There are times deadly force is reasonable, and times it isn't.
Shooting an unarmed man who's just planting a tracker on your truck is an "isn't."
Consider that if a cop is doing that, he's already got either probable cause or reasonable suspicion or he wouldn't be spending his time following you. He just doesn't need a warrant to use a device to help him follow you. Which means you're probably the criminal, and he's certainly not. So if you shoot him the court is going to be dead-set against giving you any benefit of the doubt the way they'd give him some if he shot you. He could use the "furtive gesture" defense by appealing to the totality of the situation which includes the evidence that makes you a suspicious person. You could not, since being a crook you have to assume anyone trying to track you is a cop, and a cop making a furtive gesture is trying to arrest you, not attack you.
You'll do time, eventually. You clearly think illegal things are legal, and that's how jail-time happens.
You're quoting the wrong section. What you should be quoting is below that and describes what constitutes legal use of deadly force to protect your property.
Okay.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.
Shooting someone doesn't seem to me to be a means to protect a vehicle from an unidentified thing being placed there by a hand you can't see. Nor do you have any evidence of "criminal mischief," just some dude fondling your mudflaps. The part about nighttime is just silly.
So let's look at the "facts." You know that there are people who can rightfully do what he's doing (9th circuit just said so and state law doesn't say otherwise). You didn't inform him that entering your property was tresspassing (if he's a cop he wouldn't be there if you had). You have a gun, he's on his knees with one or both hands holding something unseen. He's not damaging your vehicle or doing anything that looks like it could cause imminent damage to it (you have no reason to believe it's a bomb unless you've asked him and he's told you so, or you have evidence that there are people willing and able to bomb you, and even if it is a bomb it's not an imminent threat unless he's a suicide bomber but they don't sneak under your truck at night hoping not to get caught).
There's no evidence of imminent danger to you or your property. You would not be shooting him to stop harm or damage. You would not have made a reasonable attempt to stop the incident without shooting him.
I'd say that's murder, not manslaughter, and certainly not a justifiable use of deadly force.
There is that, but I don't have my Roku yet (it's in the mail; woot.com had them for like $60 the other day) so I don't know what TV shows netflix does have; they don't have instant viewing on every item in stock. They should, but they don't.
The cops can also follow you around when you're out in your car. This just makes it cheaper and safer without altering your rights one bit. I haven't read the decision, but I bet that's what it says.
As for the "furtive move" thing, it can't be the only evidence the cop was going on. He'd have to know he's in a situation where someone's likely to be willing to use violence against him. If a cop is pointing his weapon at you, you shouldn't be making any moves, furtive or otherwise. You should be listening carefully and following instructions, because he can assume any of your attempts to resist are directed at causing him harm to avoid being arrested. If all you hear of the case is that the cop used "furtive move" as a defense and got out of it cleanly, expect that you didn't hear the whole case.
A 3-disc queue costs $20. You can theoretically get up to 22 discs a month (I have the calculation around here somewhere; not having sunday delivery in either direction really slows things down), so that's about $1/disc.
A disc has up to 5 episodes of an hour show on it, up to 6 of a half-hour show (I haven't seen more; some series may be more generous). So a whole season of 22-26 episodes will be 4-6 discs, or $4-6 of your subscription value.
But Apple wants you to give them $22-26 for it, or 266-550% more than Netflix will charge you.
No. You could not easily argue it is. You could easily imagine the words that you would say before the judge told you to shut up and let your lawyer enter your guilty plea, but that's not easily arguing it.
Fear of a bomb requires seeing something that looks like a bomb. Seeing something small and indistinct is not that, and not seeing what's in his hand is especially not that.
You'd be closer if you saw his body armor and said it looked like a bomb-belt. Though that probably works better in Baghdad.
