I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about city police officers moonlighting, I'm talking about officers working for private companies as their only job. As I said in my post, you don't have to work for a police department to be a police officer.

When did it become popular to hate on Perl on Slashdot? I thought Slashdot itself was written in Perl.

This is quite correct. You don't have to be working for a public police department to be a police officer. All you need is to be deputized, which usually involves passing some sort of exam and then getting a letter signed by some controlling police agency (usually state or municipal). There are many examples. As the parent pointed out, campus police at most universities work this way. Some high schools also have police officers on salary, and some private business which accommodate a large public population (eg. shopping malls, etc.) may employ deputized police officers for security. They have largely the same arrest powers that ordinary police officers do, so for example you could be charged with resisting arrest if you try to run away from them when they stop you, etc. It is a big mistake to assume that you don't have to do what they tell you just because they are working for a private company rather than the city or state.

No thanks to Obama.

There's no reason to think he wouldn't have turned off the jammer if he saw an accident.

An accident which wouldn't have occurred if the driver weren't using the cell phone while driving in the first place! Don't try to shift the blame here. This guy is just trying to make the roads safer; he got no personal or financial benefit by operating this jammer. His motives were good, even if his methods were a bit extreme.

It's only a crime if you're suborning a specific instance of perjury. If I write a book saying that people should lie on the witness stand all the time, that isn't a crime. In fact there have been books written on how to be a hit man (The Death Dealers Manual). It isn't a crime to publish such a book since it doesn't advocate a specific instance of murder, but just instructs how to do it in general.

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.

Quite frequently, if they're anything like me. For me it goes something like this: if I've been looking in the mirror on a cold, winter day, I'm usually kind of depressed, cause I wish it were bigger. But if it's a particularly warm day, or if I just got out of a hot shower, I think "AWESOME. That looks great!" and I can't wait to head for the nude beach. I imagine most guys have similar thoughts even if not as frequently as I do. But it has nothing to do with guns, so I guess I agree with your basic point.

I guess it would be called a "phallacy".

Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

From the article:

The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.

But the poor would only have to pay if they LOSE. If they have a legit lawsuit, that wouldn't be an issue.