Isn't this the same type of legislation that was used in the 60's-70's to infiltrate anti-war movements and incite violence to give the Government more power to arrest and prosecute those people who would have been perfectly legal vocal objector's had the Government not paid to motivate them?
Maybe it's just a bit too conspiracy theorist, but the balance between investigating violent radicals and harassing innocent dissenters is a fine one, and this bill sure looks like a step well over that line.
Of course, any elected official who votes against this bill will get labeled as a pro-terrorist wack job, but at least they are willing to stand up for our civil liberties.
It is not the government's duty to investigate, manipulate, and punish those who disagree with it.
I think this thing could be huge to professional sports.
You could use this set up to help show athletes how to improve their form, be it in the weight room, on the golf course, ski slope, or any other place where repetitive precision movement is needed and a refinement of form could improve performance.
Heck, even just as a trainer, get your clients to strap this thing on a couple of times (especially those who aren't keen on working out in front of a mirror) to show them their form and how to improve it.
Or combine this with pre-defined motion capture to attempt to train the wearer on how to re-enact the original motions (be it real dancing, DDR, or even 'Ninja Challenge' or what ever that Spike show is!)
For $3k and dropping, the entry fee is so low that there are sure to be people looking make a profit off this system. I'm interested to see what all they come up with:)
IOW, I absolutely accept self-defense as an excuse to make use of a taser. But I reject the idea that police, in general, limit their uses to such circumstances, instead using them as a replacement for proper policework and negotiating tactics (the case of the Polish guy in the Vancouver airport comes to mind...). And it's *those* uses that I believe constitute torture. I am in complete agreement with you, and I likely should have phrased many of the things I said better;)
The closest thing to a fact in the article is
"The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee against Torture said. Unfortunately, it does not specify who said it, if it was translated/ESL (as the verbatim might not be exact to the intention), nor any of the context surrounding the statement.
Portugal "should consider giving up the use of the Taser X26," as its use can have a grave physical and mental impact on those targeted, which violates the UN's Convention against Torture, the experts said. That's a great quote, but, who the heck are "the experts", and what are they experts on? UN Conventions? Torture? Marketing? And what part of that statement did the experts say? The quoted part? If so, who the heck wrote the rest of that line?
I mean, I can't really blame the author for not putting their name on that turd blossom of an article.
Wrong. According to UN guidelines, as I've provided, the use of tasers in any context where the intent is to subdue or coerce constitutes torture.
I still disagree with the way you are reading the UN guidelines. Part of the problem, with both of our arguments, I believe, is that the cited document was written with the intent to be applied to imprisoned people, not necessarily people in the process of arrest. As such, I think parts of it can be re-read to best suit both of our arguments.
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
And, again, the "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" explicitly outlaws the use of corporal punishment. Period. End of story. Read the text yourself if you don't believe me.
I agree with you completely. Any time an officer Punishes a suspect/detainee, it is a horrible violation of the law, both US and UN. But that is it, it is the Person who is violating the law, NOT the object. I also believe that the process of subduing a violent person who posses a threat to the officer and public does not fall under the UN's definition of torture. (Clarified below) If an officer has to use X force to subdue a violent person, and they use X+Y force, then, yes it is a violation. With the heat of the moment situations and snap decisions that could mean the difference between life and death, I'm willing to be a tiny bit flexible on that one, but as the article pointed out, tasers are being used way too much and in many of the wrong situations.
Honestly, by that logic, waterboarding isn't torture. After all, the waterboard setup, itself, is just a tool. It all depends on how you use it! For example, if you were correct (and you're not), the use of waterboarding in prisons as a form of punishment would be perfectly fine.
That is not the same at all and you know it. First off, Taser is a noun, Water-boarding is a verb. And just so you know, one of the best devices to use for water-boarding is an Incline Weight Bench. Their heavy weight, structural integrity, and ability to be bolted down make them a great choice for something to strap someone too in an inverted position and not have to worry about their attempts at flailing about knocking it over. And many US prisons have some sort of exercise equipment, often including weight benches with adjustable inclines. So if you want to compare "waterboarding" to a Taser, you need to compare a weight bench to a taser. They are both just tools. But if we used your logic, we would have to ban work out equipment from prisons because weight benches = water boarding.
The UN isn't going to ban water buckets and towels, let alone weight benches, just because they can be used in torture. And the same goes for Tasers. They have already ruled that using tasers, weight benches, water buckets, towels and other objects in a means which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as... is torture.
It is the ACT that is torture, not the object.
