From what I remember of my training, in normal vehicle stops, you should keep complete control of the situation. This is for the officers safety.
So, if a police officer and a member of the public go into a traffic-stop situation, the safety of the member of the public can be sacrificed for the safety of the police officer, despite the fact that in that situation the police officer is actually being paid to take the risk to his safety. I believe that someone around here once told me that I have a 'slave attitude' - I now pass that title on to you. Take care of it.
That may be Watts' claim or your interpretation, but the charges for which he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer. This obviously does not jive with what Watts' claimed, though I found his original summary and the nauseating prose linked to in the article totally totally unsympathetic. I guess there was no video of the border crossing...I was hoping it would come out so the truth would be readily apparent.
You need to catch up on the story. The choking thing was shown to be a complete fabrication on cross-examination. The only thing that he was convicted of was not getting back into his car immediately.
nobody is going to assume that there is no knife, gun, etc present.
That is exactly what they should do. When the SAS was deployed to Northern Ireland, they were specifically told that if they shot someone who didn't turn out to have a gun, they would have no defence against a murder conviction. You should assume that somoene does not have a knife or gun until it becomes apparent that they actually do.
They also require satellite capability so that removes the issue of terrorists, unless a state is ready to provide an access to their military satellites.
Sounds like it needs GPS at most - 25 of these (100 missiles) could be fired in a co-ordinated attack worldwide before anyone thought to shut down the GPS system, and for shutting GPS down to be effective, Glonass, Galileo & whatever the Chinese one is called would all have to be killed in short order. Tell me, if you're China and the US claims that it's under attack & could you shut your GPS down to stop it, would you?
How many more isolated incidents from statistically insignificant "bad apples" does it take before people realize that this behavior is closer to rule and not exception?
Sir Humphrey: "These are just a few isolated examples..." Jim Hacker: [waving a large folder of papers] "I've got another 700 isolated examples here"
"Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful."
Upshot: If the police officer genuinely believed that what he was doing was legal, it doesn't matter if it actually wasn't.
The easiest method is just to toss in a hard drive, and store the copies on there.
How is that easiest? Now you have to add a HDD controller to the gubbins of the photocopier, and if your control system is an embedded PC of some sort anyway, why not use a RAM disk (and deallocate the memory at the end of the 5 copies) Then you're just adding more of one component that was going in anyway, rather than two whole extra ones.
A written policy can't fire you and won't be there to help you get your job back
One would hope that the courts would be there to get you a metric butt-ton of lost earnings when it becomes apparent that you were fired for insubbordination which didn't happen. (In the same way that Lt Foo isn't supposed to follow Capt. Bar's orders when they countermand those of Maj. Baz)
ok, so how will they undo the equally real damage caused if these people sue for libel and the posters sucessfully defend their comments? Have a possibly valid claim against someone shouldn't entitle you to broad use of judicial process to harm them.
stupid quote. Use "Free speech, if it is anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". That actually explains why we have to allow people to say things that we don't like, rather than being merely a statement of the value which Voltair placed on free speech.
exactly. The ISPs customers are paying for whatever they want to be transported to them. If anything, Google should start billing the ISPs for providing the content that their customers want to see into the ISPs networks.
Yes, he's no longer caused an inefficient court email system to clog up, he's caused an unrelated personal mail box of a person who happens to work for the court to clog up. Now I see the difference, it's even less of a problem, and even further removed from a legitimate contempt charge than the summary makes out.
And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method.
Wrong. "You can say what you like, but only to this wall" - still got free speech?
The problem is that the world is changing - everyone now feels entitled to an opinion and by jimminy they're going to tell you it. However, there's no actual process for letting the public in general interact with the courts and so you get a mess like this. Not helped by the other change which is the erosion of free speech, encouraged by people like you, who will happily castrate it with the "only the right to say what you want, not when you want or where you want" mantra.
Contempt of Court is pretty simple. Any action which defies the court's authority or is disruptive to the court is contempt of court.
That's sounds anything but simple. It sounds like an undefined law which exists to allow a judge to imprison someone without a crime having been committed.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I remember of my training, in normal vehicle stops, you should keep complete control of the situation. This is for the officers safety.
So, if a police officer and a member of the public go into a traffic-stop situation, the safety of the member of the public can be sacrificed for the safety of the police officer, despite the fact that in that situation the police officer is actually being paid to take the risk to his safety.
I believe that someone around here once told me that I have a 'slave attitude' - I now pass that title on to you. Take care of it.
That may be Watts' claim or your interpretation, but the charges for which he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer. This obviously does not jive with what Watts' claimed, though I found his original summary and the nauseating prose linked to in the article totally totally unsympathetic. I guess there was no video of the border crossing...I was hoping it would come out so the truth would be readily apparent.
