I have refrained from listing sources because you would lose any such comparison.
I've had formal instruction on this topic, I've had informal off the record verbal only instruction on this topic from formal instructors, I've had numerous casual discussion on the dangers of the us-vs-them mentality with family and friends in law enforcement. It is especially bad when one works corrections, some departments send new hires on such a temporary tour. I've seen people cautioned about this ahead of time, I've seen them called out by family/friends when later displaying such an attitude. I've seen people take extra tours in corrections for seniority based training reasons and decide to transfer out to patrol when they recognized such an attitude developing, feeling a need to interact with the general public more.
Developing such an attitude towards the public is considered bad and is not encouraged. Don't confuse such an attitude with being cautious and suspicious of a civilian under certain circumstances. Also don't confuse such an attitude with the trust you will show a stranger merely because they are in uniform. Its not the same as viewing those not in uniform as the "enemy".
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating." https://news.google.com/newspa...
Just in case that comment is taken as hyperbole, the video of Walter Scott's shooting was released only BECAUSE of police corruption. The officer lied, and the department backed him.
If there was no evidence of wrongdoing then backing their officer and initially giving him the benefit of the doubt is not corruption. Corruption would be a failure to properly investigate the shooting (takes days) or to hide/destroy/manufacture evidence. If the taser was found near the victim and if there were no witnesses other than the officer what should the department have done?
You could make an argument that any department should not investigate itself but that is an issue for politicians. As the laws currently stand that's a department's responsibility. It should be noted that once evidence of wrongdoing came to light the department did call in another agency. Given current laws there was nothing inherently corrupt about doing the investigation themselves until that point.
In fact, police on the US are trained to believe that they,themselves, are a superior race. The racism is cop vs non-cop, not black vs white. Seriously, if you personally know any cops it becomes quite clear.
You are wrong, you misunderstand. They are not trained that way. Some develop an attitude of I can't trust anyone not in uniform through repeated exposure to the worst of civilian society. That is something very different from what you claim. They are warned of indulging is such beliefs.
The fact is a certain amount of paranoia towards ordinary civilians is entirely justifiable. For example domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous. One reason for this is that the person you are there to rescue is somewhat likely to turn on you and attack you. The person in need of rescue just wanted you to talk to or threaten their abuser, when the handcuffs come out and you are to arrest the abuser that is when your partner should have moved into a position where he/she can clearly observe both the victim and the abuser and be ready for either to attack.
Another classic danger is the ordinary traffic stop. Yeah, the cop saw only a minor infraction but sometimes the guy behind the wheel is actually an armed fleeing violent felon. An officer in the sheriff's department I worked for at one time took 3 rounds in the chest when walking up to a car one night. Fortunately the suspect continued his flight while the officer crawled back to his car and radioed for help before passing out. Getting hit in body armor is not like the movies. The officer was hospitalized for days and had bruises the size of softballs at the points of impact.
Officers are in fact trained and reminded not to develop an us-vs-them (uniform vs non-uniform) attitude. Some unfortunately do, many do not.
All of those examples are murder. You, and the police, are only permitted to use lethal force if you are in immediate danger. Or against an intruder in your own home, in some states. Not saying those cases wouldn't be morally justifiable, but they are definitely not allowed.
For an odd reason I had a minor amount of law enforcement training in California in the 90s. I wasn't to be carrying a weapon but the classes I took included those designed for law enforcement officers who would be. The use of force including deadly force was covered. To summarize, in liberal left wing California, it is (was in the 90s) perfectly legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon, even unarmed, if there was a reasonable and immediate and likely threat of death or severe bodily injury to others. Note immediate is different than imminent. An imminent threat can end when someone turns their back, an immediate threat does not.
Its an extreme example and is not an example of the level of threat necessary but the Boston bombing is a clear example. Unarmed and fleeing the suspect identified as the bomber could be fired upon.
That said, except in the most extreme cases it is still a judgment call and a very risky thing for an officer to do even when seemingly legal given circumstances. There will be no shortage of armchair warriors to second guess the officer.
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
Certainly it was NOT warranted in this case given the victim's background and the given circumstances.
