The value of a public library is that it offers the public the opportunity to inform and educate itself -- long recognized as valuable to enable the informed vote of the enfranchised in a democracy.
To this end, the privacy of what the individual choses to inform him- or herself about has long been upheld by the courts.
Imagine the chilling effect if the public could not inform itself about documents in a library contrary to the present government without scrutiny.
What the public has a right to know, and oversee, is WHAT the library chooses to make available, and not who reads it.
Not quite. The law in WA allows the use of otherwise illegal force to prevent or attempt to prevent felonious acts (e.g. killing someone who is trying to kill you or someone else), and the bar is lowered when using force against someone not engaging in a felonious act, but is a prior convicted felon (e.g. killing a trespasser against whom one has a restraining order AND who has a prior felony conviction).
That's where the problem lies. A felony is a crime, and a child under 10 can't legally form criminal intent, and therefore their actions are not felonious, even if harmful, and force against them not warranted.
So, this usual defense is not available. I've been so advised both by legal council and various police.
I suspect that federal law may permit using force in extremis to prevent harm (as opposed to crime), and as state law generally defers to federal law in such areas, the defense you propose is available. But, it would likely take appeals to a federal court to be able to use it.
Like I noted, defense would be difficult and expensive.
The experience that I've had with the law has taught me that much of it is of the form "A is illegal except in case B except in case C except in case D except in case E, etc." and one has to successively argue whether each case applies or not in the actual circumstances. The more points one has to prove the more difficult it becomes.
"The burden of proof is upon the prosecution -- the burden of innocence is NOT upon the defense," I hear you shout.
Yes, that's true, but many laws are written in the form "A is a crime except in circumstance B". The prosecution has to show A, which may very well be obvious from the facts, but if the defense can not show B, but merely argues that the prosecution has not shown that B DOES not apply, they will likely lose.
The classic example of this is one parent abducting their own kids to keep them from harm by the other parent. This is the crime of kidnapping, with the admissible defense of the child's safety being at stake. One can't simply state that they were acting out of the child's safety and expect the prosecution to have to prove otherwise. One has to mount an ACTIVE defense, because the facts of the charge of abduction are not in dispute.
I don't know where you got the idea that one cannot use force to stop a legal-minor from causing harm (to himself, others or property).
Police and my attorney.
The problem arises when one uses force consistent with preventing a child from causing harm that leaves a mark consistent with the threshold for child abuse -- one WILL be charged with child abuse, and the defense difficult and expensive.
Sure, and my point is that, as far as technology is concerned "are there" is a murky concept.
What if they "are there" and require decryption?
I suppose that, legally, what matters is whether a "reasonable person" would agree that they already "are there" or not. It probably comes down to can someone "easily" access them, given the right "simple" instructions. But, then we get into an argument of what constitutes "simple": going online and visiting a web site (which actually downloads the objectionable content, however much obfuscated), could be argued as "simple".
"But, I didn't 'download' the content... I hit the 'enable' button, not download."
The point is that "addition" can be made to look just like "enablement" with the right hackery, and that this can be done my a third party.
The closest analogy is a website that shows you how to turn the laser LED in a DVDROM into a "real burning visible laser!". Should the DVDROM manufacturer be liable if you blind someone because the "burning laser" was there all along? Granted the analogy isn't perfect because (a) the laser IS there, and (b) warnings are on the device. But, one can imaging a "safe" laser that, with the right instructions can be "overpowered" for short durations to similar effect.
The bottom line is that if I tell you how to turn someone else's product into something dangerous, regardless of how difficult (and, with software, we can make the difficult easy), that someone else may be found liable, while I hide behind "free speech".
But, technically there is no difference between a patch that inserts one, and a patch that enables one already there: "It was there all along, the right key just had to be used to decrypt it, in this case a BIG XOR with a one time pad."
How do you propose to tell the difference? The relative size of the patch? What if I encode the patch in a new uber-efficient codec? I'm sure that porn lends it self to efficient frequency analysis and compression because of it's, uh, rythmic and repetitive nature.
Actually my personal experience is with the harm my ex is doing to our children, a system that makes it difficult to help them, and simultaneously tries to hold me accountable for not getting them help.
But, the points are that (a) children will try to leave abuse if they see a safe haven, and (b) accept some inconvenience if they perceive an increase of safety and security.
My factual personal experience is that my daughter has run away from her mother, seeking shelter with me, but accepting it at a home for runaways as an alternative to being returned to her mother.
So, I argue that children who claim horrible abuse should be willing to accept some inconvenience while investigation ensues.
... you can find a G-rated MPEG2 of a movie distributed by NetFlix (ignore DRM for now) or some other source, and demonstrate a patch, which when applied to the movie file, inserts an X-Rated scene, you can sue the makers of the original movie, for making that possible?
If you whip out a gun and immediately blow the 8 year old away, I suspect you'd have a tough time defending your actions. If you launch a flying tackle at the kid and end up securing the situation with some damage done to the child, I think you'd be just fine as far as the law is concerned.
