Except we know SWAT teams are badly trained morons who throw flashbangs into baby cribs, raid the wrong houses, mistake cups of water for guns, and so on.
And hence the "prankster" knows that there's a chance his action are going to result in someone dieing. Of course you're never going to make that stick, otherwise everyone who ran a red light would be up on "attempted manslaughter" charges. And yes that sounds like a self contradicting term, but surprise surprise: http://www.ksby.com/news/troy-...
How you can attempt to do something involuntary I would have to leave to that guys clearly brilliant defense attorney to explain....
It answers your "Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?" question.
Why ask for AN example if you are just going to dismiss it as irrelevant. Do you have multiple personalities or something? Or just like moving goal posts?
Don't like libertarian nutters, then how about some left wingers with basically the same story (and a book to sell of course): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
If you think a foreign language isn't useful enough to justify then remove the requirement entirely. Don't just add random crap to the "foreign language" bucket.
Next up: playing on the school football team to count as a foreign language.
And thus any claims that do seem to make are not actually claims but mere "fluff".
Of course they idiots who buy it don't notice that and the makers are going to try and be as deceptive as they can be (apparently we've found one limit to that deception - don't claim the product contains things it does not claim, and don't claim is doesn't contain things that it does:)
Of course they do. They say the product is not intended to have any efficacy. Otherwise it would be intended to treat, cure, or prevent some disease. They are explicitly about efficacy.
If a homeopathic remedy works there's a nobel prize there which should be some incentive to try and show that either magic exists or our current understanding of physics and chemistry is completely wrong at the most fundamental basic level.
"the only planet in our solar system hosting a ring".
Honestly you have to be pretty uninformed to think such a thing to start with. But it's a whole new level of stupidity to take that extra step to present your lack of education as a statement of fact.
If you type "planet ring" into google the quoted text at the top is:
""" A planetary ring is a disk or ring of dust, moonlets, or other small objects orbiting a planet or similar body. The most notable planetary rings in the Solar System are those around Saturn, but the other three gas giants (Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) also possess ring systems. """
Seriously just how stupid are the submitter and "editor"?
"This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease" - is clearly stating that anything that seems to be a claim about efficacy is clearly just an attempt at humor a la Leonard v. Pepsico.
The store-brand crap claims to contain an ingredient it doesn't contain. The homeopathic crap claims to not contain an ingredient it doesn't contain. It should be obvious how those are different.
Of course. If the stuff is actually what it says in the label that should be fine.
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Right. The US attitude is "we have a claim on all your income no matter where you live, so tell us about it all and if you're lucky we won't double tax you". Whereas most of the rest of the west has the attitude "if you reside elsewhere your income is none of our business, don't bother telling us about it".
That changes a little if you are going to try and claim benefits (say a pension) while residing elsewhere, but that's your choice. The only choice the US gives you is "you can renounce your citizenship, of course that will trigger a taxable event on all your assets and we'll assume you sold them all today for tax purposes" - well I'm sure that's not exactly right I'm not going to be doing that to care about the details:)
I understand the US outlook - I'm sure those non-residents will run for a US embassy if the shit hits the fan where ever they are so they're as one example of their "use" of US government resources. It still seems a bit over the top though.
And of course those non-US countries complain about "tax exiles". The 70s saw a bunch of rich English folk move to the US to avoid the 80%+ tax rate in the UK at the time - a win for the US tax revenue wise.
Which says nothing about whether such a law should exist in the first place of course.
Otherwise there would be no problem with a law against having less than $500 in your wallet, as long as it was enforced equally on both rich and poor people.
Or a law requiring people to allow anyone who asks for shelter in their house during rain to do so, as long as it was enforced equally against mansion owners and those living under bridges.
So by your impeccable logic we should not bother doing anything about science education at all. Just let the superstitious be superstitious. Fuck them, right?
The quality of health care has not remained the same or gotten worse in the last 50 years. Of course it has improved equally well in other places that haven't seen the same level of cost increases.
