If you ask your puppy why his kisses taste like a dog's ass, his puppy reply, properly translated, would be "How the hell do you know what a dog's ass tastes like???"
Break-ins are usually by people that want your stuff, not your life. As such, a typical robber prefers a minimum fuss, quick in, quick out approach. Unnecessary noise, whether dog barks or weapon discharge, is a liability - it attracts unwanted attention, wakes up the residents (who may also be armed), etc.
And once again, pot's going to be legal "any day now" and "it's the damned geezers' fault, when my generation takes over it'll be different".
when "your generation" takes over, they will look around and see that there are lots of benefits to be had if one is willing to compromise his principles. Just like my generation did, and the one before it, and the one before it... Nothing ever changes.
Overthrowing the monarchy loses much of its appeal when you get to be the king.
Many do. When the people in charge of upholding the law routinely and blatantly break it themselves it shows that the system is broken and corrupt.
Where you speeding or not?
He said he was stopped in traffic. Draw your own conclusions.
If yes, you are guilty of speeding, if no, then why the hell do you care what other people are doing?
Because their actions directly affect him in particular and society in general. You'd care if someone raped your sister, he cares when somebody rapes his rights.
Grow a pair and pay the ticket.
Seems to me that he actually has a pair as he was doing something to at least bring awareness to the situation, as opposed to some that consider "growing a pair" synonymous with "bending over".
You are still entitled to being an ass.
Where are you from? The US? If so, keep in mind that your country wouldn't exist if not for people "being asses" to his majesty's gang.
Police misconduct is different in western industrialized nations. I would not call it rare. Only different.
It starts with small things. For example, police are only allowed to break the speed limits when they have their flashing lights and sirens on. How many police cars do you see speeding? (I see a lot) How many are ticketed by their peers? (Effectively zero). Then the team spirit carries over to situations of manhandling suspects, planting evidence, etc. Whether it is an "us against them" mentality or peer pressure, the fact is that cops fall into 3 broad categories: those that are corrupt, those that actively protect the corrupt and those that keep silent about it.
Police are given the power to ruin your day (or even your life) with practically no accountability, especially with new laws that are being passed. Here's an example of something just begging to be abused: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/09/street-racing.html
My friend, $600 will buy you a lot, but a cable that works with the newest HDMI standards it will not. May I interest you in our $1200 version? It's twice the pri.. quality. And in case you want higher quality YouTube videos, we've got the amazing Denon AK-DL1 [denon.com] Ethernet cable. It will sharpen your web-browsing experience, and make it run faster.
Don't forget that you can buy the same cable for $2500 on Amazon(*), after all, the more expensive the better.
It is illegal to enter an intersection on a red light. If you are already past the line when the light turns red, you are supposed to clear the intersection. That's how most North American left turns work.
Just for reference, in the GTA (and, as far as I know, the rest of Ontario) we have 6 seconds of amber light, then another 3 seconds before the other direction turns green -- regardless of the speed limit on the road.
There is at least one precedent for making owning machines illegal. Slot machines are regulated and it is illegal to own one in most states, even if the coin mechanism is disabled to play for free.
This is especially true when people working for law enforcement agencies have a sense of entitlement and no real accountability for their actions. There's a reason for warrants.
I don't live in the US, so not subject to the stupid dollar value attached to accessing the legal system as obvious in the US.
But the OP is. You cannot fault his choice until you find your self in a similar situation
A very loud appeal involves the media. I'm innocent, there's a human interest story there. Either I've been framed, or caught in a technicality - both scenarios a decent journalist can run with.
Whether you are innocent of guilty is for the court(s) to decide.
The authority of appellate courts to review a decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. For example, in the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the court below made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, U.S. appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most U.S. states, and in U.S. federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as of right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals.
I'm curious though, what is the difference between a regular appeal and a very loud one?
Oh, bullshit. I'm sure it's exhilarating to push the +1 Insightful moderation, but I live in an actual police state.
Things are not black and white, there are different shades of grey in between.
So you live in a worse state, I sympathize. But the fact is that the western democracies try to move as close to the trappings as a police state as they can manage. It is not the same scale as in totalitarian regimes but it is still wrong and should be fought against.
If I was innocent, yes, I would. My principles mean that much to me. I could not look my son in the eyes years later and tell him I compromised my principles just because there was a chance I could lose.
When there's a possibility that a plea bargain will still leave you able to provide for your son's home, food and education, your outlook may change.
I doubt you'll relish looking your son in the eyes years later and telling him "sorry son, I gambled your future on my principles and lost".
The top tax bracket is completely irrelevant. What you should be looking at is the standard of living.
