Anybody remember when "personal responsibility" meant something?
"Waah, I paid admission, then went down a slide and didn't pay attention to what I was doing and injured myself so I'm suing you for $$$."
Kill all the lawyers. First step towards reclaiming society. Second step: reclaim the jury system so it's no longer twelve retards who think the defendant has unlimited funds and "can afford" to just pay out in Lawsuit Lotto.
Well, here we go. One more good game out of Bungie, followed by layoffs, firings, and an endless line of crapass worthless "sequels" from ripoff studios like Neversoft.
I can't believe Bungie was that stupid. Microsoft might have pushed to get a couple things out the door earlier but come on, Craptivision's sequel-itis is making EA look like a sane company these days. The damage Craptivision did to Guitar Hero alone should have warned Bungie away, never mind the damage to Marvel's game lines, the absolutely crappy X-men "fighting games", the nonsense with Infinity Ward...
Starting with the fact that multiple people over Slashdot were able to find and quote the relevant policies regarding who Childs was authorized to release the passwords to, yet the supposed "CCIE" juror had that info withheld from him?
After reading the article, I stand by points I made in earlier discussions.
What we have here is a travesty and not justice. We have a juror who was given faulty jury instructions, who had relevant information withheld from them. And in the end, the decision made by the jurors amounted to what it looks like from the start - a collection of people who did not know anything about what they were looking at, scared by the prosecutors saying this is "w00h scary internets stuff", and making a faulty decision and a verdict that's a mockery of the law.
Not far off the mark. I had two "leftovers" gift cards for BB once - one had like 5 bucks and change, one about 10 bucks.
Tried to put them both down for a game that was marked down on sale to $20. First they hassled me over using them on a sale item. Then they tried to say I could only use one gift card per item so I'd need to buy another item.
If it were coupons, maybe. But they were fucking GIFT CARDS. Worst Buy had already taken the ACTUAL MONEY that they represented, from the gift giver.
Haven't bought anything from Shit Buy since. Not worth the fucking hassle.
I still stop by McDonald's/Burger King when they have nifty toys. Usually they'll sell you just the toy for around a buck or so. They're good for having around when friends bring their kids along to board game night.
As for the Granola State (land of fruits, nuts, and flakes), yeah. Must be something in the water out there that makes them all insane.
Honestly, what are they going to do next? Ban Cracker Jack boxes? The crap coming in those barely qualifies as a "toy" these days.
However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
If you can't find fault with any individual arrest on the merits, then the "black and brown" are obviously behaving, as an aggregate subculture, in a way that is a problem, no?
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people
The body of research is actually pretty damn lousy, however. Last time I saw such research attempting such a feat, they failed to account for the fact that low-income gang behavior led to larger numbers of cops being assigned to low-income areas of urban environments, which then led to more cops arresting the people in those areas, which recorrelated with the fact that the people in those areas tended to be "black and brown". In other words, the "decoupling" statistical effort was incomplete and therefore useless.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
And if you are hiring a less-qualified guy based on skin color just to meet a racial quota, what then? You're still being "discriminatory." Hell, if you require someone to have a certain certification to do the job, you're being "discriminatory."
The word "discrimination" - every time I hear it, I want to slap someone and say "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
For example, there's a decided underrepresentation of blacks in certain career fields. What causes this? The research is as yet unfinished, and will likely remain so, but clearly the idea that it's just skin color - as opposed to economic factors, gang membership, "black culture" that treats kids as a racial traitor for being above a certain IQ level and "acting white" - is ridiculous.
Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
According to federal law, they are required to have those on them anyways. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 264(e):
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
Based on my own experience, most of the people claiming to have been "profiled" have, by their own conduct (and not skin color) already drawn attention to themselves. People who are not taught how to behave in stressful situations, especially the 10 basic rules, seem to crop up more in the latino, black, and "white-trash" communities - indicating it's an economic, not racial, thing.
You will note that the video I link above begins with a kid claiming he was "profiled", and maybe he was, BUT his own conduct made the situation much worse.
What we're going to have, most likely, is some dumbass who happens to be latino, may or may not be an illegal alien, will try to start a fight with the cops and then his lawyer will later scream "profiling" anyways. And when that happens, I'll have little sympathy in the matter, because I prefer that to watching the cops get gunned down by illegal aliens.
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
Given how little faith the people of AZ have in their current AG?
When the public isn't given standing to question the actions of the police or elected officials, it is a problem. I'm much happier with the public being able to sue and say "you are not obeying your duty under this law" than have so-called "sanctuary cities" trying to get similar lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that only the local/state AG (who usually is a racist La Raza member themselves in on the "sanctuary city" scam) has standing to do so.
Maybe you should read the law? I've seen a whole ton of FUD from racist groups like La Raza out there, and none of it is based on any reading of the law itself.
