What gets me is that these people who think raising the costs of everything is the answer, totally ignore the fact that it raises the costs on essential items like food, transportation to and from work, police and fire services, and so on.
They don't seem to care that the 3.5/gallon (*which I strongly think was supposed to be $3.50) will only decrees GHGs because it deprives people of their funding and ability to do what they want, their freedom, and sets the precedence of a rich class entitlement because they are the ones who now can afford things. The entire mortgage meltdown and banking crisis came to a front because energy costs went sky high and people had to make decisions over driving to work or paying the mortgage. Sure, there were some fundamental flaws built into the situation that would have eventually needed to be ironed out but the energy costs a year ago, brought it front and center and created the problems we are seeing today. It caused the price of food, clothing, transportation to and from work, taking care of your family and many other things to skyrocket and make a good portion of the people uncomfortable financially.
And the worst part is that they want to do this again under the guise of saving the world from something that is on as shaky grounds as this.
Those are two different things. Not participating (especially if you're the suspect) is not illegal. Lying which is "what Obstruction laws specifically do" is actively foiling the investigation and is illegal. So if you want to legally compel a suspect to participate in the investigation against him, by giving his name, you do need a law saying so.
There is a federal law in the books that says if you fail to report a feloni, you have commited a crime. It's called misprision of a felony. I was actually thinking it was any crime originally so I will concede this point to you. I guess the exception might be when you committed the crime or can incriminate yourself in the reporting of it.
ANY complaint surely won't cut it. Any reasonable complaint that alleges a law has been, or is about to be broken (with specific articulable facts), provided the police don't have reason to believe the complaint is fabricated, probably is sufficient.
I agree but the way the story unfolded (and yes, it was one sided and I never do anything wrong), it didn't seem like anything was actually against the law, just concern over someone seeing the secrete inside of an ATM.
I don't think we're going to get the satisfaction of a definitive answer from SCOTUS anytime soon though.
I think your right. That brings me to another question, which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court. I'll refrain from going liberal or conservative seeing how both seem to be acting opposite as if trying to set the definition for oxymoron in how they act compared to what they say recently.
The warming has been observed but the causation of the warming hasn't. The entire Co2 model rests on the premise that with everything else understood the way it was, it was the only significant difference that a cause and effect could be attached to.
Now there has been studies that indicate that For any given area on the ocean's surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. If the thermal capacity of the ocean is this strong, then we have to look at the effect of currents straying from our assumed paths and the heat transfer this caused. Granted, we still could have Co2 as a mechanism here because the oceans are giant carbon sinks and the cooler they are, the more carbon they can hold verses releasing it when they warm.
Anyways, here is how this can effect the global temperature which is why it needs to be carefully examines. If warmer parts of the ocean effect cooler parts, and with the top 2.6 meters of the ocean carrying all the heat potential as the entire atmosphere, then three things could happen, one is a release of Co2, the second is abnormal evaporation in which the relative humidity increases, the third is an insignificant increase in heat in the areas effected that weren't previously known to have been interacting with the currents. Well, we have observed all three of those inside the climate models for Co2. But here is a kicker that suggest the interaction is more prevailing then we are giving credit for, Hansen claimed the GISS heat models were wrong because the ocean was action like a sink for the excess heat. The heat deficit calculated for 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. was actually blaming the anthropogenic Co2 in the global warming model but a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al stated that in 2005 the steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects which is an effect of heat) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly which contradicts the global warming model in play right now.
We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here. When you look at a lot of the other works which don't quite fit and need some explaining, then take this into consideration, it's obvious that we need to go back to the beginning. And this time, it should be done by someone not pushing an agenda. The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that it was hijacked by politics and you have some who created a religion out of it. The effects the entire premise of the understanding of the effects of anthropogenic global warming and the effects it maintains on the numerous failed predictions being thrown out to scare people.
Well, actually, the federal governemnt has no right in saying who can sleep with who or who should get married. I took the reply of the parent to mean that the previous administration was speaking out against gays which they weren't to the extent other then gay marriage.
I agree it's a slippery slope and we have been on and off it for a while now. But there is a huge difference between lobbying for a legal proceeding (marriage) to remain the same as it has historically been cast verses arguing against two consenting adults having sexual relations. That was the point I was attempting to make.
No, I just don't take laws in anally retarded states to mean the federal government.
Or does an article about the federal government doing the "same as usual" quantify all state governments underneath it. If you think it does, then you should look into the structure of the US a little more and learn a few things.
The federal government has not told people who they can sleep with period. At least not United States of America.
I think all that depends on how the state law is drafted. SCOTUS has held that giving your name does not violate your fifth amendment rights, but unless a state has a law criminalizing your refusal, they cannot punish you. Same goes for lying to the police. To be fair though I think the obstruction laws in most states probably do make it illegal to lie to an officer performing an official investigation. It looks to me, that the safest legal ground would be to give your name, then refuse to say anything further.