If the after-tax amount you have left is enough to get all the stuff and services that you need, the intermediate steps in the calculation do not matter.
I think that it would probably help the majority of decent, competent cops to do their jobs if the bad ones (and their superiors) were fired and punished when they pulled this sort of crap
There are no decent cops anymore. Cops fall roughly into four groups: 1. Corrupt or just happy to abuse their power. 2. Those that actively protect the 1st group. 3. Those that do nothing because they are afraid of the 1st and 2nd groups. 4. Those that have an accident.
Here's something trivial to think about: According to the law, a police car can break the speed limit only when they have their siren and/or flashing lights on. I personally was overtaken by police cars while driving at or above the speed limit many times. I am sure that almost everyone had similar experiences. Any idea how many policemen are cited for speeding by their "decent, competent" peers?
If the "decent, competent cops" was anything more than a myth then they are extinct by now.
But the thing is, the people that made those decisions won't be punished, its the tax payers that will be punished because now the defecit due to the lawsuit has to be made up for.
The law does not apply to the police and the politicians. On paper, maybe, but not in practice. Rogue cops and corrupt politicians are seldom charged and when they do, they get laughable sentences. They can literally get away with murder.
I am sorry it came to this but we no longer have any choice and have to adopt tactics that I find abhorrent.
We should start a systematic smear campaign against the people involved. Whenever somebody proposes, supports or applies a law such as this one, they should be portrayed as out to corrupt "our fine police force", obviously due to being on the organized crime payroll. Because no honest and upstanding cop will protest the recording of the "good work they do to protect our community".
Call radio stations, write to papers, put up fliers, raise the issue at meetings. Appeal to basic emotions, erect strawmen, use any logical fallacy in the book. Drag them and their associates through the mud. Make sure that the public will associate their names with everything that is vile and rotten in our society, ESPECIALLY NEAR ELECTION TIME (Remember: both the educated person and the uneducated one have exactly one vote each, and the uneducated outnumber the educated.) Make sure they are viewed as a liability.
I don't have any idealism left. Crowd manipulation seems to be the only thing that works nowadays: tar, feathers and lynch mobs.
Perhaps we should make the entire profession of lawyers illegal? (no sarcasm there)
Alternatively, make every lawyer take a certain percentage of their total cases as public cases for a nominal fee. Disbar every lawyer who does not meet the quota or whose win/loss ratio on the public cases is significantly worse than that of their private cases.
That way you can still pay for a specific lawyer or get a randomly assigned one for free.
The only "drawback" with this suggestion is that it will lower lawyers' fees, therefore the lawmakers (who are mostly lawyers themselves or friends/relatives of ones) will never pass it.
> What does it benefit you to take the position that they are all wrong. If you take that position and it turns out that any one of them is right, then you are screwed.
Since most religions claim that worshiping a different god is a worse transgression than not worshiping any got at all, and since there you haven't proposed any test to determine which religion is more likely to be right than others, the prudent course of action is atheism(*).
(*) In it's original meaning (the prefix "a-" means "without").
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY.
Break-ins are usually by people that want your stuff, not your life. As such, a typical robber prefers a minimum fuss, quick in, quick out approach. Unnecessary noise, whether dog barks or weapon discharge, is a liability - it attracts unwanted attention, wakes up the residents (who may also be armed), etc.
It's easier to pick another target instead.
when "your generation" takes over, they will look around and see that there are lots of benefits to be had if one is willing to compromise his principles. Just like my generation did, and the one before it, and the one before it... Nothing ever changes.
Overthrowing the monarchy loses much of its appeal when you get to be the king.
Many do. When the people in charge of upholding the law routinely and blatantly break it themselves it shows that the system is broken and corrupt.
He said he was stopped in traffic. Draw your own conclusions.
Because their actions directly affect him in particular and society in general. You'd care if someone raped your sister, he cares when somebody rapes his rights.
Seems to me that he actually has a pair as he was doing something to at least bring awareness to the situation, as opposed to some that consider "growing a pair" synonymous with "bending over".
Where are you from? The US? If so, keep in mind that your country wouldn't exist if not for people "being asses" to his majesty's gang.
It starts with small things.
For example, police are only allowed to break the speed limits when they have their flashing lights and sirens on.
How many police cars do you see speeding? (I see a lot) How many are ticketed by their peers? (Effectively zero).
Then the team spirit carries over to situations of manhandling suspects, planting evidence, etc. Whether it is an "us against them" mentality or peer pressure, the fact is that cops fall into 3 broad categories: those that are corrupt, those that actively protect the corrupt and those that keep silent about it.
Police are given the power to ruin your day (or even your life) with practically no accountability, especially with new laws that are being passed. Here's an example of something just begging to be abused:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/09/street-racing.html
Apes actually.
