This happens all the time.. It's called "Probation" and it usually involves a suspension of the punishment for a crime committed with the stipulation that the punishment is reinstated if you commit another crime within the probation period.
Where I live, 90 day probation is usually offered for most traffic tickets (assuming it's not a DUI or something serious like doing 90 in a school zone). The terms of probation require you to plead guilty, pay the fine, attend a defensive driving course and keep your nose clean for 90 days and the ticket gets struck from your record. It's a racket, to be sure, but it is routinely used.
Oh but next time the SEC will throw the book at them.... Which book is the question... My guess is the "pass book" or maybe the offensive play book for the local High School Junior Varsity football team.
Actually, consider this a warning ticket for speeding. Next time we will write you up the broken taillight. Drive safe WB..
My guess is some three letter government organization....
Let's face it folks, if privacy and security are important to you, DON'T do it on the Internet. There is no such thing as Privacy and Security on the Internet and that is NEVER going to change. Sure, you can obfuscate and encrypt and maybe buy yourself some time, but as soon as a packet hits your ISP, you had better just figure it's public knowledge because *somebody* could be listening in and you'd never know it.
You think that resisting arrest justifies deadly force... I mean wow
If you are resisting using a gun? Of course... But your point is taken, police officers are supposed to limit their use of force to only that which is necessary to safely make the arrest, but in this case, deadly force was appropriate.
Ok, Point taken.. However, the officer can use as much force as necessary to enforce his arrest. This means, if you fight, he can fight harder and in this case, if you use deadly force (a knife, a gun ect) in your efforts to resist the officer can use deadly force to subdue you. In this case, because the suspect was armed and shooting at police trying to arrest him, deadly force was lawful.
You sir are pretty much wrong about police officers.. Don't go with the media's narrative on this, it's totally wrong and dangerous.
You also miss my point. I'm not saying that if you don't follow these rules you WILL get shot at by police, chances are extremely slim, even if you are mouthing off and generally being an idiot with a chip on your shoulder disrespecting authority. I'm simply suggesting ways you can make the experience of being pulled over the least dangerous for you AND the officer. Don't talk or act like a threat and I guarantee you survive when interacting with police. If you follow my advice, you have a better chance of getting hit by lighting on a sunny day than getting shot by the police.... Act like an idiot, and your chances of getting shot increase. Why not go with the safer option?
Not really true. They did release tear gas (which is flammable) into the building and the people in side, having been surviving w/o electricity, had various open flames about that ignited it, but I never heard anybody claim the resulting fire was intentional.
The police should be required to always give the option of surrender first (something that is currently broken in the policy). If a suspect refuses to surrender and continues hostile behavior then the choice seems pretty clear to me. If a suspect does not surrender, but ceases endangering the lives of others, then the policy should be to wait it out. You'd think someone would have already written a manual on this...
Isn't that pretty much a given once an officer yells "Stop, Police!" at you? Well, the suspect DIDN'T avail himself of the option but kept shooting, summarily executing at least one officer who approached him. He had ample opportunity to end this, to surrender (as you put it) during the hours he was cornered.
Not really. It just shows that most police departments are lazy and rather revenge kill than protect. We've had standoffs last weeks when it involves private militia. The shooter was driven back into a hole and had no way out nor any hostages nor a viable target. He will run out of stamina, food, bullets eventually, but he already killed a cop so he must die that hour.
For Pete's sake, he was STILL shooting at folks and wasn't isolated. Yes, He'd killed a few officers, which pretty much justifies the use of deadly force. He was resisting arrest, again justifying the use of deadly force. He was actively shooting at people, AGAIN justifying the use of deadly force. The killing was justified, by ANY expedient means available in an effort to subdue the suspect and STOP them from committing further serious crimes. They can shoot him, blow him up, run him over with a car, you name it, they CAN use any available means in the effort to stop a shooter like this.
I guess you wish to make a martyr out of this guy... Which is extremely sad and doesn't reflect well on you.
LOL... Consider it instructions on "How to be polite and respectful to others." ((In this case the police) Haven't you realized yet that *your* best interests are usually served by being polite to others, even those you disagree with?
I'm struck by how many folks have abandoned being polite and well mannered and run around with huge attitudes, all the while wondering why it seems the world hates them. Of course the world will hate you when you run around with a chip on your shoulder, a scowl on your face and your middle finger in the air. Treat others like you'd want to be treated (or better if you can manage it) and things will go better for you.
