Delays in the implementation of a safety regulation? How does that cause the kind of structural problems we see? Would everything be great if regulation didn’t have to face due process?
Yes, all the time and energy spent trying to secure a government advantage is productivity lost. The solution is less government power and money for rich people to fight over. Then instead of using the country’s talent to shuffle pieces around the board, that talent could be used for productive work.
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Who we charge for giving them false information.
Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.
In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground. They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.
In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community". She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.
Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Who we charge for giving them false information.
Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.
The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone,
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.
If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.
It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.
Even if the quote is misused. It's still fucking true.
But when the cliche is used, it's mostly used to say "free speech isn't absolute, so we can impose controls on speech and censor some kinds of speech". In fact, no, you probably can't.
Government can almost never censor speech. And, while almost never isn't exactly never, almost never is a lot closer to never than it is to the average scheme of people who use the "fire in a crowded theatre" cliche.
Yeah, "common sense" is awesome because it can be used to argue for or against anything. Or both -- if you're vague enough, both sides will assume you agree with them because they see themselves as being sensible, so their preferences must be the "common sense" ones.
Not really. Some other people want to impose oppressive "controls" on innocent people. I don't. I support the entire Bill of Rights, rather than supporting some fashionable parts and opposing other parts.
Anyone for "common sense" speech controls? You're not against "common sense" are you?
What kind of speech-nuts or speech-extremists would argue against common sense limitations on a Constitutional right? They didn't have computers when the US Constitution was written, after all.
I knew somebody would debate this, but what exactly does "reckless" mean?
It means what the law defines it to mean. Google says "reckless driving is often defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a wanton disregard for the rules of the road; the driver misjudges common driving procedures, often causing wrecks, accidents and other damages." If it's ambiguous, then the jury will say "not guilty".
I think it is ambiguous enough that it leaves room for someone arguing that 60 in a 30 zone is fine because they're super good at driving, there's nobody using the road, or some other reason.
That's a road design issue or an abuse of the law to profit from fines. If your road is perfectly straight and there are no obstructions or traffic, and you need people to go 30, then put in a stop sign and/or some artificial stuff in the median or something similar. Make it obviously reckless to go fast. Then only reckless drivers will go fast.
I think some speed limits represent real concerns, like the time to stop relative to the potential for someone to cross the road, or to provide a predictable velocity of oncoming traffic for people trying to cross a road on foot or in a car.
It's a road engineering issue. If there are line of sight issues, you can put up a fence so pedestrians only cross where they can be seen. Or slow traffic with a traffic circle or whatever else is needed. That stuff actually works to prevent injuries in non-reckless driving situations.
If you aren’t driving recklessly, how is your speed anyone’s business? If you are driving recklessly, there are specific laws with severe penalties for such behavior.
The whole idea of speed enforcement on roads is very backward looking, very “inside the box" thinking. Auto accidents and injuries per mile driven are a tiny tiny fraction of what they once were. And we are on the cusp of a technological revolution that will make car crashes with injuries rare enough to warrant a segment on the evening news.
Laws do need to enforced beyond the Violent people. There is a lot of degrees of safety beyond just physical harm.
Not as much as you imply. Beyond physical harm, property crimes need to be enforced because if they aren't then people will take their justice privately.
But many, many laws don't meet a "compelling state interest" test. They aren't necessary. Some guys a long time ago thought they'd be nice to have. That's not compatible with the culture and technology any more.
But many laws need to be enforced justly.
That's not going to happen. Laws will be enforced aggressively on some groups while other groups get a pass. The only solution is fewer laws: if the offense is so bad that no one gets a pass, then the law will be enforced justly.
"We thank you for the effort and your hard work. But we can't let your job be easier at a high costs of our freedoms"
It only impacts your freedom because busybodies passed thousands and thousands of laws to punish thousands of non-violent behaviors and decisions. Repeal the laws against everything and you won't have to worry so much about your freedom. (Keep and enforce the laws against violence and you won't have to worry so much about your safety either.)
Technology doesn't move backward. And even if you make rules against law enforcement using this technology, since when does law enforcement obey rules? Law enforcement mostly works around the rules.
The tech isn't the problem, the police and the laws are the problem. If you're in public, you won't be able to hide. It's long past time we change our laws and reform our law enforcement so regular people won't see any need to hide.
Time for a government that's less authoritarian and less punitive. Let us live our own lives and make our own choices.
Yeah, that's a lot of exclusive group self-focus. I'm more of an "everyone matters" sort of guy. So when groups start making everything about themselves, then it's time to tune them out (at best).
Lives matter because humanity matters, not because race does.
Slashdot Mirror
Delays in the implementation of a safety regulation? How does that cause the kind of structural problems we see? Would everything be great if regulation didn’t have to face due process?
Yes, all the time and energy spent trying to secure a government advantage is productivity lost. The solution is less government power and money for rich people to fight over. Then instead of using the country’s talent to shuffle pieces around the board, that talent could be used for productive work.
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Who we charge for giving them false information.
Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.
Provably false claim on your part.
In the first link, the officers weren't charged for assaulting a defenseless man laying on the ground. They got a 15 day suspension, not a criminal charge.
In the second link, the officer wasn't charged for "being a danger to her community". She falsified paperwork. She was charged for it though.
Paperwork means more to these guys than wanton violence against defenseless citizens.
So, if YOU called 911...
There would be a reasonable chance the cops would show up and end up shooting me.
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
Who we charge for giving them false information.
Never the officers who are the actual danger to the community.
It’s really bad, and the public found out about it. Someone needs to be responsible and accountable.