However it is legal and justifiable when the person is a fleeing violent felon and there is an immediate and likely threat of death or severe bodily injury to others. Again, that was NOT the situation for this victim, but your absolute claim of "nothing" is entirely mistaken. Consider the Boston bomber, after the bombing, after shooting the cop, if he had been unarmed and attempting to flee shooting him would have been entirely justifiable and legal. Now that is an extreme example from the other end of the spectrum but it should make the point.
a classic case of someone who should have probably stayed in academia. Our target environment was constrained in terms of CPU and RAM but he could not write code for such an environment
He wouldn't be good there either. If he can't understand limited resources, he won't be able to help other programmers understand it. If you can't apply knowledge, you're only as good as a search engine. Access to knowledge is trivial in this age.
I don't know. I think academia is an area where one can stick with what one knows. One professor of mine was a well regarded computer vision researcher. He wrote his computer vision code in LISP back when he was a grad student. Decades later he was still using LISP.
In that case you might as well go to the University of Wooloomooloo
Not true. Stanford is highly selective. Only the best of the best get in. So a Stanford degree shows a potential employer that you passed that admissions filter. What you actually learned while you were there is much less important.
For a small project I was paired with a UC Berkeley grad, 4.0 GPA even according to the project manager. The project manager was so f'n thrilled to have this guy on board. He was a nice guy and all but wow, a classic case of someone who should have probably stayed in academia. Our target environment was constrained in terms of CPU and RAM but he could not write code for such an environment. His head was just stuck in his school environment of a big expensive fast box with lots of RAM plus sizable VM.
Some people are great at regurgitating back what they are told and shown but ask them to solve a new and different problem and they are lost. Some of these people are able to get exceptionally good grades. Perhaps that is the problem, they are merely learning to take the test?
That said, can an elite school produce an elite programmer, certainly, however so can a more ordinary school. Like most things one gets out of a university what one puts into it. Its mostly about the effort the student made. Elite schools produce mediocre programmers too.
If it's that clear cut, why all the uproar about Obama's birth certificate?
Politics. The same reason there is confusion over the 2nd amendment and various other parts of the constitution. Some politicians actively engage in deceit and manipulation. Things are clear when you do your own research rather than take some politicians word on things. Look at Harry Reid's admitted lies about Romney. Its just FUD. They all do it. Every minute a candidate has to spend correcting some batshit crazy thing the media clings to is a win for the opponent. And the media clings to this batshit crazy stuff coming that only a some small fringe believes because its good for rating, i.e. translates into money for them. So there is this "benevolent circle" where politicians make shit up and the media runs with it. Don't confuse air time devoted to a topic with its acceptance by the public, they are not related. Its a kind of "reality" TV, people watch it for the "crazy" not because they think its real.
To understand her position you need to understand where she's coming from. She's probably one of the few politicians to have seen gun violence first hand. She was there when the SF Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated. She grabbed Harvey Milk's wrist to check for a pulse and her finger entered one of Milk's bullet wounds and was badly shaken by the event.
Basing laws on the irrational emotional reactions of a PTSD sufferer is probably not the best way to go. And it certainly is no excuse for betrayal of the constitution and the deception and manipulation of voters.
It also includes people who were born in places that have since become part of the US. Otherwise no one would have been eligible to be the first president.
Not quite. I think they said you had to either be (1) a natural born citizen or (2) a citizen at the time of the signing of the US Constitution. Only (1) is still relevant, well, at least until an immortal is discovered.
I don't think foreign land becoming US land ever counted. For example those born in Texas prior to statehood would have needed a US parent.
You have to be a "natural-born citizen", but no-one really knows what that means.
Not true, "natural-born citizen" is well understood. It means that you were a citizen of the United States of America at the time of your birth. There are various ways of being so born. Being born in the US is one. Being born to a US parent is another. So whether you are born in Canada, Mexico, Panama or Kenya does not matter so long as you have one or more US parents. Its really not that complicated at all.
The Anarchist Cookbook is not a threat. It is complete crap. Its author eventually admitted he was clueless and didn't know what he was doing. Just an idiot mashing up incomplete and sometimes erroneous info. In other words a typical 60s radical.
Leave the Anarchist Cookbook alone, it is a far greater hazard to anyone trying to use its instructions than to the public. Let Darwin have his way.
Given her predilection to ignore the bill of rights with respect to the 2nd amendment, why is anyone surprised when she also does so with the 1st amendment?
Or more generally, why is anyone surprised when a member of Congress is willing to ignore one right when it inconveniently runs counter to their political ideals, and then later does so with another right? Either a politician supports Constitutional rights or the don't, and when they don't what they allow you to keep is simply a happy coincidence. Until they change their mind, or are replaced with someone of more extreme or different political ideals who shows similar disregard for our rights.
