Now, I don't approve of these things - but since they are in use anyway, why not put them to better use?
Definition of a police state right there. The only way they get away with those roadblocks today is by saying that they are stopping an immediate threat (drunk drivers) - drug searches only happen when someone is intimidated into giving permission to search their vehicle. You are willing to stretch that from an immediate threat to something completely indiscriminate.
Maybe you've missed the Garrido case in California? Two female cops were alerted by the unusual behaviour of Jaycee's daughters.
One female cop, and Garrido went to the police station on his own recognizance to get an on-campus event permit. Using that situation to justify roadblocks for such a tiny amount of human trafficking (article you linked to said 20% of ~17,500 per year, that's ~300 per month out of a guesstimated 100 million vehicle trips per month for a percentage of 0.0003% of all vehicles, less if more than one trafficee is in a vehicle) is just completely off-base and out of proportion to any feasibly achievable level of success.
Doesn't matter. The cops have to take it seriously.
Really? Lets see some case law for that. On my side I've got the 4th amendment, what do you got?
Even if nobody had called, if an officer had seen suspicious activity he would have been perfectly justified in requiring someone to show ID to prove that they weren't breaking in.
Woah Boy! You write like the cop actually witnessing something is less likely to create probable cause than a report of somebody not really witnessing anything. If that's a credible argument to you, no wonder you've taken the position that you have.
What good are environmental laws, worker safety laws, tax rates, etc. when corporations can just go to some 3rd world shit-hole and work those people for cheap. Then, if they have the temerity to demand rights and pay, then the corporation will just jump to the next shit-hole and exploit those workers.
Eventually you run out of shit-holes. Sure it really sucks in the meantime, but sooner or later there will be no cheaper place to go and that point the pendulum starts to swing back in the other direction. That's essentially what happened in most of the western world - we were all shit-holes once, back in the days of industrial revolution. Then they ran out of available shit-holes and we started to see reforms. All that's happened today is that modern shipping and communications have opened up the final frontier of shit-holes, but that will only last for so long.
One might even argue that the faster the 3rd world is exploited, the sooner the world will get to that bottom its been racing to and there will be nowhere to go but up for people of all countries, not just the 1st world.
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
I would not be surprised if there were not even a black market for energy-sucking TVs in Korea. They deliberately chose NTSC and then ATSC for their own broadcast standards to be compatible with the US in order to better leverage economies of scale. All on its own, California's economy would make it roughly the 10th largest national economy in the world. It's just easier to standardize, after all the hardest part will be in the engineering so might as well amortize that cost over as many sets as possible.
Sounds to me more like someone made a parody posting as acevedo himself and it embarrassed the crap out of him.
Regardless of what really happened, even if it was the absolute worst case suggested, they are still ignoring the most important point -- the medium contributes to the message - you impersonate a cop in a newspaper or on a television news interview where there is the expectation of editors doing fact-checking and vetting that gives your impersonation a whole lot more weight. You post online and say you are a cop where no one can see you, no one ever does any vetting or fact checking, well, that carries no more weight than a feather. As the cartoon said - on the internet no one knows you are a dog, they also don't know you aren't a dog either.
When you post something in direct contradiction to the truth then the choice is between assuming you are uninformed and assuming you are a liar. Which is it?
It's retarded to argue about the content of the call.
And there we have it... What people say makes no difference, its whatever the cops want. Completely in line with your "pro-fascist-tips." I really don't think there is much more to say, you want the cops to have full autonomy on the slightest pretense, anyone sane thinks that's ridiculous.
A cop asks him to come out and show his ID, since that would quickly clear up whether or not he was the homeowner (which he claims he is). He tells the cop that he's a racist, and no he won't show his ID, and the cop better just fuck off.
Gee, again with question of where you are uninformed or you are making up some sort of fantasy scenario to support a position you know is untenable. You have your order of events so far off from the reported Gates incident that there is no way that you could be trying to describe what actually happened there.
I was thinking about buying some property in Puna (Nanawale area) do you happen to know what kind of DSL (or cable modem if its even available) speeds are available down there? There was one wireless place that was selling 350Kbps with a $700 installation charge. I grew up Kona side and we didn't even have cabletv (or home mail delivery) then, but I haven't really been back for 20+ years already.
The real question is, would a conductive wrapping reduce the shock you feel enough to bring the pain and loss of muscular control down to manageable levels... maybe
The answer is YES. Watch for the part where he tasers the guy's head and nothing happens, a little anti-climatic, but still great.
