In the US the law is pretty straightforward. You can use "reasonable" force, which pretty much translates into "if you are afraid for your life, you may kill them". So a granny being beaten would likely never be able to defend herself with fists, so a gun is about the minimum violence that would stop the attack. A fist against a granny is deadly force, so you can respond in kind. You don't need to carry an arsenal and only respond with the same weapon used against you, just a "reasonable" response.
I have no idea how someone could have a problem with stand your ground.
It encourages a confrontation when none was necessary. Most duty to retreat laws are "stand your ground" laws.
Nowhere in the US is it illegal to fight back when cornered. The definition of "cornered" is variable enough that someone should be able to argue they were cornered, for all reasonable circumstances.
"stand your ground" encourages people like Zimmerman to follow suspicious and dangerous people into dark alleys, and shoot them when confronted.
In your situation, could you have safely walked away? No? Then it wouldn't have mattered if "stand your ground" or "duty to retreat" applied. Both lead to the same conclusion. You had to defend yourself. The opposite of "stand your ground" still allows you to defend yourself everywhere in the USA. May not apply in the UK or elsewhere.
I (a white guy) have been the victim of race based violence in E dallas.
Oh, and as a Dallas-born person, I would doubt your story because there is no "E Dallas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..., but to a "local" one would use the neighborhood name. Lakewood or White Rock. East Dallas is Mesquite. Though a tourist wandering around in the worst neighborhoods they could find might have accidentally ended up there, as it's a site of popularity and gentrification. But if you are looking for a fight in Dallas, I recommend Oak Cliff/West Dallas (west and north Dallas is "defined" as a neighborhood, East and South aren't, and are generally identified by the neighborhoods.
But the grander more respected police force was borderline useless when it came to i dotting and t crossing
I've seen a video of a cop advising a suspect to cooperate because the legal consequences will be worse if he doesn't (threat of harm to extract information is called "torture"). The cop was in trouble for giving legal advice, something cops are banned from doing. He was cleared of wrongdoing. "cops can't give legal advice, so it obviously wasn't legal advice, it was an interview tactic."
We need a law that makes it illegal for cops to lie in their official duties. Personally, I'd leave that in effect for under cover, but I expect that "except for under-cover work" could be added, so long as under cover work was specified and required a warrant, or other verifiable paper trail.
It's not purjury to coach someone to give true but misleading information. A "lie" is a misleading statement. A lie needn't be false to be a lie. But the actionable lies must be false and damaging. A non-damaging lie (in most cases) isn't actionable. Nor is a true lie. The police are coached in misleading without telling a falsehood. Prosecutors are coached in how to admit evidence and respond to discovery in a manner that avoids certain truths from being revealed.
That you don't know the rules (by design), doesn't mean anyone broke them.
Are you, as an individual with a stingray device, allowed to request judicial approval to investigate and/or detain a potentially lawbreaking citizen?
No, because I don't need judicial approval to investigate or detain a lawbreaking citizen.
Police don't think they are innocuous, nor illegal, nor any other negative.
"Innocuous" is a negative? I don't think that word means what you think that word means.
The difference between me and a cop is that if I'm wrong when I arrest someone, I'm personally liable. Beyond that, there isn't much else that should separate us (depends on your jurisdiction).
No, not all. The discussions are closed-door, but the daily decisions can be made "public", and the reasoning was usually made public. Some back-room deals are made. Trading one thing for another. But the general terms are not "always" hidden, as you implied.
The camera in the break room wasn't good for the employee stealing. But the employee who found her wallet missing from her purse was certainly happy for the camera.
I worked for a tech support line in the mid '90s. All breaks were recorded, timed, and provided to managers on a daily basis. At a fortune 100 company in the late '90s, they had static IPS and a proxy with lots of reports. They knew who was on what how many times and when. Daily, weekly, and monthly reports.
I had a written order to install a keylogger on an employee's computer in 1999. He was suspected of using company property to commit crimes. I recorded a crime, and passed it back to the management who ordered the tap. He was fired. No charges were laid.
There is no "new" surveilance. Though it may be becoming more common, it certainly isn't new. At all.
OK, if you were the government and you saw $10,000,000,000 of insured deposits, and a failure would cost you $10,000,000,000, but a bailout would cost you $500,000,000, which would you choose? Waste $9,500,000,000 of the taxpayer money to teach the bank a lesson? Or "bailout" the bank for $500,000,000?