The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response. After a quick search, I found no such law.
Well he is a US Senator. So the lack of a law should not be too much of a problem since he is one of the very very few people in the country that can write and submit a new law to the US Congress.
I swear to god the shills on this website...this has nothing to do with the code.
Actually this thread is really about the code. Re-read and note: "The EFF... asked for an exemption to be put in place so car owners would be free to inspect and modify the code running on their vehicles."
Car companies want to stop independent mechanics using software than bypasses the manufacturers electronic locks.
Yes, that is also true. However that does not negate the reality that the EFF wants people to be able to MODIFY code. That is something FAR beyond simply getting the error codes and diagnostic data that would allow non-dealership mechanics to work on the car. Its a related but quite separate issue.
If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted.
This is incorrect.
Absent a riot where deadly force is permitted to defend a home or suppress the riot, an imminent threat to a person is absolutely required, and in the case of an escaping violent felon the threat to the life of others must be quite realistic and likely and not merely possible.
Note the California Castle Doctrine...
You are confusing castle doctrine with a stand-your ground-defense. Although related, they are different things.
Yes, that was my point in an earlier post, perhaps in a different subthread.:-)
My statement, which you quoted, was regarding the stand-your-ground defense, which extends outside a residence.
The rules change outside your home.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.” http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/...
Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.
Injury to a fleeing attacker may or may not be evidence to the contrary. The simply act of fleeing doesn't remove the imminent threat standard. Some scenarios: 1) The attacker is shooting at you while fleeing.
Now you are getting into Clintonian word games. Of course a weapon still being pointed at you trumps attempting to flee. A weapon so pointed constitutes a reasonable imminent threat.
2) The attacker could harm others while fleeing.
No not "could", not merely the possibility of a future threat to life. The danger to the lives of others has to be reasonable and realistic and likely in the case of a fleeing violent felon.
3) If you have a reasonable belief the attacker could immediately return after fleeing from you.
No, deadly force is not legal in such a circumstance as the threat is a possible future threat not an imminent threat.
You can pursue and use necessary and reasonable force to detain such a fleeing attacker but deadly force is not one of your options until we get into situations like in (1) and (2) where the threat once again becomes tangible not merely possible.
In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists.
This is absolute BS. A friend of mine and I were once held up at gunpoint, until I realized the gun was just a toy. I grabbed the guy and proceeded to beat the shit out of him. In a moment of distraction by my friend and the other would-be mugger, the guy I beat up fled and I chased him several blocks before I caught him and stomped him into the ground again, despite his pleas that I stop.
The second guy that my friend was dealing with also fled and my friend called the police. When they arrived, we told them everything that had happened and they applauded us for our courage, for standing up for ourselves and for me chasing down and beating the one guy so badly that they were able to nab him easily. Both perps turned out to be known and wanted criminals. One of the cops took me aside and said verbatim "We need more people like you around".
Had my pursuit been illegal, I'd have likely been given at least a warning, but instead received admiration and praise from the responding police officers. This happened in California.
For odd reasons I had to take a law enforcement class that all California Peace Officers are required to take. It covers the the legal use of force among other things. Your pursuit was not illegal. Your stomping him after he pleaded you to stop was. When the person surrenders the imminent threat is legally gone and and the doctrine of reasonable force dictates that you only may use the force necessary to restrain. You can hold him down but that's about it. Your actions were as absolutely illegal. You were lucky the police on the scene ignored your final actions.
If after surrendering and continuing to be attacked the robber could have kicked your ass and his lawyer would have been able to successfully claim self defense for that particular action. Obviously he would still be guilty for everything that preceded it.
The robber could have also prevailed in a civil lawsuit against you. You could have lost far more in such a suit than was at stake in the robbery.
Wrong. Their contract can say anything that it wants, but by law you cannot sign away your right to not be searched wholesale.
You absolutely can. There can be a contractual obligation to have your bags, pack, briefcase, etc searched on entry and exit. Happens all the time. There can be a contractual obligation to have the merchandise and receipt checked. Restricting rights and creating obligations is what contracts are about. If one party breaches, such as failure to have the shopping cart's merchandise inspected, then the other party is no longer obligated to provide fulfillment such as let the merchandise leave the store.
And no, they cannot prevent you from leaving the store ever.
I didn't say you, I said the merchandise.
