Obviously, you have to modify the advice to fit the situation. If the Law Enforcement Officer is being courteous and knows he's being dispatched to investigate a jerk-off law because a theater jerk-off called in the scary guy with Google Glass on his face, then yeah - cooperate; it's your fastest way out of the situation and likely to end without any legal issue.
If the LEO is being a gaping asshole with teeth, that's when you tell him to charge you, or release you; and either way he can go pull on himself until your lawyer arrives.
Yeah, because there's exactly no difference between carrying a smartphone in your pocket, and actively pointing it at the screen and recording.
Are you cracked?
And I'll bet people do carry a spare pair of glasses in their car glove box. It's ridiculous to think that this guy can afford a luxury fad device like Glass, and it's also his first and only pair of corrective lenses.
Yeah, they can hold you; but at the end of the day you can sue them for a violation of your civil rights - they accused you of a crime you did not commit, a crime they did not have sufficient evidence or willingness to charge, and that they denied you your Supreme Court affirmed right to legal representation.
How do I know they did the third thing? Because any lawyer worth the parchment their law degree is printed on would get you out of there long before the mandated maximum if there was no pending charge.
He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that.380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.
Confessions are something a jury understands immediately, and don't argue with.
Forensic evidence is often dismissed because it requires a basic understanding of science, and technical concepts like a chain of custody. You have to remember that a jury is made up of 12 people that weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
It's been said that a good man is hard to find. Well, just try to find 12 of them in the same jurisdiction. This is why you see so many plea bargains - prosecutors know that even the most solid case based on a mountain of evidence can fall apart in a courtroom when a halfway competent defense attorney begins to poke at it.
But did they lie under oath, in a formal deposition?
No. Clinton did. That's what makes it felony perjury, rather than just being a shithead politician.
Was the whole thing a ridiculous witch hunt from the beginning? Sure. Was the special prosecutor a complete fuckwad, trying to dig every little tiny thing up just to get another self-serving headline? You bet. But, perjury from the chief executive is still something that needs investigation.
No, it is not a crime to "display" a firearm in public, outside of (urban) California, New York, Florida, South Carolina, Washington DC, the City and County of Denver, Illinois, and Texas(?). Open carry is allowed in 45 states in one way or another.
If you actually point the gun at someone, then it is a felony called "brandishing" or "assault by pointing."
Federal law is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies.
Why do people think the FBI is some mystical über-crime fighting force? They police federal property, federal lands, and breaches of federal law. They are the primary investigative agency for the United States Department of Justice. It's not a large stretch to think that they would be the primary investigative agency for federal laws, no matter how misguided the law may be.
Why do you expect a Federal law enforcement agency, who has no jurisdiction to investigate a local privately-owned property crime, to care about a burglary unless it's a property owned by the Federal Government?
Copyright "crime" is a Federal law, thus it gets investigated by a Federal agency. This isn't hard to suss out.
Or, use the following two statements to end the interview before it goes on for 5 hours:
1. "Am I being charged with a crime?" 2. "I am not going to talk to you without a lawyer present."
If the answer to #1 is no, get up and walk away. If they don't let you leave, they'd better charge you with something or it's false imprisonment. If the answer is yes, then they had better Mirandize you immediately, and you follow up with #2. And then you shut your mouth and don't say a word until a lawyer from the public defender's office arrives.
Any police officer / federal agent worth carrying a badge will try to convince you to talk anyway, saying that it's just a misunderstanding and that they're really on your side; you can help clear things up by just answering a few questions. It's all bullshit - they're paid to trick you into incriminating yourself without an attorney present. In no way, is anyone in an official interview with any law enforcement (except for YOUR lawyer), on your side. Do not talk. Do not allow them to search your person or property without a proper warrant. And, even with a warrant, make sure the lawyer is present.
Yeah, it's totally unbelievable that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be called to investigate a breach of federal law. It's almost like that's exactly what they're supposed to be doing.
Oh, Windows is moving units for Intel, as Intel pretty much owns the enterprise. Walk into pretty much any Fortune-100, and you'll see the blue logo stickers on practically every single laptop and desktop in the place, and the data center will be floor to ceiling with Xeon except specialty stuff (SPARC boxes, IBM pSeries, mainframes). Thin Clients running Linux? Likely on Atom, but AMD is making a bit of an inroad there.