The law makes specific provision to allow officers the leeway to not worry about immigration in the case of witnesses, etc: "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."
Secondly, it establishes quite clearly what the police are looking for:
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Your quote: "...but you speak with an accent...": Law text: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
The law is pretty clear: the trigger for "lawful contact" is the occurrence of something meeting Terry Stop standards. What the police are looking for is what they are legally allowed to ask for anyways at such a stop.
Now if you have problems with a specific section of the law, please point the section out? I've provided the text of the law for you, fully linked above.
#1 - If you are driving a motor vehicle, you are required to have your ID (drivers' license, insurance paperwork, and immigration documents if any) with you to present to any police officer who pulls you over. This is the law in all 50 states. No one questions the constitutionality of this.
#2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well. This is constitutional.. Reference: US v. Slater.
#3 - Even if a motor vehicle is not involved, if police have any reason to stop and question you under a "suspicion of wrongdoing" , they may demand you identify yourself. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. reference: US Supreme Court, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
The only difference with the new law and the old is, before, they could haul you in for failure to identify. Now, if you fail to identify AND they subsequently find out you're an illegal alien while you are in custody, they can hand you over to ICE.
1) The "Papers Please" part of the law is unconstitutional.
Actually, no. #1 - If you are driving a motor vehicle, you are required to have your ID (drivers' license, insurance paperwork, and immigration documents if any) with you to present to any police officer who pulls you over. This is the law in all 50 states. #2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well. #3 - If police have any reason to stop and question you regarding "suspicion of wrongdoing", they may demand you identify yourself. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Supreme Court case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Moving along... 2) AZ has no constitutional authority to pass this law.
Looking above, I cannot see where you can find otherwise. Please provide some legal reference for your wacko theory.
3) It violates the 14th ammendment....and a bunch of other stuff.
Hmm? Given that police asking for ID already is constitutionally settled... given that the law as written is not focused on any race, but instead on conduct... and what, pray tell, is the "bunch of other stuff" you reference?
No if you assault me you can't get medical damages from me.
Funny thing: illegal aliens breaking into houses HAVE sued the homeowners for such things as falling on a knife and injuring their legs. Kids screwing around on the roofs of schools have sued the school district when they, illegally trespassing, nevertheless fell through a skylight and injured themselves.
In other words, the law is fucked up, and the fact that you can manage to empanel a jury of 12 retards who don't understand the law & policy, scare them with "wooh this was scary internets stuff", and then have a paid-off judge give the jury bad instructions doesn't help.
The quality of the actors is going downhill. Their guys used to be able to ad-lib and work around a forgotten line or failed joke. And none of them looked as if they were just reading off a teleprompter - some of the physical stuff the stars used to do made that pretty much impossible!
Taking the current past THREE generations (going back roundabout to 1996), it's just not the case any more. Most of the "sketches" are just people standing around reading off of a teleprompter, and the jokes are getting progressively lamer. I'm not a fan of certain writers' constant trying to insert political commentary in and pass it off as "jokes" either. Tina Fey isn't funny as Palin, and whatsisface isn't funny doing Obama bits either.
"filibustering" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. In the old days you actually had to keep talking. Eventually, everyone would get tired, pass out, leave the floor, and talking would end.
These days, they "agree to filibuster", table the motion, and that's that. No actual talking needed. It's a bastardization of process that both sides are guilty of signing on to.
It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.
Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population. Or else that's a sad sign of how far political discourse has fallen.
That a company that KNOWINGLY PUT ROOTKITS IN THEIR PRODUCT would try to recode their "update" software to be as difficult to firewall out as possible?
We have a word for entities like you - we call them "sheeple."
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody remember when "personal responsibility" meant something?
"Waah, I paid admission, then went down a slide and didn't pay attention to what I was doing and injured myself so I'm suing you for $$$."
Kill all the lawyers. First step towards reclaiming society. Second step: reclaim the jury system so it's no longer twelve retards who think the defendant has unlimited funds and "can afford" to just pay out in Lawsuit Lotto.
You do realize gameport->usb adapters are easy to find...
Well, here we go. One more good game out of Bungie, followed by layoffs, firings, and an endless line of crapass worthless "sequels" from ripoff studios like Neversoft.
I can't believe Bungie was that stupid. Microsoft might have pushed to get a couple things out the door earlier but come on, Craptivision's sequel-itis is making EA look like a sane company these days. The damage Craptivision did to Guitar Hero alone should have warned Bungie away, never mind the damage to Marvel's game lines, the absolutely crappy X-men "fighting games", the nonsense with Infinity Ward...
Starting with the fact that multiple people over Slashdot were able to find and quote the relevant policies regarding who Childs was authorized to release the passwords to, yet the supposed "CCIE" juror had that info withheld from him?
After reading the article, I stand by points I made in earlier discussions.
