Someone breaks into your house. You are armed, he is armed. You lose nothing, he loses his life.
Now tell me which is the greater evil.
It's a no brainer. The asshole who CHOSE to break into my house, knowing that I was home, clearly intended to harm me. My only choice was to kill him. Or, if it would make you feel better, I could give his family my stereo as a consolation prize. What you're ignoring here is the element of personal choice. The criminal chose to target me. I did not choose to be robbed. That is what makes the difference as to which is the greater evil.
Re:You've got guns, don't forget lawyers and money
on
Home Defense, Geek Style?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As much as I hate to admit it, booby traps are illegal, and for good reasons. As the article stated, firefighters or other emergency personnel who may have had a legitimate reason to enter the premises would have been at risk too. I do think that the judge's conduct was outrageous and I hope some sort of sanctions can be brought against him. People who go out of their way to stand up for the rights of criminals against their victims in cases like this are scum.
While you do make an excellent point here, it's worth remembering that there are people who simply live outside the rules of polite society and will steal from others simply because they find it easier than working for their own money. These people tend to commit the vast majority of crimes. Crime rates are generally higher in areas that have poor economies, but there is still crime in wealthy areas where jobs are plentiful. So I'd say that while you are correct in stating that we don't want to have a large underclass with nothing to lose, we still must acknowledge the fact that there will be people who feel they have the right to take other peoples' property and we must be prepared to deal with them.
As previous posters have pointed out, the man did not set out to kill anyone. He just took precautions against future crimes and waited until the armed robber clearly posed a threat to him.
I will never understand people like you, who are bothered by the average person having the right to defend themself when their life is clearly being threatened. Does it make you feel better if only the police can have means to protect anyone? You know, the police can't be everywhere, and they're not going to take responsibility for every crime that they could not prevent. Morally, I don't know how you could say that a person robbing someone else has more rights than the one being robbed. I'm not advocating vigilante justice, far from it. I'm saying that somebody should not be legally required to submit to the whims of armed thugs.
Yes, violence has never solved anything. With a few exceptions, such as establishing American independence, freeing slaves, stopping Nazism, containing the Soviets, establishing freedom for many former Spanish and English colonies, and eventually freeing the world from the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. If you have a workable non-violent solution to deterring someone who is clearly willing to take your life and doesn't want to negotiate about it, please post it.
Delivering broadband access to "underserved" areas will not be complete as long as there are politically connected telecom companies. This is what I'm talking about.
I think at this moment, the U.S. needs to take a hands off approach and say that if North Korea wants to build nukes, they will do it in complete isolation. This means no international trade or aid of any kind. I hate to say that people must starve, but it's the only way for them to rise up and overthrow their insane dictator. The only other choice is to eventually be fighting a very bloody and brutal war for all involved. And Kim Jong is crazy enough to launch a first strike nuclear attack against a neighboring country.
It seems like under the current laws, the mob is most likely to benefit from gambling being illegal. Especially if they have cooperation from corrupt individuals in government. Laws against gambling are no different than 1920s prohibition of alcohol. People will do it anyway, it's just a matter of who gets the profits.
It's almost entertaining to see how hideously awful those infomercials have become. And so many of them are selling scams that are probably illegal, like the "stock options wealth generating software". I wonder if the seller is a properly licensed broker. I guess they figure the stupid and unemployed are most likely to be watching late at night, so they target them with get rich quick schemes.
In all seriousness, I think sickness can often times be as much mental as it is physical. People who are unhappy or frustrated are a lot more likely to feel physically ill. Most of the people I know who are very negative and pessimistic are always sick. And they do have very real symptoms of illness that ofter require medical treatment. Companies would be well advised to keep this in mind, as unhappy workers are nearly always less productive and absent more often, even when they don't want to be.
The RIAA has a history of trying their hardest to stop ALL online music distribution. Remember the early suits against the makers of Diamond RIO MP3 player? The thing couldn't even copy music, but they sued simply because they wanted to stall digital music. Then there were all of the lawsuits against MP3.com which didn't even carry RIAA music, but it was theoretically possible that it could be used for copyright infringement, so their lawsuit said. Like I've said all along, the record labels aren't so much bothered by kids downloading Britney Spears songs; what scares them is a digital distribution model so efficient that a band decides to use it rather than sign over their souls to a record company.
Them are the breaks. When you run a business, it's not all fun and profit. You have to absorb some losses. Also, business interruption insurance is available if something like this is a serious concern, and I would think it would cover a weather related shutdown.
