Obstructing justice is a specific crime, and this librarian came no where near to committing such a crime.
Even more to the point, interfering with police is not "obstructing justice," it's "interfering with an officer."
There is a very good reason for this distinction. The police can arrest a person, but they are not qualified and cannot be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on their own. They are not responsible for "justice," and dishing it out is not part of their job description.
"Justice" is the court's purview, and when you interfere with courts carrying out their duties, then, and only then, are you "obstructing justice."
what this country needs is a Constitutional Convention, to bring the Constitution more up-to-date and to iron out inequities in the system.
This is too risky. The Bad Guys already have too much representation in the current system. If we have a constitutional convention, they'll be able to get in, and then they'll be able to warp the new government towards their ends.
If we had a constitutional convention, we'd lose what little protections we have left.
Everybody who read my summary instead of clicking the link just saved 5 minutes. If a few million of you did so, I just saved a whole bunch of of entire lives!
It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
Yeah, I know what you mean. It would be nice if the skeptics had a good argument, if there actually was a chance that Florida won't be underwater...but there isn't. Our fate is sealed.
Talk about having fun at work. These guys have created luminous clouds of ball lightning up to 20 centimetres across and lasting up to half a second, longer and more realistic than before.
More realistic than before? What, were the ones from before drawn imaginary or something? How can you be more realistic than real?
Well, I'm not the guy you are replying to, but I am an atheist, and willing to answer two of your questions for myself.
you live by what you consider to be good morals and rules of behavior - but how do you determine them and the fact that they're good? And if you're an atheist, why do you live by them?
Socialization. People have taught me rules. But I have had life experiences. Sometimes these experiences strengthen the case for a rule, and sometimes they weaken it. And, if one of the rules I was taught ends up with a piss-poor case, I no longer follow that rule.
For example, I am not supposed to speed. Well, I've decided that speeding is not a big deal, so I speed. But, on the other hand, I have been taught not to lie or cheat, and have been pissed off at people who did lie and cheat. So, even though my life would be a lot easier if I lied a bit and cheated some -- and I have very strict definitions of lying and cheating -- the case against them is as strong as ever, and I do not lie, and I do not cheat.
My entire moral framework is like that. I take what I was taught and live by it until it becomes obvious that it is wrong (not morally wrong, but more like factually wrong, ill-informed, superstitious, without foundation). If I was taught that something is "good," and haven't decided otherwise by myself, then it remains "good." Likewise for "evil."
I believe that this is how everybody works. We all start with the collective morality of our family, peers, and society as a whole, a gestalt or zeitgeist (Germans have so many useful words!) which differs in detail from one person to another. And then a person has his life experiences which further shapes his own personal morality. And to complete the cycle, his personal morality becomes part of society's fabric, and helps form the foundation of someone else's morality. Which will grow to differ. It's quite a beautiful concept, really.:)
I have studied philosophy. Kant and the rest. Attempts to objectively and logically determine "good" and "evil," "virtue" and "vice." But humans are not objective, or logical. Humans are full of shortcuts, and driven by emotions and feelings and wiring that seldom surfaces consciously. Objectivity and logic cannot be used to build a moral foundation. Morality is a separate beast, a collective thing, always changing, influenced by and influencing others.
That's how we work. Remember the tribe, and community standards. Strip away the structure and trappings of law and religion, and that is what we have, what we started with, and what we use in daily life.
The american populace in general has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our court system works
Do you know why that is? It is because law is too complex for a non-expert to understand. That is not an acceptable situation.
As I understand it, one of the bedrock legal principles is that a person cannot be held responsible for obeying laws that he does not know about, but that a person has a concomitant obligation to know the laws, so that he cannot use ignorance as an excuse. This is why laws are public.
But as the situation stands, it is impossible for anyone to know the laws. And regulations are enforced as strongly as laws, with no obligation to make them visible.
This unrestricted proliferation of law is so wrong that I have trouble keeping calm even discussing it!
This is how most people have chosen to live their lives.
Chosen? F*** that, man, if you wanna live a comfortable life, you got no choice. Work sucks, and everybody knows it, but there aren't any other options for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Obstructing justice is a specific crime, and this librarian came no where near to committing such a crime.
Even more to the point, interfering with police is not "obstructing justice," it's "interfering with an officer."
There is a very good reason for this distinction. The police can arrest a person, but they are not qualified and cannot be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on their own. They are not responsible for "justice," and dishing it out is not part of their job description.
"Justice" is the court's purview, and when you interfere with courts carrying out their duties, then, and only then, are you "obstructing justice."
The article isn't clear, but my reading is that he was accused of verbally harassing the girl, not physically molesting her.
I, for one, welcome our newly spawned overlords.
And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.
And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.
what this country needs is a Constitutional Convention, to bring the Constitution more up-to-date and to iron out inequities in the system.