That's what Obstruction laws specifically do. They criminalize your lack of participation with the cops during an investigation. You don't need a specific law saying X when X is part of another law. And either, the specific law or the section of another law, require a set of circumstances to be true in order to be applicable.
If you can articulate reasonable facts that a crime has occurred or is about to occur to the police officer, in my mind, that meets the requirements in Terry, since the police officer can turn around and articulate "Sumdumass said:..." So I guess it falls to the police officer's judgment to determine whether your statement meets the terry requirements.
That is a very low bar. If you tell the cop that I threatened to hit you, that qualifies. If you tell the cop that I'm hovering, pacing near you, making you uncomfortable, and your afraid I might try something, that qualifies as well - in fact the actual case in Terry was quite similar to that.
Well, in Terry, the cop in question described a situation where it looked like they were casing the join for a robbery and the group of people somewhat matched a reported group of suspects. I'm not sure that hovering or pacing near someone on it's own meets the requirements. As for "sumdumass said", well this again will be subject to later examination. What would happen is that after nothing was said to indicate a law being broke, then a potential lawsuit situation opens up. Your not really going to win in a direct fight with the cops, they will force your into an actual violation of the law so give the name and follow up later.
We don't really know what the security guard in this particular case said to the police officer, "he threatened me by taking my picture in public" probably wouldn't cut it, but "he was hovering, leering, taking pictures, and acting aggressively" probably would. I have no problem believing that the security guard inflated the incident, or, for that matter, that the guy who got arrested was acting a lot more irately than he lets on.
That could be. However, what if it was just a "he took my picture and then talked back when I told him to stay put? Would the questioning then be legitimate or the subsequent arrest for refusing to cooperate with the officer? That's the question I want answered out of this. Can any complaint, regardless of if a law being broke in any way was involved or not, be enough reason to detain someone and then escalate it to an actual arrest? I don't think it is.
I asked why does Obama want to quash stem cell research. "Power" is a non-answer; he has the power by having the guidelines researches have to follow, whether those guidelines exclude stem cell research or not. The question is, what does this accomplish, and why would he deliberately restrict the old lines from being used, yet deliberately allow new lines to be created?
Don't confuse the use of power with getting power. Power can be obtained by the support of powerful people. Think drug lobby and a medical system that treats symptoms instead of cures.
o yeah. I completely get that politicians will say one thing and do another, thanks. Now please start making sense, and explain how this makes sense.
I thought it was pretty obvious as I already stated it. I guess your one of the people who are still buffaloed into thinking Obama was something special. He isn't, it's the same crap, the names have changed and who is leveraging who has changed but it's all the same BS.
It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.
How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply? The ocean currents play a very deep and integrated part into the weather/climate of the planet. There was a study done in colorado which claimed that all of earths recorded warming can be attributed to changes in ocean temps. There was another claiming that the decadal oscillations have more of an effect on the climate and temperatures then Co2 has. Then there is the idea that the decadal oscillations have something to do with the solar cycles and the magnetic effects on the earth's magnetosphere and the solar storms we see.
Now we are being told the ocean currents are completely different then once believed. it's a matter of time before the differences are connected or disconnected to the other works but we are seeing the possibility that Global warming or climate change as they like to call it after the warming stopped, is completely founded in erroneous information and needs to be reexamined. We cannot in good faith claim that global warming is fact today given the severity of this claim. It's simply impossible to do so.
Sure you don't get it. Just like Stalin constantly told the world that the polish would have their sovereignty back as soon as Germany was defeated. Politicians often say one thing to passify the masses and then do the opposite under some obscure justification. And with something like stem cells, it so low on the majorities radar that the context of reversing what was seen as a religious blockade but maintaining it under a different guise would be just as consistent but not anything different.
You asked why? Power, support from those who have the power, and control. I don't think there has been a modern president who wasn't in support of more federal government control in the last 30 years. Even with Reagan talking against large government controls and such, quite a few things were opted by the federal government and strongly controlled by it. The war on drugs anyone?
This will be even harder for you foreigners who don't know the proper term for American and use USian out of complete and total ignorance, but the role of the government is what the people allow it to be. Currently, the constitution and the bastardization of it is the limits for the federal government. The federal government has no power to regulate anything concerning fat nor does it have the power over the cost of medicine.
We are not subjects of the crown here in America. We are not the property of our elected leaders and we aren't subject to the whims of congress outside the established constitutional provisions in which what you eat and medical costs aren't involved.
I don't ever remember the government attempting to say who you could sleep with, they just didn't want some people to get married. That's a long ways of difference.
My position is that if you call the police and tell them that I'm threatening you, the minimum burden for a terry stop has been met. That means they can detain me and perform a cursory search of my person. They can't come into my house or search it - that would require a warrant. They can ask my identity, whether I'm obligated to answer depends entirely on state law.