With all the shit ebay has pulled over the years, and I'm not just referring to ridiculous fee increase, but all the ways they have given third parties veto power over auctions (e.g. try selling a copy MS windows on ebay and watch the auction be disappeared because MS thinks all copies of windows sold by individuals are pirated and ebay just lets them cancel auctions independently) its basically a case of ebay getting hoisted by their own petard (live by arbitrary and unfriendly contracts, die by arbitrary and unfriendly contracts).
You didn't do your research, so now you think I'm making this stuff up? Source (PDF):
Lol. I wasn't referring to something as trivial as the TIME AND DATE. I was referring to the real meat of your claim, "After a neighbour called and said they saw someone breaking into the home"
She didn't say that. In fact, when specifically ASKED if that's what she thought was happening, she said "I don't know, 'cause I have no idea."
Who didn't do their research? Nah, you have now claimed to have done your research, so my original point stands, you were making shit up to support an otherwise unsupportable position because, well, who really knows why?
It also seems to not jive with the currently understood mechanics of evolution. DETECTING such a stench would lead to a survival advantage, but actually emitting it is something done after death - so there is no natural selection at work to lead to the unification of a "death scent" to evolve towards.
Unless the other bugs that will be doing the detecting happen to be the dead bug's offspring. Which is likely considering that many bugs don't travel very far in their lifetimes so are probably have a good chance of sharing the same food supply and running into grandpa's corpse.
Break-ins happen at 2 pm as well as at 2am. Daytime home burglaries are actually fairly common, in part because during the late morning and early afternoon, most homes are completely vacant. Most burglars do not, to the chagrin of overzealous gun owners, want to be anywhere near anyone while committing a crime.
So, your point is that the time of days is irrelevant? Glad you cleared that up for the obfuscant. Except there's this one lingering problem - it was the front door. In broad daylight. In plain view. What kind of burglar - wishing to avoid being near anyone - tries to break in from the most visible place on the entire property?
Sorry, that's just not how it works. The cops don't know you live there, hell, they don't even know who you are, but they have received a 911 call reporting a 911 call. They are legally required to follow up on this by establishing whether or not a crime has happened,
No, simply receiving a "911 call" is not enough to justify entering the house of someone who appears to be complying. Absent any other suspicious activity, a 911 call in which the caller herself is unsure that anything wrong is going on is far from reasonable suspicion. If that's all it took to be reasonable, well (a) Crowley would not have felt that he had to lie in his report about what the caller said to him when he arrived and (b) the fourth amendment would, for all intents and purposes, be rendered moot since it would fall to the lightest possible allegation.
And they'd be perfectly happy to explain to you that they are investigating a reported possible break-in, and that without ID they cannot assume it is your home. You're trying to establish an obvious catch-22 here, and you're an idiot if you think any court or jury with 2 working brain-cells would ever take it seriously.
The only idiot here is the person who thinks that an extremely hesitant and equivocating 911 call constitutes reasonable suspicion. If the caller had said something like, "I know who lives there and those men jimmying the front door definitely do not live there" then that would be another thing. But a report that says things like, "I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key," and talks about the front door out in plain sight is far from strong enough evidence to convince any court or jury with 2 working brain-cells that following an obviously complying man into his home is necessary.
The only reason to follow him into the house was if there was some other reason to be suspicious of him beyond what the 911 caller said, and the only other factor that has been reported is that Gates was black. No wonder he was pissed.
At a quarter to 1 PM on a Thursday in a residential neighbourhood when most people are working? After a neighbour called and said they saw someone breaking into the home?
Just like the previous poster I responded to, you are making stuff up in order to support your point. The fact that you are doing that is pretty much proof positive that you understand the inherent weakness of your position and feel that it can not stand on its own without lying. The question I must ask is, why? You know you are probably wrong, but instead of just accepting that, you go on and make up stuff so as to have a reason to post or something? I think you've got a problem.
Hell, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell the cop to go screw because there is no legal requirement to provide id in my own home.
Your own home? Prove it. Until you do, the cop doesn't have to believe you.
Absent any reasonable suspicion, then yes he does have to believe me. And a phone call from someone who is completely up front about not really knowing what is going on and who says that maybe nothing is going on, is not reasonable suspicion.
Protip:... Protip 2:....
