...I believe that having a small, limited government is good...
Try reading and understanding before posting. Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government". Just because he chose not to inflict upon us his particular reasons for desiring small government does not mean that you may assume there are none.
Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us. Better that people figure out not to kill and rape and steal based on common sense than because a man in a funny hat says the invisible man forbids it. I have nothing against invisible men nor people who believe in them; I simply do not trust the men in funny hats.
I always wondered how that verse got started given that at the time of its "recital" there would have been about 5 Muslims. Islam allows conversion, and convincing people that they are filthy beasts unless they convert and conform to God's will is traditionally how religion works.
That's the one thing I like about Scientologists: their mythology is so entertaining. Ja, but it's not really entertaining.... just amusing. Really, it's typical third-rate juvenile science fiction, much like you would find in 50's back issues of Amazing Stories. If you actual sit down and try to read any of L.Ron Hubbard's work (e.g. Battlefield Earth), you are struck with the sheer talentlessness of the man. No wonder he ended up using his only true skill (salesmanship) to make his fortune. He certainly was no writer.
That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not? The way I see it, absurd mythology invented by bronze age children surviving into the present day due to the inertia of tradition is religion. Absurd mythology invented 50-odd years ago by a greedy asshole third-rate science fiction writer and compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur in order to enrich himself and elevate him to the position of "prophet", well, in my eyes that's fraud. Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions. Scientology was not.
The business can if they want... force you to sign a contract consenting to search and detainment before being allowed back in
any of the company's stores. You know, if you do not consent to search or detainment after signing such a contract, all they have on you is breach of contract. They may not hold you there unless they see you commit a crime, regardless of which contracts you may have breached. There is a distinct separation between civil and criminal law...
When it comes to Circuit City, they must have been genuinely suspicious to ask to search and I can understand that Their suspicion was based solely on his refusal to submit to a voluntary search. Whether such suspicion is "genuine" or not is totally irrelevant. If they did not suspect him of theft, then it's basic fucking common law that forbids them from detaining him. Them being genuine idiots does not give them the right to false imprisonment.
For a membership store, I'd be shocked if anything happened to the customer beyond merely canceling the membership. For that matter, I'd be shocked if even that happened. In theory, I suppose they could go through their security video, find out which register you checked out at at what time, then check their sales records to figure out who the heck you are, but more likely than not the guy at the door will never know your ID beyond "that dude in the tan shirt who walked out". It's within their rights to cancel membership for breach of contract, but I for one keep my membership card in my wallet, not around my neck where the door monkey can see it and ID me as I leave.
The cop does have a right to ask for ID. Just as does the bartender to ask for your ID to serve you beer. I can understand how he impeded the investigation by not giving him the ID because of any information on the ID had to be written down on the report. However, the cop should have asked for his address and birthdate instead of the ID, but that's where the info was, the ID... The cop only has the right, by Ohio law, to get his name, address, and birth date. The form in which this is to be communicated is not codified in the law, and as it is not codified, the officer may not specify. Otherwise, he could just as easily demand said info written on the back of a naked picture of your mother, then arrest you for impeding him when you refused to comply. No, the officer was permitted only to demand those three pieces of information--- communicated verbally, on a driver's license, or scrawled on a piece of plywood with a chocolate bar, however the subject chooses--- and nothing more.
I can understand your resistance to the police officer, it was totally uncalled for of him to ask for your license in this situation, but I'm afraid I still don't understand why you didn't show the store recipt, I just don't see the violation. That said, the managers' response was silly and the demands of the police officer were clearly excessive, so I do wish you luck in your fight. You know, you're replying to a reprint of the article by a random slashdot poster, not the writer of the article itself. No sense addressing the writer. He's not here.
Well, that's great! Stores have the right to ask for your receipt, but you don't have to show it. Kind of an empty right, but whatever. A determined thief could then just take whatever he wanted and walk out of the store and there's nothing they can do. They can't detain him or stop him. If they touch him at all, they're violating his inalienable rights.