What you shouldn't do is shoot first because there's no deadly force in play. You have a gun, his is not visible, you are in control and have all the opportunity to ascertain his identity and motives. If he's a cop he's going to be withdrawing or cooperating, and attempting to identify himself. If you act first, that's just going to be adjudicated as murder. You are in a position to react before he can create any danger for you, and if he does you'll have plenty of opportunity to shoot him then, and you'll likely get to use the self-defense defense.
cops get away with 'furtive moves' defense all the time. we can use it too!
Cops get away with a lot because they tend to know what they're talking about in evidentiary proceedings, even when they're quoting apocryphal Hunter S. Thompson stories.
"a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
It then goes on about exceptions to that, and then has a more specific section about deadly force.
"I saw him putting his hand into his jacket. I thought he was going to pull a gun on me. How was I supposed to know he was getting out a badge?
People put their hands into their jackets for all kinds of reasons, and the court knows you know that. You have to bring evidence. Say "I saw him pull a gun out of his jacket. It looked like a gun. It didn't look like a badge, it looked like a gun." Then you'll have a chance, if you're convincing, and it will be more convincing if it's true.
The whole "break the law" portion of this (having to commit trespassing, at the least) really makes it sketchy. I'm glad I don't live in 9th district land.
Federal court districts aren't political subdivisions with separate laws. Federal judges hear appeals arising in their districts, but that's just to divide the workload. Their judgments cover all of the nation. So if another jurisdiction in another district wants to allow cops to do this, then because of this ruling they now know that they always could. And if this is a ruling on a 4th-amendment issue relating to the general limitations on cops, rather than on a particular law or a state constitutional clause, then it already covers the other districts and cops can start doing this, if there isn't a law or clause in their jurisdiction saying they can't.
As for "trespassing", if your property isn't fenced and posted, then you allow people up to your doors as a matter of course, and people are permitted to touch the things in your yard and driveway. You can ask them to leave and expect them to, but you can't presume they know not to come onto your property or treat them as trespassers before you inform them.
Power consumption is a critical performance metric for large-scale computing systems.
The whole ponit here is to prove you can do more with a limited resource where that resource is something that computing systems managers are desirous of reducing because it gives them the right to claim all sorts of greenish certification bonads from the marketosphere, and improve their bottom line for the investosphere.
You might want to reread that self-defense clause again.
You can use deadly force to protect people and property from imminent danger. Someone poking a hand under your bumper is not that.
And there's generally going to be no way you'll prove self-defense against a cop, since you have to presume a cop is assaulting you legally unless you know specifically otherwise. you might have a chance if he's assaulting you without telling you he's a cop, but that won't work if he's under cover, since "I didn't know he was a cop" is the whole point of that. And killing a cop isn't just murder or manslaughter, it's a cop-killing, and for that you get special treatment.
If you don't have a development server that closely replicates the installed state and environment of the production server, you're doing it wrong.
You've built inaccuracies into your development and test system, differences from the production system that will result in differences in the completed code which will then encounter those differences and behave improperly on the production server.
I.e., you're building bugs in deliberately.
Stop that.
Now, I understand, sometimes scalability is an issue. You can't replicate a whole server farm for the devs. But you can isolate that variable and design for it from the first day. It's the other variables that you don't anticipate and don't have visibility into that you need to keep from varying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's all you're downloading. Right.
RIAA, MPAA, Cap Cities, Viacom, the NFL, etc.
Pick your plaintiff.
Happened long ago. Still here.
There are times deadly force is reasonable, and times it isn't.
Shooting an unarmed man who's just planting a tracker on your truck is an "isn't."
Consider that if a cop is doing that, he's already got either probable cause or reasonable suspicion or he wouldn't be spending his time following you. He just doesn't need a warrant to use a device to help him follow you. Which means you're probably the criminal, and he's certainly not. So if you shoot him the court is going to be dead-set against giving you any benefit of the doubt the way they'd give him some if he shot you. He could use the "furtive gesture" defense by appealing to the totality of the situation which includes the evidence that makes you a suspicious person. You could not, since being a crook you have to assume anyone trying to track you is a cop, and a cop making a furtive gesture is trying to arrest you, not attack you.
