Prank phonecalls do not qualify as probable cause, else I could call-in right now, say I saw a break-in at your home, and the cops could bustdown your door and arrest you. We don't want that BS happening, do we?
>>>I heard someone say on CNN the professor thanked the woman for calling the police.
Gates is acting just like a good little slave. He had every right to bitch about his unjust treatment, and for him to back-down strikes me as *weak*. If I were in Gates shoes, I'd be hiring a lawyer and prosecuting the cop to the full extent of the law.
>>>The professor had to dish out attitude, and he got what he deserved because of it.
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION you goose-shtepping shithead. The professor did NOT deserve to be arrested. The cop is the one who should be prosecuted for violating not just one, but two statutes in the supreme law of the land.
But no... instead the cop gets-off without punishment. That's an injustice.
>>>So if I'm breaking into your house, the cops show up and I say "I'm Pitabred and I live here" you'd be ok
First, it's unlikely that a random thief would know the name of whoever's house he broke into - so in 99.9% of the times the cop would catch him in the lie and that would be probably cause to detain the subject.
Second, in the rare 0.1% of the time the thief says "I'm commodore64", then yes I'd rather the officer turn around and leave. Better to lose a few possessions than lose my privacy such that a cop can enter my home whenever he feels like it. The latter is FAR more valuable to me than the former.
>>>The officer had probable cause. Someone called in a suspicious activity at the house..
No a prank phonecall is not probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes and ears witnessing a crime can establish that.
Else I'd be able to call-in right now, saying I saw someone break into your house, and suddenly a bunch of boys-in-blue would come barging into your home.
>>>police receiving a call saying they see 2 guys trying to force a door open as "reasonable suspicion" that someone was breaking into a house >>>
Entering a house requires probable cause (per the supreme law of the land), and probable cause can only be established if the police witnesses a crime with his own eyes or ears. Prank phonecalls do NOT constitute probable cause.
The only authority the policeman had was to ask, "Who are you?" to Professor Gates and verify the name given matched the name on the address. The end.
And arresting a man because he rightfully says, "This is bullshit," is REALLY crossing the line, and that officer should be charged for breaking constitutional law. Free speech is protected an Mr. Gates can say anything he feels like saying. The officer should be punished.
QUOTE: "Nevada has a "stop-and-identify" law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the person detained to "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states[1] have similar laws."
Back to Professor Gates:
The officer had no reason to suspect him of a crime - all he had was a voice on the phone, which is as meaningless as a prank call, legally. Plus he had NO constitutionally-mandated warrant to enter the home. The ONLY authority the officer had was to ask, "What's your name?" The end.
The officer should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
That's what that whole Professor Gates thing was about. He believed he owned his house and had a right not to let others enter his property. But he was wrong, because the U.S. government merely "leases" your property and can control how you use your home, just the same way Apple controls your iPhone or Sony your PS3. The police entering the home and handcuffing the resident made that clear - property ownership is an old-fashioned and dead idea.
>>>There are court cases saying you have to present ID if demanded by a cop.
Only if you behind the wheel of a car. If you are just walking down the street you are protected by the Constitution "secure in their papers and effects" law. If you can find a SCOTUS or State Supreme case that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Oh my. This topic brings back great memories such as:
ATARI- Asteroids. Playing "chicken" with the boulders.
ATARI- Asteroids. Eliminate all the boulders except one, and then take-on the UFO in a one-on-one gunfight.
ATARI- Berzerk. Hide behind a ball, fire at it, and watch the robots walk into it. I imagined that my laser fire was magnetizing the wall and drawing-in the metal beasts.
ATARI- Pitfall 2. Go the highest possible level. Jump. Watch Pitfall Harry fall for 2 minutes.
ATARI- Freeway/Frogger. See how many times I could make my chicken or frog get run over by cars.
C=64 - Beach Head 2. Get behind a machine gun and kill the little soldiers so I could hear them scream "Ahhhh I'm hit," or "Help! Medic!"
C=64 - Elite. Wait until I was superpowerful, attack the landing station, and then have fun killing-off the weak pathetic police ships.
AMIGA- Firepower. Take my tank and run over soldiers so I could hear them go "squish" and spill their blood all over the landscape.