The use of techniques that involve "non-leathal tools of domination" *are* torture, whether you like it or not.
Negative. The UN ruled that the use of such techniques ARE torture when used for a general classification of intents. Self incrimination, incrimination of another, punishment, etc... It makes no such indication for the use of such techniques for the purpose of self defense, defense of another, or in defense of the public. If someone is attacking you, and you have a taser, it is not torture if you use the taser to prevent that person from harming you, or another person. And regardless of how you read that document, there is nothing in it that says self defense is torture.
No, they're wrong, based on UN guidelines, because the actions are performed with th
Yes. Lawful sanctions. As handed down by a court of law, not a cop on the street. Actually, Police officers (in the US) have a significant amount of legal power. The use of force, even the use of deadly force, to prevent harm to the officer and the public is one of those legal powers. YMMV around the world, but in the US, the Police can legally use force to subdue you.
Last I checked, most taser victims aren't given a chance to defend themselves before the shock is administered. Once again, this is an issue with policy, not the taser itself. The taser didn't just magically jump up and shock them in the ass. There was an officer holding it, pulling the trigger, and THAT is where the problem is.
Further, the text explicitly states that such actions must be "consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners". Interestingly enough, a number of prisons in the US also use tasers. I would be interested in seeing their policy for the use of tasers. I imagine it would be somewhat different as the social climate and implications of fighting an officer in jail is slightly different than fighting an officer in the street. In any case, it doesn't matter because as I stated above, that document EXPLICITLY EXCLUDES incidents related to legal sanctions. And like it or not, a cop attempting to detain you (even if he is in the wrong) is a legal sanction.
So, no, by the UN's own documents, tasers are *not* an acceptable tool for law enforcement, and do, in fact, meet the guidelines for torture, unless your reading of the text is so drastically distorted as to be rendered meaningless. I still disagree. You are removing responsibility from the true guilty parties (those officers that abuse their power) and placing it on an inanimate object. A taser is no different than a billy club, a boot, a fist, or any other non-leathal tools of domination. The issue isn't the taser, it's the way in which tasers are being used.
Also, if tasers are torture, by your definition, please explain to me how other traditional non-leathal tools of domination are NOT also torture. And, if you feel that police should be barred from using boots, fists, and clubs as means to apprehend people, please explain how you feel police officers should do so.
For example, if 4 cops have a violent suspect pinned to the ground, he represents no immediate threat to the officers or the public. If he continues to resist arrest, the officers must over power him and handcuff him. Now, with one guy pinned to the floor and four officers holding him there, it won't be long until they manage to get him in chains even if they just wait for him to tire himself out struggling. But, an over excited police officer may try to speed the process up a bit. If he has a Taser, he may shock him, if he has a billy club, he might crack his head open (Rodney King anyone?), if he has neither, he may just kidney punch the crap out of him. All of these actions are the same thing: WRONG. But they are wrong because of the person doing them, they are NOT the fault of his fist, or his club, or his taser.
I agree whole heartedly with you that the current state of taser use by police forces in the US is completely out of line, but, I think tasers are a very acceptable tool when they are used correctly. Training, Education, Policy, Oversight, and Reprimands need to be in place to limit the use of tasers to only those situations where it is absolutely necessary.
So is beating someone with a billy club, but I haven't heard about the UN denouncing that great tradition.
And actually, by law (United Nations Torture Convention of 1984) torture is defined as:
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." When used appropriately, tasing someone is not used to obtain information, confessions, punishment, revenge, intimidation, or coercion. It is for the purpose of reducing the risk to the officer, the public, and even the person being apprehended. In fact, the UNTC goes on to explicitly exclude pain and suffering "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions". Which means if you take a swing at a police officer, and they crack your head open with a billy club, it is NOT torture. And in cases where the assaulter has a dramatic advantage over the officer in weight, strength, and physical ability, a billy club is not going to allow the arresting officer to control the situation.
In those cases, where the officer is physically unable to arrest a person who is a threat to the officer and the public, a taser is a perfectly acceptable tool. By the UN's own convention, it is NOT torture.
The problem is that tasers are used when they should not be. The infamous Kerry speech tasing is an example of this. The suspect had been apprehended. He had 4+ police officers holding him down. At that point, he was no threat to the police, or to the public. He should have been hand cuffed (ankle cuffed as well if needed) and hauled out. The officers had superior numbers, strength, and force to deal with him with out beating him or tasing him into submission. In that case, the tasing officer should have suffered serious repercussions because what he did was at least an excessive use of force, and at worst was flirting with the UN's definition of torture.