What's a "Protip?" Is that supposed to suggest you are a 'pro'? It's hard not to laugh at that.
If you owned a business and a police officer found an open door at 2AM,
And what about in the middle of the day which is when this incident occurred?
If someone was breaking into my house and the cops showed up, met the guy at the door, and then didn't bother following him because he went back inside my house, I'd be REALLY PISSED -- at the cops. If the guy got away because he slipped out the back before reinforcements arrived, I'd be REALLY REALLY pissed at the cops.
And I would be really pissed if a cop followed me into my house with no more cause for suspicion than someone had made a call where they said that they maybe, possibly thought something might be happening but were not really very sure. After all there is absolutely nothing suspicious about going back into your own house in order to retrieve the requested id. Hell, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell the cop to go screw because there is no legal requirement to provide id in my own home. That cop should have been happy with the fact the guy was complying in the first place, instead he tried to push it.
And if the suspect went back into the house to retrieve a gun so he could shoot the cop, you'd probably be dancing in the streets that yet another jack-booted thug was put down,
Fuck you. Seriously, what is wrong with you that you would think projecting THAT on people who disagree with you is at all meaningful? All you've done is cement the opinion that an extreme characterization in the reverse applies to you -- something along the lines of being a bootlicker who wishes the cop had shot Gates for back-talking. Don't like that? Don't pull that shit in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet once again, you live up to your username! Bravo Dude! Bravo!
Now, I don't approve of these things - but since they are in use anyway, why not put them to better use?
Definition of a police state right there. The only way they get away with those roadblocks today is by saying that they are stopping an immediate threat (drunk drivers) - drug searches only happen when someone is intimidated into giving permission to search their vehicle. You are willing to stretch that from an immediate threat to something completely indiscriminate.
Maybe you've missed the Garrido case in California? Two female cops were alerted by the unusual behaviour of Jaycee's daughters.
One female cop, and Garrido went to the police station on his own recognizance to get an on-campus event permit. Using that situation to justify roadblocks for such a tiny amount of human trafficking (article you linked to said 20% of ~17,500 per year, that's ~300 per month out of a guesstimated 100 million vehicle trips per month for a percentage of 0.0003% of all vehicles, less if more than one trafficee is in a vehicle) is just completely off-base and out of proportion to any feasibly achievable level of success.
I will change it to a ominous hum.
How about a cheerful hum? Like "Sunshine on My Shoulder?"
Doesn't matter. The cops have to take it seriously.
Really? Lets see some case law for that. On my side I've got the 4th amendment, what do you got?
Even if nobody had called, if an officer had seen suspicious activity he would have been perfectly justified in requiring someone to show ID to prove that they weren't breaking in.
Woah Boy! You write like the cop actually witnessing something is less likely to create probable cause than a report of somebody not really witnessing anything. If that's a credible argument to you, no wonder you've taken the position that you have.
What good are environmental laws, worker safety laws, tax rates, etc. when corporations can just go to some 3rd world shit-hole and work those people for cheap. Then, if they have the temerity to demand rights and pay, then the corporation will just jump to the next shit-hole and exploit those workers.
Eventually you run out of shit-holes. Sure it really sucks in the meantime, but sooner or later there will be no cheaper place to go and that point the pendulum starts to swing back in the other direction. That's essentially what happened in most of the western world - we were all shit-holes once, back in the days of industrial revolution. Then they ran out of available shit-holes and we started to see reforms. All that's happened today is that modern shipping and communications have opened up the final frontier of shit-holes, but that will only last for so long.
One might even argue that the faster the 3rd world is exploited, the sooner the world will get to that bottom its been racing to and there will be nowhere to go but up for people of all countries, not just the 1st world.
In response, Mazda has announced that their cars will play an endless loop of a 6 year old saying "zoom-zoom!"
Only in your dreams.
But are they really your dreams?
Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.
I would not be surprised if there were not even a black market for energy-sucking TVs in Korea. They deliberately chose NTSC and then ATSC for their own broadcast standards to be compatible with the US in order to better leverage economies of scale. All on its own, California's economy would make it roughly the 10th largest national economy in the world. It's just easier to standardize, after all the hardest part will be in the engineering so might as well amortize that cost over as many sets as possible.
The fact is, the cops got a call. The caller suggested that a breakin might be occurring. WTF is so difficult to understand about that?
Joe-Job.
Prank
Harassment
And that's accepting that your distortion to favor your point is accurate. It's not. I shouldn't have to quote the call again.
