Sorry but criminal history is not a proxy for race*. Race predicts recidivism independently**. Community disadvantage is also an independent predictor**, so you can't just blame poverty either. There's deep problems that have led to this situation, and we're never going to fix them if we put on our social justice blinders and deny the reality that certain races commit more crimes than others in a lot of categories, especially violent crimes. It's critical to address the large scale societal mechanisms behind this (and while racism has its fair share of the blame, it's absolutely not the only factor), but in the mean time, it's reality, and you can't eliminate a valid independent variable just because it offends your sensibilities.
Voluntary manslaughter is for when the killer is emotionally disturbed. It shouldn't apply to a situation you're specifically trained to handle. FindLaw on 2nd degree murder:
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Fits perfectly. Heat of passion is more walking in on a dude boinking your wife, not when you're wearing body armor behind cover with a team of 20 surrounding one man who's complying with your orders and you suddenly think he might somehow be reaching for a gun you don't know exists, as a member of an elite highly trained unit specializing in such scenarios.
Say I was legally carrying a gun at that 7-11, and the clerk said "help this robber is going to shoot me!". If he was actually holding a gun on the clerk at that point and I shot him, I wouldn't get charged. If I summarily executed him without bothering to even look and it turned out he was not in fact holding a gun on anyone, I'd be locked up for decades. That's more along the lines of what happened here. To 'accidentally hit a bystander', there must be a legitimate target being shot at. There was no valid target until they verified the man was an active threat.
Involuntary manslaughter is an appropriate charge for the swatter, then ALSO the appropriate charge for the shooting officer is Murder 2.
He was outside, alone, surrounded by 20 armed officers, all of whom were behind car doors, wearing body armor, at distance. In the half a second it would have taken to confirm if he had a gun, he could have killed.. let's see here... yeah, ZERO people. Reflect on that jackass. Not being sure goes way beyond a mistake, it's straight up murder.
My impression is that they're arrogant enough to believe they can keep the keys secret and/or the collateral damage of a breach is less important than whatever they feel like doing.
That's not a FISA Court problem, that's an American justice system problem. All levels of courts warrants are approved 99%+ of the time. It's actually a bigger problem in the lower courts, because that is what the police busting down your door or camping outside your house are going for most of the time. That's what always vexes me about all these big arguments about whether the cops should or should not need a warrant to do x. It's just a rubber stamp from the local courthouse right up through FISA court. Fix the entire system; start with the fact that judges are almost always former prosecutors or elected by people demanding tough on crime without any regard for rights of the accused, and thus squarely in the corner of the police and unwilling to say no, no matter how egregiously defective the warrant is, such as the warrant approved to force administer a child drugs to give him an erection and photograph his penis.
Now now. Government only has your best interests in mind. In fact, it should just have an official newspaper for this sort of work during elections.
I even have a name for it. Pravda. Truth. In Russian, because Russia is the one with fake news!
Well in the US we've already got a TV channel like that called "Fox News", so why not a newspaper too I suppose.
I'm entirely sick of the notion that people hired for the specific task of putting themselves between criminals and their victims are entitled to be such cowards they're allowed to open fire on someone without seeing a weapon first. Yes there's a small risk the guy can get a gun up and fire first, and a very small chance of that being accurate enough to hit you (and in this case at great distance so virtually zero), but too bad. That's the fucking job. You ARE supposed to be risking your life to make sure innocent people aren't hurt, and that includes *by you*.
It's 14 only if married. If unmarried, it's 18-- higher than most of the US (16 in 31 states, 17 in 7). But there's many other countries that allow 14 as general age of consent without requirement of marriage or partner being close in age (Germany, Portugal, Austria and Italy for instance).
Copyright notices automatically generated by the tens of thousands by a 3rd party for another 3rd party aren't accurate enough to be considered proof of you violating the ISPs policy.
Despite rhetoric by politicians and some media outlets, we live in the least violent time in all of history. As a society becomes more advanced, violence plummets. You can see that playing out even today; violence tracks technological development. Older history is even more bloody. There's no reason to think that this trend won't continue, and that by the time we start exploring other worlds our goals won't be peaceful; and there's no reason to think other species wouldn't require the stability that peace brings in order to achieve interplanetary travel.
Looking for CP is just the excuse, since we're nowhere near an AI that could distinguish between a naked child and naked adult, especially since we insist on calling teenager sexts CP. Consider where this is-- the UK, where they have a long standing history of trying to restrict adult porn too.
There's still nothing in the Constitution that remotely protects that right, total fabrication by the court to reflect the changing views of Americans.
