"Citizen's Arrest:
Detainment of a person suspected of having committed a crime, by a person other than a police officer.
The forcible detaining of an individual suspected of having committed a crime by a person who is not a police or otherwise certified law enforcement officer, such as a private citizen, a private security firm employee or a store employee or cashier, and without the authority of an arrest warrant issue from a court of law.
handcuffs The authority for physically detaining another person varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but in most cases, involves the surrender of the suspect to the police as soon as possible as well as use of only such reasonable force as is necessary to contain the individual and prevent escape."
Our legal systems are very similar in most regards, it's mostly wording and the niggly little details that are different. The point is, the police can arrest you for a misdemeanor or for suspicion, or after the fact. You can hold a person until the police arrive if you caught them in the middle of a felony. They aren't really the same thing.
ah. Now I get what you're saying. I thought the ruling was a special exception to the law granted to the police. In that case, yes, the act is not in and of itself illegal but it's one of those "Do you CAN, but do you really want to piss off the men who can arrest you for suspicion of crimes?" sort of things.
You know your government has tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and is on its way to warships with laser cannons right? If the government wants to remove your rights they bloody well will. You can launch all the agrarian revolts you want. They've won. Your government can go police state and win and if they can't now, they'll be able to by the time you're retired. You can have your shotgun, they have unmanned stealth drones.
And as George Bush famously said. "The constitution is just a piece of paper" it has no magical powers. It can amended, changed, thrown out or ignored by any government who decides they don't want to play by the rules anymore.
government can only enforce any law through force. Whether it is stopping you from acting on a privilege, right or the your attempt murder someone. The only tool the police can really use is force.
Citizen's Arrest is closer to detention than actual arrest and you can only do it if you actually witness someone performing a felony offense. The police have more power than you in that regard.
... someone needs to call Flately up and tell him he has competition for the Lord of Pedantse. Also, rights ARE granted the law just says the can't be revoked. The government can rescind every right you have if they decide to go fascist tommorow. Rights are not magical powers you have. They're privileges the government has agreed to never revoke.
Citizen Arrest only lets you detain the person until an actual officer of the law arrives. And yes, you have the right to protection of yourself (and in some cases a third party) but the police don't need that caveat to the same extent you would. You need the person to be actively committing a felony offense.
My memory from law class is rusty and it was Canadian law class but Citizen's Arrest is just the right to detain someone you witness in the act of committing a felony for the shortest amount of time possible until you can get an officer of the law there. It's not the actual right to arrest someone.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. A law saying "police officers can do X" does not mean "anyone can do X" unless you recently got the ability to tazer people.
Wait, you can detain and arrest people in the States as a citizen? And enter people's homes (with your bosses permission)? And tase people who get unruly?
Oh... your point is that you think if I suffer then my vote will suddenly matter more or I'll vote for someone else or start a revolution or something. This belief of yours is wrong.
I don't see the government as an evil monster who will ruin everything the way you do. I benefit greatly from my government. They subsidize my schooling, they pay for the medical bills that save my life, they provide police to keep order and keep the roads paved. Are they perfect? No. Are there areas they spend too much? Definitely. Do they have policies I radically disagree with? Of course!
But here's the thing. If everything changed, if they did everything the way I think they should, other people would have those exact complaints I do and I am not arrogant enough to assume I am the absolute authority on the future or the government. I am human and fallible, just like the people running things. The politicians are just people trying to do what they think is right OR bad people pretending to be and there's no way to change that. Anyone you vote in is the exact same gamble. Any revolutionary leader or dictator or council or whatever. They're just people and they aren't going to make me suffer because you're afraid of them.
Plus, I don't buy into these doomsday scenarios I keep seeing from the American right. Yeah, you guys need to cut spending and raise taxes to pay off the deficit. But saying that unless I suffer and then magically see the error of my ways (which is useless for you anyway because I'm not in your country) your children will suffer and die is ridiculous. Reign in your military spending, provide proper school subsidy so that your people can get educations that will lead to skilled labourers and better education levels to create value and increase wealth and you'll probably be fine.