As a former US Marine, I can assure you of two things:
1) We all got to spend a couple of minutes locked up in a shed with a Drill Instructor cooking up some CS gas. 2) That experience had nothing to do with empathy.
The purpose of gassing our combat troops with CS/Tear gas is because we are likely to encounter it in the line of duty. Having experienced it you know how it will effect you, how to recognize the smell and sensation before being hit with the cloud, and how to minimize the effect on you. It isn't about some deeper level of understanding of what our enemies will go through if we gas them. It's about preparing us in case the wind shifts and we get a dose of our own medicine, or in case some one uses it on us.
As for Tasers, I think they can be USED for torture, but they are just a tool. And like all tools, they can be used correctly, or incorrectly. Used correctly, they are a solid way to imobilize a violent person long enough to cuff them. The problem I see is a complete lack of training and oversight, and a piss poor official use policy and enforcement.
And what's to stop them from creating new charges that are "non-taxes" to get around the 25% taxation issue? They could just claim that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid contributions are non-tax contributions as well, and continue to tack on more 'non-tax' charges. But if you quash those, you'll have to be careful to avoid blocking State mandated child support, tax debt repayment, etc...
I think it's a good idea, but it could use some beefing up, and with todays tax exemptions it could be somewhat easy to scam by dropping your taxable income low enough that the 25% is in no way representative of your actual gains.
As far as choosing to live in a house that needs repairs, it wasn't like that when I bought it. You see, you actually need to maintain a house. When I bought it, taxes were lower. And your stupidity and inability to foresee a logic series of events is my fault because?!?
People like YOU keep voting to raise taxes though,. Hardly. Yes, I am for a universal health care plan if not a fully socialized health care system. Why? Because right now per capita in the US we're blowing over $10k a year on health care and getting some of the lowest healthy life expectancy in the developed world. So yeah, if voting to increase taxes by $3k saves me over $6k in annual health care expenses, while increasing the quality of life for most Americans, damn right I'm going to vote for it.
to pay for things they can't afford When I was poor, I lived in a rent abated apartment, one of the cheapest in the city. It was a 3 mile bus ride to my office, and a 6 mile drive to my school. I had all of my health care needs provided by the VA. I ate dinner with my family often to reduce my food costs. I did everything I needed to do on as cheap of budget as I could. The State's assistance was not something spent frivilously on a toy or gadget.
Now, I am well on my career. I own a house with a significant amount of equity. I've renovated half off it (down to studs, joists and rafters, and back up again) on my own dime with my own sweat. We bought a new car a year or two ago now. I keep my 401k contributions going. And I pay my taxes. We're not super wealthy, but I do well enough to keep working on our house and to allow my wife to stay home with our son. The $1400 write off the State coughed up years ago is a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've earned from me, and will continue to earn for the years to come. All in all, I think the State made out pretty darn well on the deal.
Yes, you are, if you qualify that is. But you are the one who CHOSE to live in a house with a leaky roof and rotted floor while knowing that you can't afford to fix it. You stepped in your own shit and you can live with it just like I lived with mine.
And yes, I'll call you an elitist, because anyone who uses giving your child away as a 'responsible' option has never had a child to throw away themselves.
In short, we've all had rough spots in our lives. I'm no more entitled than you. The State's have assistance programs for a reason. Because it is in the State's interest to have a growing population of stable and self sufficient tax paying citizens.
The program was offered by a representetive of the State who was fully aware of our situation. There was no scamming, no lieing, no abuse. It was a mathmatically calculation of what would incure the lowest cost to the State first, myself second, and the insurance company be damned.
I appologize is perhaps two hundreths of a cent that you once paid in taxes went to help another human being in a rough patch in their lives, but that's the nature of our tax system. We can't keep the bastards from spending 33 cents on the dollar blowing up foreign countries and arming non-state actors in the interest of short-term goals. And we can't get them to spend more than 2 cents on the dollar trying to support low income families keep their children insured.
I tell ya what, walk a mile in my shoes, hell, walk ten feet in the shoes of anyone below the poverty line and come back with that high and mighty BS.
Yeah, I benefited from a State aid program to the tune of $3000. And over the course of my working life I have already paid significantly more than that into the very fund that the helped me. There was no screwing of the tax payers, the money was used for it intended purpose. As I said before, if my wife and I had married prior to the birth, the same tax payer funded program would have footed $15,000+ in fees, which we would not have had to pay back any of. So if you're claiming THAT would have been 'better' than 'scamming' the Single mother program, I think you'll have some tax payers to argue out your logic with.
