Your phone may include passwords to online or home storage that contains evidence of crimes unrelated to the one for which you were stopped. It may also contain information on activity that is legal but highly embarrassing. The police do sometimes release personal information to the press on people who have not been convicted of a crime.
The phone may also contain information on legal political or religious beliefs that would be prejudicial to someones trial.
So what? GET A WARRANT. Following chains of 'evidence' obtained without said warrant can take you anywhere. A buddy of mine was interrogated by the FBI because, once upon a time, he was Timothy McVie's landlord, years before McVie moved out and blew up the Federal Building. Haddn't seen him in years since he moved out of town, before that, saw him once a month on Rent Day to get the check, and the rest of the time, didn't let his name cross his mind.
Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.
Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.
It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.
No. No. NO. An arrest after a search without a warrant can be overturned by any defense attorney worth their salt. If following due process inconveniences the cops and the legal establishment TOO FUCKING BAD, it's not there for them, it's there for the common citizen.
You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one.
So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
It's called 'Due Process' and is the only thing keeping you from arbitralily being swept up and jailed when they 'round up the usual suspects'.
Sure traffic cops and beat cops catch a lot of flak, but no cop is looking to search your cellphone for speeding or littering. So I have to be a little curious to know what oddball corner case that you have in mind that would involve an arrest, but wouldn't be a serious crime and wouldn't be a situation where the police were likely to get a warrant --- and whatever creative corner-case you have in mind can't be more than a few percent of those types of arrests.
An arrest means enough evidence to be strongly considered to being charged with a crime, not just casually annoying some guy who a cop wrote a parking ticket.
You're assuming every cop is a Boy Scout and wouldn't think of tainting evidence. May I remind you of the most famous instance regarding manufactured/manipulated evidence, a double homicide in Brentwood? The jury was convinced that he did it, but since evidence was tainted to the point where they couldn't even prove what day it was, the jury was forced to aquit based on the remaining untainted inconclusive evidence, and since double jeopardy prohibited a retrail and there was insufficient untainted evidence to support a guilty verdict or present at a retrial if the trial was ruled a mistrial, it had to go to jury where they aquitted him. Did he do it or not? I have no clue, and now, neither will anybody else other than the suspect and the victims, and the victims ain't talking.
In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal.
They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't even think twice before ruling in my favor. Given that they suspended him the day before they were going to lay him off, I think he could probably make a reasonable case that Safeway suspended him in order to avoid the unemployment claim, regardless of the video.
Yeah, there is an appeals process, but no way to coerce the former employer to provide details other than faxing in a letter saying the employee was 'terminated for cause'. Since it's right-to-work, that's all they have to say. The less they say, the better for them if they get sued for wrongful termination or some such. And even if you win your appeal, you are not likely to get 'back pay' for the weeks of unemployment you were required to file for but were unpaid for during the appeal.
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
More of a fiduciary requirement for the execs to make sure the corporation makes money. Otherwise, the shareholders vote the board of directors out and put somebody who will make them money in their place. That's why you see short-term strategies that puff the shit outta the bottom line right now being followed rather than long-term strategies that insure mediocre but continual profits over the years, even if those short-term strategies fuck up the long range profitability.
The guy was suspended for a day.... Common I would hardly call that kicking someone when they are down. For all we know he might not even have been scheduled to work that day. So the guy is maybe out at most $100 in missed pay, bummer but I wouldn't call that cause for moral outrage.
I do actually agree that this article was posted to incite anti-corporate feelings. That's why I asked the question, and that's why I suggested not shopping there if you don't agree with it. I really feel like this is petty shit compared to real abuses and what makes me upset is the people who are going to get all bent out of shape over this and complain about corporations treating people like shit using this as evidence. Corporations do treat people like shit, but its happening all around you in much worse ways than some guy getting suspended for a day. Be outraged about that.
Being laid off instantly qualifies you for unemployment after you wait the statutory required one week. Being suspended before the announced layoff date, even if it was only for one day, can fuck with the process, especially if the language used in the suspension does not specify a length of suspension, i.e., 'suspended indefinitely pending review'. Since he was scheduled for layoff anyway, no review will be made since he's not being brought back. You cannot collect unemployment if you are 'only' suspended. He'll have to waste time appealing his disqualification with the state, all the while his normal 26 weeks unemployment runs down.
AC, I know you were being facetious, but it did seem a bit petty to suspend the employee the day before he was to be laid off anyway, didn't it?
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
But by suspending him the day before he was laid off, they CAN fuck with his unemployment benefits in most states. Illinois is NOT a 'right to work' state, so I don't know what the procedure is. In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.
I don't know what world you're living in, but $1325 is real money right now. And I suspect my dog might appreciate whatever that works out at in dog money.
That aside, one of the big advantages of Project Gutenberg's sister sites is that there are servers outside the US that are not tied to predatory American copyright legislation, so many texts that should (by reasonable, ethical expectations) have passed into public domain have often already done so somewhere.