I never said full autonomy. Asking someone to show their ID is perfectly valid in such a situation, and anyone sane knows it.
Asking is one thing, requiring is a whole different story.
And if you did not say full autonomy, where do you draw the line? Arresting him for not showing ID? What else is left, no-knock warrants?
Sounds to me more like someone made a parody posting as acevedo himself and it embarrassed the crap out of him.
Regardless of what really happened, even if it was the absolute worst case suggested, they are still ignoring the most important point -- the medium contributes to the message - you impersonate a cop in a newspaper or on a television news interview where there is the expectation of editors doing fact-checking and vetting that gives your impersonation a whole lot more weight. You post online and say you are a cop where no one can see you, no one ever does any vetting or fact checking, well, that carries no more weight than a feather. As the cartoon said - on the internet no one knows you are a dog, they also don't know you aren't a dog either.
Ha. I knew that; quit assuming I'm uninformed.
When you post something in direct contradiction to the truth then the choice is between assuming you are uninformed and assuming you are a liar. Which is it?
It's retarded to argue about the content of the call.
And there we have it... What people say makes no difference, its whatever the cops want. Completely in line with your "pro-fascist-tips." I really don't think there is much more to say, you want the cops to have full autonomy on the slightest pretense, anyone sane thinks that's ridiculous.
A cop asks him to come out and show his ID, since that would quickly clear up whether or not he was the homeowner (which he claims he is). He tells the cop that he's a racist, and no he won't show his ID, and the cop better just fuck off.
Gee, again with question of where you are uninformed or you are making up some sort of fantasy scenario to support a position you know is untenable. You have your order of events so far off from the reported Gates incident that there is no way that you could be trying to describe what actually happened there.
I believe drugs, pimping, child abuse and general law breaking are in fact against the law in Austin and Acevedo is ready to get your ass for it.
You fucker. You ruined a perfectly non-sensical rant. Why do you hate America?
I was thinking about buying some property in Puna (Nanawale area) do you happen to know what kind of DSL (or cable modem if its even available) speeds are available down there? There was one wireless place that was selling 350Kbps with a $700 installation charge. I grew up Kona side and we didn't even have cabletv (or home mail delivery) then, but I haven't really been back for 20+ years already.
The real question is, would a conductive wrapping reduce the shock you feel enough to bring the pain and loss of muscular control down to manageable levels... maybe
The answer is YES.
Watch for the part where he tasers the guy's head and nothing happens, a little anti-climatic, but still great.
With all the shit ebay has pulled over the years, and I'm not just referring to ridiculous fee increase, but all the ways they have given third parties veto power over auctions (e.g. try selling a copy MS windows on ebay and watch the auction be disappeared because MS thinks all copies of windows sold by individuals are pirated and ebay just lets them cancel auctions independently) its basically a case of ebay getting hoisted by their own petard (live by arbitrary and unfriendly contracts, die by arbitrary and unfriendly contracts).
You didn't do your research, so now you think I'm making this stuff up? Source (PDF):
Lol. I wasn't referring to something as trivial as the TIME AND DATE. I was referring to the real meat of your claim, "After a neighbour called and said they saw someone breaking into the home"
She didn't say that. In fact, when specifically ASKED if that's what she thought was happening, she said "I don't know, 'cause I have no idea."
Who didn't do their research? Nah, you have now claimed to have done your research, so my original point stands, you were making shit up to support an otherwise unsupportable position because, well, who really knows why?
JOHN PARKER is serving a sentence in the State Penn.
They are sending him to Philadelphia?
A few decades ago, Edward O. Wilson proved that ants mark their trails with scent by removing their organs individually and smearing them around.
Damn, those are some masochistic ants.
I like the cut of your jib, sir!
It also seems to not jive with the currently understood mechanics of evolution. DETECTING such a stench would lead to a survival advantage, but actually emitting it is something done after death - so there is no natural selection at work to lead to the unification of a "death scent" to evolve towards.
Unless the other bugs that will be doing the detecting happen to be the dead bug's offspring. Which is likely considering that many bugs don't travel very far in their lifetimes so are probably have a good chance of sharing the same food supply and running into grandpa's corpse.
Break-ins happen at 2 pm as well as at 2am. Daytime home burglaries are actually fairly common, in part because during the late morning and early afternoon, most homes are completely vacant. Most burglars do not, to the chagrin of overzealous gun owners, want to be anywhere near anyone while committing a crime.