You say you don't want Judges to blindly follow the law, but you think the Judge in my case did what was right. Except that in my case that is exactly what the Judge did, he blindly followed the one law he was familiar with and refused to consider any other statutes I presented him with.
I'm glad you've lead an entitled life where hard decisions haven't weighed on your shoulders. And you are of course free to spew what ever hard handed BS you like from atop that high horse. But you really should research what you say before you speak. The cost of the adoption process to the State is significantly higher than a one time payout for $3000. Not to mention the long term effects on the mental health of all parties involved and the tax burden on the citizens.
I appreciate your attempts to help guide my life down a morally excellent path, but truely... go fuck a light socket.
That's interesting. Unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot of case law I could find on the specific statutes I was looking at, but I would guess that is where a lawyer with experience and a few intern/aids would have had an advantage.
I'm sure there is some amount of case law out there, especially on the debt accumulated prior to marriage, but I have nada for experience in legal searches and was (naively) happy enough to have found related statutes.
I think you need to research who pays for Medicare / Medicaid. Medicaid is paid for by the State and Federal budgets. As I Stated, Taxes. You've paid, I've paid, damn near everyone has paid into Medicaid. You may be thinking of Social Security, or some other state plan. But Medicaid is paid for via Taxes and FICA (which is just another name for Taxes).
Odd that your wife didn't have VA health care. Unfortunately that doesn't suprise me though. She had private insurance, she could go to what ever doc she wanted. She is also a disabled vet and has no love for the Military or Vet doctors after two botched knee surgeries.
No where did I say you should have gotten married, just that it seemed you were breaking the "spirit" of the program. You yourself said it was meant to help single mothers. Most take that to mean the father is not there at all for any kind of support. There is a very similar option for married couples, with the difference being the recoupment options the State has. Unfortunately, this was not clearly explained when we were presented with the option, nor on the program's web site, nor in their pamphlets. When I asked both the rep from the family services and a specialist from child services the closest I got to a warning was something along the lines of 'If any one hassles you, just show them your marriage certificate after you wed and they should leave you alone'.
Many families today CANNOT survive on only one income; BOTH parents must work. Why do you think you're a special case that should get extra help from taxpayers so your wife doesn't have to work at all? You wife has a mother that was willing to keep her on her insurance; surely she can help you with your child while both of you work? Yeah, because my wife, while 9 months pregnant with a pair of bummed legs, should have just said 'screw getting a degree, I'm gonna go work for GM' and pulled a living wage stamping valve covers. Heaven forbid a women completes her education and lands a serious job in this nation.
As for the responsible thing, this was it. You want details? She was on the pill, I used a rubber, freak accidents happen. My son is my own, and I'll love him for ever. Adoption was never an option. I would have moved back in with the folks before that.
As I said elsewhere in this thread. It's not the money that bothers me. It's over, water under the bridge. The State has it, I don't, and it's not worth investing in to get it back. It is the manner in which the Judge just openly stated that he was willing to ignore some laws just because he was not familiar with them. That's something that as the article illustrated, is still an on going issue. Many judges will take the easy road instead of the right road.
Ehh, my situation sucked. I use the term 'We' because we are a family. We used the medicade(err, medicare, I can't keep the two straight anymore) program because many of the other programs for low income houses that we would have been eligible for would require us to be married. We were not married, so the medicade program was our (and the State's) best option.
All in all, I am not objecting the repayment so much as the judge's and the prosecutors selective view of the law. If the law was more clearly written for people in that position, then I wouldn't have had an issue. But the enforcement of one law that directly violates another law, is just asinine.
As for proof of my lack of income, I was working as an LTE for the State (limited to 1040 hours over a 1 year period) making about $890/month. while going to school full time. My wife was unemployed, going to school full time as well.
After 1 year at the State I became eligible for the State's health care plan, with out the contribution from my employer, but it was a take it or leave for 6-months kind of deal. So I picked up single coverage for 2 months (for about $350/month) and then right when my wife turned 25 I picked up family coverage (for $980/month). For 2 or 3 months while I finished my degree I was paying more in health insurance than I was making in take home pay (yes, I showed up to work and at the end of every month I had to write the State a check for $90 and my paychecks were NPDs). Luckily I finished up my degree ahead of schedule and got a serious job with a wage high enough that we could pay off the credit debt we amassed over those 4 months and life improved.
