He was stopped - legally. He got out of the car. He was told to get back into the car, which is standard procedure for police even in his home town. H refused. He was told a second time, and again didn't comply. So the officer went to arrest him, and THEN he gets back in his car. Sorry, too late!
Ontario cops would have the right to do the same thing.
Also, the story is wrong - he was not convicted of assault, just disobeying a lawful order.
No, he was told to get back in his car, twice. He refused. At that point, they tried to arrest him, he got into his car (too late Chuckles), yadda yadda yadda.
He was given two chances to comply. It was only when they went to cuff him that he "obeyed." And the story is wrong - he was not convicted of assault, just disobeying a lawful order.
The CBC story is wrong - Watts was NOT convicted of assault.
Robert B. Marks wrote:Posted 2010/03/20
at 12:50 AM ET
Well, a bit of perspective here...
First of all, some jurors have weighed in on Watts' case on some blogs here and there (including Watts' own). Watts was convicted of failing to obey a lawful order - he wasn't convicted of assault. Now, the jurors themselves said that the guard in question overreacted and failed to communicate properly. They also said that two wrongs don't make a right.
Second, that statute about lawful orders is there for a reason. Most of the people who try to cross the border are law-abiding folk. Some, however, are packing, and dangerous, and while a slight hesitation to get out of a car is usually just somebody not quite understanding, there are times when it's somebody taking the safety off a gun. The law empowers officers to move quickly in a case like that - and sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes they abuse it. But, it is an empowerment that can save lives in certain situations.
Third, as the comments from the jurors and Watts' own account on his blog state, the assault aspect was blown out of the water. So, there is still the sentencing phase to come, and it could very well be that Watts is sentenced to time already served, or a minor slap on the wrist, and the matter is done. The trial is not over yet.
Finally, even if the judge turns out to be unreasonable in the sentencing phase, there is the right to appeal, which is there specifically to prevent miscarriages of justice. There may even be an opportunity for Watts to pursue civil damages against the guard who assaulted him.
So, this isn't a case of authority going unchecked, or a massive civil rights scandal - it's a tragic case with an overreaction from a border guard and a failure by Watts to obey a guard's order. And the process is not over yet.
So don't worry, this isn't a blot on your soul, and as a Canadian I can say we still love you all, and hope for the best for you, and apologize for Mr. Watts being a self-righteous jerk who feels he can give less deference to American police than he'd have to show to Canadian police and then whine about "mistreatment" because of the possible bad optics.
Courtesy begats courtesy. It doesn't cost anything to be polite, especially when you're a guest in another country.
He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP. He refused.
This is the same procedure Canadian police use during a traffic stop. When you're pulled over, you're supposed to wait in your car. If you get out, you are told to get back into your vehicle. If you refuse, you have disobeyed a lawful order, end of story.
He admitted he got out of the car, and didn't get back in it when he was told to, instead trying to see what the police were doing when they were searching hit trunk (a legal search, btw). So he was also interfering with a police search.
The guy's a jerk and gives Canadians a bad name. If he had done this in Canada, he'd still have ended up in court, so what's the big deal? Oh, right - AMERIKA BAD!
I make enough "In Soviet Amerika" jokes, but in that case, it simply doesn't apply. Peter Watts has only Peter Watts to blame.
elomerewhythere is a chicken$h*t bible-thumping lying troll. What other sort of idiot would even think of asking if "Jesus thinks its okay for a man married an infant"?
It wouldn't even occur to most people - just fundies who are so sexually screwed up that they come up with things like that.
Also, the mitochondrial eve theory has been debunked. Stupid bible-thumping troll.
Really, he's no better than "Pretenderlee" Enderlee or MoGTroll Maureen O'Gara. His opinion and $5 will buy you a $2 coffee (you take a minus $3 hit for being an obvious n00b even to the cashier).
You were toast LONG ago. It was "stick a fork in it" time right from the beginning, because, like SO many "Jeebus people", you have no ability to look at the lack of evidence, the contradictions, and the sheer stupidity of your beliefs. You have become so psychologically invested in them that to question them would literally result in the destruction of your whole universe.
No proof that god exists, or wrote the bible, but insists that it is authoritative;
No proof that jesus existed, or was the son of the aforementioned god, but insists that jesus is authoritative;
Says we should not base our views on "feelings", and doesn't realize the HUGE GAPING GOATSE-SIZED HOLE that your own belief system is based on - "feelings", not objective proof.
100% chicken-crap hypocrite who can't even answer the ONE question I asked
Sex with people of the same sex was NOT unlawful in ancient Greece. In fact, it was practiced quote a lot. Get over it. It doesn't fit into the definition of porneia, which by your own words implies money changing hands.