The Constitution explicitly says enumerated rights are not meant to interfere with other rights retained by the people. Think about all our other non-enumerated rights; the right to vote, the right to privacy in the bedroom, the right to travel, and the right to certain medical decisions over our own body... are you really suggesting that the government has the authority to ban all of those outright, because we only have the rights explicitly mentioned? Ultra-authoritarianism is all the rage these days huh?
The higher your class, the less the ability to compromise is developed after a lifetime of getting whatever you want because you have money. Seems about right.
It doesn't get us a little way back towards NN. It's far more sinister. MAYBE some ISP abuses like fast lanes could have been pursued by the FTC, but this law explicitly makes all the things that NN was supposed to prevent legal, making that impossible. Make no mistake, this is No Net Neutrality codified into law, with a fake title, it's more accurately titled as the "Open Internet Destruction Act".
That comment was very insulting towards retards. Their life is hard enough without insulting them by saying Ajit Pai is one.
Besides he's very clearly an intelligent, educated man. So his actions are far better explained by him being evil. It takes a great deal of intelligence to construct such misleading bullshit. He knows hes lying, he knows every word out of his mouth is garbage, he is just acting to make himself rich by helping ISPs fuck consumers ever harder.
A lot of those are the domain of progressives, a *very* distinct wing of the left. Liberals aren't too thrilled about progressives capturing the left, but of course can't speak out, because the punishment for even questioning progressive dogma is excommunication. Not even the methods... once a progressive comes up with a method that aids their cause, it's sacred. If you completely support the goal but wonder if the method is the best way to go about it? Bam, that's it, you're a racist, sexist, alt-right nazi.
And don't forget the biggest behavior control, the one desire for control, that unites conservatives, liberals, and progressives... the War On Drugs. Nothing more invasive than revoking bodily autonomy, "Yes, you may ingest substance x. No, you may not ingest less harmful substance y." It's still harmful, but prohibition magnifies the harms it has and introduced a bunch of other harms. Then of course, all sides support militarizing police, gutting the 4th Amendment, and incarcerating at a rate the most authoritarian governments can only dream of; all on account of that being the only way to enforce their precious prohibition. (And token reforms like dropping pot from the ban or sentencing to 2 decades instead of 4 don't count).
Banning manual drive? Pfft. We should just ban driving above 5mph too while we wait for Level 5 automation. I mean, it appears we've decided torturing people* is an acceptable way to deal with the problem of opioid abuse. What's a little slow speed compared to that? Think of the lives saved, at the mere cost of massive inconvenience!
* - Yes it's inflammatory language, but to torture someone means to voluntarily inflict severe pain over a long period of time, and that's exactly what is happening as doctors follow DEA policy and refuse to treat or severely undertreat pain, even when the person is clearly not a drug seeker and, contrary to media hype, addiction (as separate from dependence) is rare. Then of course we know that people denied relief by the medical system sometimes turn to the black market, where they face a massively higher risk of death from overdosing on a poorly diluted fent analog.. and we knew this overdose spike would happen if we cracked down on doctors, and did it anyway.
I didn't say it had to be weighed like a vote, just that it had to be conducted. You should let the NY AG know that you're such an expert on whether massive uninvestigated criminal fraud matters in the commenting and he's filing a frivolous suit without merit.
And while abuse of discretion is absolutely a high bar, if there's ever an action that meets it this is it. If this doesn't qualify then the concept is meaningless.
Finally, they weren't really seeking public comment at all. Pai made it crystal clear the decision was made and was final before commenting even started. All the "novel legal arguments" in the world wouldn't have changed his mind no matter how valid they were. He made a mockery of the public commenting just like he laughs at and dismisses everyone and every argument against repeal.
Its really dumb. I've had,the same rx for 15 years, I can reorder just fine. Fortunately the U.K. is slightly less insane and lets us Americans order from companies there with the trust we can enter the right size and strength. International shipping is still way cheaper than an eye exam.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. There's numerous laws regarding how a repeal of a recently passed policy must be carried out, including having good cause and conducting a proper public comment period. Both of those are open to challenge, and the result is far from a foregone conclusion. The principal argument seems to be that proceding with the vote despite widespread organized fraud involving criminal identity theft, without investigating much, and blocking states' efforts to do so, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Somehow I don't think you made your comment after a thorough analysis of that law and the legal precedents surrounding it.
