Actually that isn't how the shots broke down. There were shots to the arm and hand (grazing) shots to the face/head. One or two to the top of the head and some torso shots. If you aren't aware of the facts don't use them.
Actually the first shot was the hand shot, which was when he was at the car. The last shot was the top of the head. I read that there were three top of the head shot which would indicate his head was down at the end of the altercation.
I am saying that you should make it clear you don't consent. If you give the cop whatever he asks for out of fear of violence (IE consenting to an illegal search) then we have already lost. I didn't suggest being non compliant, I said never consent to an illegal search, and only give ID if the policeman has a legally entitled reason for the request. Otherwise the only thing that happens is the behavior gets reinforced.
Who said anything about arguing? Saying calmly to the policeman that I do not consent to the search is now arguing? If you bend and consent to the search then there is no recourse to the cop. He broke no laws if you consent. So what neutral ground is there to fight on? He got via threat of violence what he legally couldn't, and is in the right. That only reinforces this sort of aggressive behavior on the cop side.
If you think saying "I do not consent to this search" is belligerent then you've already lost. How exactly do you have a single drop of recourse to the policeman if you consent to the search he has no right to perform? Once you do it is legal. He is using threats of violence to influence you into dropping your rights. Why is it this entire page is filled with people who think that calmly asserting your rights is belligerent and deserved of police brutality?
You can't sue them if you consent to being searched. You cannot sue them if they demand ID and then you produce it. In the end being arrested for upholding my rights is something I can sue for. Otherwise they can search and beat me all day and be completely in their rights about it.
There is nothing about saying. I do not consent to this search, or in showing you identification that makes you belligerent. Once you have given your ID or consent to search you cannot sue, as they've not broken any laws. It isn't uncooperative to say you are going to operate within your rights. It isn't illegal for them to search if you've said go for it so what would you then sue them for?
Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho? All I said, and decidedly so was that consenting to a power they don't have is not good for anyone. Show me exactly where I said play the macho card and argue? Don't consent, and then they are breaking the law. When you do consent the coercion becomes a valid tactic.
Stating calmly that you do not consent to the search as it is a violation of your rights is "bravado and grandstanding"? Why would it have to be? Oh wait your entire life advice column is hinged on that contrived notion. Do you feel that it is impossible to calmly assert your rights?
In fact your entire line up of logic is bullshit, because if you acquiesce and submit to the search then it isn't illegal, so you have no recourse. For them to break the law it involves you must assert your rights. I get what you are saying. Don't be belligerent, don't incite worse scenarios, don't escalate.
That is all advice that has exactly zero to do with stating that you are well within your rights not to speak, not to consent to a search. But you wouldn't have an argument unless you took what I said and inflated it to be chest beating.
It is amazing to me people are saying let the cops break the law here, and then sue. This is what America has declined to. Not the: We have liberties in this country that no one is above or can violate, instead we are now: If a cop is breaking the law let him, to hope you don't get killed. Consent tot whatever he asks and hope that maybe you can go through a court case to sue the shit out of them for taxpayer money settlements. Common sense flew the coop long ago.
The issue is with number two. (2) Follow their orders and do not become combative.). Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state. Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him... The issue is so systemically out of control that it needs much more than advice on how not to get killed by cops.
In your estimation the ACLU informing these kids about their rights as civilians is wrong? Clearly you have something at stake in this debate, and should be forthcoming in your comments as such.
"If your rights are violated you deal with it later"
What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have? Subservience only reinforces their grandstanding and power playing. Ignorance of the law on the side of the police is not an excuse, just as ignorance of law among a civilian is no excuse.
Actually, in response to a government that seems to give less than a concerned moment for privacy, and happiness and rights as individuals, we should seek to secure our data to prevent their current run of abuses. If everyone encrypts and goes iundergroud with their data we can make the laws as written wholly irrelevant. Your thoughts about being free are sound and I agree with the goal, but the right now of it all doesn't give us a drop of secrecy, until we either revolt, vote out a lame congress etc. It isn't one or the other. It is by every means necessary. If that involves getting encryption to consumers for now then so be it.
There is no amount of freedoms they can take away which will actually make us safer. There is always a way around their plans to be destructive. In the end we are no longer free and we are not safer. Al we have are systems of control and power that we cannot hide from.
"However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional"
Why exactly did Ashcroft refuse to sign off on the legality of the Stellar Wind program and reverse the courts opinion, if it is all so entirely legal?