If I refuse to identify myself and the state has a stop-and-identify law, I can be arrested because the police would have probable cause to believe I've violated the stop-and-identify statute. If the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law I can be arrested if the obstruction law is drafted to cover the situation. If the state obstruction law can't be construed to compel me to identify myself, I can sit there with my mouth shut.
I don't think there needs to be an stop and Identify law once a Terry stop or worse is in play. I think that's just some tool cops can use in the stated in which the law exist to feel more macho. Once the criteria for a Terry stop has been established, the officer is involved with a full blown investigation, even if it turns out to have been nothing wrong happening.
As for searching the house and whatever, that's sort of the point in how this turned into nonsense so quickly. You call the cops and say I was threatened, the cop shows up and asked you how, you say well he said he took a picture and when I told him to remain there until I was done, he said no. Then when I said I would chase him down and tackle him, he said good luck with that and said he would treat it as an attack. Now, where is the hint of the law being broken by anyone other then the ATM guard? But if the guard said he threatened to take the money, the a law is in jeopardy. From my understanding, it didn't reach that far though, the guy didn't break a law and did little more then anything other then be an ass in the way he talked to the people and took a picture or two. I don't think a Terry stop could hold in this.
The officer does have the right to ask me any question he wants. I'm not obligated to answer any of them, with the possible exception for biographical information. I have the right to remain silent.
Well, this is the part in question I guess. You are most likely not allowed to lie by answering questions that don't stop you from using your right against self incrimination or of being secure in your person, papers, and effects with false statements. You are not required to answer questions that could violate your constitutional rights, but the courts already said that in a terry stop, giving you name doesn't violate any constitutional rights. So it would appear that your not protected from not giving your name in the least regardless of whether there is a stop and identify law or not.
Well, they can perform a terry stop, but beyond that, unless the person they stop has a weapon or drugs, confesses they intend to hurt the person, or otherwise gives the cop probable cause to believe a crime is about to be committed, the police are powerless to do anything (especially if the accused gives his name.)
Well, lets be clear on this, I know what you were attempting to get at but I just wanted to point out that possession of a weapon or drugs isn't an automatic problem without showing intent to use them illegally. There are many legal drugs and weapons people can have, some of which double as tools or toys and medications for animals (horse tranqs are speed in people) as well as prescriptions for people. I won't be arrested if you left your prescription vocodene in my car and I was taking it to you. But yea, illegal drugs or illegal weapons, they fill the bill.
I fully expect the cops to respond every single time someone calls them. They can then question and frisk the accused. I don't view the fact that the police can frisk anyone they've received a c
The charge was creating a panic though. That is a legitimate charge if the actions in question back it up or support it. This is what the op was getting at and is relevant because of the law being used to go after him. Not all speech is or should be protected.
For you first point, i feel threatened by you right now, can the cops come over to your house and search it, demand your identification and stop you from leaving until they are finished with whatever they are doing? Of course not. So even if a security guard is scared, there still are limits to how a Terry stop is handled and what can be "specific and articulable facts" that meet the requirements for it. The court also said that the "specific and articulable facts" must be pointing to the person breaking the law, has broken the law, or is about to break the law and those "specific and articulable facts" must be able the behavior to make the cop believe the law in question was being broken.
Now keep in mind, I was originally replying to a parent post which said "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." My point was that they need a valid reason to stop and question you. That's what Terry said.
For your second point.
met, since the security guard "felt threatened" (which is BS, but besides the point).
Second, neither Hiible nor Terry rule on whether the police can compel you to give your name if the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law, as is the case in Washington.
The Hiible case was over a terry stop and the court said it didn't violate any constitutional protections to require or give your name. Most states (all that I know of, there may be a few who don't) have laws about interfering with an official police investigation. Again, this has to be a terry stop or more severe but if you don't identify yourself (at least verbally by name) you could be charged with that type of law.
Since the police took him to the station, handcuffed him, and provided him with his Miranda rights, it would seem, for all intents and purposes, that the PD elevated this from a terry-stop to a full fledged arrest, which requires the higher burden of probable cause. The Seattle PD is going to have a hard time making the case that they had probable cause to believe a crime took place based on the picture taking incident, so they'll probably fall back on obstruction.
I agree and think it will be somewhat subjective to whatever the officer can cook up. However, I'm concerned that someone can cause a police officer to open an investigation for taking a picture and being an ass. I mean he would have to be in an active investigation for obstruction to work. Even if it's a terry stop, the cop still has to believe that a law is going to be, has been or is being broken. I'm confused to where that comes into play over taking a picture and being an ass.
It doesn't seem that Hiible provides any guidance on whether failing to identify yourself constitutes obstruction.
While it doesn't spell it out, I think it is somewhat implied. Hiible said that it wasn't unconstitutional under a Terry stop or better. Even without a specific law, if the officer has the ability to investigate and through that investigation ability, the officer can ask questions, and the interaction with the subject is a terry stop or better, then your pretty much required to answer anything that doesn't tread on your constitutional rights which Hiible already said giving you name wasn't. The big question here is whether or not there was some specific and articulate fact that lead the officer to believe a law has been, is being, or is about to be broken in order to make it a detention and then an arrest.