Any thoughts on how to keep goods from leaving the store unauthorized, without violating someone's rights? You're either being intentionally obtuse, or you are an idiot. Store operators have the right to detain persons they have reasonable suspicion of committing theft of their property. We aren't talking about that, though. We are talking about how the door monkey demands exiting customers show receipts, with no reasonable suspicion that they have stolen anything. But I guess you can't even be bothered to read the comments to understand the terms of the debate, so I will spell them out for you: In the absence of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person, detaining them is false imprisonment. This is common law here, being essentially the same in all english speaking countries for the last 400+ years, not some esoteric local ordinance.
I'm no lawyer, but couldn't you spin the request to see the license as the officer trying to get his name, address and birthday off of the license? No. The LEO does not get to decide in what format this information comes. If the law does not specify, then any means of conveying that information is legitimate. Otherwise, you could be arrested for (say) not providing your name and address on the back of a naked picture of yourself because the officer demanded it in that form.
Depends upon the local and state laws. In general, many municipalities, and some states, have passed laws which grant shopkeepers certain rights to detain and search customers, when they reasonably suspect that a theft has taken place.
Cities have? Why? All 50 states already have completely effective laws against theft that permit shopkeepers to do exactly what you describe. This is pretty basic law. Citizens arrest rules generally allow the detaining of a person under reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. There's nothing particularly remarkable about theft laws. Of course, the flaw in your argument is that detaining every person who exits the store clearly doesn't pass the "reasonable suspicion" test. No, forcibly stopping people to check receipts is actually false imprisonment. Really, none of this is particularly esoteric. This is age-old common law stuff.
I just had a couple of thoughts on the right of a store to look through your purchases.
1. Since they do not (explicitly) charge you for the bags they put your items in can they claim they are actually searching their bags?
2. When leaving a store with a cart owned by the store, do they have a right to search the contents of their cart?
Anyone have any legal insight? Despite how we hear about criminals getting off on "legal technicalities", for the most part, the law is based on common sense and no judge would ever allow such a defense as either of the above. It is assumed, based upon common sense (i.e. what a reasonable and prudent person would believe), that the bags are given to you because 1) they are inexpensive to the point of worthlessness, and 2) they never ask for them back. Likewise, in terms of common sense regarding the carts, the store has the right to demand you relinquish possession of the cart they lent you, but this lending gives them only the right to demand return of the cart. It does not give them the right to detain you or search your belongings.
I can easily see a laywer arguing that the practice is simalar to checking bags on the way into a baseball game And I can just as easily see the judge laughing his ass off at that lawyer. There's a distinct difference between barring entry (legal, property right), and barring exit (illegal, false imprisonment).
This isn't to imply that they *should* be doing this, it is just to ask if it is actually legal for them to do so. It isn't.
But is it legal in all 50 United States? My gut says yes. Your gut is incorrect. False imprisonment is illegal in all 50 states, just like assault, rape, and murder are. This is not some esoteric part of the law. This is basic stuff. They can prevent you from entering, they can prevent you from leaving with their property, but they cannot prevent you from leaving with your property. Once you have paid, the item is your property, end of story.
The can certainly make "agree to present receipt upon exiting the store" a precondition of sale, but as far as I know, they don't actually post anything about that anywhere, let alone getting your express permission. They could make "agree to take a whack on the head with a bat upon exiting the store" a precondition of sale, but they'd still go to jail for assault. Once you have paid for an item, it's yours. The transaction is complete and your business relationship is concluded. They have no right to detain you no matter what bullshit policy they may have. The laws regarding basic commerce are very old, and very well established.
A "club" on the other hand (like Sam's, Costco, or whatever) where you are a member and have a membership agreement *can* require it, as they'll have that permission written into the membership agreement, which you accepted as a condition of shopping there. No, they cannot strip you of your right to leave their premises with your property, no matter what the membership contract may say. They may bar you from entering, and they may place you under citizen's arrest for attempting to leave their premises with property you have not paid for; but under no circumstances can they require you to undergo any sort of mandatory "property check" after the exchange of money for goods.
What shocks me is that the cop instantly took Circuit City's side without even bothering to figure out if there was any reason he SHOULD.