What we have here is a travesty and not justice. We have a juror who was given faulty jury instructions, who had relevant information withheld from them. And in the end, the decision made by the jurors amounted to what it looks like from the start - a collection of people who did not know anything about what they were looking at, scared by the prosecutors saying this is "w00h scary internets stuff", and making a faulty decision and a verdict that's a mockery of the law.
The legal system is broken.
Not far off the mark. I had two "leftovers" gift cards for BB once - one had like 5 bucks and change, one about 10 bucks.
Tried to put them both down for a game that was marked down on sale to $20. First they hassled me over using them on a sale item. Then they tried to say I could only use one gift card per item so I'd need to buy another item.
If it were coupons, maybe. But they were fucking GIFT CARDS. Worst Buy had already taken the ACTUAL MONEY that they represented, from the gift giver.
Haven't bought anything from Shit Buy since. Not worth the fucking hassle.
I still stop by McDonald's/Burger King when they have nifty toys. Usually they'll sell you just the toy for around a buck or so. They're good for having around when friends bring their kids along to board game night.
As for the Granola State (land of fruits, nuts, and flakes), yeah. Must be something in the water out there that makes them all insane.
Honestly, what are they going to do next? Ban Cracker Jack boxes? The crap coming in those barely qualifies as a "toy" these days.
However, black and brown dumb asses tend to be arrested more frequently than white dumb asses. And that's the important factor - not whether fault can be found with any individual arrest.
If you can't find fault with any individual arrest on the merits, then the "black and brown" are obviously behaving, as an aggregate subculture, in a way that is a problem, no?
There's a fairly large body of scholarly research decoupling racial and economic factors. In most places minorities are still significantly more likely to be stopped for doing something dumb than white people
The body of research is actually pretty damn lousy, however. Last time I saw such research attempting such a feat, they failed to account for the fact that low-income gang behavior led to larger numbers of cops being assigned to low-income areas of urban environments, which then led to more cops arresting the people in those areas, which recorrelated with the fact that the people in those areas tended to be "black and brown". In other words, the "decoupling" statistical effort was incomplete and therefore useless.
It's like discrimination in the workplace. Even if for every new hire you can give a cogent explanation as to why you hired the white guy over the black guy, if you've got an all white workforce your hiring process is discriminatory.
And if you are hiring a less-qualified guy based on skin color just to meet a racial quota, what then? You're still being "discriminatory." Hell, if you require someone to have a certain certification to do the job, you're being "discriminatory."
The word "discrimination" - every time I hear it, I want to slap someone and say "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
For example, there's a decided underrepresentation of blacks in certain career fields. What causes this? The research is as yet unfinished, and will likely remain so, but clearly the idea that it's just skin color - as opposed to economic factors, gang membership, "black culture" that treats kids as a racial traitor for being above a certain IQ level and "acting white" - is ridiculous.
Now immigration status by itself is sufficient to ask for papers.
According to federal law, they are required to have those on them anyways. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 264(e):
As far as racial profiling: Yes, technically this law and the governors executive order prohibit racial profiling. In reality it's impossible to enforce this law without relying heavily on racial considerations. We know that driving-while-black is still a real problem in this country, and you want me to believe that the police won't interpret this law to give them license (or even require them to) profile?
Based on my own experience, most of the people claiming to have been "profiled" have, by their own conduct (and not skin color) already drawn attention to themselves. People who are not taught how to behave in stressful situations, especially the 10 basic rules, seem to crop up more in the latino, black, and "white-trash" communities - indicating it's an economic, not racial, thing.
You will note that the video I link above begins with a kid claiming he was "profiled", and maybe he was, BUT his own conduct made the situation much worse.
What we're going to have, most likely, is some dumbass who happens to be latino, may or may not be an illegal alien, will try to start a fight with the cops and then his lawyer will later scream "profiling" anyways. And when that happens, I'll have little sympathy in the matter, because I prefer that to watching the cops get gunned down by illegal aliens.
I'm also concerned about sections G, H, and I, which let you sue the law enforcement agency and recoup attorney fees if you don't think they're following this law. Shouldn't the AZ AG be doing that?
Given how little faith the people of AZ have in their current AG?
When the public isn't given standing to question the actions of the police or elected officials, it is a problem. I'm much happier with the public being able to sue and say "you are not obeying your duty under this law" than have so-called "sanctuary cities" trying to get similar lawsuits dismissed on the grounds that only the local/state AG (who usually is a racist La Raza member themselves in on the "sanctuary city" scam) has standing to do so.
Please read here and stop listening to FUD from racist groups like La Raza. Thank you.
Maybe you should read the law? I've seen a whole ton of FUD from racist groups like La Raza out there, and none of it is based on any reading of the law itself.
