrights as there are those that use linux who don't care for copyrights.
Thank you for the hard work and looking into this. Your post was very well written.
For the person who was discussing that they make a lot of money or that they get a check for their life insurance. Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income? Yes Verizon has their loss now that the poor guy isn't going to be using the phone monthly and they can't collect that fee. I am sorry for that but when someone dies in any respect you won't get your money monthly anymore any way so why should you "collect what you can" instead of being resonable and going we are sorry for your loss and you proved the person died so since they won't be a problem to our business or use any resources we can justify letting the ETF go. If I had a large enough business like Verizon does I would say just that "Send me a copy of the death certificate." Once I got that it would be "I am sorry for your loss. Should you need a new cell phone provider in an area we service please feel free to look us up we will be waiting for you to come back." But I have a lot of respect for the military and people in general and don't look for every possible way to screw them out of a dollar. Low level drone or not this person should have some compassion and if not him the company should have a policy in place to offer that. Guess I won't ever be rich.
For all of our soldiers who have earned the right to be buried there and we can't even get a decent IT system in place to help people or keep such important records.
To our Fallen Hero's.... I am sorry.
I do think it is time that companies and even people stop being so damn greedy and do their jobs. Granted we may not have the insight as to what is happening directly but I am left to wonder who is asleep at the controls on this one. We have private sector people doing jobs that are comparable size to this job and I am sure 5 million dollars would have paid for their time and a mojito and Starbucks coffee whenever they wanted it. I think it is time to disband our Government and reform with people that a hell of a lot more honest then some of the guys we have in there now. Sorry to make this political but the fact remains that someone is not doing their job. Any person's loved ones are important to them but a person who defended our rights and country (regardless if the war is right or wrong to which those that feel it is wrong it is time to bitch at the civilian leaders case and point would be the recent Gen. McCrystal deal.) and we can't honor them with keeping accurate records and spending money WISELY when it comes to their final resting place. Sad...
I expect the cops to know each and every law, no matter how old, no matter how trivial for the jurisdiction in which they work. You and I are held to the same standards. As I'm sure we've both seen and heard, countless times, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If ignorance is not an excuse in following the law, how can it possibly be an excuse while enforcing it?
I see your side. However, we all have a basic foundation for right and wrong. In driving you know the basics to driving. Don't speed. Don't tailgate. Don't drag race. There are things we know not to do. There are things in our professional careers we know not to do.
The police have to know majority of the laws and there are some that they won't know. Give them a break they are not all running around with photographic memory. There are tons of laws and sometimes the way those laws have been explained to them maybe incorrect or poorly done. While cops do (at least in texas) have to know the Penal Code pretty damn well its not like they will remember every section. They do have to reference and look things up. Do you know every single aspect to your job? Have you ever had to look something up for your job? It happens. We are facing a large shortage of police officers. The job doesn't pay well, the hours suck, and on top of it you may not come home the next night you are out because some punk didn't want to get a speeding ticket.
May I ask then what is it you suggest we do for the police officers to become peace officers? Every police officer I have ever run into for problems has asked my side and worked with me until I stop complying with their requests and become disrespectful. The police do not get the job to tell people what laws will be enforced. Comply to the orders even if they are wrong then comply and take it up later.
Operation Personal Rant = engaged / Ah the classic, if you don't agree with policy, move away statement. Listen here fucktard, I am a Iraq Combat vet, and consider myself a patriot. While this gives me no more right to speech than any other American citizen, it gives me clout with fuckheads like you. What I do not consider myself a BLIND patriot. As Howard Zinn stated, "DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM" Very few people (only pure anarchists) would want to live "in a country without police", What I don't want is for police that are militaristic, don't know the law, often have no better education than highschool, and are increasingly corrupt in my country. The entire "Love it or leave it" is predicated on the premise that either you COMPLETELY love (read: agree) with all policy of the USA (Which any semi-intelligent person does not) or you do not deserve and should not live here. Thats not how it works. I can love my country, and hate it's government, (or the power elite who have gotten us into this mess we are in today). What it boils down to, is that this type of statement is one of the most destructive to discourse tactics used by people who have little knowledge or facts to defend their beliefs, where the then label someone with a negative, anti-american label so as to discredit them. This is known as a argumentative logical fallacy as a "ad hominem" attack. Where you attack the person presenting an argument instead of the argument. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!
I am not sure if you were speaking to me. If so please continue reading. If not you may stop after my first paragraph. Thanks!
First of all and the most important to state is I thank you personally for your service to protect myself and my family along with the rights I get to enjoy because of people like yourself, my brother, and sister in law. You put yourself in harms way every day to give me my freedoms. Thank you. I mean this with no disrespect at all. I am the grandson of a retired army MSGT who served 20+years and the brother to 2 US. Marines who currently are serving and served in Iraq with my little brother returning to go back.
