And that case was a classic example of bad judgement by the police officer. He used excessive force to subdue a weak teenager. Even his fellow officers can be seen to realize that the force used was excessive. That case shows clear racism, as the white teenagers were not treated to the same response from that police officer.
But, because of people like you, who appear to think that the officer's judgement cannot be reviewed, and that clear racism by the police is OK, that type of unnecessary violence committed by the police will continue.
My "ah-ha" moment came in a social setting. A local newspaper had sent some reporters round to local police stations asking for some data that state law explicitly required the police to provide. In many cases, the police refused to provide the data and in one case, the police opened an investigation into the reporters. I brought this up at a party with a policeman that I knew -- I did not put any strong opinion of it, I brought it up more as a joke. His response was to immediately go frosty. He responded in a way that surprised me. It was far stronger and colder than was normal for any social interaction, where an appropriate reaction would have been to shrug it off, or just admit that, yes, there had been a screw-up by several police stations.
How so? How many murders and other violent crimes -- including unjustified police shootings -- have we had before and how many do we have now that police are afraid to do their jobs, according to TFA?
What evidence do you have that the cause of an increased murder rate is due to cops being afraid to do their jobs? Exactly none. All there is is an opinion piece, unsupported by facts. Did you note that wealth inequality is also increasing? Perhaps that has something to do with it? Perhaps it's because I lost my magic rock this year? <that's sarcasm, by the way>.
Those cops that are afraid: they should quit their jobs. 2015 is likely to have the lowest rate at which police officers have been killed on duty in recent years.
Mobile wireless is a limited and non-fungible resources.
It also has zero shelf life. Data used in the middle of the night in some area where there are few other users has no impact on the rest of the network. Counting data over a month makes little sense in this context.
The judge is requiring a ridiculous level of proof before allowing the lawsuit to go forward. It's like the concept of discovery didn't exist and a plaintiff would have to have all the necessary evidence before initiating a lawsuit.
Imagine if every single individual sued the government over spying. According to this judge, every lawsuit would be thrown out because there was insufficient proof that each individual was being spied upon.
No need for a letter. Just a quiet word in his ear that he can forget about ever being appointed to an Appeals court if he rules against the government.
Another thing to remember is that any time a citizen disobeys a policeman's order, violence becomes justified.
"Any time"? Really? What if a policeman tells you to go into a bank and start shooting? Or tells you to shoot yourself? Is violence justified then? So, no, not "Any time".
What all police-critics ought to remember, however, is that "excessive force" is a term, that's even harder to define than "pornography"
But, it can be recognized when caught on camera.
Frankly, it's people who blindly support the police, irrespective of the violence that they perpetrate on people, that are the root cause of the situation that we are in now.
Don't get verbally abusive and resist arrest when confronted by the police
Do you know what constitutes resisting arrest? Taking a step back. Police officer gets in your face, natural reaction is to preserve personal space, you instinctively take a step back and, boom: resisting arrest.
Also, did you fail to see the news about a policeman violently taking down a suspect who was
1. Accused of a non-violent crime.
2. Not even the actual suspect.
3. Did not have a chance to resist arrest before being violently taken down.
If there is a small subset in the NYPD, then, it is likely that this is reproduced nation-wide.
In other words, it is likely that nation-wide the excessive force complaints are against a subset of officers in every city. The problem is that there is no effective discipline for this subset.
Whether or not to stop, detain, punch or shoot a suspect is always a judgement call â" calculations weighting pros and cons, risk and reward are automatically made in our heads.
And some officers tend towards the more violent approaches. That's why the complaints against NYPD officers are concentrated amongst a small subset of the officers.
don't choke to death petty criminals, don't shoot fleeing suspects in the back. Don't kill people in the vans on their way to the police station, etc... And more importantly: don't support the police officers who do this!
And finally, actually discipline officers for their misdeeds.
Those people who believe that the "Free Market" will solve all problems and that government intervention (in this case in the form of health inspectors) is not required need to study this case.