Also, I never appealed to authority - I derided it. Jesus never existed. Neither does God. And the Bible is not authoritative. It is not the law now, and it was not the law then.
I never asked YOU what anyone else's opinion (Imaginary Jesus, Imaginary God) was - I want YOUR opinion as to the question posed. Stop being such a wimp. Say what YOU think - or can you not do that?
And no, buying a prostitute in ancient Greece was NOT necessarily private, just like it's not private nowadays - temple prostitutes back then are one example. Learn your history. It starts WAY before the jews (or the "Hibaru" - the precedents to the Hebrew) ever existed.
Now, as to your question:
No, Jesus did not condemn porneia as a sin, because Jesus (as in "Jesus the son of god") did not exist.
Since Jesus (as in "Jesus the son of god") did not exist, your latter question is irrelevant.
If God or Jesus want to join in the conversation here, let them get an account and speak for themselves. You have no authority to speak for them, if they existed. Or are you going to claim that you are doing the will of God? Prove it. AFTER you answer my question.
Also, table saws come with a blade guard, etc. If you're using the saw as directed, there should never be a problem, unless you do something stupid, like leave the work area so cluttered, or the work piece so unsupported, that you slip and push the blade guard out of the way (your hands should never bee that close to begin with - that's what push sticks are for).
Part of the problem is that even with air bags, people don't know how to drive - they sit WAY too close to the steering wheel. Not only does this mean more likelihood of early impact on either a not-completely-deployed airbag or the steering column, but it also means that they are less able to quickly maneuver the steering wheel to avoid accidents in the first place. All because they don't know how to properly adjust their seat.
Another consequence is that you have to move your eyes/head more to see out both side-view mirrors, making them less useful.
I get into the cars of people who are way taller than me, and I have to move the seat back. They're just accidents waiting to happen.
I've got one of those touch-to-turn-on/turn-off lamps, and I sometimes have to touch more than once. Also, it seems to me that if you're cutting a lot of wood, your hands are going to be very nn-conductive because of the drying effect of the sawdust, particularly for composites such as slabs of melamine.
Of course, a big part of the problem is dummies who use a table saw when they should be using a radial-arm saw, or a vertical saw. And even when a table saw is appropriate, they don't know what they're doing - don't support the work properly, don't use the right jigs, etc., use a dull blade, raise the blade too high so it binds, try to cut too fast, remove the guards, don't use a push-stick, bad lighting, don't keep the area clean, try to take shortcuts, etc.
A bad worker will always blame his or her tools when things go wrong.
You can still buy mini-cd blank media - but what's the point, when you can get a usb key fob with more capacity for the same price in the bargain bin...
In Jesus' time, arranged marriages were common. Look no further than his parents. Same thing with alliances between kingdoms by arranging marriages at birth.
As for fornication, it doesn't mean quite what you think. The original greek word is where we get our term "pornography" from. There's a big difference between consensual sex between two people in private, irrespective of their genders, and pornography. "Fornicators" would include people like King David and King Solomon (he of the 300 wives and 700 concumbines). Jesus would condemn those two, not two people in a loving and caring adult consensual relationship (which David was incapable of - look at how he murdered Uriah just so he could have Bathsheba - and then look at what happened afterwards. The guy was a total jerk).
So, now... no more equivocating - answer the question.
I wonder how many people would say it's "not really identity theft" since you still have your identity... it wasn't "stolen."
I would. There's even a word for it: "impersonation"
And you'd be wrong - impersonation is a separate offense. I can steal all the information relevant to your identity and sell it on to someone else. In fact, that's what most identity theft involves.
Or we could have a bit of precision
... like your "impersonation" statement, which was not very precise?:-)
Canada's criminal code doesn't require you to actually take a physical object:
Theft
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
Your downloading an mp3 is converting something to your use.
You have deprived the owner of revenue which they would have had if you obtained it through legitimate means, which is on of their interests in it.
You have also deprived them of their further interest in their contractual right to control the presentation of their product, as Pink Floyd did with their albums, to control the layout of the songs so that they can only be distributed as a complete album.
An "interest in it" is not necessarily a physical thing...
Same thing with theft of service such as cable tv, etc.
326. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right,
(a) abstracts, consumes or uses electricity or gas or causes it to be wasted or diverted; or
(b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service.
(2) In this section and section 327, "telecommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic system.
Downloading images and sounds to which you don't have a legal right is theft in Canada. Stealing games by downloading them would be covered by "signals" or "intelligence of any nature".
And completely invaluable in two cases: when a website has something you need but happens to be down, and when the website is up but google is indexing a page that keeps changing, and when I get to the current page what I'm looking for isn't there anymore.
