Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier.
They did. He continued.
After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak.
But it is NOT his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak in that exact spot in front of those people. All of those people also have the first amendment right to peacefully assemble, and he was depriving them of that right by disrupting their peaceful assembly. He wasn't just counter protesting outside, he was using their equipment, their time and their resources to speak his message. That is not protected by the constitution. You have the right to speak, not the right to use someone elses property to do so, and not to prevent others from speaking while you do so.
If anyone who speak out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman
In a private gathering, yes, that is essentially the truth. The only thing your right to speech gives you is the right to speak and hold your own gathering, it doesn't give you the right to speak at someone else's gathering.
This is moot, since removing him was not justified
Sure it was, he violated the ABSOLUTE RIGHTS of all the other people there by refusing to surrender the mic, disturbing their assembly and preventing others from speaking. The police are there to preserve everyone's rights, not just the loudest.
Being removed is not being arrested, resisting being removed (if the removal was legitimate, which it wasn't) may constitute trespassing, but he would have to be then arrested for that and resist that actual arrest.
Once he was trespassing, any further resistance is resisting arrest, as the only result of violating a trespass order is to be arrested.
Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.
One lucky kick or punch is enough to maim or kill any of the cops or even himself. Until he was in cuffs, he was a threat, PERIOD.
It is not their duty to use excessive force.
it is their duty to keep the peace and resolve the situation as quickly and safely as possible. A drawn out wrestling match is not safe.
Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority, and then being too pig-headed to back down. He could have complied and walked out, but then what would his right to free speech be worth? (You have the right to free speech, but if you don't shut up, we're going to escalate this situation until we get to taser you).
Every escalation was the result of the kid. He created a disturbance (escalation 1) he refused to leave when asked (escalation 2) he refused to leave when escorted out (escalation 3) he actively resisted his escort and ran back through the crowd to the podium (escalation 4) he continued to actively resist the police when they stopped him and attempted to arrest him (escalation 5), even after being warned that continued resistance would result in him being tased, he continued to fight police (escalation 6). Every time the situation got worse, he had a chance to leave. He refused, he payed.
There was a video recently the made it's way around youtube of some LA cops that did just that. They had a suspect on the ground who was continuing to attack the officers and they used quick, calculated blows (in this case to the guy's head) get him to comply so that they could cuff him. The reaction was about the same as it is here. The problem is, violence is ugly, and no one likes to see it. But forced compliance, whether via taser or blows or holds is all violence. I would bet if you took a set of videos containing reasonable use of force and unreasonable force in compliance situations, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference except in extreme cases.
Arm twisting and trips carry a much higher chance of lasting injury (ranging from dislocation to broken bones to death) than does a stun gun. 5 seconds of pain is considerably better than a fractured arm because the cop was twisting one way and you were twisting the other.
Somehow, I would rather be stunned for a few seconds than tied up and forcefully carried off. Never mind the rope burns, the risk of dislocated joints and broken bones were I to be dropped is quite considerable in being tied up and hauled off. If I can leave under my own power, I'd much rather do that. Then again, I'm not the type of person who puts myself into situations where the options are tie me up or hit me with a stun gun.
You haven't actually ever tried to restrain someone that didn't want to be restrained have you? A taser (or stun gun in this instance) is thousands of times safer in such a senario than wrestling with the kid.
Their job is to maintain authority and resolve the situation as quickly and as safely as possible. To all parties involved, a stun gun is considerably safer than a wrestling match.
Isn't one of the tennets of the GPL that when you distribute the code, you must confer the same rights onto the next person that you were given with the code? I would argue that includes the option to use the code under the BSD license rather than the GPL (given that GPL is more restrictive). If you fail to include the option to license under BSD in your distribution, you are violating the spirit if not the letter of the GPL by removing freedoms which you previously had been granted.
It didn't suddenly cause him to recieve a $5,000 bill. He had to specifically request that international roaming be enabled on his account, and nothing in that process implies that doing so would be cheap. It specifies that both voice and data transmissions will be extremely costly. Certainly there is an intuitable relationship between having your phone request that data be sent to it every 30 minutes (or whatever he set his phone for) and paying for that data when you are in an area that you have specifically requested to have different service for. In fact, the article quotes the person as stating that they just assumed that the phone wouldn't work on the data network over seas, implying that he certainly knew his phone was requesting data be sent, and that he knew that he would pay for data he used over seas.
Being a normal person doesn't excuse you from understanding how to operate equipment works before you use it. Just because I don't read the manual for my car to find out that when parking on an incline (or at all really) I should use the parking brake, despite the fact that my car stays stationary when in park doesn't mean I'm not liable for the damages that I cause to my own property and other peoples.