Interesting point. Even if the company is not currently breaking any laws, they are extremely stupid for encouraging workers to come in during hazardous conditions since they could no doubt be sued big if anyone were seriously injured or killed. If they have an in house legal department, someone is asleep at the wheel.
Just because a state has "right to work" laws does not mean that employees cannot sue for wrongful termination. Even without a discrimination claim, companies can be sued for terminating someone in a way that can be proven to be retaliatory or extremely unfair. Normally when such suits are filed, the company will settle with the employee rather than take their chances in court where guilt is presumed and they have to prove themselves innocent. Employment law generally works this way. With a settlement, companies can also buy things like a non-disclosure agreement that they wouldn't be able to get in court. If the submitter of this story contacts a labor lawyer and has a letter sent to his employer, they will likely pay him for the lost time because, if nothing else, that will cost them a lot less than responding to any lawsuit. Sure, they might try to fire him afterwards but he needs to find some place else to work anyway.
And this is why unions are losing their political power. They only support Democrats, who take their votes for granted. Republicans ignore unions since they will never get the union vote no matter what. Who in government is looking out for unions? In other words, why has unions' power been getting progressively weaker over the years?
The job market has a way of regulating it's own minimum wage, assuming there's not an oversupply of workers. Companies who choose to pay at the low end of the scale have a hard time getting quality employees. If they care about hiring good people, they have to make their salary offers reflect that. Many business owners have learned the hard way that severely underpaying workers will eventually impact the company in a very negative way and by the time they try to fix it, it may be too late.
However, if the company is hiring minimum wage grunts to perform a job function that nearly anyone could do (flipping burgers, scrubbing toilets, etc) then a worker's chance of making more money is pretty slim, so they must move on to something more skilled to gain an increase in pay.
For Chicago, that's nothing unusual. Just ask this guy. This happened to a friend of mine too. Sold the car a couple of years ago, but they still get tickets in the mail that list the old license plate number. The city doesn't care that they sent in proof of sale, because there is a budget deficit at the moment and having a fair appeals process for traffic tickets would decrease the amount of revenue they bring in. Lesson learned, remove your old license plate when you sell a car.
In addition, your story highlights what is the biggest problem with automated traffic enforcement. You aren't even aware of a violation being issued until you get it in the mail, which could be months later with the inefficiency of city bureaucracies. How are you going to even remember what you were doing at the time, much less be able to mount any possible defense? When the people lose the right to due process, that is when you have a police state. With automated enforcement, there is no meaningful due process, guilt is automatic and predetermined. In fact, these photo tickets usually don't go on a person's driving record since that would probably be in violation of state laws requiring positive ID of the offender, due process, etc.
It's hard to argue with certified mail. Once you send your official notice of cancellation, they could not legitimately charge you after that. I highly doubt any business has the right to demand that you jump through various hoops to cancel something, unless you specifically agreed to the provisions at the time of signup.
I agree. I got one from "Citibank" the other day, which I do have an account with, and the only way I spotted the thing as a scam, other than the fact that I know they don't do business this way, is by double clicking the padlock and viewing the security certificate info. It was registered to some junk hosting provider, as opposed to Citi International, which is what it says on the legitimate Citibank site. How many every day average customers know to do that? I can easily understand how people fall for these, but now that companies have made more effort to inform customers about scams people should hopefully become more suspicious.
I've never understood why some companies feel that webmail is a security threat. First, all the major webmail providers have virus scanning. Second, you'll never be able to block every small ISP's webmail page that some user has access to. Third, in the case of file transfers, someone could just build an ordinary website with HTTP upload capabilities. What you need to do in this case is block (or somehow filter) HTTP upload. Of course, in many cases managers are just paranoid and if they can show they have taken steps to reduce but not necessarily eliminate the chance of employee espionage at least they've got their ass covered.
Restricting our trade to the immediate local area would be harmful in many ways. How would the people of Minnesota ever get citrus fruit? Sure you could build some giant greenhouses up there and grow fruit, which would have to be sold at a high price to make up for the huge local production costs. Or you could just buy it from Florida at a fraction of the price. As long as your local area has some sort of economic strength, other industries will be built around it and people will have the means to be prosperous. The problems occur when an area has become reliant on an industry that dies out, such as the former coal mining regions of Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.
That wouldn't fix the problem. I could always create a website of my own with HTTP upload capability and do the same thing. Banning the internet altogether is not a realistic option for most companies, so it seems like some sort of scanning software that could detect and/or restrict HTTP uploads along with all other outgoing file transfers would be the only workable solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone breaks into your house. You are armed, he is armed. You lose nothing, he loses his life. Now tell me which is the greater evil.