They are under-regulated with more regulations. It's only a contradiction if you choose to be an idiot. The "new" regulations are written by the biggest institutions. They are "self regulating" in a manner that's anti-competitive, not regulatory. They call the anti-competition rules written by the incumbents "regulations" to confuse the idiots.
The restriction on what they can do (in relation to what they would do in the absence of regulation) has decreased. That the total number of rules has increased is irrelevant. They are now, and always have been, under-regulated.
They could choose to be unregulated. Investment houses and PayPal are not regulated as banks. But they choose to be regulated because it benefits them. If they were truly over-regulated, they'd opt out of the regulation. For all PayPal's faults, they don't lend money against deposits or borrow from the fed, so they stay out of "banking" territory. There's no reason any other bank couldn't follow the same rules. Other than they deliberately choose not to because the "regulations" they operate under are a beneficial shield, not a web of tight regulations.
There is a saying: "once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action."
So a car crash with two full cars head-on killing 8 people must be an enemy action because there were 8 deaths? Every major plane disaster with more than 8 dead was an enemy action, where more than 3 died?
From what I can tell this was a single incident, it just happened to affect multiple systems. The person who said they "crashed" is lying or was misinformed (in politics, I'd guess lying). Every report I've seen (from both sides, aside from the one "crashed" assertion, which has been repeated, but never confirmed) is consistent with the OS upgrades happening at the time, and SOP for OS upgrades is to wipe the drive and clean-install the new image/OS.
As far as I can tell, this was a single "incident" that just happened to affect more than one computer.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US the law is pretty straightforward. You can use "reasonable" force, which pretty much translates into "if you are afraid for your life, you may kill them". So a granny being beaten would likely never be able to defend herself with fists, so a gun is about the minimum violence that would stop the attack. A fist against a granny is deadly force, so you can respond in kind. You don't need to carry an arsenal and only respond with the same weapon used against you, just a "reasonable" response.
I have no idea how someone could have a problem with stand your ground.
It encourages a confrontation when none was necessary. Most duty to retreat laws are "stand your ground" laws.
Nowhere in the US is it illegal to fight back when cornered. The definition of "cornered" is variable enough that someone should be able to argue they were cornered, for all reasonable circumstances.
"stand your ground" encourages people like Zimmerman to follow suspicious and dangerous people into dark alleys, and shoot them when confronted.
In your situation, could you have safely walked away? No? Then it wouldn't have mattered if "stand your ground" or "duty to retreat" applied. Both lead to the same conclusion. You had to defend yourself. The opposite of "stand your ground" still allows you to defend yourself everywhere in the USA. May not apply in the UK or elsewhere.
I (a white guy) have been the victim of race based violence in E dallas.
Oh, and as a Dallas-born person, I would doubt your story because there is no "E Dallas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..., but to a "local" one would use the neighborhood name. Lakewood or White Rock. East Dallas is Mesquite. Though a tourist wandering around in the worst neighborhoods they could find might have accidentally ended up there, as it's a site of popularity and gentrification. But if you are looking for a fight in Dallas, I recommend Oak Cliff/West Dallas (west and north Dallas is "defined" as a neighborhood, East and South aren't, and are generally identified by the neighborhoods.
"less lethal" not "non-lethal". Tasers can (and do) kill.
And I've seen people drift doing nothing else. The something else "helps" in some cases like lonely highways.
So it's ok to break the law to enforce a non-law in a way that causes less safety, not more?
Has anything changed? Is there additional details? New facts? Stuff that's actually new?
Yes. TFS says the information about the fine is new.
The right to peaceably assemble is fine, so long as there's no place to legally do so.
But the grander more respected police force was borderline useless when it came to i dotting and t crossing
I've seen a video of a cop advising a suspect to cooperate because the legal consequences will be worse if he doesn't (threat of harm to extract information is called "torture"). The cop was in trouble for giving legal advice, something cops are banned from doing. He was cleared of wrongdoing. "cops can't give legal advice, so it obviously wasn't legal advice, it was an interview tactic."
We need a law that makes it illegal for cops to lie in their official duties. Personally, I'd leave that in effect for under cover, but I expect that "except for under-cover work" could be added, so long as under cover work was specified and required a warrant, or other verifiable paper trail.
Leaving stuff "laying around" in a locked room, secured to prevent theft is "just asking for it"?
Sounds like you blame the victim. Is it her fault for being raped too? She should have been wearing a chastity belt...
