Gee, an officer replied to a DV call of a man beating his wife, comes in and sees a woman with a black eye and a dude that smells of whiskey* -- do we really need a jury to decide that one?
Depends. Did he really beat her, or was she filing a false report to get even with him for coming home drunk again after going home with the blonde at the bar?
How do you know? Seems like we need a trial to figure it out. Fortunately, the Constitution protects the accused's right to have one.
The majority may not be active thugs, but they are at the very least silent enablers. Look at what happened to NYPD's Adrian Schoolcraft: he secretly recorded roll call, exposing police corruption. After he let the public know the truth, several officers--including supervisory officers--concocted stories to arrest him and forcibly commit him to psychiatric care.
To the best of my knowledge, not a single one stepped up and said "hey, he's telling the truth."
Enablers, the lot of them, and that puts them squarely on the side of the wrongdoers, more interested in their positions and their paycheques than in the safety and well-being of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect.
Redbox OTOH, now that it has banished most of the Blockbuster and all the Hollywood video stores, seems to be taking advantage of the situation. There is no acknowledgement that some customers might have trouble with the extra cents and have to cut back.
$DEITY forfend! Somebody might have to cut back from six movie rentals per week to five! Next thing you know, Redbox will be making its clients sell their children at discount prices just to heat their cardboard boxes!
Ahem. "The Congress shall have Power To..." is authority, not a mandate. The Congress can choose not to exercise its power in a given area if it wishes. In fact, in some circumstances, the fact that Congress has chosen not to legislate may itself be considered a form of regulation, and not subject to further regulation by the states.
We landed men on the moon a decade before the Department of Education was created. It's not that education isn't necessary, its that it doesn't have to be managed at the Federal level. Do you really think our education system is substantially better than it was in the fifties and sixties, and that the improvement is a result of Federal action?
Here's a great graphic breaking down just who is sending what. Breakdown for the US: 12 ships, 153 airplanes, 228 cruise missiles. It doesn't break down by aircraft type, but it's a fair bet they're not all UAVs.
I think most people would expect to be able to make private phone calls on office telephones (for example, to/from their doctor).
I don't. I know very well that I'm running on a software-controlled PBX, and that calls are routinely monitored or recorded. It's the company's phone line, not mine; why shouldn't the company have the right to monitor it?
Assuming the kid really does live in Sweden though, American courts don't have jurisdiction.
Not necessarily. A court may be able to exercise long-arm jurisdiction under the "minimum contacts" rule--when Ryan went out of his way to make contact with Liberty Media, his actions were clearly directed to the forum state (wherever Liberty Media is based). As such, he may have subjected himself to that state's jurisdiction, at least with regard to this matter (this definitely wouldn't be enough to subject him to general jurisdiction, that is, he couldn't be sued for just anything in that state).'
Jurisdiction can be complicated and ugly; we spent a full semester on just that in Civ Pro I (Civ Pro II covers venue, the Erie doctrine, pleadings, and more) because there's just that much to cover.
They pull stunts like carrying a pistol standing downtown at a crowded intersection (which is legal),... push the absolute limit of legal antagonism, then cry victim if the cop gets frustrated and brings them in on some usually-BS charge of disturbing the peace or whatever.
In short, while the details may indicate that the charge is bogus, it's important to understand we have a group of people here in NH who -actively try- to get charged with bogus crap by the police just to make a stink out of it.
Or, put slightly differently, you have people who don't break the law, but your cops just can't stand the idea of somebody not respecting their authoritah, and write tickets for non-offenses.
Sounds like you need a better class of cop. Perhaps you can find a model with a "self-control" upgrade.
The right to free speech says absolutely nothing about the right to anonymous free speech. At also says nothing about there not being consequences to your free speech, only that the government won't stop you from saying it.
...an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills.......
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
No, you don't understand: he's special, so the rules need to contain an exception for him. Rather than following the same simple-to-comprehend directions as everybody else, he needs to be provided with proctors who can screen his incoming messages and pass them along to him. Because, you know, if his server goes down while he's taking the test, he's going to have to call a time-out to go fix it and resume the test when he's done.
Kennesaw, GA. The last I heard, violent crimes dropped to nearly-zero. How nearly? The last I heard, in the time period from about two years after enactment to today, there had been one murder, and it was a stabbing, not a shooting.
No, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do. Anybody trying a stunt like that would be slapped with sanctions under Rule 11 in short order. And ordered to go back and do it right.
Close. You don't have a right to operate, you have permission to operate, subject, as you say, to informed consent. If you had the right to operate, the patient's consent wouldn't be an issue. You have the right to speak freely, without the consent even of those about or to whom you're speaking. Big difference.
And, as a patient, I would deny consent if I thought you were not competent for whatever reason, be it fatigue, intoxication, or just plain being a lousy doctor. Informed consent requires that the patient understand the risks to which he is being subjected. Your fatigue--or drunkenness, or your six trips to the review board--are a relevant risk.
And now us doctors will have another reason to be afraid of lawsuits: "Your honor, evidence shows that the defendant was awake for 16 hours straight and did not inform the patient. Thus, he should be found guilty of malpractice!"
And what's wrong with that? The patient has the right to expect his surgeon to perform competently, just as the passenger has a right to expect the airline pilot/bus driver/etc. to perform competently, and to hold him responsible if he is negligent.
If a trucker on a long run gets tired behind the wheel and runs into you, do you want to be able to sue him for damages?
Of course islamic terrorism has replaced IRA terrorism. And for sure CCTV has foiled more terrorist plots in the UK in recent years in than there have been terrorist plots that have been successful.
If your government is anything like ours, it has foiled more terrorist plots in recent years than even existed.
Why is it better for the US Government to pay a corporation to build spacecraft?
People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.
Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me.
How many private entities have the ability to either print money or seize money from others through force (taxes)?
That's why the private sector is more efficient: even with profits, private entities still have to work within budgets. Governments don't earn money, governments take money, and if they have cost overruns, they can just take more. Where's the incentive to be efficient?
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, an officer replied to a DV call of a man beating his wife, comes in and sees a woman with a black eye and a dude that smells of whiskey* -- do we really need a jury to decide that one?
Depends. Did he really beat her, or was she filing a false report to get even with him for coming home drunk again after going home with the blonde at the bar?
How do you know? Seems like we need a trial to figure it out. Fortunately, the Constitution protects the accused's right to have one.
The majority may not be active thugs, but they are at the very least silent enablers. Look at what happened to NYPD's Adrian Schoolcraft: he secretly recorded roll call, exposing police corruption. After he let the public know the truth, several officers--including supervisory officers--concocted stories to arrest him and forcibly commit him to psychiatric care.
To the best of my knowledge, not a single one stepped up and said "hey, he's telling the truth."
Enablers, the lot of them, and that puts them squarely on the side of the wrongdoers, more interested in their positions and their paycheques than in the safety and well-being of the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect.
Redbox OTOH, now that it has banished most of the Blockbuster and all the Hollywood video stores, seems to be taking advantage of the situation. There is no acknowledgement that some customers might have trouble with the extra cents and have to cut back.
$DEITY forfend! Somebody might have to cut back from six movie rentals per week to five! Next thing you know, Redbox will be making its clients sell their children at discount prices just to heat their cardboard boxes!
Perspective. Get some.
Ahem. "The Congress shall have Power To..." is authority, not a mandate. The Congress can choose not to exercise its power in a given area if it wishes. In fact, in some circumstances, the fact that Congress has chosen not to legislate may itself be considered a form of regulation, and not subject to further regulation by the states.
We landed men on the moon a decade before the Department of Education was created. It's not that education isn't necessary, its that it doesn't have to be managed at the Federal level. Do you really think our education system is substantially better than it was in the fifties and sixties, and that the improvement is a result of Federal action?
Are "thinking rationally" and "checking the sources" options?
And then it hit New Jersey at dead-low tide during a new moon - one couldn't get any luckier than that.
Because moon phases and tides are notoriously hard to predict.
Assuming arguendo that drone-fired weapons don't constitute "hostilities," what about F-15's? Helicopters and ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles? F-16's and EA-18's? (Note: that's the DOD's press release, so it's probably reliable.)
Here's a great graphic breaking down just who is sending what. Breakdown for the US: 12 ships, 153 airplanes, 228 cruise missiles. It doesn't break down by aircraft type, but it's a fair bet they're not all UAVs.
