Self-incrimination only applies when you're being questioned. Up untill that point, anything you do to incriminate yourself is absolutely admissible in court.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that because it's easier for law-enforcement agents to gather evidence, we need to do something to make things easier for criminals? What the hell?
By the way, hiding evidence is known as "obstruction of justice" and is a crime in and of itself, so yes, the government certainly DOES have a right to all evidence in a case. Encrypting your HD to hide your kiddie-porn collection is no different than burrying the weapon you used to commit a murder, or trying to get your car fixed "under the table" after commiting a hit-and-run.
Yes. TrueCrypt can create an encrypted file-system, with a secondary, "invisible" encrypted file-system inside of it.
The only problem? Headers are still going to be visible no matter how you encrypt a file system. While it works fine for fooling someone initialy, it won't get rid of anyone who really knows what they're doing, and is really dedicated to tearing apart your HD.
I can "recover" your windows password in all of 10 minutes, so someone with physical access to your computer won't have much of a problem logging in as you and accessing all your encrypted documents. As long as the Windows SAM database continues to leak live a seive, the level of encrpytion used on the file system is irrelevant, and "back-doors" are unneccesary. In fact, it could be argued that the poor encryption of the SAM file IS a back door.
That's why I personally use TrueCrypt.
It's platform independent and opensource. It's pretty much impossible to brute-force. It won't lose all my data if I have to re-install windows. AND it won't be compromised just because someone gets access to my LANMAN hash.
Ironic that in this "information age", all we're really accomplishing is making people think they know more. It's especially worrying when you realize that this false assumption of intelligence and informational awareness makes people less likely to trust officials and experts. So whereas in the past, panic could have been averted by a government official appearing on television and stating "don't worry, there's no real danger", these days everyone "knows better". After all, CNN and MSNBC told us dirty bombs were dangerous, the government must just be trying to cover it up! Run for your lives!
Dirty bombs are a boogyman. It'd take too long to go into detail, but basicaly, we did a threat analysis study and found that in a worst-case scenario, a dirty bomb detonated today might double the number of cancer-related death occuring between the years of 2020 and 2030. Realisticaly, with proper cleanup and containment, as well as assuming cancer treatment improves over the next 15 years, the rise in cancer-related deaths would be insignificant. And the key point is that detonating a dirty-bomb would have no immediate result - any effects it may have wouldn't be noticed untill 15 years later. For that reason alone, dirty bombs are useless as weapons for terrorists.
Yes, I'm sorry, I'm not up on my spelling of Japanese suidice terms. Somehow it doesn't seem like the most relevant thing to my lifestyle. Heck I might even have misspelled sepukku.
The Western nations of Russia, Ukrane, and several other Slavic nations have higher suicide rates than Japan
here are the top suicide nations (Sri Lanka's placement may not be accurate due to very old statistics):
LITHUANIA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELARUS
LATVIA
UKRAINE
SRI LANKA
SLOVENIA
HUNGARY
ESTONIA
KAZAKHSTAN
JAPAN
Now, I personaly don't see any nations there that you could truly consider part of the western world. They're all thir world nations more or less. If I lived in Kazakhstan, I'd probably commmit suicide too. Either that or the KGB would "suicide" me;)
Japanese culture has long embraced the concept of suicide being the answer to certain problems. In some situations it was seen as the only way to recover honour for yourself, or your family. Whereas western culture and religion have always forbidden suicide, and have threatened to send you to hell if you do it, Japanese culture has not only condoned, but encouraged it. So is it any wonder that their suicide rate is higher than ours?
The speed of the Earth as it orbits the sun is roughly 29,166 meters per second.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.
29166 / 299792458 = 9.7287304 × 10-5
Therefore, in order for the Earth to remain in a constant orbit around the sun, it maintains a speed which is so small a percentage of the speed of light as to not be worth mentioning. So you might have a wee bit of trouble maintaining an orbit around a planet while booting along at 57% of the speed of light.
