The article mentions the "deep web" and I haven't seen one Goatse.cx joke yet! C'mon, trolls! You can do better than that. I know goatse.cx is offline (no...really), but you could at least link to a mirror or something. Sheesh.
That is true. Saying that 1500 liters of water gets "used" in the process of making a PC is pretty useless as an indicator of ecological impact.
Yeah, but it's useful for propaganda value. With Earth Day coming up, I suspect that in thousands of schools around the US, fact sheets will be distributed with this "fact" in the article (with no debunking). Nothing like guilting the developed world into vows of poverty.
This makes me feel like going out to find a copy of that Dennis Leary song about being an asshole:
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadaliac Eldarado Convertable, Hot Pink! With whale skin hub caps, An all leather cow interior, And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. YEAH! And I'm gonna drive around in that baby, At 115 miles per hour, Getting one mile per gallon, Sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fasioned non-biodegradable styrafoam containers. And when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers, I'm gonna wipe my mouth in the American flag, And then I'm gonna toss the styrafoam containers right out the side, And there ain't a God damn thing anybody can do about it, You know why? 'Cause we got the bombs, that's why. Two words, Nuclear Fucking Weapons OK. Russia, Germany, Romania, They can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cake, Walk right through the middle of Tienemen Square, And it won't make a lick of difference, Because we got the bombs OK! John Wayne's not dead, He's frozen. And as soon as we find a cure for cancer, we're gonna thaw out the duke. And he's gonna be pretty pissed off, You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well multiply that by 15 million times, That's how pissed off the duke's gonna be. I'm gonna get the duke, And John Desimeties, And Lee Marvinhaugh And Sam Beckinforth, And a case of whiskey, And drive down to Texas, And, (hey, Hey, You know you really are an asshole) Why don't you shut up and sing the song pal, You know the whole time I thought I was that asshole, And it turns out it was him, What an Asshole
It's one of the reasons that some in the medical field are pushing for a Medical Court or Medical Approval Board that deems whether a malpractice case can/should be pursued.
I am not opposed to a board acting as a gatekeeper to the courts for certain types of cases, and I have called for complex, scientific cases to be heard by a tech judge. A medmal court is not terribly different, but I would have concerns about who was elected to the court or who was appointed, who the gatekeepers would be, whether the plaintiffs bar would have representation or whether it would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the states mecidal society.
There are some issues to be worked out, but I think the idea may have some merit.
Some patients abuse the system, too. They use a shotgun approach and attempt to sue and sue and sue. By using lawyers that only collect fees for winning, these patients hurt the doctor and the lawyer side of "medicine."
My experience as an attorney with personal injury cases has been that clients have no money. If they are severely injured or disabled, they don't have the cash available to pay for legal representation. So many people live paycheck to paycheck that if they get hurt in a car accident or by medical negligence that they are facing repos on cars, foreclosure on the McMansion, etc. I frequently have clients take less money than their case is worth because they need it so badly.
In addition, I do not want shitty cases. I do an investigation of every case that I take, because I cannot afford to spend the money on a case that may earn me bupkus. It costs approximately $15,000-$25,000 where I work to take a case through trial to verdict. I will take cases where my potential fee is less than that if I know that the case will settle (most do), but if it is a dog, I want nothing to do with it. I mentioned elsewhere that I do not do med mal cases. On the other hand, I know med mal guys who do plaintiffs work, and they operate on the same basis -- they do not want shit cases.
In addition, the area I live in has swallowed the insurance companies' propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The area is very GOP and very hardcore. I often joke that the juries, when deliberating about damages in a PI case, mention their Uncle Merle who "had 'is arm ripped off in a combine, and that plaintiff guy with the cervical disk problems don't look near as bad as Merle did after he done drug the tractor back to the barn with one arm before walking 8 miles to the hospital."
Does this type of system leave a foul taste in my mouth? Hell, yeah. The guys that are making money off of this are almost as bad as those habitual plantiffs.
However, I say this with the bias that I have never been sued by one of these rabid money grabbers.
Attorneys who make money representing plaintiffs are no more or less morally objectionable than doctors who make money off the sick and then sue the bejeezus out of the estates of people who died while under their care for cancer. I know a couple of guys whose practice consists of collecting debts for a medical practice called "Cancer Care Associates". It's really heartwarming work. At least the plaintiffs bar has to be successful to get paid. The doctors don't have to be successful.