In the 1880s/1890s you could buy a HOUSE for under $700. THAT'S what I meant by 'real money'.
well believe either that page or the one saying that we all have cancer..
Besides, if they didn't ban mobile phones I really, really don't see the point in banning wifi.
Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard. Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable. Best blame it on the wifi and shift the attention of the pitchforks and torches brigade.
Actually if Congress hadn't passed new spending increases, the budget would have been balanced. From my recollection, tax revenues did in fact increase under Reagan, as predicted. But Congress passed (and in fairness RR signed into law) spending increases almost double the increased revenues.
Add to that Ronnie Raygun's tax cuts to the 'job creators', the beginning of 'trickle down economics', and you'll understand why the national debt ballooned. Clinton got rid of them, Dubya brought them back.
In many cases you are not free to do this, as celebrities and their likenesses are trademarked and highly regulated. I imagine if you tried to use Ronald Reagan in any significant way in a novel or artwork you'd hear from his estate. Unless it was fair use or parody, and then you have a lot more flexibility.
I'm thinking that's unfair. After all, when Ronnie Raygun did his last acting job, that of El Presidente, he sure used us unfairly. We're still paying down the debt he saddled us with, and we haven't seen a cent of teh 1.5 TRILLION he looted from Social Security to pay for Star Wars.
Unless you live in a monastary or a convent all your life, you have something to hide, whether it was cheating on a question on an exam, your neighbor hitting on you while your wife was passed out, something. Just read the FBI files on Martin Luther King Jr. And you think there isn't a damned thick dossier on all the Supremes? Hell, *I* have an FBI file simply because I was in the military and they investigated me for security clearance. I'm not rich, famous, or particularly influential, but that 40 year old file is still in the stacks.
Slashdot Mirror
If only they pulled them out of the air. They actually pull them out of their asses.
After all this time, you'd think they'd need a new ass.
TO be fair, a verdict either way brings us no closer to the actual Truth.
That's the problem with tainted evidence. It obscures the truth.
Your phone may include passwords to online or home storage that contains evidence of crimes unrelated to the one for which you were stopped. It may also contain information on activity that is legal but highly embarrassing. The police do sometimes release personal information to the press on people who have not been convicted of a crime.
The phone may also contain information on legal political or religious beliefs that would be prejudicial to someones trial.
So what? GET A WARRANT. Following chains of 'evidence' obtained without said warrant can take you anywhere. A buddy of mine was interrogated by the FBI because, once upon a time, he was Timothy McVie's landlord, years before McVie moved out and blew up the Federal Building. Haddn't seen him in years since he moved out of town, before that, saw him once a month on Rent Day to get the check, and the rest of the time, didn't let his name cross his mind.
Try again.
Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.
A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".
A 'fishing expedition' and search prior to an arrest, without warrant, IS unreasonable.
Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.
Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.
It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.
No. No. NO. An arrest after a search without a warrant can be overturned by any defense attorney worth their salt. If following due process inconveniences the cops and the legal establishment TOO FUCKING BAD, it's not there for them, it's there for the common citizen.
You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one. So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
It's called 'Due Process' and is the only thing keeping you from arbitralily being swept up and jailed when they 'round up the usual suspects'.
Sure traffic cops and beat cops catch a lot of flak, but no cop is looking to search your cellphone for speeding or littering. So I have to be a little curious to know what oddball corner case that you have in mind that would involve an arrest, but wouldn't be a serious crime and wouldn't be a situation where the police were likely to get a warrant --- and whatever creative corner-case you have in mind can't be more than a few percent of those types of arrests. An arrest means enough evidence to be strongly considered to being charged with a crime, not just casually annoying some guy who a cop wrote a parking ticket.
You're assuming every cop is a Boy Scout and wouldn't think of tainting evidence. May I remind you of the most famous instance regarding manufactured/manipulated evidence, a double homicide in Brentwood? The jury was convinced that he did it, but since evidence was tainted to the point where they couldn't even prove what day it was, the jury was forced to aquit based on the remaining untainted inconclusive evidence, and since double jeopardy prohibited a retrail and there was insufficient untainted evidence to support a guilty verdict or present at a retrial if the trial was ruled a mistrial, it had to go to jury where they aquitted him. Did he do it or not? I have no clue, and now, neither will anybody else other than the suspect and the victims, and the victims ain't talking.
In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal.
They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't even think twice before ruling in my favor. Given that they suspended him the day before they were going to lay him off, I think he could probably make a reasonable case that Safeway suspended him in order to avoid the unemployment claim, regardless of the video.
Yeah, there is an appeals process, but no way to coerce the former employer to provide details other than faxing in a letter saying the employee was 'terminated for cause'. Since it's right-to-work, that's all they have to say. The less they say, the better for them if they get sued for wrongful termination or some such. And even if you win your appeal, you are not likely to get 'back pay' for the weeks of unemployment you were required to file for but were unpaid for during the appeal.
Now THAT'S cute!
