in case of any weapon-requiring emergency situation, eg. a zombie outbreak?
Maybe in a video game, but in real life you're not allowed to shoot them. Even drug addicts have the same rights as everybody else. And a good thing, too, because the story is from Indiana! They've got at least 3 zombies for every human at this point.
Well, they might not have freedom of speech, either, or even a Constitution in the US sense of the word. The EU doesn't have a Constitution, and in most countries the parliament can either change it easily, or refer changes to a simple popular vote. That doesn't give you solid rights that you can build an independent legal culture around. When you don't have a solid right of free speech, and you don't even have solid rights at all because they can be changed easily, then you can't really expect the news even to be independent; that's true even if the business culture leaves the money independent! The workers might still not want to rock the boat in the wrong direction.
"Value" is used as a right-wing virtue code-word here to signify that you give the 2nd Amendment meaning beyond its words; it means you ignore the difference in phrasing between the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law" and the second amendment, "shall not be abridged."
Obviously, in one case Congress may make no law, and in the other case Congress may make laws, as long as the end result is not "abridge" certain rights. Abridge means to curtail; literally the word "bridge" negated. It means you can no longer get there. So they can't take away your right to bear arms, but they can regulate it fairly heavily as long as you can still get there.
Artillery was not "arms." That's a new, modern usage of the term. At the time of the Constitution, it meant weapons you carry; muskets and swords. Examples of arms meaning everything are metaphorical uses where it was phrased as if the nation or commander was holding the whole army.
Who cares? Saying things is an absolute right. Arresting people is strongly regulated.
if they hadn't done anything and he later shot up the school, some of those same people would have said, "[blah blah blah]"
Who cares? Yeah, they might say things, they're people. Why do you perceive it is as a problem if their words contradict other words they said before? Who fucking cares? That doesn't impact their right to say it. Compare that to, if you're arresting people and you do it in contradiction of the laws that allow you to do it! That one is illegal.
If parents (in general) were responsible the situation likely would never have reached this point.
Re-read the story, Cluestick! The parents were never asked if they'd like to protect their child's civil liberties, instead the cop just decided on his own to violate them. You can't hang that on the parents.
Indiana isn't a rich enough State to create a police state, the best they can hope for is to stomp on the rights of a few kids and maybe silence a few people who weren't sure if they wanted to speak, or not.
Seriously, sending your kid to public school is an act of parental malpractice these days.
Maybe in Podunkville, Indiana that is even true! But in "blue states," the cop would be getting transferred, and the school district would be apologizing.
It could be "seen as" harassment, as a literary word, but you used it while talking about laws and rules. Harassment laws don't make it illegal to do anything that a person might describe using the literary word "harassment," instead they list out specific things that make up the crime.
Filming people without their consent may or may not "break rules and laws," depending on the context, but it is never "intimidation," which is what he's accused of. That would require additional, totally separate facts.
I just want to know what does a guy like Cohen spend all his money on, if he needed a loan for that? I thought "fixers" for VIPs were supposed to make more money than average lawyers. What's his deal? Is he in really really deep with some bookies from a Very Respectable Family? Or is it just hookers and blow, like a slashdot neckbeard who won the lottery?
No. That is about settling on-the-job complaints, it isn't about campaign contributions.
If you engage in sexual harassment on the job while a congressperson, and you get sued right away in the normal course of things, then that fund might help. Those are people who worked in Congress, getting paid for violations of their rights while at work.
When it didn't happen at work, 1) make sure to get it paid off when it is not an election cycle. Don't wait until right before the election when people are threatening to go public to show your true colors; it isn't legal to spend secret money during the campaign to hide your true colors! That's what it is really all about; if it is during the campaign, you're supposed to tell people you spent the money.
It isn't about spending the money, it is about spending the money secretly during a campaign. That is totally different than when your employer spends money to settle a claim that arose during normal work.
One of the jurors who just convicted Manafort also said the same thing, that she supports Trump and thinks they're "out to get" him. And yet, the paper-trail was very solid, Guilty!
Lots of people believe whatever is said on the teevee, and yet, when it actually comes down to brass tacks they might still get the same answer.
It was supposed to be, but the mobile processors are only powerful enough for that if you don't have advertising or other crapware running. You can't use the wifi radio to radar-track my cat's movements across the room to time blipverts for robotic cat boxes to play while the cat is pooping, and still have CPU cycles left over to render content. So the content needs to be pre-rendered, so the more important crapware can use the available resources.
Slashdot Mirror
in case of any weapon-requiring emergency situation, eg. a zombie outbreak?
Maybe in a video game, but in real life you're not allowed to shoot them. Even drug addicts have the same rights as everybody else. And a good thing, too, because the story is from Indiana! They've got at least 3 zombies for every human at this point.
It wasn't a True Strawman, because there were no screams and no smell of burning flesh.
I won't believe it anyway unless you catch the druid and he fails the test for witchcraft.
Well, they might not have freedom of speech, either, or even a Constitution in the US sense of the word. The EU doesn't have a Constitution, and in most countries the parliament can either change it easily, or refer changes to a simple popular vote. That doesn't give you solid rights that you can build an independent legal culture around. When you don't have a solid right of free speech, and you don't even have solid rights at all because they can be changed easily, then you can't really expect the news even to be independent; that's true even if the business culture leaves the money independent! The workers might still not want to rock the boat in the wrong direction.
