Actually you may wanna brush up on your constitution. You dont have a right to impede and investigation in your neighborhood. Now if this was on your property in your home that is another story, but good luck, unfortunately, of using that as a defense in a court of law.
There is actually an example of this. There is a neighborhood in Fayetteville NC, called Bonie Dune. Any time police would send cars, for any reason, they would get shot at from a lot of the houses, but the ambulances went in without molestation. the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid, and I think you can see where this is going, now the ambulances get shot at and cant go into the area.
"ans" I would attribute to a typo, the d is next tot he s. In addition sometimes, such as preceding an h, as in hour "an" seems to feel more appropriate for some reason.
2. Logical fallacy, Violent crime is down. Loss of life of cops is declining, not rising. Gun ownership is down.. If anything is stripping down the civility towards cops it is their own actions.
3.Well we can start with the 4th amendment if you like ;
Right to feel secure in your persons. Right against unreasonable searches and seizes.
Actually you can.. Do you think that until the 1960s the populace was not as well armed as they are today? Back when they only carried a pistol if that? And even still, no one is arguing against the need for a SWAT team in some situation, but not even close to what they are used for now adays.
3 things
1. This site does not cover only tech, part of the stuff that matters. Even still if you wanted to argue it there is plenty of tech going into these militarized police.
2. When you became a cop you knew what you were getting into. You knew it was a dangerous field and this goes into number 3
3. You swore an oath to uphold the constitution. To violate it, like in this way, should mean instant termination, and jail time.
Actually they exist because it makes sense to, it is a public places, In public places there is a very real need to filter some content.
In the home that is a different story.
As for private companies, I dont know about you but I know all the major ISPs do some type of filtering.
Actually you got that in reverse. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against you, there is nothing to stop them from testifying for you.
And why should it be illegal? You are making some sort of conclusion without stating a reason. If someone is trying to assault me, it does not mean I want to kill them, I just want them to stop. Killing them is one way, scaring them is another.
So getting up in someones face and threatening them is not an act of aggression?
Showing that Zimmerman initiated the conflict would have been easy, by stalking him Zimmerman initiated the conflict.
Yea, even when those people they "defended" themselves from were just defending themselves in the first place. It is like a cruel joke. By defending himself against Zimmerman he opened the door to Zimmerman to be able to get off on murdering him.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you were talking about impeding an investigation "in my neighborhood," not at your door.
Actually you may wanna brush up on your constitution. You dont have a right to impede and investigation in your neighborhood. Now if this was on your property in your home that is another story, but good luck, unfortunately, of using that as a defense in a court of law.
There is actually an example of this. There is a neighborhood in Fayetteville NC, called Bonie Dune. Any time police would send cars, for any reason, they would get shot at from a lot of the houses, but the ambulances went in without molestation. the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid, and I think you can see where this is going, now the ambulances get shot at and cant go into the area.
"ans" I would attribute to a typo, the d is next tot he s. In addition sometimes, such as preceding an h, as in hour "an" seems to feel more appropriate for some reason.
Dont try to turn this into a left vs right. This has been happening just as much under the right.
3.Well we can start with the 4th amendment if you like ;
Right to feel secure in your persons. Right against unreasonable searches and seizes.
But there is also the right to privacy.,
http://www.inquisitr.com/860668/louise-goldsberry-police-swat-team-raids-wrong-apartment-59-year-old-nurse-pulls-gun/
3 things 1. This site does not cover only tech, part of the stuff that matters. Even still if you wanted to argue it there is plenty of tech going into these militarized police. 2. When you became a cop you knew what you were getting into. You knew it was a dangerous field and this goes into number 3 3. You swore an oath to uphold the constitution. To violate it, like in this way, should mean instant termination, and jail time.
It means as a business you get to give as much in campaign contributions, since it is best for your community.
Wait, huh? It would be the repubes who would argue with a market solution you are sure of not filtering, not the libtards.
Actually they exist because it makes sense to, it is a public places, In public places there is a very real need to filter some content. In the home that is a different story. As for private companies, I dont know about you but I know all the major ISPs do some type of filtering.
I guess the "Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!" was not obvious enough
Higher level government is inefficient, and cant do anything right, local government on the other hand can be either.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/North-Carolina-House-Passes-AntiCommunity-Fiber-Bill-113433
Well how else do you get a network interface built onto a motherboard, duh.
No, you know that martin was connecting more with his attacks, not that he was using more force
If someone it following you, and then confronts you, then you did not assault them, you defended yourself.
It only makes sense to those who have very little value for human life.
Actually you got that in reverse. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against you, there is nothing to stop them from testifying for you. And why should it be illegal? You are making some sort of conclusion without stating a reason. If someone is trying to assault me, it does not mean I want to kill them, I just want them to stop. Killing them is one way, scaring them is another.
So getting up in someones face and threatening them is not an act of aggression? Showing that Zimmerman initiated the conflict would have been easy, by stalking him Zimmerman initiated the conflict.
I think the problem is more the imminent part, not the mortal danger part. You can fear you are in mortal danger in a period of time.
Except her husband even stated she was justified.
Yea, even when those people they "defended" themselves from were just defending themselves in the first place. It is like a cruel joke. By defending himself against Zimmerman he opened the door to Zimmerman to be able to get off on murdering him.
which wife did he bet on?
So the black woman on the jury was a closet racist? How did that help Zimmerman?