I think a flying tackle would be quite risky: the kid could fire off a shot or two. S/he might even manage to get a shot off if you "blow the 8 year old away", and kill some, initiated by your shot. Logically, if an opprortunity does not arise where the child can be disarmed safely, one should wait, and take the kid out if they start shooting.
But, one is likely to be arrested and charged if one harms the child. A jury might acquit, but one still has to mount a defense.
The problem is that we live in a "what about the children?" society where when any harm comes to a child, some punishment immediately falls on the shoulders of whoever did it, with an uphill battle to justify what they did, even if in extremis. This discourages acting rationally in extremis.
I've had police tell me of their difficulties because of the law when dealing with armed and very dangerous 8- and 9-year-olds.
Our community does not set a very good social example: infidelity is rampant, and single fathers are strongly stigmatized (as in: if I go to pick up my kids, and it is cold, and they are sent out by their mother with inadequate clothes (e.g. shirtless and barefoot), EVEN IF I am prepared at the ready with clothing, the MINUTE they step off her property onto the sidewalk and into my care, the police my ex has called in advance WILL arrest me for failing to have them adequately clothed. Yes, it's that bad. Most neighbors don't want the headaches of getting involved and turn a blind eye.
See, she's a "poor single mom, with inadequate support (maybe dad does not pay?)" so she has an excuse for their lack of clothing. I don't. ("You could have given her clothes in advance." (Of course I could! And have! Doesn't mean she will dress them, does it?)). As for support, she gets $900 a month in alimony, and over $1100 in child support from me. On top of that, I have been forced to either pay her mortgage ($1700/month) or face harm to my credit score (which is why I have a POS over the house).
Part of the problem is a strong belief that single dads are deadbeats and need to be punished for their former marital infidelity (real or imagined), so anything to puncture that myth in a particular instance is stymied.
However, I am getting help. I have a power of sale over my ex's house, and the flood of outsiders (realtors and potential buyers) is giving me the evidence I need to take further action to support my custody case, in court, in a much larger nearby city. The process is, however, glacially slow and exhorbitantly expensive.
But, in the mean time, I am the "ruthless Dad kicking his kids out on the street".
Further, my efforts to get copies of the growing DSHS file against my ex are being stymied. Countless people have filed complaints, but they do nothing, and the file is "private". So, I have to beg and plead for them to file affidavits and declarations through my lawyer. Some do, and some are very helpful, but they are a very very small minority. Every shred of evidence is hard come-by and precious. Most respond, "Well, I told DSHS. If they don't see a problem, there isn't one." The real nasty ones say, "Well, if your ex abuses your kids it must be because you drove her to it."
Sigh.
Fortunately, I am one hell of a damn stubborn patient fuck when I want to be, and I will fight for my kids forever.
However, the GP's solution to the scenario--place the child making the report into an unpleasant environment to 'test' if they're really telling the truth or not--is asinine. Punishing them for coming forward is not going to endear them to telling the truth from that point on.
As the GP, I take exception to that comment.
As "unpleasant" as a shelter might be, compared to the comforts of a normal home, it should come as a haven of safety and security to someone who is truly abused. Placing an abused child in a safe and secure environment is hardly punishment, though it would seem like it to one who is making a false allegation -- and rightly so!
But, there is no emergency, because, legally the child with a loaded gun is not doing anything wrong, because they can't tell right from wrong.
With my battles with my ex, I've had many encounters with police -- usually when she has me removed for trying to see my kids when I have visitation rights (We have joint legal custody and she has primary physical custody). I stay parked on the street outside the house, she threatens to call the police, I let her (to get evidence of her custodial interference), they arrive, they ask me to leave, and I comply. It's a damn ritual already. Several officers tell me that the most important thing I can do is not provide a single shred of evidence to suggest I am a threat to her. I can't raise my voice, raise my hands, have a skowl on my face, etc. In case of doubt, their policy is to arrest the man. They also advise that they have difficulty dealing with many children under the age of 10 who engage in dangerous (and would-be criminal except for their age) behavior, and can't interfere because of the law.
The system is designed around the premise that spurned ex-husbunds that are violent and vindictive. To support that, it is designed to frustrate a father's efforts. Some resort to anger and violence, thus backing up the original premise in a perverse self-fulfilling prophesy.
But, the important thing to note is what what would be normal punishment for misbehavior, is often not strictly legal, but ignored, when there is no other dispute in play -- rather like getting a ticket for talking on a non-handsfree cellphone only if you are also accused of another infraction. When there are other matters of dispute, the law, as inane as it can be at times, is applied very strictly.
I still don't think throwing a kid coming forward into an unpleasant environment is a good idea. It might weed out the spoiled little shits, but it'll also take with them kids who have little enough courage to report abuse as it is.
Unpleasant is relative. I was thinking of an environment that was safe, and secure, though lacking the luxeries associated with a spoiled life (video games, DVDs, etc.)