This is too risky. The Bad Guys already have too much representation in the current system. If we have a constitutional convention, they'll be able to get in, and then they'll be able to warp the new government towards their ends.
If we had a constitutional convention, we'd lose what little protections we have left.
Everybody who read my summary instead of clicking the link just saved 5 minutes. If a few million of you did so, I just saved a whole bunch of of entire lives!
Go you!
*sigh* You always gotta cause trouble, dontcha, AC?
Then again there are probably slashdotters who think KDE is the OS.
:)
Wait... you mean it's not?!
It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
Yeah, I know what you mean. It would be nice if the skeptics had a good argument, if there actually was a chance that Florida won't be underwater...but there isn't. Our fate is sealed.
Gotta be better than an Edgar-suit.
"Theoretically it can work, but is sick and ill advised"
EVERYTHING is "obvious" in retrospect. The question always seems so simple once you know the answer.
42.
But if they exclude Pluto from the planets, what does that mean for Sailor Pluto?
Will she become Sailor Kuiper? Would she be the first of the Outer Outer Senshi, to be joined by Sailor Oort at a later date?
Talk about having fun at work. These guys have created luminous clouds of ball lightning up to 20 centimetres across and lasting up to half a second, longer and more realistic than before.
More realistic than before? What, were the ones from before drawn imaginary or something? How can you be more realistic than real?
Socialization. People have taught me rules. But I have had life experiences. Sometimes these experiences strengthen the case for a rule, and sometimes they weaken it. And, if one of the rules I was taught ends up with a piss-poor case, I no longer follow that rule.
For example, I am not supposed to speed. Well, I've decided that speeding is not a big deal, so I speed. But, on the other hand, I have been taught not to lie or cheat, and have been pissed off at people who did lie and cheat. So, even though my life would be a lot easier if I lied a bit and cheated some -- and I have very strict definitions of lying and cheating -- the case against them is as strong as ever, and I do not lie, and I do not cheat.
My entire moral framework is like that. I take what I was taught and live by it until it becomes obvious that it is wrong (not morally wrong, but more like factually wrong, ill-informed, superstitious, without foundation). If I was taught that something is "good," and haven't decided otherwise by myself, then it remains "good." Likewise for "evil."
I believe that this is how everybody works. We all start with the collective morality of our family, peers, and society as a whole, a gestalt or zeitgeist (Germans have so many useful words!) which differs in detail from one person to another. And then a person has his life experiences which further shapes his own personal morality. And to complete the cycle, his personal morality becomes part of society's fabric, and helps form the foundation of someone else's morality. Which will grow to differ. It's quite a beautiful concept, really.
I have studied philosophy. Kant and the rest. Attempts to objectively and logically determine "good" and "evil," "virtue" and "vice." But humans are not objective, or logical. Humans are full of shortcuts, and driven by emotions and feelings and wiring that seldom surfaces consciously. Objectivity and logic cannot be used to build a moral foundation. Morality is a separate beast, a collective thing, always changing, influenced by and influencing others.
That's how we work. Remember the tribe, and community standards. Strip away the structure and trappings of law and religion, and that is what we have, what we started with, and what we use in daily life.
Mod up!
;)
Or does this idea sound fishy to anyone?
If you can provide a link or more information on those studies I'd be interested to read it.
:)
I just bet you would!
Yeah. I know the judges are just doing the best they can.
The american populace in general has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our court system works
Do you know why that is? It is because law is too complex for a non-expert to understand. That is not an acceptable situation.
As I understand it, one of the bedrock legal principles is that a person cannot be held responsible for obeying laws that he does not know about, but that a person has a concomitant obligation to know the laws, so that he cannot use ignorance as an excuse. This is why laws are public.
But as the situation stands, it is impossible for anyone to know the laws. And regulations are enforced as strongly as laws, with no obligation to make them visible.
This unrestricted proliferation of law is so wrong that I have trouble keeping calm even discussing it!
A wife and kids... they're bloody hard to replace.
What are you talking about? You can get 'em mail-order, for Pete's sake!
If anybody is qualified to give marriage advice, it's Slashdot readers.
Mod up insightful! Since Slashdotters aren't married, we actually make the perfect impartial observers -- always good people to get advice from.
This is how most people have chosen to live their lives.
Chosen? F*** that, man, if you wanna live a comfortable life, you got no choice. Work sucks, and everybody knows it, but there aren't any other options for most people.
Check out Terry Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies."
Historia est vitae magistra
"History is the tutor of life."
The power of a Union is directly proportional to how capital intensive its industry is. Software, however, isn't capital-intensive at all.
Hey, even a weak union would be better than no union at all.
In fact, based on other comments, I'd guess that most slashdotters would consider a weak union to be better than a strong one.