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
More of a fiduciary requirement for the execs to make sure the corporation makes money. Otherwise, the shareholders vote the board of directors out and put somebody who will make them money in their place. That's why you see short-term strategies that puff the shit outta the bottom line right now being followed rather than long-term strategies that insure mediocre but continual profits over the years, even if those short-term strategies fuck up the long range profitability.
The guy was suspended for a day.... Common I would hardly call that kicking someone when they are down. For all we know he might not even have been scheduled to work that day. So the guy is maybe out at most $100 in missed pay, bummer but I wouldn't call that cause for moral outrage. I do actually agree that this article was posted to incite anti-corporate feelings. That's why I asked the question, and that's why I suggested not shopping there if you don't agree with it. I really feel like this is petty shit compared to real abuses and what makes me upset is the people who are going to get all bent out of shape over this and complain about corporations treating people like shit using this as evidence. Corporations do treat people like shit, but its happening all around you in much worse ways than some guy getting suspended for a day. Be outraged about that.
Being laid off instantly qualifies you for unemployment after you wait the statutory required one week. Being suspended before the announced layoff date, even if it was only for one day, can fuck with the process, especially if the language used in the suspension does not specify a length of suspension, i.e., 'suspended indefinitely pending review'. Since he was scheduled for layoff anyway, no review will be made since he's not being brought back. You cannot collect unemployment if you are 'only' suspended. He'll have to waste time appealing his disqualification with the state, all the while his normal 26 weeks unemployment runs down.
I'd say Safeway fucked him pretty good there.
AC, I know you were being facetious, but it did seem a bit petty to suspend the employee the day before he was to be laid off anyway, didn't it?
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
But by suspending him the day before he was laid off, they CAN fuck with his unemployment benefits in most states. Illinois is NOT a 'right to work' state, so I don't know what the procedure is. In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.
And in the 1890's, 1325 bucks was REAL MONEY
I don't know what world you're living in, but $1325 is real money right now. And I suspect my dog might appreciate whatever that works out at in dog money. That aside, one of the big advantages of Project Gutenberg's sister sites is that there are servers outside the US that are not tied to predatory American copyright legislation, so many texts that should (by reasonable, ethical expectations) have passed into public domain have often already done so somewhere.
In the 1880s/1890s you could buy a HOUSE for under $700. THAT'S what I meant by 'real money'.
...you lost me at 'French culture'...
Dont' worry, you just showed your infinite ignorance. Have a good day.
Turn in your Mensa card. You missed the humor attempt. Fucking idiot.
Damn, these people are seriously humor-impaired.
well believe either that page or the one saying that we all have cancer..
Besides, if they didn't ban mobile phones I really, really don't see the point in banning wifi.
Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard. Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable. Best blame it on the wifi and shift the attention of the pitchforks and torches brigade.
Actually if Congress hadn't passed new spending increases, the budget would have been balanced. From my recollection, tax revenues did in fact increase under Reagan, as predicted. But Congress passed (and in fairness RR signed into law) spending increases almost double the increased revenues.
Add to that Ronnie Raygun's tax cuts to the 'job creators', the beginning of 'trickle down economics', and you'll understand why the national debt ballooned. Clinton got rid of them, Dubya brought them back.
...you lost me at 'French culture'...
So you're nominating this judge for sainthood, eh? Gotta show me three miracles of his first.
I guess this means a US court will bravely stand up to bring Mickey Mouse into the public domain somewhere around 3500 AD.
Wouldn't count on it that soon. When the Sun explodes, the only thing that will survive are the roaches and Disney copyrights.
In many cases you are not free to do this, as celebrities and their likenesses are trademarked and highly regulated. I imagine if you tried to use Ronald Reagan in any significant way in a novel or artwork you'd hear from his estate. Unless it was fair use or parody, and then you have a lot more flexibility.
I'm thinking that's unfair. After all, when Ronnie Raygun did his last acting job, that of El Presidente, he sure used us unfairly. We're still paying down the debt he saddled us with, and we haven't seen a cent of teh 1.5 TRILLION he looted from Social Security to pay for Star Wars.
"Reasonable" has no place when the unreasonable have the more expensive l*wy*rs.
Fixed that for ya...
They attempted to resolve the orientation question for conservative US audiences by casting Lucy Liu as Holmes in Elementary.
So what? Holmes still isn't banging Watson, even with the switchup.
"Droning the shit out of the terrorists" just sounds wrong.
Don't watch CSpan much, do you?
Doyle would never have written a word knowing his heirs would not be able to continue mooching off his work 3 generations later.
Doyle was only making about £500 an installment.
Back then, a £ was worth $2.65 American or so. And in the 1890's, 1325 bucks was REAL MONEY
What a nice conspiracy theory you have there.
Unless you live in a monastary or a convent all your life, you have something to hide, whether it was cheating on a question on an exam, your neighbor hitting on you while your wife was passed out, something. Just read the FBI files on Martin Luther King Jr. And you think there isn't a damned thick dossier on all the Supremes? Hell, *I* have an FBI file simply because I was in the military and they investigated me for security clearance. I'm not rich, famous, or particularly influential, but that 40 year old file is still in the stacks.