When my daughter ran away from her mother on Mothers' Day (the previous year, I had to beg her to even take her kids for Mothers' Day, and help them purchase gifts, a cake, etc. at some of my own expense), I did the following: (1) call her mother to let her know she was safe, (2) give her dry clothes (it was raining and she was soaked) to change into, and (3) call the police to report her whereabouts.
An officer was dispatched, and surprisingly, did not turn her over to her mother, given my daughter's vehement protestations of fear. She was allowed to stay with me for the day, but could not stay indefinitely. Her mother was turned away, by police, from my front door. That evening, police again visited my, and my daughter's protestations continued. She could not stay with me -- that would be law enforcement playing the role of judge, but she could seek shelter for the night or return home. She requested shelter and was taken to a home for runaways. She asked that I accompany her to the door. The police officer permitted me to ride in the back of his cruiser. The back of a police cruiser is not a comfortable place. My daughter wanted to ride in the back with me instead of the relative comfort of the front pasenger seat, but this was not permitted. We both gave statements to the police. The next day, I returned with about $200 of newly purchased clothes for her (she arrived there in the clothes on her back) and some money if she wanted to purchase anything she didn't have and that I forgot (deoderant, toothpaste, toothbrush, "feminine" products, etc.). But, it was for naught: DHFS called the shelter and ordered her returned to her mother because there was no evidence of an immediate threat. And, so she was beaten for "running away".
Will some kids be too afraid to run from abuse? Perhaps, if they don't have at least one supportive parent. But, when they do, and are old enough to clearly express their wishes (my daughter is about to turn 15), understand the ramifications of what they are requesting, and are repeatedly ignored, there is something very fundementally broken.
As for custody battles, they usually center around the payment of child support. If my ex told me I could have my kids in exchange for continuing to pay her child support (to the tune of over $1100 a month), I'd pay the "blood money" in a heartbeat. Heck, I supply most of their food, clothing, sundries, activity fees, YMCA membership, cell phones, etc. over and above my "support" payment, anyway.
Quite frankly, if you know she's being abused you have a duty to remove her from the situation, my friend.
No shit, sherlock.
However, it is one thing to know of abuse, and quite another to have sufficient evidence to back up the allegation: what I see and report is tainted by the fact that I am presumed to not be an unbiased observer. I need others to witness this abuse. And, not just one (who I could have bribed, etc.)
I do my daughter no good sitting in jail for kidnapping and that's exactly what would happen if I removed her on my own initiative. If I had enough evidence to offer a strong defense (removing a child from danger is a defence against kidnapping), I would have enough evidence to mount a strong custody battle offence.
My daughter fears testifying in her own behalf because, as has been her experience, she thinks she will not be believed and sent right back for further retribution.
I used to think that, at the very least, I should report abuse that I witness. And, I used to do this. But, as a parent with non-physical custody, and joint legal custody, this is viewed as vindictive, and I have been advised by my attorney that it harms my case for future sole custody: I should be "helping" her mother "overcome her difficulties in parenting" rather than being a hostile opponent.
So, unless the odds are very good, a knee-jerk reaction is likely to put me into a position where I can be of far less future help to my daughter. Thus, I'm left in the heart-wrenching position of walking the fine line of letting her continue to be abused for the purpose of gathering proof that she is being abused.
I've recently got a power of sale over her mother's house (long legal explanation deleted, but rest assured that I have a home available 24x7x365.25 for both my kids), and that's gotten independent realtors in to see it. Their testimony about my ex-wife's behavior, and the living conditions (animal waste in bedrooms, etc.) is likely to be helpful, and they, too have a duty to report, and are not faced with the stigma of being a party with a vested interest.
In the mean time, I've made it clear to my daughter, that I can't help her any faster, unless she is willing to testify in her own behalf. She has made it clear that she fears retribution if she does and is not granted asylum from her mother. So, I do what I can, gathering as much evidence as I can, and always weighing whether "this time" it's worth it to not return her to her mother and risk a kidnapping charge.
Realise too, that recently in WA, a mother, previously jailed for killing one of her kids, after release, petitioned and got custody of a remaining child who was living with Dad. She killed that one too, in a year. Getting kids away from an abusive mother is an extremely difficult uphill battle here, if she does not relent. And, many parties have an interest, or bias, in not helping show that a mother is incompetent.
My ex-wife had her water turned off a while ago. I had to drop off bottled water so my kids would not go thirsty. but, can I get proof that she didn't pay her water bill? Nope. That's "private information". I can only get an attestation that it is turned on "now".
The bottom line is that I understand the argument to do "anything" for one's kids but sometimes the best long-term interest require considering whether a short-term action that will make one the subject of a "kidnapping manhunt" is a good idea.
My daughter ran away from her mother, on Mother's day, because she was threatened with the business end of a corkscrew. She CHOSE to spend the day and subsequent night in a shelter rather than return to her. Stupid DSHS ordered her back there despite her pleadings to either live with me, or if she couldn't have that, return to the shelter.
Kids will run from real abuse.
In this case, you can't imagine how her mother beat her for her "transgression". Her calls to 911 don't help. Nothing helps.