The police are never responsible or accountable. So that leaves the SWATter. That's why the SWATter is facing life in prison.
The cops would not have even been there to potentially kill anyone,
What difference does it make whether they were at that house killing that particular innocent guy or at a different house shooting someone else answering the door?
I think you mean metalling. Russians are always forging stuff.
Whoosh
These guys did the worst thing imaginable: they made law enforcement look bad.
If anyone condemning the SWATters stops to take a breath, the public might have time to consider the danger lurking in their communities, waiting for a call to go shoot some people.
It could be anyone, in any circumstance, at any time. There's nothing to prevent it happening to you or your family members. There's nothing to prevent the same people shooting more innocent people over and over, year after year. The shooters deny any responsibility for the shootings. They are accountable to no one.
Even if the quote is misused. It's still fucking true.
But when the cliche is used, it's mostly used to say "free speech isn't absolute, so we can impose controls on speech and censor some kinds of speech". In fact, no, you probably can't.
Government can almost never censor speech. And, while almost never isn't exactly never, almost never is a lot closer to never than it is to the average scheme of people who use the "fire in a crowded theatre" cliche.
Yeah, "common sense" is awesome because it can be used to argue for or against anything. Or both -- if you're vague enough, both sides will assume you agree with them because they see themselves as being sensible, so their preferences must be the "common sense" ones.
Here's an article on that "fire in a crowded theatre" cliche:
https://www.theatlantic.com/na...
6-figure government pension unlocked!
Are you serious?
Not really. Some other people want to impose oppressive "controls" on innocent people. I don't. I support the entire Bill of Rights, rather than supporting some fashionable parts and opposing other parts.
Anyone for "common sense" speech controls? You're not against "common sense" are you?
What kind of speech-nuts or speech-extremists would argue against common sense limitations on a Constitutional right? They didn't have computers when the US Constitution was written, after all.
Amazon is acting rationally.
I knew somebody would debate this, but what exactly does "reckless" mean?
It means what the law defines it to mean. Google says "reckless driving is often defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a wanton disregard for the rules of the road; the driver misjudges common driving procedures, often causing wrecks, accidents and other damages." If it's ambiguous, then the jury will say "not guilty".
I think it is ambiguous enough that it leaves room for someone arguing that 60 in a 30 zone is fine because they're super good at driving, there's nobody using the road, or some other reason.
That's a road design issue or an abuse of the law to profit from fines. If your road is perfectly straight and there are no obstructions or traffic, and you need people to go 30, then put in a stop sign and/or some artificial stuff in the median or something similar. Make it obviously reckless to go fast. Then only reckless drivers will go fast.
I think some speed limits represent real concerns, like the time to stop relative to the potential for someone to cross the road, or to provide a predictable velocity of oncoming traffic for people trying to cross a road on foot or in a car.
It's a road engineering issue. If there are line of sight issues, you can put up a fence so pedestrians only cross where they can be seen. Or slow traffic with a traffic circle or whatever else is needed. That stuff actually works to prevent injuries in non-reckless driving situations.
If you aren’t driving recklessly, how is your speed anyone’s business? If you are driving recklessly, there are specific laws with severe penalties for such behavior.
The whole idea of speed enforcement on roads is very backward looking, very “inside the box" thinking. Auto accidents and injuries per mile driven are a tiny tiny fraction of what they once were. And we are on the cusp of a technological revolution that will make car crashes with injuries rare enough to warrant a segment on the evening news.
Laws do need to enforced beyond the Violent people. There is a lot of degrees of safety beyond just physical harm.
Not as much as you imply. Beyond physical harm, property crimes need to be enforced because if they aren't then people will take their justice privately.
But many, many laws don't meet a "compelling state interest" test. They aren't necessary. Some guys a long time ago thought they'd be nice to have. That's not compatible with the culture and technology any more.
But many laws need to be enforced justly.
That's not going to happen. Laws will be enforced aggressively on some groups while other groups get a pass. The only solution is fewer laws: if the offense is so bad that no one gets a pass, then the law will be enforced justly.
No science fiction stories, thanks. We can make better decisions without being distracted by fantastic science fiction scenarios.
"We thank you for the effort and your hard work. But we can't let your job be easier at a high costs of our freedoms"
It only impacts your freedom because busybodies passed thousands and thousands of laws to punish thousands of non-violent behaviors and decisions. Repeal the laws against everything and you won't have to worry so much about your freedom. (Keep and enforce the laws against violence and you won't have to worry so much about your safety either.)
Technology doesn't move backward. And even if you make rules against law enforcement using this technology, since when does law enforcement obey rules? Law enforcement mostly works around the rules.
The tech isn't the problem, the police and the laws are the problem. If you're in public, you won't be able to hide. It's long past time we change our laws and reform our law enforcement so regular people won't see any need to hide.
Time for a government that's less authoritarian and less punitive. Let us live our own lives and make our own choices.
Yeah, that's a lot of exclusive group self-focus. I'm more of an "everyone matters" sort of guy. So when groups start making everything about themselves, then it's time to tune them out (at best).
Lives matter because humanity matters, not because race does.
I think the lesson is not to be exclusionary. Then you don't have to say "...but we really don't mean it the way it sounds".
Saying "Black LIves Matter" isn't exclusionary of other races, it's just pointing out a fact...
In an exclusionary way.
It's hard to believe you feel excluded
It’s not a feeling. I am excluded.
there's no way BLM should be offensive or controversial to you.
It’s not "offensive or controversial", it’s just one race caring about themselves to the exclusion of everyone else.
Would a white lives matter club be a problem? Clearly it would. Race exclusionary movements are a problem.