C-SPAN would have provided full, live coverage for the public to watch during proceedings.
C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 already provide full, live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of House and Senate floor action. The only "gotcha" is that the cameras are under the control of Congressional staff instead of C-SPAN.
Can you cite an instance when the House or Senate were actually conducting business on the floor and it wasn't broadcast live on C-SPAN?
As he obviously has presidential ambitions, I'm sure everything being done now is with a national stage in mind.
Yes, he'll announce.
But his Senate Office will not directly correspond with people residing outside Arizona other than sending a perfunctory "Thank you for your concerns. I have forwarded them to your state's Senators." response.
Sending feedback to his Senate Office is less than worthless unless you're a resident of Arizona. If you're not, his staff will likely follow the custom of forwarding your correspondence to your state's Senators.
You're really better off writing your senators about the measure yourself.
Since you're so good at quoting law, perhaps you'd like to quote the one where police officers are allowed to hand out arbitrary and excessive punishment for minor infractions.
1) I'm spending most of my time responding to retards (like you) who aren't convinced that an infraction occurred in the first place.
So in you mind the punishment for "being some where you are not supposed to be" is the tased 5 times yelled at and made to look like some kind of animal in front of your peers.
No, actually; that appears to be the punishment for "being a belligerent fuckwit who repeatedly refuses to submit to a lawful order after being asked by library staff to leave."
And feel free to come to my residence and refuse to leave because In Virgina I have a right to kill you
Again, I say that the university's library, being part of a state university, is public space (just like any city library would be) during its normal hours of operation. They chose to make this library's normal hours of operation to be 24 hours a day. "university policy" or not, it's still a public space being used in the proscribed manner and therefore the kid should never have to show any sort of ID in there for simply being there.
Except it ceases to be a "public space" after 11PM, becoming instead an "open to holders of valid UCLA ID only" space.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any California or Fedral public law or case law invalidating this restriction, but you're welcome to try. I'll wait.
It was a university library, a place he had paid money to attend.
And all he had to do to demonstrate that was display his ID to a library employee.
But instead he decided to be a jackass about it.
To compare his using the library to a stranger trespassing in your home is fatuous.
He was using the library during hours where use of the library is restricted to people who show a valid UCLA ID. Since he refused to produce his ID, he was asked to leave. When he belligerently refused to leave, UCPD was called.
It's kind of hard to be tresspassing on public property if you are in a common use area of the property unless it is after established hours of business.
UCPD officers became involved after they were asked for help by a community service officer - or CSO -- employed by the library. This is typically the next step in such a situation, since the UCPD officers and our CSOs - which number 123 and are mostly students -- work collaboratively and routinely without incident. A person identified after the incident as a student was repeatedly refusing to comply with the requirement that he show an ID in the library after 11 p.m.
Showing an ID after 11 p.m. is a longstanding university policy to ensure the safety of all students. It is so routine that many of the students place their IDs on the table next to them so as not to be disturbed.
The student was clearly told by both the community service officer and, subsequently, the UCPD that if he refused to show his ID, he would have to leave the library.
When he continued to refuse to do so, officers attempted to escort him out. At this point, the student went limp and, at the same time, encouraged other library patrons to join in his resistance.
These actions created an urgent situation in which the officers deemed it necessary to touch the student with a Taser that was set in its "drive stun" capacity in order to gain compliance. He was touched -- not "shot" -- with a Taser, which conveyed an electric current.
He was subsequently arrested for resisting or obstructing a police officer, a misdemeanor. He was released with a citation and issued a court date. The incident is under investigation, and our case will be presented to the City Attorney.
Not all the events Tuesday night can be heard or viewed on YouTube. Only a complete investigation will tell the whole story. I know we're all looking forward to learning exactly what occurred.
All use of force incidents require an administrative review of the officers' actions by the department, which is also underway.
While I am confident of our ability to perform a fair and thorough investigation, I am also cognizant of the need for a transparent review. Therefore, I have recommended to Chancellor Abrams that he appoint an independent investigator to look into the incident.
Police have the power of arrest, but it (a) doesn't justify anything more than reasonable force and (b) doesn't empower police officers to convict and sentence offenders.