Literally thousands of traffic stops happen daily and only a vanishingly small fraction end badly. Cops do a great job, almost without fail. All I'm suggesting here are ways you can improve your odds and keep yourself further from danger by simply being nice, polite and respectful. It costs you nothing to do these things, so why object?
We all know there are reasonable limits to one's rights and that government CAN and DOES curtail absolute freedom, better known as anarchy. HOWEVER, in all the cases you reference above there is a compelling *reason* to justify the curtailment of individual's freedom. You see, the legal principle here is that government must demonstrate they have good reason before they can put limits on your freedom. Such legal requirements are necessary.
Where is the justification of compelling someone to violate their beliefs in providing a service such as baking and delivering a cake? I personally don't see justification for governmental action here. There are plenty of cake bakers out there who are more than willing to provide the cake, why must we force the few who object on religious grounds to violate their beliefs?,/P>
After the events in Dallas last night, do you still feel the same? If so, you share responsibility for the senseless deaths both of the officers murdered and subsequent deaths connected to your rhetoric...
Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot.
It's good advice but misses the point.
As a white person I can violate one or more of those rules and I'm still very unlikely to get shot.
As a black or hispanic person I need to follow those rules to the letter or, like Philando Castile, my odds of getting shot will sky-rocket.
And how do you propose we FIX that issue? I can think of three ways... (Assuming we really intend to do law enforcement and don't want to just fire all the cops out there..)
1. Roast all the cops, condemn them all because some segments of the population seem to be shot at by cops more often and send them to hours of diversity and sensitivity training -- Not going to help at all. If I'm a cop, part of my job is coming home ALIVE at the end of my shift, so if I see a lawful reason to use deadly force because my life is in possible danger, I'm still going to pull my weapon and fire, regardless of what you say. I'd rather be UNEMPLOYED than DEAD.
2. Mount protests and fire up segments of the population and do all you can to stir up civil unrest over something, stage riots even. (Remember Ferguson MO?) - Again Absolutely NOT helpful at all. This just foments bad attitudes towards police officers, destroys the property of the innocent and causes more folks to get shot. Why? Because you end up having MORE confrontations with bigger attitudes. More folks start to not trust the police and stupidly act out their distrust and disrespect. This results in more violent confrontations and shootings.
3. Use these incidents as a way to educate the public about how to handle interactions with police and how to effectively air their grievances about how they are policed without upping their chances of having a negative outcome. THIS is the only EFFECTIVE solution here if you think about it.
So, where I'm agreeing that it can be unfair at times for some segments of the population, I'm saying that the BEST solution for all involved is to ratchet DOWN the rhetoric, clamp down on the attitude and employ the proper channels at the proper time to deal with cops who are a bit too severe. Less people will die (cops and citizens). It's just plain STUPID to be trying to go toe to toe with ANYBODY with a gun, regardless of WHY they are bothering you. Be compliant polite and respectful, regardless of your skin tone, and you can drastically reduce your chances of a bad outcome in an interaction with police so don't be STUPID here. If it's unfair, live to complain about it later by not giving *any* possible reason to be seen as a threat.
Perhaps, but IF they trade in the USA it doesn't matter, they are bound by USA law in terms of what kind of information they can legally provide and how they provide it, including SEC filings. Even if some Korean officer of the company never steps foot in the USA the company can be held liable for things like "insider trading" and other SEC regulation violations said officer commits on foreign soil.
If you choose to be listed here in the USA, you are bound by the laws of the USA... Sorry.. If you don't like that, don't volunteer to be listed here.
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Why does this have anything to do with sexual orientation?
So, if Facebook can filter videos (and I think they CAN) why can the baker not refuse to deliver a cake to specific kinds of events? Say the baker is Islamic refugee from the West Bank and the cake is for the local Jewish Synagogue who is raising funds to buy the IDF weapons? You going to force that transaction too? Where are the limits to what can be mandated while we keep our religious freedoms? Facebook can filter videos, but bakeries cannot refuse to deliver cakes to gay weddings? What kind of convoluted logic do we need to justify this? Shesh.. This is political correctness run amok if you ask me.
The poster did have a good point, even if you disagree with their conclusion.
Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.
1. Limit movements as much as possible when the cop is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your license, insurance card and registration out onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio.