I'm not sure what that says about the cop but that was his fatal mistake and I suspect it's going to be a very, very expensive one. Why are you surprised that a police officer is ignorant of the law? Seriously, being a cop is not a particularly intellectual job. It does not generally attract deep thinkers or legal scholars. It's a job where you drive around all day in a car looking for trouble. Not to say that there aren't some cops who are bright sparks who are on the ball, but you cannot deny that there is a significant portion of any "street level" law enforcement agency that is made up of very average schmoes who were attracted by the badge, gun, and power to boss folks around. It becomes painfully obvious when you watch the "true crime" shows on A&E. Homicide investigators drag in the murderer and question him, and come to one of two conclusions: a) his story is "weak", which makes them suspicious; or b) his story is "too good", which makes them suspicious! Makes you wonder how many times they haul in people who didn't do it, but came to the same conclusion based on either rationale a) or b).
No, it's not surprising at all that a cop could be that thick-headedly ignorant of the law. They aren't lawyers. They aren't judges. They're the thugs with the big sticks that make sure the tribe does what the chief decrees.
That implies Godlike intelligence and ominicience instead of intelligence agencies where those who could easily get jobs in private enterprise have left in disgust since the political appointees are the only ones that will get to the top. People might pretend they intended to make a mistake after the fact to cover the mistake but that's as far as it goes. If we are heading towards a dark future it won't be 1984 (AKA 1920's USSR) - it will be more like Terry Gilliams movie "Brazil" - a totalitarian state that keeps getting the details wrong. As a veteran who served as an intelligence analyst with the US Army, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with your assessment 100%.
You'll find most gays in the Army. You'll find the fewest in the Navy. I served for several years as well. I was in the Army, but working in intelligence, I had contact with all the services. I wouldn't call the above an accurate assessment. Navy and Army were "baseline gay", from my experience, with what appeared to me to be the closest to civilian mix of gay:straight. The Army may edge out the Navy when you look at the "meat pancake" soldiers, like Rangers, for reasons I'll explain later (see USMC, below). I met somewhat more "self-openly" gay men who were in the Air Force, and a somewhat larger fraction of them than in the Army or Navy. But the Marine Corps? I swear, the Corps must be close to 30% closeted gay men. All the most rabid homophobic nutcases I've met were Marines, and you know anyone who gets that worked up about homosexuality has to have some personal stake in it. Really, it's not that hard to understand. If some percentage of kids are gay and grow up in creepy conservative places, then a certain number of them will come to an "obvious" conclusion: joining the military will "make a real man of me" and drive the fag-ness out. If you're thinking like that do you join the Navy? Hell no! Air Force? Hell no, those cream puffs don't fight unless they're pilots. Army, eh.... maybe, if you can get into a real he-man branch like infantry and go for Ranger training. No, the other three are all wishy washy. If you want to be a big tough boneheaded manly man, you go straight for the US Marine Corps.
Of course, then you find out that "gayness" isn't something you can "drive out", it's just something you are. Then you become a jackass self-hating prick with a special chip on your shoulder about fags. Man, I tell ya' the USMC is rife with them.
Note that the national health insurnace system that is availible to 'all' Canadians regardless of their financial resources, paid for the entire trip and survices. It's very convenient that the Canadian system has a "backup" for its inadequacies so close by. How would they deal with the same situation if the US had a similar system that was also incapable of handling its own needs, much less the "overflow" from Canada? Send her to Thailand to deliver her quads? Cuba? Iceland? No, having to send people to the US for certain procedures is a failure of the system. It demonstrates that the system is inadequate, as it depends on a thriving market-based (sort of) health care system in another country in order to buy the care it cannot provide.
there are good arguments for universal health care, and good arguments against it I dunno... The closest I've seen to a good argument for universal health care is from a bitter libertarian friend of mine who says "they're taking all this &%@#!ing money from me, so maybe I should at least not have to be paying $300/mo for health insurance!" No matter how you slice it, universal health care is a lot of money to take away from all of us at gunpoint in order to provide to all what should be a matter of personal responsibility. But hey, I'm a libertarian...
Yes, I do. The quesiton is do you? The only none corrupt politician is the one that was not a politician.