Ah, the classic "we'd never violate these rules anyway but for some reason we're going to spend millions on lawsuits fighting them and millions more on advertising to the public and lobbying politicians in a non-stop bitch and moan fest to get them eliminated" argument. Touche.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but criminal history is not a proxy for race*. Race predicts recidivism independently**. Community disadvantage is also an independent predictor**, so you can't just blame poverty either. There's deep problems that have led to this situation, and we're never going to fix them if we put on our social justice blinders and deny the reality that certain races commit more crimes than others in a lot of categories, especially violent crimes. It's critical to address the large scale societal mechanisms behind this (and while racism has its fair share of the blame, it's absolutely not the only factor), but in the mean time, it's reality, and you can't eliminate a valid independent variable just because it offends your sensibilities.
* https://gspp.berkeley.edu/rese... ** http://content.library.ccsu.ed...
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Fits perfectly. Heat of passion is more walking in on a dude boinking your wife, not when you're wearing body armor behind cover with a team of 20 surrounding one man who's complying with your orders and you suddenly think he might somehow be reaching for a gun you don't know exists, as a member of an elite highly trained unit specializing in such scenarios.
Say I was legally carrying a gun at that 7-11, and the clerk said "help this robber is going to shoot me!". If he was actually holding a gun on the clerk at that point and I shot him, I wouldn't get charged. If I summarily executed him without bothering to even look and it turned out he was not in fact holding a gun on anyone, I'd be locked up for decades. That's more along the lines of what happened here. To 'accidentally hit a bystander', there must be a legitimate target being shot at. There was no valid target until they verified the man was an active threat.
Involuntary manslaughter is an appropriate charge for the swatter, then ALSO the appropriate charge for the shooting officer is Murder 2.
He was outside, alone, surrounded by 20 armed officers, all of whom were behind car doors, wearing body armor, at distance. In the half a second it would have taken to confirm if he had a gun, he could have killed.. let's see here... yeah, ZERO people. Reflect on that jackass. Not being sure goes way beyond a mistake, it's straight up murder.
My impression is that they're arrogant enough to believe they can keep the keys secret and/or the collateral damage of a breach is less important than whatever they feel like doing.
Oh come on, "Top Secret" is both way cooler and an actual classification.
That's not a FISA Court problem, that's an American justice system problem. All levels of courts warrants are approved 99%+ of the time. It's actually a bigger problem in the lower courts, because that is what the police busting down your door or camping outside your house are going for most of the time. That's what always vexes me about all these big arguments about whether the cops should or should not need a warrant to do x. It's just a rubber stamp from the local courthouse right up through FISA court. Fix the entire system; start with the fact that judges are almost always former prosecutors or elected by people demanding tough on crime without any regard for rights of the accused, and thus squarely in the corner of the police and unwilling to say no, no matter how egregiously defective the warrant is, such as the warrant approved to force administer a child drugs to give him an erection and photograph his penis.
Now now. Government only has your best interests in mind. In fact, it should just have an official newspaper for this sort of work during elections. I even have a name for it. Pravda. Truth. In Russian, because Russia is the one with fake news!
Well in the US we've already got a TV channel like that called "Fox News", so why not a newspaper too I suppose.
I'm entirely sick of the notion that people hired for the specific task of putting themselves between criminals and their victims are entitled to be such cowards they're allowed to open fire on someone without seeing a weapon first. Yes there's a small risk the guy can get a gun up and fire first, and a very small chance of that being accurate enough to hit you (and in this case at great distance so virtually zero), but too bad. That's the fucking job. You ARE supposed to be risking your life to make sure innocent people aren't hurt, and that includes *by you*.
It's 14 only if married. If unmarried, it's 18-- higher than most of the US (16 in 31 states, 17 in 7). But there's many other countries that allow 14 as general age of consent without requirement of marriage or partner being close in age (Germany, Portugal, Austria and Italy for instance).
Copyright notices automatically generated by the tens of thousands by a 3rd party for another 3rd party aren't accurate enough to be considered proof of you violating the ISPs policy.
Despite rhetoric by politicians and some media outlets, we live in the least violent time in all of history. As a society becomes more advanced, violence plummets. You can see that playing out even today; violence tracks technological development. Older history is even more bloody. There's no reason to think that this trend won't continue, and that by the time we start exploring other worlds our goals won't be peaceful; and there's no reason to think other species wouldn't require the stability that peace brings in order to achieve interplanetary travel.
Looking for CP is just the excuse, since we're nowhere near an AI that could distinguish between a naked child and naked adult, especially since we insist on calling teenager sexts CP. Consider where this is-- the UK, where they have a long standing history of trying to restrict adult porn too.
It's because it's righteous and just when we do something, but evil when Russia does the same thing. Come on, everyone knows that.
I don't believe for one minute that the NSA doesn't have every major undersea cable tapped.
There's still nothing in the Constitution that remotely protects that right, total fabrication by the court to reflect the changing views of Americans.
