Sounds like the meat packing industry just before the mad cow disease scare. They used a process called reclamation, iirc, that would suck every last bit of meat off a carcass. Problem is, this process was very messy and would spray bits of cow onto other carcasses, greatly increasing the chances of cross contamination. Regulators wanted to get rid of the process, but the packing industry said it saved them $130 million a year. But then the mad cow scare hit, and rather than worrying about losing $130 million they had to worry about losing a few BILLION dollars. Pennywise, pound stupid decision.
Same with these car companies - aside from a huge jury award in my hypothetical example, what would the PR cost be? Who would want to buy Brand X after someone gets hurt or killed because they pettily refused to release a simple code?
I understand your anger, and feel a lot of sympathy for you, but look at it from their perspective.
Okay...done, and they're still wrong - if it was something major, say so. If it's something minor, say that too.
The car has shut down, and for all they knew you might be some wack-job who'd sue if they said "go ahead" and either the vehicle or you were damaged. Under those circumstances, even telling you what the defect was and letting you make up your own mind may be enough for your landsharks to go after them.
But not only is that counter-balanced by the above scenario, it's also a PR disaster waiting to happen.
"Car stops for woman going home from work late at night, and she's sexually assaulted after she pulled off the road...turns out the car shut off because the steering fluid was low...."
WTF is "contrived" about household fires?!? If a girl can have her guts hydraulically sucked out by a pool drain, it's more than possible that a kid fitted with this medieval device will suffer a severe injury and/or death from being trapped in a fire/falling down some stairs.
Because standing up for your rights is frequently messy and risky - see the police crackdowns on perfectly legal protests around political conventions and economic summits. You should be thankful that people like Mr. Becker stand up for our civil liberties so people like you can enjoy them.
Come to think of it, the very video you linked to is an example of that. The jury looked at the same video, and didn't see any misconduct.
Uh, no, that's the BART shooting from early this year, and charges are still pending.
Sure, it had to come from somewhere; and the person taking the picture of an open ATM had to be taking it for some reason.
And....? Take as much LSD as you want, and you wouldn't be able to come up with any kind of a reason to detain someone for taking pictures of an open ATM in an open area that anyone can walk through.
There are also plenty of reasons why a person would take a picture of the inside of an ATM; not all of them are illegal, but some are.
The act of robbing an ATM would obviously be criminal. Taking a photo of an ATM? No way Joze.
What does carrying a bloody baseball bat prove?
That you're carrying something that could be used as a club that's covered in blood. Thus, probable suspicion. Whereas taking a picture of an ATM in an open area is not. a. crime.
You spent your entire post insulting me, instead of actually, you know, making a coherent argument.
Then please don't make an analogy so bad it makes my hair hurt.
But IIRC they weren't "swarming over the rest of the ship". They were split in two main groups at that point - one in engineering, and another on the communications array. Data took care of the former, and Worf the latter.
Please stop with the "California Surf Speak" - it lessens the intelligence in your argument.
Engage in as much rhetorical masturbation as you want, but it wont make you any less wrong, it'll just make your more and more harry. And judging by your other stubbornly anal retentive posts in this thread, you must look like Chewbaca by now.
Then, by the same argument, the OP was talking about two completely unrelated issues ("incremental updates" then "MS upgrade cycle") - in which case his argument is also nullified since he is not comparing like for like.
And if there was any contradiction between liking Apple's "incremental updates" and criticizing Microsoft's "upgrade cycle", you'd have a great point. But there isn't so you don't - but don't let that stop you from dailing the pedantic nitpicking to 11.
I am not qualified to discuss technical issues about OSX because I don't use it.
Then you aren't qualified to speculate on "fanboys" if you know nothing of the underlying issues or technology.
I based that comment merely on the fact that as I run XP (and Linux) at home, the MS updates usually happen on a Thursday.
Tuesday. Tuesday. Tuesday. It's called Patch Tuesday for a reason.
Neither, I'd rather nuke the lot of them from orbit.
In your case, it really IS the only way to be sure.
Neither is walking down the street with a blood-covered baseball bat.
I suppose you could think that was an appropriate analogy, if you were a moron with his head shoved up his ass.
I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out the fact that an illegal act is not necessary to create reasonable suspicion.
And your analogy sucks so bad it would make an elephant wince. Blood on a bat had to come from somewhere...whereas carrying a camera proves what, exactly?
The other thing is he was on *private* property, not public property it may not be suspicious, but it *looks* suspicious, it looks like it can be mis-used and all I'm saying is this guy should have seen that and defused the situation
Changes nothing. The only right the proprietor had was to ask him to leave.
Agreed. But we're not discussing the fairness of having to be polite to somebody who's being rude to you.
Exactly, because this goes way beyond mere "rudeness".