It's a no brainer. The asshole who CHOSE to break into my house, knowing that I was home, clearly intended to harm me. My only choice was to kill him. Or, if it would make you feel better, I could give his family my stereo as a consolation prize. What you're ignoring here is the element of personal choice. The criminal chose to target me. I did not choose to be robbed. That is what makes the difference as to which is the greater evil.
As much as I hate to admit it, booby traps are illegal, and for good reasons. As the article stated, firefighters or other emergency personnel who may have had a legitimate reason to enter the premises would have been at risk too. I do think that the judge's conduct was outrageous and I hope some sort of sanctions can be brought against him. People who go out of their way to stand up for the rights of criminals against their victims in cases like this are scum.
While you do make an excellent point here, it's worth remembering that there are people who simply live outside the rules of polite society and will steal from others simply because they find it easier than working for their own money. These people tend to commit the vast majority of crimes. Crime rates are generally higher in areas that have poor economies, but there is still crime in wealthy areas where jobs are plentiful. So I'd say that while you are correct in stating that we don't want to have a large underclass with nothing to lose, we still must acknowledge the fact that there will be people who feel they have the right to take other peoples' property and we must be prepared to deal with them.
As previous posters have pointed out, the man did not set out to kill anyone. He just took precautions against future crimes and waited until the armed robber clearly posed a threat to him.
I will never understand people like you, who are bothered by the average person having the right to defend themself when their life is clearly being threatened. Does it make you feel better if only the police can have means to protect anyone? You know, the police can't be everywhere, and they're not going to take responsibility for every crime that they could not prevent. Morally, I don't know how you could say that a person robbing someone else has more rights than the one being robbed. I'm not advocating vigilante justice, far from it. I'm saying that somebody should not be legally required to submit to the whims of armed thugs.
Yes, violence has never solved anything. With a few exceptions, such as establishing American independence, freeing slaves, stopping Nazism, containing the Soviets, establishing freedom for many former Spanish and English colonies, and eventually freeing the world from the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. If you have a workable non-violent solution to deterring someone who is clearly willing to take your life and doesn't want to negotiate about it, please post it.
Delivering broadband access to "underserved" areas will not be complete as long as there are politically connected telecom companies. This is what I'm talking about.
I think at this moment, the U.S. needs to take a hands off approach and say that if North Korea wants to build nukes, they will do it in complete isolation. This means no international trade or aid of any kind. I hate to say that people must starve, but it's the only way for them to rise up and overthrow their insane dictator. The only other choice is to eventually be fighting a very bloody and brutal war for all involved. And Kim Jong is crazy enough to launch a first strike nuclear attack against a neighboring country.
It seems like under the current laws, the mob is most likely to benefit from gambling being illegal. Especially if they have cooperation from corrupt individuals in government. Laws against gambling are no different than 1920s prohibition of alcohol. People will do it anyway, it's just a matter of who gets the profits.
It's almost entertaining to see how hideously awful those infomercials have become. And so many of them are selling scams that are probably illegal, like the "stock options wealth generating software". I wonder if the seller is a properly licensed broker. I guess they figure the stupid and unemployed are most likely to be watching late at night, so they target them with get rich quick schemes.
In all seriousness, I think sickness can often times be as much mental as it is physical. People who are unhappy or frustrated are a lot more likely to feel physically ill. Most of the people I know who are very negative and pessimistic are always sick. And they do have very real symptoms of illness that ofter require medical treatment. Companies would be well advised to keep this in mind, as unhappy workers are nearly always less productive and absent more often, even when they don't want to be.
The RIAA has a history of trying their hardest to stop ALL online music distribution. Remember the early suits against the makers of Diamond RIO MP3 player? The thing couldn't even copy music, but they sued simply because they wanted to stall digital music. Then there were all of the lawsuits against MP3.com which didn't even carry RIAA music, but it was theoretically possible that it could be used for copyright infringement, so their lawsuit said. Like I've said all along, the record labels aren't so much bothered by kids downloading Britney Spears songs; what scares them is a digital distribution model so efficient that a band decides to use it rather than sign over their souls to a record company.
Them are the breaks. When you run a business, it's not all fun and profit. You have to absorb some losses. Also, business interruption insurance is available if something like this is a serious concern, and I would think it would cover a weather related shutdown.
Interesting point. Even if the company is not currently breaking any laws, they are extremely stupid for encouraging workers to come in during hazardous conditions since they could no doubt be sued big if anyone were seriously injured or killed. If they have an in house legal department, someone is asleep at the wheel.
