You've shown negligence, not malice. To me this is clearly negligent homocide. I see no evidence of murder (intentional homocide) much less malice aforethought. This doesn't mean they aren't there, but you haven't even started to make that case.
No. The only way to hope to (re-?)establish order and honor in the police is to hold them to the very laws they are expected to enforce. If there are no consequences when they disobey the laws, then they will continue to become more arbitrary, dishonorable, an untrustworthy.
For that matter, they should be held to a higher standard. A police officer should be held more stringently to obedience to the law than a normal citizen, and the punishment should be harsher (though not by too much) when they break the laws.
That they are not is quite clear, so their powers should be reduced, because they have been repeatedly shown to not be trusted with the ones that they have. For this reason I am in favor of requiring a camera that they cannot disable to be upon them at all times, and that malfunction of the camera should mean that they are not paid for that period AND that an independent investigation of the case is launched. It should record sound as well as video, and should be immediatedly transmitted to a secure read-only cache. Also, they should be on leave without pay from the instant the camera is disabled until it is repaired.
This is clearly an onerous requirement, and if the police had been shown to be at all trustworthy I wouldn't consider anything this strict. They have, however, shown that they cannot be so trusted.
Also, any action that they take while the camera is known to be non-operational and they are in uniform should be considered taken "under the cloak of authority", i.e., if they commit a crime, there is an additional penalty because they are fraudulently claiming to represent the law. Because of this the camera should be equipped with a soft beep that plays intermittently while it is operational, and a louder chirp that plays intermittently (once every 2 sec.?) while it is non-functional. Perhaps the chirp could encode the camera id, so that others recording in the area would have information as to which one.
OK, then *I'll* say that the supervisor who said that was legal superior and ordered police to follow it should be charged with
The fact that this is a part of a pattern of behavior means that I don't think he should be exonerated even if the evidence were to show that in this particular case the bicyclist *did* swerve out in front of him.
Imagined? I doubt that. From what I read in the summary it sounded like they were pissed off when their old programs couldn't read the new file format. To me that sounds fair. I don't think very highly of breaking backwards compatibility. It's occasionally necessary, but extremely more rarely than it is done. Usually it seems a strategy to force a purchase of new versions. And to me that sounds like abuse of a dominant market position. (I'd say abuse of monopoly, but somebody always thinks that means there aren't any competitors.)
But just like I don't need to see your tax records, I don't need to see where you've been for the past week.
Oddly, neither does anyone else.
or the client did not exit cleanly and is in a possibly corrupt state.
It's too bad that Valve is too incompetent to open config files and the like read-only, so that this doesn't happen. What year is it, anyway? Also, if your client isn't already in offline mode, then you get to sit around holding your dick for minutes until Steam times out.
As you said, this is clearly a double standard. I believe your use of "sued" is incorrect, because there was no stop of a civil trial just criminal. It's not an easy thing to change when corruption is this deep in the legal system, but people need to get out and start protesting and getting people on ballots to oust the cronies.
I wish I could say this was just a training issue, but clearly this goes well beyond a training issue. The DA just let all cops know that if they drive distracted "too bad" even if it costs a completely innocent person their life.
Usually, after a certain number of complaints, the system automatically blocks the content, and the original poster has to challenge the block.
Many Facebook users have noted, as I did when I was using it, that political content would often fail to post without explanation. Not only would the URLs fail to thumbnail and link, but I'd actually go back and read my posts and URLs had actually been stripped off of the political content, while the test bullshit I added in to prove the point was still there.
I assume the medical pot folks have a clue, and they say it tests quite a lot stronger than in the past -- more than six times stronger on average:
So I followed the links down and this is based solely on seized material. There's a zillion ways that could be improperly representative, especially since the volume has gone up so sharply. The figures became more useful year-on-year, and appear to become most reliable once you have hit around a couple thousand seizures. That is, if you look at the minimal available data with a critical eye, and not simply inclined to accept it.
Chrome is is just like IE for more operating systems, no thanks I won't touch the stuff. Rating things on a combination of user security and functionality, Opera is hard to beat with Firefox in a close 2nd. I don't care how fast Chrome can load pages, I don't sit and watch memes flash by all day.
Which product(s) have the same specs as a RPi and cost $500?
If you haven't seen ARM dev boards with lower specs than a RPi which cost that much, then you haven't actually priced them.
There are all sorts of reasons why they might not want to admit in the open that they had such a backdoor, and the left hand might not want the right hand to see what it's holding, too.
...Who is John Galt?
Along with many other US companies and businesses as the US becomes an ever-more hostile and expensive place to base your business in.
Maybe MS will join the "inversion"-stampede of businesses fleeing the US for friendlier locales.
Once again the US government loads up the trusty foot-gun with its' hubris.
Precisely the point. Unless they are an officer of the foreign corporation, they are not in a position of authority to produce the data. They have to go through channels.
Right, and those channels are the officer's problem, not a US court's.