It seems to me that the photographer in this case, if he so desires, (possibly pro-bono support from the ACLU) could file suit against the Seattle PD in an attempt win a settlement, err I mean flesh out a legal gray zone.
The sad thing is that the person in trouble described themselves as an anarchist which means they won't have the abi
Here is what your missing that I think will put this all together in a more understanding way.
Terry determined that there was three basic types of interaction with the police in which a person can have. All interaction will fit into one of these categories. The first is a completely voluntary where you or I walk up to the police and just talk with them or the police walk up and just talk with us. The second is a detention where the police is has a good and reasonable reason to suspect your involved in a crime or might become involved in a crime. Then finally there is an actual arrest.
Terry determined that being detained by the police was in fact a seizure (because you are not free to walk away and leave) and being patted down or required to answer questions was indeed a search and the fourth amendment as well as any other restrictions applied. The court stated that the fourth doesn't protect you from all search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure so it allowed specifics to how a terry stop could be performed.
Hiibel stated the law was legal insomuch as it involved a terry stop or a lawful detention and or an arrest. The facts of Hiibel made it a terry stop and because the supreme court had defined what is necessary for a detention stop in Terry, the stop and identify was constitutional in that extent. The ruling did not reverse Terry's premise but legitimized the stop and identify law based around the terry circumstances.
What we are left with because the fact Terry still stands is that despite the naming of the law or the general attitude of the police, the police has to have a reason in compliance with Terry to "detain" (seize) you in order to search you or compel you to give your name, or the forth amendment kicks in.
I hope that clears it up a little. Hiibel didn't override Terry, it actually looked at the law as applied under the Terry circumstances in which Terry made it clear that there has to be a reason to detain someone. They are both interdependent on each other. The prominent point is when the police "seize" (detain) someone and they aren't able to freely walk away.
I guess the question here is, "was the call and complain worthy of the officer's legal investigation"? If the answer is no as in the security guards called 911 because McDonald's was out of chicken nuggets, then no, the cop doesn't have reason to ask you- a second or third party for ID. According to the Terry Rules, the cop has to have has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. If the complaint has nothing to do with a crime that a reasonable person could associate with one, then it's not a valid stop.
Now keep in mind, there are operatives at work here. The cop has to be legitimately investigating a crime or a suspicion of a crime about to happen with reasonable suspicion of your involvement or potential involvement to approach you. You don't know if this is happening until your interaction with the officers so your probably better off providing ID and following up on the situation later by either seeking disciplinary action against the officer or a lawsuit (which will force the same).
Look at it this way, a cop cannot pull you over and give you a speeding ticket if he didn't observe you speeding. He can't wait in a parking lot until you come out of the Video Store and issue a citation for speeding because he knows you have at some point in time and didn't get caught. The cop has to have a legitimate reason to be in contact with you which is considerably more restrictive then what the GP said with "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)."
Yep, you and I agree but sadly it's over something that screws us both. OTOH, I wouldn't want a cop to be second guessing every contact so I can see some leeway built into it. It just shouldn't be so much that it allows abuse like we see readily practiced with some officers.
IANAL, but if you refuse to ID yourself, and your state has a Stop and Identify law, then yes, the police can arrest you.
The cop has to have a reason to ask for your ID. In other words, the cops can't just walk up and say let me see your ID. If they are, they are breaking some laws themselves as well as violating your 4th amendment rights.
oral of the story is, if you leave in one of those states mentioned above that has a stop and identify statute, yes, you can be arrested and charged with a crime.
Now, the first link you referenced where the supreme court allowed for identification to be required is for a "detention stop" which places the cops under the Terry rules. There has to be "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" in order for it to be legal. If the cop stops you and can't comply with that, then there is grounds for a complain and possible lawsuit.
The parent said "Who gives a fuck? The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." that is incorrect, the cops have to have a reason to make the stop. They can't just walk up to someone and say give me you ID of I'll arrest you, even if a state law says so. And if they do, and it leads to finding something illegal out about you, it will all be inadmissible under the poisoned fruit doctrine.
I personally think they are going the wrong route with fuel cells anyways.
They could just as easy use H2O2 to run a pneumatic motor that would charge a set of batteries and assist with driving the motors if necessary. At an expansion ratio of 600 to 1 for a 50% solution, it almost rivals the power of an internal combustible engine used in the hybrids and is just as easy to handle as hydrogen would be. Turn the hybrids into Plug in EVs and it will last quite a while but not only does it have the potential to run the electric motors when battery power is low, a monitoring circuit could be installed to charge the batteries if the car is off more then 10 minutes without being plugged in. That would serve the purpose of making sure a charge is present when needed as well as not leaving someone stranded with a dead battery and no means to move. You also have the added benefit of not needed to use electricity to heat the car or defrost the windshields as the expansion creates about 300 degrees of heat that could easily be captured.