AMIGA- Stunt Car Racer. Ride to the top of a "hump" in the track, moving at full speed, and fly into the air. Watch car get destroyed.
PS1 - Final Fantasy 7 or 9. Strip all the materia off my characters, and then run into a boss fight. Enjoy the slaughter.
PS2 - Dirt-to-Daytona, Nascar Heat - Run my car on Talladega in the reverse direction, and ram directly into the "pack" of cars.
By that logic CBS and CW are not separate television channels.
Also you missed the key point that a buyer will NOT get a refund from paypal.com until proof-of-delivery is provided. Therefore if the buyer stupidly threw the item in the trash, and has nothing to return, the seller gets to keep his money.
>>>Man asks eBay for money back. eBay gives money back
What you just described is impossible. First off, ebay doesn't handle money so they can't refund anything. Second, paypal doesn't refund money back to a customer until AFTER the personal computer was returned to the seller (with proof-of-delivery).
Good analogy. In effect Mr. Murdoch is demanding that the newsstand operators (7-11, MiniMart, amazon, et cetera) collect user information, and pass it back to him. This is something new that has never happened before.
Please accept this letter in the full spirit that it is intended. You opined, "Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us" to which I wish to sincerely respond:
...after which I will send my Kindle back to amazon for a full refund. If necessary I'll invoke VISA's help to charge it back. It wasn't part of the contract for amazon to erase my 1984 book off my kindle, or to reveal my info to third party assholes. I can tolerate some things but this passes the line.
Aside-
I mentioned elsewhere that amazon is holding ~$500 of my sales as a seller in limbo. Well a day after I said that publicly they immediately refunded the money, but still kept $79 for themselves. I eventually tracked-down the reason - an asshole woman in California bought a Zenith DTV box from me, and even though I already provided Amazon with proof-of-delivery, they decided to keep the $79 and refund it back to this woman. So she successfully stole my property, with amazon's help.
Microsoft did the same thing to Firefox about two months ago. I guess all megacorporations including Apple and Ubuntu Linix eventually succumb to MS-like practices. The only people you can trust are the non-corporations (aka individuals).
At least Steve Jobs is merely a person, and not a member of Congress. He can't *force* me to buy his products, like a Congressman can force me to buy health insurance I don't want
>>>You don't want a basic level of care available to you? Are you invincible?
As a matter of fact, yes I am. You never heard of hell or heaven? Death is not something to be feared, and although I'll go to the doctor for stuff like pacemakers or broken bones, it's not a tragedy if he tells me I have cancer and I can't afford the $100,000 cure. Death is a part of life, and if my time is up, then my time is up.
Furthermore I don't feel that it's my obligation to pay other people's bills. If you spent your life smoking and suddenly need a new set of lungs, am *I* supposed to pay for that? Congress says I am, but I say no because that's MY labor that earned the money, not yours. Nor am I obligated to buy you a new car. Or a new house. Or new iPod. Or any other good which should come from YOUR pocket, not mine.
Compromise Solution:
There are between 8-9 million U.S. citizens who Want health insurance, but cannot afford it. Rather than punish the other ~290 million by forcing them all into an Uncle Sam monopoly with rampant rationing and loss of privacy/control, I think a better solution is simply to take the existing medicare program and extend it to include the 8 milion poor persons. Simple; elegant; and doesn't ruin our existing system which is the best healthcare system in the world.
>>>If you haven't jailbroken yours yet, you haven't lived.
I suspect it's only a matter of time until this falls into common slang. "That was my girlfriend Emily." "Wow she's cute. Have you jailbroken her yet?" "No but she promised me on the night of the prom she'd let me."
Slashdot Mirror
>>>a report of a break in was made.
Prank phonecalls do not qualify as probable cause, else I could call-in right now, say I saw a break-in at your home, and the cops could bustdown your door and arrest you. We don't want that BS happening, do we?
>>>I heard someone say on CNN the professor thanked the woman for calling the police.
Gates is acting just like a good little slave. He had every right to bitch about his unjust treatment, and for him to back-down strikes me as *weak*. If I were in Gates shoes, I'd be hiring a lawyer and prosecuting the cop to the full extent of the law.