If they truly suspect you have stolen, they can call the police and have them deal with it,...
That is not the scenario being discussed.
If a store employee tries to physically prevent you from leaving the store, they are vigilantes who are breaking the law and it can be legitimately construed by you as assault and/or a hostage situation and you have every right to inflict harm on them in order to preserve your own safety.
Wrong. Various states permit citizens arrest, and further allow the use of reasonable and necessary force. In California a sworn peace officer is required to recognize a citizens arrest, it can not be ignored. The officer must accept the person in "custody". After accepting the person into such "custody" the officer may use their discretion and immediately "release" them. However the law is clear, citizens arrests are legal and must be recognized by sworn peace officers. In fact they are at times absolutely necessary. For misdemeanors the offense must be witnessed by the officer in order for them to make the arrest, letting the witnessing citizen make the arrest and turn the person over to the officer removes the problem of a "stale misdemeanor".
I suggest you go read up on law, because you haven't got a clue.
I do for California. For an odd reason I actually had to take the required law enforcement class that covers powers of arrest, use of force, etc.
In California, not only can you stay and fight, you can also chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life. California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. 1) Aggressors are not eligible, you must be defending, not striking first.
In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists. Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.
Also If the attacker has disengaged or otherwise sued for peace and the formerly endangered person attempts the use of force despite the lack of imminent threat the roles have become reversed, the former attacker now has some right to self defense. Again, California.
Consider the media's abysmal coverage and discussion of anything computer related. What makes you think they do any better on any other subject matter?
When there is a discussion by lawyers who are well versed on the statutory and case law of a particular state regarding self defense.
I have noticed that the presence of lawyers does not necessarily improve the quality of the media's coverage. Lawyers are often paid to represent one single side of an issue and intentionally misrepresent the other. The media will sometimes stack the deck to one side and if the two sides are comparable the media will sometimes participate and/or regulate the debate again favoring one particular side. I've seen the media let one side dominate the available time uninterrupted while letting the other side get very little time and interrupt and talk over that side when they are attempting to make a point or clear up a misrepresentation of the other side.
Slashdot Mirror
I have refrained from listing sources because you would lose any such comparison.
I've had formal instruction on this topic, I've had informal off the record verbal only instruction on this topic from formal instructors, I've had numerous casual discussion on the dangers of the us-vs-them mentality with family and friends in law enforcement. It is especially bad when one works corrections, some departments send new hires on such a temporary tour. I've seen people cautioned about this ahead of time, I've seen them called out by family/friends when later displaying such an attitude. I've seen people take extra tours in corrections for seniority based training reasons and decide to transfer out to patrol when they recognized such an attitude developing, feeling a need to interact with the general public more.
Developing such an attitude towards the public is considered bad and is not encouraged. Don't confuse such an attitude with being cautious and suspicious of a civilian under certain circumstances. Also don't confuse such an attitude with the trust you will show a stranger merely because they are in uniform. Its not the same as viewing those not in uniform as the "enemy".
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."
https://news.google.com/newspa...
Just in case that comment is taken as hyperbole, the video of Walter Scott's shooting was released only BECAUSE of police corruption. The officer lied, and the department backed him.
If there was no evidence of wrongdoing then backing their officer and initially giving him the benefit of the doubt is not corruption. Corruption would be a failure to properly investigate the shooting (takes days) or to hide/destroy/manufacture evidence. If the taser was found near the victim and if there were no witnesses other than the officer what should the department have done?
You could make an argument that any department should not investigate itself but that is an issue for politicians. As the laws currently stand that's a department's responsibility. It should be noted that once evidence of wrongdoing came to light the department did call in another agency. Given current laws there was nothing inherently corrupt about doing the investigation themselves until that point.
In fact, police on the US are trained to believe that they,themselves, are a superior race. The racism is cop vs non-cop, not black vs white. Seriously, if you personally know any cops it becomes quite clear.
You are wrong, you misunderstand. They are not trained that way. Some develop an attitude of I can't trust anyone not in uniform through repeated exposure to the worst of civilian society. That is something very different from what you claim. They are warned of indulging is such beliefs.
The fact is a certain amount of paranoia towards ordinary civilians is entirely justifiable. For example domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous. One reason for this is that the person you are there to rescue is somewhat likely to turn on you and attack you. The person in need of rescue just wanted you to talk to or threaten their abuser, when the handcuffs come out and you are to arrest the abuser that is when your partner should have moved into a position where he/she can clearly observe both the victim and the abuser and be ready for either to attack.