You have know idea how much a post-divorce custody legal battle can cost: it takes time to mount the resources, and more evidence than you can believe. My daughter is old enouch to chose where she lives, but will any court listen to her? Nope.
No, it means that a child does not know what "abuse" is.
"Abuse" in the mind of a child is anything wrong. Not getting what they want is "wrong", ergo...
Remember, WA is a state where an 8 year old can threaten someone with a loaded firearm, and if they kill someone, they go scott free. But, if you relieve them of the weapon without anyone getting shot, but the kid suffers a bruise in the process, you have, by law, abused them (striking to leave a mark).
If the state has determined that a child under 10 can't form criminal intent, then it must also belive that a child under 10 can't distinguish between what is and isn't abuse. Sadly, that is not the case.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Slashdot Obit Troll was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
If the kid learns early that there are inflexible rules of the universe, and once you run afoul of them the path is determined and quickly followed, they shape up quickly. If parents don't have the will to pursue the behavior they want and not settle for less, however, in the end no one gets what they want.
In Washington State, the "inflexible rule of the universe" is "If mommy or daddy won't give you what you want, say you will call 911 and tell them that 'Daddy puts his pee pee in your poop hole.'"
Can you defend against a child molestation / sex offender charge?
Sometimes, I wish that the first thing that happens when a kid makes a charge like that, is they get placed in somewhat less than ideal foster care, and see if they recant. A child that is really being abused would still consider it better than abuse. Such a child should not get to stay with mommy while daddy goes off to jail to ponder his defense.
The circumstances should not themselves be abusive -- food, clothing, and shelter should all be available; but there should be little in the way of entertainment, or fun activities. IOW, if the charge is groundless, the child is placed in WORSE circumstances. If the charge is genuine, the circumstances would be a reprieve.
I don't know where you're at, but over here it's illegal to use your (camera)phone while driving.
What part of pulled over to the side of the road, key out of the ignition and dropped out of the car (with a concealed spare, he he), constitutes driving?.
There is case law to back up that without a means of operating the vehicle (having the key in one's posession), one is not driving. (Drunk sleeping it off in his car parked on the shoulder, IIRC.)
In any case, it is not hard to conceal a camera that works automatically.
The big problem in many jurisdictions is recording sound. Often one can't make a sound recording without the permission of all parties recorded. It's not a matter of disclosing it, making it is the crime (a felony in some places like WA, IIRC, but IANAL).
Of course the laws are such that the police can make such recordings in certain investigations (generally related to drug deals), but individuals can't. I suppose one can argue that if the police can use particular evidence of a particular crime by an individual, an individual should have the same right regarding the same crime perpetrated by a police officer, but you'll spend a lot of money in legal fees arguing that (and since a drug deal is not the same as battery, even a favorable judgement, unless it is broad (i.e. audio recording of criminal activity) won't help you).
After hearing all the horrible stories about cable ISPs, I was very reluctant to go with TWC (Time Warner Cable) when I was working in San Diego. But, I was too far from any CO for decent DSL. And, a T1 at some $300+ a month was too expensive.
Turns out, TWC has a "business class" of service: 12 Mb/s down, 1.2 Mb/s up (and I routinely saw 15 down and 1.5 up), for $105 a month. Any reasonable number of static IPs you need (4 to 8 is considered reasonable -- I was happy with one); no traffic shaping shenanigans, no quotas, whatever servers I wanted to run (just SMTP, and SSH for me), etc.
I wonder if Comcast has a similar offering in greater Seattle. But, given their tricks, I'd be loath to use them, even if they did.
So, for now, I'm on a hokey WiMAX link. Sometimes, dialup would be faster.
Now you you are speaking louder then everyone else, then that's a problem...whether or not you are on a cell phone.
Yup. I've often found it rude of people to talk so loud in their group that I can't hear the counterpart in mine (who happens to be on the other end of the phone). Yet, if my counterpart is with me, they are far more likely to quiet down if I ask.
I do wish there was a button on cell phones that one could press to send a pre-recorded message when answering -- sometimes I get an important call while in a theater, and want to take it. I could answer, and whisper "just a sec" but even that can be disturbing. I can answer and not say anything until I leave, but that is puzzling. Or, I could not answer, get the caller id, and call back (which is what I usually do), but that can be awkward.
On the manner of cell-phone etiquette, is it proper to carry on a conversation on a cell phone while in a restaurant where the background noise is such that it is almost disturbing your call?
Why shouldn't it be? Just because MY friend is remote, and YOUR friend is local, is no reason that we would not EACH be able to speak with them.
Yet, groups of people (where I'm external to the group) talking loudly often complain that I'm being "rude" for talking (quietly) on the phone.
...or that they'd be more choosy when trying to reveal themselves than to show themselves only to some moonshine-swigging hicks.
So, how did you get here?
I hitched a lift with a teaser.
A what?
A teaser. Spoiled rich kid with nothing better to do than to land on a planet no one's made contact with, in front of someone no one is going to believe, and strut up and down, making "beep beep" noises.