The ethanol estimate must have been back when they were lucky to get 1.3 units of energy for every unit put in. That means after production, they only had.3 units of energy left to be used for cars.
However, that has changed somewhat and some enzyme and cellulose treatments are seeing 7.8 to 1 and much more which means for every unit used to create ethanol, almost 7 units are created to by used elsewhere. Some of that work was going in to using grass and making use of the corn stalks too.
Anyways, it's still not a single solution but it isn't the pipe dream of yesteryear anymore either.
I think you need to revisit the proper usage of Godwin. Or has it actually been perverted to the point that any mention of the holocaust, Hitler or WWII or anything that could have possibly been involved now screwed?
Is riffle now code to invoke Godwin too? requiring someone to produce their papers for committing a public act in a public place even if it was a private place with public access and no posted or conspicuous rules banning the public act has little difference the branding people for whatever reason. Godwin was created because people eventually compare others with hitler or the holocaust or whatever. The usage here was appropriate and I'm not sure Godwin was invoked.
The only public place is outside, on the door, on the street. Inside of the building is the ownership of the business owners, who contracted these guys to do their work.
If a place is open to the public, then it is lawfully considered a public place until someone in a position of authority tells you differently. The position of authority could be the owner or the owner's agent and generally you are barred from being on the property after that. Until that happens, it is a public place and the same rules apply unless other rules are conspicuously posted somewhere.
This is why a cop can bust you in a parking lot even though they don't like to cite tickets for accidents that happen in them (they can and will get you for speeding and dangerous operation). A cop can bust you for fighting on private property that has public access but on private property without public access, someone needs to make a complaint.
The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
It's been my experience that the cops are the ones being asses and overstepping their badges. Perhaps this was more of a case of protecting their immage and the cops just didn't want everyone to think they could be dickheads at will like they are?
Slashdot Mirror
What gets me is that these people who think raising the costs of everything is the answer, totally ignore the fact that it raises the costs on essential items like food, transportation to and from work, police and fire services, and so on.
They don't seem to care that the 3.5/gallon (*which I strongly think was supposed to be $3.50) will only decrees GHGs because it deprives people of their funding and ability to do what they want, their freedom, and sets the precedence of a rich class entitlement because they are the ones who now can afford things. The entire mortgage meltdown and banking crisis came to a front because energy costs went sky high and people had to make decisions over driving to work or paying the mortgage. Sure, there were some fundamental flaws built into the situation that would have eventually needed to be ironed out but the energy costs a year ago, brought it front and center and created the problems we are seeing today. It caused the price of food, clothing, transportation to and from work, taking care of your family and many other things to skyrocket and make a good portion of the people uncomfortable financially.
And the worst part is that they want to do this again under the guise of saving the world from something that is on as shaky grounds as this.
There is a federal law in the books that says if you fail to report a feloni, you have commited a crime. It's called misprision of a felony. I was actually thinking it was any crime originally so I will concede this point to you. I guess the exception might be when you committed the crime or can incriminate yourself in the reporting of it.
I agree but the way the story unfolded (and yes, it was one sided and I never do anything wrong), it didn't seem like anything was actually against the law, just concern over someone seeing the secrete inside of an ATM.
I think your right. That brings me to another question, which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court. I'll refrain from going liberal or conservative seeing how both seem to be acting opposite as if trying to set the definition for oxymoron in how they act compared to what they say recently.
The warming has been observed but the causation of the warming hasn't. The entire Co2 model rests on the premise that with everything else understood the way it was, it was the only significant difference that a cause and effect could be attached to.
Now there has been studies that indicate that For any given area on the ocean's surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. If the thermal capacity of the ocean is this strong, then we have to look at the effect of currents straying from our assumed paths and the heat transfer this caused. Granted, we still could have Co2 as a mechanism here because the oceans are giant carbon sinks and the cooler they are, the more carbon they can hold verses releasing it when they warm.
Anyways, here is how this can effect the global temperature which is why it needs to be carefully examines. If warmer parts of the ocean effect cooler parts, and with the top 2.6 meters of the ocean carrying all the heat potential as the entire atmosphere, then three things could happen, one is a release of Co2, the second is abnormal evaporation in which the relative humidity increases, the third is an insignificant increase in heat in the areas effected that weren't previously known to have been interacting with the currents. Well, we have observed all three of those inside the climate models for Co2. But here is a kicker that suggest the interaction is more prevailing then we are giving credit for, Hansen claimed the GISS heat models were wrong because the ocean was action like a sink for the excess heat. The heat deficit calculated for 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. was actually blaming the anthropogenic Co2 in the global warming model but a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al stated that in 2005 the steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects which is an effect of heat) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly which contradicts the global warming model in play right now.
