Contempt of Cop is a capital crime, to be punished on site by Judge Dredd. The cops don't walk away from a confrontation, once you've challenged the cops. "de-escalation" isn't a term cops are familiar with. "Escalate at all costs" is the only term they know.
You do realize that the forms are quoting the relevant laws, right?
The law, as written, isn't the law. The law, as applied, is the law. That's how Common Law works, and that's the system we live under. That so many people don't understand that doesn't make me wrong. The FBI said there is no cause to prosecute. Yet all the Hillary haters here think they know the law better than lawyers working for the FBI. And I'm a troll for pointing out that hubris in the Hillary haters.
The forms will always make it sound worse than it is. Yes, they use scare tactics. Have you ever seen anyone prosecuted for mishandling? No, or you'd have mentioned it as well. Like I said, scare tactics, but no prosecutions. Not unlike HIPAA. Lots of noise, not too many actual fines or actions.
You are supporting my statements, not contradicting them.
It wasn't my CO instilling fear, it was on the job experience and expertese.
Nope. It was the CO. The civilian rules may look similar if you read through the UCMJ and USC, but the application (de facto law, not theoretical) is vastly different. You saw different rules applied under the UCMJ, and found that more strict. I don't disagree. If Hillary were bound by the UCMJ, she'd have faced a trial. But the authorities ruled it wasn't a convictable offense. And looking at others in a similar circumstance in recent history, that's consistent. There's just more noise over it this time, because of who is involved.
The same scandals came out under Reagan, Bush, and other Republicans, and nobody from the right cared. But Hillary does it, and everyone loses their mind.
I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail,
I've known people to have done worse. They lost their clearance, sometimes their jobs, but never ended up in jail. I think your CO scared you a little too much. Though, those from military generally don't get it. They are more greatly punished under UCMJ than civilians under the USC.
Again, as I noted, you are confusing the "law" with the actual law. What's written isn't the law. It's called "common law". We don't live under "Civil Law". The law isn't the law as written, but as applied. De facto, what she did was legal, because she wasn't found guilty of it in a court of law. Arguing that she broke the law because your opinion is that she should have been found guilty just shows that you know nothing of the law (even if you can quote it), and you shit on the principal of innocent until proven guilty. Why do you hate individual rights?
"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."
That's a lie, not an excuse. The lie will be ignored by the cops and the judge, and you'll be convicted.
"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."
In most places, it'll be manslaughter or negligent homicide, or something like that. Murder is reserved for those that intended to kill.
"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."
So you intended to break the law by playing with your phone, and while intentionally breaking that law, broke some others accidentally. That's still intent.
You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.
The intent isn't intending to break the law. It's intending to do the action that resulted in the broken law.
You intended to drive, and in doing so, broke the law. You dont have to deliberately plan on breaking Statute 545, you just had to have intended to drive the manner you did. Note, those that had Toyota unintended acceleration, and the car passed the speed limit, none were prosecuted for speeding. They didn't intend to speed, and could prove it in court.
You didn't intend to kill a person, but intended to pull the trigger without proper care. That's a crime, or resulted in one.
You meant to drive unsafely by breaking the law to play with your phone, and while knowingly driving unsafely, drove unsafely, and thus can be prosecuted for that as well.
Just because you don't understand "intent" doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Instead the FBI says "Oh, let's not prosecute her because she didn't MEAN to reveal classified material over an illegal, unsecured email system.
She kept a private server. There's no evidence it was hacked. The servers she was "supposed to use" were hacked in the same time frame. She kept her emails more secure than if she had followed the rules you assert she broke. Improperly handling classified material isn't a crime (perhaps by the far right when talking about Clinton, but not by the judges that try the cases), but leaking classified material is. So the question becomes who did she leak classified material to? She didn't. OK, no crime.
Of course the reason the rules were tightened while she was in was office was because of all the actual leaks and breaches under the previous administration, which the right-wing nutjobs don't care about.
I hate the obvious false equivalencies popular lately,
Note, there is no "proof" that smoking causes cancer in humans. Human trials are unethical, so the proper studies haven't been done. The lack of a proof isn't a proof of the lack, though wording in articles like this seems to indicate people think that way.
OTOH, given SSDs and the inability to guarantee the erasure of all data on the drive,
Wow, SSD even survives incinerators? Where I used to work, the policy for drives was to open them up and strip them for their magnets, then have magnet fun. The platters made good frisbees, but the problem is that they go through car windows, and the dents in cars are deep, so frisbee with care.