Just to illustrate the point even better, at 57% of the speed of light, you could hurtle on a straight-line trajectory between Pluto and the Sun in about 5 and a half hours. How much do you suppose a planets gravety field would deflect your trajectory during that time period? Or the Sun's gravity field for that matter?
No, that's a gangster. And THAT is becoming a bigger problem, mainly in highschools. There's a big difference. You can't equate swarming with bullying. I've had experience with both, and I'm quite aware that the best way to deal with the gangsters in our schools is to involve law-enforcement.
In my highschool the behaviour you speak of manifested itself when we got a large influx of Somali immigrants. I have nothing against them as a people, however, when I first started going to school there, it was predominantly white, and while we had a few bullies we never had any serious incidents. When the racial makeup of the school changed (that was grade 10 for me), it wasn't long before we started seing swarmings. By the time I was in grade 12, these same individuals had brought the criminal element in to the school, and we had several incidents of students getting attacked with knives and machettes.
Ironically enough, we (the students) initialy managed to keep the level of violence from escalating by specificaly going after the leaders of the various groups. However, school officials in their haste to not appear racist were much more likely to punish a white student than a visible minority, and that, combined with the fact that none of us wanted criminal records for assault, meant that we were fighting a losing battle. If, however, there had been enough students willing to stand up to the individuals causing the problems, and if the school administration had not tied their own hands by misplaced fears about "racial sensitivity", I think that school could have been kept from turning into the shit-pit that it is today. Which would have benefited ALL the students, regaurdless of race. Now, it's too late. The last time I checked, 5 years after I first started going to the school they had gone from no concerns about criminals or security, to having something like 20 security cameras and 2 undercover cops.
But anyway, just to get back on topic: bullying and swarmings are two different things, carried out by individuals with completely different mindsets.
You're confusing wasting your breath with being a waste of air. If I had the mod points I'd mod you as a troll, as it's quite obvious that you do not have a developed or logical viewpoint on the issue and are formulating your views based purely on ignorance and emotion. While that in and of itself does not constitute trolling, your refusal to accept any criticism of your views certainly does.
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
Not only that, but assuming the requested records were either stored in or accessible from China, Chinese authorities would have every right to arrest employees of Google's subsidiary and charge them with the Chinese version of obstructing justice. It's a catch 22, you release the info and it leads to an arrest, or you hold on to the info and have your employees arrested. Add to that the fact that they'd also bar you from doing business in their country, and there's only one reasonable response.
1) Companies don't force anyone to work. If children are being forced to work, it's their parents that are doing the forcing.
2) Companies offer a resonable wage based on the market in that area. This isn't done only to minimize costs but also because doing otherwise would have negative repercussions for the area in question. Imagine that you're an engineer in a third-world country making $100 a month working for a local company. Then Nike moves in, and, because they keep getting accused of using slaves to make their product ( mostly by well meaning individuals with long hair and sandals), they offer $6 an hour to anyone willing to work in their factories. Now, where's the incentive for anyone to go to school and become an engineer, doctor, or a scientist, when they can make more money working in a factory making shoes?
3) Regaurdless of the other two points, children being forced to work and making 13 cents an hour is better than children not being able to work and starving to death as a result.
"If the motive is good, and there are no other possibilities, then seen most deeply
it (violence) is nonviolence, because its aim is to help others." ---Dalai Lama
It's been proven over and over that standing up to a bully will not only not "beget violence", but will qucikly end the escalation of violence which most bullies use. My own experiene with bullying began when I moved to North America in grade 5. In my home country I was always popular, but after moving I became the new-kid-who-can't-even-speak-english-well. Three bullies picked on me for exactly one week, at which point I had enough. I flipped one of my antagonists on his ass and broke another ones nose, while the third just stood there and watched in shock. After which they all ran away.
Ofcourse, I got suspended for a couple of days, but I never had problems with bullying again.
For the LAST last time, you don't have to be doing anything illegal. If you're in a movie theater shining a laser pointer at the screen, you're not doing anything illegal, but you're still getting kicked out.