He knew he was going to a different country, and knew he was going to be roaming (he had to turn on international roaming with ATT for his phone to work in the first place). He also should have known that his phone uses the cell connection when it doesn't have a wi-fi connection to check email (which he set his phone to do). The question is, at any point during this, would a reasonable person expect that cell use overseas using an international roaming feature be free? I'm thinking no.
He had to purposefuly enable international roaming, and purposefully tell his phone to check his mail even when he wasn't specificaly using the phone. If I were going over seas, I would certainly double check to ensure that doing both of those actions wouldn't lead me to having a multi thousadn dollar bill.
There is only one way to switch off the phone, that method confirms that you have switched off the phone. The only other action they could have taken would have put the phone to sleep, and it would be the same method that they use every day to put the phone to sleep. Ask yourself if you would assume that the action you normaly take to do one thing, would do something completely different just because you were leaving the country?
My sony ericsson W300i, when closed, has no visible indication of whether the phone is in sleep mode (recieves calls and text messages, essentialy on, but no display) or off. Before that I had a motorola phone which exhibited the same behavior, before that, a cheap LG, same behavior. The only phone I ever had that indicated on or off without having to push a button, was an old samsung from the late 90's.
When you turn the phone off, it does turn off. The problem at hand here is pushing the "sleep/wake" button is not turning the phone off. There is a specific action that you must take to power the phone off (hold sleep wake, then confirm you want to turn the phone off).
Turn off auto checking in the mail settings (he had to turn it on in the first place) and set push email accounts to away, or delete account from the phone.
- disable cellular data transfers
Remove SIM card, or enable SIM lock in phone settings. Cell connections can not be made without SIM password (emergency calls excluded)
- disable wi-fi data transfers
Turn Wi-Fi off in phone settings.
- turn off the antenna
Put phone in airplane mode (disables all antennas on the phone) or turn the phone OFF (not sleep).
All of these methods were available and built into the phone. The person in question apparently was either unaware of them or ignored them.
The officer charged him with obstructing official police business, or essentialy wasting the officer's time. If CC had called the cops, sure, complete bullshit, but here's the catch: He called the cops. And then he refused to cooperate with the cop that he had called. Certainly I consider that a waste of the officer's time. Whether it holds up in court or not, I don't know, but there's certainyl an argument to be made.
It doesn't have to. The aim is not really what's in the bag. The idea is to make your potential shoplifter have a greater chance of sticking out and also to get them in close proximity to an employee. Your potential shoplifter is going to want to be as far away from employees as possible, especially when said employee is specifically supposed to be looking for your shoplifter.
Not at all. But crack down on actual power abuse. Zero tollerance, whether in the form of blanket policies or wide reaching bans, is ineffective and inefficient.
Devils Advocate: A receipt check is a request for cooperation in helping deter crime. By creating an environment where customers voluntarily submit to a receipt check, you make it that much more difficult for a shoplifter to blend in as it's another activity they will have to engage in to appear normal and increases their risk of being caught. We have a civic duty to engage in active policing and activities to prevent crime in our comunities.
Welcome to the world of zero tollerance. Another word that you might use to describe discretion is discrimination. Of course, in the modern world, society has given up their ability to discriminate between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination. Therefore, in order to avoid any appearances of bad discrimination, cops are ordered by their superiors, who are ordered by the politicians who are ordered by the people (that's you and me) to treat everyone equally and to not use "soft sciences" like discretion and discrimination and profiling. If you want it to change, start lobbying to give the cops their right to use reasonable discretion again.
Has it occurred to anyone that there will most likely NEVER be another successful hijacking of an airliner BECAUSE of 9/11? Any effort to do so will result in another Flight 93. It's not hard to be a hero when you know the only other option is death...I doubt any group of American passengers is likely to sit quietly the next time an Arab with a box cutter starts barking orders.
One would like to think that, but one only need look at recent school shootings to know that most likely there will be succesful hijackings in the future. That won't change until the american attitude towards defense (which is different from security) changes. As it stands, the message pounded into you from day one is "just give them what they want, your life isn't worth it" and the end result is people who are relatively passive when it comes to their own safety and security. It's part of the reason why the first attacks were succesful. Until we start encouraging people to take oportunities when they present themselves and fight back when their life or safety is on the line, such events will tragically continue.
1) I am alive 2) In being alive, my heart is pumping blood 3) Your sword punctures my skin 4) I was not already bleeding from a wound in the same location
If any of these change, your truth is no longer true.
There is humor in the fact that as I read your post, there is an ad at the top of the page for smalldog.com, a retailer which sells more than just ipods.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier.
They did. He continued.
After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak.
