Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Yeah, that's the problem (Score 1) 137

Yes, because the US Supreme Court is never wrong.

The truth is, the US Supreme Court justices that voted to uphold the ACA were wrong. If you want me to explain how they were wrong(and provide "citations"), I suggest you go and discover the answers for yourself; I don't provide free education.

Comment Re: Torrent (Score 1) 311

It is important to point out that the US Constitution(more to the point, the "Bill of Rights") didn't create or give any of us(US Citizens, or other non-citizens on US Soil) any rights; it simply protects certain rights, such as those the "framers" of the US Constitution and "Bill of Rights" knew might be abused at a later date. Rights exist inherently, and as such, amending the US Constitution won't invalidate any rights, just as law can't. If a simply amendment, or law can invalidate a right, then it is no right; it's a "privilege".

Comment Re:Because the question is stupid! (Score 1) 192

The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC( well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(, and Gozales v Castle Rock(

*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)

Comment One can't really ask permission to violate rights. (Score 1) 585

Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?

This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).

In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"

Thus endth thy lesson.

Comment Re:Not about the ruling class (Score 1) 140

The executive arm, in any state government or the US government, has the sole power of enforcement(hence the name). Legislatures(again, in the US) have the sole power to craft, pass, and repeal laws(courts have some power that is law repealing, but judges must have a case brought before the respective courts to initiate the use of such power; judges don't get to simply muse whatever law, whenever is convenient for them, and start repeal whatever law they wish) among other duties, and courts try alleged criminal acts discovered during the enforcement of the various, existing laws, and have the authority to decide if a law is constitutional/legal, decide the meaning of a law that might be challenged during the court of a trial(criminal or civil, depending on the issue in dispute), among other duties.

Comment Re:Laws (Score 1) 822

The term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with "regulation"(i.e. laws or other controlling commands), "gun control"(again, in terms of legal reasoning). I suggest that you(I don't do other people's work, or handle other people's responsibilities) go look up how word were used(in regards to the English language, that is) at the time of the passing(and writing, as this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights were passed not very long after its creation; approximately two years, if my memory serves me correctly) of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. That is one of many issues that come up when deciding the actual meaning of laws, constitutional issues, etc.

Attempting to "reinterpret" meaning from relatively [a] old legal writing(s), based on how language is used today, is, at best, a lie, and at worst, an attempted deception.

Comment Re:Trading one set of problems for another (Score 1) 842

Come live in the Atlanta area(or anywhere around the Southeastern United States), which is where I live(technically, it's the "Metro Atlanta Area", but I really live in the shithole that is Haralson County, but my wife and I built a brand new house, on over 10 acres of land, all for cash), and enjoy our summertime temperatures of slightly over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with a humidity level that is, at least, 90 percent and above. I would gladly take 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the Phoenix area, or in that general region of the United States over where I live. Though, I would like some cooler temperatures the rest of the year, so...

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 1) 277

Very mature post...asshole. At the very least, post a link to the comment, so that other don't have to find the information you claim exists. Of course, this is not even considering that you don't have any first-hand, factual information on the situation which, allegedly, drove you to post such an asinine comment in the first place. Oh, yes, please, continue commenting on how I "[am]"(or, according to you, "[was]") a part of "the problem".

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 1) 277

Look up 18 USC Section 242, and 18 USC Section 243. USC is the acronym for United States Code. Of course, there is also "Violation of Oath of Office"(O.C.G.A., though, I know many, and probably all states have similar statues, though probably under different headings/titles. The issue is that people have to be willing to do their part to hold law enforcement responsible, because no one is going to do it for "you", or anyone but themselves. I wish that wasn't generally true for citizens treated in such a way, but that isn't the world we live in, nor have ever lived in, and one we will never live in.