In particular, we no longer have the Washingtons, Lincolns, and JFKs who desired to do what is right For and By America. Washington, I'll grant you. He was (ahem) a simple man who only accepted the job because it needed to be filled by someone people could stand behind nearly unanimously. He was a true Cincinnatus of his day. He was definitely not much of a politician.
Lincoln? A great man in a tough time, sure; but his record on civil rights has been whitewashed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. With his suspension of habeas corpus, and imprisonment of suspected Confederates without trial (Gitmo, anyone?), I daresay many here would be beating the impeachment drum had they been around then.
JFK? Please. The man's "virtue" was that he was young, good looking, and was assassinated before his bumbling ineptitude could come to light and hurt his reputation. Bay of Pigs? Cuban missile crisis? The freakin' Viet Nam war? Gimme a break. The guy was a typical politician. He just got martyred. All his "great speeches" are nothing but pile of platitudes. I recently watched From the Earth to the Moon, and every episode opened with a clip of the famous Kennedy speech:
"...we choose to go to the moon and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"
After you hear it for the eighth time, you realize what a horrible load of badly written meaningless crap it was. Like all his speeches were. What great things did he do?
Carter and Poppa Bush were the last 2 that did what Amerca needed, and were voted out of office. I'm not sure what you mean by Bush41--- his tax raising maybe?--- but you're completely off your nut with Carter. Carter was a bumbling fool. He did a lot of stupid "deckchair rearranging" with his micromanaging of government buildings' thermostats and decrees that christmas lights should be turned off at the white house, but he never acted like a dang leader. He called the country depressed with his infamous "malaise" speech! He banned breeder reactors as an empty gesture towards non-proliferation, knowing full well as a nuclear engineer that fuel reprocessing breeder reactors do not make weapons grade plutonium. He handed off the Panama canal to a dictatorial government with no requirement for them to hold free elections--- he just "urged" dictator Torrijos to move the country towards republicanism (he didn't). It wasn't until '89, when Bush41 booted Noriega, that Panama had a real popularly selected government. Carter was a wishy-washy ass of a president. A good man, sure, with an honest wish to do right; but totally out of his depth as president.
I'm pretty ignorant of what all notaries do, but it seems that notaries offer a timestamping service of sorts Notaries only verify that the person signing has the proper legal documents to identify themselves as the person whose name is being signed. Notaries only notarize signatures on documents like contracts, bills of sale, etc. where a signature is customarily affixed to indicate agreement to the terms thereon. They obviously will not notarize a blank piece of paper with a signature, nor anything else of the sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course he did: Try reading and understanding before posting.
Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government". Just because he chose not to inflict upon us his particular reasons for desiring small government does not mean that you may assume there are none.
Try pulling your head out.
You first, troll.
Any thoughts on how to keep goods from leaving the store unauthorized, without violating someone's rights? You're either being intentionally obtuse, or you are an idiot. Store operators have the right to detain persons they have reasonable suspicion of committing theft of their property. We aren't talking about that, though. We are talking about how the door monkey demands exiting customers show receipts, with no reasonable suspicion that they have stolen anything. But I guess you can't even be bothered to read the comments to understand the terms of the debate, so I will spell them out for you: In the absence of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by that person, detaining them is false imprisonment. This is common law here, being essentially the same in all english speaking countries for the last 400+ years, not some esoteric local ordinance.
Depends upon the local and state laws. In general, many municipalities, and some states, have passed laws which grant shopkeepers certain rights to detain and search customers, when they reasonably suspect that a theft has taken place.
Cities have? Why? All 50 states already have completely effective laws against theft that permit shopkeepers to do exactly what you describe. This is pretty basic law. Citizens arrest rules generally allow the detaining of a person under reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. There's nothing particularly remarkable about theft laws. Of course, the flaw in your argument is that detaining every person who exits the store clearly doesn't pass the "reasonable suspicion" test. No, forcibly stopping people to check receipts is actually false imprisonment. Really, none of this is particularly esoteric. This is age-old common law stuff.1. Since they do not (explicitly) charge you for the bags they put your items in can they claim they are actually searching their bags?