(With apologies to the late Douglas Adams, or rather thanks to him, and apologies to his rapacious publishing house.)
Slashdot Mirror
The value of a public library is that it offers the public the opportunity to inform and educate itself -- long recognized as valuable to enable the informed vote of the enfranchised in a democracy.
To this end, the privacy of what the individual choses to inform him- or herself about has long been upheld by the courts.
Imagine the chilling effect if the public could not inform itself about documents in a library contrary to the present government without scrutiny.
What the public has a right to know, and oversee, is WHAT the library chooses to make available, and not who reads it.
... at least CDROMs employ RS codes.
You can always ask for something and be given it. Warrants are only needed to forcibly remove an article.
Yes, and the library might well be within it's rights to release those computers.
But, to the extent that the public expects some measure of anonymity in a public library, it strikes me as a very bad PR decision.
Not quite. The law in WA allows the use of otherwise illegal force to prevent or attempt to prevent felonious acts (e.g. killing someone who is trying to kill you or someone else), and the bar is lowered when using force against someone not engaging in a felonious act, but is a prior convicted felon (e.g. killing a trespasser against whom one has a restraining order AND who has a prior felony conviction).
That's where the problem lies. A felony is a crime, and a child under 10 can't legally form criminal intent, and therefore their actions are not felonious, even if harmful, and force against them not warranted.
So, this usual defense is not available. I've been so advised both by legal council and various police.
I suspect that federal law may permit using force in extremis to prevent harm (as opposed to crime), and as state law generally defers to federal law in such areas, the defense you propose is available. But, it would likely take appeals to a federal court to be able to use it.
Like I noted, defense would be difficult and expensive.
The experience that I've had with the law has taught me that much of it is of the form "A is illegal except in case B except in case C except in case D except in case E, etc." and one has to successively argue whether each case applies or not in the actual circumstances. The more points one has to prove the more difficult it becomes.
"The burden of proof is upon the prosecution -- the burden of innocence is NOT upon the defense," I hear you shout.
Yes, that's true, but many laws are written in the form "A is a crime except in circumstance B". The prosecution has to show A, which may very well be obvious from the facts, but if the defense can not show B, but merely argues that the prosecution has not shown that B DOES not apply, they will likely lose.
The classic example of this is one parent abducting their own kids to keep them from harm by the other parent. This is the crime of kidnapping, with the admissible defense of the child's safety being at stake. One can't simply state that they were acting out of the child's safety and expect the prosecution to have to prove otherwise. One has to mount an ACTIVE defense, because the facts of the charge of abduction are not in dispute.
I don't know where you got the idea that one cannot use force to stop a legal-minor from causing harm (to himself, others or property).
Police and my attorney.
The problem arises when one uses force consistent with preventing a child from causing harm that leaves a mark consistent with the threshold for child abuse -- one WILL be charged with child abuse, and the defense difficult and expensive.
If the art assets are there
Sure, and my point is that, as far as technology is concerned "are there" is a murky concept.
What if they "are there" and require decryption?
I suppose that, legally, what matters is whether a "reasonable person" would agree that they already "are there" or not. It probably comes down to can someone "easily" access them, given the right "simple" instructions. But, then we get into an argument of what constitutes "simple": going online and visiting a web site (which actually downloads the objectionable content, however much obfuscated), could be argued as "simple".
"But, I didn't 'download' the content... I hit the 'enable' button, not download."
The point is that "addition" can be made to look just like "enablement" with the right hackery, and that this can be done my a third party.
The closest analogy is a website that shows you how to turn the laser LED in a DVDROM into a "real burning visible laser!". Should the DVDROM manufacturer be liable if you blind someone because the "burning laser" was there all along? Granted the analogy isn't perfect because (a) the laser IS there, and (b) warnings are on the device. But, one can imaging a "safe" laser that, with the right instructions can be "overpowered" for short durations to similar effect.
The bottom line is that if I tell you how to turn someone else's product into something dangerous, regardless of how difficult (and, with software, we can make the difficult easy), that someone else may be found liable, while I hide behind "free speech".
Yes, I understand that.
But, technically there is no difference between a patch that inserts one, and a patch that enables one already there: "It was there all along, the right key just had to be used to decrypt it, in this case a BIG XOR with a one time pad."
How do you propose to tell the difference? The relative size of the patch? What if I encode the patch in a new uber-efficient codec? I'm sure that porn lends it self to efficient frequency analysis and compression because of it's, uh, rythmic and repetitive nature.
Actually my personal experience is with the harm my ex is doing to our children, a system that makes it difficult to help them, and simultaneously tries to hold me accountable for not getting them help.
But, the points are that (a) children will try to leave abuse if they see a safe haven, and (b) accept some inconvenience if they perceive an increase of safety and security.
My factual personal experience is that my daughter has run away from her mother, seeking shelter with me, but accepting it at a home for runaways as an alternative to being returned to her mother.