You'll do time, eventually. You clearly think illegal things are legal, and that's how jail-time happens.
I haven't got that far. I'm still trying to figure out what "navigate through a devices" means.
I use gesture-based computing to enter and exit the grocery store.
Not like I can post to /. from there or anything, but it's a prototype.
You're quoting the wrong section. What you should be quoting is below that and describes what constitutes legal use of deadly force to protect your property.
Okay.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means.
Shooting someone doesn't seem to me to be a means to protect a vehicle from an unidentified thing being placed there by a hand you can't see. Nor do you have any evidence of "criminal mischief," just some dude fondling your mudflaps. The part about nighttime is just silly.
So let's look at the "facts." You know that there are people who can rightfully do what he's doing (9th circuit just said so and state law doesn't say otherwise). You didn't inform him that entering your property was tresspassing (if he's a cop he wouldn't be there if you had). You have a gun, he's on his knees with one or both hands holding something unseen. He's not damaging your vehicle or doing anything that looks like it could cause imminent damage to it (you have no reason to believe it's a bomb unless you've asked him and he's told you so, or you have evidence that there are people willing and able to bomb you, and even if it is a bomb it's not an imminent threat unless he's a suicide bomber but they don't sneak under your truck at night hoping not to get caught).
There's no evidence of imminent danger to you or your property. You would not be shooting him to stop harm or damage. You would not have made a reasonable attempt to stop the incident without shooting him.
I'd say that's murder, not manslaughter, and certainly not a justifiable use of deadly force.
There is that, but I don't have my Roku yet (it's in the mail; woot.com had them for like $60 the other day) so I don't know what TV shows netflix does have; they don't have instant viewing on every item in stock. They should, but they don't.
The cops can also follow you around when you're out in your car. This just makes it cheaper and safer without altering your rights one bit. I haven't read the decision, but I bet that's what it says.
As for the "furtive move" thing, it can't be the only evidence the cop was going on. He'd have to know he's in a situation where someone's likely to be willing to use violence against him. If a cop is pointing his weapon at you, you shouldn't be making any moves, furtive or otherwise. You should be listening carefully and following instructions, because he can assume any of your attempts to resist are directed at causing him harm to avoid being arrested. If all you hear of the case is that the cop used "furtive move" as a defense and got out of it cleanly, expect that you didn't hear the whole case.
And log your IP address on login so the RIAA can find you.
Your math is off.
A 3-disc queue costs $20. You can theoretically get up to 22 discs a month (I have the calculation around here somewhere; not having sunday delivery in either direction really slows things down), so that's about $1/disc.
A disc has up to 5 episodes of an hour show on it, up to 6 of a half-hour show (I haven't seen more; some series may be more generous). So a whole season of 22-26 episodes will be 4-6 discs, or $4-6 of your subscription value.
But Apple wants you to give them $22-26 for it, or 266-550% more than Netflix will charge you.
How did you manage that? Shut your eyes and hit the "Submit" button after hitting the "Preview" button?
No. You could not easily argue it is. You could easily imagine the words that you would say before the judge told you to shut up and let your lawyer enter your guilty plea, but that's not easily arguing it.
Fear of a bomb requires seeing something that looks like a bomb. Seeing something small and indistinct is not that, and not seeing what's in his hand is especially not that.
You'd be closer if you saw his body armor and said it looked like a bomb-belt. Though that probably works better in Baghdad.
What you shouldn't do is shoot first because there's no deadly force in play. You have a gun, his is not visible, you are in control and have all the opportunity to ascertain his identity and motives. If he's a cop he's going to be withdrawing or cooperating, and attempting to identify himself. If you act first, that's just going to be adjudicated as murder. You are in a position to react before he can create any danger for you, and if he does you'll have plenty of opportunity to shoot him then, and you'll likely get to use the self-defense defense.
cops get away with 'furtive moves' defense all the time. we can use it too!