More likely the 3rd.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Don't forget that you can buy the same cable for $2500 on Amazon(*), after all, the more expensive the better.
(*) Spoiler: Read the reviews. All of them.
It is illegal to enter an intersection on a red light. If you are already past the line when the light turns red, you are supposed to clear the intersection. That's how most North American left turns work.
Just for reference, in the GTA (and, as far as I know, the rest of Ontario) we have 6 seconds of amber light, then another 3 seconds before the other direction turns green -- regardless of the speed limit on the road.
Yet another example of a bad law.
Things that can be abused, will be abused.
This is especially true when people working for law enforcement agencies have a sense of entitlement and no real accountability for their actions. There's a reason for warrants.
But the OP is. You cannot fault his choice until you find your self in a similar situation
Whether you are innocent of guilty is for the court(s) to decide.
The 50s called, they want their gender stereotypes back.
That is a good course of action provided that:
1. You have enough funds to last through the trial and the appeal.
2. The appeal isn't thrown out.
Even then, appeals often not go as one hopes for.
Some info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_appeals
I'm curious though, what is the difference between a regular appeal and a very loud one?
Things are not black and white, there are different shades of grey in between.
So you live in a worse state, I sympathize.
But the fact is that the western democracies try to move as close to the trappings as a police state as they can manage.
It is not the same scale as in totalitarian regimes but it is still wrong and should be fought against.
When there's a possibility that a plea bargain will still leave you able to provide for your son's home, food and education, your outlook may change.
I doubt you'll relish looking your son in the eyes years later and telling him "sorry son, I gambled your future on my principles and lost".
The top tax bracket is completely irrelevant.
What you should be looking at is the standard of living.
If the after-tax amount you have left is enough to get all the stuff and services that you need, the intermediate steps in the calculation do not matter.
Please mod up.
Welcome to the world of selective enforcement
aka "DA discretion"
aka "one set of rules for us and one set of rules for them"
I used do 69 in a 60x80 but was never stopped.
There are no decent cops anymore.
Cops fall roughly into four groups:
1. Corrupt or just happy to abuse their power.
2. Those that actively protect the 1st group.
3. Those that do nothing because they are afraid of the 1st and 2nd groups.
4. Those that have an accident.
Here's something trivial to think about:
According to the law, a police car can break the speed limit only when they have their siren and/or flashing lights on.
I personally was overtaken by police cars while driving at or above the speed limit many times. I am sure that almost everyone had similar experiences. Any idea how many policemen are cited for speeding by their "decent, competent" peers?
If the "decent, competent cops" was anything more than a myth then they are extinct by now.
The law does not apply to the police and the politicians. On paper, maybe, but not in practice. Rogue cops and corrupt politicians are seldom charged and when they do, they get laughable sentences. They can literally get away with murder.
I am sorry it came to this but we no longer have any choice and have to adopt tactics that I find abhorrent.
We should start a systematic smear campaign against the people involved. Whenever somebody proposes, supports or applies a law such as this one, they should be portrayed as out to corrupt "our fine police force", obviously due to being on the organized crime payroll. Because no honest and upstanding cop will protest the recording of the "good work they do to protect our community".
Call radio stations, write to papers, put up fliers, raise the issue at meetings. Appeal to basic emotions, erect strawmen, use any logical fallacy in the book. Drag them and their associates through the mud. Make sure that the public will associate their names with everything that is vile and rotten in our society, ESPECIALLY NEAR ELECTION TIME (Remember: both the educated person and the uneducated one have exactly one vote each, and the uneducated outnumber the educated.) Make sure they are viewed as a liability.
I don't have any idealism left. Crowd manipulation seems to be the only thing that works nowadays: tar, feathers and lynch mobs.
Don't forget cartoons and stick drawings.
Alternatively, make every lawyer take a certain percentage of their total cases as public cases for a nominal fee. Disbar every lawyer who does not meet the quota or whose win/loss ratio on the public cases is significantly worse than that of their private cases.
That way you can still pay for a specific lawyer or get a randomly assigned one for free.
The only "drawback" with this suggestion is that it will lower lawyers' fees, therefore the lawmakers (who are mostly lawyers themselves or friends/relatives of ones) will never pass it.
> What does it benefit you to take the position that they are all wrong. If you take that position and it turns out that any one of them is right, then you are screwed.
Since most religions claim that worshiping a different god is a worse transgression than not worshiping any got at all, and since there you haven't proposed any test to determine which religion is more likely to be right than others, the prudent course of action is atheism(*).
(*) In it's original meaning (the prefix "a-" means "without").