Yeah, the system is screwed--on both sides of the equation.
I don't buy it. The system works great in the county where I live. The problem with Pennsylvania is largely confined to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Elsewhere, it's just a money grab by doctors and insurers. The thing that is really funny to me is how many "regular" people are bitching about the lawyers, mouthing the insurance company party line, and not realizing that they are screwing themselves by throwing away the right to sue. They honestly think that it will make health care more affordable, but they are completely wrong. It'll just make insurance companies billions of more dollars while leaving vicitims of medical negligence with no recourse.
Imagine how it feels to be a doctor! If you make one mistake (and who here has NEVER made a mistake at work? Especially ER doc who can get called in a 4am) you can be personally sued, ruining your life and your entire family's life, stopping you from ever working again, and thus not being able to get a chance to save more lives.
Your statement is so grossly ignorant that it is appalling. First, the small minority of doctors who commit most of the malpractice continue to work. That is part of the problem, at least in Pennsylvania which currently (allegedly) has a malpractice "crisis".
Oops, your bankrupt because you just lost a suit for $2billion while your malpractice only covered you up to $500million.
Is it possible that you are not from the United States? Your use of "million" and "billion" suggests this. Just curious.
Now your kids can't go to college, you have to sell all of your posessions, no insurance company will cover you so you can't work now--all because, after dedicating your life to saving lives, there is one thing you didn't think of while trying to save another life.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the corporate practice of medicine. That prevents virtually everything you describe from happening. In addition, each state has an "insurer of last resort" which is generally very expensive, but which will cover even the most incompetent, riskiest doctors. FWIW, the last time I looked at the doctors' houses and the cars in the lot at the hospital, I didn't see too many 1987 Honda Accords with 185,000 miles on them. That is what I drive, and I am an attorney.
And AFTER THE FACT, some lawyer makes a very emotional argument to a jury of weak-mided suckers.
Are the lawyers supposed to argue BEFORE THE FACT or something? Also, I like the way you characterize jurors. If I thought of them in the way you obviously do, they'd smell me out in a minute. FWIW, for damages to get out of control in a case, you have to have a convergence of many factors -- the right jusry, the right facts, the right attorneys, and the right judge. It virtually never happens, and appellate review reduces damages in "out of control" type cases 99 times out of 100. That is never newsworthy, though, so you don't hear about it in the papers.
I am sure if a doc in the emergency room had as much time to waste analyzing everything as the lawyer took, there would be far fewer mistakes. But when someone is wheeled in bleeding, you have to think FAST. You can't always be perfect.
My father nearly died one year ago today because his doctor failed to diagnose appendicitis until three days after his appendix burst. Fortunately, the internal infection, while severe, was not severe enough to kill him. Another day and it would have. BTW, nobody sued the doctor in that case. We let it go.
Not all cases of malpractice involve the split-second trauma treatment decisions that you describe in your post. Many are slow to develop. Many just result from gross incompetence. To wit: Do you know that it is SOP now for hand surgeons to have the patient mark the finger that the doctor is to operate on prior to surgery? They started doing this because so many hand surgeons (1 in 4) had operated on the wrong area of the hand during surgery. If it were not for the regulatory aspect of the tort system, it is unlikely that this reform would have taken place.
There are other examples, but I'm sure you're not interested. Lawyers (and the legal system) are just a big boondoggle, and it provides no tangible benefits to you in terms of more careful treatment. I'm sorry that you see things the way you do. Perhaps you might change your mind if you considered what medical treatment would be like if HMOs ran everything and recourse to tort law was no longer available to pressure the system to reform. Whatever.
A citizen of USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national elections
Partly because we don't have any national elections. Even an election for president amounts to a simple election by voters in a state for electors from their state who will ultimately cast a ballot for president. There are no "national" elections in the United States. A vote in California for Kerry does not offset a vote in Texas for Bush. The largest election you can have is a state-wide election. Essentially, the race for president consists of 50 state-wide elections.
I wrote a piece in my journal on Jan 8th after I found out that a client had consented to a search of his car and confessed to a crime. I think it is helpful and relevant to the "Show me your papers!" issue.
MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.
left out the second part:
or (2) are too scared or intimidated to be reliable under the circumstances. It is easier to simply be quiet than it is to try to tapdance on a precipice. Especially if you do have something to hide.