Another classic danger is the ordinary traffic stop. Yeah, the cop saw only a minor infraction but sometimes the guy behind the wheel is actually an armed fleeing violent felon. An officer in the sheriff's department I worked for at one time took 3 rounds in the chest when walking up to a car one night. Fortunately the suspect continued his flight while the officer crawled back to his car and radioed for help before passing out. Getting hit in body armor is not like the movies. The officer was hospitalized for days and had bruises the size of softballs at the points of impact.
Officers are in fact trained and reminded not to develop an us-vs-them (uniform vs non-uniform) attitude. Some unfortunately do, many do not.
All of those examples are murder. You, and the police, are only permitted to use lethal force if you are in immediate danger. Or against an intruder in your own home, in some states. Not saying those cases wouldn't be morally justifiable, but they are definitely not allowed.
For an odd reason I had a minor amount of law enforcement training in California in the 90s. I wasn't to be carrying a weapon but the classes I took included those designed for law enforcement officers who would be. The use of force including deadly force was covered. To summarize, in liberal left wing California, it is (was in the 90s) perfectly legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon, even unarmed, if there was a reasonable and immediate and likely threat of death or severe bodily injury to others. Note immediate is different than imminent. An imminent threat can end when someone turns their back, an immediate threat does not.
Its an extreme example and is not an example of the level of threat necessary but the Boston bombing is a clear example. Unarmed and fleeing the suspect identified as the bomber could be fired upon.
That said, except in the most extreme cases it is still a judgment call and a very risky thing for an officer to do even when seemingly legal given circumstances. There will be no shortage of armchair warriors to second guess the officer.
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
Certainly it was NOT warranted in this case given the victim's background and the given circumstances.
However it is legal and justifiable when the person is a fleeing violent felon and there is an immediate and likely threat of death or severe bodily injury to others. Again, that was NOT the situation for this victim, but your absolute claim of "nothing" is entirely mistaken. Consider the Boston bomber, after the bombing, after shooting the cop, if he had been unarmed and attempting to flee shooting him would have been entirely justifiable and legal. Now that is an extreme example from the other end of the spectrum but it should make the point.
a classic case of someone who should have probably stayed in academia. Our target environment was constrained in terms of CPU and RAM but he could not write code for such an environment
He wouldn't be good there either. If he can't understand limited resources, he won't be able to help other programmers understand it. If you can't apply knowledge, you're only as good as a search engine. Access to knowledge is trivial in this age.
I don't know. I think academia is an area where one can stick with what one knows. One professor of mine was a well regarded computer vision researcher. He wrote his computer vision code in LISP back when he was a grad student. Decades later he was still using LISP.
In that case you might as well go to the University of Wooloomooloo
Not true. Stanford is highly selective. Only the best of the best get in. So a Stanford degree shows a potential employer that you passed that admissions filter. What you actually learned while you were there is much less important.
For a small project I was paired with a UC Berkeley grad, 4.0 GPA even according to the project manager. The project manager was so f'n thrilled to have this guy on board. He was a nice guy and all but wow, a classic case of someone who should have probably stayed in academia. Our target environment was constrained in terms of CPU and RAM but he could not write code for such an environment. His head was just stuck in his school environment of a big expensive fast box with lots of RAM plus sizable VM.
Some people are great at regurgitating back what they are told and shown but ask them to solve a new and different problem and they are lost. Some of these people are able to get exceptionally good grades. Perhaps that is the problem, they are merely learning to take the test?
That said, can an elite school produce an elite programmer, certainly, however so can a more ordinary school. Like most things one gets out of a university what one puts into it. Its mostly about the effort the student made. Elite schools produce mediocre programmers too.
If it's that clear cut, why all the uproar about Obama's birth certificate?
Politics. The same reason there is confusion over the 2nd amendment and various other parts of the constitution. Some politicians actively engage in deceit and manipulation. Things are clear when you do your own research rather than take some politicians word on things. Look at Harry Reid's admitted lies about Romney. Its just FUD. They all do it. Every minute a candidate has to spend correcting some batshit crazy thing the media clings to is a win for the opponent. And the media clings to this batshit crazy stuff coming that only a some small fringe believes because its good for rating, i.e. translates into money for them. So there is this "benevolent circle" where politicians make shit up and the media runs with it. Don't confuse air time devoted to a topic with its acceptance by the public, they are not related. Its a kind of "reality" TV, people watch it for the "crazy" not because they think its real.
