No, what will happen is resistance will rise during the "adjustment" period, the police will go to a policy of immediate incapacitation and overwhelming force, and no one will be able to resist arrest at all.
Who wants to bet they're going to use this as a torture device? Unlike the Taser, this doesn't even provide an immobilization function, it just causes pain with no other obvious signs of harm.
But such a law would make it all but inevitable that people would resist arrest, which would lead to even more draconian police tactics. To answer your question, the law already has rather detailed standards on when an arrest is or isn't lawful--generally there has to be probable cause and a warrant, although with provisions for emergencies. You can be rightfully arrested without ever being convicted--if you couldn't, there wouldn't be any point in arresting you until after you were convicted, which is just not how the system works at all.
"Because it doesn't sense the outside world" is the obvious answer, but of course, the sense of balance does sense something in the outside world--namely the gravitational field. The other big "internal" sense is proprioception, which is your intuitive sense of how your body parts are positioned relative to each other. You know that test where you stand up straight and bring your fingertip to your nose with your eyes closed to prove you're not drunk? You do that through proprioception. Another tip--bringing your hands together firmly recalibrates your proprioception, which is why you see baseball players punch inside their glove before making a catch sometimes.
Evidently, it's also useful to narrow down "touch" to the sense of pressure in the skin, so things like pain, temperature, nausea, the gag reflex, and the sense of having to go to the bathroom are separate senses entirely.
What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know. At that point in time it was too late, the police had already made the decision to escort him from the building.
And it's that very decision I'm questioning. If they just stared at him for a second to see if he would indeed walk away, this incident might not have happened. Instead they grabbed him.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.
That's the same video I watched. At 1:40 the mic is cut, at 1:41 he acknowledges it and begins to walk away, and at the same moment, despite him stepping away from the mic (and, having asked his third question, apparently wrapping up), he was grabbed by the arm. Look closely. He wasn't pulled away from the mic--he was walking away of his own free will and then he was grabbed. I don't know about you, but in my view, physically assaulting someone by grabbing them by the arm because they took too long prefacing their questions is not a reasonable response--especially if you wait until after they finish to do so.
Besides, he was just spouting paranoid conspiracy theories.
Ah, so his expressing a particular type of political view justifies this.
It's called "civilization," you should try it.
Indeed. Assaulting someone for taking too long asking a question is "civilized" when the people committing the assault are wearing spiffy uniforms and carrying guns.
Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse.
I think so too. I am surprised that no one has commented on his question, which was whether or not Kerry belonged to the secret "Skull And Bones Society" at Yale. The fact that he would even ask this question at all says a lot about his political views. They fall under the category of "conspiracy theorist".
No one has commented on it because it is irrelevant. The minute someone's political views are relevant to how the police should treat that person is the minute we need to start a fucking revolution and put those cops against the wall.
It was the police who created the disturbance. He was at a public forum asking Senator Kerry three questions. He was guilty of nothing more than going a little over his time and excessively prefacing his first question. After he was already finished asking the third question, the police grabbed him and tried to forcibly remove him from the premises. Putting your hands on someone in that fashion is assault, and you can't exactly complain that the victim of an assault is "creating a disturbance" when he shouts things like "get the fuck off me!" and "help!".
I'm not sure how well that would work in practice. How many people, upon being arrested, immediately concede the point that they're being lawfully arrested?
I didn't hear any zapping. I didn't see the convulsions, although the video I watched (first link) did not have a clear shot of the student. He was only screaming "OW! OW! OW!".
You only hear a large "zap" from a single discharge. That's not how tasers work, nor how they sound. There was sort of a low ticking/crackling sound. I certainly recognized it as the report of a taser.
On the same token, I'm glad for all this technology because I'm no longer forced to interact with other people unless I particularly want to. (And, incidentally, isn't it a little creepy, trying to meet people at the landromat?)
That's not "running beautifully fast", that's a properly-functioning sleep mode. It's an improvement, maybe, but color me unimpressed since every Mac I've had since the late 90's had it. And XP to Vista is nothing like 98 to 2000. It might have been had the original feature set (including WinFS) made it in, but as it stands, it isn't. It's more than 2000 to XP, but it's far less than 98 to 2000.
Look, let's be honest -- Vista isn't bad. It may not be as pretty as OS X, but it's got the most attractive UI Microsoft has ever produced, and on modern hardware it runs beautifully fast, is very stable, and is far more compatible with previous versions of Windows than anyone gives it credit for.
Running "beautifully fast" on modern hardware is what it's supposed to do. You don't get extra credit for not fucking up. Running "beautifully fast" on modern hardware is somewhere between "I've never been to jail" and "I shower daily" on the list of human accomplishment. Not that bragworthy.
On compatibility, I just can't help remembering all the whining that went on when XP was released and didn't run all DOS programs perfectly. We've been here before, guys. We got over it.
By the same token, it was years after XP came out that it was worthwhile to switch from Windows 2000. Maybe Vista will be worthwhile around the time Windows 7 comes out.