Obviously. And in that situation I respond with a question. "No why did you pull me over?" I don't think coming back with "I need to talk to a lawyer" if he asks you why you've been pulled over, when you know good and well you were speeding is a good idea. If anything you've just flushed any chance in hell you had of getting a warning down the toilet.
MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.
It's all good advise. I'd urge everyone to read it. Your a criminal defense lawyer?
I try.
I'd like to personally thank you.
Thank the guy who did your work.
I'd be sitting in jail (or plea-bargained to a crime I didn't commit) if it wasn't for you guys. I'm one of the innocent people that actually makes yours an honorable profession despite what everybody else thinks.
I appreciate that thought. Mostly, I get "how can you defend people that you know are guilty?" It gets old answering it. It's nice to know that there are people who appreciate it. FWIW, I used to do tax work for really, really rich people. I feel much better about myself defending accused crack dealers.
So close...so very close. Perhaps a few more monkeys...a few more bananas...
Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".
A little more menacing than Sergeant Schultz, but I still see him saying that. Take a look at my journal for some practical ideas under these circumstances. FWIW, I think that there may have been enough (clearly, IMHO) for a Terry stop. Beyond that, the tape doesn't really show anything else is warranted. Unfortunately, the rights of the accused are not a high priority for the Rehnquist court.
Under most circumstances, acting up during a Terry stop would get him arrested. The problem here is that the cop wasn't smart enough to nail him for something like disorderly conduct.
More importantly, I think the videotape makes this case. I couldn't find a link at the site for the case (or obtain info from the pleadings that are not downloading right now) which dealt with the source of teh video. I presume it is from the police cruiser as part of a standardized "record all traffic stops" policy?
In thousands of stops every day, there isn't any tape. In the jurisdictions where I practice, there is generally no videotape of stops. I think it would really put the clamps on the police to open up what they do to the light of day although it protects both the accused (from some types of police misconduct) and the police (from allegations of misconduct/abuse).
On an unrelated note, I gather that you are the same John Gilmore (Sun) who filed the amicus brief (through counsel) and the same John Gilmore as this person?
So what? I don't care if he raped and ate the Lindhberg Baby. Even the least among us have these rights and especially the least among us need to be treated accordingly.
A good response to a police request for you to do something is "are you asking me or telling me to do X". Make them commit. If they are "asking" then decline. If they are "telling" then do it but let them know that you do not consent to it.
Being polite and relaxed is excellent advice. It is also incredibly hard. The psychological pressure of being stopped by the police is tremendous even if you are innocent and even if you know what your rights are.
The single best advice is "shut your mouth". Give them your name and address only. Everything else, even "I'm going to church to wash the feet of the poor" can be somehow used against you. Silence can't.
then immediately asked "Have you been drinking?" They shouldn't have the right to even ask that question without some sort of probable cause -- and he had none.
I disagree. Cops should be allowed to ask whatever they want to ask. It's a free country. They should be allowed to ask if you wear women's underwear. You need to be smart enough to refuse to talk to them when appropriate. Silence is the best friend of a target of a police investigation (and when they're chatting you up anywhere but at the local donut shop, they are investigating you if you didn't specifically call them).
Cops are people, too (arguably) so that means that they are lazy by nature and you have been pulled over only because you have probably done something pretty egregious. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare. Most cops don't have to troll hard to find someone they can legitimately pull over.
On the other hand, cops shouldn't be allowed to ask things if they violate civil rights, such as: "Hey nigger, get outta this part of town" or some other similar thing that you'd imagine a porcine redneck chain gang movie sheriff saying. Asking people to "talk" (i.e. confess) after the suspect has requested an attorney is likewise a no-no.
Ordinary things such as "do you know why I pulled you over" [defendant admitted to speeding] or "what's your hurry?" [defendant said he was speeding because he was late for work] or "how much have you had to drink" [defendant admitted to drinking] or "you don't mind if I search your car, do you?" [suspect consented to warrantless search of vehicle] are all calculated to get admissions to put into their arrest warrant.
They are aware that most people are scared and that John Q. Public will be as compliant as sheep. They bully and threaten you if you show backbone. They do everything possible to maximize their psychological advantage. They'd be bad cops if they didn't do it. It pisses me off sometimes, but it's part of the game. In any case, you just have to keep your shit together and not fall for it.
Please see my journal for some of my disjointed thoughts on dealing with police when you get pulled over.
I'm normally extremely opposed to government intervention in individual rights -- read any of my past posts if you don't believe me.
and
But if there ever is a situation where strong government regulation is justified, it would have to be drunk driving.