2. Make sure the officer can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, roll down your tinted windows.
3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Sir, my insurance card is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my insurance card out of the center console now."
4. No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any searches, refuse the 'may I look in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No officer, I do not consent to a search of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the officer is in the wrong, complain LATER.
5. Remember that the officer usually just wants to walk away from the traffic stop alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the officer feeling safe, by showing your hands, moving slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. An officer who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.
I remember a time when I got pulled over in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was I got pulled over). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my driver's license out while sitting in the car so I explained to the officer the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my wallet from my back pocket and my license from it. I showed him both hands before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his weapon in hand. I let him approach me to get the license. Where I think I deserved the ticket, he didn't write one. But I could have been easily been shot because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor cops, dead of night, car full of people, some 6'6" guy in a long coat reaching into his back pocket. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.
Not that it helps you much, but my Note 4 has a microSD slot. I hear the S7 has one too.
What is the latest in the "Note" series anyway? My Note 4 is a great phone (err small tablet) device. Lots of RAM and CPU power to get me though another couple of years, but it might be worth an upgrade...
If yucking it up over some 1960's barely acceptable at the time TV series and the host of less than endearing follow on properties including 5 TV series and even more full length movies is going to be controlled by these rules, sell me some tribbles...
Gee, it's sooo nice that you will now let me make a video using your concept I think I'm going to willingly follow your rules... NOT...
Best Paramount can hope for is to keep tossing out the DCMA letters and suing folks who violate their copyrights, nobody is going to follow these rules unless they want too. Can you imagine? Sir, prove that Tri-Corder in your parody "Enterprise's last emission" that Kirk is using it to ogle that female yeoman in his quarters is really licensed merchandise..... Do you have a receipt to prove where you got it?
IF we are talking about probabilities.... Why on earth did you put guns on your list. Gun deaths are pretty rare overall, even with the weekly tallies from places like Chicago... I believe you are more likely to drown than get shot...
Slashdot Mirror
Although we request you approve "full access" we don't use it, and we promise we won't in the future...
No thank you...
This happens all the time.. It's called "Probation" and it usually involves a suspension of the punishment for a crime committed with the stipulation that the punishment is reinstated if you commit another crime within the probation period.
Where I live, 90 day probation is usually offered for most traffic tickets (assuming it's not a DUI or something serious like doing 90 in a school zone). The terms of probation require you to plead guilty, pay the fine, attend a defensive driving course and keep your nose clean for 90 days and the ticket gets struck from your record. It's a racket, to be sure, but it is routinely used.
Oh but next time the SEC will throw the book at them.... Which book is the question... My guess is the "pass book" or maybe the offensive play book for the local High School Junior Varsity football team.
Actually, consider this a warning ticket for speeding. Next time we will write you up the broken taillight. Drive safe WB..
Well there is big money involved, so what did you expect?
My guess is some three letter government organization....
Let's face it folks, if privacy and security are important to you, DON'T do it on the Internet. There is no such thing as Privacy and Security on the Internet and that is NEVER going to change. Sure, you can obfuscate and encrypt and maybe buy yourself some time, but as soon as a packet hits your ISP, you had better just figure it's public knowledge because *somebody* could be listening in and you'd never know it.
You think that resisting arrest justifies deadly force ... I mean wow
If you are resisting using a gun? Of course... But your point is taken, police officers are supposed to limit their use of force to only that which is necessary to safely make the arrest, but in this case, deadly force was appropriate.
Ok, Point taken.. However, the officer can use as much force as necessary to enforce his arrest. This means, if you fight, he can fight harder and in this case, if you use deadly force (a knife, a gun ect) in your efforts to resist the officer can use deadly force to subdue you. In this case, because the suspect was armed and shooting at police trying to arrest him, deadly force was lawful.
You sir are pretty much wrong about police officers.. Don't go with the media's narrative on this, it's totally wrong and dangerous.
You also miss my point. I'm not saying that if you don't follow these rules you WILL get shot at by police, chances are extremely slim, even if you are mouthing off and generally being an idiot with a chip on your shoulder disrespecting authority. I'm simply suggesting ways you can make the experience of being pulled over the least dangerous for you AND the officer. Don't talk or act like a threat and I guarantee you survive when interacting with police. If you follow my advice, you have a better chance of getting hit by lighting on a sunny day than getting shot by the police.... Act like an idiot, and your chances of getting shot increase. Why not go with the safer option?