We're talking about the consequences of being rude to somebody with the authority to throw you in jail.
No, we aren't, as said somebody has to have a reason to throw you in jail, which is something the cops never had in this case.
The loss prevention guy had the authority to detain him until the cops arrived.
Not just no, but HELL no. Was he vandalizing the store? No. Was he trying to shoplift? No - and even if he was, loss prevention has to wait until AFTER you leave the store, not while you're inside.
Saw the video. Simplistic nonsense.
That include the highly respected Supreme Court justice and veteran police detective with decades of experience? Stop maintaining that firm grip on your ankles and watch the video again, paying particular attention at 8:30.
But there are certainly times when it's necessary. If you're ripped off, try filing an insurance claim without a police report. And if there were a guy on your front porch carrying a machete and wearing a hockey mask, you're telling me you wouldn't call 911?
Except the obvious context is when the police think you are a suspect.
Hmm, just remembered the last time I interacted with a cop. I was driving home at 3 AM, and the place where I parked had been well lit, so I forgot to turn on my headlights. Got pulled over, and asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" By then I'd figured out why I'd been stopped, so I said yes. As soon as he saw I wasn't a drunk (which is what he was trolling for), he gave me a lecture and let me go.
What would have happened if I'd refused to say anything to him? Certainly an expensive traffic ticket and probably a few hours jail time.
Uh, no, what came out of you mouth had nothing to do with him letting you go. The police officer made a determination that he didn't have probable suspicion that you were drinking and driving. Anything you said could only hurt you, not help you.
When I deal with cops, I rely on self-restraint and common sense. And somehow my interactions seem to come out better than with people who fancy themselves street lawyers.
No, they don't. See above.
Time bombs are a myth? OK then, but I'm pretty some serial killers are not.
Time bomb scenario. Reading comprehension, it does a body good.
You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it
There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.
What a surprise, you're wrong. Again. You have every Constitutional right to tell public officials - including police officers - off using profanity. And there are plenty of courtcases backing that right up. What people are arrested for isn't swearing at the officer, but for the favorite cop catch all: disorderly conduct.
So the officer can arrest you for screaming "fuck you!" at her in a store, but it's for disorderly conduct, not swearing. But calmly telling her to fuck off while she's attempting to question you certainly is within your Constitutional rights.
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people. Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way.
Respect is a two way street. When the rent-a-cops brusquely demanded his ID (which they had no right to do), assaulted him (I'll tackle you) they lost any and all right to any iota of respect. Ditto that for the cops who arrested him with no probable suspicion, much less cause. They guy made two mistakes, and being "disrespectful" is not one of them:
1) He should have ignored the rent-a-cops, loss prevention officer and walked out of the store 2) He talked to the cops. Never talk to the cops.
This is in San Francisco where DUI is taken very seriously. I admitted to the officers I had been drinking and that I had a prior, but in a very respectful manner explained my situation and asked for leniency.
Naive much? You just gave them probable suspicion if not cause. Never talk to the cops.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
You're an ankle grabbing apologist for authoritarians. What part of "No you can't have my ID" is being a smart ass? You are as entitled to walk up to a slightly pudgy woman and asking if she's pregnant and expecting a straight answer as rent-a-cops are entitled to ask for your ID.
And my point is that you are 100% wrong on all counts.
1) The rent-a-cops had not right to question or detain him 2) The most the store could have done was ask him to leave 3) The real cops didn't have probable suspicion to get his ID, much less have cause for arrest
Standing up for your rights != handling a situation "poorly".
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the meat packing industry just before the mad cow disease scare. They used a process called reclamation, iirc, that would suck every last bit of meat off a carcass. Problem is, this process was very messy and would spray bits of cow onto other carcasses, greatly increasing the chances of cross contamination. Regulators wanted to get rid of the process, but the packing industry said it saved them $130 million a year. But then the mad cow scare hit, and rather than worrying about losing $130 million they had to worry about losing a few BILLION dollars. Pennywise, pound stupid decision.
Same with these car companies - aside from a huge jury award in my hypothetical example, what would the PR cost be? Who would want to buy Brand X after someone gets hurt or killed because they pettily refused to release a simple code?
I understand your anger, and feel a lot of sympathy for you, but look at it from their perspective.
Okay...done, and they're still wrong - if it was something major, say so. If it's something minor, say that too.
The car has shut down, and for all they knew you might be some wack-job who'd sue if they said "go ahead" and either the vehicle or you were damaged. Under those circumstances, even telling you what the defect was and letting you make up your own mind may be enough for your landsharks to go after them.
But not only is that counter-balanced by the above scenario, it's also a PR disaster waiting to happen.
"Car stops for woman going home from work late at night, and she's sexually assaulted after she pulled off the road...turns out the car shut off because the steering fluid was low...."