I would like to add that, I would like to see the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" judicial blathering(s) die and quick and painful death, save for those that are acting in an official capacity(law enforcement, government attorneys, and all other government-employed individuals). There are far too many damned law, just on the state or federal level(in the United States, and "international law" doesn't exist, unless there is a treaty, where the treaty is treated as a criminal offense, and said treaty doesn't violate the US Constitution, which treaties are subservient to, like all other laws), and so many of these said laws(the aforementioned laws actual legality a whole other conversation) are malum prohibitum laws(laws which are tailored to "social norms", which is opposite of malum in se laws/violations, in which are wrong on its face, such as murder, rape, theft, etc), which are almost never morally or ethically wrong on its face, and which are, at best, ambiguous in nature, as to why they even exist.

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 4, Insightful) 277

As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:

First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".

I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).

Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.

Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the United States alone; I don't focus on the strange ways of foreign governments) possess numerous and wide rights, some that were explicitly enumerated, many that weren't. Never equate government, on any level(within the United States, or the various states) as having any rights; it doesn't. ...but, I digress...

I will add that I have been rather unhappy with the way it seem law enforcement has changed just over the past 5 to 7 years alone. Though, it's important to look past the constant media focus on specific cases on any subject, I am talking more about the relatively recent case law, other judicial decisions, newer tactics, etc. Much of that is lessening my view of the profession overall.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 214

Wrong. In fact, you couldn't be more wrong.

Here, try reading the following:

Warren v DC:
Gonzalez v City of Castle Rock:
DeShaney v Winnebego County Department of Social Services:

The above are only three examples, among many, that help show just how flawed you logic(or lack thereof) is. I am an ex-law enforcement officer(which I wish to point out that, just as I thought myself to accurately and effectively use all types of firearms, which my father began when I was very young, I also took it upon myself to learn the portions of US laws, Georgia law(O.C.G.A.), and local ordinances that applied to my career, how it could and would affect me, etc. 10 to 12 weeks, and up six months, at the most, leave little time for much real training), and I can also state with direct knowledge that "law enforcement" and "training" is almost as big of a joke, and a fallacy, as anyone thinking law enforcement exists to provide personal security, or any services, to any one citizen, or any group of citizens. That applies equally to all areas and functions of government, at the federal, local, and/or state level(s).

Comment Re: In other words (Score 1) 318

A few months back, while visiting my parents(and spending three week with them), my mother and I started "binge watching" Hulu. About an hour after we started, my sister, her husband, and my niece came over and joined in watching various shows. After approximately four hours, I had to different commercials "seared" into my brain. One was Hulu's "You Know You Wanna" commercial(s)(I guess there is more than one, but the same exact version played on each show, and at each break, I know I wanna beat the shit out of the person that created that commercial, then thought it should be played on every fucking break, during every fucking video), set to a song titled "Electric Love"(the course makes the title obvious). The other commercial "starred" some ugly "fatty", talking about a "serious condition, called, and I shit you not, B.E.D.(Binge Eating Disorder, because, fuck, we need to refer to real and/or imagined medical conditions by acronyms, not words). After those four irritating, mind fucking hours, I start bashing death metal music during Hulu's own commercial, and started to berate the ugly fatty, telling her to put down the cream puffs, HoHo, and hotdogs, get her ass out of bed(goddamn, that acronym is just fully of hilarious ironies). I starting to think someone at Hulu was fucking with us.

Point is, that shit alone is why my Hulu Plus(or Hulu+, or whatever it's "official title is) account has been canceled, and why, if Netflix starts putting ads anywhere before, within, or at the end of any served streaming videos, I will also cancel my Netflix account(or, rather, stop paying for it). I am not going to pay because Netflix failed to negotiate an acceptable deal, which let Netflix avoid serving commercials to end users, or increasing recurring fees(I realize that last point is of no concern to the discussion at hand, but that is the second reason that will lead me to cancel my Netflix account).