Totally irrelevant. The owner may have pulled the site down because they found multiple errors in stories, and want to fix it. They may have also taken it down because someone has spammed the comments, and the existence of a publicly-viewable copy in google's cached copy enables the spammer to continue to benefit from riding on the coat-tails. Or they may have decided to take it down for personal reasons. Who cares? It doesn't justify Google breaking the law.
In the second case, it helps me find whether your site indeed has what I'm looking for. I prefer the real website to the cached content, so I'll switch to that as soon as possible.
That sounds SO much like the bogus "I download music/games/whatever so that I can decide if it's what I'm looking for." Again, not legal. Google is breaking the law by allowing visitors to see a cached copy.
In both cases, having cached content increases the chances of me coming back or viewing more pages on your site if one of the things that I mentioned happens. If it's down and there's no cache (it can be disabled somehow), I'm not coming back ever.
Riiiight.... somehow, I don't believe you. And even if I did, there's STILL no justification for Google violating copyright laws.
Google crossed the line long ago. Search engines do NOT need to make a cached copy available to do their jobs.
There is nothing in the fair use provisions of copyright law that allows Google to show a cached copy of a web page to an end user.
Of course, they do that because people can look at the cache instead of going to the original source, so Google manages to extract more ad revenue, to the detriment of the original copyright holder and any licensee. This also ignores the whole problem of perpetuating invalid information when a source has made an update that isn't reflected in the cached copy.
The proper (and the only LEGAL way) to do it is to only show enough of the result so that the person can decide to follow the link or not, as explained here.
Google's behavior is unprofessional and every search result that offers to show the cache breeches copyright law; showing the cached copy is a further breech.
I wonder how many people would say it's "not really identity theft" since you still have your identity... it wasn't "stolen."
Or "I didn't steal the cable/satellite/internet - they still have it."
If we can have theft of identity (and your identity is Intellectual Property in its purest form), ad we can have theft of signals and services, when nothing is actually physically "taken"...
We should go back to the common case - you used something without permission and permission was required, then you're a thief.
Those search results aren't google content - they're other people's content. The "Cached" link is a gross violation of copyright and there is no argument remotely in favor of fair use for it.
And the bad part about all that is now we have to defeat airbags for people under a certain size, and kids. A law mandating use of lap and shoulder harnesses would have saved just as many lives, with no additional expense, and saved fuel (the extra weight of the air bag systems). It would have also kept fewer people from being ejected from their cars in roll-overs or guillotined by the door as it pops open, their head goes forward and to the side, and the door slams shut again (had a surgeon explain how that happens).
What I find amusing about this whole "OMG mp3 player tax" is that people are getting really upset about something that was inevitable. After all, how many people use their mp3 players exclusively for stuff they legally acquired?
Then again, I have no stake in this fight either way - I don't download music, and I can't see myself walking the dogs with an mp3 player distracting me.
Of course, maybe there should also be a noise pollution tax for everyone who has them so loud that you can hear them 30 feet away... that's something I seriously don't get. What is it with that?
Funny, because the first article I found on fee-shifting was about Ontario. Try using something other than google:-)
Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.
There's a simple principle of equity behind this - you are in control of how much you pay for legal advice, not the other party.
Just a quick note - Ontario is NOT Canada. And your reference to the rules of civil procedure that you point out are also Ontario-specific, and even there it is not guaranteed that you get the cost of your lawyers. Look up "fee shifting".
Slashdot Mirror
He was stopped - legally. He got out of the car. He was told to get back into the car, which is standard procedure for police even in his home town. H refused. He was told a second time, and again didn't comply. So the officer went to arrest him, and THEN he gets back in his car. Sorry, too late!
Ontario cops would have the right to do the same thing.
Also, the story is wrong - he was not convicted of assault, just disobeying a lawful order.
No, he was told to get back in his car, twice. He refused. At that point, they tried to arrest him, he got into his car (too late Chuckles), yadda yadda yadda.
He was given two chances to comply. It was only when they went to cuff him that he "obeyed." And the story is wrong - he was not convicted of assault, just disobeying a lawful order.
The CBC story is wrong - Watts was NOT convicted of assault.
So don't worry, this isn't a blot on your soul, and as a Canadian I can say we still love you all, and hope for the best for you, and apologize for Mr. Watts being a self-righteous jerk who feels he can give less deference to American police than he'd have to show to Canadian police and then whine about "mistreatment" because of the possible bad optics.
Courtesy begats courtesy. It doesn't cost anything to be polite, especially when you're a guest in another country.
He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP. He refused.