I think most people would expect to be able to make private phone calls on office telephones (for example, to/from their doctor).
I don't. I know very well that I'm running on a software-controlled PBX, and that calls are routinely monitored or recorded. It's the company's phone line, not mine; why shouldn't the company have the right to monitor it?
Punishing the responsible parties is forbidden by the union contract.
Sorry, the law only recognizes a cause of action if your expectation was reasonable.
Assuming the kid really does live in Sweden though, American courts don't have jurisdiction.
Not necessarily. A court may be able to exercise long-arm jurisdiction under the "minimum contacts" rule--when Ryan went out of his way to make contact with Liberty Media, his actions were clearly directed to the forum state (wherever Liberty Media is based). As such, he may have subjected himself to that state's jurisdiction, at least with regard to this matter (this definitely wouldn't be enough to subject him to general jurisdiction, that is, he couldn't be sued for just anything in that state).'
Jurisdiction can be complicated and ugly; we spent a full semester on just that in Civ Pro I (Civ Pro II covers venue, the Erie doctrine, pleadings, and more) because there's just that much to cover.
"I'm dead, Jim."
They pull stunts like carrying a pistol standing downtown at a crowded intersection (which is legal), ... push the absolute limit of legal antagonism, then cry victim if the cop gets frustrated and brings them in on some usually-BS charge of disturbing the peace or whatever.
In short, while the details may indicate that the charge is bogus, it's important to understand we have a group of people here in NH who -actively try- to get charged with bogus crap by the police just to make a stink out of it.
Or, put slightly differently, you have people who don't break the law, but your cops just can't stand the idea of somebody not respecting their authoritah, and write tickets for non-offenses.
Sounds like you need a better class of cop. Perhaps you can find a model with a "self-control" upgrade.
The right to free speech says absolutely nothing about the right to anonymous free speech. At also says nothing about there not being consequences to your free speech, only that the government won't stop you from saying it.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
No, you don't understand: he's special, so the rules need to contain an exception for him. Rather than following the same simple-to-comprehend directions as everybody else, he needs to be provided with proctors who can screen his incoming messages and pass them along to him. Because, you know, if his server goes down while he's taking the test, he's going to have to call a time-out to go fix it and resume the test when he's done.
Quite a bit less than halfway, actually. The logistics of return trip are considerably more challenging than the outbound leg.
It doesn't say how old the kids are. My dad is a father of three, and the youngest is twenty-five.
Kennesaw, GA. The last I heard, violent crimes dropped to nearly-zero. How nearly? The last I heard, in the time period from about two years after enactment to today, there had been one murder, and it was a stabbing, not a shooting.
Now me? I work for the Feds, mostly sitting on my ass doing nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work.
No, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do. Anybody trying a stunt like that would be slapped with sanctions under Rule 11 in short order. And ordered to go back and do it right.
Close. You don't have a right to operate, you have permission to operate, subject, as you say, to informed consent. If you had the right to operate, the patient's consent wouldn't be an issue. You have the right to speak freely, without the consent even of those about or to whom you're speaking. Big difference.
And, as a patient, I would deny consent if I thought you were not competent for whatever reason, be it fatigue, intoxication, or just plain being a lousy doctor. Informed consent requires that the patient understand the risks to which he is being subjected. Your fatigue--or drunkenness, or your six trips to the review board--are a relevant risk.
And now us doctors will have another reason to be afraid of lawsuits: "Your honor, evidence shows that the defendant was awake for 16 hours straight and did not inform the patient. Thus, he should be found guilty of malpractice!"
And what's wrong with that? The patient has the right to expect his surgeon to perform competently, just as the passenger has a right to expect the airline pilot/bus driver/etc. to perform competently, and to hold him responsible if he is negligent.
If a trucker on a long run gets tired behind the wheel and runs into you, do you want to be able to sue him for damages?
If your government is anything like ours, it has foiled more terrorist plots in recent years than even existed.
Why is it better for the US Government to pay a corporation to build spacecraft?
People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.
Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me.
How many private entities have the ability to either print money or seize money from others through force (taxes)?
That's why the private sector is more efficient: even with profits, private entities still have to work within budgets. Governments don't earn money, governments take money, and if they have cost overruns, they can just take more. Where's the incentive to be efficient?