So are you conceding the point that he wasn't entitled to be on the premises and that the police were well within their rights to remove him? They weren't convicting him; they were attempting to arrest him for trespass.
Maybe tasing him five times was excessive. Given, however, that he was acting belligerently before the officers showed up and continued the belligerence with them, I'm not so sure he was genuinely trying to leave peacefully when they tased him. From the second he was first asked for his ID, this jackass wanted to pick a political fight, plain and simple.
According to both University of California policy and state law, he had no inherent "right" to be where he was.
If you disagree, let me know where you live. I'll come over to your residence and refuse to leave.
Perhaps you forgot, but police don't convict people, only arrest them. Whether he would have been found guilty for trespassing in an area where he was allowed to be (he just didn't have his ID on him - "comrade, show us your papers or prepare to be tased!") is debatable, to say the least.
That's great. That "comrade" thing was real classy, too.
The only problem with your argument is that the library staff asked him for his ID. Upon his refusal to produce it, they asked him to leave. He became a trespasser prima facie the second he refused their request that he leave. It was at this point that UCPD was called and not before.
From California's definition of Trespass (California Penal Code, Section 602):
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested.
The library wasn't "open to the general public" when the complaint was made. I'm also pretty sure that the library has policies that allow the staff to eject jackasses like this guy. Absent any evidence--at the time--that he was entitled to be there, he was trespassing.
If I were a supervisor I can go home and say anything I want about my incompitent employees to my wife, kids, friends in the privacy of my own home. However, it is highly unethical to say the same things in the presence of other coworkers.
Actually, it's unethical if you tell your wife and kids, too.
You're just somewhat less likely to get fired for it.
I always thought of him as the sole founder of GNU and the FSF. Assuming I was wrong and this article has got it right, does anyone know who the other co-founders were?
EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.
That's because Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders have said repeatedly that they will caucus with the Democrats when it comes to organizing the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you cite an instance when the House or Senate were actually conducting business on the floor and it wasn't broadcast live on C-SPAN?
...maybe they could just pay them more.
Even a FedEx overnight envelope is not guaranteed to reach the office of a Member of Congress the day after it's sent.
But his Senate Office will not directly correspond with people residing outside Arizona other than sending a perfunctory "Thank you for your concerns. I have forwarded them to your state's Senators." response.
You're really better off writing your senators about the measure yourself.
Why, I think you're right! It's the 2008 Panderfest beginning!
2) I already said that it was "maybe excessive". I just don't feel one bit of empathy for the dipshit. He wanted to pick a fight with the authorities.
Yeah, you're wrong about that one, too.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any California or Fedral public law or case law invalidating this restriction, but you're welcome to try. I'll wait.
But instead he decided to be a jackass about it.
He was using the library during hours where use of the library is restricted to people who show a valid UCLA ID. Since he refused to produce his ID, he was asked to leave. When he belligerently refused to leave, UCPD was called.
Maybe tasing him five times was excessive. Given, however, that he was acting belligerently before the officers showed up and continued the belligerence with them, I'm not so sure he was genuinely trying to leave peacefully when they tased him. From the second he was first asked for his ID, this jackass wanted to pick a political fight, plain and simple.
According to both University of California policy and state law, he had no inherent "right" to be where he was.
If you disagree, let me know where you live. I'll come over to your residence and refuse to leave.
The only problem with your argument is that the library staff asked him for his ID. Upon his refusal to produce it, they asked him to leave. He became a trespasser prima facie the second he refused their request that he leave. It was at this point that UCPD was called and not before.
From California's definition of Trespass (California Penal Code, Section 602):
The library wasn't "open to the general public" when the complaint was made. I'm also pretty sure that the library has policies that allow the staff to eject jackasses like this guy. Absent any evidence--at the time--that he was entitled to be there, he was trespassing.
Equate criminal trespass to defying segregation! Surefire winner!
PATRIOTIC CITIZEN JOURNALISM BRINGS TO LIGHT STORY OF VALIANT CITIZEN EXERCISING RIGHT NOT TO SHOW ID
(Never mind that he was committing criminal trespass.)
That he was tased five times is just icing on the cake for these retards.
You're just somewhat less likely to get fired for it.