Cops get away with a lot because they tend to know what they're talking about in evidentiary proceedings, even when they're quoting apocryphal Hunter S. Thompson stories.
Your Honor, I saw the guy putting something that looked like it might be a bomb underneath my car.
"looked like it might be" is not evidence of imminent danger.
Does the law in Texas say you have to
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
"a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"
It then goes on about exceptions to that, and then has a more specific section about deadly force.
"I saw him putting his hand into his jacket. I thought he was going to pull a gun on me. How was I supposed to know he was getting out a badge?
People put their hands into their jackets for all kinds of reasons, and the court knows you know that. You have to bring evidence. Say "I saw him pull a gun out of his jacket. It looked like a gun. It didn't look like a badge, it looked like a gun." Then you'll have a chance, if you're convincing, and it will be more convincing if it's true.
The whole "break the law" portion of this (having to commit trespassing, at the least) really makes it sketchy. I'm glad I don't live in 9th district land.
Federal court districts aren't political subdivisions with separate laws. Federal judges hear appeals arising in their districts, but that's just to divide the workload. Their judgments cover all of the nation. So if another jurisdiction in another district wants to allow cops to do this, then because of this ruling they now know that they always could. And if this is a ruling on a 4th-amendment issue relating to the general limitations on cops, rather than on a particular law or a state constitutional clause, then it already covers the other districts and cops can start doing this, if there isn't a law or clause in their jurisdiction saying they can't.
As for "trespassing", if your property isn't fenced and posted, then you allow people up to your doors as a matter of course, and people are permitted to touch the things in your yard and driveway. You can ask them to leave and expect them to, but you can't presume they know not to come onto your property or treat them as trespassers before you inform them.
Sorry, that's ponit[TM].
Power consumption is a critical performance metric for large-scale computing systems.
The whole ponit here is to prove you can do more with a limited resource where that resource is something that computing systems managers are desirous of reducing because it gives them the right to claim all sorts of greenish certification bonads from the marketosphere, and improve their bottom line for the investosphere.
Your hands were waving over the keyboard instead of putting words into it. Please hang up and try again.
Does he like beans?
Coincidentally, the number of coffeemakers on this floor is...three.
Loophole.
Give me those amps at 130 KV, please.
I'll supply the step-down transformer.
You might want to reread that self-defense clause again.
You can use deadly force to protect people and property from imminent danger. Someone poking a hand under your bumper is not that.
And there's generally going to be no way you'll prove self-defense against a cop, since you have to presume a cop is assaulting you legally unless you know specifically otherwise. you might have a chance if he's assaulting you without telling you he's a cop, but that won't work if he's under cover, since "I didn't know he was a cop" is the whole point of that. And killing a cop isn't just murder or manslaughter, it's a cop-killing, and for that you get special treatment.
You were thinking of putting it in a loop.
If you don't have a development server that closely replicates the installed state and environment of the production server, you're doing it wrong.
You've built inaccuracies into your development and test system, differences from the production system that will result in differences in the completed code which will then encounter those differences and behave improperly on the production server.
I.e., you're building bugs in deliberately.
Stop that.
Now, I understand, sometimes scalability is an issue. You can't replicate a whole server farm for the devs. But you can isolate that variable and design for it from the first day. It's the other variables that you don't anticipate and don't have visibility into that you need to keep from varying.
Thanks for Moderating, SteveJobs.
I have a computer set up in front of the TV.
I am often watching TV and online at the same time, and sometimes dealing with incoming data on my phone as well.
When I really want to zone out I lie back and fire up a few episodes of How It's Made.
BTW, I got tired of Deadliest Catch after about half a marathon. But I could watch Dirty Jobs 24/7/365 and not even ask for a raise.
Yes. Now it's called commuting.
There's a meme for that.
Note: most of those are already on T-shirts.