Because there are obvious safety issues with crossing a road outside a crosswalk, whereas you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a similar rationale for carrying ±2 grams of pot.
Sounds like someone missed the whole "BP was convicted for failing to properly install and inspect legally mandated safety equipment" thing.
Nice of you to blindly jump to the defense of an oil company, tho. I'm sure they appreciate it.
I thought I used a bad example, so I double checked - turns out there is no distinction on all accounts, at least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.
Problem with body cams is the same as with dash cams - somehow they'll either be conveniently turned off, or facing the wrong way, when an officer is accused of wrongdoing.
What REALLY needs fixed is the cultural belief that law enforcement officers are above the punishments they dole out to others. Until that happens, the "commit a crime - get 2 weeks paid vacation - go back to work and commit another crime" cycle will never end.
FWIW, the Constitution does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens in regards to rights, evidenced in the Amendments - some of them only apply to citizens (ie the 2nd), whereas others (5th, 6th) specifically point out that the right belongs to everyone within US borders, citizen or otherwise.
Not sure if or how that augments the argument, just making a statement of fact.
Meh, I never cared for mindless jingoism.
Also, that generation of Americans murdered millions of innocent Japanese civilians, subjugated their women, forced a number of their countrymen into "detention camps" because they happened to be of Japanese descent, institutionalized (and violently defended) racial segregation... the list is extensive.
Point being, if you're going to bitch about "what's wrong with kids today," expect someone to point out that every generation, even the "best" ones, were pretty fucked up too. And I say that as a member of neither group being discussed, in case your the sort of person that matters to.
I'm skeptical of the peaceful nature of a religion founded by a warlord;
So, then, would you consider it fair to be skeptical of the honesty of Australians, considering the nation was founded by criminals? Or are we promoting double standards today?
That's... actually a really good point.
Although, to be fair, a lot of folks would consider volunteering to sacrifice your life so a handful of avaricious rich guys can get just a tiny bit richer to be a bit on the insane side, too.
Perhaps he has faith in all the bullshit security theater one goes through when entering or leaving a country. Surely the Aussie PTB wouldn't allow a known terrorist to enter their country, right?
Is your response here an indication that Slashdot's resident statists are changing their tunes when it comes to bullshit "responses" to national security threats? I'll bet not.
"X happened" is a fact.
"All Muslims are evil, because X happened" is an opinion.
The difference is glaringly obvious.
It's always boggled my mind how a person can say that toilet-scrubbers don't deserve decent pay because they aren't necessarily 'valuable,' in the very next breath after saying "someone HAS to scrub the toilets."
I know that's not what you were getting at, just making an observation.
Well, it does actually impact things like what they pay for lunch, since, oddly, the more money a person has "on paper," the less they're expected to actually pay for.
It shouldn't be a crime, because I wasn't trying to kill him, I was just trying to help him be healthier by letting out some of his blood.
If you were trying to be funny, you did a very poor job of it. You're also doing a very poor job of trying to be reasonable - for one, no, "many many people" likely have not trod that ground due to it being a remote, sparsely populated area. Secondly, jamming a signpost in the ground is a bit different than simply walking across an area.
Perhaps you should consider using
You're not really defending blatant douche-baggery based on the notion that other people have been douche-bags in the past, are you?