To understand her position you need to understand where she's coming from. She's probably one of the few politicians to have seen gun violence first hand. She was there when the SF Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated. She grabbed Harvey Milk's wrist to check for a pulse and her finger entered one of Milk's bullet wounds and was badly shaken by the event.
Basing laws on the irrational emotional reactions of a PTSD sufferer is probably not the best way to go. And it certainly is no excuse for betrayal of the constitution and the deception and manipulation of voters.
It also includes people who were born in places that have since become part of the US. Otherwise no one would have been eligible to be the first president.
Not quite. I think they said you had to either be (1) a natural born citizen or (2) a citizen at the time of the signing of the US Constitution. Only (1) is still relevant, well, at least until an immortal is discovered.
I don't think foreign land becoming US land ever counted. For example those born in Texas prior to statehood would have needed a US parent.
You have to be a "natural-born citizen", but no-one really knows what that means.
Not true, "natural-born citizen" is well understood. It means that you were a citizen of the United States of America at the time of your birth. There are various ways of being so born. Being born in the US is one. Being born to a US parent is another. So whether you are born in Canada, Mexico, Panama or Kenya does not matter so long as you have one or more US parents. Its really not that complicated at all.
The Anarchist Cookbook is not a threat. It is complete crap. Its author eventually admitted he was clueless and didn't know what he was doing. Just an idiot mashing up incomplete and sometimes erroneous info. In other words a typical 60s radical.
Leave the Anarchist Cookbook alone, it is a far greater hazard to anyone trying to use its instructions than to the public. Let Darwin have his way.
Given her predilection to ignore the bill of rights with respect to the 2nd amendment, why is anyone surprised when she also does so with the 1st amendment?
Or more generally, why is anyone surprised when a member of Congress is willing to ignore one right when it inconveniently runs counter to their political ideals, and then later does so with another right? Either a politician supports Constitutional rights or the don't, and when they don't what they allow you to keep is simply a happy coincidence. Until they change their mind, or are replaced with someone of more extreme or different political ideals who shows similar disregard for our rights.
The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response. After a quick search, I found no such law.
Well he is a US Senator. So the lack of a law should not be too much of a problem since he is one of the very very few people in the country that can write and submit a new law to the US Congress.
So we really want silver embedded in our fabrics not copper, good to know.
I swear to god the shills on this website...this has nothing to do with the code.
Actually this thread is really about the code. Re-read and note: "The EFF ... asked for an exemption to be put in place so car owners would be free to inspect and modify the code running on their vehicles."
Car companies want to stop independent mechanics using software than bypasses the manufacturers electronic locks.
Yes, that is also true. However that does not negate the reality that the EFF wants people to be able to MODIFY code. That is something FAR beyond simply getting the error codes and diagnostic data that would allow non-dealership mechanics to work on the car. Its a related but quite separate issue.
More explainable than some guy doing it.
What is so unexplainable about leaving a mentally unstable, angry, and depressed person in sole command of an aircraft?
Anyone with any technical skill whatsoever will just install a physical power switch that cannot be overridden with software.
Works until someone goes ahead and teaches robots to manipulate wires and solder. Oh, wait :-)
But AI robots might, unpredictably and unexplainably.
Oh it will probably be explainable, overflow errors in the math and such.
This is incorrect.
Absent a riot where deadly force is permitted to defend a home or suppress the riot, an imminent threat to a person is absolutely required, and in the case of an escaping violent felon the threat to the life of others must be quite realistic and likely and not merely possible.
You are confusing castle doctrine with a stand-your ground-defense. Although related, they are different things.
Yes, that was my point in an earlier post, perhaps in a different subthread. :-)
My statement, which you quoted, was regarding the stand-your-ground defense, which extends outside a residence.
The rules change outside your home.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/...
Injury to a fleeing attacker may or may not be evidence to the contrary. The simply act of fleeing doesn't remove the imminent threat standard. Some scenarios: 1) The attacker is shooting at you while fleeing.
Now you are getting into Clintonian word games. Of course a weapon still being pointed at you trumps attempting to flee. A weapon so pointed constitutes a reasonable imminent threat.
2) The attacker could harm others while fleeing.
No not "could", not merely the possibility of a future threat to life. The danger to the lives of others has to be reasonable and realistic and likely in the case of a fleeing violent felon.