Most police officers (at least in the state of texas) must take classes that would at least get them an associates. Asking them to know ALL the laws is kind of hard for them. That would require them to become attorney's. The police are not going to know each and every law. They know the basics to the laws and any changes typically they are given those and uphold those. When in doubt they will refer to their DA. The police can arrest you but the DA has to be willing to file charges. The DA is an attorney who knows what they are doing and is suppose to know the laws. I know that their is some corrupt officers out there. They are everywhere. Its no different then in the federal government and some even office places. It is a problem we will always have and will have to get rid of. Sorry no quick fix for this.
My argument wasn't love it or leave it. It was however to say if you don't like it get it changed. There is a process and procedure. Being in the service you know this better then anyone. You want TP for the head you have to order it and to order it means paperwork and getting it approved ETC. Presenting an argument means we are trying to convince someone of something. I am trying to convince someone that my side is right and you the opposite is right. While sometimes that gets wrong side of things their is a hard time in trying to prove to someone that what you say is wrong (because maybe it is wrong) other then to label what you do as anti-american. IE: You choose not to put your hand over your heart while saying the pledge of allegiance or you taking a flag and burning it upside down and walking up and down the street. What am I suppose to say to that? Its wrong therefore you shouldn't do it and you should believe me because I didn't do that? Sure I could but then they will label you themselves.
I do have the right to be offended though. You and I disagree on that. You do not have the right to attack me because I am wearing a blue shirt what gives you the right to verbally attack me because I think blue is better then red?
I want to live in a country that when the police violate laws they can be sued and put in jail for it.
In the USA, being a cop means you have a license to do what you want. You can even kill someone, firing several shots in his back and get away with it. It happens every month in the USA.
You can be detained for no reason and you have no recourse. you can be severly assaulted by the police for no reason other than a peaceful protest and have no recourse. People have been tazed enough times to caus them to get more tazers because they emptied them, because they would not unchain themselves from a fence. That officer needs to not only lose everything he owns, but be blackballed from ever being a cop again. I prefer he be thrown in prison with a COP banner on him.
I respectfully disagree.
Officers can be sued civilly if in the efforts of their job violates the states laws and policy of the department. If a officer violates such they can be sued and held accountable for their actions. Now if they are doing their jobs in accordance with the laws of the state/city/county/etc then they are protected by the city and thus the city can't be sued as they have implied sovereign immunity. This is why your police are not given tickets because they are speeding to the scene of and accident. But if they run a red light by turning on their light bar and they have no reason they can get in trouble. I know officers that have been fired for doing that.
I have myself been detained for no reason and was eventually let go. I have filed a lawsuit against the city. By law I should have been taken to a magistrate to be judged if there was a right for me to be detained if not I had to be let go. This didn't happen.
If the person hanging on the fence like that was told to go then they have to go. Non-compliance does give the officer the right to use any (normally non-lethal) means to get you off the fence. Sorry. You comply you don't have problems. You don't comply then you are ASKING to get hurt. What you want the police to tell you "Hey you can't be here." and you not leave and them go "Okay have a nice day!"? I mean come on. The officer was told to remove the person. The person didn't want to comply so they had to give him a reason to comply. Otherwise the person/people would just stay there.
Peaceful protest is fine as long as you comply with the laws and the orders of the police. Right or wrong they are they and they are the authority not you. You may feel that you have the right to be there. If that is the case get a judge to agree with you and they will not bother you within an injunction preventing them from acting. Otherwise listen to what you are told. Its simple. Police will NOT assault you for no reason. They have lives and they want to come home and see their family too. Do what you are told and go away. Given that this hasn't happened in a while at least to my knowledge (given that this would generate a whole lot of media attention). The law states you are to comply with an officers orders. If you don't then you are violating and become a criminal. You feel they violated the law take it to their boss and or the checks and balances part of our government the courts. Sounds simple.
The officer made the proof as his testimony at trial. That meets the burden of proof.
Your proof is your word. The case becomes a he said she said deal and the officer wins because he is entrusted with the authority to uphold the laws. Now if you choose to bash the officer with his civilian complaints and his performance thus showing he is a bad officer then his evidence (testimony) may have been seen as incorrect or flawed.
You are innocent until proven guilty. You were cited and told to go to court. You were not told to pay your fine if you were innocent you were given I am sure a way to pay if you were pleading guilty or no contest. You went to a court and you were judge by either a judge or a jury (your peers) and He/She/They felt your evidence did not prove you were innocent. They felt that the cop was correct in giving you the ticket and upon being found guilty (no longer innocent) you were told to pay a 300.00 fine.