>>>The professor had to dish out attitude, and he got what he deserved because of it.
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION you goose-shtepping shithead. The professor did NOT deserve to be arrested. The cop is the one who should be prosecuted for violating not just one, but two statutes in the supreme law of the land.
But no... instead the cop gets-off without punishment. That's an injustice.
Oh okay. Then it was okay to arrest Professor Gates. (rolls eyes). Next I suppose you'll tell me you support DWB arrests.
>>>So if I'm breaking into your house, the cops show up and I say "I'm Pitabred and I live here" you'd be ok
First, it's unlikely that a random thief would know the name of whoever's house he broke into - so in 99.9% of the times the cop would catch him in the lie and that would be probably cause to detain the subject.
Second, in the rare 0.1% of the time the thief says "I'm commodore64", then yes I'd rather the officer turn around and leave. Better to lose a few possessions than lose my privacy such that a cop can enter my home whenever he feels like it. The latter is FAR more valuable to me than the former.
>>>The officer had probable cause. Someone called in a suspicious activity at the house..
No a prank phonecall is not probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes and ears witnessing a crime can establish that.
Else I'd be able to call-in right now, saying I saw someone break into your house, and suddenly a bunch of boys-in-blue would come barging into your home.
>>>police receiving a call saying they see 2 guys trying to force a door open as "reasonable suspicion" that someone was breaking into a house
>>>
Entering a house requires probable cause (per the supreme law of the land), and probable cause can only be established if the police witnesses a crime with his own eyes or ears. Prank phonecalls do NOT constitute probable cause.
The only authority the policeman had was to ask, "Who are you?" to Professor Gates and verify the name given matched the name on the address. The end.
And arresting a man because he rightfully says, "This is bullshit," is REALLY crossing the line, and that officer should be charged for breaking constitutional law. Free speech is protected an Mr. Gates can say anything he feels like saying. The officer should be punished.
See here: Minute 2:00 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wE2rlgv4Ro
QUOTE: "Nevada has a "stop-and-identify" law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the person detained to "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states[1] have similar laws."
Back to Professor Gates:
The officer had no reason to suspect him of a crime - all he had was a voice on the phone, which is as meaningless as a prank call, legally. Plus he had NO constitutionally-mandated warrant to enter the home. The ONLY authority the officer had was to ask, "What's your name?" The end.
The officer should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
P.S.
That's what that whole Professor Gates thing was about. He believed he owned his house and had a right not to let others enter his property. But he was wrong, because the U.S. government merely "leases" your property and can control how you use your home, just the same way Apple controls your iPhone or Sony your PS3. The police entering the home and handcuffing the resident made that clear - property ownership is an old-fashioned and dead idea.
>>>There are court cases saying you have to present ID if demanded by a cop.
Only if you behind the wheel of a car. If you are just walking down the street you are protected by the Constitution "secure in their papers and effects" law. If you can find a SCOTUS or State Supreme case that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Oh my. This topic brings back great memories such as:
ATARI- Asteroids. Playing "chicken" with the boulders.
ATARI- Asteroids. Eliminate all the boulders except one, and then take-on the UFO in a one-on-one gunfight.
ATARI- Berzerk. Hide behind a ball, fire at it, and watch the robots walk into it. I imagined that my laser fire was magnetizing the wall and drawing-in the metal beasts.
ATARI- Pitfall 2. Go the highest possible level. Jump. Watch Pitfall Harry fall for 2 minutes.
ATARI- Freeway/Frogger. See how many times I could make my chicken or frog get run over by cars.
C=64 - Beach Head 2. Get behind a machine gun and kill the little soldiers so I could hear them scream "Ahhhh I'm hit," or "Help! Medic!"
C=64 - Elite. Wait until I was superpowerful, attack the landing station, and then have fun killing-off the weak pathetic police ships.
AMIGA- Firepower. Take my tank and run over soldiers so I could hear them go "squish" and spill their blood all over the landscape.
AMIGA- Stunt Car Racer. Ride to the top of a "hump" in the track, moving at full speed, and fly into the air. Watch car get destroyed.
PS1 - Final Fantasy 7 or 9. Strip all the materia off my characters, and then run into a boss fight. Enjoy the slaughter.