You can contrive a situation to prove any point.
WTF is "contrived" about household fires?!? If a girl can have her guts hydraulically sucked out by a pool drain, it's more than possible that a kid fitted with this medieval device will suffer a severe injury and/or death from being trapped in a fire/falling down some stairs.
Because standing up for your rights is frequently messy and risky - see the police crackdowns on perfectly legal protests around political conventions and economic summits. You should be thankful that people like Mr. Becker stand up for our civil liberties so people like you can enjoy them.
Come to think of it, the very video you linked to is an example of that. The jury looked at the same video, and didn't see any misconduct.
Uh, no, that's the BART shooting from early this year, and charges are still pending.
Sure, it had to come from somewhere; and the person taking the picture of an open ATM had to be taking it for some reason.
And....? Take as much LSD as you want, and you wouldn't be able to come up with any kind of a reason to detain someone for taking pictures of an open ATM in an open area that anyone can walk through.
There are also plenty of reasons why a person would take a picture of the inside of an ATM; not all of them are illegal, but some are.
The act of robbing an ATM would obviously be criminal. Taking a photo of an ATM? No way Joze.
What does carrying a bloody baseball bat prove?
That you're carrying something that could be used as a club that's covered in blood. Thus, probable suspicion. Whereas taking a picture of an ATM in an open area is not. a. crime.
You spent your entire post insulting me, instead of actually, you know, making a coherent argument.
Then please don't make an analogy so bad it makes my hair hurt.
Dude, RTFA, they did throw him in jail.
Dude, just because a cop does it, doesn't mean it's legal. The PD can look forward to a nice, fat lawsuit for false arrest.
But IIRC they weren't "swarming over the rest of the ship". They were split in two main groups at that point - one in engineering, and another on the communications array. Data took care of the former, and Worf the latter.
You may not like the fact that binding orders were the excuse for their shitty fabbing
Fixed that for you. Just In Time inventory. Try Google.
IBM indicated this was the problem
Then they shouldn't have promised Apple 3 ghz chips within a year, no ifs ands or buts.
What happened with Microsoft indicates that IBM was in fact willing to provide speciality chips for people with binding orders
And I'm just waiting for IBM to decline to make chips for the Playstation 4 or Xbox 3 because Sony and Microsoft were "too small" to bother with.
Please stop with the "California Surf Speak" - it lessens the intelligence in your argument.
Engage in as much rhetorical masturbation as you want, but it wont make you any less wrong, it'll just make your more and more harry. And judging by your other stubbornly anal retentive posts in this thread, you must look like Chewbaca by now.
Then, by the same argument, the OP was talking about two completely unrelated issues ("incremental updates" then "MS upgrade cycle") - in which case his argument is also nullified since he is not comparing like for like.
And if there was any contradiction between liking Apple's "incremental updates" and criticizing Microsoft's "upgrade cycle", you'd have a great point. But there isn't so you don't - but don't let that stop you from dailing the pedantic nitpicking to 11.
I am not qualified to discuss technical issues about OSX because I don't use it.
Then you aren't qualified to speculate on "fanboys" if you know nothing of the underlying issues or technology.
I based that comment merely on the fact that as I run XP (and Linux) at home, the MS updates usually happen on a Thursday.
Tuesday. Tuesday. Tuesday. It's called Patch Tuesday for a reason.
Neither, I'd rather nuke the lot of them from orbit.
In your case, it really IS the only way to be sure.
Neither is walking down the street with a blood-covered baseball bat.
I suppose you could think that was an appropriate analogy, if you were a moron with his head shoved up his ass.
I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out the fact that an illegal act is not necessary to create reasonable suspicion.
And your analogy sucks so bad it would make an elephant wince. Blood on a bat had to come from somewhere...whereas carrying a camera proves what, exactly?
I'm a pretty good judge of character and felt I could strike a chord of sympathy with the female officer.
Then you have NO idea how cops operate. Talking to the cops can. not. help. you. Watch the video again, paying special attention at 8:30.
I think you are forgetting that the police have a certain amount of authority that is within the charter of their duty to exercise.
No, you're just ignoring the fact that there are sharp limits to that authority.
The aggressive rent-a-cops kept pushing an authority they didn't have
Fixed that for you.
However rent-a-cop and the cops also had a right to exercise their authority, and they did.
No, they didn't. The former had no right to detain, question, or assault him, and the latter had no probable suspicion that a crime was committed.
In any circumstances it is not wise to test the authority of the police unless you have an excellent grasp of your rights under the law.
The only part where he failed at this was in talking to the cops at all.
The other thing is he was on *private* property, not public property it may not be suspicious, but it *looks* suspicious, it looks like it can be mis-used and all I'm saying is this guy should have seen that and defused the situation
Changes nothing. The only right the proprietor had was to ask him to leave.
instead it looks like he provoked a confrontation
Blaming the victim again - stay classy Kaos.