Slashdot Mirror
No, what will happen is resistance will rise during the "adjustment" period, the police will go to a policy of immediate incapacitation and overwhelming force, and no one will be able to resist arrest at all.
There's no skin there, though. Where you draw the distinction depends on what you're trying to do anyway.
Who wants to bet they're going to use this as a torture device? Unlike the Taser, this doesn't even provide an immobilization function, it just causes pain with no other obvious signs of harm.
But such a law would make it all but inevitable that people would resist arrest, which would lead to even more draconian police tactics. To answer your question, the law already has rather detailed standards on when an arrest is or isn't lawful--generally there has to be probable cause and a warrant, although with provisions for emergencies. You can be rightfully arrested without ever being convicted--if you couldn't, there wouldn't be any point in arresting you until after you were convicted, which is just not how the system works at all.
Intuition isn't a sense, it's a form of post-sensory cognition.
"Because it doesn't sense the outside world" is the obvious answer, but of course, the sense of balance does sense something in the outside world--namely the gravitational field. The other big "internal" sense is proprioception, which is your intuitive sense of how your body parts are positioned relative to each other. You know that test where you stand up straight and bring your fingertip to your nose with your eyes closed to prove you're not drunk? You do that through proprioception. Another tip--bringing your hands together firmly recalibrates your proprioception, which is why you see baseball players punch inside their glove before making a catch sometimes.
Evidently, it's also useful to narrow down "touch" to the sense of pressure in the skin, so things like pain, temperature, nausea, the gag reflex, and the sense of having to go to the bathroom are separate senses entirely.
And it's that very decision I'm questioning. If they just stared at him for a second to see if he would indeed walk away, this incident might not have happened. Instead they grabbed him.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance.He was doing no such thing.
That's the same video I watched. At 1:40 the mic is cut, at 1:41 he acknowledges it and begins to walk away, and at the same moment, despite him stepping away from the mic (and, having asked his third question, apparently wrapping up), he was grabbed by the arm. Look closely. He wasn't pulled away from the mic--he was walking away of his own free will and then he was grabbed. I don't know about you, but in my view, physically assaulting someone by grabbing them by the arm because they took too long prefacing their questions is not a reasonable response--especially if you wait until after they finish to do so.
It appeared to me that it was the nutjob who was uncomfortable with the police's aggressive behavior.
Ah, so his expressing a particular type of political view justifies this.
It's called "civilization," you should try it.Indeed. Assaulting someone for taking too long asking a question is "civilized" when the people committing the assault are wearing spiffy uniforms and carrying guns.
Where the hell are passionately-held political views considered evidence of being an "emotionally disturbed person"? East Germany?
On the other hand, tasers don't leave a mark.
No one has commented on it because it is irrelevant. The minute someone's political views are relevant to how the police should treat that person is the minute we need to start a fucking revolution and put those cops against the wall.
It was the police who created the disturbance. He was at a public forum asking Senator Kerry three questions. He was guilty of nothing more than going a little over his time and excessively prefacing his first question. After he was already finished asking the third question, the police grabbed him and tried to forcibly remove him from the premises. Putting your hands on someone in that fashion is assault, and you can't exactly complain that the victim of an assault is "creating a disturbance" when he shouts things like "get the fuck off me!" and "help!".
I'm not sure how well that would work in practice. How many people, upon being arrested, immediately concede the point that they're being lawfully arrested?
You only hear a large "zap" from a single discharge. That's not how tasers work, nor how they sound. There was sort of a low ticking/crackling sound. I certainly recognized it as the report of a taser.
No, they grabbed him the second the mic was cut off. Watch the video again.
Good, we were about to taser you.
There's no evidence he's ever done that. "Ludacris" is a rapper. "Ludicrous" is the adjective you want.
On the same token, I'm glad for all this technology because I'm no longer forced to interact with other people unless I particularly want to. (And, incidentally, isn't it a little creepy, trying to meet people at the landromat?)
That's not "running beautifully fast", that's a properly-functioning sleep mode. It's an improvement, maybe, but color me unimpressed since every Mac I've had since the late 90's had it. And XP to Vista is nothing like 98 to 2000. It might have been had the original feature set (including WinFS) made it in, but as it stands, it isn't. It's more than 2000 to XP, but it's far less than 98 to 2000.
And don't forget objectivity or non-oppressive authority or equal opportunity, these things do not exist.
And little else.
Running "beautifully fast" on modern hardware is what it's supposed to do. You don't get extra credit for not fucking up. Running "beautifully fast" on modern hardware is somewhere between "I've never been to jail" and "I shower daily" on the list of human accomplishment. Not that bragworthy.
On compatibility, I just can't help remembering all the whining that went on when XP was released and didn't run all DOS programs perfectly. We've been here before, guys. We got over it.By the same token, it was years after XP came out that it was worthwhile to switch from Windows 2000. Maybe Vista will be worthwhile around the time Windows 7 comes out.