If you walk into a kindergarten class wearing this shirt, you're not doing anything illegal, but you're still getting kicked out.
If you're at a Black Panthers meeting yelling "white power", you're not doing anything illegal, but whatever is left of your body will still be kicked out.
Do you not understand the concept? You can be asked to leave the premises without any reason. If you do not comply, you are immedatly considered to be trespassing, and can be arrested. Whether or not you were invited, whether or not you have a ticket, none of it matters! You either leave when asked to do so, or you ARE trespassing. Otherwise what's to stop Little Miss Cindy from running up and taking the microphone away from the president? What's to stop everyone at a concert from climbing on to the stage?
Am I getting through to you yet? I swear to god, you're denser than lead.
Any time you publicaly voice your views you're going to get a lot of scrutiny. Does scrutiny equal being treated like a criminal? Hardly. When's the last time Michael Moore was persecuted because of his beleifs? He's a much more vocal figure than Cindy Sheehan, and is certainly more of a threat to the administration. But he's smart enough not to do anything illegal, thereby avoiding imprisonment.
From what I understand, you're saying that being a "dissenter" is more likely to get you arrested, which, to an extent is true - mainly because it tends to get you noticed. But you still have to do something illegal first; and if you're falsely arrested, you have legal resources at your disposal which can garner you a nice monetary sum to make up for the inconvinience.
While I liked Atlas Shrugged, some of the ideas discussed are little better than conspiracy theories. Do I agree with all of our laws? No. For example, I think the drug laws are absolutely pointless at best, and probably quite harmful to our society. But trespass laws are a very basic, and a very neccesary part of any society. Even "dissenters" aren't afraid to use them - try walking into a Code Pink meeting wearing an "I love killing hajdis" shirt, and see how long it takes before they call the cops and have you dragged out of there. Trespass laws exist for a reason; the fact that some "dissenters" don't understand them, or chose to ignore them, is their own problem, and in no way represents an oppression of their rights. Personaly I'm of the beleif that many protestors WANT to get arrested because they know it will get them media coverage, and will allow them to bitch about the evil government trying to silence them. That in itself is a pretty good commentary on how balanced and fair our system is - could you imagine a Chinese citizen ever intentionaly getting him/her self arrested?
It won't see nearly as much success as DVD did. Although once reasonably priced blue-ray recorders and recordable media come outyou're going to see a lot of geeks switching. Just imagine: ALL of your Battlestar Galactica episodes on ONE DISC!
Your browsing habits are no more private than your movements around a city. Once you enter the public spaces, your expectation of privacy becomes greatly reduced.
And the article is wrong about e-mail. Or rather, it never specificaly states that this program will collect e-mails, so it's not wrong, but it IS misleading.
The new "ADVISE" initiative isn't meant to gather e-mails. It only gathers publicaly available data. I can't comment on the gathering of e-mails thourgh OTHER initiatives because there's been a lot of contradictory information, but I can tell you that they won't be gathered as part of ADVISE.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what motivated a certain action. Especialy in this case: everyone knew she was going to be there and everyone was expecting something to happen. Maybe the officer did make the wrong judgement call. Maybe the order came from higher up. Who knows. The point is, the original post claimed that we treat our political dissenters as criminals, which is absolutely wrong. They get treated like criminals only when they break the law, because at that point they become criminals; our legal code does not limit their right to dissent, only, in this case, their right to trespass. Getting sidetracked into figuring out the exact "mentality" of the police officer is pointless; it's the legality of what he did that's being questioned here, not his motivations.
As for the police saying "oops", keep in mind that's not always an admission of guilt. Sometimes it's easier to say sorry and have the issue go away than it is to insist you were right and get loads of negative attention. If you want an example, think of the woman-with-hot-cup-of-coffee vs McDonalds case. No sane judge would have awarded her any money, but McDonalds paid up in a settlment just to make the case go away. I've worked for the government in several different roles, so trust me when I say that we chose our battles carefuly. If we can say "oops, sorry" and have the media lose interest, we'll do it in an instant even if we did nothing wrong.