So yeah, we were eligible for a number of assistance programs. And had we married, we would have been eligible for a good number more.
Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.
We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).
So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.
As soon as my son was born, he was covered under the Healthy Start program in Wisconsin, which covers all children.
So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.
Now, you may think that we just 'screwed' the State for 3k. But look at the alternative. Had my wife married as soon as we found out she was pregnant, she would have lost her insurance. We would have had to have turned to the State for 100% of the prenatal, birthing, and post-natal care expenses. And better yet, since we were a good married couple and poor, the State would have no avenue for recoupment of that money. The existing recoupment options apply only to unwed fathers.
We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could. That year, our medical expenses were so high that I had saved every related reciept to try to get a tax break. But a year later, we came up just short of the amount needed to qualify, so, like an idiot, I tossed the reciepts. 2 years after that, the State finally got around to sueing. There are existing limitations on what the State can sue for. Specificly, they can sue the unwed father of the child for up to 1/2 of the medicare expenses minue any pregnancy related expenses the father pays, although, the State's lawyers usually ignore that limitation and attempt to sue for a flat $2000 fee.
Had the State not waited 3 year to sue me I would have had the receipts to show that I had already paid over $1500 in pregnancy related care, and the issue would have been settled.
Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.
As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.
By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the prosecution of dead beats and people who attempt to skip out of child support. But the State's persuit of this matter has been run on autopilot with no one in the cockpit to see where it's going. They are just so used to dealing with crap that they expect everyone they s
No idea. But I get a monthly statement (that is almost always wrong) showing my child care payments due. And every month I have to call them to get them to correct it. At least lately they've gotten the damn thing to show that I owe $0. But I sure as hell don't care for being on any specific government lists.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this the same type of legislation that was used in the 60's-70's to infiltrate anti-war movements and incite violence to give the Government more power to arrest and prosecute those people who would have been perfectly legal vocal objector's had the Government not paid to motivate them?
Maybe it's just a bit too conspiracy theorist, but the balance between investigating violent radicals and harassing innocent dissenters is a fine one, and this bill sure looks like a step well over that line.
Of course, any elected official who votes against this bill will get labeled as a pro-terrorist wack job, but at least they are willing to stand up for our civil liberties.
It is not the government's duty to investigate, manipulate, and punish those who disagree with it.
-Rick
I think this thing could be huge to professional sports.
:)
You could use this set up to help show athletes how to improve their form, be it in the weight room, on the golf course, ski slope, or any other place where repetitive precision movement is needed and a refinement of form could improve performance.
Heck, even just as a trainer, get your clients to strap this thing on a couple of times (especially those who aren't keen on working out in front of a mirror) to show them their form and how to improve it.
Or combine this with pre-defined motion capture to attempt to train the wearer on how to re-enact the original motions (be it real dancing, DDR, or even 'Ninja Challenge' or what ever that Spike show is!)
For $3k and dropping, the entry fee is so low that there are sure to be people looking make a profit off this system. I'm interested to see what all they come up with
-Rick
-Rick
The closest thing to a fact in the article is "The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee against Torture said. Unfortunately, it does not specify who said it, if it was translated/ESL (as the verbatim might not be exact to the intention), nor any of the context surrounding the statement. Portugal "should consider giving up the use of the Taser X26," as its use can have a grave physical and mental impact on those targeted, which violates the UN's Convention against Torture, the experts said. That's a great quote, but, who the heck are "the experts", and what are they experts on? UN Conventions? Torture? Marketing? And what part of that statement did the experts say? The quoted part? If so, who the heck wrote the rest of that line?
I mean, I can't really blame the author for not putting their name on that turd blossom of an article.
-Rick
Wrong. According to UN guidelines, as I've provided, the use of tasers in any context where the intent is to subdue or coerce constitutes torture.
I still disagree with the way you are reading the UN guidelines. Part of the problem, with both of our arguments, I believe, is that the cited document was written with the intent to be applied to imprisoned people, not necessarily people in the process of arrest. As such, I think parts of it can be re-read to best suit both of our arguments.
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
And, again, the "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" explicitly outlaws the use of corporal punishment. Period. End of story. Read the text yourself if you don't believe me.
I agree with you completely. Any time an officer Punishes a suspect/detainee, it is a horrible violation of the law, both US and UN. But that is it, it is the Person who is violating the law, NOT the object. I also believe that the process of subduing a violent person who posses a threat to the officer and public does not fall under the UN's definition of torture. (Clarified below) If an officer has to use X force to subdue a violent person, and they use X+Y force, then, yes it is a violation. With the heat of the moment situations and snap decisions that could mean the difference between life and death, I'm willing to be a tiny bit flexible on that one, but as the article pointed out, tasers are being used way too much and in many of the wrong situations.