2. When leaving a store with a cart owned by the store, do they have a right to search the contents of their cart?
Anyone have any legal insight? Despite how we hear about criminals getting off on "legal technicalities", for the most part, the law is based on common sense and no judge would ever allow such a defense as either of the above. It is assumed, based upon common sense (i.e. what a reasonable and prudent person would believe), that the bags are given to you because 1) they are inexpensive to the point of worthlessness, and 2) they never ask for them back. Likewise, in terms of common sense regarding the carts, the store has the right to demand you relinquish possession of the cart they lent you, but this lending gives them only the right to demand return of the cart. It does not give them the right to detain you or search your belongings.
I'm not sure what that says about the cop but that was his fatal mistake and I suspect it's going to be a very, very expensive one. Why are you surprised that a police officer is ignorant of the law? Seriously, being a cop is not a particularly intellectual job. It does not generally attract deep thinkers or legal scholars. It's a job where you drive around all day in a car looking for trouble. Not to say that there aren't some cops who are bright sparks who are on the ball, but you cannot deny that there is a significant portion of any "street level" law enforcement agency that is made up of very average schmoes who were attracted by the badge, gun, and power to boss folks around. It becomes painfully obvious when you watch the "true crime" shows on A&E. Homicide investigators drag in the murderer and question him, and come to one of two conclusions: a) his story is "weak", which makes them suspicious; or b) his story is "too good", which makes them suspicious! Makes you wonder how many times they haul in people who didn't do it, but came to the same conclusion based on either rationale a) or b).
No, it's not surprising at all that a cop could be that thick-headedly ignorant of the law. They aren't lawyers. They aren't judges. They're the thugs with the big sticks that make sure the tribe does what the chief decrees.
Of course, then you find out that "gayness" isn't something you can "drive out", it's just something you are. Then you become a jackass self-hating prick with a special chip on your shoulder about fags. Man, I tell ya' the USMC is rife with them.
Just out of curiosity, could you give me some pointers to those documents?
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Very straight-up analysis of the lack of factuality of Bowling for Columbine.In particular, we no longer have the Washingtons, Lincolns, and JFKs who desired to do what is right For and By America. Washington, I'll grant you. He was (ahem) a simple man who only accepted the job because it needed to be filled by someone people could stand behind nearly unanimously. He was a true Cincinnatus of his day. He was definitely not much of a politician.
Lincoln? A great man in a tough time, sure; but his record on civil rights has been whitewashed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. With his suspension of habeas corpus, and imprisonment of suspected Confederates without trial (Gitmo, anyone?), I daresay many here would be beating the impeachment drum had they been around then.
JFK? Please. The man's "virtue" was that he was young, good looking, and was assassinated before his bumbling ineptitude could come to light and hurt his reputation. Bay of Pigs? Cuban missile crisis? The freakin' Viet Nam war? Gimme a break. The guy was a typical politician. He just got martyred. All his "great speeches" are nothing but pile of platitudes. I recently watched From the Earth to the Moon, and every episode opened with a clip of the famous Kennedy speech:
"...we choose to go to the moon and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"
After you hear it for the eighth time, you realize what a horrible load of badly written meaningless crap it was. Like all his speeches were. What great things did he do?
Carter and Poppa Bush were the last 2 that did what Amerca needed, and were voted out of office. I'm not sure what you mean by Bush41--- his tax raising maybe?--- but you're completely off your nut with Carter. Carter was a bumbling fool. He did a lot of stupid "deckchair rearranging" with his micromanaging of government buildings' thermostats and decrees that christmas lights should be turned off at the white house, but he never acted like a dang leader. He called the country depressed with his infamous "malaise" speech! He banned breeder reactors as an empty gesture towards non-proliferation, knowing full well as a nuclear engineer that fuel reprocessing breeder reactors do not make weapons grade plutonium. He handed off the Panama canal to a dictatorial government with no requirement for them to hold free elections--- he just "urged" dictator Torrijos to move the country towards republicanism (he didn't). It wasn't until '89, when Bush41 booted Noriega, that Panama had a real popularly selected government. Carter was a wishy-washy ass of a president. A good man, sure, with an honest wish to do right; but totally out of his depth as president.