3) If you have a reasonable belief the attacker could immediately return after fleeing from you.
No, deadly force is not legal in such a circumstance as the threat is a possible future threat not an imminent threat.
You can pursue and use necessary and reasonable force to detain such a fleeing attacker but deadly force is not one of your options until we get into situations like in (1) and (2) where the threat once again becomes tangible not merely possible.
In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists.
This is absolute BS. A friend of mine and I were once held up at gunpoint, until I realized the gun was just a toy. I grabbed the guy and proceeded to beat the shit out of him. In a moment of distraction by my friend and the other would-be mugger, the guy I beat up fled and I chased him several blocks before I caught him and stomped him into the ground again, despite his pleas that I stop.
The second guy that my friend was dealing with also fled and my friend called the police. When they arrived, we told them everything that had happened and they applauded us for our courage, for standing up for ourselves and for me chasing down and beating the one guy so badly that they were able to nab him easily. Both perps turned out to be known and wanted criminals. One of the cops took me aside and said verbatim "We need more people like you around".
Had my pursuit been illegal, I'd have likely been given at least a warning, but instead received admiration and praise from the responding police officers. This happened in California.
For odd reasons I had to take a law enforcement class that all California Peace Officers are required to take. It covers the the legal use of force among other things. Your pursuit was not illegal. Your stomping him after he pleaded you to stop was. When the person surrenders the imminent threat is legally gone and and the doctrine of reasonable force dictates that you only may use the force necessary to restrain. You can hold him down but that's about it. Your actions were as absolutely illegal. You were lucky the police on the scene ignored your final actions.
If after surrendering and continuing to be attacked the robber could have kicked your ass and his lawyer would have been able to successfully claim self defense for that particular action. Obviously he would still be guilty for everything that preceded it.
The robber could have also prevailed in a civil lawsuit against you. You could have lost far more in such a suit than was at stake in the robbery.
Wrong. Their contract can say anything that it wants, but by law you cannot sign away your right to not be searched wholesale.
You absolutely can. There can be a contractual obligation to have your bags, pack, briefcase, etc searched on entry and exit. Happens all the time. There can be a contractual obligation to have the merchandise and receipt checked. Restricting rights and creating obligations is what contracts are about. If one party breaches, such as failure to have the shopping cart's merchandise inspected, then the other party is no longer obligated to provide fulfillment such as let the merchandise leave the store.
And no, they cannot prevent you from leaving the store ever.
I didn't say you, I said the merchandise.
If they truly suspect you have stolen, they can call the police and have them deal with it, ...
That is not the scenario being discussed.
If a store employee tries to physically prevent you from leaving the store, they are vigilantes who are breaking the law and it can be legitimately construed by you as assault and/or a hostage situation and you have every right to inflict harm on them in order to preserve your own safety.
Wrong. Various states permit citizens arrest, and further allow the use of reasonable and necessary force. In California a sworn peace officer is required to recognize a citizens arrest, it can not be ignored. The officer must accept the person in "custody". After accepting the person into such "custody" the officer may use their discretion and immediately "release" them. However the law is clear, citizens arrests are legal and must be recognized by sworn peace officers. In fact they are at times absolutely necessary. For misdemeanors the offense must be witnessed by the officer in order for them to make the arrest, letting the witnessing citizen make the arrest and turn the person over to the officer removes the problem of a "stale misdemeanor".
I suggest you go read up on law, because you haven't got a clue.
I do for California. For an odd reason I actually had to take the required law enforcement class that covers powers of arrest, use of force, etc.
In California, not only can you stay and fight, you can also chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life. California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. 1) Aggressors are not eligible, you must be defending, not striking first.
In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists. Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.
Also If the attacker has disengaged or otherwise sued for peace and the formerly endangered person attempts the use of force despite the lack of imminent threat the roles have become reversed, the former attacker now has some right to self defense. Again, California.
When there is a discussion by lawyers who are well versed on the statutory and case law of a particular state regarding self defense.
I have noticed that the presence of lawyers does not necessarily improve the quality of the media's coverage. Lawyers are often paid to represent one single side of an issue and intentionally misrepresent the other. The media will sometimes stack the deck to one side and if the two sides are comparable the media will sometimes participate and/or regulate the debate again favoring one particular side. I've seen the media let one side dominate the available time uninterrupted while letting the other side get very little time and interrupt and talk over that side when they are attempting to make a point or clear up a misrepresentation of the other side.