The law makes specific provision to allow officers the leeway to not worry about immigration in the case of witnesses, etc: "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. "
Secondly, it establishes quite clearly what the police are looking for:
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Your quote: "...but you speak with an accent...":
Law text: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
The law is pretty clear: the trigger for "lawful contact" is the occurrence of something meeting Terry Stop standards. What the police are looking for is what they are legally allowed to ask for anyways at such a stop.
Now if you have problems with a specific section of the law, please point the section out? I've provided the text of the law for you, fully linked above.
Sorry but the law is simply NOT unconstitutional.
#1 - If you are driving a motor vehicle, you are required to have your ID (drivers' license, insurance paperwork, and immigration documents if any) with you to present to any police officer who pulls you over. This is the law in all 50 states. No one questions the constitutionality of this.
#2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well. This is constitutional.. Reference: US v. Slater.
#3 - Even if a motor vehicle is not involved, if police have any reason to stop and question you under a "suspicion of wrongdoing" , they may demand you identify yourself. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. reference: US Supreme Court, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
#4 - Consistent with Hiibel Arizona already has a constitutionally legal stop-and-identify law.
The only difference with the new law and the old is, before, they could haul you in for failure to identify. Now, if you fail to identify AND they subsequently find out you're an illegal alien while you are in custody, they can hand you over to ICE.
Oh and by the way - consistent with Hiibel, Arizona already has a constitutionally legal stop-and-identify law in place.
1) The "Papers Please" part of the law is unconstitutional.
Actually, no.
#1 - If you are driving a motor vehicle, you are required to have your ID (drivers' license, insurance paperwork, and immigration documents if any) with you to present to any police officer who pulls you over. This is the law in all 50 states.
#2 - If you are a PASSENGER in said motor vehicle, you are required to be able to identify yourself to an officer as well.
#3 - If police have any reason to stop and question you regarding "suspicion of wrongdoing", they may demand you identify yourself. THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Supreme Court case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Moving along... 2) AZ has no constitutional authority to pass this law.
Looking above, I cannot see where you can find otherwise. Please provide some legal reference for your wacko theory.
3) It violates the 14th ammendment. ...and a bunch of other stuff.
Hmm? Given that police asking for ID already is constitutionally settled... given that the law as written is not focused on any race, but instead on conduct... and what, pray tell, is the "bunch of other stuff" you reference?
No if you assault me you can't get medical damages from me.
Funny thing: illegal aliens breaking into houses HAVE sued the homeowners for such things as falling on a knife and injuring their legs. Kids screwing around on the roofs of schools have sued the school district when they, illegally trespassing, nevertheless fell through a skylight and injured themselves.
In other words, the law is fucked up, and the fact that you can manage to empanel a jury of 12 retards who don't understand the law & policy, scare them with "wooh this was scary internets stuff", and then have a paid-off judge give the jury bad instructions doesn't help.
The quality of the actors is going downhill. Their guys used to be able to ad-lib and work around a forgotten line or failed joke. And none of them looked as if they were just reading off a teleprompter - some of the physical stuff the stars used to do made that pretty much impossible!
Taking the current past THREE generations (going back roundabout to 1996), it's just not the case any more. Most of the "sketches" are just people standing around reading off of a teleprompter, and the jokes are getting progressively lamer. I'm not a fan of certain writers' constant trying to insert political commentary in and pass it off as "jokes" either. Tina Fey isn't funny as Palin, and whatsisface isn't funny doing Obama bits either.
If the highlight of their "comedy" is the "I'm on a boat" sketch... *shudder*. They stopped being funny about a decade ago.
"filibustering" doesn't quite mean what you think it means. In the old days you actually had to keep talking. Eventually, everyone would get tired, pass out, leave the floor, and talking would end.
These days, they "agree to filibuster", table the motion, and that's that. No actual talking needed. It's a bastardization of process that both sides are guilty of signing on to.
It amazes me that he ever made any sort of a living as a "comedian", given that his entire "funny" schtick (yes, I read his books... *shudder*) is calling his political opponents foul-mouthed names.
Maybe that appeals to a certain portion of the population. Or else that's a sad sign of how far political discourse has fallen.
Comcrap^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "Xfinity", new name, same crap.
How come every time a stupid, insane law comes along, the people pushing it are screaming "think of the children"?
Maybe we should require people to get a parenting license before procreating.
I know of only two places in the world more corrupt than Brazil.
One is New Orleans, the other is Chicago.
Conspiracy theories?
That a company that KNOWINGLY PUT ROOTKITS IN THEIR PRODUCT would try to recode their "update" software to be as difficult to firewall out as possible?
We have a word for entities like you - we call them "sheeple."
Better hope Sony doesn't decide to send their updates over the same ports Netflix uses then, or even code their box to look for an open port...
Don't put anything past Skyne^H^H^H^H^HSony.