Ah, I see. So coughing up originally involved admitting liability which would have made it a hell of a lot harder to subsequently fight the DMV for your money back. I can't see a better option for you to have taken there, since you wouldn't even have had a license to drive an old banger around on whilst you waited for the case to work its way through the courts. What I do see is a screwed-up system (the DMV shouldn't be able to administratively suspend your license and make you fight to get in un-suspended - it should be suspended only after conviction by a court), so I'll just say that that sucks and ask what area of the world this happened in so I can avoid it.
Your example is flawed, the cop isn't escalating anything and neither are you - he could just arrest you on the spot as the first interraction, to let you go on your way with a ticket is just a courtesy.
Ok, as I understand from other comments (no, I still haven't read TFA), she wasn't arrested at all, but let's assume that she was, for the sake of argument.
Teacher thinks pupil has cell phone, pupil refuses to hand phone over or be searched. Police officer is called. Now, pupils with cell phones are none of the Police's business - they're not there to enforce school rules, and the officer should have walked away. However, they didn't - they are assuming that failing further indications, the worse this pupil is carrying is a contraband phone (not illegal), they try to search. Pupil refuses consent for search. Refusal to volunteer to be searched does not create probable cause. Officer performs semi-intimate search anyway and comes up with contraband phone. Officer then starts questioning pupil about how to contact their parents (again, none of their business), this is information that the school should have had to hand, pupil is evasive.
The other side SHOULD have backed down, because in the end they took it too far (which has been my point all along). The choice to arrest a person is not made by the arrestee. It was the Police Officer's decision, and theirs alone to arrest this girl. It was the wrong decision and I hope they end up signing their paycheck over to her every month for at least the next year because of it.
You sold your old car to someone - an administrative screw-up meant that the DMV still thought it was yours, when a camera photographed it (presumably involved in something illegal) they suspended your license, they didn't tell you that your license had been suspended.
Some time later, you were pulled over for the most trivial of reasons and a computer check revealed that your license was marked as suspended, you were arrested (then released), your car impounded and you were essentially abandoned over 100 miles away from home.
When you went to the DMV it became immediately apparent that they'd screwed up, that your license should never have been suspended, and hence your car should never have been impounded. Your car was still impounded for a mandatory 30 days, and you were expected to pay 30 days worth of impound fee (despite the fact that your car should never have been impounded, as evidenced by the lack of a driving-on-a-suspended-license conviction).
I still don't understand why you didn't sue the DMV later, they were clearly in the wrong and cost you $800 plus whatever monetary value you put on not having your car for a month. You say there's no exception for wrongly suspended licenses, but surely a wrongly suspended license gets un-suspended backdated to when it was originally suspended (hence no actual suspension). How long ago did this all happen?
but we don't shoot them to stop them running. We chase, and if we fail to catch them then we fail to catch them. We don't just open fire when it looks like they're getting away. This is the same principle - the bar is lower.
The can choose whatever tools, of those which are appropriate in general, they feel most appropriate for this situation. Arresting a child to perform a search for a phone used in the classroom was not in the category "appropriate in general". But I don't think I'm going to convince you of that.
(nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,) without due process of law;
or
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;)
?
or, to put the question better, does the rider "without due process of law" apply to both prohibitions, or only the one directly preceeding it. If it's the latter then I don't know why it was brought up, if it's the former than the 5th amendment has never been worth anything anyway.
You didn't think to pay to get your car back, then sue for a refund, did you? The key to dealing with police officers is to be perfectly polite on the spot, and complain\sue later.
Except this isn't a charge by AT&T for making roaming work, this is a pass-on charge from the 3rd party provider Since he'd only just got on the ship, it's doubtful that he'd have been told of the cost, or even that he was racking up bills for doing business with a different company. Therefore, the rest of your reasoning collapses.
She's not the person in authority - she didn't escalate anything. Escalation of a situation can ONLY be performed by the person in authority.
Every time that you go to escalate the situation you have to ask yourself: "is achieving X outcome worth doing this". The point where the answer to that question became "no" was pased in this case, but they carried on escalating anyway.