The problem is that everyone has an issue like yours. A society of total civil libertarians, each with a "bitch" issue will result in an oppressive, regulatory, Calvinist state 99 times out of a 100. Go pick up James Q. Wilson's book on public choice theory sometime. Log rolling will bury us all.
In New Mexico, there are plenty of people who kill innocent bystanders while drunk driving who have TEN PREVIOUS DUI CONVICTIONS!!!.
I call bullshit. Name one case in the last ten years where there was a reported fatality under teh circumstances you describe. Surely New Mexico's MADD would have a link. Also, please let us not count DUI's that were 20 years ago when everyone's DUI laws were bullshit. Let's see a recent case. Otherwise, I think you're full of shit.
And yeah, I hate drunk drivers just as much as anyone.
I don't see any need to even discuss this. I don't think anyone is arguing for the right of people to drive drunk. The thing that is frightening is that a majority of the legislature is willing to impose on everyone in New Mexico a punishment that only convicted offenders (or ARD cases) get everywhere else in the Union. Next thing, they'll want to put ankle bracelets on everyone a la house arrest: "Hey -- why complain about it? Got something to hide?"
Nobody likes drunk drivers. No shit. The fact that I am interested in a presumption of innocence on the part of the most vile people imaginable doesn't mean I support the conduct of which they are accused. The fact that unaccused, innocent people are being treated like convicted criminals bothers me? Hell yes. It should bother everyone. Everyone that voted for this idiotic measure in New Mexico should be fired by their consituents in the next election.
And, no, shepd, this comment wasn't directed at you. I just read this thread and saw soooo much "well...just don't drive drunk!" crap that it made me want to puke. Evidently, there is a significant percentage of even the tending-left, relatively educated/. crowd that will trade security for freedom.
Obviously, those people deserve what they get. I'm afraid, however, that they may bring down on me as well the things that they deserve.
Does PA law allow you to select where to have the test?
Sure. You can choose to have it done, or you can refuse the test. That's a choice. A crappy one, but it's a choice.
ie: Do you have to take the test on the road, or at the station?
Generally, they field test you and then haul you back to the station for a better test if you flunk.
IMHO, the equipment at the station is probably far more accurate than the handheld meters.
No argument there.
(And, as for calibration, like that's ever done! They never even keep the speed guns calibrated!
Part of the prima facie case at every DJ's office in PA where a DUI case is brought is to bring in the calibration papers for the Intoxilyzer-5000. They do calibrate them regularly and they have the documentation to prove it. Cops may be jackbooted fascist thugs, but when it comes to DUI, they generally aren't stupid.
Listen, people: There is no "magic bullet" DUI defense. You need a good lawyer, and/. message boards are not the place to get ideas for beating a DUI, but I'll give you my thoughts anyway.
Be polite. Don't volunteer anything (including telling the officer you've had "a couple of beers" -- every.20 BAC in the world had "a couple of beers"). If you think you're screwed or close to it, silence is your friend. You won't talk your way out of it and the cop has no discretion to "go easy on you".
Say as little as possible (name, rank, and social security number, essentially). Don't tell them where you've been or where you're going. Don't admit to drinking (simply state that "I want a lawyer, and I'm not answering any questions"). Give them your license and registration + insurance information (it helps if you have it ready before the cop gets to your window so that he can't use your fumbling in the glove box as a reaason for thinking you're intoxicated). Comply with the field sobriety tests, and get your lawyer to challenge the stop.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I've really been holding out on using KDE because it didn't support Law Saxon. What a relief.
The article mentions the "deep web" and I haven't seen one Goatse.cx joke yet! C'mon, trolls! You can do better than that. I know goatse.cx is offline (no...really), but you could at least link to a mirror or something. Sheesh.
That is true. Saying that 1500 liters of water gets "used" in the process of making a PC is pretty useless as an indicator of ecological impact.
Yeah, but it's useful for propaganda value. With Earth Day coming up, I suspect that in thousands of schools around the US, fact sheets will be distributed with this "fact" in the article (with no debunking). Nothing like guilting the developed world into vows of poverty.
This makes me feel like going out to find a copy of that Dennis Leary song about being an asshole:
You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadaliac Eldarado Convertable,
Hot Pink!
With whale skin hub caps,
An all leather cow interior,
And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights.
YEAH!