Don't fool yourself - big business is still suffering from 20 years of Microsoft lock-in, and Intel rules that particular roost for performance and manageability through their AMT and vPro chipset tech.
vPro alone will save the company I work for an estimated $1M a year in tech dispatches and eliminated remote control agent licensing, and that doesn't even include the increased uptime of not having to wait for the tech to travel to the site to do the job.
It actually does require you to look away from the road, as everyone that's ever used Glass says that you have to look to your upper right in order to see what it's displaying. Plus, there's no way to, as the law stipulates, have an interlock that prevents it from showing "entertainment or business information." Thus, the current law already applies to this "new class of device" as it's not doing anything the smartphone isn't already doing, except being even more distracting than a dash or windshield mounted smartphone.
Regardless of your little jabs at me, Glass has nothing to do with her trying to duck the "speeding ticket" mentioned in the title - it was the second infraction on the citation that is being discussed. Glass has nothing to do with her heavy foot, so the title is shit and should have been altered by our esteemed "editors" anyway. Perhaps if I would have added the word "either" after mentioning how a smartphone in a dash mount isn't strictly legal, then you would have comprehended better.
My bad, I guess.
Either way, the law is what it is currently, and she violated both the letter and spirit of it. If the law gets changed, she still violated it before the change and unless there's a clause in the new law retroactively expunging past offenses, she still eats the meal. And, she was still violating the speed limit anyway.
This is why the law is very clear about any display being within viewable range of the driver being banned, unless it is actively restricted to whitelisted information categories by an interlock device while the vehicle is in gear.
Problem solved. The prosecutor doesn't need to prove that they were looking at the FaceTube while driving, they just need to have a witness (cop) testify that a display was within sight of the driver, capable of showing non-whitelisted information, with no restrictive interlock present.
If they start changing laws for every fad device that comes along, then the annotated code will become more incomprehensible than it already is.
This particular law isn't in need of clarification - it's rather simple. If there is a display within view of the driver, and it is capable of showing something that isn't vehicle information, GPS, or a map while the car is in gear; you are in violation of the law. In-dash entertainment systems are allowed because they have an interlock circuit that prevents video entertainment operation while the vehicle is in gear, restricting the display to only the allowed classifications of vehicle information, GPS, or map data.
This means your smart phone on a dash mount isn't legal by the definition of the law, bunky; it doesn't have an interlock that prevents push notifications of some asshole tweeting about the latest happenings on American Karaoke while you're on the freeway.
California 27602(b)1, 2, and 3 make exceptions for "Vehicle information displays", "GPS", and "mapping displays" specifically. This is what the iDrive system in a BMW is showing. Even if it's showing information about the music being played, it's information about the vehicle's audio system.
Firstly; by "PC"s you should understand "laptops". Desktops are already quite rare in most companies outside call centers.
Bzzzt. Incorrect.
Checking in from a Fortune 50 here. I'm the guy that validates and certifies all of our computing "endpoint" hardware. We have a fleet of somewhere close to 8,000 laptops and upwards of 50,000 desktops. And another 30,000 thin clients running Linux.
Desktops are the rule, laptops the exception. Why? A desktop with enterprise management that will last for 4 years costs $500*, a laptop that might last for 3 costs $700*. Laptops have a shorter average lifetime and a higher per-unit cost.
*negotiated pricing with tier-1 OEMs such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo; based upon volume of purchasing.
I still use a PowerBook G4 Titanium on a network rack as a machine for WireShark, web consoles, and usb-to-serial terminal for switches and routers. It sits in a rack mounted drawer, sleeping, until I need to open the lid and do something. I don't need more than a 12-year-old laptop to do that, and it still works.
That laptop has been to the brink and back, and still works just fine except for a slight discoloration of the backlight in the screen from age.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, you have to modify the advice to fit the situation. If the Law Enforcement Officer is being courteous and knows he's being dispatched to investigate a jerk-off law because a theater jerk-off called in the scary guy with Google Glass on his face, then yeah - cooperate; it's your fastest way out of the situation and likely to end without any legal issue.
If the LEO is being a gaping asshole with teeth, that's when you tell him to charge you, or release you; and either way he can go pull on himself until your lawyer arrives.