We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here. When you look at a lot of the other works which don't quite fit and need some explaining, then take this into consideration, it's obvious that we need to go back to the beginning. And this time, it should be done by someone not pushing an agenda. The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that it was hijacked by politics and you have some who created a religion out of it. The effects the entire premise of the understanding of the effects of anthropogenic global warming and the effects it maintains on the numerous failed predictions being thrown out to scare people.
Well, actually, the federal governemnt has no right in saying who can sleep with who or who should get married. I took the reply of the parent to mean that the previous administration was speaking out against gays which they weren't to the extent other then gay marriage.
I agree it's a slippery slope and we have been on and off it for a while now. But there is a huge difference between lobbying for a legal proceeding (marriage) to remain the same as it has historically been cast verses arguing against two consenting adults having sexual relations. That was the point I was attempting to make.
No, I just don't take laws in anally retarded states to mean the federal government.
Or does an article about the federal government doing the "same as usual" quantify all state governments underneath it. If you think it does, then you should look into the structure of the US a little more and learn a few things.
The federal government has not told people who they can sleep with period. At least not United States of America.
That's what Obstruction laws specifically do. They criminalize your lack of participation with the cops during an investigation. You don't need a specific law saying X when X is part of another law. And either, the specific law or the section of another law, require a set of circumstances to be true in order to be applicable.
Well, in Terry, the cop in question described a situation where it looked like they were casing the join for a robbery and the group of people somewhat matched a reported group of suspects. I'm not sure that hovering or pacing near someone on it's own meets the requirements. As for "sumdumass said", well this again will be subject to later examination. What would happen is that after nothing was said to indicate a law being broke, then a potential lawsuit situation opens up. Your not really going to win in a direct fight with the cops, they will force your into an actual violation of the law so give the name and follow up later.
That could be. However, what if it was just a "he took my picture and then talked back when I told him to stay put? Would the questioning then be legitimate or the subsequent arrest for refusing to cooperate with the officer? That's the question I want answered out of this. Can any complaint, regardless of if a law being broke in any way was involved or not, be enough reason to detain someone and then escalate it to an actual arrest? I don't think it is.
Don't confuse the use of power with getting power. Power can be obtained by the support of powerful people. Think drug lobby and a medical system that treats symptoms instead of cures.
I thought it was pretty obvious as I already stated it. I guess your one of the people who are still buffaloed into thinking Obama was something special. He isn't, it's the same crap, the names have changed and who is leveraging who has changed but it's all the same BS.
How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply? The ocean currents play a very deep and integrated part into the weather/climate of the planet. There was a study done in colorado which claimed that all of earths recorded warming can be attributed to changes in ocean temps. There was another claiming that the decadal oscillations have more of an effect on the climate and temperatures then Co2 has. Then there is the idea that the decadal oscillations have something to do with the solar cycles and the magnetic effects on the earth's magnetosphere and the solar storms we see.
Now we are being told the ocean currents are completely different then once believed. it's a matter of time before the differences are connected or disconnected to the other works but we are seeing the possibility that Global warming or climate change as they like to call it after the warming stopped, is completely founded in erroneous information and needs to be reexamined. We cannot in good faith claim that global warming is fact today given the severity of this claim. It's simply impossible to do so.
Sure you don't get it. Just like Stalin constantly told the world that the polish would have their sovereignty back as soon as Germany was defeated. Politicians often say one thing to passify the masses and then do the opposite under some obscure justification. And with something like stem cells, it so low on the majorities radar that the context of reversing what was seen as a religious blockade but maintaining it under a different guise would be just as consistent but not anything different.
You asked why? Power, support from those who have the power, and control. I don't think there has been a modern president who wasn't in support of more federal government control in the last 30 years. Even with Reagan talking against large government controls and such, quite a few things were opted by the federal government and strongly controlled by it. The war on drugs anyone?
This will be even harder for you foreigners who don't know the proper term for American and use USian out of complete and total ignorance, but the role of the government is what the people allow it to be. Currently, the constitution and the bastardization of it is the limits for the federal government. The federal government has no power to regulate anything concerning fat nor does it have the power over the cost of medicine.
We are not subjects of the crown here in America. We are not the property of our elected leaders and we aren't subject to the whims of congress outside the established constitutional provisions in which what you eat and medical costs aren't involved.
I don't ever remember the government attempting to say who you could sleep with, they just didn't want some people to get married. That's a long ways of difference.
I don't think there needs to be an stop and Identify law once a Terry stop or worse is in play. I think that's just some tool cops can use in the stated in which the law exist to feel more macho. Once the criteria for a Terry stop has been established, the officer is involved with a full blown investigation, even if it turns out to have been nothing wrong happening.