Not really true. They did release tear gas (which is flammable) into the building and the people in side, having been surviving w/o electricity, had various open flames about that ignited it, but I never heard anybody claim the resulting fire was intentional.
The police should be required to always give the option of surrender first (something that is currently broken in the policy). If a suspect refuses to surrender and continues hostile behavior then the choice seems pretty clear to me. If a suspect does not surrender, but ceases endangering the lives of others, then the policy should be to wait it out. You'd think someone would have already written a manual on this...
Isn't that pretty much a given once an officer yells "Stop, Police!" at you? Well, the suspect DIDN'T avail himself of the option but kept shooting, summarily executing at least one officer who approached him. He had ample opportunity to end this, to surrender (as you put it) during the hours he was cornered.
Not really. It just shows that most police departments are lazy and rather revenge kill than protect. We've had standoffs last weeks when it involves private militia. The shooter was driven back into a hole and had no way out nor any hostages nor a viable target. He will run out of stamina, food, bullets eventually, but he already killed a cop so he must die that hour.
For Pete's sake, he was STILL shooting at folks and wasn't isolated. Yes, He'd killed a few officers, which pretty much justifies the use of deadly force. He was resisting arrest, again justifying the use of deadly force. He was actively shooting at people, AGAIN justifying the use of deadly force. The killing was justified, by ANY expedient means available in an effort to subdue the suspect and STOP them from committing further serious crimes. They can shoot him, blow him up, run him over with a car, you name it, they CAN use any available means in the effort to stop a shooter like this.
I guess you wish to make a martyr out of this guy... Which is extremely sad and doesn't reflect well on you.
LOL... Consider it instructions on "How to be polite and respectful to others." ((In this case the police) Haven't you realized yet that *your* best interests are usually served by being polite to others, even those you disagree with?
I'm struck by how many folks have abandoned being polite and well mannered and run around with huge attitudes, all the while wondering why it seems the world hates them. Of course the world will hate you when you run around with a chip on your shoulder, a scowl on your face and your middle finger in the air. Treat others like you'd want to be treated (or better if you can manage it) and things will go better for you.
Literally thousands of traffic stops happen daily and only a vanishingly small fraction end badly. Cops do a great job, almost without fail. All I'm suggesting here are ways you can improve your odds and keep yourself further from danger by simply being nice, polite and respectful. It costs you nothing to do these things, so why object?
You sir are senseless..
We all know there are reasonable limits to one's rights and that government CAN and DOES curtail absolute freedom, better known as anarchy. HOWEVER, in all the cases you reference above there is a compelling *reason* to justify the curtailment of individual's freedom. You see, the legal principle here is that government must demonstrate they have good reason before they can put limits on your freedom. Such legal requirements are necessary.
Where is the justification of compelling someone to violate their beliefs in providing a service such as baking and delivering a cake? I personally don't see justification for governmental action here. There are plenty of cake bakers out there who are more than willing to provide the cake, why must we force the few who object on religious grounds to violate their beliefs? ,/P>
After the events in Dallas last night, do you still feel the same? If so, you share responsibility for the senseless deaths both of the officers murdered and subsequent deaths connected to your rhetoric...
Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot.
It's good advice but misses the point.
As a white person I can violate one or more of those rules and I'm still very unlikely to get shot.
As a black or hispanic person I need to follow those rules to the letter or, like Philando Castile, my odds of getting shot will sky-rocket.
And how do you propose we FIX that issue? I can think of three ways... (Assuming we really intend to do law enforcement and don't want to just fire all the cops out there..)
1. Roast all the cops, condemn them all because some segments of the population seem to be shot at by cops more often and send them to hours of diversity and sensitivity training -- Not going to help at all. If I'm a cop, part of my job is coming home ALIVE at the end of my shift, so if I see a lawful reason to use deadly force because my life is in possible danger, I'm still going to pull my weapon and fire, regardless of what you say. I'd rather be UNEMPLOYED than DEAD.
2. Mount protests and fire up segments of the population and do all you can to stir up civil unrest over something, stage riots even. (Remember Ferguson MO?) - Again Absolutely NOT helpful at all. This just foments bad attitudes towards police officers, destroys the property of the innocent and causes more folks to get shot. Why? Because you end up having MORE confrontations with bigger attitudes. More folks start to not trust the police and stupidly act out their distrust and disrespect. This results in more violent confrontations and shootings.