Yeah, because there's exactly no difference between carrying a smartphone in your pocket, and actively pointing it at the screen and recording.
Are you cracked?
And I'll bet people do carry a spare pair of glasses in their car glove box. It's ridiculous to think that this guy can afford a luxury fad device like Glass, and it's also his first and only pair of corrective lenses.
Yeah, they can hold you; but at the end of the day you can sue them for a violation of your civil rights - they accused you of a crime you did not commit, a crime they did not have sufficient evidence or willingness to charge, and that they denied you your Supreme Court affirmed right to legal representation.
How do I know they did the third thing? Because any lawyer worth the parchment their law degree is printed on would get you out of there long before the mandated maximum if there was no pending charge.
Getting detained by the FBI is likely more annoying. But that's just me.
So that's why you say "Charge me, or I'm walking out." And then you stand up and walk for the door.
He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that .380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.
You can't change your tack to get around "Charge me or release me - either way, I'm not saying another fucking word without a lawyer present."
The only way it doesn't work, is if you are actually stupid enough to keep talking.
They wouldn't be able to look at any of that without a duly signed warrant by a sitting judge, or without the device owner's permission.
I'm guessing they didn't have the warrant, so what am I supposed to be getting incensed about again?
Confessions are something a jury understands immediately, and don't argue with.
Forensic evidence is often dismissed because it requires a basic understanding of science, and technical concepts like a chain of custody. You have to remember that a jury is made up of 12 people that weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
It's been said that a good man is hard to find. Well, just try to find 12 of them in the same jurisdiction. This is why you see so many plea bargains - prosecutors know that even the most solid case based on a mountain of evidence can fall apart in a courtroom when a halfway competent defense attorney begins to poke at it.
But did they lie under oath, in a formal deposition?
No. Clinton did. That's what makes it felony perjury, rather than just being a shithead politician.
Was the whole thing a ridiculous witch hunt from the beginning? Sure. Was the special prosecutor a complete fuckwad, trying to dig every little tiny thing up just to get another self-serving headline? You bet. But, perjury from the chief executive is still something that needs investigation.
No, it is not a crime to "display" a firearm in public, outside of (urban) California, New York, Florida, South Carolina, Washington DC, the City and County of Denver, Illinois, and Texas(?). Open carry is allowed in 45 states in one way or another.
If you actually point the gun at someone, then it is a felony called "brandishing" or "assault by pointing."
Federal law is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies.
Why do people think the FBI is some mystical über-crime fighting force? They police federal property, federal lands, and breaches of federal law. They are the primary investigative agency for the United States Department of Justice. It's not a large stretch to think that they would be the primary investigative agency for federal laws, no matter how misguided the law may be.
Why do you expect a Federal law enforcement agency, who has no jurisdiction to investigate a local privately-owned property crime, to care about a burglary unless it's a property owned by the Federal Government?
Copyright "crime" is a Federal law, thus it gets investigated by a Federal agency. This isn't hard to suss out.
Or, use the following two statements to end the interview before it goes on for 5 hours:
1. "Am I being charged with a crime?"
2. "I am not going to talk to you without a lawyer present."
If the answer to #1 is no, get up and walk away. If they don't let you leave, they'd better charge you with something or it's false imprisonment. If the answer is yes, then they had better Mirandize you immediately, and you follow up with #2. And then you shut your mouth and don't say a word until a lawyer from the public defender's office arrives.
Any police officer / federal agent worth carrying a badge will try to convince you to talk anyway, saying that it's just a misunderstanding and that they're really on your side; you can help clear things up by just answering a few questions. It's all bullshit - they're paid to trick you into incriminating yourself without an attorney present. In no way, is anyone in an official interview with any law enforcement (except for YOUR lawyer), on your side. Do not talk. Do not allow them to search your person or property without a proper warrant. And, even with a warrant, make sure the lawyer is present.
Yeah, it's totally unbelievable that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be called to investigate a breach of federal law. It's almost like that's exactly what they're supposed to be doing.
A: celebrating the 5 year anniversary of you asking me that question!