Also, the point is not to suggest that what the kid was threatening to do could ever actually be carried out, the point is that he still said it... and he did so to in anger, to be hurtful, and overall just trying to be a bully.
How do you know that? I see no mention of anger or bullying or trying to be hurtful.
Plus of course he'd seen the movie he knew that "disappear" means turn invisible in that context and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... or destroy or kill or whatever a threat might actually be.
Now sure he might be a little shit trying to scare some other kid who doesn't know magic isn't real (and given we are talking small town Texas that's not unreasonable), but I don't actually see any such claim about motivations or emotional state. So where did you find those details?
Because water is what you have a lot of in a "hot dry desert". Though I guess once people start dropping from Legionnaire's there'll be more water to go around those that are left.
You do that on the tax return for the last year you resided in Australia (though I guess if you moved on exactly on the financial year end date you might need end up having to file one extra...). Or at least I did, maybe I'm on the run without realizing it:)
For the case situation I mentioned though - you leave the country at age 1 - then you wouldn't ever need to file a Australian tax return (well unless you start residing there again, but then it's only going forward while you reside there).
Australia doesn't do that. If you are an Australian resident sure, but America takes it the step further than even if you aren't a resident of the US you still get taxed on your foreign earnings.
For example, if you were born in the US to non-US parents who then take you back to their native country when you are say 1 when when you earn an income in that other country 17 years later you need to file a US tax return. Of course you can just not do so but that will be an issue if you ever decide to move to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Except we know SWAT teams are badly trained morons who throw flashbangs into baby cribs, raid the wrong houses, mistake cups of water for guns, and so on.
And hence the "prankster" knows that there's a chance his action are going to result in someone dieing. Of course you're never going to make that stick, otherwise everyone who ran a red light would be up on "attempted manslaughter" charges. And yes that sounds like a self contradicting term, but surprise surprise: http://www.ksby.com/news/troy-...
How you can attempt to do something involuntary I would have to leave to that guys clearly brilliant defense attorney to explain....
You asked for one. You've been given two. My lord you are fucktard.
It answers your "Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?" question.
Why ask for AN example if you are just going to dismiss it as irrelevant. Do you have multiple personalities or something? Or just like moving goal posts?
There a dozens of examples of innocents losing their lives at http://www.cato.org/raidmap
Don't like libertarian nutters, then how about some left wingers with basically the same story (and a book to sell of course): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There was always one student who when tarring up their code for submission for an assignment would leave off the tar file name:
tar -cf *
I hope that first file wasn't important :)
Of course then they'd see there was no tar file when they tried to submit and would then run:
tar -cf assignment.tar *
Not noticing that that first file isn't what they thought it was anymore.
If you think a foreign language isn't useful enough to justify then remove the requirement entirely. Don't just add random crap to the "foreign language" bucket.
Next up: playing on the school football team to count as a foreign language.
And thus any claims that do seem to make are not actually claims but mere "fluff".
Of course they idiots who buy it don't notice that and the makers are going to try and be as deceptive as they can be (apparently we've found one limit to that deception - don't claim the product contains things it does not claim, and don't claim is doesn't contain things that it does :)
Of course they do. They say the product is not intended to have any efficacy. Otherwise it would be intended to treat, cure, or prevent some disease. They are explicitly about efficacy.
A high school drop out who wants to keep your kid out of school since she can do better than those idiotic professional teachers.
Oh well, hopefully she's hot.
homeopathic != "natural" or "alternative".
If a homeopathic remedy works there's a nobel prize there which should be some incentive to try and show that either magic exists or our current understanding of physics and chemistry is completely wrong at the most fundamental basic level.
"the only planet in our solar system hosting a ring".
Honestly you have to be pretty uninformed to think such a thing to start with. But it's a whole new level of stupidity to take that extra step to present your lack of education as a statement of fact.