Obama has certainly not stood by his campaign promises about the US surveillance state. He has only granted more powers, extensions and pardons while trying to vilify the whistle blowers more than any previous president. At which point in your mind does Obama share in some culpability for his actions? Yes there are culpable Republicans as well. It isn't black or white. But Obama has earned his special place in eroding the ability of Americans to pursue happiness without being watched in every conceivable manner.
It sunsets itself, if it is not extended. Why conjure up repeals etc, when sunsetting accomplishes this with out having many messy acts, with equally dubious add-ons tied in to sneak other powers. All things considered the simpler of two methods is better.
Libertarians praise personal liberties. No company or government should have a right or ability to infringe or interfere upon those individual liberties. This idea that taking the government away and allowing for those same intrusion to exist but by corporations is an utterly flawed and seemingly deliberately misleading construction. The liberties they seek to preserve, are the same no matter the situation. No company or government should be empowered to restrict those liberties. It isn't acceptable that a corporate power does so, just because it isn't the government.
The algorithm that produces the search results, and the order in which they appear is clearly crafted with intentions that its results are predictable based of the knowledge they applied to it. The order is akin to free speech, and the results are chosen by Google. This is merely expressing that they are right to choose the order they see fit in what they see published.
Who owns and controls the Conduit/subways under NYC for fiber to be run? Hint: It used to be Ma Bell. Answer: It is a subsidiary of Verizon.
Verizon does not even in the slightest commit to or have obligations to make conduit space available and it is nearly un-maintained except for in their interests. Tunnels are collapsed, conduits remain full and not expanded.
If only Verizon controls those conduits, does that make them have a monopoly on perhaps one of the most important data arteries in the country? What is the benefit to Verizon in assisting people in bypassing them with their own fiber when they can charge them whatever they want when they handle those lines?
The benefit of these devices is that they also can help alleviate a good portion the back-haul fiber necessary. I am assuming that this tech is highly similar to what Google and Elon Musk are looking to accomplish. The red tape of entrenched monopolies makes it easier to move the backbone into LEO (Low Earth Orbit). These towers can last mile without needing local fiber to a POP. Somehow it is cheaper to build a global network of satellites/drones than it is to run fiber. That is the extent of the power of the ISP's/telcos in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Counter Strike: Global Offensive is about two years old. (pedantic I know)
Actually that isn't how the shots broke down. There were shots to the arm and hand (grazing) shots to the face/head. One or two to the top of the head and some torso shots. If you aren't aware of the facts don't use them.
Actually the first shot was the hand shot, which was when he was at the car. The last shot was the top of the head. I read that there were three top of the head shot which would indicate his head was down at the end of the altercation.
I am saying that you should make it clear you don't consent. If you give the cop whatever he asks for out of fear of violence (IE consenting to an illegal search) then we have already lost. I didn't suggest being non compliant, I said never consent to an illegal search, and only give ID if the policeman has a legally entitled reason for the request. Otherwise the only thing that happens is the behavior gets reinforced.
Who said anything about arguing? Saying calmly to the policeman that I do not consent to the search is now arguing? If you bend and consent to the search then there is no recourse to the cop. He broke no laws if you consent. So what neutral ground is there to fight on? He got via threat of violence what he legally couldn't, and is in the right. That only reinforces this sort of aggressive behavior on the cop side.
If you think saying "I do not consent to this search" is belligerent then you've already lost. How exactly do you have a single drop of recourse to the policeman if you consent to the search he has no right to perform? Once you do it is legal. He is using threats of violence to influence you into dropping your rights. Why is it this entire page is filled with people who think that calmly asserting your rights is belligerent and deserved of police brutality?
You can't sue them if you consent to being searched. You cannot sue them if they demand ID and then you produce it. In the end being arrested for upholding my rights is something I can sue for. Otherwise they can search and beat me all day and be completely in their rights about it.
There is nothing about saying. I do not consent to this search, or in showing you identification that makes you belligerent. Once you have given your ID or consent to search you cannot sue, as they've not broken any laws. It isn't uncooperative to say you are going to operate within your rights. It isn't illegal for them to search if you've said go for it so what would you then sue them for?
Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho? All I said, and decidedly so was that consenting to a power they don't have is not good for anyone. Show me exactly where I said play the macho card and argue? Don't consent, and then they are breaking the law. When you do consent the coercion becomes a valid tactic.
Stating calmly that you do not consent to the search as it is a violation of your rights is "bravado and grandstanding"? Why would it have to be? Oh wait your entire life advice column is hinged on that contrived notion. Do you feel that it is impossible to calmly assert your rights?