And I'm gonna drive around in that baby,
At 115 miles per hour,
Getting one mile per gallon,
Sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fasioned non-biodegradable styrafoam containers.
And when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers,
I'm gonna wipe my mouth in the American flag,
And then I'm gonna toss the styrafoam containers right out the side,
And there ain't a God damn thing anybody can do about it,
You know why?
'Cause we got the bombs, that's why.
Two words, Nuclear Fucking Weapons OK.
Russia, Germany, Romania,
They can have all the democracy they want.
They can have a big democracy cake,
Walk right through the middle of Tienemen Square,
And it won't make a lick of difference,
Because we got the bombs OK!
John Wayne's not dead,
He's frozen.
And as soon as we find a cure for cancer, we're gonna thaw out the duke.
And he's gonna be pretty pissed off,
You know why?
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well multiply that by 15 million times,
That's how pissed off the duke's gonna be.
I'm gonna get the duke,
And John Desimeties,
And Lee Marvinhaugh
And Sam Beckinforth,
And a case of whiskey,
And drive down to Texas,
And,
(hey, Hey, You know you really are an asshole)
Why don't you shut up and sing the song pal,
You know the whole time I thought I was that asshole,
And it turns out it was him,
What an Asshole
The PDF you linked is outstanding:
2 /M alpractice%20in%2021st%20Century%20-Sage.pdf
http://sihp.brandeis.edu/council/pubs/Medicaid0
That is a fantastic overview of the problem, and I thank you for pointing it out.
GF.
It's one of the reasons that some in the medical field are pushing for a Medical Court or Medical Approval Board that deems whether a malpractice case can/should be pursued.
I am not opposed to a board acting as a gatekeeper to the courts for certain types of cases, and I have called for complex, scientific cases to be heard by a tech judge. A medmal court is not terribly different, but I would have concerns about who was elected to the court or who was appointed, who the gatekeepers would be, whether the plaintiffs bar would have representation or whether it would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the states mecidal society.
There are some issues to be worked out, but I think the idea may have some merit.
GF.
Problem 1: Most malpractice claims never reach the stage where a complaint is filed.
Problem 2: Insurers almost always require confidentiality to be an element of a settlement of a med mal dispute.
Neither of the above problems is insurmountable, but your post did not appear to contemplate either issue.
Some patients abuse the system, too. They use a shotgun approach and attempt to sue and sue and sue. By using lawyers that only collect fees for winning, these patients hurt the doctor and the lawyer side of "medicine."
My experience as an attorney with personal injury cases has been that clients have no money. If they are severely injured or disabled, they don't have the cash available to pay for legal representation. So many people live paycheck to paycheck that if they get hurt in a car accident or by medical negligence that they are facing repos on cars, foreclosure on the McMansion, etc. I frequently have clients take less money than their case is worth because they need it so badly.
In addition, I do not want shitty cases. I do an investigation of every case that I take, because I cannot afford to spend the money on a case that may earn me bupkus. It costs approximately $15,000-$25,000 where I work to take a case through trial to verdict. I will take cases where my potential fee is less than that if I know that the case will settle (most do), but if it is a dog, I want nothing to do with it. I mentioned elsewhere that I do not do med mal cases. On the other hand, I know med mal guys who do plaintiffs work, and they operate on the same basis -- they do not want shit cases.
In addition, the area I live in has swallowed the insurance companies' propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The area is very GOP and very hardcore. I often joke that the juries, when deliberating about damages in a PI case, mention their Uncle Merle who "had 'is arm ripped off in a combine, and that plaintiff guy with the cervical disk problems don't look near as bad as Merle did after he done drug the tractor back to the barn with one arm before walking 8 miles to the hospital."
Does this type of system leave a foul taste in my mouth? Hell, yeah. The guys that are making money off of this are almost as bad as those habitual plantiffs.
However, I say this with the bias that I have never been sued by one of these rabid money grabbers.
Attorneys who make money representing plaintiffs are no more or less morally objectionable than doctors who make money off the sick and then sue the bejeezus out of the estates of people who died while under their care for cancer. I know a couple of guys whose practice consists of collecting debts for a medical practice called "Cancer Care Associates". It's really heartwarming work. At least the plaintiffs bar has to be successful to get paid. The doctors don't have to be successful.
Yeah, the system is screwed--on both sides of the equation.
