hat's like saying "As a builder I find that building laws about safety are too complicated, so I'll just disregard them. If you're not a builder you wouldn't understand."
No thats not the same thing at all. A correct analogy would be the builder builds something to code, something unforeseen happens to damage the structure and some uniformed idiot walks by and said 'stupid builders if they would just build these things right this wouldn't happen!'
My whole problem with the 'I have a gun to protect me and my family' is if some guy barges into your house with the intent of killing you, do you really have the gun loaded and next to you (if so then you are either paranoid or don't know how to store a gun safely or both).
Not only that but the chances of you needing a gun to protect yourself is extremely slim, even if you ignore the even lower odds of having the opportunity to use one. Odds are far higher that you will die of a heart attack, but how many people have automatic defibrulators in their home?
"Loser pays" solves nothing. It was an idea created by those who benefit from the current system and wanted to make it even more lopsided, sold as a reform to help make the courts "fair." It's anything but.
I disagree
If I was poor and had to pay legal bills to a lawyer upfront, I'd probably not even try even if I knew I was right as either I couldn't afford a good lawyer or maybe if I was lucky an inexperienced one.
If I knew I was right and the loser pays, I'd get a good laywer and the playing field is now even.
You're assuming that, when faced with a difficult situation, a police officer's two options are to 1) shoot the person or 2) taze the person.
No, I'm assuming when those are the only two options, using a tazer is the better of the two by far.
A tazer is just another tool like his gun, baton, pepper spray, or just talking. You're assuming officers are untrained regarding when to use a tazer and when not to.
Having a policy like loser pays legal bills of both sides would go a long way to making the court system fair. Right now its often richest guy wins because he can outlast the poor guy.
use a taser on people without knowing if they have a heart condition
Because shooting them is so much better than tazing them??
Or how about requiring the officer to say 'excuse me sir, would you mind singing this form stating you do not have a heart condition, understand the risks of electric shock, and agree to hold the police force not responsible for any possible injury before i tazer you? Thank you for your cooperation.'.
If someone is breaking into my home at 2am, they better hope they can run faster than buckshot. The call is for the cops or coroner to come clean up the mess.
And then the cop will arrest you for manslaughter. You do realize that self defense requires the application of only that amount of force necessary?
I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history.
Sounds like you just read fictional revisionist history pieces since you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right?
Thats not what I said at all. Leave it to an asshole software guy to take a statement and blow it completely out of proportion. If you can't follow a conversation and just twist what you think you heard into some ridiculous absolute, then I can't explain it to you.
From the looks of your statement, you just copied someone elses crap statement so come up with some real stuff here. It sounds like you are being lied to by the people you think you can believe.
From the ridiculous placing of hyphens it is clear all you did was cut and paste someone elses opinion piece. You did exactly what you are accusing me of.
You just attempted to claim that the supreme court was acting illegal, defying common sense and decades of precedent to throw out a case that was already thrown out before it even got to the supreme court, and now you say they are worried about acting legally and their appearance?
Are you saying that just because they are biased in a few cases that they then must be biased in all cases and cant make any good decisions? These people got to where they are because of good decisions and obvious intelligence, but that does not mean they cannot be biased like I pointed out.
Everything seems it must be black or white in your world - a world of absolutes. You will never be a good software coder until you open your mind and realize there is more out there than your tiny little imaginary world of absolutes.
You must be from the south. Don't you call it 'the war of northern agression'? Talk about rewriting history...
If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare
WTF??? Your example doesn't make any sense. What do aliens and welfare have to do with one another?
The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials
Because they were brainwashed by the church to believe in witches!!!
Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you.
This ruling tossed out a female tire company managerâ(TM)s complaint that she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work over roughly two decades. President Barack Obama signed a law overturning the courtâ(TM)s decision shortly after taking office. The courtâ(TM)s ruling in that case âoedefied common senseâ and âoecontradicted decadesâ of precedent.
If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals?
Because Bush was clearly acting illegally. There could be no possible legal defense of that position and still be able to sleep at night no matter how much of a fundamentalist crackpot you are.
You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around.
Maybe for a few 'deliverance' style inbred white boys south of the mason-dixon, but no, the majority of the people wanted to abolish slavery.
he Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people.
No. The salem witch trials was the will of the few people in the church, and the rest went along because to go against the will of the church meant they would be burned too. Never underestimate the influence of crackpot religions on the uneducated.
And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue.
It becomes one when there is clear conservative bias in the courts forcing their will on the people.
Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Do some research of your own. Look at the amount of overturned laws - the vast majority are due to a conservative group in the supreme court.