In fact your entire line up of logic is bullshit, because if you acquiesce and submit to the search then it isn't illegal, so you have no recourse. For them to break the law it involves you must assert your rights. I get what you are saying. Don't be belligerent, don't incite worse scenarios, don't escalate.
That is all advice that has exactly zero to do with stating that you are well within your rights not to speak, not to consent to a search. But you wouldn't have an argument unless you took what I said and inflated it to be chest beating.
It is amazing to me people are saying let the cops break the law here, and then sue. This is what America has declined to. Not the: We have liberties in this country that no one is above or can violate, instead we are now: If a cop is breaking the law let him, to hope you don't get killed. Consent tot whatever he asks and hope that maybe you can go through a court case to sue the shit out of them for taxpayer money settlements. Common sense flew the coop long ago.
Sadly we shouldn't have to guess. The fact that we are likely to be surprised is a big bold highlight of important to consider.
The issue is with number two. (2) Follow their orders and do not become combative.). Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state. Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him... The issue is so systemically out of control that it needs much more than advice on how not to get killed by cops.
In your estimation the ACLU informing these kids about their rights as civilians is wrong? Clearly you have something at stake in this debate, and should be forthcoming in your comments as such.
"If your rights are violated you deal with it later"
What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have? Subservience only reinforces their grandstanding and power playing. Ignorance of the law on the side of the police is not an excuse, just as ignorance of law among a civilian is no excuse.
Actually, in response to a government that seems to give less than a concerned moment for privacy, and happiness and rights as individuals, we should seek to secure our data to prevent their current run of abuses. If everyone encrypts and goes iundergroud with their data we can make the laws as written wholly irrelevant. Your thoughts about being free are sound and I agree with the goal, but the right now of it all doesn't give us a drop of secrecy, until we either revolt, vote out a lame congress etc. It isn't one or the other. It is by every means necessary. If that involves getting encryption to consumers for now then so be it.
There is no amount of freedoms they can take away which will actually make us safer. There is always a way around their plans to be destructive. In the end we are no longer free and we are not safer. Al we have are systems of control and power that we cannot hide from.
"However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional"
Why exactly did Ashcroft refuse to sign off on the legality of the Stellar Wind program and reverse the courts opinion, if it is all so entirely legal?
Obama has certainly not stood by his campaign promises about the US surveillance state. He has only granted more powers, extensions and pardons while trying to vilify the whistle blowers more than any previous president. At which point in your mind does Obama share in some culpability for his actions? Yes there are culpable Republicans as well. It isn't black or white. But Obama has earned his special place in eroding the ability of Americans to pursue happiness without being watched in every conceivable manner.
It sunsets itself, if it is not extended. Why conjure up repeals etc, when sunsetting accomplishes this with out having many messy acts, with equally dubious add-ons tied in to sneak other powers.
All things considered the simpler of two methods is better.
Libertarians praise personal liberties. No company or government should have a right or ability to infringe or interfere upon those individual liberties. This idea that taking the government away and allowing for those same intrusion to exist but by corporations is an utterly flawed and seemingly deliberately misleading construction. The liberties they seek to preserve, are the same no matter the situation. No company or government should be empowered to restrict those liberties. It isn't acceptable that a corporate power does so, just because it isn't the government.
Sorry that comment was meant for drywolf
The algorithm that produces the search results, and the order in which they appear is clearly crafted with intentions that its results are predictable based of the knowledge they applied to it. The order is akin to free speech, and the results are chosen by Google. This is merely expressing that they are right to choose the order they see fit in what they see published.
Who owns and controls the Conduit/subways under NYC for fiber to be run? Hint: It used to be Ma Bell.
Answer: It is a subsidiary of Verizon.
Verizon does not even in the slightest commit to or have obligations to make conduit space available and it is nearly un-maintained except for in their interests. Tunnels are collapsed, conduits remain full and not expanded.
If only Verizon controls those conduits, does that make them have a monopoly on perhaps one of the most important data arteries in the country? What is the benefit to Verizon in assisting people in bypassing them with their own fiber when they can charge them whatever they want when they handle those lines?
The benefit of these devices is that they also can help alleviate a good portion the back-haul fiber necessary. I am assuming that this tech is highly similar to what Google and Elon Musk are looking to accomplish. The red tape of entrenched monopolies makes it easier to move the backbone into LEO (Low Earth Orbit). These towers can last mile without needing local fiber to a POP. Somehow it is cheaper to build a global network of satellites/drones than it is to run fiber. That is the extent of the power of the ISP's/telcos in the US.