This is the same procedure Canadian police use during a traffic stop. When you're pulled over, you're supposed to wait in your car. If you get out, you are told to get back into your vehicle. If you refuse, you have disobeyed a lawful order, end of story.
He admitted he got out of the car, and didn't get back in it when he was told to, instead trying to see what the police were doing when they were searching hit trunk (a legal search, btw). So he was also interfering with a police search.
The guy's a jerk and gives Canadians a bad name. If he had done this in Canada, he'd still have ended up in court, so what's the big deal? Oh, right - AMERIKA BAD!
I make enough "In Soviet Amerika" jokes, but in that case, it simply doesn't apply. Peter Watts has only Peter Watts to blame.
elomerewhythere is a chicken$h*t bible-thumping lying troll. What other sort of idiot would even think of asking if "Jesus thinks its okay for a man married an infant"?
It wouldn't even occur to most people - just fundies who are so sexually screwed up that they come up with things like that.
Also, the mitochondrial eve theory has been debunked. Stupid bible-thumping troll.
Really, he's no better than "Pretenderlee" Enderlee or MoGTroll Maureen O'Gara. His opinion and $5 will buy you a $2 coffee (you take a minus $3 hit for being an obvious n00b even to the cashier).
You were toast LONG ago. It was "stick a fork in it" time right from the beginning, because, like SO many "Jeebus people", you have no ability to look at the lack of evidence, the contradictions, and the sheer stupidity of your beliefs. You have become so psychologically invested in them that to question them would literally result in the destruction of your whole universe.
You really ARE a fail!
Sex with people of the same sex was NOT unlawful in ancient Greece. In fact, it was practiced quote a lot. Get over it. It doesn't fit into the definition of porneia, which by your own words implies money changing hands.
Also, I never appealed to authority - I derided it. Jesus never existed. Neither does God. And the Bible is not authoritative. It is not the law now, and it was not the law then.
I never asked YOU what anyone else's opinion (Imaginary Jesus, Imaginary God) was - I want YOUR opinion as to the question posed. Stop being such a wimp. Say what YOU think - or can you not do that?
And no, buying a prostitute in ancient Greece was NOT necessarily private, just like it's not private nowadays - temple prostitutes back then are one example. Learn your history. It starts WAY before the jews (or the "Hibaru" - the precedents to the Hebrew) ever existed.
Now, as to your question:
No, Jesus did not condemn porneia as a sin, because Jesus (as in "Jesus the son of god") did not exist.
Since Jesus (as in "Jesus the son of god") did not exist, your latter question is irrelevant.
If God or Jesus want to join in the conversation here, let them get an account and speak for themselves. You have no authority to speak for them, if they existed. Or are you going to claim that you are doing the will of God? Prove it. AFTER you answer my question.
Also, table saws come with a blade guard, etc. If you're using the saw as directed, there should never be a problem, unless you do something stupid, like leave the work area so cluttered, or the work piece so unsupported, that you slip and push the blade guard out of the way (your hands should never bee that close to begin with - that's what push sticks are for).
Part of the problem is that even with air bags, people don't know how to drive - they sit WAY too close to the steering wheel. Not only does this mean more likelihood of early impact on either a not-completely-deployed airbag or the steering column, but it also means that they are less able to quickly maneuver the steering wheel to avoid accidents in the first place. All because they don't know how to properly adjust their seat.
Another consequence is that you have to move your eyes/head more to see out both side-view mirrors, making them less useful.
I get into the cars of people who are way taller than me, and I have to move the seat back. They're just accidents waiting to happen.
I've got one of those touch-to-turn-on/turn-off lamps, and I sometimes have to touch more than once. Also, it seems to me that if you're cutting a lot of wood, your hands are going to be very nn-conductive because of the drying effect of the sawdust, particularly for composites such as slabs of melamine.
Of course, a big part of the problem is dummies who use a table saw when they should be using a radial-arm saw, or a vertical saw. And even when a table saw is appropriate, they don't know what they're doing - don't support the work properly, don't use the right jigs, etc., use a dull blade, raise the blade too high so it binds, try to cut too fast, remove the guards, don't use a push-stick, bad lighting, don't keep the area clean, try to take shortcuts, etc.
A bad worker will always blame his or her tools when things go wrong.
You can still buy mini-cd blank media - but what's the point, when you can get a usb key fob with more capacity for the same price in the bargain bin ...
In Jesus' time, arranged marriages were common. Look no further than his parents. Same thing with alliances between kingdoms by arranging marriages at birth.