Just because a state has "right to work" laws does not mean that employees cannot sue for wrongful termination. Even without a discrimination claim, companies can be sued for terminating someone in a way that can be proven to be retaliatory or extremely unfair. Normally when such suits are filed, the company will settle with the employee rather than take their chances in court where guilt is presumed and they have to prove themselves innocent. Employment law generally works this way. With a settlement, companies can also buy things like a non-disclosure agreement that they wouldn't be able to get in court. If the submitter of this story contacts a labor lawyer and has a letter sent to his employer, they will likely pay him for the lost time because, if nothing else, that will cost them a lot less than responding to any lawsuit. Sure, they might try to fire him afterwards but he needs to find some place else to work anyway.
And this is why unions are losing their political power. They only support Democrats, who take their votes for granted. Republicans ignore unions since they will never get the union vote no matter what. Who in government is looking out for unions? In other words, why has unions' power been getting progressively weaker over the years?
The job market has a way of regulating it's own minimum wage, assuming there's not an oversupply of workers. Companies who choose to pay at the low end of the scale have a hard time getting quality employees. If they care about hiring good people, they have to make their salary offers reflect that. Many business owners have learned the hard way that severely underpaying workers will eventually impact the company in a very negative way and by the time they try to fix it, it may be too late.
However, if the company is hiring minimum wage grunts to perform a job function that nearly anyone could do (flipping burgers, scrubbing toilets, etc) then a worker's chance of making more money is pretty slim, so they must move on to something more skilled to gain an increase in pay.
You don't have a constitutional right to not be under stress. So sorry, but thanks for playing.
For Chicago, that's nothing unusual. Just ask this guy. This happened to a friend of mine too. Sold the car a couple of years ago, but they still get tickets in the mail that list the old license plate number. The city doesn't care that they sent in proof of sale, because there is a budget deficit at the moment and having a fair appeals process for traffic tickets would decrease the amount of revenue they bring in. Lesson learned, remove your old license plate when you sell a car.
In addition, your story highlights what is the biggest problem with automated traffic enforcement. You aren't even aware of a violation being issued until you get it in the mail, which could be months later with the inefficiency of city bureaucracies. How are you going to even remember what you were doing at the time, much less be able to mount any possible defense? When the people lose the right to due process, that is when you have a police state. With automated enforcement, there is no meaningful due process, guilt is automatic and predetermined. In fact, these photo tickets usually don't go on a person's driving record since that would probably be in violation of state laws requiring positive ID of the offender, due process, etc.
If you can find a way to aim the cameras up womens' skirts, the profit step would definitely work out.
It's hard to argue with certified mail. Once you send your official notice of cancellation, they could not legitimately charge you after that. I highly doubt any business has the right to demand that you jump through various hoops to cancel something, unless you specifically agreed to the provisions at the time of signup.
I agree. I got one from "Citibank" the other day, which I do have an account with, and the only way I spotted the thing as a scam, other than the fact that I know they don't do business this way, is by double clicking the padlock and viewing the security certificate info. It was registered to some junk hosting provider, as opposed to Citi International, which is what it says on the legitimate Citibank site. How many every day average customers know to do that? I can easily understand how people fall for these, but now that companies have made more effort to inform customers about scams people should hopefully become more suspicious.
Or do you think every time you hand a credit/debit card to a cashier at K-mart, that gives them the right to start charging things to your account?
Best Buy apparently thinks they do.
I've never understood why some companies feel that webmail is a security threat. First, all the major webmail providers have virus scanning. Second, you'll never be able to block every small ISP's webmail page that some user has access to. Third, in the case of file transfers, someone could just build an ordinary website with HTTP upload capabilities. What you need to do in this case is block (or somehow filter) HTTP upload. Of course, in many cases managers are just paranoid and if they can show they have taken steps to reduce but not necessarily eliminate the chance of employee espionage at least they've got their ass covered.
Restricting our trade to the immediate local area would be harmful in many ways. How would the people of Minnesota ever get citrus fruit? Sure you could build some giant greenhouses up there and grow fruit, which would have to be sold at a high price to make up for the huge local production costs. Or you could just buy it from Florida at a fraction of the price. As long as your local area has some sort of economic strength, other industries will be built around it and people will have the means to be prosperous. The problems occur when an area has become reliant on an industry that dies out, such as the former coal mining regions of Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.
That wouldn't fix the problem. I could always create a website of my own with HTTP upload capability and do the same thing. Banning the internet altogether is not a realistic option for most companies, so it seems like some sort of scanning software that could detect and/or restrict HTTP uploads along with all other outgoing file transfers would be the only workable solution.