The system works. Its just not the way you want it to work because it didn't find you not guilty. You wanted the cop to have you on camera. That isn't going to always happen in certain cases. Give it time though and the city/county/state will start installing cameras on streets like in the UK areas to start watching your every move. Then you will be found guilty of a lot more crimes.
In regards to the cops saying something falsely their is a process to which if they under oath say something happened and it didn't happen then that is called perjury. So yes a legal action in a criminal court can take place. But how do you prove he didn't see you do it and wasn't able to prove beyond his word it didn't happen? Had you brought that camera in and he swore under oath that you did it and you brought that video in then that would be a different case. Your DA would have all rights to go after their ass. I have seen cops go to jail for lying under oath. Again there is a process for this to take place. Since we laymen don't know that process we pay people (just like people pay us geeks to fix their computers) that know that process.
The police are doing their job when they write you a ticket for speeding. You were speeding you got a ticket.
The police were not doing their job when they wrote me a ticket for turning left at a no-left-turn intersection. I did not turn left. True story.
Burden of proof is on you to prove your side of the case. Remember the police use their word which is seen in the courts as what really happened. Not saying this didn't happen but I wasn't there so I either way I can't say.
You said a foul word their is a law on the books that says you can be punished for it.
Unconstitutional.
You do not understand the job of a police officer. They are not a court it is not their job to interpret the legality of the law. That is for people above their branch. That is why we have the courts. So while I agree you should be allowed to say anything you want please remember that I may not want to hear your foul mouth or agree with such words. Where does my right to not hear what you have to say start and your right to say what you want end. That is for the courts and can only be applied in such a way.
You were jay walking their is a law on the books that prevents that. You were smoking weed in your house their is a law against it.
The police’s job is to protect me from others, and if necessary, to protect them from me. It is not their job to protect me from myself.
I think you misunderstand that the law is their to prevent you from taking drugs that will affect your mental state which may cause harm to me. If someone is high on weed and hallucinating or otherwise impaired and attempts to drive their car and hurts me then the police aren't protecting me with a law that is on the books.
The law was put into place by majority of the people who felt that this was more to protect you from harmful things. If this was the case and you were allowed to keep yourself safe from you then why would we have doctors who write prescriptions to begin with. All controlled substances would be able to be gotten by anyone.
These laws that were made by the people for the people is being enforced by a group of people who were given the power to enforce the laws made by the people with a law that was made for the people by the people.
I know you’re trying to be clever but when you can’t keep the tenses straight between your nouns and verbs anymore you might be trying too hard. Not to mention I had to read it three times to figure out what it said (which was of course just what you had intended).
Forgive the mistake please. The attempt was to say that the law was made for the people by people. The police are charged to do a job which is a law made by the people for the people which states they are to enforce the laws. Sorry about that.
The person you want to speak with in regards to the fucking issue here is your towns council / State legislators and not the fucking police. You don't like the laws then have them changed.
Now that I don’t disagree with... but will it get me back the $300 for the no-left-turn ticket and the legal expense of getting it converted to a non-moving violation?
Sadly you know the answer to this is no. That is something that should be done by the state to fix the issue to begin with. However, states would go broke if they had to refund everyone for a law that was enforced and then found to be unconstitutional. But IANAL but I think you may have a case to sue to have your money returned for the moving violation. You will be told that you could have been represented for free. We won't get everything we want but changes can be done. Just a process to follow.
There is plenty of of repercussions when a police officer is not doing right. Their is a process. People don't like to follow a process and procedure. If they don't follow the process or procedure then you can't except cops to get in trouble. If you don't mess with the police they won't mess with you. Keep your calm when dealing with them and don't get on your own "I know my rights" trip. That is when you get the most trouble and you won't beat the ride. Cops have a stressful enough job.
The same thing happens in the office place so lets bash on power trips themselves not just the cops.
I find it funny when people are just pissed at cops. I think it is sad because in all reality the cops have a job to do and that is to catch criminals. Just because you broke the law or want to say "I didn't do it" doesn't make you innocent. If you don't like the law work to change it. If a cop does wrong follow the process to have something done. Most state licensing agencies require all complaints regarding police officers to be maintained for public inquiry at any time. When a police officer goes to get another job the interview includes their previous agencies and civilian complaints. Those complaints are then reviewed with the officer. All agencies that hire police officers can check with the state licensing agency to see what other departments they have worked for.
Unlike your personnel file (unless you work for a City/State/Federal agency) theirs is open to the review of the public at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I agree and if the judge doesn't then they need that ability. Now I think that if they can't excuse people then maybe bumping the pay to handle the minimum wage amount if they are on duty for 2 days or more.