"Value" is used as a right-wing virtue code-word here to signify that you give the 2nd Amendment meaning beyond its words; it means you ignore the difference in phrasing between the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law" and the second amendment, "shall not be abridged."
Obviously, in one case Congress may make no law, and in the other case Congress may make laws, as long as the end result is not "abridge" certain rights. Abridge means to curtail; literally the word "bridge" negated. It means you can no longer get there. So they can't take away your right to bear arms, but they can regulate it fairly heavily as long as you can still get there.
Artillery was not "arms." That's a new, modern usage of the term. At the time of the Constitution, it meant weapons you carry; muskets and swords. Examples of arms meaning everything are metaphorical uses where it was phrased as if the nation or commander was holding the whole army.
I think the problem is, they arrested the guy
So far, so good.
and a lot of people are saying
Who cares? Saying things is an absolute right. Arresting people is strongly regulated.
if they hadn't done anything and he later shot up the school, some of those same people would have said, "[blah blah blah]"
Who cares? Yeah, they might say things, they're people. Why do you perceive it is as a problem if their words contradict other words they said before? Who fucking cares? That doesn't impact their right to say it. Compare that to, if you're arresting people and you do it in contradiction of the laws that allow you to do it! That one is illegal.
H
This is the classic problem of when students create fiction that involves real people.
Wait, wait, wait, are you saying that the zombies were real people?!?!
At least one of us totally misunderstands this game.
Yeah.. the guy posted a video of himself shooting fellow students at a time where the public is worried because of students doing just that.
When you start thinking of zombies as just another peer, it is really time to think about checking in to an inpatient treatment center.
At least try to make it to a meeting tonight, OK?
If parents (in general) were responsible the situation likely would never have reached this point.
Re-read the story, Cluestick! The parents were never asked if they'd like to protect their child's civil liberties, instead the cop just decided on his own to violate them. You can't hang that on the parents.
in this state of hallucinatory delusion.
It's Indiana. Personally, I'd hope the cop would get drug tested before testifying.
I feel intimidated every time I see Pikachu Dancer Lady!
Just search youtube for "pikachu song dance remix"
Indiana isn't a rich enough State to create a police state, the best they can hope for is to stomp on the rights of a few kids and maybe silence a few people who weren't sure if they wanted to speak, or not.
Seriously, sending your kid to public school is an act of parental malpractice these days.
Maybe in Podunkville, Indiana that is even true! But in "blue states," the cop would be getting transferred, and the school district would be apologizing.
It could be "seen as" harassment, as a literary word, but you used it while talking about laws and rules. Harassment laws don't make it illegal to do anything that a person might describe using the literary word "harassment," instead they list out specific things that make up the crime.
Filming people without their consent may or may not "break rules and laws," depending on the context, but it is never "intimidation," which is what he's accused of. That would require additional, totally separate facts.
Are you suggesting that all the 11 year olds who get in trouble for hacking their school computers are all just victims of some vast conspiracy?
Is it aliens? Please tell me it has aliens.
Nobody cares, your opinion doesn't matter, somebody else already made the decision. Get over yourself.
That's pretty good, 2 libelous claims in only 7 words.
Luckily for you, Avenatti is running for President and that case would be bad publicity.
There are all sorts of things you can hire a private investigator to do for you that would be felonies if you did them yourself.
But it isn't the normal case, to be sure.
I just want to know what does a guy like Cohen spend all his money on, if he needed a loan for that? I thought "fixers" for VIPs were supposed to make more money than average lawyers. What's his deal? Is he in really really deep with some bookies from a Very Respectable Family? Or is it just hookers and blow, like a slashdot neckbeard who won the lottery?
No it isn't. Congressman do it EVERY DAY.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...
No. That is about settling on-the-job complaints, it isn't about campaign contributions.
If you engage in sexual harassment on the job while a congressperson, and you get sued right away in the normal course of things, then that fund might help. Those are people who worked in Congress, getting paid for violations of their rights while at work.
When it didn't happen at work, 1) make sure to get it paid off when it is not an election cycle. Don't wait until right before the election when people are threatening to go public to show your true colors; it isn't legal to spend secret money during the campaign to hide your true colors! That's what it is really all about; if it is during the campaign, you're supposed to tell people you spent the money.
It isn't about spending the money, it is about spending the money secretly during a campaign. That is totally different than when your employer spends money to settle a claim that arose during normal work.
One of the jurors who just convicted Manafort also said the same thing, that she supports Trump and thinks they're "out to get" him. And yet, the paper-trail was very solid, Guilty!
Lots of people believe whatever is said on the teevee, and yet, when it actually comes down to brass tacks they might still get the same answer.
It was supposed to be, but the mobile processors are only powerful enough for that if you don't have advertising or other crapware running. You can't use the wifi radio to radar-track my cat's movements across the room to time blipverts for robotic cat boxes to play while the cat is pooping, and still have CPU cycles left over to render content. So the content needs to be pre-rendered, so the more important crapware can use the available resources.
They're not for business tools, Apple is toys for rich kids who are too cool to use commoner toys.
Yeah, but who else are they going to name-drop when it isn't as good as the Pentax full frame?
And yet, when I press the "live view" button on my DSLR, the mirror moves the heck out of the way!