Oh, and you want the lower class feeling the pain of policy? Remember that huge recession you fell into that caused thousands upon thousands of America's lower and middle class to lose their jobs as a result of government deregulation letting the banks screw the people? Ta da!
You can raise the taxes on the upper income brackets more than you can raise it on the lower class. Sure, I can take a 5% income tax hike. I don't mind. I won't ENJOY it of course but I'll accept, as someone who needed his countries socialized health care several times this year to deal with a congenital lung defect, that it's needed.
What I CANNOT take is a 50% tax rate. I literally cannot survive with that. I only make 10.25 CAD an hour, with an current effective income tax of 15% I can survive and pay my tuition off, If that becomes effectively 50% I can't afford basic food and shelter.
Therefore you can only tax me at most 5-7 percent above what you already are before your taxes make me require more government services and help than my taxes give making me COST you money.
However, someone in the 200K + income bracket can take up to 50% and still be sitting pretty.
Therefore if you want more tax dollars you HAVE to pull more from the upper class than the lower because they can take it.
Yes, you would be. And rightly so. Because by calling it an "ewok shelter" you are clearly creating a connection to the brand that you do not have a legal right to. They sell a range of products with the word "ewok" in it and they can't risk brand dillution. Not to mention it's dishonest to consumers as it is entirely reasonable that someone would mistake your products for official star wars merchandise based on the name and product description.
The problem with that theory is that with the volume that goes through youtube there's no practical way for them to find everyone elses copyright material.
Here's the problem with your system. It completely ignores how living on different incomes works. The rich can AFFORD a 50% income tax. Going from 250 to 125 still leaves you in the top 3% the guy making 20k a year can't go down to 10 because you can't live on 10k a year. You can't raise the taxes on people barely making enough to get by so you have to take excess from the people making far more than they need if you want more money for paying off the deficit or providing services.
Except that the people going on about peak oil aren't the ones with the oil. They're the ones telling us to use less oil and find alternative energy sources.
Slashdot Mirror
peaceful protests don't have anything to do with the second amendment.
"Citizen's Arrest:
Detainment of a person suspected of having committed a crime, by a person other than a police officer.
The forcible detaining of an individual suspected of having committed a crime by a person who is not a police or otherwise certified law enforcement officer, such as a private citizen, a private security firm employee or a store employee or cashier, and without the authority of an arrest warrant issue from a court of law.
handcuffs The authority for physically detaining another person varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but in most cases, involves the surrender of the suspect to the police as soon as possible as well as use of only such reasonable force as is necessary to contain the individual and prevent escape."
Our legal systems are very similar in most regards, it's mostly wording and the niggly little details that are different. The point is, the police can arrest you for a misdemeanor or for suspicion, or after the fact. You can hold a person until the police arrive if you caught them in the middle of a felony. They aren't really the same thing.
ah. Now I get what you're saying. I thought the ruling was a special exception to the law granted to the police. In that case, yes, the act is not in and of itself illegal but it's one of those "Do you CAN, but do you really want to piss off the men who can arrest you for suspicion of crimes?" sort of things.
You know your government has tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and is on its way to warships with laser cannons right? If the government wants to remove your rights they bloody well will. You can launch all the agrarian revolts you want. They've won. Your government can go police state and win and if they can't now, they'll be able to by the time you're retired. You can have your shotgun, they have unmanned stealth drones.
And as George Bush famously said. "The constitution is just a piece of paper" it has no magical powers. It can amended, changed, thrown out or ignored by any government who decides they don't want to play by the rules anymore.
Because law isn't based on who you trust?
government can only enforce any law through force. Whether it is stopping you from acting on a privilege, right or the your attempt murder someone. The only tool the police can really use is force.
Citizen's Arrest is closer to detention than actual arrest and you can only do it if you actually witness someone performing a felony offense. The police have more power than you in that regard.
... someone needs to call Flately up and tell him he has competition for the Lord of Pedantse. Also, rights ARE granted the law just says the can't be revoked. The government can rescind every right you have if they decide to go fascist tommorow. Rights are not magical powers you have. They're privileges the government has agreed to never revoke.
Citizen Arrest only lets you detain the person until an actual officer of the law arrives. And yes, you have the right to protection of yourself (and in some cases a third party) but the police don't need that caveat to the same extent you would. You need the person to be actively committing a felony offense.