PS2 - Dirt-to-Daytona, Nascar Heat - Run my car on Talladega in the reverse direction, and ram directly into the "pack" of cars.
By that logic CBS and CW are not separate television channels.
Also you missed the key point that a buyer will NOT get a refund from paypal.com until proof-of-delivery is provided. Therefore if the buyer stupidly threw the item in the trash, and has nothing to return, the seller gets to keep his money.
A link to Obama's speeches is a link to Obama's speeches. It matters not where the video is hosted, because it's still Obama's words.
>>>Man asks eBay for money back. eBay gives money back
What you just described is impossible. First off, ebay doesn't handle money so they can't refund anything. Second, paypal doesn't refund money back to a customer until AFTER the personal computer was returned to the seller (with proof-of-delivery).
Good analogy. In effect Mr. Murdoch is demanding that the newsstand operators (7-11, MiniMart, amazon, et cetera) collect user information, and pass it back to him. This is something new that has never happened before.
Also:
Family Guy
American Dad
House
Fringe
Joss Whedon's Dollhouse
Glenn Beck
Rachel Maddow
Dear Mr. Murdoch:
Please accept this letter in the full spirit that it is intended. You opined, "Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us" to which I wish to sincerely respond:
Fuck you.
Signed,
Jeff Bozos
6101 5823 0090 5121
EXP 01/10 CVV number 876
Okay now please forward a link to to my email address. Thank you.
...after which I will send my Kindle back to amazon for a full refund. If necessary I'll invoke VISA's help to charge it back. It wasn't part of the contract for amazon to erase my 1984 book off my kindle, or to reveal my info to third party assholes. I can tolerate some things but this passes the line.
Aside-
I mentioned elsewhere that amazon is holding ~$500 of my sales as a seller in limbo. Well a day after I said that publicly they immediately refunded the money, but still kept $79 for themselves. I eventually tracked-down the reason - an asshole woman in California bought a Zenith DTV box from me, and even though I already provided Amazon with proof-of-delivery, they decided to keep the $79 and refund it back to this woman. So she successfully stole my property, with amazon's help.
Grrr. I'm really starting to hate amazon.
>>>Installing it without any notification does.
Microsoft did the same thing to Firefox about two months ago. I guess all megacorporations including Apple and Ubuntu Linix eventually succumb to MS-like practices. The only people you can trust are the non-corporations (aka individuals).
Watches BIG-GOVERNMENT-loving CNN and/or MSNBC.
Yep crazy.
Move along folks, nothing useful to read here. (wink) :-)
At least Steve Jobs is merely a person, and not a member of Congress. He can't *force* me to buy his products, like a Congressman can force me to buy health insurance I don't want
>>>You don't want a basic level of care available to you? Are you invincible?
As a matter of fact, yes I am. You never heard of hell or heaven? Death is not something to be feared, and although I'll go to the doctor for stuff like pacemakers or broken bones, it's not a tragedy if he tells me I have cancer and I can't afford the $100,000 cure. Death is a part of life, and if my time is up, then my time is up.
Furthermore I don't feel that it's my obligation to pay other people's bills. If you spent your life smoking and suddenly need a new set of lungs, am *I* supposed to pay for that? Congress says I am, but I say no because that's MY labor that earned the money, not yours. Nor am I obligated to buy you a new car. Or a new house. Or new iPod. Or any other good which should come from YOUR pocket, not mine.
Compromise Solution:
There are between 8-9 million U.S. citizens who Want health insurance, but cannot afford it. Rather than punish the other ~290 million by forcing them all into an Uncle Sam monopoly with rampant rationing and loss of privacy/control, I think a better solution is simply to take the existing medicare program and extend it to include the 8 milion poor persons. Simple; elegant; and doesn't ruin our existing system which is the best healthcare system in the world.
That's correct..... untl a judge issues a warrant, and then you're not safe.
>>>If you haven't jailbroken yours yet, you haven't lived.
I suspect it's only a matter of time until this falls into common slang. "That was my girlfriend Emily." "Wow she's cute. Have you jailbroken her yet?" "No but she promised me on the night of the prom she'd let me."