Oh, Windows is moving units for Intel, as Intel pretty much owns the enterprise. Walk into pretty much any Fortune-100, and you'll see the blue logo stickers on practically every single laptop and desktop in the place, and the data center will be floor to ceiling with Xeon except specialty stuff (SPARC boxes, IBM pSeries, mainframes). Thin Clients running Linux? Likely on Atom, but AMD is making a bit of an inroad there.
Don't fool yourself - big business is still suffering from 20 years of Microsoft lock-in, and Intel rules that particular roost for performance and manageability through their AMT and vPro chipset tech.
vPro alone will save the company I work for an estimated $1M a year in tech dispatches and eliminated remote control agent licensing, and that doesn't even include the increased uptime of not having to wait for the tech to travel to the site to do the job.
It actually does require you to look away from the road, as everyone that's ever used Glass says that you have to look to your upper right in order to see what it's displaying. Plus, there's no way to, as the law stipulates, have an interlock that prevents it from showing "entertainment or business information." Thus, the current law already applies to this "new class of device" as it's not doing anything the smartphone isn't already doing, except being even more distracting than a dash or windshield mounted smartphone.
Regardless of your little jabs at me, Glass has nothing to do with her trying to duck the "speeding ticket" mentioned in the title - it was the second infraction on the citation that is being discussed. Glass has nothing to do with her heavy foot, so the title is shit and should have been altered by our esteemed "editors" anyway. Perhaps if I would have added the word "either" after mentioning how a smartphone in a dash mount isn't strictly legal, then you would have comprehended better.
My bad, I guess.
Either way, the law is what it is currently, and she violated both the letter and spirit of it. If the law gets changed, she still violated it before the change and unless there's a clause in the new law retroactively expunging past offenses, she still eats the meal. And, she was still violating the speed limit anyway.
This is why the law is very clear about any display being within viewable range of the driver being banned, unless it is actively restricted to whitelisted information categories by an interlock device while the vehicle is in gear.
Problem solved. The prosecutor doesn't need to prove that they were looking at the FaceTube while driving, they just need to have a witness (cop) testify that a display was within sight of the driver, capable of showing non-whitelisted information, with no restrictive interlock present.
If they start changing laws for every fad device that comes along, then the annotated code will become more incomprehensible than it already is.
This particular law isn't in need of clarification - it's rather simple. If there is a display within view of the driver, and it is capable of showing something that isn't vehicle information, GPS, or a map while the car is in gear; you are in violation of the law. In-dash entertainment systems are allowed because they have an interlock circuit that prevents video entertainment operation while the vehicle is in gear, restricting the display to only the allowed classifications of vehicle information, GPS, or map data.
This means your smart phone on a dash mount isn't legal by the definition of the law, bunky; it doesn't have an interlock that prevents push notifications of some asshole tweeting about the latest happenings on American Karaoke while you're on the freeway.
California 27602(b)1, 2, and 3 make exceptions for "Vehicle information displays", "GPS", and "mapping displays" specifically. This is what the iDrive system in a BMW is showing. Even if it's showing information about the music being played, it's information about the vehicle's audio system.
I've seen plenty of motorcycle police on BMW too. My guess is that the maintenance would be far less than on a fleet of Harley-Davidson.
You can get a Windows 8.1 32-bit version as well. At least, it's a downloadable ISO on Microsoft's volume licensing site.
Firstly; by "PC"s you should understand "laptops". Desktops are already quite rare in most companies outside call centers.
Bzzzt. Incorrect.
Checking in from a Fortune 50 here. I'm the guy that validates and certifies all of our computing "endpoint" hardware. We have a fleet of somewhere close to 8,000 laptops and upwards of 50,000 desktops. And another 30,000 thin clients running Linux.
Desktops are the rule, laptops the exception. Why? A desktop with enterprise management that will last for 4 years costs $500*, a laptop that might last for 3 costs $700*. Laptops have a shorter average lifetime and a higher per-unit cost.
*negotiated pricing with tier-1 OEMs such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo; based upon volume of purchasing.
I still use a PowerBook G4 Titanium on a network rack as a machine for WireShark, web consoles, and usb-to-serial terminal for switches and routers. It sits in a rack mounted drawer, sleeping, until I need to open the lid and do something. I don't need more than a 12-year-old laptop to do that, and it still works.
That laptop has been to the brink and back, and still works just fine except for a slight discoloration of the backlight in the screen from age.