You won't even specify which statement you think is a lie. Pathetic attempt at a troll. Next time, indicate what you object to. None of it is a lie. It's all true, according to published accounts of the events. That you don't like it, doesn't make it false.
And it can't be a lie, because that's the account I've heard and believe. At "worst", it's a mistake or error. A lie requires knowing it's wrong, and spreading it anyway. I'm just summarizing the news and Wiki entry about it. Someone may have lied to them, but I'm not lying, even if spreading someone else's lies. Go fix Wikipedia, and the news reports.
he stole the gun from his mother, she didnt give it to him.
Since others have complained about the car analogy, I'll stick with it. Must hit too close to home. If he grabbed the keys to the car, ran into the locked garage, and put the keys in the ignition, did he "steal" the car? It's her car. She didn't give him permission to use it. But he has unrestricted access to the keys and the car, and didn't leave the property with it.
there was nothing legal about that and only an utter idiot would see what happened as legal
What was illegal? It is illegal for someone to touch an unsecured gun in their own home? What was the gun law broken, and at what moment was it broken?
Feel free to use the timeline I saw given: He was at his house (the one that was his legal residence). While his mother slept, he accessed unsecured firearms. He then shot an killed his mother. He then left the house.
At what point did he break the law, specifically with regards to firearms? If after the murder of his mother, then he acquired the firearm legally, prior to the start of the shooting spree.
You hate the left, and anyone you hate has a double standard. Some lefties use AT&T! Others denounce capitalistic monopolies! Double standards Everywhere!!!
Your inability to comprehend the issues doesn't make them contradictory. Trump explicitly joked about assaulting protesters. Protesters were later assaulted. How is it a double standard to consider that somehow linked to Trump himself? BLM has said "stop the violence". All of it, against police, and by police. So when a mentally ill vet with no links to BLM kills some cops and talks about BLM, it's BLM that made him do it? Thankfully, the police killed him before he could be interrogated or tried, so we'll never know what he was thinking. White extremist (after all, that's the label given to minorities) shoots people from a bell tower at University of Texas and he's diagnosed as a good vet with a brain tumor, and essentially forgiven by the country. Where's the level of interest in the Black extremists motives? If you are looking for a double standard, you are looking in the wrong place.
Because the fucking game console is a PC. It's just a PC frozen in HW specifications and performance (and locked down to ensure performance), so the gaming experience on it is known and consistent. So Cortana is as useful on the gaming console as a PC. Whether it's useful on a PC is a separate issue.
Ok, I'll think on it a bit - will the factory take in raw, unprocessed lithium or will it go to a refining plant to prepare the lithium for manufacture?
Old car factories would take in raw material from one side, and cars rolled out the other side. Seems Tesla may be going back to that. I recently read that Hyundai smelts its own steel. Takes in raw materials, and outputs cars. No reason Tesla wouldn't process the ore themselves, if it looks like it'll save money or improve quality.
How did he kill her with it before he acquired it?
No, the timeline is that he was in his house, with access to firearms. Legally acquired one, and then shot his, probably sleeping, mother. He didn't "steal" it. It was unsecured in his home. Do you steal a cup from your wife every time you make coffee? No, objects in the family home are accessible to all, and not a crime to touch.
Adam Lanza broke no firearms laws in acuiring the firearms he went on the spree with.
Also note the OP's "broke in" phrasing. He "broke in" to his legal residence? That's silly.
The Newtown school shooting was done by a guy who broke in and stole his mother's weapon (then killed her with it). He was not a "gun owner".
He was provided access to a gun, and he legally acquired it, borrowing a gun from a family member, then going on a killing spree. The gun nuts make it sound like it was a home invasion of a stranger. The facts support it being a peaceful visit, until he took the gun he was given legal access to and shot his mother.
Because emojis or not, ISIS creates a new death every 84 hours.
One death every 84 hours is about the rate which US cops shoot an unarmed person. It's hard to get numbers, but in 2015, cops shot one person every 8 hours. Separating them into innocent and guilty is hard, as is whether they were armed. However, for anyone who believes in the Constitution and rule of law, one should presume them all innocent until convicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad advice doesn't kill people, cops do.
Cops kill woman and shoot child over traffic stop warrant. What's to twist?
Contempt of Cop is a capital crime, to be punished on site by Judge Dredd. The cops don't walk away from a confrontation, once you've challenged the cops. "de-escalation" isn't a term cops are familiar with. "Escalate at all costs" is the only term they know.