But it is NOT his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak in that exact spot in front of those people. All of those people also have the first amendment right to peacefully assemble, and he was depriving them of that right by disrupting their peaceful assembly. He wasn't just counter protesting outside, he was using their equipment, their time and their resources to speak his message. That is not protected by the constitution. You have the right to speak, not the right to use someone elses property to do so, and not to prevent others from speaking while you do so.
If anyone who speak out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman
In a private gathering, yes, that is essentially the truth. The only thing your right to speech gives you is the right to speak and hold your own gathering, it doesn't give you the right to speak at someone else's gathering.
This is moot, since removing him was not justified
Sure it was, he violated the ABSOLUTE RIGHTS of all the other people there by refusing to surrender the mic, disturbing their assembly and preventing others from speaking. The police are there to preserve everyone's rights, not just the loudest.
Being removed is not being arrested, resisting being removed (if the removal was legitimate, which it wasn't) may constitute trespassing, but he would have to be then arrested for that and resist that actual arrest.
Once he was trespassing, any further resistance is resisting arrest, as the only result of violating a trespass order is to be arrested.
Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.
One lucky kick or punch is enough to maim or kill any of the cops or even himself. Until he was in cuffs, he was a threat, PERIOD.
It is not their duty to use excessive force.
it is their duty to keep the peace and resolve the situation as quickly and safely as possible. A drawn out wrestling match is not safe.
Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority, and then being too pig-headed to back down. He could have complied and walked out, but then what would his right to free speech be worth? (You have the right to free speech, but if you don't shut up, we're going to escalate this situation until we get to taser you).
Every escalation was the result of the kid. He created a disturbance (escalation 1) he refused to leave when asked (escalation 2) he refused to leave when escorted out (escalation 3) he actively resisted his escort and ran back through the crowd to the podium (escalation 4) he continued to actively resist the police when they stopped him and attempted to arrest him (escalation 5), even after being warned that continued resistance would result in him being tased, he continued to fight police (escalation 6). Every time the situation got worse, he had a chance to leave. He refused, he payed.
There was a video recently the made it's way around youtube of some LA cops that did just that. They had a suspect on the ground who was continuing to attack the officers and they used quick, calculated blows (in this case to the guy's head) get him to comply so that they could cuff him. The reaction was about the same as it is here. The problem is, violence is ugly, and no one likes to see it. But forced compliance, whether via taser or blows or holds is all violence. I would bet if you took a set of videos containing reasonable use of force and unreasonable force in compliance situations, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference except in extreme cases.
Arm twisting and trips carry a much higher chance of lasting injury (ranging from dislocation to broken bones to death) than does a stun gun. 5 seconds of pain is considerably better than a fractured arm because the cop was twisting one way and you were twisting the other.
Somehow, I would rather be stunned for a few seconds than tied up and forcefully carried off. Never mind the rope burns, the risk of dislocated joints and broken bones were I to be dropped is quite considerable in being tied up and hauled off. If I can leave under my own power, I'd much rather do that. Then again, I'm not the type of person who puts myself into situations where the options are tie me up or hit me with a stun gun.
You haven't actually ever tried to restrain someone that didn't want to be restrained have you? A taser (or stun gun in this instance) is thousands of times safer in such a senario than wrestling with the kid.
Their job is to maintain authority and resolve the situation as quickly and as safely as possible. To all parties involved, a stun gun is considerably safer than a wrestling match.
Isn't one of the tennets of the GPL that when you distribute the code, you must confer the same rights onto the next person that you were given with the code? I would argue that includes the option to use the code under the BSD license rather than the GPL (given that GPL is more restrictive). If you fail to include the option to license under BSD in your distribution, you are violating the spirit if not the letter of the GPL by removing freedoms which you previously had been granted.
It didn't suddenly cause him to recieve a $5,000 bill. He had to specifically request that international roaming be enabled on his account, and nothing in that process implies that doing so would be cheap. It specifies that both voice and data transmissions will be extremely costly. Certainly there is an intuitable relationship between having your phone request that data be sent to it every 30 minutes (or whatever he set his phone for) and paying for that data when you are in an area that you have specifically requested to have different service for. In fact, the article quotes the person as stating that they just assumed that the phone wouldn't work on the data network over seas, implying that he certainly knew his phone was requesting data be sent, and that he knew that he would pay for data he used over seas.
Being a normal person doesn't excuse you from understanding how to operate equipment works before you use it. Just because I don't read the manual for my car to find out that when parking on an incline (or at all really) I should use the parking brake, despite the fact that my car stays stationary when in park doesn't mean I'm not liable for the damages that I cause to my own property and other peoples.