3. Use these incidents as a way to educate the public about how to handle interactions with police and how to effectively air their grievances about how they are policed without upping their chances of having a negative outcome. THIS is the only EFFECTIVE solution here if you think about it.
So, where I'm agreeing that it can be unfair at times for some segments of the population, I'm saying that the BEST solution for all involved is to ratchet DOWN the rhetoric, clamp down on the attitude and employ the proper channels at the proper time to deal with cops who are a bit too severe. Less people will die (cops and citizens). It's just plain STUPID to be trying to go toe to toe with ANYBODY with a gun, regardless of WHY they are bothering you. Be compliant polite and respectful, regardless of your skin tone, and you can drastically reduce your chances of a bad outcome in an interaction with police so don't be STUPID here. If it's unfair, live to complain about it later by not giving *any* possible reason to be seen as a threat.
Perhaps, but IF they trade in the USA it doesn't matter, they are bound by USA law in terms of what kind of information they can legally provide and how they provide it, including SEC filings. Even if some Korean officer of the company never steps foot in the USA the company can be held liable for things like "insider trading" and other SEC regulation violations said officer commits on foreign soil.
If you choose to be listed here in the USA, you are bound by the laws of the USA... Sorry.. If you don't like that, don't volunteer to be listed here.
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
Why does this have anything to do with sexual orientation?
So, if Facebook can filter videos (and I think they CAN) why can the baker not refuse to deliver a cake to specific kinds of events? Say the baker is Islamic refugee from the West Bank and the cake is for the local Jewish Synagogue who is raising funds to buy the IDF weapons? You going to force that transaction too? Where are the limits to what can be mandated while we keep our religious freedoms? Facebook can filter videos, but bakeries cannot refuse to deliver cakes to gay weddings? What kind of convoluted logic do we need to justify this? Shesh.. This is political correctness run amok if you ask me.
The poster did have a good point, even if you disagree with their conclusion.
Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.
1. Limit movements as much as possible when the cop is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your license, insurance card and registration out onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio.
2. Make sure the officer can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, roll down your tinted windows.
3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Sir, my insurance card is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my insurance card out of the center console now."
4. No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any searches, refuse the 'may I look in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No officer, I do not consent to a search of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the officer is in the wrong, complain LATER.
5. Remember that the officer usually just wants to walk away from the traffic stop alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the officer feeling safe, by showing your hands, moving slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. An officer who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.
I remember a time when I got pulled over in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was I got pulled over). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my driver's license out while sitting in the car so I explained to the officer the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my wallet from my back pocket and my license from it. I showed him both hands before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his weapon in hand. I let him approach me to get the license. Where I think I deserved the ticket, he didn't write one. But I could have been easily been shot because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor cops, dead of night, car full of people, some 6'6" guy in a long coat reaching into his back pocket. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.
(sarcasim)
Oh no, they didn't.... And don't forget we USED to have the "fairness doctrine" for media outlets too..
(/sarcasim..)
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
Not click bait, Pump and dump... If your theory is true.
Actually, I think this story is true, even if it's on slashdot... But who really knows until the numbers get filed with the SEC..
Not that it helps you much, but my Note 4 has a microSD slot. I hear the S7 has one too.
What is the latest in the "Note" series anyway? My Note 4 is a great phone (err small tablet) device. Lots of RAM and CPU power to get me though another couple of years, but it might be worth an upgrade...
If yucking it up over some 1960's barely acceptable at the time TV series and the host of less than endearing follow on properties including 5 TV series and even more full length movies is going to be controlled by these rules, sell me some tribbles...
Gee, it's sooo nice that you will now let me make a video using your concept I think I'm going to willingly follow your rules... NOT...
Best Paramount can hope for is to keep tossing out the DCMA letters and suing folks who violate their copyrights, nobody is going to follow these rules unless they want too. Can you imagine? Sir, prove that Tri-Corder in your parody "Enterprise's last emission" that Kirk is using it to ogle that female yeoman in his quarters is really licensed merchandise..... Do you have a receipt to prove where you got it?
IF we are talking about probabilities.... Why on earth did you put guns on your list. Gun deaths are pretty rare overall, even with the weekly tallies from places like Chicago... I believe you are more likely to drown than get shot...
No statistic is, especially when coming from the PR department...
What's that saying? Lies, damn lies and Statistics? No, the other one... Figures never lie, but liars figure..