So, your point is that the time of days is irrelevant? Glad you cleared that up for the obfuscant. Except there's this one lingering problem - it was the front door. In broad daylight. In plain view. What kind of burglar - wishing to avoid being near anyone - tries to break in from the most visible place on the entire property?
Sorry, that's just not how it works. The cops don't know you live there, hell, they don't even know who you are, but they have received a 911 call reporting a 911 call. They are legally required to follow up on this by establishing whether or not a crime has happened,
No, simply receiving a "911 call" is not enough to justify entering the house of someone who appears to be complying. Absent any other suspicious activity, a 911 call in which the caller herself is unsure that anything wrong is going on is far from reasonable suspicion. If that's all it took to be reasonable, well (a) Crowley would not have felt that he had to lie in his report about what the caller said to him when he arrived and (b) the fourth amendment would, for all intents and purposes, be rendered moot since it would fall to the lightest possible allegation.
And they'd be perfectly happy to explain to you that they are investigating a reported possible break-in, and that without ID they cannot assume it is your home. You're trying to establish an obvious catch-22 here, and you're an idiot if you think any court or jury with 2 working brain-cells would ever take it seriously.
The only idiot here is the person who thinks that an extremely hesitant and equivocating 911 call constitutes reasonable suspicion. If the caller had said something like, "I know who lives there and those men jimmying the front door definitely do not live there" then that would be another thing. But a report that says things like, "I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key," and talks about the front door out in plain sight is far from strong enough evidence to convince any court or jury with 2 working brain-cells that following an obviously complying man into his home is necessary.
The only reason to follow him into the house was if there was some other reason to be suspicious of him beyond what the 911 caller said, and the only other factor that has been reported is that Gates was black. No wonder he was pissed.
At a quarter to 1 PM on a Thursday in a residential neighbourhood when most people are working? After a neighbour called and said they saw someone breaking into the home?
Just like the previous poster I responded to, you are making stuff up in order to support your point. The fact that you are doing that is pretty much proof positive that you understand the inherent weakness of your position and feel that it can not stand on its own without lying. The question I must ask is, why? You know you are probably wrong, but instead of just accepting that, you go on and make up stuff so as to have a reason to post or something? I think you've got a problem.
Hell, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell the cop to go screw because there is no legal requirement to provide id in my own home.
Your own home? Prove it. Until you do, the cop doesn't have to believe you.
Absent any reasonable suspicion, then yes he does have to believe me. And a phone call from someone who is completely up front about not really knowing what is going on and who says that maybe nothing is going on, is not reasonable suspicion.
Protip: ... ....
Protip 2:
What's a "Protip?" Is that supposed to suggest you are a 'pro'? It's hard not to laugh at that.
What's funny is how stupid the kid must have been to be fooled by the guy in the first place.
Kinda reinforces the stereotypes about dumb jocks.
If you owned a business and a police officer found an open door at 2AM,
And what about in the middle of the day which is when this incident occurred?
If someone was breaking into my house and the cops showed up, met the guy at the door, and then didn't bother following him because he went back inside my house, I'd be REALLY PISSED -- at the cops. If the guy got away because he slipped out the back before reinforcements arrived, I'd be REALLY REALLY pissed at the cops.
And I would be really pissed if a cop followed me into my house with no more cause for suspicion than someone had made a call where they said that they maybe, possibly thought something might be happening but were not really very sure. After all there is absolutely nothing suspicious about going back into your own house in order to retrieve the requested id. Hell, I'm perfectly within my rights to tell the cop to go screw because there is no legal requirement to provide id in my own home. That cop should have been happy with the fact the guy was complying in the first place, instead he tried to push it.
And if the suspect went back into the house to retrieve a gun so he could shoot the cop, you'd probably be dancing in the streets that yet another jack-booted thug was put down,
Fuck you. Seriously, what is wrong with you that you would think projecting THAT on people who disagree with you is at all meaningful? All you've done is cement the opinion that an extreme characterization in the reverse applies to you -- something along the lines of being a bootlicker who wishes the cop had shot Gates for back-talking. Don't like that? Don't pull that shit in the first place.
Accept the idiosyncracies of people without passing judgement, much like you would with a hardware platform.
But that's a primary benefit of a hardware platform, you can curse outs its stupidities and flaws right in front of it and it won't take offense.