He knew he was going to a different country, and knew he was going to be roaming (he had to turn on international roaming with ATT for his phone to work in the first place). He also should have known that his phone uses the cell connection when it doesn't have a wi-fi connection to check email (which he set his phone to do). The question is, at any point during this, would a reasonable person expect that cell use overseas using an international roaming feature be free? I'm thinking no.
He had to purposefuly enable international roaming, and purposefully tell his phone to check his mail even when he wasn't specificaly using the phone. If I were going over seas, I would certainly double check to ensure that doing both of those actions wouldn't lead me to having a multi thousadn dollar bill.
There is only one way to switch off the phone, that method confirms that you have switched off the phone. The only other action they could have taken would have put the phone to sleep, and it would be the same method that they use every day to put the phone to sleep. Ask yourself if you would assume that the action you normaly take to do one thing, would do something completely different just because you were leaving the country?
My sony ericsson W300i, when closed, has no visible indication of whether the phone is in sleep mode (recieves calls and text messages, essentialy on, but no display) or off. Before that I had a motorola phone which exhibited the same behavior, before that, a cheap LG, same behavior. The only phone I ever had that indicated on or off without having to push a button, was an old samsung from the late 90's.
When you turn the phone off, it does turn off. The problem at hand here is pushing the "sleep/wake" button is not turning the phone off. There is a specific action that you must take to power the phone off (hold sleep wake, then confirm you want to turn the phone off).
Where does it say that in TFA or any of the stories from other sources linked from it?
It's the only possible scenario since when you actually power the phone off, it's completely off.
- disable all data transfers
Turn off auto checking in the mail settings (he had to turn it on in the first place) and set push email accounts to away, or delete account from the phone.
- disable cellular data transfers
Remove SIM card, or enable SIM lock in phone settings. Cell connections can not be made without SIM password (emergency calls excluded)
- disable wi-fi data transfers
Turn Wi-Fi off in phone settings.
- turn off the antenna
Put phone in airplane mode (disables all antennas on the phone) or turn the phone OFF (not sleep).
All of these methods were available and built into the phone. The person in question apparently was either unaware of them or ignored them.
IANALBIPOOSD
The officer charged him with obstructing official police business, or essentialy wasting the officer's time. If CC had called the cops, sure, complete bullshit, but here's the catch: He called the cops. And then he refused to cooperate with the cop that he had called. Certainly I consider that a waste of the officer's time. Whether it holds up in court or not, I don't know, but there's certainyl an argument to be made.
It doesn't have to. The aim is not really what's in the bag. The idea is to make your potential shoplifter have a greater chance of sticking out and also to get them in close proximity to an employee. Your potential shoplifter is going to want to be as far away from employees as possible, especially when said employee is specifically supposed to be looking for your shoplifter.
Not at all. But crack down on actual power abuse. Zero tollerance, whether in the form of blanket policies or wide reaching bans, is ineffective and inefficient.
Devils Advocate: A receipt check is a request for cooperation in helping deter crime. By creating an environment where customers voluntarily submit to a receipt check, you make it that much more difficult for a shoplifter to blend in as it's another activity they will have to engage in to appear normal and increases their risk of being caught. We have a civic duty to engage in active policing and activities to prevent crime in our comunities.
Welcome to the world of zero tollerance. Another word that you might use to describe discretion is discrimination. Of course, in the modern world, society has given up their ability to discriminate between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination. Therefore, in order to avoid any appearances of bad discrimination, cops are ordered by their superiors, who are ordered by the politicians who are ordered by the people (that's you and me) to treat everyone equally and to not use "soft sciences" like discretion and discrimination and profiling. If you want it to change, start lobbying to give the cops their right to use reasonable discretion again.
Has it occurred to anyone that there will most likely NEVER be another successful hijacking of an airliner BECAUSE of 9/11? Any effort to do so will result in another Flight 93. It's not hard to be a hero when you know the only other option is death...I doubt any group of American passengers is likely to sit quietly the next time an Arab with a box cutter starts barking orders.
One would like to think that, but one only need look at recent school shootings to know that most likely there will be succesful hijackings in the future. That won't change until the american attitude towards defense (which is different from security) changes. As it stands, the message pounded into you from day one is "just give them what they want, your life isn't worth it" and the end result is people who are relatively passive when it comes to their own safety and security. It's part of the reason why the first attacks were succesful. Until we start encouraging people to take oportunities when they present themselves and fight back when their life or safety is on the line, such events will tragically continue.
Only assuming that all of the following are true:
1) I am alive
2) In being alive, my heart is pumping blood
3) Your sword punctures my skin
4) I was not already bleeding from a wound in the same location
If any of these change, your truth is no longer true.
What did you expect? Everyone has different truths.
There is humor in the fact that as I read your post, there is an ad at the top of the page for smalldog.com, a retailer which sells more than just ipods.