I agree with you. Jury duty is an important part of our society obligations and I can't count how many times I have heard people get out of it just because. I have had 4 jury duty notices and each time I get them in all honesty I get happy. 3 of the 4 have been canceled just before trial. So that was always a let down. However, the other jury duty I have had before I was on to be selected but was nixed because my parents were both police officers. While I got 6.00 for being there the pay sucked when I paid 5.00 in parking and used a gallon of gas. I am not complaining about doing the job but the expense of performing were better paid then I think you would have more people WILLING to serve then those ditching to make more money. Hardship or not we should be able to live while serving on a jury. No one on the jury should worry if they will be able to put food on the table because they have to help justice.
I think the challenge to this as well is what if in the end we (BIG IF here folks) defeat the Taliban and they become an ally? I think what we are missing here is that when they become an ally we don't want to continue to make a "war" out of them or have that reminder.
The other side to this is that using a general term (OpFor) gives them the ability to let the gamer choose what/who their enemy is. If we go to war with the penguins well that would cause problems but if we go to war with another country then it is easier to let the gamer see the OpFor as the other side.
One of the things I have learned on Slashdot is someone may say something and define it later. I have also had a pleasure of both learning others sides to issues as well as being lucky to have people comment back professionally or at least not disrespectful. This is much importance to note because I feel and have seen others who get down right rude. I appreciate your respect in your response.
I couldn't agree more with alcohol (honestly my post was a little different to begin with but later revised.). I believe that the control of alcohol should be limited to in a persons home where they can drink all night long but keeping themselves out of general harm to the public. If given outside of the area of ones home then rules and responsibilities to those giving such drinks should be stricter. I do not believe nor do I think it is fair that drunks can get in their cars and drive off without someone ensuring their ability to drive without being a danger to the public. Sadly prohibition didn't work well out as we all know.
I believe that at least with what little knowledge I have (I am not afraid to admit lack of knowledge) that the difference is we failed because of the wide spread popularity of alcohol. This helped in making enforcement harder as so many people were well on their way to work around the system for what they wanted. However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana. Which to me is the equivalent of some areas not even enforcing prohibition or seat belt laws . To me "personally" I feel Marijuana and Alcohol are one and the same as far as effects to the average Joe. While I have never used marijuana, the studying I have done on it for school projects show that the effects can have almost like effects to people. For example drivers driving drunk don't clearly see, have delayed reaction time, and possible blackouts, and those who are high are unable to determine what actions to do, hallucinations, and decreased response time.
I do not for reasons agree with cigarettes (I do however see your point). I have not heard of a person driving after smoking a cigarette have an accident because they couldn't clearly tell the line or had decreased reaction time. Granted those incidents I am sure with people dropping them in their lap may not help the cause it is different to marijuana in the sense of the reactions to one's mental abilities. While I do agree it is addictive (both my parents smoke) the effects are felt by the person and the impact to society from say someone driving is far less. I do support the laws prohibiting smoking from the work place and minimizing the attempt to target minors. I agree on public offices (Government Owned or those dealing with the public) should not allow smoking inside of them. However that is the end of my agreeing. I dislike and feel that the law makers have overstepped the rights of the people by requiring (Here in Texas 3 cities I know of have city ordinances on the books) private business that while deal with the public are required to stop smoking from taking place. If a non-smoker doesn't wish for their health to be impacted that way then their choice to go to a place where such restrictions are in place and spend their money there. Forcing restaurants or bars from allowing smokers to smoke is wrong because they are "privately" owned and no one is required to go to them for a service.
My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.
I think their is a disservice to people and getting the truth out by not having a study on the impact of Marijuana and gathering of stats (if available) to prove and back the point why we have made marijuana illegal. I think everything at some point needs to be revisited to ensure the necessity of due diligence when faced with such situations of lack of scientific proof with drugs.
Well AC I disagree. The police are trained and while accidents of human error happen it would be far more apparent with random stoners and opium addicts. Just think they had their dignity robbed but at least they got the drugs off the street so one day they won't have to worry about someone being so stoned that they end their lives.
Another sad argument... If they are going to do it anyway then make it legal. How many people in society do marijuana? The problem with this thought process is if we do it for this then we have to do it others. We can't combat murders so we should make it legal for them to do. We can't combat burglary so we should make a law that allows it if they do it and it is under a certain amount. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Regardless of the amount of people committing the crime. Now if the majority of people say okay this should be allowed and the risk to society or the risk to harm to yourself to the point we (society) will have to take care of you is non-existent or can't be offset some how (Taxes to cover mental help professional salary and the staff salary to take care of you etc) then I would be all for it.