In that case she has a legitemate grievance. If they placed her under arrest without prior warning, and assuming she wasn't violating any other laws, then the arresting officer can be held liable.
However, you not having "seen anything about her refusing to leave" doesn't mean it didn't happen. I wasn't there so I can't say either way, although I would at the very least express enough confidence in the law-enforcement officers involved to assume that they did initialy tell her to leave. They are after all trained, and know full well all the details and technicalities of their duties. If they chose to do it wrong then they deserve to be punished for it.
Listen, your "legitemate ticket" doesn't mean shit. You can be kicked out of a concert too, or a movie theater. Sometimes you'll get a refund, but even that's not required. The event she was attending was a PRIVATE EVENT. That's why it required tickets. Meaning people who do not have tickets could be kept out. By the same logic, and enforced by law, anyone attenting can be KICKED out at any point in time, WITHOUT A REASON BEING GIVEN.
Being an "invited guest" does not protect one from being asked to leave. If you refuse to leave when asked to do so, that in itself is illegal. Nobody owes you a reason! Get that through your heads! When I did retail security, I used to get dumbass punks arguing with me all the time:
"Why should I leave? Huh? I'm not doing anything wrong! I have the right to be here!"
Bullshit. Your presence is tolerated at the discretion of the owner. You can be asked to leave at any time without any reason being given.
Bottom line, if I invite you to my house and then for no reason whatsoever tell you to get the fuck out, you do it immiediately if not sooner because the next step will be arresting you and having you charged with trespassing.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-incrimination only applies when you're being questioned. Up untill that point, anything you do to incriminate yourself is absolutely admissible in court.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that because it's easier for law-enforcement agents to gather evidence, we need to do something to make things easier for criminals? What the hell?
By the way, hiding evidence is known as "obstruction of justice" and is a crime in and of itself, so yes, the government certainly DOES have a right to all evidence in a case. Encrypting your HD to hide your kiddie-porn collection is no different than burrying the weapon you used to commit a murder, or trying to get your car fixed "under the table" after commiting a hit-and-run.
Yes. TrueCrypt can create an encrypted file-system, with a secondary, "invisible" encrypted file-system inside of it.
The only problem? Headers are still going to be visible no matter how you encrypt a file system. While it works fine for fooling someone initialy, it won't get rid of anyone who really knows what they're doing, and is really dedicated to tearing apart your HD.
I can "recover" your windows password in all of 10 minutes, so someone with physical access to your computer won't have much of a problem logging in as you and accessing all your encrypted documents. As long as the Windows SAM database continues to leak live a seive, the level of encrpytion used on the file system is irrelevant, and "back-doors" are unneccesary. In fact, it could be argued that the poor encryption of the SAM file IS a back door.
That's why I personally use TrueCrypt. It's platform independent and opensource. It's pretty much impossible to brute-force. It won't lose all my data if I have to re-install windows. AND it won't be compromised just because someone gets access to my LANMAN hash.
Ironic that in this "information age", all we're really accomplishing is making people think they know more. It's especially worrying when you realize that this false assumption of intelligence and informational awareness makes people less likely to trust officials and experts. So whereas in the past, panic could have been averted by a government official appearing on television and stating "don't worry, there's no real danger", these days everyone "knows better". After all, CNN and MSNBC told us dirty bombs were dangerous, the government must just be trying to cover it up! Run for your lives!
Dirty bombs are a boogyman. It'd take too long to go into detail, but basicaly, we did a threat analysis study and found that in a worst-case scenario, a dirty bomb detonated today might double the number of cancer-related death occuring between the years of 2020 and 2030. Realisticaly, with proper cleanup and containment, as well as assuming cancer treatment improves over the next 15 years, the rise in cancer-related deaths would be insignificant. And the key point is that detonating a dirty-bomb would have no immediate result - any effects it may have wouldn't be noticed untill 15 years later. For that reason alone, dirty bombs are useless as weapons for terrorists.
methinks thou misusest that word.
