are you so sure there's no "except police" clause.
It all depends on what state you are in.
In Texas specifically, you are allowed to use deadly force to resist excessive force:
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
This only plays out, however, if you know you are dealing with a cop. If you don't know it's a cop and you have a reasonable belief that someone is committing criminal mischief against your property at night you will not be liable for using deadly force to stop it.
There would be insufficient evidence from somebody just walking up to your vehicle, stooping down, and then walking away for you to 'reasonably believe' that they were committing an act sufficient enough to warrant a response of deadly force.
If it happened at night and in Texas it just might. Note the section on criminal mischief:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So what is criminal mischief?
Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.
If the harm didn't come from radiation exposure then where did it come from? How exactly was anyone hurt by the TMI incident? How long will you continue to avoid this question?
Processed nuclear waste will decay to the point that it is exactly as radioactive as the original source rock that got dug out of the ground within 300 years.
Really? You're just going to compare the totals on a gross basis rather than a per-unit of energy basis?
The federal government subsidizes agriculture because they want to tamper with supply and demand. Does that mean that farming does not stand on its own?
I think it's awesome. Besides the features you mentioned it has mobile apps to access your passwords from your phone and it will allow you to generate one time passwords so that you can access your passwords from an untrusted computer without worrying about keyloggers.
It makes no economic sense when you're talking about solid fuels.
With a liquid fuel design such as LFTR reprocessing transforms from a dirty, dangerous and expensive separate facility into literally just a little bit of extra plumbing built directly into the reactor plant.
We can build nuclear reactors that produce 97% less waste than the ones we use now and can burn the thorium and uranium contained in that fly ash to produce 13 times as much energy as you originally got from burning the coal.
True, however if you are using only energy from coal to produce liquid hydrocarbons you'll need a lot more of it than if you supply the majority of the energy content from a nuclear reactor.
Less coal needed to produce the same amount of energy is better for everyone.
I'm not particularly concerned where the carbon comes from. Whether we get it from the air, or we dig it out of the ground or we grow crops and turn them into charcoal carbon is never going to be very expensive or energy-intensive to acquire.
The largest cost when it comes to synthesizing liquid hydrocarbons is the energy needed to produce hydrogen.
So even the basic economics are that nuke plants are subsidized by the public with loans, among the many other public subsidies (eg. security, R&D, insurance).
Don't forget all the negative subsidies that greatly add to the cost of getting one of these plants built.
They're mostly the same steam turbine electric systems as a nuke reactor
Because nuclear reactor technology stopped advancing in 1950 and there's no reason we'd want to use anything more advanced that's been invented since then.
instead of the decade that nukes take because of frivolous lawsuits and bureaucracy
FTFY
Geothermal doesn't depend on the rarest, most toxic and geopolitically dangerous elements in the world, either, but instead on very widespread resources that creates toxic mixtures of water and heavy metals that must be disposed of underground, where we hope it will never contaminate the groundwater
Slashdot Mirror
Federal agencies can do whatever they can get away with regardless of what the law says. Just look at what they are doing for the banks.
Not required in this state.
It all depends on what state you are in.
In Texas specifically, you are allowed to use deadly force to resist excessive force:
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
This only plays out, however, if you know you are dealing with a cop. If you don't know it's a cop and you have a reasonable belief that someone is committing criminal mischief against your property at night you will not be liable for using deadly force to stop it.
For the purpose of that specific post I intended for the two to be interchangeable.
If it happened at night and in Texas it just might. Note the section on criminal mischief:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So what is criminal mischief?
Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.
It greatly depends on what state you are in.
In Texas, for example, if you saw somebody tampering with your car at night you would be justified in using lethal force to stop them in many cases.
If the harm didn't come from radiation exposure then where did it come from? How exactly was anyone hurt by the TMI incident? How long will you continue to avoid this question?
Seriously - put up or shut up.
Oh no, you threw a scary at label at me!
My position is the no one received a radiation dose greater than 16 millirem from that incident, which is negligible.
If you have evidence to the contrary then present it. Otherwise STFU.
So, no, you don't have any evidence.
The reactor at Three Mile Island suffered a core meltdown but harmed absolutely no one. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Processed nuclear waste will decay to the point that it is exactly as radioactive as the original source rock that got dug out of the ground within 300 years.
Their behavior makes more sense when you think of the government as a criminal gang.
Really? You're just going to compare the totals on a gross basis rather than a per-unit of energy basis?
The federal government subsidizes agriculture because they want to tamper with supply and demand. Does that mean that farming does not stand on its own?
You wouldn't happen to be basing your comments on your personal economic interests at the expense of objective facts, would you?
Allowing technology to advance so that power companies can build the types that are impossible to melt down.
I think it's awesome. Besides the features you mentioned it has mobile apps to access your passwords from your phone and it will allow you to generate one time passwords so that you can access your passwords from an untrusted computer without worrying about keyloggers.
It makes no economic sense when you're talking about solid fuels.
With a liquid fuel design such as LFTR reprocessing transforms from a dirty, dangerous and expensive separate facility into literally just a little bit of extra plumbing built directly into the reactor plant.
Are you aware that Oak Ridge built and operated one successfully for 5 years nearly half a century ago?
Does the fact that the project was a complete success not factor into your definition of "almost completely unproven"?
Or with molten-salt reactors, which are superior in every way to both.
We can build nuclear reactors that produce 97% less waste than the ones we use now and can burn the thorium and uranium contained in that fly ash to produce 13 times as much energy as you originally got from burning the coal.
Did you miss the fact that burning coal is hideously wasteful, since the coal contains 13 times more useful nuclear energy than chemical energy?
No, LFTR (thorium) designes use liquid fluoride salts which are stable and non-reactive (exactly the opposite of liquid sodium).
True, however if you are using only energy from coal to produce liquid hydrocarbons you'll need a lot more of it than if you supply the majority of the energy content from a nuclear reactor.
Less coal needed to produce the same amount of energy is better for everyone.
The biggest win when it comes to modern thorium-fueled reactors comes from the molten-salt (liquid fuel) reactor design.
Watch this Google Tech Talk to get an idea how dramatically better this technology is.
I'm not particularly concerned where the carbon comes from. Whether we get it from the air, or we dig it out of the ground or we grow crops and turn them into charcoal carbon is never going to be very expensive or energy-intensive to acquire.
The largest cost when it comes to synthesizing liquid hydrocarbons is the energy needed to produce hydrogen.
Don't forget all the negative subsidies that greatly add to the cost of getting one of these plants built.
Because nuclear reactor technology stopped advancing in 1950 and there's no reason we'd want to use anything more advanced that's been invented since then.
FTFY
FTFY, again