What about those that commit crimes that result in the ending of a life? What will you do then? You can't punish them with double life sentences... The point is to deter in our laws from people committing those crimes. If you speed you choose to do that we punish you with a fine to pay and the results of your inability to make safe decisions will impact your future ability to drive and your insurance will rise because of your not making safe decisions. When those people sit down and think about the impact logically to their own life and the decisions that they may carry out while high, drunk, stoned, etc when they aren't in those settings maybe then they can say it shouldn't be risk for others for my dumb actions.
While I enjoy your comments I do object to your second to last comment.
There should be a law to protect me if the activity you choose to do will infringe on my rights to a healthy, happy, and safe life. You can choose to eat junk food and watch too much TV. I am fine with that. But if you are eating junk food causes harm to my life such as let us say such as alcohol with an impaired driver (you in such example) then I should be protected from that action. I am all for you drinking, smoking pot, doing crack, and living on Burger King if that is your choice. But if your choice means that I will have to worry about driving down the road and you are unable to clearly drive or make a responsible choice because your decision or cognitive functions are diminished then I have the right to say my safety and thus of the safety of society is to deem activities unlawful then I see no problem with it.
The other side is that the public is not trained medically to make decisions about the effects of such drugs on the population. If the drug itself may harm your mental state and you then need to be placed in a state center to be cared for because you killed off your brain cells to the point you have no ability to safely care for yourself then my tax money or society's money as a whole has to be used to now care for your "right to do what you want" has caused you harm and it is unethical along with immoral to let you die or cause harm to yourself/others then yes I/We (Society) have the right to tell you what activities you can't do to prevent harm to yourself, to others, and to society money.
Professor: While this is all off subject I would also like to applaud you for allowing the use of open notes. I can tell you as a student myself those far more benefit me then the use of remembering every possible sentence in my book or lectures given. It is sad that schools can't pursue more effort in cheat prevention and that of consequences if you do. I feel a student caught cheating should get the F for the class if they attempt to cheat and get caught doing so.
Good luck Professor and while many may not think to say this Thank you for doing your job. If it was not for our Teachers and Professors I would be no where close in the knowledge I have obtained over the years. Thank you.
I know I might get modded down but I do want to say a few things.
Being a former Abuse Manager and Abuse Member for 2 very large hosting companies (one shared hosting and one of the big Dedicated Server companies) I get where they are coming from. This was no different when back in the day Rackshack/Ev1Servers hosted a Jew hating website. They got attacked hourly. Rackshack/Ev1Servers didn't just remove it because someone hated it but because it targeted people in real life. The difference here is like the alta said its a double standard. Personally, the Muslim community is quick to attack at anyone that doesn't agree with their rules, laws, and overall religion.
While I personally do not agree with the burning I do agree with the Church people's right to do this. Maybe if people were to get more outraged at the other things going on from the other side then we would see some improvement to the situation and overall tolerance of other religions and get some respect ourselves.
I am really tired of those crying for the Muslims and how we need to be understanding and not do things like this yet where is the media when flags are being burned? Where is the media when they are burning bibles? Where is the outrage when they spread their hate messages?
We don't get upset at the other religions being made fun of because they won't send suicide bombers or kids with guns after you. They may send hate mail, or responses back but you don't fear death.
Is it the right of the hosting company to shutdown the site? Sure we all have the right to shut down a website for any reason. In this case I am sorry but I don't agree with the shutting down of this site. This is a protest not them saying "Kill all Muslims!" Or them hosting a site targeting Muslims.
Why is it that we are not having these problems with people like Westboro Baptist Church? Why isn't the Government stating how their message of picketing funerals could cause problems and moral issues for the soldiers fighting? Guess it isn't that important. We let them have the stage to boast their free speech but someone says lets burn a book and we get all kinds of fired up to stop and protect them.
While I tend to not feed the trolls this comment seems to be more of an attack. You must not understand what Linux is about. It is not about anti-copyright thieves or pirates. I think you will find if you take the time to look beyond what someone is spoon feeding to you that you might see it is actually the opposite. Most Linux users (be it system admins or the Linux home user) respects copyrights. We relay on those same evil copyright laws to enforce companies and individuals to follow the agreement for the use of our code or project. While the "releasing" of the code is different in each case (GPL BSD etc) they all have the same request for copyright as most people. The Linux community has even taken cases to court in which code was "used" without their permission or in a way not intended in their agreement for the right to use the code.
With that being said how can you say that linux users are against copyright if we want it enforced on our own products. Yes there are people who use linux to "break" copyright and move around things. However, this happens in the Apple world as well as the Microsoft world. May I remind you that majority of the copyright cases filled by the RIAA are users using programs that were developed for a Windows Operating system.
There are just as many people out there using the other operating systems who don't give a crap about copyrights as there are those that use linux who don't care for copyrights.
it's got electrolytes it's just what swimming pools need!
Robot Driver on board.