If you type "planet ring" into google the quoted text at the top is:
"""
A planetary ring is a disk or ring of dust, moonlets, or other small objects orbiting a planet or similar body. The most notable planetary rings in the Solar System are those around Saturn, but the other three gas giants (Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) also possess ring systems.
"""
Seriously just how stupid are the submitter and "editor"?
"This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease" - is clearly stating that anything that seems to be a claim about efficacy is clearly just an attempt at humor a la Leonard v. Pepsico.
The store-brand crap claims to contain an ingredient it doesn't contain. The homeopathic crap claims to not contain an ingredient it doesn't contain. It should be obvious how those are different.
Of course. If the stuff is actually what it says in the label that should be fine.
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Right. The US attitude is "we have a claim on all your income no matter where you live, so tell us about it all and if you're lucky we won't double tax you". Whereas most of the rest of the west has the attitude "if you reside elsewhere your income is none of our business, don't bother telling us about it".
That changes a little if you are going to try and claim benefits (say a pension) while residing elsewhere, but that's your choice. The only choice the US gives you is "you can renounce your citizenship, of course that will trigger a taxable event on all your assets and we'll assume you sold them all today for tax purposes" - well I'm sure that's not exactly right I'm not going to be doing that to care about the details :)
I understand the US outlook - I'm sure those non-residents will run for a US embassy if the shit hits the fan where ever they are so they're as one example of their "use" of US government resources. It still seems a bit over the top though.
And of course those non-US countries complain about "tax exiles". The 70s saw a bunch of rich English folk move to the US to avoid the 80%+ tax rate in the UK at the time - a win for the US tax revenue wise.
Which says nothing about whether such a law should exist in the first place of course.
Otherwise there would be no problem with a law against having less than $500 in your wallet, as long as it was enforced equally on both rich and poor people.
Or a law requiring people to allow anyone who asks for shelter in their house during rain to do so, as long as it was enforced equally against mansion owners and those living under bridges.
Human beings are superstitious. Period.
So by your impeccable logic we should not bother doing anything about science education at all. Just let the superstitious be superstitious. Fuck them, right?
How does that show it is worse? Surely you'd also need a current set of questions and answers.
Or is the point that the museum staff at least one answer wrong (I stopped at that point)?
The quality of health care has not remained the same or gotten worse in the last 50 years. Of course it has improved equally well in other places that haven't seen the same level of cost increases.
How do you know that? I see no mention of anger or bullying or trying to be hurtful.
Plus of course he'd seen the movie he knew that "disappear" means turn invisible in that context and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... or destroy or kill or whatever a threat might actually be.
Now sure he might be a little shit trying to scare some other kid who doesn't know magic isn't real (and given we are talking small town Texas that's not unreasonable), but I don't actually see any such claim about motivations or emotional state. So where did you find those details?
The traditional punishment for such sorcery is after all death by stoning.
There was also not a police officer in the vicinity to "fear for his life".
All in all, he dodged some bullets there.
Because water is what you have a lot of in a "hot dry desert". Though I guess once people start dropping from Legionnaire's there'll be more water to go around those that are left.
You do that on the tax return for the last year you resided in Australia (though I guess if you moved on exactly on the financial year end date you might need end up having to file one extra...). Or at least I did, maybe I'm on the run without realizing it :)
For the case situation I mentioned though - you leave the country at age 1 - then you wouldn't ever need to file a Australian tax return (well unless you start residing there again, but then it's only going forward while you reside there).
Right, whereas as an Australian if you reside in another country you don't have to file anything ever.
Australia doesn't do that. If you are an Australian resident sure, but America takes it the step further than even if you aren't a resident of the US you still get taxed on your foreign earnings.
For example, if you were born in the US to non-US parents who then take you back to their native country when you are say 1 when when you earn an income in that other country 17 years later you need to file a US tax return. Of course you can just not do so but that will be an issue if you ever decide to move to the US.