I don't buy it. The system works great in the county where I live. The problem with Pennsylvania is largely confined to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Elsewhere, it's just a money grab by doctors and insurers. The thing that is really funny to me is how many "regular" people are bitching about the lawyers, mouthing the insurance company party line, and not realizing that they are screwing themselves by throwing away the right to sue. They honestly think that it will make health care more affordable, but they are completely wrong. It'll just make insurance companies billions of more dollars while leaving vicitims of medical negligence with no recourse.
Imagine how it feels to be a doctor! If you make one mistake (and who here has NEVER made a mistake at work? Especially ER doc who can get called in a 4am) you can be personally sued, ruining your life and your entire family's life, stopping you from ever working again, and thus not being able to get a chance to save more lives.
Your statement is so grossly ignorant that it is appalling. First, the small minority of doctors who commit most of the malpractice continue to work. That is part of the problem, at least in Pennsylvania which currently (allegedly) has a malpractice "crisis".
Oops, your bankrupt because you just lost a suit for $2billion while your malpractice only covered you up to $500million.
Is it possible that you are not from the United States? Your use of "million" and "billion" suggests this. Just curious.
Now your kids can't go to college, you have to sell all of your posessions, no insurance company will cover you so you can't work now--all because, after dedicating your life to saving lives, there is one thing you didn't think of while trying to save another life.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the corporate practice of medicine. That prevents virtually everything you describe from happening. In addition, each state has an "insurer of last resort" which is generally very expensive, but which will cover even the most incompetent, riskiest doctors. FWIW, the last time I looked at the doctors' houses and the cars in the lot at the hospital, I didn't see too many 1987 Honda Accords with 185,000 miles on them. That is what I drive, and I am an attorney.
And AFTER THE FACT, some lawyer makes a very emotional argument to a jury of weak-mided suckers.
Are the lawyers supposed to argue BEFORE THE FACT or something? Also, I like the way you characterize jurors. If I thought of them in the way you obviously do, they'd smell me out in a minute. FWIW, for damages to get out of control in a case, you have to have a convergence of many factors -- the right jusry, the right facts, the right attorneys, and the right judge. It virtually never happens, and appellate review reduces damages in "out of control" type cases 99 times out of 100. That is never newsworthy, though, so you don't hear about it in the papers.
I am sure if a doc in the emergency room had as much time to waste analyzing everything as the lawyer took, there would be far fewer mistakes. But when someone is wheeled in bleeding, you have to think FAST. You can't always be perfect.
My father nearly died one year ago today because his doctor failed to diagnose appendicitis until three days after his appendix burst. Fortunately, the internal infection, while severe, was not severe enough to kill him. Another day and it would have. BTW, nobody sued the doctor in that case. We let it go.
Not all cases of malpractice involve the split-second trauma treatment decisions that you describe in your post. Many are slow to develop. Many just result from gross incompetence. To wit:
Do you know that it is SOP now for hand surgeons to have the patient mark the finger that the doctor is to operate on prior to surgery? They started doing this because so many hand surgeons (1 in 4) had operated on the wrong area of the hand during surgery. If it were not for the regulatory aspect of the tort system, it is unlikely that this reform would have taken place.
There are other examples, but I'm sure you're not interested. Lawyers (and the legal system) are just a big boondoggle, and it provides no tangible benefits to you in terms of more careful treatment. I'm sorry that you see things the way you do. Perhaps you might change your mind if you considered what medical treatment would be like if HMOs ran everything and recourse to tort law was no longer available to pressure the system to reform. Whatever.
GF.
The flaw that they detected was undoubtedly that the spyware could be detected. Duh.
Yes - I especially like how they post pictures of SUSPECTS on their website that have not even been convicted of a crime.
e st s/PeterKelley.jpg
That's fair game. They are public records. Besides, are you going to tell me that a guy who looks like this isn't guilty?
http://www.macomb-sheriff.com/images/Mace%20Arr
GF.
Another reason that the bills overseas are different sizes - I was always taught in Australia that it was for helping blind people...
That's just what the government told you...
GF.
A citizen of USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national elections
Partly because we don't have any national elections. Even an election for president amounts to a simple election by voters in a state for electors from their state who will ultimately cast a ballot for president. There are no "national" elections in the United States. A vote in California for Kerry does not offset a vote in Texas for Bush. The largest election you can have is a state-wide election. Essentially, the race for president consists of 50 state-wide elections.
Uhhh, hellooooooo.... the primary topic here is about not giving your name and address, chuckle.