I don't care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
While I was preparing the comment a well thought out comment I was reminded that my
Sorry I had to harvest some grapes. I don't want them to die!
Crap I almost forgot to milk the cows, feed my friends chickens,
Sorry... I had to go expand my farm so I can grow more corn. To hell with this comment. I will be in Farmville just send me a friend request...
Thank you for the hard work and looking into this. Your post was very well written.
For the person who was discussing that they make a lot of money or that they get a check for their life insurance. Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income? Yes Verizon has their loss now that the poor guy isn't going to be using the phone monthly and they can't collect that fee. I am sorry for that but when someone dies in any respect you won't get your money monthly anymore any way so why should you "collect what you can" instead of being resonable and going we are sorry for your loss and you proved the person died so since they won't be a problem to our business or use any resources we can justify letting the ETF go. If I had a large enough business like Verizon does I would say just that "Send me a copy of the death certificate." Once I got that it would be "I am sorry for your loss. Should you need a new cell phone provider in an area we service please feel free to look us up we will be waiting for you to come back." But I have a lot of respect for the military and people in general and don't look for every possible way to screw them out of a dollar. Low level drone or not this person should have some compassion and if not him the company should have a policy in place to offer that. Guess I won't ever be rich.
For all of our soldiers who have earned the right to be buried there and we can't even get a decent IT system in place to help people or keep such important records.
To our Fallen Hero's.... I am sorry.
I do think it is time that companies and even people stop being so damn greedy and do their jobs. Granted we may not have the insight as to what is happening directly but I am left to wonder who is asleep at the controls on this one. We have private sector people doing jobs that are comparable size to this job and I am sure 5 million dollars would have paid for their time and a mojito and Starbucks coffee whenever they wanted it. I think it is time to disband our Government and reform with people that a hell of a lot more honest then some of the guys we have in there now. Sorry to make this political but the fact remains that someone is not doing their job. Any person's loved ones are important to them but a person who defended our rights and country (regardless if the war is right or wrong to which those that feel it is wrong it is time to bitch at the civilian leaders case and point would be the recent Gen. McCrystal deal.) and we can't honor them with keeping accurate records and spending money WISELY when it comes to their final resting place. Sad...
Until the IRS can tax you for all the good times you had in that $100,000 car.
Just a thought...
I expect the cops to know each and every law, no matter how old, no matter how trivial for the jurisdiction in which they work. You and I are held to the same standards. As I'm sure we've both seen and heard, countless times, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If ignorance is not an excuse in following the law, how can it possibly be an excuse while enforcing it?
I see your side. However, we all have a basic foundation for right and wrong. In driving you know the basics to driving. Don't speed. Don't tailgate. Don't drag race. There are things we know not to do. There are things in our professional careers we know not to do.
The police have to know majority of the laws and there are some that they won't know. Give them a break they are not all running around with photographic memory. There are tons of laws and sometimes the way those laws have been explained to them maybe incorrect or poorly done. While cops do (at least in texas) have to know the Penal Code pretty damn well its not like they will remember every section. They do have to reference and look things up. Do you know every single aspect to your job? Have you ever had to look something up for your job? It happens. We are facing a large shortage of police officers. The job doesn't pay well, the hours suck, and on top of it you may not come home the next night you are out because some punk didn't want to get a speeding ticket.
May I ask then what is it you suggest we do for the police officers to become peace officers? Every police officer I have ever run into for problems has asked my side and worked with me until I stop complying with their requests and become disrespectful. The police do not get the job to tell people what laws will be enforced. Comply to the orders even if they are wrong then comply and take it up later.
Operation Personal Rant = engaged / Ah the classic, if you don't agree with policy, move away statement. Listen here fucktard, I am a Iraq Combat vet, and consider myself a patriot. While this gives me no more right to speech than any other American citizen, it gives me clout with fuckheads like you. What I do not consider myself a BLIND patriot. As Howard Zinn stated, "DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM" Very few people (only pure anarchists) would want to live "in a country without police", What I don't want is for police that are militaristic, don't know the law, often have no better education than highschool, and are increasingly corrupt in my country. The entire "Love it or leave it" is predicated on the premise that either you COMPLETELY love (read: agree) with all policy of the USA (Which any semi-intelligent person does not) or you do not deserve and should not live here. Thats not how it works. I can love my country, and hate it's government, (or the power elite who have gotten us into this mess we are in today). What it boils down to, is that this type of statement is one of the most destructive to discourse tactics used by people who have little knowledge or facts to defend their beliefs, where the then label someone with a negative, anti-american label so as to discredit them. This is known as a argumentative logical fallacy as a "ad hominem" attack. Where you attack the person presenting an argument instead of the argument. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!
I am not sure if you were speaking to me. If so please continue reading. If not you may stop after my first paragraph. Thanks!