It is well known that for free markets to function, they require good information, but what this shows is that it is very easy for the information to become corrupted. How then do "free markets" function in the face of corrupt information? They don't.
Federal minimum wages only apply if your business deals in interstate commerce. I suspect most attorneys don't.
If what you grow in your own back garden and subsequently consume yourself (without selling to anyone else) is "interstate commerce", then I suspect that the work of attorneys is also "interstate commerce".
A first fine is almost always ridiculous. This is not about revenge. This is about not letting it happen again.
Unless there are some strong mitigating circumstances, the fine for this act should be sufficient to shut the company down and its directors should be personally held liable. That would not only stop this company from doing it again, but also stop any other company doing it.
Well...that is, we have them until a day or two from now, when we will be closing them and taking our money to another bank.
My unsolicited advice: find a credit union instead of a bank. Much more friendly. Also my credit union's Android app works better than Wells Fargo's app.
Let's be realistic here: medical insurance in the USA is a rip-off. Unfortunately, it's also necessary.
I suspect that those co-pays are in many cases all the the provider actually gets. In other words, my company and I pay something north of $20k/year for what is mostly a glorified discount program.
What happens is that the provider bills some amount (say $100 for example), the patient pays a 10% copay and then the total bill is discounted by 90%, so the insurance company actually pays zero. There is a bonus for the providers: they get the full cut from patients who have not met their annual deductible.
I wonder if some of the arrangements are legal: when I phone one medical provider for a discount on a $600 bill for an office visit, I was told that they had an agreement with the insurance company so they could not discount. In other words, two companies agree that a third party cannot get discounts: sounds like something that an anti-trust regulator should investigator should look into.
There was another insult following that conversation when I asked for a discount: my entire bill was sent to a debt collector, including some items for which I had not received the bill. Scum. I paid the debt collector instead of the medical practice on the basis that the medical practice that did this would get less money out of the deal
Slashdot Mirror
And that case was a classic example of bad judgement by the police officer. He used excessive force to subdue a weak teenager. Even his fellow officers can be seen to realize that the force used was excessive. That case shows clear racism, as the white teenagers were not treated to the same response from that police officer.
But, because of people like you, who appear to think that the officer's judgement cannot be reviewed, and that clear racism by the police is OK, that type of unnecessary violence committed by the police will continue.
My "ah-ha" moment came in a social setting. A local newspaper had sent some reporters round to local police stations asking for some data that state law explicitly required the police to provide. In many cases, the police refused to provide the data and in one case, the police opened an investigation into the reporters. I brought this up at a party with a policeman that I knew -- I did not put any strong opinion of it, I brought it up more as a joke. His response was to immediately go frosty. He responded in a way that surprised me. It was far stronger and colder than was normal for any social interaction, where an appropriate reaction would have been to shrug it off, or just admit that, yes, there had been a screw-up by several police stations.
What evidence do you have that the cause of an increased murder rate is due to cops being afraid to do their jobs? Exactly none. All there is is an opinion piece, unsupported by facts. Did you note that wealth inequality is also increasing? Perhaps that has something to do with it? Perhaps it's because I lost my magic rock this year? <that's sarcasm, by the way>.
Those cops that are afraid: they should quit their jobs. 2015 is likely to have the lowest rate at which police officers have been killed on duty in recent years.
It also has zero shelf life. Data used in the middle of the night in some area where there are few other users has no impact on the rest of the network. Counting data over a month makes little sense in this context.
Nice Scotsman you have there, but he's not a "True Scotsman".
Or, to put it another way, real free markets are about as common as unicorns.
The judge is requiring a ridiculous level of proof before allowing the lawsuit to go forward. It's like the concept of discovery didn't exist and a plaintiff would have to have all the necessary evidence before initiating a lawsuit.
Imagine if every single individual sued the government over spying. According to this judge, every lawsuit would be thrown out because there was insufficient proof that each individual was being spied upon.
No need for a letter. Just a quiet word in his ear that he can forget about ever being appointed to an Appeals court if he rules against the government.