So, I argue that children who claim horrible abuse should be willing to accept some inconvenience while investigation ensues.
... you can find a G-rated MPEG2 of a movie distributed by NetFlix (ignore DRM for now) or some other source, and demonstrate a patch, which when applied to the movie file, inserts an X-Rated scene, you can sue the makers of the original movie, for making that possible?
SWEET!
If you whip out a gun and immediately blow the 8 year old away, I suspect you'd have a tough time defending your actions. If you launch a flying tackle at the kid and end up securing the situation with some damage done to the child, I think you'd be just fine as far as the law is concerned.
I think a flying tackle would be quite risky: the kid could fire off a shot or two. S/he might even manage to get a shot off if you "blow the 8 year old away", and kill some, initiated by your shot. Logically, if an opprortunity does not arise where the child can be disarmed safely, one should wait, and take the kid out if they start shooting.
But, one is likely to be arrested and charged if one harms the child. A jury might acquit, but one still has to mount a defense.
The problem is that we live in a "what about the children?" society where when any harm comes to a child, some punishment immediately falls on the shoulders of whoever did it, with an uphill battle to justify what they did, even if in extremis. This discourages acting rationally in extremis.
I've had police tell me of their difficulties because of the law when dealing with armed and very dangerous 8- and 9-year-olds.
Our community does not set a very good social example: infidelity is rampant, and single fathers are strongly stigmatized (as in: if I go to pick up my kids, and it is cold, and they are sent out by their mother with inadequate clothes (e.g. shirtless and barefoot), EVEN IF I am prepared at the ready with clothing, the MINUTE they step off her property onto the sidewalk and into my care, the police my ex has called in advance WILL arrest me for failing to have them adequately clothed. Yes, it's that bad. Most neighbors don't want the headaches of getting involved and turn a blind eye.
See, she's a "poor single mom, with inadequate support (maybe dad does not pay?)" so she has an excuse for their lack of clothing. I don't. ("You could have given her clothes in advance." (Of course I could! And have! Doesn't mean she will dress them, does it?)). As for support, she gets $900 a month in alimony, and over $1100 in child support from me. On top of that, I have been forced to either pay her mortgage ($1700/month) or face harm to my credit score (which is why I have a POS over the house).
Part of the problem is a strong belief that single dads are deadbeats and need to be punished for their former marital infidelity (real or imagined), so anything to puncture that myth in a particular instance is stymied.
However, I am getting help. I have a power of sale over my ex's house, and the flood of outsiders (realtors and potential buyers) is giving me the evidence I need to take further action to support my custody case, in court, in a much larger nearby city. The process is, however, glacially slow and exhorbitantly expensive.
But, in the mean time, I am the "ruthless Dad kicking his kids out on the street".
Further, my efforts to get copies of the growing DSHS file against my ex are being stymied. Countless people have filed complaints, but they do nothing, and the file is "private". So, I have to beg and plead for them to file affidavits and declarations through my lawyer. Some do, and some are very helpful, but they are a very very small minority. Every shred of evidence is hard come-by and precious. Most respond, "Well, I told DSHS. If they don't see a problem, there isn't one." The real nasty ones say, "Well, if your ex abuses your kids it must be because you drove her to it."
Sigh.
Fortunately, I am one hell of a damn stubborn patient fuck when I want to be, and I will fight for my kids forever.
As the GP, I take exception to that comment.
As "unpleasant" as a shelter might be, compared to the comforts of a normal home, it should come as a haven of safety and security to someone who is truly abused. Placing an abused child in a safe and secure environment is hardly punishment, though it would seem like it to one who is making a false allegation -- and rightly so!
But, there is no emergency, because, legally the child with a loaded gun is not doing anything wrong, because they can't tell right from wrong.
With my battles with my ex, I've had many encounters with police -- usually when she has me removed for trying to see my kids when I have visitation rights (We have joint legal custody and she has primary physical custody). I stay parked on the street outside the house, she threatens to call the police, I let her (to get evidence of her custodial interference), they arrive, they ask me to leave, and I comply. It's a damn ritual already. Several officers tell me that the most important thing I can do is not provide a single shred of evidence to suggest I am a threat to her. I can't raise my voice, raise my hands, have a skowl on my face, etc. In case of doubt, their policy is to arrest the man. They also advise that they have difficulty dealing with many children under the age of 10 who engage in dangerous (and would-be criminal except for their age) behavior, and can't interfere because of the law.
The system is designed around the premise that spurned ex-husbunds that are violent and vindictive. To support that, it is designed to frustrate a father's efforts. Some resort to anger and violence, thus backing up the original premise in a perverse self-fulfilling prophesy.
But, the important thing to note is what what would be normal punishment for misbehavior, is often not strictly legal, but ignored, when there is no other dispute in play -- rather like getting a ticket for talking on a non-handsfree cellphone only if you are also accused of another infraction. When there are other matters of dispute, the law, as inane as it can be at times, is applied very strictly.
Hmm. Wasn't it Mussollini who noted that if he could control the schools, he could control the state? Or, some such?