Translation: you lost the argument and all your lame points just got shut down.
Agreed. But we're not discussing the fairness of having to be polite to somebody who's being rude to you.
Exactly, because this goes way beyond mere "rudeness".
We're talking about the consequences of being rude to somebody with the authority to throw you in jail.
No, we aren't, as said somebody has to have a reason to throw you in jail, which is something the cops never had in this case.
The loss prevention guy had the authority to detain him until the cops arrived.
Not just no, but HELL no. Was he vandalizing the store? No. Was he trying to shoplift? No - and even if he was, loss prevention has to wait until AFTER you leave the store, not while you're inside.
Saw the video. Simplistic nonsense.
That include the highly respected Supreme Court justice and veteran police detective with decades of experience? Stop maintaining that firm grip on your ankles and watch the video again, paying particular attention at 8:30.
But there are certainly times when it's necessary. If you're ripped off, try filing an insurance claim without a police report. And if there were a guy on your front porch carrying a machete and wearing a hockey mask, you're telling me you wouldn't call 911?
Except the obvious context is when the police think you are a suspect.
Hmm, just remembered the last time I interacted with a cop. I was driving home at 3 AM, and the place where I parked had been well lit, so I forgot to turn on my headlights. Got pulled over, and asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" By then I'd figured out why I'd been stopped, so I said yes. As soon as he saw I wasn't a drunk (which is what he was trolling for), he gave me a lecture and let me go.
What would have happened if I'd refused to say anything to him? Certainly an expensive traffic ticket and probably a few hours jail time.
Uh, no, what came out of you mouth had nothing to do with him letting you go. The police officer made a determination that he didn't have probable suspicion that you were drinking and driving. Anything you said could only hurt you, not help you.
When I deal with cops, I rely on self-restraint and common sense. And somehow my interactions seem to come out better than with people who fancy themselves street lawyers.
No, they don't. See above.
Time bombs are a myth? OK then, but I'm pretty some serial killers are not.
Time bomb scenario. Reading comprehension, it does a body good.
There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.
What a surprise, you're wrong. Again. You have every Constitutional right to tell public officials - including police officers - off using profanity. And there are plenty of court cases backing that right up. What people are arrested for isn't swearing at the officer, but for the favorite cop catch all: disorderly conduct.
So the officer can arrest you for screaming "fuck you!" at her in a store, but it's for disorderly conduct, not swearing. But calmly telling her to fuck off while she's attempting to question you certainly is within your Constitutional rights.
Talking is different than cooperating.
No. It's not. At all. Watch the video.
Which would have hurt more, to spend five minutes showing his ID, or to spend the night in jail?
On what grounds, exactly?
It would take a fleet of firetrucks greater than half the star fleet.
Nah, just call up Invader Zim.
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people. Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way.
Respect is a two way street. When the rent-a-cops brusquely demanded his ID (which they had no right to do), assaulted him (I'll tackle you) they lost any and all right to any iota of respect. Ditto that for the cops who arrested him with no probable suspicion, much less cause. They guy made two mistakes, and being "disrespectful" is not one of them:
1) He should have ignored the rent-a-cops, loss prevention officer and walked out of the store
2) He talked to the cops. Never talk to the cops.
This is in San Francisco where DUI is taken very seriously. I admitted to the officers I had been drinking and that I had a prior, but in a very respectful manner explained my situation and asked for leniency.
Naive much? You just gave them probable suspicion if not cause. Never talk to the cops.
The biggest mistake this guy did was to talk back to the police.
No, the only mistake was in talking to them, period.
Unless you have a serious reason not to, the best thing to do is cooperate with the police.
No, no, no. Never talk to the cops.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
Go ahead, just insist on immunity first. Otherwise never talk to the cops.
So if some cops flagrantly violate your civil rights and you get the least bit agitated, "you brought it on yourself?" What a gigantic crock of shit.
You're an ankle grabbing apologist for authoritarians. What part of "No you can't have my ID" is being a smart ass? You are as entitled to walk up to a slightly pudgy woman and asking if she's pregnant and expecting a straight answer as rent-a-cops are entitled to ask for your ID.
You don't have to show them ID, but they don't have to let you in.
Duh.
And my point is that you are 100% wrong on all counts.
1) The rent-a-cops had not right to question or detain him
2) The most the store could have done was ask him to leave
3) The real cops didn't have probable suspicion to get his ID, much less have cause for arrest
Standing up for your rights != handling a situation "poorly".
Go ahead and tell the cops you'll talk to them, just as soon as you are granted immunity.
Great idea. Never talk to the police. Not even if you have information that might save lives.
You mean like in the mythical ticking time bomb scenario?