Honestly, by that logic, waterboarding isn't torture. After all, the waterboard setup, itself, is just a tool. It all depends on how you use it! For example, if you were correct (and you're not), the use of waterboarding in prisons as a form of punishment would be perfectly fine.
That is not the same at all and you know it. First off, Taser is a noun, Water-boarding is a verb. And just so you know, one of the best devices to use for water-boarding is an Incline Weight Bench. Their heavy weight, structural integrity, and ability to be bolted down make them a great choice for something to strap someone too in an inverted position and not have to worry about their attempts at flailing about knocking it over. And many US prisons have some sort of exercise equipment, often including weight benches with adjustable inclines. So if you want to compare "waterboarding" to a Taser, you need to compare a weight bench to a taser. They are both just tools. But if we used your logic, we would have to ban work out equipment from prisons because weight benches = water boarding.
The UN isn't going to ban water buckets and towels, let alone weight benches, just because they can be used in torture. And the same goes for Tasers. They have already ruled that using tasers, weight benches, water buckets, towels and other objects in a means which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as... is torture.
It is the ACT that is torture, not the object.
The use of techniques that involve "non-leathal tools of domination" *are* torture, whether you like it or not.
Negative. The UN ruled that the use of such techniques ARE torture when used for a general classification of intents. Self incrimination, incrimination of another, punishment, etc... It makes no such indication for the use of such techniques for the purpose of self defense, defense of another, or in defense of the public. If someone is attacking you, and you have a taser, it is not torture if you use the taser to prevent that person from harming you, or another person. And regardless of how you read that document, there is nothing in it that says self defense is torture.
No, they're wrong, based on UN guidelines, because the actions are performed with th
Also, if tasers are torture, by your definition, please explain to me how other traditional non-leathal tools of domination are NOT also torture. And, if you feel that police should be barred from using boots, fists, and clubs as means to apprehend people, please explain how you feel police officers should do so.
For example, if 4 cops have a violent suspect pinned to the ground, he represents no immediate threat to the officers or the public. If he continues to resist arrest, the officers must over power him and handcuff him. Now, with one guy pinned to the floor and four officers holding him there, it won't be long until they manage to get him in chains even if they just wait for him to tire himself out struggling. But, an over excited police officer may try to speed the process up a bit. If he has a Taser, he may shock him, if he has a billy club, he might crack his head open (Rodney King anyone?), if he has neither, he may just kidney punch the crap out of him. All of these actions are the same thing: WRONG. But they are wrong because of the person doing them, they are NOT the fault of his fist, or his club, or his taser.
I agree whole heartedly with you that the current state of taser use by police forces in the US is completely out of line, but, I think tasers are a very acceptable tool when they are used correctly. Training, Education, Policy, Oversight, and Reprimands need to be in place to limit the use of tasers to only those situations where it is absolutely necessary.
-Rick
And actually, by law (United Nations Torture Convention of 1984) torture is defined as: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." When used appropriately, tasing someone is not used to obtain information, confessions, punishment, revenge, intimidation, or coercion. It is for the purpose of reducing the risk to the officer, the public, and even the person being apprehended. In fact, the UNTC goes on to explicitly exclude pain and suffering "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions". Which means if you take a swing at a police officer, and they crack your head open with a billy club, it is NOT torture. And in cases where the assaulter has a dramatic advantage over the officer in weight, strength, and physical ability, a billy club is not going to allow the arresting officer to control the situation.
In those cases, where the officer is physically unable to arrest a person who is a threat to the officer and the public, a taser is a perfectly acceptable tool. By the UN's own convention, it is NOT torture.
The problem is that tasers are used when they should not be. The infamous Kerry speech tasing is an example of this. The suspect had been apprehended. He had 4+ police officers holding him down. At that point, he was no threat to the police, or to the public. He should have been hand cuffed (ankle cuffed as well if needed) and hauled out. The officers had superior numbers, strength, and force to deal with him with out beating him or tasing him into submission. In that case, the tasing officer should have suffered serious repercussions because what he did was at least an excessive use of force, and at worst was flirting with the UN's definition of torture.
-Rick
Soldiers don't drop bombs. Airmen do.
-Rick
As a former US Marine, I can assure you of two things:
1) We all got to spend a couple of minutes locked up in a shed with a Drill Instructor cooking up some CS gas.