And to note, you are still paying the Regulatory and Compliance Fee for each phone number plus the Federal Program Fee and 911 fees on top of your vonage bill as I already stated. They didn't take a hit in profits, they just passed it along [vonage.com] to the consumer as I already stated. Now please show me where I am wrong.
Ok. My plan: $19.95 per month. My bill $19.95 + tax. No extra fees, nothing. I've always paid $19.95 so if there are extra fees then Vonage is covering them.
activist judges on our Supreme Court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, have overturned an unprecedented number of laws implemented by Congress and signed by the president
Thats what happens when you put conservatives in positions of power - they use it to push their own beliefs and agenda even if it goes against the will of the majority of the people.
It won't and Yes, I can get VoIP from the telecoms for about the same price as Vonage.
Only because Vonage is there providing competition at a lower price. If Vonage didn't exist do you really think the telecoms would supply voip at that price? No they would supply it at a similar price to their wired offerings so they dont undercut themselves.
Since you are too childish to discuss points without resorting to insults I refuse to discuss the rest of your idiotic post.
Seriously, when I was a kid all the books said by the year 2000 we'd all be flying around in jet packs and be living on the moon.
I don't think your books anticipated voting in an idiot fundamentalist for president that reduced astronaut presence on the station so much that little science could be done - then used the fact that little science was being done to try and kill the ISS.
Slashdot Mirror
hat's like saying "As a builder I find that building laws about safety are too complicated, so I'll just disregard them. If you're not a builder you wouldn't understand."
No thats not the same thing at all. A correct analogy would be the builder builds something to code, something unforeseen happens to damage the structure and some uniformed idiot walks by and said 'stupid builders if they would just build these things right this wouldn't happen!'
I fail to see how your comment has anything to do with the discussion.
But can you show me any laws or regulations saying when you can and when you can't tase someone? I bet not
Sure.. just type 'taser guidelines' into google. Here are just the first few...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/24/bc-rcmp-braidwood-guidelines.html
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/08/01/10332011-sun.html
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0068.htm
You are everything thats wrong with society today. No wonder Texas is the laughing stock of America. Good luck in hell shithead.
My whole problem with the 'I have a gun to protect me and my family' is if some guy barges into your house with the intent of killing you, do you really have the gun loaded and next to you (if so then you are either paranoid or don't know how to store a gun safely or both).
Not only that but the chances of you needing a gun to protect yourself is extremely slim, even if you ignore the even lower odds of having the opportunity to use one. Odds are far higher that you will die of a heart attack, but how many people have automatic defibrulators in their home?
Based on the way they actually use their tazer, yes I'm inclined to think that they are too quick to rely on it.
Do their job for a while, then if you have the same opinion it might be worth something.
"Loser pays" solves nothing. It was an idea created by those who benefit from the current system and wanted to make it even more lopsided, sold as a reform to help make the courts "fair." It's anything but.
I disagree
If I was poor and had to pay legal bills to a lawyer upfront, I'd probably not even try even if I knew I was right as either I couldn't afford a good lawyer or maybe if I was lucky an inexperienced one.
If I knew I was right and the loser pays, I'd get a good laywer and the playing field is now even.
if they're on your property and you shoot them, you can tell the cops whatever you want.
Well if you are the sort of person to lie to justify killing someone, then I hope you can sleep at night. Good luck in hell too.
And yes, most cops are assholes.
Well with that attitude. Gee I wonder why you get modded down a lot...
No idea either. It should be that way be default, and I'd go further to say no one should be out of pocket until a ruling either way.
You're assuming that, when faced with a difficult situation, a police officer's two options are to 1) shoot the person or 2) taze the person.
No, I'm assuming when those are the only two options, using a tazer is the better of the two by far.
A tazer is just another tool like his gun, baton, pepper spray, or just talking. You're assuming officers are untrained regarding when to use a tazer and when not to.
And you clearly don't realize that the laws of a particular jurisdiction may very well be different from the applicable laws where you live.
Well yes, if he lives in the jungles of Bolivia I guess he could get away with shooting a trespasser.
Here's an interesting discussion on self defense justification if you are interested: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1470/Justification-Self-Defense-Necessary-force.html
Having a policy like loser pays legal bills of both sides would go a long way to making the court system fair. Right now its often richest guy wins because he can outlast the poor guy.
Its easy to make these jokes when they have been known to actively turn down applicants with high IQs.
Just being smart is not enough. Do you think they would/should accept Stephen Hawking for a street cop if he applied?
use a taser on people without knowing if they have a heart condition
Because shooting them is so much better than tazing them??