They still have access to detentions, they still have access to suspensions, they'll just have to use more of them until they get what they want. If that doesn't achieve what they want, they'll just have to accept that they won't achieve what they want. It's the same reason that we don't shoot fleeing shoplifters.
And do they make more money from those interests than it will cost to implement a single-state sales tax? Because if they don't, I can't imagine they'll still have those interests by October.
Also, here in the UK, I'm fairly sure that my local Apple store is actually a franchise. I don't know if that's a common feature, or not.
'making an example' is arbitrary. It is by definition NOT consistent. The whole point of making an example is to punish someone more harshly than you usually would as a demonstration of the extent of your power to try and scare everyone else straight. Being the first person to fall under a new policy of harsher punishment sucks, but that's not the same as having been made an example of. You make an example of someone by giving them a kicking, and then going back to the more lenient punishments used before. Except that it looks arbitrary (becasue it is), it looks unjust (because it is), and ultimately undermines authority by making the teacher look not like the bringer of order, but like the schoolyard bully - lashing out when it suits them.
'wise' would have been to enforce the suspension, but otherwise drop the matter. Now, given the decision that the phone should be removed, calling the cops to do it was wise, but the decision to remove the phone was unwise, so it's rather moot. Doing the wrong thing well doesn't make up for having done the wrong thing in the first place.
Yeah, what we need is the assumption that the authorities are in the wrong unless they can prove otherwise, rather than the current situation where they're assumed to be in the right unless the person they harm can prove otherwise.
Well, yes, but at least that's about a 10% deduction from a payment which is made. I think I'd rather get some money for loss of earnings and loss of liberty, and then have it deducted for room & board, than just be given nothing, and told to suck it up.
Slashdot Mirror
"You asked us to reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures!" - Sir Humphrey
Declare a mis-trial and start again with a different jury. Which is why we have double-jeopardy laws too.
Ah, I see. So coughing up originally involved admitting liability which would have made it a hell of a lot harder to subsequently fight the DMV for your money back.
I can't see a better option for you to have taken there, since you wouldn't even have had a license to drive an old banger around on whilst you waited for the case to work its way through the courts.
What I do see is a screwed-up system (the DMV shouldn't be able to administratively suspend your license and make you fight to get in un-suspended - it should be suspended only after conviction by a court), so I'll just say that that sucks and ask what area of the world this happened in so I can avoid it.
Your example is flawed, the cop isn't escalating anything and neither are you - he could just arrest you on the spot as the first interraction, to let you go on your way with a ticket is just a courtesy.
Ok, as I understand from other comments (no, I still haven't read TFA), she wasn't arrested at all, but let's assume that she was, for the sake of argument.
Teacher thinks pupil has cell phone, pupil refuses to hand phone over or be searched. Police officer is called. Now, pupils with cell phones are none of the Police's business - they're not there to enforce school rules, and the officer should have walked away. However, they didn't - they are assuming that failing further indications, the worse this pupil is carrying is a contraband phone (not illegal), they try to search. Pupil refuses consent for search. Refusal to volunteer to be searched does not create probable cause. Officer performs semi-intimate search anyway and comes up with contraband phone. Officer then starts questioning pupil about how to contact their parents (again, none of their business), this is information that the school should have had to hand, pupil is evasive.
The other side SHOULD have backed down, because in the end they took it too far (which has been my point all along). The choice to arrest a person is not made by the arrestee. It was the Police Officer's decision, and theirs alone to arrest this girl. It was the wrong decision and I hope they end up signing their paycheck over to her every month for at least the next year because of it.
Ok, let me see if I've got this straight.
You sold your old car to someone - an administrative screw-up meant that the DMV still thought it was yours, when a camera photographed it (presumably involved in something illegal) they suspended your license, they didn't tell you that your license had been suspended.
Some time later, you were pulled over for the most trivial of reasons and a computer check revealed that your license was marked as suspended, you were arrested (then released), your car impounded and you were essentially abandoned over 100 miles away from home.
When you went to the DMV it became immediately apparent that they'd screwed up, that your license should never have been suspended, and hence your car should never have been impounded.