You do realize that the forms are quoting the relevant laws, right?
The law, as written, isn't the law. The law, as applied, is the law. That's how Common Law works, and that's the system we live under. That so many people don't understand that doesn't make me wrong. The FBI said there is no cause to prosecute. Yet all the Hillary haters here think they know the law better than lawyers working for the FBI. And I'm a troll for pointing out that hubris in the Hillary haters.
So a study of one person, with a 0% confidence is sufficient, so long as the study of one is "reproducible conditions"? That seems pretty weak.
The forms will always make it sound worse than it is. Yes, they use scare tactics. Have you ever seen anyone prosecuted for mishandling? No, or you'd have mentioned it as well. Like I said, scare tactics, but no prosecutions. Not unlike HIPAA. Lots of noise, not too many actual fines or actions.
You are supporting my statements, not contradicting them.
It wasn't my CO instilling fear, it was on the job experience and expertese.
Nope. It was the CO. The civilian rules may look similar if you read through the UCMJ and USC, but the application (de facto law, not theoretical) is vastly different. You saw different rules applied under the UCMJ, and found that more strict. I don't disagree. If Hillary were bound by the UCMJ, she'd have faced a trial. But the authorities ruled it wasn't a convictable offense. And looking at others in a similar circumstance in recent history, that's consistent. There's just more noise over it this time, because of who is involved.
I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail,
I've known people to have done worse. They lost their clearance, sometimes their jobs, but never ended up in jail. I think your CO scared you a little too much. Though, those from military generally don't get it. They are more greatly punished under UCMJ than civilians under the USC.
Again, as I noted, you are confusing the "law" with the actual law. What's written isn't the law. It's called "common law". We don't live under "Civil Law". The law isn't the law as written, but as applied. De facto, what she did was legal, because she wasn't found guilty of it in a court of law. Arguing that she broke the law because your opinion is that she should have been found guilty just shows that you know nothing of the law (even if you can quote it), and you shit on the principal of innocent until proven guilty. Why do you hate individual rights?
Figured anything that can go through a car window (by breaking it) would likely hurt.
"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."
That's a lie, not an excuse. The lie will be ignored by the cops and the judge, and you'll be convicted.
"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."
In most places, it'll be manslaughter or negligent homicide, or something like that. Murder is reserved for those that intended to kill.
"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."
So you intended to break the law by playing with your phone, and while intentionally breaking that law, broke some others accidentally. That's still intent.
You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.
The intent isn't intending to break the law. It's intending to do the action that resulted in the broken law.
You intended to drive, and in doing so, broke the law. You dont have to deliberately plan on breaking Statute 545, you just had to have intended to drive the manner you did. Note, those that had Toyota unintended acceleration, and the car passed the speed limit, none were prosecuted for speeding. They didn't intend to speed, and could prove it in court.
You didn't intend to kill a person, but intended to pull the trigger without proper care. That's a crime, or resulted in one.
You meant to drive unsafely by breaking the law to play with your phone, and while knowingly driving unsafely, drove unsafely, and thus can be prosecuted for that as well.
Just because you don't understand "intent" doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
Instead the FBI says "Oh, let's not prosecute her because she didn't MEAN to reveal classified material over an illegal, unsecured email system.
She kept a private server. There's no evidence it was hacked. The servers she was "supposed to use" were hacked in the same time frame. She kept her emails more secure than if she had followed the rules you assert she broke. Improperly handling classified material isn't a crime (perhaps by the far right when talking about Clinton, but not by the judges that try the cases), but leaking classified material is. So the question becomes who did she leak classified material to? She didn't. OK, no crime.
Of course the reason the rules were tightened while she was in was office was because of all the actual leaks and breaches under the previous administration, which the right-wing nutjobs don't care about.
I hate the obvious false equivalencies popular lately,
Note, there is no "proof" that smoking causes cancer in humans. Human trials are unethical, so the proper studies haven't been done. The lack of a proof isn't a proof of the lack, though wording in articles like this seems to indicate people think that way.
OTOH, given SSDs and the inability to guarantee the erasure of all data on the drive,
Wow, SSD even survives incinerators? Where I used to work, the policy for drives was to open them up and strip them for their magnets, then have magnet fun. The platters made good frisbees, but the problem is that they go through car windows, and the dents in cars are deep, so frisbee with care.
You won't even specify which statement you think is a lie. Pathetic attempt at a troll. Next time, indicate what you object to. None of it is a lie. It's all true, according to published accounts of the events. That you don't like it, doesn't make it false.