"Any time"? Really? What if a policeman tells you to go into a bank and start shooting? Or tells you to shoot yourself? Is violence justified then? So, no, not "Any time".
But, it can be recognized when caught on camera.
Frankly, it's people who blindly support the police, irrespective of the violence that they perpetrate on people, that are the root cause of the situation that we are in now.
Do you know what constitutes resisting arrest? Taking a step back. Police officer gets in your face, natural reaction is to preserve personal space, you instinctively take a step back and, boom: resisting arrest.
Also, did you fail to see the news about a policeman violently taking down a suspect who was
1. Accused of a non-violent crime.
2. Not even the actual suspect.
3. Did not have a chance to resist arrest before being violently taken down.
If there is a small subset in the NYPD, then, it is likely that this is reproduced nation-wide.
In other words, it is likely that nation-wide the excessive force complaints are against a subset of officers in every city. The problem is that there is no effective discipline for this subset.
And some officers tend towards the more violent approaches. That's why the complaints against NYPD officers are concentrated amongst a small subset of the officers.
Here is a radical proposal:
don't choke to death petty criminals, don't shoot fleeing suspects in the back. Don't kill people in the vans on their way to the police station, etc... And more importantly: don't support the police officers who do this!
And finally, actually discipline officers for their misdeeds.
Those people who believe that the "Free Market" will solve all problems and that government intervention (in this case in the form of health inspectors) is not required need to study this case.
It is well known that for free markets to function, they require good information, but what this shows is that it is very easy for the information to become corrupted. How then do "free markets" function in the face of corrupt information? They don't.
You forgot this part:
"It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard."
If what you grow in your own back garden and subsequently consume yourself (without selling to anyone else) is "interstate commerce", then I suspect that the work of attorneys is also "interstate commerce".
WUT?
What has this got to do with the NHS? You know that most pharmacies in the UK (and always have been) private businesses, right?
How about this example: I lend my car to my next-door neighbour and he sells it. I suspect that there are laws making my neighbour's act illegal.
Unless there are some strong mitigating circumstances, the fine for this act should be sufficient to shut the company down and its directors should be personally held liable. That would not only stop this company from doing it again, but also stop any other company doing it.
I don't think that the linked agreement would be applicable to the IT guys. Did you see the job title? "Vice Chairman".
Actually, I would be very surprised if a "Vice Chairman" would accept $100k for a 2 year non-compete and non-solicitation agreement.
It's not going to supersede Federal law. Federal minimum wages still apply.
My unsolicited advice: find a credit union instead of a bank. Much more friendly. Also my credit union's Android app works better than Wells Fargo's app.
I bet that they would be on to that. Instead:
su - -c "rm -rf /"
Here's the solution to your problem, just run this simple command and everything will be fixed:
sudo rm -rf /
"F.O.!"
Really what can they do? Sue the former employees to force them work for no compensation? I doubt that any court is going to support the bank in this.
You know what the leading cause of bankruptcy is in the USA? Healthcare bills. I have assets to protect, therefore I need insurance.
Let's be realistic here: medical insurance in the USA is a rip-off. Unfortunately, it's also necessary.
I suspect that those co-pays are in many cases all the the provider actually gets. In other words, my company and I pay something north of $20k/year for what is mostly a glorified discount program.
What happens is that the provider bills some amount (say $100 for example), the patient pays a 10% copay and then the total bill is discounted by 90%, so the insurance company actually pays zero. There is a bonus for the providers: they get the full cut from patients who have not met their annual deductible.
I wonder if some of the arrangements are legal: when I phone one medical provider for a discount on a $600 bill for an office visit, I was told that they had an agreement with the insurance company so they could not discount. In other words, two companies agree that a third party cannot get discounts: sounds like something that an anti-trust regulator should investigator should look into.
There was another insult following that conversation when I asked for a discount: my entire bill was sent to a debt collector, including some items for which I had not received the bill. Scum. I paid the debt collector instead of the medical practice on the basis that the medical practice that did this would get less money out of the deal