You need to catch up on the story. The choking thing was shown to be a complete fabrication on cross-examination. The only thing that he was convicted of was not getting back into his car immediately.
nobody is going to assume that there is no knife, gun, etc present.
That is exactly what they should do. When the SAS was deployed to Northern Ireland, they were specifically told that if they shot someone who didn't turn out to have a gun, they would have no defence against a murder conviction. You should assume that somoene does not have a knife or gun until it becomes apparent that they actually do.
They also require satellite capability so that removes the issue of terrorists, unless a state is ready to provide an access to their military satellites.
Sounds like it needs GPS at most - 25 of these (100 missiles) could be fired in a co-ordinated attack worldwide before anyone thought to shut down the GPS system, and for shutting GPS down to be effective, Glonass, Galileo & whatever the Chinese one is called would all have to be killed in short order. Tell me, if you're China and the US claims that it's under attack & could you shut your GPS down to stop it, would you?
Selling it someone other than the owner is where it gets iffy, though.
Trying to sell it to its owner would be pretty iffy as well.
Abandoned property belongs to nobody.
Abandoning is a deliberate act - putting something down carelessly isn't abandoning it.
Appendix 1a - and I call myself a FORTRAN programmer!
I entirely agree.
I was summarising the post - putting it more plainly shows just how incredibly stupid priviliged immunity is.
How many more isolated incidents from statistically insignificant "bad apples" does it take before people realize that this behavior is closer to rule and not exception?
Sir Humphrey: "These are just a few isolated examples..."
Jim Hacker: [waving a large folder of papers] "I've got another 700 isolated examples here"
Not suspended, fired.
Imprisoned. And fired.
No-one else who breaks the law in the course of their employment gets away with just losing their job.
"Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful."
Upshot: If the police officer genuinely believed that what he was doing was legal, it doesn't matter if it actually wasn't.
The easiest method is just to toss in a hard drive, and store the copies on there.
How is that easiest? Now you have to add a HDD controller to the gubbins of the photocopier, and if your control system is an embedded PC of some sort anyway, why not use a RAM disk (and deallocate the memory at the end of the 5 copies) Then you're just adding more of one component that was going in anyway, rather than two whole extra ones.
A written policy can't fire you and won't be there to help you get your job back
One would hope that the courts would be there to get you a metric butt-ton of lost earnings when it becomes apparent that you were fired for insubbordination which didn't happen. (In the same way that Lt Foo isn't supposed to follow Capt. Bar's orders when they countermand those of Maj. Baz)
you can't put the anonymity back with a countersuit.
94% were male
Only 6% of cases were women.
Thanks! I lost my calculator last week!
125 officers died last year in the line of duty, this is the lowest its been in 50 years
How many members of the public were sacrificed because the cop shot first to keep that figure so low?
If you don't want to be tazed, then listen to the police.
How do you square that with the right (which still exists in 12 states) to resist a false arrest?
ok, so how will they undo the equally real damage caused if these people sue for libel and the posters sucessfully defend their comments? Have a possibly valid claim against someone shouldn't entitle you to broad use of judicial process to harm them.
You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
That's a new defintion of 'can'. I suppose I 'can' stick a toasting fork in your head too - woohoo for freedom.
stupid quote. Use "Free speech, if it is anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear".
That actually explains why we have to allow people to say things that we don't like, rather than being merely a statement of the value which Voltair placed on free speech.
exactly. The ISPs customers are paying for whatever they want to be transported to them. If anything, Google should start billing the ISPs for providing the content that their customers want to see into the ISPs networks.
Yes, he's no longer caused an inefficient court email system to clog up, he's caused an unrelated personal mail box of a person who happens to work for the court to clog up.
Now I see the difference, it's even less of a problem, and even further removed from a legitimate contempt charge than the summary makes out.
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief
Not true.
And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method.
Wrong. "You can say what you like, but only to this wall" - still got free speech?
The problem is that the world is changing - everyone now feels entitled to an opinion and by jimminy they're going to tell you it. However, there's no actual process for letting the public in general interact with the courts and so you get a mess like this.
Not helped by the other change which is the erosion of free speech, encouraged by people like you, who will happily castrate it with the "only the right to say what you want, not when you want or where you want" mantra.
Contempt of Court is pretty simple. Any action which defies the court's authority or is disruptive to the court is contempt of court.
That's sounds anything but simple. It sounds like an undefined law which exists to allow a judge to imprison someone without a crime having been committed.
no such thing as a "private" driveway when your driveway accepts traffic from public/open roadways.
gates (analogy: whitelist)
is not to be subject to undue influence.
What's due influence, if not the people who (probably) elected you and who you serve, telling you how they think that you should do your job?