Yes, I'm sorry, I'm not up on my spelling of Japanese suidice terms. Somehow it doesn't seem like the most relevant thing to my lifestyle. Heck I might even have misspelled sepukku.
;)
The Western nations of Russia, Ukrane, and several other Slavic nations have higher suicide rates than Japan
here are the top suicide nations (Sri Lanka's placement may not be accurate due to very old statistics):
LITHUANIA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
BELARUS
LATVIA
UKRAINE
SRI LANKA
SLOVENIA
HUNGARY
ESTONIA
KAZAKHSTAN
JAPAN
Now, I personaly don't see any nations there that you could truly consider part of the western world. They're all thir world nations more or less. If I lived in Kazakhstan, I'd probably commmit suicide too. Either that or the KGB would "suicide" me
What, you've never heard of Hiri Kiri?
Japanese culture has long embraced the concept of suicide being the answer to certain problems. In some situations it was seen as the only way to recover honour for yourself, or your family. Whereas western culture and religion have always forbidden suicide, and have threatened to send you to hell if you do it, Japanese culture has not only condoned, but encouraged it. So is it any wonder that their suicide rate is higher than ours?
The speed of the Earth as it orbits the sun is roughly 29,166 meters per second.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.
29166 / 299792458 = 9.7287304 × 10-5
Therefore, in order for the Earth to remain in a constant orbit around the sun, it maintains a speed which is so small a percentage of the speed of light as to not be worth mentioning. So you might have a wee bit of trouble maintaining an orbit around a planet while booting along at 57% of the speed of light.
Just to illustrate the point even better, at 57% of the speed of light, you could hurtle on a straight-line trajectory between Pluto and the Sun in about 5 and a half hours. How much do you suppose a planets gravety field would deflect your trajectory during that time period? Or the Sun's gravity field for that matter?
No, that's a gangster. And THAT is becoming a bigger problem, mainly in highschools. There's a big difference. You can't equate swarming with bullying. I've had experience with both, and I'm quite aware that the best way to deal with the gangsters in our schools is to involve law-enforcement.
In my highschool the behaviour you speak of manifested itself when we got a large influx of Somali immigrants. I have nothing against them as a people, however, when I first started going to school there, it was predominantly white, and while we had a few bullies we never had any serious incidents. When the racial makeup of the school changed (that was grade 10 for me), it wasn't long before we started seing swarmings. By the time I was in grade 12, these same individuals had brought the criminal element in to the school, and we had several incidents of students getting attacked with knives and machettes.
Ironically enough, we (the students) initialy managed to keep the level of violence from escalating by specificaly going after the leaders of the various groups. However, school officials in their haste to not appear racist were much more likely to punish a white student than a visible minority, and that, combined with the fact that none of us wanted criminal records for assault, meant that we were fighting a losing battle. If, however, there had been enough students willing to stand up to the individuals causing the problems, and if the school administration had not tied their own hands by misplaced fears about "racial sensitivity", I think that school could have been kept from turning into the shit-pit that it is today. Which would have benefited ALL the students, regaurdless of race. Now, it's too late. The last time I checked, 5 years after I first started going to the school they had gone from no concerns about criminals or security, to having something like 20 security cameras and 2 undercover cops.
But anyway, just to get back on topic: bullying and swarmings are two different things, carried out by individuals with completely different mindsets.
You're confusing wasting your breath with being a waste of air. If I had the mod points I'd mod you as a troll, as it's quite obvious that you do not have a developed or logical viewpoint on the issue and are formulating your views based purely on ignorance and emotion. While that in and of itself does not constitute trolling, your refusal to accept any criticism of your views certainly does.