2) That experience had nothing to do with empathy.
The purpose of gassing our combat troops with CS/Tear gas is because we are likely to encounter it in the line of duty. Having experienced it you know how it will effect you, how to recognize the smell and sensation before being hit with the cloud, and how to minimize the effect on you. It isn't about some deeper level of understanding of what our enemies will go through if we gas them. It's about preparing us in case the wind shifts and we get a dose of our own medicine, or in case some one uses it on us.
As for Tasers, I think they can be USED for torture, but they are just a tool. And like all tools, they can be used correctly, or incorrectly. Used correctly, they are a solid way to imobilize a violent person long enough to cuff them. The problem I see is a complete lack of training and oversight, and a piss poor official use policy and enforcement.
-Rick
Oddly enough, I think it is not the thing I observed that's life has been shortened, but that which caused the thing that I had observed.
As such, I apologize for any shortening of Tablizer's life. And I also hopes that no one reads this, as to ensure my own longevity.
-Rick
-Rick
And what's to stop them from creating new charges that are "non-taxes" to get around the 25% taxation issue? They could just claim that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid contributions are non-tax contributions as well, and continue to tack on more 'non-tax' charges. But if you quash those, you'll have to be careful to avoid blocking State mandated child support, tax debt repayment, etc...
I think it's a good idea, but it could use some beefing up, and with todays tax exemptions it could be somewhat easy to scam by dropping your taxable income low enough that the 25% is in no way representative of your actual gains.
-Rick
Your sweet sweet tears give me strength. Please, cry more.
-Rick
Hi there, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I missed your reply. As for sources, here is a news story from last year: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm
If you have access to New Scientist: http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225725.600-biofuel-made-from-power-plant-cosub2sub.html
Or companies to keep an eye on: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/index.html and http://www.greenshift.com/
-Rick
Now, I am well on my career. I own a house with a significant amount of equity. I've renovated half off it (down to studs, joists and rafters, and back up again) on my own dime with my own sweat. We bought a new car a year or two ago now. I keep my 401k contributions going. And I pay my taxes. We're not super wealthy, but I do well enough to keep working on our house and to allow my wife to stay home with our son. The $1400 write off the State coughed up years ago is a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes they've earned from me, and will continue to earn for the years to come. All in all, I think the State made out pretty darn well on the deal.
-Rick
Yes, you are, if you qualify that is. But you are the one who CHOSE to live in a house with a leaky roof and rotted floor while knowing that you can't afford to fix it. You stepped in your own shit and you can live with it just like I lived with mine.
And yes, I'll call you an elitist, because anyone who uses giving your child away as a 'responsible' option has never had a child to throw away themselves.
In short, we've all had rough spots in our lives. I'm no more entitled than you. The State's have assistance programs for a reason. Because it is in the State's interest to have a growing population of stable and self sufficient tax paying citizens.
The program was offered by a representetive of the State who was fully aware of our situation. There was no scamming, no lieing, no abuse. It was a mathmatically calculation of what would incure the lowest cost to the State first, myself second, and the insurance company be damned.
I appologize is perhaps two hundreths of a cent that you once paid in taxes went to help another human being in a rough patch in their lives, but that's the nature of our tax system. We can't keep the bastards from spending 33 cents on the dollar blowing up foreign countries and arming non-state actors in the interest of short-term goals. And we can't get them to spend more than 2 cents on the dollar trying to support low income families keep their children insured.
-Rick
How's the view from the cheap seats?
I tell ya what, walk a mile in my shoes, hell, walk ten feet in the shoes of anyone below the poverty line and come back with that high and mighty BS.
Yeah, I benefited from a State aid program to the tune of $3000. And over the course of my working life I have already paid significantly more than that into the very fund that the helped me. There was no screwing of the tax payers, the money was used for it intended purpose. As I said before, if my wife and I had married prior to the birth, the same tax payer funded program would have footed $15,000+ in fees, which we would not have had to pay back any of. So if you're claiming THAT would have been 'better' than 'scamming' the Single mother program, I think you'll have some tax payers to argue out your logic with.
You say you don't want Judges to blindly follow the law, but you think the Judge in my case did what was right. Except that in my case that is exactly what the Judge did, he blindly followed the one law he was familiar with and refused to consider any other statutes I presented him with.
I'm glad you've lead an entitled life where hard decisions haven't weighed on your shoulders. And you are of course free to spew what ever hard handed BS you like from atop that high horse. But you really should research what you say before you speak. The cost of the adoption process to the State is significantly higher than a one time payout for $3000. Not to mention the long term effects on the mental health of all parties involved and the tax burden on the citizens.