Yeah, they keep it under the kitchen sink in there.
If the electronic spy gizmo was "confidential", then define "informant" in such a manner that it wasn't a confidential informant.
The lawyers proabably spent lots of time making sure it was legal to lie.
It's not purjury to coach someone to give true but misleading information. A "lie" is a misleading statement. A lie needn't be false to be a lie. But the actionable lies must be false and damaging. A non-damaging lie (in most cases) isn't actionable. Nor is a true lie. The police are coached in misleading without telling a falsehood. Prosecutors are coached in how to admit evidence and respond to discovery in a manner that avoids certain truths from being revealed.
That you don't know the rules (by design), doesn't mean anyone broke them.
Are you, as an individual with a stingray device, allowed to request judicial approval to investigate and/or detain a potentially lawbreaking citizen?
No, because I don't need judicial approval to investigate or detain a lawbreaking citizen.
Police don't think they are innocuous, nor illegal, nor any other negative.
"Innocuous" is a negative? I don't think that word means what you think that word means.
The difference between me and a cop is that if I'm wrong when I arrest someone, I'm personally liable. Beyond that, there isn't much else that should separate us (depends on your jurisdiction).
Yeah, not like they published the Federalist Papers and all that. It was a secret thing. We don't even know who signed it.
No, not all. The discussions are closed-door, but the daily decisions can be made "public", and the reasoning was usually made public. Some back-room deals are made. Trading one thing for another. But the general terms are not "always" hidden, as you implied.
The camera in the break room wasn't good for the employee stealing. But the employee who found her wallet missing from her purse was certainly happy for the camera.
I worked for a tech support line in the mid '90s. All breaks were recorded, timed, and provided to managers on a daily basis. At a fortune 100 company in the late '90s, they had static IPS and a proxy with lots of reports. They knew who was on what how many times and when. Daily, weekly, and monthly reports.
I had a written order to install a keylogger on an employee's computer in 1999. He was suspected of using company property to commit crimes. I recorded a crime, and passed it back to the management who ordered the tap. He was fired. No charges were laid.
There is no "new" surveilance. Though it may be becoming more common, it certainly isn't new. At all.
OK, if you were the government and you saw $10,000,000,000 of insured deposits, and a failure would cost you $10,000,000,000, but a bailout would cost you $500,000,000, which would you choose? Waste $9,500,000,000 of the taxpayer money to teach the bank a lesson? Or "bailout" the bank for $500,000,000?
They are under-regulated with more regulations. It's only a contradiction if you choose to be an idiot. The "new" regulations are written by the biggest institutions. They are "self regulating" in a manner that's anti-competitive, not regulatory. They call the anti-competition rules written by the incumbents "regulations" to confuse the idiots.
The restriction on what they can do (in relation to what they would do in the absence of regulation) has decreased. That the total number of rules has increased is irrelevant. They are now, and always have been, under-regulated.
They could choose to be unregulated. Investment houses and PayPal are not regulated as banks. But they choose to be regulated because it benefits them. If they were truly over-regulated, they'd opt out of the regulation. For all PayPal's faults, they don't lend money against deposits or borrow from the fed, so they stay out of "banking" territory. There's no reason any other bank couldn't follow the same rules. Other than they deliberately choose not to because the "regulations" they operate under are a beneficial shield, not a web of tight regulations.
Yup. They pass NCLB and otherwise deliberately sabotage it to pass vouchers so rich kids can get tax breaks to send their kids to exclusive schools.
It is a profit-driven enterprise, pure and simple.
Aside from UoP, who is for-profit? They are all non-profit.
Misogyny? You are the one that sexistly just implied that all secretaries are women. That makes you the pot calling the kettle misogynist.
II'm not partisan, and that you see it as such indicates you are, despite implying you aren't.
There is a saying: "once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action."
So a car crash with two full cars head-on killing 8 people must be an enemy action because there were 8 deaths? Every major plane disaster with more than 8 dead was an enemy action, where more than 3 died?
From what I can tell this was a single incident, it just happened to affect multiple systems. The person who said they "crashed" is lying or was misinformed (in politics, I'd guess lying). Every report I've seen (from both sides, aside from the one "crashed" assertion, which has been repeated, but never confirmed) is consistent with the OS upgrades happening at the time, and SOP for OS upgrades is to wipe the drive and clean-install the new image/OS.
As far as I can tell, this was a single "incident" that just happened to affect more than one computer.