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
Not only that, but assuming the requested records were either stored in or accessible from China, Chinese authorities would have every right to arrest employees of Google's subsidiary and charge them with the Chinese version of obstructing justice. It's a catch 22, you release the info and it leads to an arrest, or you hold on to the info and have your employees arrested. Add to that the fact that they'd also bar you from doing business in their country, and there's only one reasonable response.
1) Companies don't force anyone to work. If children are being forced to work, it's their parents that are doing the forcing.
2) Companies offer a resonable wage based on the market in that area. This isn't done only to minimize costs but also because doing otherwise would have negative repercussions for the area in question. Imagine that you're an engineer in a third-world country making $100 a month working for a local company. Then Nike moves in, and, because they keep getting accused of using slaves to make their product ( mostly by well meaning individuals with long hair and sandals), they offer $6 an hour to anyone willing to work in their factories. Now, where's the incentive for anyone to go to school and become an engineer, doctor, or a scientist, when they can make more money working in a factory making shoes?
3) Regaurdless of the other two points, children being forced to work and making 13 cents an hour is better than children not being able to work and starving to death as a result.
Violence that begets violence never ends.
"If the motive is good, and there are no other possibilities, then seen most deeply it (violence) is nonviolence, because its aim is to help others."
---Dalai Lama
It's been proven over and over that standing up to a bully will not only not "beget violence", but will qucikly end the escalation of violence which most bullies use. My own experiene with bullying began when I moved to North America in grade 5. In my home country I was always popular, but after moving I became the new-kid-who-can't-even-speak-english-well. Three bullies picked on me for exactly one week, at which point I had enough. I flipped one of my antagonists on his ass and broke another ones nose, while the third just stood there and watched in shock. After which they all ran away.
Ofcourse, I got suspended for a couple of days, but I never had problems with bullying again.
Because in ALL aspects of life you either change to meet the challange, or you stagnate and become irrelevant.
Nature isn't a socialist paradise. Life isn't "fair". You either work to better yourself and solve your problems, or your problems will destroy you.
Is there any person, event, or technology on this planet that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with him/her/it?
ok, one more kick at the can, and then I'm done.
For the LAST last time, you don't have to be doing anything illegal. If you're in a movie theater shining a laser pointer at the screen, you're not doing anything illegal, but you're still getting kicked out.
If you walk into a kindergarten class wearing this shirt, you're not doing anything illegal, but you're still getting kicked out.
If you're at a Black Panthers meeting yelling "white power", you're not doing anything illegal, but whatever is left of your body will still be kicked out.
Do you not understand the concept? You can be asked to leave the premises without any reason. If you do not comply, you are immedatly considered to be trespassing, and can be arrested. Whether or not you were invited, whether or not you have a ticket, none of it matters! You either leave when asked to do so, or you ARE trespassing. Otherwise what's to stop Little Miss Cindy from running up and taking the microphone away from the president? What's to stop everyone at a concert from climbing on to the stage?
Am I getting through to you yet? I swear to god, you're denser than lead.
Any time you publicaly voice your views you're going to get a lot of scrutiny. Does scrutiny equal being treated like a criminal? Hardly. When's the last time Michael Moore was persecuted because of his beleifs? He's a much more vocal figure than Cindy Sheehan, and is certainly more of a threat to the administration. But he's smart enough not to do anything illegal, thereby avoiding imprisonment.
From what I understand, you're saying that being a "dissenter" is more likely to get you arrested, which, to an extent is true - mainly because it tends to get you noticed. But you still have to do something illegal first; and if you're falsely arrested, you have legal resources at your disposal which can garner you a nice monetary sum to make up for the inconvinience.