And it can't be a lie, because that's the account I've heard and believe. At "worst", it's a mistake or error. A lie requires knowing it's wrong, and spreading it anyway. I'm just summarizing the news and Wiki entry about it. Someone may have lied to them, but I'm not lying, even if spreading someone else's lies. Go fix Wikipedia, and the news reports.
he stole the gun from his mother, she didnt give it to him.
Since others have complained about the car analogy, I'll stick with it. Must hit too close to home. If he grabbed the keys to the car, ran into the locked garage, and put the keys in the ignition, did he "steal" the car? It's her car. She didn't give him permission to use it. But he has unrestricted access to the keys and the car, and didn't leave the property with it.
there was nothing legal about that and only an utter idiot would see what happened as legal
What was illegal? It is illegal for someone to touch an unsecured gun in their own home? What was the gun law broken, and at what moment was it broken?
Feel free to use the timeline I saw given: He was at his house (the one that was his legal residence). While his mother slept, he accessed unsecured firearms. He then shot an killed his mother. He then left the house.
At what point did he break the law, specifically with regards to firearms? If after the murder of his mother, then he acquired the firearm legally, prior to the start of the shooting spree.
You hate the left, and anyone you hate has a double standard. Some lefties use AT&T! Others denounce capitalistic monopolies! Double standards Everywhere!!!
Your inability to comprehend the issues doesn't make them contradictory. Trump explicitly joked about assaulting protesters. Protesters were later assaulted. How is it a double standard to consider that somehow linked to Trump himself? BLM has said "stop the violence". All of it, against police, and by police. So when a mentally ill vet with no links to BLM kills some cops and talks about BLM, it's BLM that made him do it? Thankfully, the police killed him before he could be interrogated or tried, so we'll never know what he was thinking. White extremist (after all, that's the label given to minorities) shoots people from a bell tower at University of Texas and he's diagnosed as a good vet with a brain tumor, and essentially forgiven by the country. Where's the level of interest in the Black extremists motives? If you are looking for a double standard, you are looking in the wrong place.
Anything else is theft, and yes, I could press charges if I wanted to.
Nope. Define "theft". Points for using one of the many legal definitions available online.
Then prove it. What statement was a lie? What is the truth? The "lie" is that I'm giving a truth you don't want to hear. Nothing more.
There are two configurable offs, and you can de-power it with a power-strip switch or at the wall (if outside the US).
Because the fucking game console is a PC. It's just a PC frozen in HW specifications and performance (and locked down to ensure performance), so the gaming experience on it is known and consistent. So Cortana is as useful on the gaming console as a PC. Whether it's useful on a PC is a separate issue.
Yeah, all those fucking racists wanting equality, and no more. How dare they want to be able to walk down the street without being executed.
Ok, I'll think on it a bit - will the factory take in raw, unprocessed lithium or will it go to a refining plant to prepare the lithium for manufacture?
Old car factories would take in raw material from one side, and cars rolled out the other side. Seems Tesla may be going back to that. I recently read that Hyundai smelts its own steel. Takes in raw materials, and outputs cars. No reason Tesla wouldn't process the ore themselves, if it looks like it'll save money or improve quality.
How did he kill her with it before he acquired it?
No, the timeline is that he was in his house, with access to firearms. Legally acquired one, and then shot his, probably sleeping, mother. He didn't "steal" it. It was unsecured in his home. Do you steal a cup from your wife every time you make coffee? No, objects in the family home are accessible to all, and not a crime to touch.
Adam Lanza broke no firearms laws in acuiring the firearms he went on the spree with.
Also note the OP's "broke in" phrasing. He "broke in" to his legal residence? That's silly.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05...
Same effect.
The polls and the actions and reaction of Trump supporters.
The Newtown school shooting was done by a guy who broke in and stole his mother's weapon (then killed her with it). He was not a "gun owner".
He was provided access to a gun, and he legally acquired it, borrowing a gun from a family member, then going on a killing spree. The gun nuts make it sound like it was a home invasion of a stranger. The facts support it being a peaceful visit, until he took the gun he was given legal access to and shot his mother.
Because emojis or not, ISIS creates a new death every 84 hours.
One death every 84 hours is about the rate which US cops shoot an unarmed person. It's hard to get numbers, but in 2015, cops shot one person every 8 hours. Separating them into innocent and guilty is hard, as is whether they were armed. However, for anyone who believes in the Constitution and rule of law, one should presume them all innocent until convicted.