Yes, a parent can teach their child. But, when the state-run schools teach differently, one has an uphill battle on their hands.
Unpleasant is relative. I was thinking of an environment that was safe, and secure, though lacking the luxeries associated with a spoiled life (video games, DVDs, etc.)
When my daughter ran away from her mother on Mothers' Day (the previous year, I had to beg her to even take her kids for Mothers' Day, and help them purchase gifts, a cake, etc. at some of my own expense), I did the following: (1) call her mother to let her know she was safe, (2) give her dry clothes (it was raining and she was soaked) to change into, and (3) call the police to report her whereabouts.
An officer was dispatched, and surprisingly, did not turn her over to her mother, given my daughter's vehement protestations of fear. She was allowed to stay with me for the day, but could not stay indefinitely. Her mother was turned away, by police, from my front door. That evening, police again visited my, and my daughter's protestations continued. She could not stay with me -- that would be law enforcement playing the role of judge, but she could seek shelter for the night or return home. She requested shelter and was taken to a home for runaways. She asked that I accompany her to the door. The police officer permitted me to ride in the back of his cruiser. The back of a police cruiser is not a comfortable place. My daughter wanted to ride in the back with me instead of the relative comfort of the front pasenger seat, but this was not permitted. We both gave statements to the police. The next day, I returned with about $200 of newly purchased clothes for her (she arrived there in the clothes on her back) and some money if she wanted to purchase anything she didn't have and that I forgot (deoderant, toothpaste, toothbrush, "feminine" products, etc.). But, it was for naught: DHFS called the shelter and ordered her returned to her mother because there was no evidence of an immediate threat. And, so she was beaten for "running away".
Will some kids be too afraid to run from abuse? Perhaps, if they don't have at least one supportive parent. But, when they do, and are old enough to clearly express their wishes (my daughter is about to turn 15), understand the ramifications of what they are requesting, and are repeatedly ignored, there is something very fundementally broken.
As for custody battles, they usually center around the payment of child support. If my ex told me I could have my kids in exchange for continuing to pay her child support (to the tune of over $1100 a month), I'd pay the "blood money" in a heartbeat. Heck, I supply most of their food, clothing, sundries, activity fees, YMCA membership, cell phones, etc. over and above my "support" payment, anyway.
No shit, sherlock.
However, it is one thing to know of abuse, and quite another to have sufficient evidence to back up the allegation: what I see and report is tainted by the fact that I am presumed to not be an unbiased observer. I need others to witness this abuse. And, not just one (who I could have bribed, etc.)
I do my daughter no good sitting in jail for kidnapping and that's exactly what would happen if I removed her on my own initiative. If I had enough evidence to offer a strong defense (removing a child from danger is a defence against kidnapping), I would have enough evidence to mount a strong custody battle offence.
My daughter fears testifying in her own behalf because, as has been her experience, she thinks she will not be believed and sent right back for further retribution.
I used to think that, at the very least, I should report abuse that I witness. And, I used to do this. But, as a parent with non-physical custody, and joint legal custody, this is viewed as vindictive, and I have been advised by my attorney that it harms my case for future sole custody: I should be "helping" her mother "overcome her difficulties in parenting" rather than being a hostile opponent.
So, unless the odds are very good, a knee-jerk reaction is likely to put me into a position where I can be of far less future help to my daughter. Thus, I'm left in the heart-wrenching position of walking the fine line of letting her continue to be abused for the purpose of gathering proof that she is being abused.
I've recently got a power of sale over her mother's house (long legal explanation deleted, but rest assured that I have a home available 24x7x365.25 for both my kids), and that's gotten independent realtors in to see it. Their testimony about my ex-wife's behavior, and the living conditions (animal waste in bedrooms, etc.) is likely to be helpful, and they, too have a duty to report, and are not faced with the stigma of being a party with a vested interest.
In the mean time, I've made it clear to my daughter, that I can't help her any faster, unless she is willing to testify in her own behalf. She has made it clear that she fears retribution if she does and is not granted asylum from her mother. So, I do what I can, gathering as much evidence as I can, and always weighing whether "this time" it's worth it to not return her to her mother and risk a kidnapping charge.
Realise too, that recently in WA, a mother, previously jailed for killing one of her kids, after release, petitioned and got custody of a remaining child who was living with Dad. She killed that one too, in a year. Getting kids away from an abusive mother is an extremely difficult uphill battle here, if she does not relent. And, many parties have an interest, or bias, in not helping show that a mother is incompetent.
My ex-wife had her water turned off a while ago. I had to drop off bottled water so my kids would not go thirsty. but, can I get proof that she didn't pay her water bill? Nope. That's "private information". I can only get an attestation that it is turned on "now".
The bottom line is that I understand the argument to do "anything" for one's kids but sometimes the best long-term interest require considering whether a short-term action that will make one the subject of a "kidnapping manhunt" is a good idea.
Nope.