Your car was still impounded for a mandatory 30 days, and you were expected to pay 30 days worth of impound fee (despite the fact that your car should never have been impounded, as evidenced by the lack of a driving-on-a-suspended-license conviction).
I still don't understand why you didn't sue the DMV later, they were clearly in the wrong and cost you $800 plus whatever monetary value you put on not having your car for a month. You say there's no exception for wrongly suspended licenses, but surely a wrongly suspended license gets un-suspended backdated to when it was originally suspended (hence no actual suspension). How long ago did this all happen?
but we don't shoot them to stop them running. We chase, and if we fail to catch them then we fail to catch them. We don't just open fire when it looks like they're getting away.
This is the same principle - the bar is lower.
The can choose whatever tools, of those which are appropriate in general, they feel most appropriate for this situation. Arresting a child to perform a search for a phone used in the classroom was not in the category "appropriate in general". But I don't think I'm going to convince you of that.
hmm, where are the brackets there?
or
?
or, to put the question better, does the rider "without due process of law" apply to both prohibitions, or only the one directly preceeding it. If it's the latter then I don't know why it was brought up, if it's the former than the 5th amendment has never been worth anything anyway.
ergo, they are not rights, but temporary and fragile entitlements at best
You didn't think to pay to get your car back, then sue for a refund, did you?
The key to dealing with police officers is to be perfectly polite on the spot, and complain\sue later.
Wouldn't it be easier to call your bank and tell them to stop releasing money to MS?
Except this isn't a charge by AT&T for making roaming work, this is a pass-on charge from the 3rd party provider
Since he'd only just got on the ship, it's doubtful that he'd have been told of the cost, or even that he was racking up bills for doing business with a different company.
Therefore, the rest of your reasoning collapses.
She's not the person in authority - she didn't escalate anything. Escalation of a situation can ONLY be performed by the person in authority.
Every time that you go to escalate the situation you have to ask yourself: "is achieving X outcome worth doing this". The point where the answer to that question became "no" was pased in this case, but they carried on escalating anyway.
They still have access to detentions, they still have access to suspensions, they'll just have to use more of them until they get what they want. If that doesn't achieve what they want, they'll just have to accept that they won't achieve what they want. It's the same reason that we don't shoot fleeing shoplifters.
I don't think they overpaid to that extent...
You still pay tax when you hire something, don't you?
And do they make more money from those interests than it will cost to implement a single-state sales tax? Because if they don't, I can't imagine they'll still have those interests by October.
Also, here in the UK, I'm fairly sure that my local Apple store is actually a franchise. I don't know if that's a common feature, or not.
'making an example' is arbitrary. It is by definition NOT consistent. The whole point of making an example is to punish someone more harshly than you usually would as a demonstration of the extent of your power to try and scare everyone else straight. Being the first person to fall under a new policy of harsher punishment sucks, but that's not the same as having been made an example of. You make an example of someone by giving them a kicking, and then going back to the more lenient punishments used before.
Except that it looks arbitrary (becasue it is), it looks unjust (because it is), and ultimately undermines authority by making the teacher look not like the bringer of order, but like the schoolyard bully - lashing out when it suits them.
And those laws don't say that possibly causing minor disruption to class is not justification for an inside-underwear search?
Then give up on trying to confiscate it - they can't use it if it's in their pants anyway.
'wise' would have been to enforce the suspension, but otherwise drop the matter. Now, given the decision that the phone should be removed, calling the cops to do it was wise, but the decision to remove the phone was unwise, so it's rather moot. Doing the wrong thing well doesn't make up for having done the wrong thing in the first place.
So long as she can bill at $1,000 per hour for loss of liberty. Fine.
Congratulations, the teacher is now automatically in the wrong. Way to undermine your own argument.
Yeah, what we need is the assumption that the authorities are in the wrong unless they can prove otherwise, rather than the current situation where they're assumed to be in the right unless the person they harm can prove otherwise.
Well, yes, but at least that's about a 10% deduction from a payment which is made. I think I'd rather get some money for loss of earnings and loss of liberty, and then have it deducted for room & board, than just be given nothing, and told to suck it up.
... and Chuck Norris to watch over them.
please, do us all a favour, if you ever get called up for jury service, find a way to get out of it.