As for fornication, it doesn't mean quite what you think. The original greek word is where we get our term "pornography" from. There's a big difference between consensual sex between two people in private, irrespective of their genders, and pornography. "Fornicators" would include people like King David and King Solomon (he of the 300 wives and 700 concumbines). Jesus would condemn those two, not two people in a loving and caring adult consensual relationship (which David was incapable of - look at how he murdered Uriah just so he could have Bathsheba - and then look at what happened afterwards. The guy was a total jerk).
So, now ... no more equivocating - answer the question.
And you'd be wrong - impersonation is a separate offense. I can steal all the information relevant to your identity and sell it on to someone else. In fact, that's what most identity theft involves.
Canada's criminal code doesn't require you to actually take a physical object: Theft
Your downloading an mp3 is converting something to your use.
You have deprived the owner of revenue which they would have had if you obtained it through legitimate means, which is on of their interests in it.
You have also deprived them of their further interest in their contractual right to control the presentation of their product, as Pink Floyd did with their albums, to control the layout of the songs so that they can only be distributed as a complete album.
An "interest in it" is not necessarily a physical thing ...
Same thing with theft of service such as cable tv, etc.
Downloading images and sounds to which you don't have a legal right is theft in Canada. Stealing games by downloading them would be covered by "signals" or "intelligence of any nature".
It's theft. Get over it.
Totally irrelevant. The owner may have pulled the site down because they found multiple errors in stories, and want to fix it. They may have also taken it down because someone has spammed the comments, and the existence of a publicly-viewable copy in google's cached copy enables the spammer to continue to benefit from riding on the coat-tails. Or they may have decided to take it down for personal reasons. Who cares? It doesn't justify Google breaking the law.
That sounds SO much like the bogus "I download music/games/whatever so that I can decide if it's what I'm looking for." Again, not legal. Google is breaking the law by allowing visitors to see a cached copy.
Riiiight .... somehow, I don't believe you. And even if I did, there's STILL no justification for Google violating copyright laws.
Google crossed the line long ago. Search engines do NOT need to make a cached copy available to do their jobs.
Of course, they do that because people can look at the cache instead of going to the original source, so Google manages to extract more ad revenue, to the detriment of the original copyright holder and any licensee. This also ignores the whole problem of perpetuating invalid information when a source has made an update that isn't reflected in the cached copy.
The proper (and the only LEGAL way) to do it is to only show enough of the result so that the person can decide to follow the link or not, as explained here.
Google's behavior is unprofessional and every search result that offers to show the cache breeches copyright law; showing the cached copy is a further breech.
Great point.
I wonder how many people would say it's "not really identity theft" since you still have your identity ... it wasn't "stolen."
Or "I didn't steal the cable/satellite/internet - they still have it."
If we can have theft of identity (and your identity is Intellectual Property in its purest form), ad we can have theft of signals and services, when nothing is actually physically "taken" ...
We should go back to the common case - you used something without permission and permission was required, then you're a thief.
Location: http:
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 169
<html>
<head>
<title>Evil moved</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Evil moved</h1>
<p>Evil has moved to <a href="http://google.com/">http://google.com/</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
Those search results aren't google content - they're other people's content. The "Cached" link is a gross violation of copyright and there is no argument remotely in favor of fair use for it.
Isn't it SOP to wear properly insulated work boots when working with power tools? Also, some specialty blades are $400 and up.
And the bad part about all that is now we have to defeat airbags for people under a certain size, and kids. A law mandating use of lap and shoulder harnesses would have saved just as many lives, with no additional expense, and saved fuel (the extra weight of the air bag systems). It would have also kept fewer people from being ejected from their cars in roll-overs or guillotined by the door as it pops open, their head goes forward and to the side, and the door slams shut again (had a surgeon explain how that happens).
The only one who was doing anything shoddy was the guy who didn't use the saw as directed. 1-1/2 thumbs down.
It's all good. TGIF and all that.
What I find amusing about this whole "OMG mp3 player tax" is that people are getting really upset about something that was inevitable. After all, how many people use their mp3 players exclusively for stuff they legally acquired?
Then again, I have no stake in this fight either way - I don't download music, and I can't see myself walking the dogs with an mp3 player distracting me.
Of course, maybe there should also be a noise pollution tax for everyone who has them so loud that you can hear them 30 feet away ... that's something I seriously don't get. What is it with that?
Have a nice weekend.
Funny, because the first article I found on fee-shifting was about Ontario. Try using something other than google :-)
Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.
There's a simple principle of equity behind this - you are in control of how much you pay for legal advice, not the other party.
Just a quick note - Ontario is NOT Canada. And your reference to the rules of civil procedure that you point out are also Ontario-specific, and even there it is not guaranteed that you get the cost of your lawyers. Look up "fee shifting".