I appreciate your attempts to help guide my life down a morally excellent path, but truely... go fuck a light socket.
-Rick
She was on the pill, I used a rubber... some things are just meant to be.
-Rick
That's interesting. Unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot of case law I could find on the specific statutes I was looking at, but I would guess that is where a lawyer with experience and a few intern/aids would have had an advantage.
I'm sure there is some amount of case law out there, especially on the debt accumulated prior to marriage, but I have nada for experience in legal searches and was (naively) happy enough to have found related statutes.
-Rick
As for the responsible thing, this was it. You want details? She was on the pill, I used a rubber, freak accidents happen. My son is my own, and I'll love him for ever. Adoption was never an option. I would have moved back in with the folks before that.
As I said elsewhere in this thread. It's not the money that bothers me. It's over, water under the bridge. The State has it, I don't, and it's not worth investing in to get it back. It is the manner in which the Judge just openly stated that he was willing to ignore some laws just because he was not familiar with them. That's something that as the article illustrated, is still an on going issue. Many judges will take the easy road instead of the right road.
-Rick
Ehh, my situation sucked. I use the term 'We' because we are a family. We used the medicade(err, medicare, I can't keep the two straight anymore) program because many of the other programs for low income houses that we would have been eligible for would require us to be married. We were not married, so the medicade program was our (and the State's) best option.
All in all, I am not objecting the repayment so much as the judge's and the prosecutors selective view of the law. If the law was more clearly written for people in that position, then I wouldn't have had an issue. But the enforcement of one law that directly violates another law, is just asinine.
As for proof of my lack of income, I was working as an LTE for the State (limited to 1040 hours over a 1 year period) making about $890/month. while going to school full time. My wife was unemployed, going to school full time as well.
After 1 year at the State I became eligible for the State's health care plan, with out the contribution from my employer, but it was a take it or leave for 6-months kind of deal. So I picked up single coverage for 2 months (for about $350/month) and then right when my wife turned 25 I picked up family coverage (for $980/month). For 2 or 3 months while I finished my degree I was paying more in health insurance than I was making in take home pay (yes, I showed up to work and at the end of every month I had to write the State a check for $90 and my paychecks were NPDs). Luckily I finished up my degree ahead of schedule and got a serious job with a wage high enough that we could pay off the credit debt we amassed over those 4 months and life improved.
So yeah, we were eligible for a number of assistance programs. And had we married, we would have been eligible for a good number more.
-Rick
My sentiment exactly. But if you look at the paperwork, or even the State's online court system, it all shows up as my wife suing me.
-Rick
Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.
We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).
So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.
As soon as my son was born, he was covered under the Healthy Start program in Wisconsin, which covers all children.
So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.
Now, you may think that we just 'screwed' the State for 3k. But look at the alternative. Had my wife married as soon as we found out she was pregnant, she would have lost her insurance. We would have had to have turned to the State for 100% of the prenatal, birthing, and post-natal care expenses. And better yet, since we were a good married couple and poor, the State would have no avenue for recoupment of that money. The existing recoupment options apply only to unwed fathers.
We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could. That year, our medical expenses were so high that I had saved every related reciept to try to get a tax break. But a year later, we came up just short of the amount needed to qualify, so, like an idiot, I tossed the reciepts. 2 years after that, the State finally got around to sueing. There are existing limitations on what the State can sue for. Specificly, they can sue the unwed father of the child for up to 1/2 of the medicare expenses minue any pregnancy related expenses the father pays, although, the State's lawyers usually ignore that limitation and attempt to sue for a flat $2000 fee.
Had the State not waited 3 year to sue me I would have had the receipts to show that I had already paid over $1500 in pregnancy related care, and the issue would have been settled.
Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.
As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.
By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the prosecution of dead beats and people who attempt to skip out of child support. But the State's persuit of this matter has been run on autopilot with no one in the cockpit to see where it's going. They are just so used to dealing with crap that they expect everyone they s
Oh the simple beauty of the warning label...
http://www.engrish.com/detail.php?imagename=olfa_knife.jpg&category=Household%20Items&date=2002-05-14
-Rick
No idea. But I get a monthly statement (that is almost always wrong) showing my child care payments due. And every month I have to call them to get them to correct it. At least lately they've gotten the damn thing to show that I owe $0. But I sure as hell don't care for being on any specific government lists.
-Rick