As for searching the house and whatever, that's sort of the point in how this turned into nonsense so quickly. You call the cops and say I was threatened, the cop shows up and asked you how, you say well he said he took a picture and when I told him to remain there until I was done, he said no. Then when I said I would chase him down and tackle him, he said good luck with that and said he would treat it as an attack. Now, where is the hint of the law being broken by anyone other then the ATM guard? But if the guard said he threatened to take the money, the a law is in jeopardy. From my understanding, it didn't reach that far though, the guy didn't break a law and did little more then anything other then be an ass in the way he talked to the people and took a picture or two. I don't think a Terry stop could hold in this.
Well, this is the part in question I guess. You are most likely not allowed to lie by answering questions that don't stop you from using your right against self incrimination or of being secure in your person, papers, and effects with false statements. You are not required to answer questions that could violate your constitutional rights, but the courts already said that in a terry stop, giving you name doesn't violate any constitutional rights. So it would appear that your not protected from not giving your name in the least regardless of whether there is a stop and identify law or not.
Well, lets be clear on this, I know what you were attempting to get at but I just wanted to point out that possession of a weapon or drugs isn't an automatic problem without showing intent to use them illegally. There are many legal drugs and weapons people can have, some of which double as tools or toys and medications for animals (horse tranqs are speed in people) as well as prescriptions for people. I won't be arrested if you left your prescription vocodene in my car and I was taking it to you. But yea, illegal drugs or illegal weapons, they fill the bill.
The charge was creating a panic though. That is a legitimate charge if the actions in question back it up or support it. This is what the op was getting at and is relevant because of the law being used to go after him. Not all speech is or should be protected.
The guy was arrested for inciting a panic. That's the effect of shouting fire in a crowded theater and why you can't do it.
For you first point, i feel threatened by you right now, can the cops come over to your house and search it, demand your identification and stop you from leaving until they are finished with whatever they are doing? Of course not. So even if a security guard is scared, there still are limits to how a Terry stop is handled and what can be "specific and articulable facts" that meet the requirements for it. The court also said that the "specific and articulable facts" must be pointing to the person breaking the law, has broken the law, or is about to break the law and those "specific and articulable facts" must be able the behavior to make the cop believe the law in question was being broken.
Now keep in mind, I was originally replying to a parent post which said "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." My point was that they need a valid reason to stop and question you. That's what Terry said.
For your second point.
The Hiible case was over a terry stop and the court said it didn't violate any constitutional protections to require or give your name. Most states (all that I know of, there may be a few who don't) have laws about interfering with an official police investigation. Again, this has to be a terry stop or more severe but if you don't identify yourself (at least verbally by name) you could be charged with that type of law.
I agree and think it will be somewhat subjective to whatever the officer can cook up. However, I'm concerned that someone can cause a police officer to open an investigation for taking a picture and being an ass. I mean he would have to be in an active investigation for obstruction to work. Even if it's a terry stop, the cop still has to believe that a law is going to be, has been or is being broken. I'm confused to where that comes into play over taking a picture and being an ass.
While it doesn't spell it out, I think it is somewhat implied. Hiible said that it wasn't unconstitutional under a Terry stop or better. Even without a specific law, if the officer has the ability to investigate and through that investigation ability, the officer can ask questions, and the interaction with the subject is a terry stop or better, then your pretty much required to answer anything that doesn't tread on your constitutional rights which Hiible already said giving you name wasn't. The big question here is whether or not there was some specific and articulate fact that lead the officer to believe a law has been, is being, or is about to be broken in order to make it a detention and then an arrest.
The sad thing is that the person in trouble described themselves as an anarchist which means they won't have the abi
Here is what your missing that I think will put this all together in a more understanding way.
Terry determined that there was three basic types of interaction with the police in which a person can have. All interaction will fit into one of these categories. The first is a completely voluntary where you or I walk up to the police and just talk with them or the police walk up and just talk with us. The second is a detention where the police is has a good and reasonable reason to suspect your involved in a crime or might become involved in a crime. Then finally there is an actual arrest.
Terry determined that being detained by the police was in fact a seizure (because you are not free to walk away and leave) and being patted down or required to answer questions was indeed a search and the fourth amendment as well as any other restrictions applied. The court stated that the fourth doesn't protect you from all search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure so it allowed specifics to how a terry stop could be performed.
Hiibel stated the law was legal insomuch as it involved a terry stop or a lawful detention and or an arrest. The facts of Hiibel made it a terry stop and because the supreme court had defined what is necessary for a detention stop in Terry, the stop and identify was constitutional in that extent. The ruling did not reverse Terry's premise but legitimized the stop and identify law based around the terry circumstances.
What we are left with because the fact Terry still stands is that despite the naming of the law or the general attitude of the police, the police has to have a reason in compliance with Terry to "detain" (seize) you in order to search you or compel you to give your name, or the forth amendment kicks in.
I hope that clears it up a little. Hiibel didn't override Terry, it actually looked at the law as applied under the Terry circumstances in which Terry made it clear that there has to be a reason to detain someone. They are both interdependent on each other. The prominent point is when the police "seize" (detain) someone and they aren't able to freely walk away.