My memory from law class is rusty and it was Canadian law class but Citizen's Arrest is just the right to detain someone you witness in the act of committing a felony for the shortest amount of time possible until you can get an officer of the law there. It's not the actual right to arrest someone.
Now you're just being pedantic. A court ruling allowing the police to do something doesn't grant everyone that right.
It's more a discussion on "the cops can do things you can't so stop using fallacious logic"
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. A law saying "police officers can do X" does not mean "anyone can do X" unless you recently got the ability to tazer people.
Wait, you can detain and arrest people in the States as a citizen? And enter people's homes (with your bosses permission)? And tase people who get unruly?
Yeah, but they can smoke weed in cali so what do they care? They're too high to give a shit.
Oh... your point is that you think if I suffer then my vote will suddenly matter more or I'll vote for someone else or start a revolution or something. This belief of yours is wrong.
I don't see the government as an evil monster who will ruin everything the way you do. I benefit greatly from my government. They subsidize my schooling, they pay for the medical bills that save my life, they provide police to keep order and keep the roads paved. Are they perfect? No. Are there areas they spend too much? Definitely. Do they have policies I radically disagree with? Of course!
But here's the thing. If everything changed, if they did everything the way I think they should, other people would have those exact complaints I do and I am not arrogant enough to assume I am the absolute authority on the future or the government. I am human and fallible, just like the people running things. The politicians are just people trying to do what they think is right OR bad people pretending to be and there's no way to change that. Anyone you vote in is the exact same gamble. Any revolutionary leader or dictator or council or whatever. They're just people and they aren't going to make me suffer because you're afraid of them.
Plus, I don't buy into these doomsday scenarios I keep seeing from the American right. Yeah, you guys need to cut spending and raise taxes to pay off the deficit. But saying that unless I suffer and then magically see the error of my ways (which is useless for you anyway because I'm not in your country) your children will suffer and die is ridiculous. Reign in your military spending, provide proper school subsidy so that your people can get educations that will lead to skilled labourers and better education levels to create value and increase wealth and you'll probably be fine.
Oh, and you want the lower class feeling the pain of policy? Remember that huge recession you fell into that caused thousands upon thousands of America's lower and middle class to lose their jobs as a result of government deregulation letting the banks screw the people? Ta da!
You can raise the taxes on the upper income brackets more than you can raise it on the lower class. Sure, I can take a 5% income tax hike. I don't mind. I won't ENJOY it of course but I'll accept, as someone who needed his countries socialized health care several times this year to deal with a congenital lung defect, that it's needed.
What I CANNOT take is a 50% tax rate. I literally cannot survive with that. I only make 10.25 CAD an hour, with an current effective income tax of 15% I can survive and pay my tuition off, If that becomes effectively 50% I can't afford basic food and shelter.
Therefore you can only tax me at most 5-7 percent above what you already are before your taxes make me require more government services and help than my taxes give making me COST you money.
However, someone in the 200K + income bracket can take up to 50% and still be sitting pretty.
Therefore if you want more tax dollars you HAVE to pull more from the upper class than the lower because they can take it.
Yes, you would be. And rightly so. Because by calling it an "ewok shelter" you are clearly creating a connection to the brand that you do not have a legal right to. They sell a range of products with the word "ewok" in it and they can't risk brand dillution. Not to mention it's dishonest to consumers as it is entirely reasonable that someone would mistake your products for official star wars merchandise based on the name and product description.
that is fantastic.
how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?
The problem with that theory is that with the volume that goes through youtube there's no practical way for them to find everyone elses copyright material.
Here's the problem with your system. It completely ignores how living on different incomes works. The rich can AFFORD a 50% income tax. Going from 250 to 125 still leaves you in the top 3% the guy making 20k a year can't go down to 10 because you can't live on 10k a year. You can't raise the taxes on people barely making enough to get by so you have to take excess from the people making far more than they need if you want more money for paying off the deficit or providing services.
Except that the people going on about peak oil aren't the ones with the oil. They're the ones telling us to use less oil and find alternative energy sources.