My daughter ran away from her mother, on Mother's day, because she was threatened with the business end of a corkscrew. She CHOSE to spend the day and subsequent night in a shelter rather than return to her. Stupid DSHS ordered her back there despite her pleadings to either live with me, or if she couldn't have that, return to the shelter.
Kids will run from real abuse.
In this case, you can't imagine how her mother beat her for her "transgression". Her calls to 911 don't help. Nothing helps.
You have know idea how much a post-divorce custody legal battle can cost: it takes time to mount the resources, and more evidence than you can believe. My daughter is old enouch to chose where she lives, but will any court listen to her? Nope.
No, it means that a child does not know what "abuse" is.
"Abuse" in the mind of a child is anything wrong. Not getting what they want is "wrong", ergo...
Remember, WA is a state where an 8 year old can threaten someone with a loaded firearm, and if they kill someone, they go scott free. But, if you relieve them of the weapon without anyone getting shot, but the kid suffers a bruise in the process, you have, by law, abused them (striking to leave a mark).
If the state has determined that a child under 10 can't form criminal intent, then it must also belive that a child under 10 can't distinguish between what is and isn't abuse. Sadly, that is not the case.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Slashdot Obit Troll was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
(Karma be damned)
In Washington State, the "inflexible rule of the universe" is "If mommy or daddy won't give you what you want, say you will call 911 and tell them that 'Daddy puts his pee pee in your poop hole.'"
Can you defend against a child molestation / sex offender charge?
Sometimes, I wish that the first thing that happens when a kid makes a charge like that, is they get placed in somewhat less than ideal foster care, and see if they recant. A child that is really being abused would still consider it better than abuse. Such a child should not get to stay with mommy while daddy goes off to jail to ponder his defense.
The circumstances should not themselves be abusive -- food, clothing, and shelter should all be available; but there should be little in the way of entertainment, or fun activities. IOW, if the charge is groundless, the child is placed in WORSE circumstances. If the charge is genuine, the circumstances would be a reprieve.
What part of pulled over to the side of the road, key out of the ignition and dropped out of the car (with a concealed spare, he he), constitutes driving?.
There is case law to back up that without a means of operating the vehicle (having the key in one's posession), one is not driving. (Drunk sleeping it off in his car parked on the shoulder, IIRC.)
In any case, it is not hard to conceal a camera that works automatically.
The big problem in many jurisdictions is recording sound. Often one can't make a sound recording without the permission of all parties recorded. It's not a matter of disclosing it, making it is the crime (a felony in some places like WA, IIRC, but IANAL).
Of course the laws are such that the police can make such recordings in certain investigations (generally related to drug deals), but individuals can't. I suppose one can argue that if the police can use particular evidence of a particular crime by an individual, an individual should have the same right regarding the same crime perpetrated by a police officer, but you'll spend a lot of money in legal fees arguing that (and since a drug deal is not the same as battery, even a favorable judgement, unless it is broad (i.e. audio recording of criminal activity) won't help you).
After hearing all the horrible stories about cable ISPs, I was very reluctant to go with TWC (Time Warner Cable) when I was working in San Diego. But, I was too far from any CO for decent DSL. And, a T1 at some $300+ a month was too expensive.
Turns out, TWC has a "business class" of service: 12 Mb/s down, 1.2 Mb/s up (and I routinely saw 15 down and 1.5 up), for $105 a month. Any reasonable number of static IPs you need (4 to 8 is considered reasonable -- I was happy with one); no traffic shaping shenanigans, no quotas, whatever servers I wanted to run (just SMTP, and SSH for me), etc.
I wonder if Comcast has a similar offering in greater Seattle. But, given their tricks, I'd be loath to use them, even if they did.
So, for now, I'm on a hokey WiMAX link. Sometimes, dialup would be faster.
Yup. I've often found it rude of people to talk so loud in their group that I can't hear the counterpart in mine (who happens to be on the other end of the phone). Yet, if my counterpart is with me, they are far more likely to quiet down if I ask.
I do wish there was a button on cell phones that one could press to send a pre-recorded message when answering -- sometimes I get an important call while in a theater, and want to take it. I could answer, and whisper "just a sec" but even that can be disturbing. I can answer and not say anything until I leave, but that is puzzling. Or, I could not answer, get the caller id, and call back (which is what I usually do), but that can be awkward.
On the manner of cell-phone etiquette, is it proper to carry on a conversation on a cell phone while in a restaurant where the background noise is such that it is almost disturbing your call?
Why shouldn't it be? Just because MY friend is remote, and YOUR friend is local, is no reason that we would not EACH be able to speak with them.
Yet, groups of people (where I'm external to the group) talking loudly often complain that I'm being "rude" for talking (quietly) on the phone.
What gives?
So, how did you get here?
I hitched a lift with a teaser.
A what?
A teaser. Spoiled rich kid with nothing better to do than to land on a planet no one's made contact with, in front of someone no one is going to believe, and strut up and down, making "beep beep" noises.
(With apologies to the late Douglas Adams, or rather thanks to him, and apologies to his rapacious publishing house.)