No, the primary topic here is about producing ID upon demand. That is somewhat different.
GF.
It should instead be a universal issue with broad support, because it affects all our lives more than any other single regulatable issue.
Of course. Everyone should care about it. Game, set, match.
GF
I wrote a piece in my journal on Jan 8th after I found out that a client had consented to a search of his car and confessed to a crime. I think it is helpful and relevant to the "Show me your papers!" issue.
GF.
MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.
left out the second part:
or (2) are too scared or intimidated to be reliable under the circumstances. It is easier to simply be quiet than it is to try to tapdance on a precipice. Especially if you do have something to hide.
Obviously. And in that situation I respond with a question. "No why did you pull me over?" I don't think coming back with "I need to talk to a lawyer" if he asks you why you've been pulled over, when you know good and well you were speeding is a good idea. If anything you've just flushed any chance in hell you had of getting a warning down the toilet.
MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.
It's all good advise. I'd urge everyone to read it. Your a criminal defense lawyer?
I try.
I'd like to personally thank you.
Thank the guy who did your work.
I'd be sitting in jail (or plea-bargained to a crime I didn't commit) if it wasn't for you guys. I'm one of the innocent people that actually makes yours an honorable profession despite what everybody else thinks.
I appreciate that thought. Mostly, I get "how can you defend people that you know are guilty?" It gets old answering it. It's nice to know that there are people who appreciate it. FWIW, I used to do tax work for really, really rich people. I feel much better about myself defending accused crack dealers.
GF.
Deputy Dove
So close...so very close. Perhaps a few more monkeys...a few more bananas...
Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".
A little more menacing than Sergeant Schultz, but I still see him saying that. Take a look at my journal for some practical ideas under these circumstances. FWIW, I think that there may have been enough (clearly, IMHO) for a Terry stop. Beyond that, the tape doesn't really show anything else is warranted. Unfortunately, the rights of the accused are not a high priority for the Rehnquist court.
Under most circumstances, acting up during a Terry stop would get him arrested. The problem here is that the cop wasn't smart enough to nail him for something like disorderly conduct.
More importantly, I think the videotape makes this case. I couldn't find a link at the site for the case (or obtain info from the pleadings that are not downloading right now) which dealt with the source of teh video. I presume it is from the police cruiser as part of a standardized "record all traffic stops" policy?
In thousands of stops every day, there isn't any tape. In the jurisdictions where I practice, there is generally no videotape of stops. I think it would really put the clamps on the police to open up what they do to the light of day although it protects both the accused (from some types of police misconduct) and the police (from allegations of misconduct/abuse).
On an unrelated note, I gather that you are the same John Gilmore (Sun) who filed the amicus brief (through counsel) and the same John Gilmore as this person?
GF.
generally isn't a good guy
So what? I don't care if he raped and ate the Lindhberg Baby. Even the least among us have these rights and especially the least among us need to be treated accordingly.
GF.
A good response to a police request for you to do something is "are you asking me or telling me to do X". Make them commit. If they are "asking" then decline. If they are "telling" then do it but let them know that you do not consent to it.
Being polite and relaxed is excellent advice. It is also incredibly hard. The psychological pressure of being stopped by the police is tremendous even if you are innocent and even if you know what your rights are.
The single best advice is "shut your mouth". Give them your name and address only. Everything else, even "I'm going to church to wash the feet of the poor" can be somehow used against you. Silence can't.
GF.
then immediately asked "Have you been drinking?" They shouldn't have the right to even ask that question without some sort of probable cause -- and he had none.
I disagree. Cops should be allowed to ask whatever they want to ask. It's a free country. They should be allowed to ask if you wear women's underwear. You need to be smart enough to refuse to talk to them when appropriate. Silence is the best friend of a target of a police investigation (and when they're chatting you up anywhere but at the local donut shop, they are investigating you if you didn't specifically call them).
Cops are people, too (arguably) so that means that they are lazy by nature and you have been pulled over only because you have probably done something pretty egregious. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare. Most cops don't have to troll hard to find someone they can legitimately pull over.
On the other hand, cops shouldn't be allowed to ask things if they violate civil rights, such as: "Hey nigger, get outta this part of town" or some other similar thing that you'd imagine a porcine redneck chain gang movie sheriff saying. Asking people to "talk" (i.e. confess) after the suspect has requested an attorney is likewise a no-no.