Or how about requiring the officer to say 'excuse me sir, would you mind singing this form stating you do not have a heart condition, understand the risks of electric shock, and agree to hold the police force not responsible for any possible injury before i tazer you? Thank you for your cooperation.'.
If someone is breaking into my home at 2am, they better hope they can run faster than buckshot. The call is for the cops or coroner to come clean up the mess.
And then the cop will arrest you for manslaughter. You do realize that self defense requires the application of only that amount of force necessary?
I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history.
Sounds like you just read fictional revisionist history pieces since you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right?
Thats not what I said at all. Leave it to an asshole software guy to take a statement and blow it completely out of proportion. If you can't follow a conversation and just twist what you think you heard into some ridiculous absolute, then I can't explain it to you.
From the looks of your statement, you just copied someone elses crap statement so come up with some real stuff here. It sounds like you are being lied to by the people you think you can believe.
From the ridiculous placing of hyphens it is clear all you did was cut and paste someone elses opinion piece. You did exactly what you are accusing me of.
You just attempted to claim that the supreme court was acting illegal, defying common sense and decades of precedent to throw out a case that was already thrown out before it even got to the supreme court, and now you say they are worried about acting legally and their appearance?
Are you saying that just because they are biased in a few cases that they then must be biased in all cases and cant make any good decisions? These people got to where they are because of good decisions and obvious intelligence, but that does not mean they cannot be biased like I pointed out.
Everything seems it must be black or white in your world - a world of absolutes. You will never be a good software coder until you open your mind and realize there is more out there than your tiny little imaginary world of absolutes.
No, it was ironic because I *thought* we were doing "2001 a Space Odyssey"
Lol.. OK, rewrite history to show your point
You must be from the south. Don't you call it 'the war of northern agression'? Talk about rewriting history...
If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare
WTF??? Your example doesn't make any sense. What do aliens and welfare have to do with one another?
The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials
Because they were brainwashed by the church to believe in witches!!!
Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you.
Ok, Supreme Courtâ(TM)s 2007 âoeLedbetterâ decision.
This ruling tossed out a female tire company managerâ(TM)s complaint that she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work over roughly two decades. President Barack Obama signed a law overturning the courtâ(TM)s decision shortly after taking office. The courtâ(TM)s ruling in that case âoedefied common senseâ and âoecontradicted decadesâ of precedent.
Also read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/opinion/11mon2.html?_r=1&ex=1158206400&en=34af211f058d50a3&ei=5087%0A
If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals?
Because Bush was clearly acting illegally. There could be no possible legal defense of that position and still be able to sleep at night no matter how much of a fundamentalist crackpot you are.
Required for grade 8 english where I'm from. Ironically, it just happened to be 1984 when I was in grade 8.
Was required reading in grade 8 where I grew up.
You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around.
Maybe for a few 'deliverance' style inbred white boys south of the mason-dixon, but no, the majority of the people wanted to abolish slavery.
he Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people.
No. The salem witch trials was the will of the few people in the church, and the rest went along because to go against the will of the church meant they would be burned too. Never underestimate the influence of crackpot religions on the uneducated.
And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue.
It becomes one when there is clear conservative bias in the courts forcing their will on the people.
Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Do some research of your own. Look at the amount of overturned laws - the vast majority are due to a conservative group in the supreme court.
And to note, you are still paying the Regulatory and Compliance Fee for each phone number plus the Federal Program Fee and 911 fees on top of your vonage bill as I already stated. They didn't take a hit in profits, they just passed it along [vonage.com] to the consumer as I already stated. Now please show me where I am wrong.
Ok. My plan: $19.95 per month. My bill $19.95 + tax. No extra fees, nothing. I've always paid $19.95 so if there are extra fees then Vonage is covering them.
activist judges on our Supreme Court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, have overturned an unprecedented number of laws implemented by Congress and signed by the president
Thats what happens when you put conservatives in positions of power - they use it to push their own beliefs and agenda even if it goes against the will of the majority of the people.
It won't and Yes, I can get VoIP from the telecoms for about the same price as Vonage.
Only because Vonage is there providing competition at a lower price. If Vonage didn't exist do you really think the telecoms would supply voip at that price? No they would supply it at a similar price to their wired offerings so they dont undercut themselves.
Since you are too childish to discuss points without resorting to insults I refuse to discuss the rest of your idiotic post.
Seriously, when I was a kid all the books said by the year 2000 we'd all be flying around in jet packs and be living on the moon.
I don't think your books anticipated voting in an idiot fundamentalist for president that reduced astronaut presence on the station so much that little science could be done - then used the fact that little science was being done to try and kill the ISS.