While I liked Atlas Shrugged, some of the ideas discussed are little better than conspiracy theories. Do I agree with all of our laws? No. For example, I think the drug laws are absolutely pointless at best, and probably quite harmful to our society. But trespass laws are a very basic, and a very neccesary part of any society. Even "dissenters" aren't afraid to use them - try walking into a Code Pink meeting wearing an "I love killing hajdis" shirt, and see how long it takes before they call the cops and have you dragged out of there. Trespass laws exist for a reason; the fact that some "dissenters" don't understand them, or chose to ignore them, is their own problem, and in no way represents an oppression of their rights. Personaly I'm of the beleif that many protestors WANT to get arrested because they know it will get them media coverage, and will allow them to bitch about the evil government trying to silence them. That in itself is a pretty good commentary on how balanced and fair our system is - could you imagine a Chinese citizen ever intentionaly getting him/her self arrested?
It won't see nearly as much success as DVD did. Although once reasonably priced blue-ray recorders and recordable media come outyou're going to see a lot of geeks switching. Just imagine: ALL of your Battlestar Galactica episodes on ONE DISC!
Your browsing habits are no more private than your movements around a city. Once you enter the public spaces, your expectation of privacy becomes greatly reduced.
And the article is wrong about e-mail. Or rather, it never specificaly states that this program will collect e-mails, so it's not wrong, but it IS misleading.
The new "ADVISE" initiative isn't meant to gather e-mails. It only gathers publicaly available data. I can't comment on the gathering of e-mails thourgh OTHER initiatives because there's been a lot of contradictory information, but I can tell you that they won't be gathered as part of ADVISE.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what motivated a certain action. Especialy in this case: everyone knew she was going to be there and everyone was expecting something to happen. Maybe the officer did make the wrong judgement call. Maybe the order came from higher up. Who knows. The point is, the original post claimed that we treat our political dissenters as criminals, which is absolutely wrong. They get treated like criminals only when they break the law, because at that point they become criminals; our legal code does not limit their right to dissent, only, in this case, their right to trespass. Getting sidetracked into figuring out the exact "mentality" of the police officer is pointless; it's the legality of what he did that's being questioned here, not his motivations.
As for the police saying "oops", keep in mind that's not always an admission of guilt. Sometimes it's easier to say sorry and have the issue go away than it is to insist you were right and get loads of negative attention. If you want an example, think of the woman-with-hot-cup-of-coffee vs McDonalds case. No sane judge would have awarded her any money, but McDonalds paid up in a settlment just to make the case go away. I've worked for the government in several different roles, so trust me when I say that we chose our battles carefuly. If we can say "oops, sorry" and have the media lose interest, we'll do it in an instant even if we did nothing wrong.
In that case she has a legitemate grievance. If they placed her under arrest without prior warning, and assuming she wasn't violating any other laws, then the arresting officer can be held liable.
However, you not having "seen anything about her refusing to leave" doesn't mean it didn't happen. I wasn't there so I can't say either way, although I would at the very least express enough confidence in the law-enforcement officers involved to assume that they did initialy tell her to leave. They are after all trained, and know full well all the details and technicalities of their duties. If they chose to do it wrong then they deserve to be punished for it.
Listen, your "legitemate ticket" doesn't mean shit. You can be kicked out of a concert too, or a movie theater. Sometimes you'll get a refund, but even that's not required. The event she was attending was a PRIVATE EVENT. That's why it required tickets. Meaning people who do not have tickets could be kept out. By the same logic, and enforced by law, anyone attenting can be KICKED out at any point in time, WITHOUT A REASON BEING GIVEN.
God DAMN. Invest in an education, it's worth it.
from now on I'm just posting a link. too many ignorant bastards to argue with.
Click here to see why you are wrong
Being an "invited guest" does not protect one from being asked to leave. If you refuse to leave when asked to do so, that in itself is illegal. Nobody owes you a reason! Get that through your heads! When I did retail security, I used to get dumbass punks arguing with me all the time:
"Why should I leave? Huh? I'm not doing anything wrong! I have the right to be here!"
Bullshit. Your presence is tolerated at the discretion of the owner. You can be asked to leave at any time without any reason being given.
Bottom line, if I invite you to my house and then for no reason whatsoever tell you to get the fuck out, you do it immiediately if not sooner because the next step will be arresting you and having you charged with trespassing.