Ordinary things such as "do you know why I pulled you over" [defendant admitted to speeding] or "what's your hurry?" [defendant said he was speeding because he was late for work] or "how much have you had to drink" [defendant admitted to drinking] or "you don't mind if I search your car, do you?" [suspect consented to warrantless search of vehicle] are all calculated to get admissions to put into their arrest warrant.
They are aware that most people are scared and that John Q. Public will be as compliant as sheep. They bully and threaten you if you show backbone. They do everything possible to maximize their psychological advantage. They'd be bad cops if they didn't do it. It pisses me off sometimes, but it's part of the game. In any case, you just have to keep your shit together and not fall for it.
Please see my journal for some of my disjointed thoughts on dealing with police when you get pulled over.
GF.
I'm normally extremely opposed to government intervention in individual rights -- read any of my past posts if you don't believe me.
and
But if there ever is a situation where strong government regulation is justified, it would have to be drunk driving.
The problem is that everyone has an issue like yours. A society of total civil libertarians, each with a "bitch" issue will result in an oppressive, regulatory, Calvinist state 99 times out of a 100. Go pick up James Q. Wilson's book on public choice theory sometime. Log rolling will bury us all.
GF.
In New Mexico, there are plenty of people who kill innocent bystanders while drunk driving who have TEN PREVIOUS DUI CONVICTIONS!!!.
I call bullshit. Name one case in the last ten years where there was a reported fatality under teh circumstances you describe. Surely New Mexico's MADD would have a link. Also, please let us not count DUI's that were 20 years ago when everyone's DUI laws were bullshit. Let's see a recent case. Otherwise, I think you're full of shit.
GF.
And yeah, I hate drunk drivers just as much as anyone.
/. crowd that will trade security for freedom.
I don't see any need to even discuss this. I don't think anyone is arguing for the right of people to drive drunk. The thing that is frightening is that a majority of the legislature is willing to impose on everyone in New Mexico a punishment that only convicted offenders (or ARD cases) get everywhere else in the Union. Next thing, they'll want to put ankle bracelets on everyone a la house arrest: "Hey -- why complain about it? Got something to hide?"
Nobody likes drunk drivers. No shit. The fact that I am interested in a presumption of innocence on the part of the most vile people imaginable doesn't mean I support the conduct of which they are accused. The fact that unaccused, innocent people are being treated like convicted criminals bothers me? Hell yes. It should bother everyone. Everyone that voted for this idiotic measure in New Mexico should be fired by their consituents in the next election.
And, no, shepd, this comment wasn't directed at you. I just read this thread and saw soooo much "well...just don't drive drunk!" crap that it made me want to puke. Evidently, there is a significant percentage of even the tending-left, relatively educated
Obviously, those people deserve what they get. I'm afraid, however, that they may bring down on me as well the things that they deserve.
GF.
Does PA law allow you to select where to have the test?
/. message boards are not the place to get ideas for beating a DUI, but I'll give you my thoughts anyway.
.20 BAC in the world had "a couple of beers"). If you think you're screwed or close to it, silence is your friend. You won't talk your way out of it and the cop has no discretion to "go easy on you".
Sure. You can choose to have it done, or you can refuse the test. That's a choice. A crappy one, but it's a choice.
ie: Do you have to take the test on the road, or at the station?
Generally, they field test you and then haul you back to the station for a better test if you flunk.
IMHO, the equipment at the station is probably far more accurate than the handheld meters.
No argument there.
(And, as for calibration, like that's ever done! They never even keep the speed guns calibrated!
Part of the prima facie case at every DJ's office in PA where a DUI case is brought is to bring in the calibration papers for the Intoxilyzer-5000. They do calibrate them regularly and they have the documentation to prove it. Cops may be jackbooted fascist thugs, but when it comes to DUI, they generally aren't stupid.
Listen, people: There is no "magic bullet" DUI defense. You need a good lawyer, and
Be polite. Don't volunteer anything (including telling the officer you've had "a couple of beers" -- every
Say as little as possible (name, rank, and social security number, essentially). Don't tell them where you've been or where you're going. Don't admit to drinking (simply state that "I want a lawyer, and I'm not answering any questions"). Give them your license and registration + insurance information (it helps if you have it ready before the cop gets to your window so that he can't use your fumbling in the glove box as a reaason for thinking you're intoxicated). Comply with the field sobriety tests, and get your lawyer to challenge the stop.
GF.