First of all and the most important to state is I thank you personally for your service to protect myself and my family along with the rights I get to enjoy because of people like yourself, my brother, and sister in law. You put yourself in harms way every day to give me my freedoms. Thank you. I mean this with no disrespect at all. I am the grandson of a retired army MSGT who served 20+years and the brother to 2 US. Marines who currently are serving and served in Iraq with my little brother returning to go back.
Most police officers (at least in the state of texas) must take classes that would at least get them an associates. Asking them to know ALL the laws is kind of hard for them. That would require them to become attorney's. The police are not going to know each and every law. They know the basics to the laws and any changes typically they are given those and uphold those. When in doubt they will refer to their DA. The police can arrest you but the DA has to be willing to file charges. The DA is an attorney who knows what they are doing and is suppose to know the laws. I know that their is some corrupt officers out there. They are everywhere. Its no different then in the federal government and some even office places. It is a problem we will always have and will have to get rid of. Sorry no quick fix for this.
My argument wasn't love it or leave it. It was however to say if you don't like it get it changed. There is a process and procedure. Being in the service you know this better then anyone. You want TP for the head you have to order it and to order it means paperwork and getting it approved ETC. Presenting an argument means we are trying to convince someone of something. I am trying to convince someone that my side is right and you the opposite is right. While sometimes that gets wrong side of things their is a hard time in trying to prove to someone that what you say is wrong (because maybe it is wrong) other then to label what you do as anti-american. IE: You choose not to put your hand over your heart while saying the pledge of allegiance or you taking a flag and burning it upside down and walking up and down the street. What am I suppose to say to that? Its wrong therefore you shouldn't do it and you should believe me because I didn't do that? Sure I could but then they will label you themselves.
I do have the right to be offended though. You and I disagree on that. You do not have the right to attack me because I am wearing a blue shirt what gives you the right to verbally attack me because I think blue is better then red?
I want to live in a country that when the police violate laws they can be sued and put in jail for it.
In the USA, being a cop means you have a license to do what you want. You can even kill someone, firing several shots in his back and get away with it. It happens every month in the USA.
You can be detained for no reason and you have no recourse. you can be severly assaulted by the police for no reason other than a peaceful protest and have no recourse. People have been tazed enough times to caus them to get more tazers because they emptied them, because they would not unchain themselves from a fence. That officer needs to not only lose everything he owns, but be blackballed from ever being a cop again. I prefer he be thrown in prison with a COP banner on him.
I respectfully disagree.
Officers can be sued civilly if in the efforts of their job violates the states laws and policy of the department. If a officer violates such they can be sued and held accountable for their actions. Now if they are doing their jobs in accordance with the laws of the state/city/county/etc then they are protected by the city and thus the city can't be sued as they have implied sovereign immunity. This is why your police are not given tickets because they are speeding to the scene of and accident. But if they run a red light by turning on their light bar and they have no reason they can get in trouble. I know officers that have been fired for doing that.
I have myself been detained for no reason and was eventually let go. I have filed a lawsuit against the city. By law I should have been taken to a magistrate to be judged if there was a right for me to be detained if not I had to be let go. This didn't happen.
If the person hanging on the fence like that was told to go then they have to go. Non-compliance does give the officer the right to use any (normally non-lethal) means to get you off the fence. Sorry. You comply you don't have problems. You don't comply then you are ASKING to get hurt. What you want the police to tell you "Hey you can't be here." and you not leave and them go "Okay have a nice day!"? I mean come on. The officer was told to remove the person. The person didn't want to comply so they had to give him a reason to comply. Otherwise the person/people would just stay there.
Peaceful protest is fine as long as you comply with the laws and the orders of the police. Right or wrong they are they and they are the authority not you. You may feel that you have the right to be there. If that is the case get a judge to agree with you and they will not bother you within an injunction preventing them from acting. Otherwise listen to what you are told. Its simple. Police will NOT assault you for no reason. They have lives and they want to come home and see their family too. Do what you are told and go away. Given that this hasn't happened in a while at least to my knowledge (given that this would generate a whole lot of media attention). The law states you are to comply with an officers orders. If you don't then you are violating and become a criminal. You feel they violated the law take it to their boss and or the checks and balances part of our government the courts. Sounds simple.
The officer made the proof as his testimony at trial. That meets the burden of proof.
Your proof is your word. The case becomes a he said she said deal and the officer wins because he is entrusted with the authority to uphold the laws. Now if you choose to bash the officer with his civilian complaints and his performance thus showing he is a bad officer then his evidence (testimony) may have been seen as incorrect or flawed.