Here is the syllabus of the Hiibel case and you can see that it validates it through the Terry ruling.
I guess the question here is, "was the call and complain worthy of the officer's legal investigation"? If the answer is no as in the security guards called 911 because McDonald's was out of chicken nuggets, then no, the cop doesn't have reason to ask you- a second or third party for ID. According to the Terry Rules, the cop has to have has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. If the complaint has nothing to do with a crime that a reasonable person could associate with one, then it's not a valid stop.
Now keep in mind, there are operatives at work here. The cop has to be legitimately investigating a crime or a suspicion of a crime about to happen with reasonable suspicion of your involvement or potential involvement to approach you. You don't know if this is happening until your interaction with the officers so your probably better off providing ID and following up on the situation later by either seeking disciplinary action against the officer or a lawsuit (which will force the same).
Look at it this way, a cop cannot pull you over and give you a speeding ticket if he didn't observe you speeding. He can't wait in a parking lot until you come out of the Video Store and issue a citation for speeding because he knows you have at some point in time and didn't get caught. The cop has to have a legitimate reason to be in contact with you which is considerably more restrictive then what the GP said with "The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)."
*sigh
Yep, you and I agree but sadly it's over something that screws us both. OTOH, I wouldn't want a cop to be second guessing every contact so I can see some leeway built into it. It just shouldn't be so much that it allows abuse like we see readily practiced with some officers.
The cop has to have a reason to ask for your ID. In other words, the cops can't just walk up and say let me see your ID. If they are, they are breaking some laws themselves as well as violating your 4th amendment rights.
In Terry V Ohio, the supreme court limited the ability to stop someone to suspicion of breaking a law or posing a danger to someone and the officer needs to be able to back that up with specific and articulable facts. While those two states may have the laws on the books, the enforcement of them will be limited to specifics as outlined by the supreme court.
Now, the first link you referenced where the supreme court allowed for identification to be required is for a "detention stop" which places the cops under the Terry rules. There has to be "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" in order for it to be legal. If the cop stops you and can't comply with that, then there is grounds for a complain and possible lawsuit.
The parent said "Who gives a fuck? The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?)." that is incorrect, the cops have to have a reason to make the stop. They can't just walk up to someone and say give me you ID of I'll arrest you, even if a state law says so. And if they do, and it leads to finding something illegal out about you, it will all be inadmissible under the poisoned fruit doctrine.
I personally think they are going the wrong route with fuel cells anyways.
They could just as easy use H2O2 to run a pneumatic motor that would charge a set of batteries and assist with driving the motors if necessary. At an expansion ratio of 600 to 1 for a 50% solution, it almost rivals the power of an internal combustible engine used in the hybrids and is just as easy to handle as hydrogen would be. Turn the hybrids into Plug in EVs and it will last quite a while but not only does it have the potential to run the electric motors when battery power is low, a monitoring circuit could be installed to charge the batteries if the car is off more then 10 minutes without being plugged in. That would serve the purpose of making sure a charge is present when needed as well as not leaving someone stranded with a dead battery and no means to move. You also have the added benefit of not needed to use electricity to heat the car or defrost the windshields as the expansion creates about 300 degrees of heat that could easily be captured.
The ethanol estimate must have been back when they were lucky to get 1.3 units of energy for every unit put in. That means after production, they only had .3 units of energy left to be used for cars.
However, that has changed somewhat and some enzyme and cellulose treatments are seeing 7.8 to 1 and much more which means for every unit used to create ethanol, almost 7 units are created to by used elsewhere. Some of that work was going in to using grass and making use of the corn stalks too.
Anyways, it's still not a single solution but it isn't the pipe dream of yesteryear anymore either.
I think you need to revisit the proper usage of Godwin. Or has it actually been perverted to the point that any mention of the holocaust, Hitler or WWII or anything that could have possibly been involved now screwed?
Is riffle now code to invoke Godwin too? requiring someone to produce their papers for committing a public act in a public place even if it was a private place with public access and no posted or conspicuous rules banning the public act has little difference the branding people for whatever reason. Godwin was created because people eventually compare others with hitler or the holocaust or whatever. The usage here was appropriate and I'm not sure Godwin was invoked.
If a place is open to the public, then it is lawfully considered a public place until someone in a position of authority tells you differently. The position of authority could be the owner or the owner's agent and generally you are barred from being on the property after that. Until that happens, it is a public place and the same rules apply unless other rules are conspicuously posted somewhere.
This is why a cop can bust you in a parking lot even though they don't like to cite tickets for accidents that happen in them (they can and will get you for speeding and dangerous operation). A cop can bust you for fighting on private property that has public access but on private property without public access, someone needs to make a complaint.
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
It's been my experience that the cops are the ones being asses and overstepping their badges. Perhaps this was more of a case of protecting their immage and the cops just didn't want everyone to think they could be dickheads at will like they are?
Seriously, I'm serious.