The Constitution explicitly says enumerated rights are not meant to interfere with other rights retained by the people. Think about all our other non-enumerated rights; the right to vote, the right to privacy in the bedroom, the right to travel, and the right to certain medical decisions over our own body... are you really suggesting that the government has the authority to ban all of those outright, because we only have the rights explicitly mentioned? Ultra-authoritarianism is all the rage these days huh?
The higher your class, the less the ability to compromise is developed after a lifetime of getting whatever you want because you have money. Seems about right.
It doesn't get us a little way back towards NN. It's far more sinister. MAYBE some ISP abuses like fast lanes could have been pursued by the FTC, but this law explicitly makes all the things that NN was supposed to prevent legal, making that impossible. Make no mistake, this is No Net Neutrality codified into law, with a fake title, it's more accurately titled as the "Open Internet Destruction Act".
No you don't suddenly wake up in the morning and find yourself in the world of 1984; you get there slowly, one 'no big deal' at a time.
That comment was very insulting towards retards. Their life is hard enough without insulting them by saying Ajit Pai is one.
Besides he's very clearly an intelligent, educated man. So his actions are far better explained by him being evil. It takes a great deal of intelligence to construct such misleading bullshit. He knows hes lying, he knows every word out of his mouth is garbage, he is just acting to make himself rich by helping ISPs fuck consumers ever harder.
A lot of those are the domain of progressives, a *very* distinct wing of the left. Liberals aren't too thrilled about progressives capturing the left, but of course can't speak out, because the punishment for even questioning progressive dogma is excommunication. Not even the methods... once a progressive comes up with a method that aids their cause, it's sacred. If you completely support the goal but wonder if the method is the best way to go about it? Bam, that's it, you're a racist, sexist, alt-right nazi.
And don't forget the biggest behavior control, the one desire for control, that unites conservatives, liberals, and progressives... the War On Drugs. Nothing more invasive than revoking bodily autonomy, "Yes, you may ingest substance x. No, you may not ingest less harmful substance y." It's still harmful, but prohibition magnifies the harms it has and introduced a bunch of other harms. Then of course, all sides support militarizing police, gutting the 4th Amendment, and incarcerating at a rate the most authoritarian governments can only dream of; all on account of that being the only way to enforce their precious prohibition. (And token reforms like dropping pot from the ban or sentencing to 2 decades instead of 4 don't count).
Banning manual drive? Pfft. We should just ban driving above 5mph too while we wait for Level 5 automation. I mean, it appears we've decided torturing people* is an acceptable way to deal with the problem of opioid abuse. What's a little slow speed compared to that? Think of the lives saved, at the mere cost of massive inconvenience!
* - Yes it's inflammatory language, but to torture someone means to voluntarily inflict severe pain over a long period of time, and that's exactly what is happening as doctors follow DEA policy and refuse to treat or severely undertreat pain, even when the person is clearly not a drug seeker and, contrary to media hype, addiction (as separate from dependence) is rare. Then of course we know that people denied relief by the medical system sometimes turn to the black market, where they face a massively higher risk of death from overdosing on a poorly diluted fent analog.. and we knew this overdose spike would happen if we cracked down on doctors, and did it anyway.
I didn't say it had to be weighed like a vote, just that it had to be conducted. You should let the NY AG know that you're such an expert on whether massive uninvestigated criminal fraud matters in the commenting and he's filing a frivolous suit without merit.
And while abuse of discretion is absolutely a high bar, if there's ever an action that meets it this is it. If this doesn't qualify then the concept is meaningless.
Finally, they weren't really seeking public comment at all. Pai made it crystal clear the decision was made and was final before commenting even started. All the "novel legal arguments" in the world wouldn't have changed his mind no matter how valid they were. He made a mockery of the public commenting just like he laughs at and dismisses everyone and every argument against repeal.
Its really dumb. I've had,the same rx for 15 years, I can reorder just fine. Fortunately the U.K. is slightly less insane and lets us Americans order from companies there with the trust we can enter the right size and strength. International shipping is still way cheaper than an eye exam.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. There's numerous laws regarding how a repeal of a recently passed policy must be carried out, including having good cause and conducting a proper public comment period. Both of those are open to challenge, and the result is far from a foregone conclusion. The principal argument seems to be that proceding with the vote despite widespread organized fraud involving criminal identity theft, without investigating much, and blocking states' efforts to do so, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Somehow I don't think you made your comment after a thorough analysis of that law and the legal precedents surrounding it.
Ah, the classic "we'd never violate these rules anyway but for some reason we're going to spend millions on lawsuits fighting them and millions more on advertising to the public and lobbying politicians in a non-stop bitch and moan fest to get them eliminated" argument. Touche.