You are innocent until proven guilty. You were cited and told to go to court. You were not told to pay your fine if you were innocent you were given I am sure a way to pay if you were pleading guilty or no contest. You went to a court and you were judge by either a judge or a jury (your peers) and He/She/They felt your evidence did not prove you were innocent. They felt that the cop was correct in giving you the ticket and upon being found guilty (no longer innocent) you were told to pay a 300.00 fine.
The system works. Its just not the way you want it to work because it didn't find you not guilty. You wanted the cop to have you on camera. That isn't going to always happen in certain cases. Give it time though and the city/county/state will start installing cameras on streets like in the UK areas to start watching your every move. Then you will be found guilty of a lot more crimes.
In regards to the cops saying something falsely their is a process to which if they under oath say something happened and it didn't happen then that is called perjury. So yes a legal action in a criminal court can take place. But how do you prove he didn't see you do it and wasn't able to prove beyond his word it didn't happen? Had you brought that camera in and he swore under oath that you did it and you brought that video in then that would be a different case. Your DA would have all rights to go after their ass. I have seen cops go to jail for lying under oath. Again there is a process for this to take place. Since we laymen don't know that process we pay people (just like people pay us geeks to fix their computers) that know that process.
The police are doing their job when they write you a ticket for speeding. You were speeding you got a ticket.
The police were not doing their job when they wrote me a ticket for turning left at a no-left-turn intersection. I did not turn left. True story.
Burden of proof is on you to prove your side of the case. Remember the police use their word which is seen in the courts as what really happened. Not saying this didn't happen but I wasn't there so I either way I can't say.
You said a foul word their is a law on the books that says you can be punished for it.
Unconstitutional.
You do not understand the job of a police officer. They are not a court it is not their job to interpret the legality of the law. That is for people above their branch. That is why we have the courts. So while I agree you should be allowed to say anything you want please remember that I may not want to hear your foul mouth or agree with such words. Where does my right to not hear what you have to say start and your right to say what you want end. That is for the courts and can only be applied in such a way.
You were jay walking their is a law on the books that prevents that. You were smoking weed in your house their is a law against it.
The police’s job is to protect me from others, and if necessary, to protect them from me. It is not their job to protect me from myself.
I think you misunderstand that the law is their to prevent you from taking drugs that will affect your mental state which may cause harm to me. If someone is high on weed and hallucinating or otherwise impaired and attempts to drive their car and hurts me then the police aren't protecting me with a law that is on the books. The law was put into place by majority of the people who felt that this was more to protect you from harmful things. If this was the case and you were allowed to keep yourself safe from you then why would we have doctors who write prescriptions to begin with. All controlled substances would be able to be gotten by anyone.
These laws that were made by the people for the people is being enforced by a group of people who were given the power to enforce the laws made by the people with a law that was made for the people by the people.
I know you’re trying to be clever but when you can’t keep the tenses straight between your nouns and verbs anymore you might be trying too hard. Not to mention I had to read it three times to figure out what it said (which was of course just what you had intended).
Forgive the mistake please. The attempt was to say that the law was made for the people by people. The police are charged to do a job which is a law made by the people for the people which states they are to enforce the laws. Sorry about that.
The person you want to speak with in regards to the fucking issue here is your towns council / State legislators and not the fucking police. You don't like the laws then have them changed.
Now that I don’t disagree with... but will it get me back the $300 for the no-left-turn ticket and the legal expense of getting it converted to a non-moving violation?
Sadly you know the answer to this is no. That is something that should be done by the state to fix the issue to begin with. However, states would go broke if they had to refund everyone for a law that was enforced and then found to be unconstitutional. But IANAL but I think you may have a case to sue to have your money returned for the moving violation. You will be told that you could have been represented for free. We won't get everything we want but changes can be done. Just a process to follow.
There is plenty of of repercussions when a police officer is not doing right. Their is a process. People don't like to follow a process and procedure. If they don't follow the process or procedure then you can't except cops to get in trouble. If you don't mess with the police they won't mess with you. Keep your calm when dealing with them and don't get on your own "I know my rights" trip. That is when you get the most trouble and you won't beat the ride. Cops have a stressful enough job.
The same thing happens in the office place so lets bash on power trips themselves not just the cops.
I find it funny when people are just pissed at cops. I think it is sad because in all reality the cops have a job to do and that is to catch criminals. Just because you broke the law or want to say "I didn't do it" doesn't make you innocent. If you don't like the law work to change it. If a cop does wrong follow the process to have something done. Most state licensing agencies require all complaints regarding police officers to be maintained for public inquiry at any time. When a police officer goes to get another job the interview includes their previous agencies and civilian complaints. Those complaints are then reviewed with the officer. All agencies that hire police officers can check with the state licensing agency to see what other departments they have worked for.
Unlike your personnel file (unless you work for a City/State/Federal agency) theirs is open to the review of the public at any time.