Why do more and more companies believe they have the right to make us sit through forced commercials, after we have paid an agreed to fee to access whatever content or service that was purchased? The point of commercials and other advertisements is to offset the loss of a payment( or payments, if the service is recurring over a specified time, and set as an "all you can consume"-style service) directly from the content consumer(s), but having advertiser(s) pay for the consumers' content, and reach whatever intent audience the advertiser(s) want(i.e free content for watching ads, or viewing static ad banners, screens, headers, etc).

Comment Re:Privacy? (Score 2) 776

One of those listed crimes isn't in the same "class" as the other crimes you listed. Murder, assault, theft, and similar crimes(essentially, crimes committed by humans, against other humans) are known as malum in se violation or crimes, which means the criminal act, or acts, are inherently wrong(or wrong in and of itself, regardless of social beliefs). "Drug peddling" is an act of malum prohibitum, which means that the alleged "criminal act" is wrong because society(as well as established and existing law) states it is wrong. There are, by far, exceedingly more "malum prohibitum"-based laws that exists and are enforced, than "malum in se"-based laws. That is just one of the many disgusting ways that the metaphorical "screws" are put to more and more people, and how more and more "criminals" are created each day.

I am vehemently against the vast majority of existing "malum prohibitum" laws in existence, both in the US and all the states, as well as across our planet's political subdivisions, or nations. Far to many people are now criminals, felons in fact, where, not a few years are decades said "criminals" were and would have continued to be "law abiding citizens". The "law" never was, or never should be used to define each portion and moment of a person's life; it exists to segregate and severely punish those that would seek to, or are currently engaging in an act, or acts harm another person, or group of people.

The ugly truth that those that wish to continue the current march away from why the United States was created, and towards oppression though legislation, refuse to admit to and see is that we all, at many points in our lives, and likely every day, commit an act, or acts, which legislation deems a crime. As such, there are no "law-abiding citizens, and the law has become a farce. Given that the courts claim that "ignorance is no excuse", and that people are ignorant of vast majority of criminal laws which don't govern acts against another person, it's not surprising the "state" we are in.

People need to accept that the current situation(actually, the problem) that exists(creating new crimes and criminals) will only become worse, if it isn't stopped, and the problem addressed and fixed.

Comment Re:And when capped internet comes then people will (Score 1) 286

That's "funny", seeing as I, and many others in the county I live in, still don't have any internet access. Save for either a supreme ripoff from Verizon Wireless(when there is coverage, which not everyone has), AT&T has even less wireless coverage, with neither AT&T and whatever company supposedly offer cable services(TV and some internet, though most aren't sure if our provider is Comcast or Charter) offering wireline internet access to the vast majority of the county residents within which I reside. Satellite is equally as useless, expensive, even less useful, and there are still waiting list for a super "late 1990-style internet connection". Yeah, fun times.

Did I mention that I live in the rather meaningless "Metro Atlanta Area"? One irony being that there is probably many areas around some actual "middle of nowhere, far past "BFE"" places in Africa that not only have internet access, but rather fast internet access. Though, those same areas probably don't have much, if any of the far more important services and utilities.

At this point, the house my wife and I built, own(outright; we don't owe a cent to a bank, and never have. We built our house with our own money), and have lived in for 10 years(the house was finished at the end of July 2005) will probably never see internet access. There are probably some loading coils still on our POTS lines that will soon be protected as "important national artifacts".

Comment Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 4, Informative) 409

You have no idea what "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion"(RAS from this point forward) is, and how it came about. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is the case you would want to research, and how "Terry Frisks" came to be an exception(to which I don't completely agree with, based on court reasoning, and the rather plain language within the US Constitution(not so much for US or state law). No matter, probable cause is still absolutely required to initiate a "stop" or "temporary detention"(i.e. traffic stops, "Tier 2" encounters). A situation being "fishy" doesn't provide "RAS".

You are also wrong on searches. Absent "exigent circumstances"(say, gunshots and someone screaming "don't kill me" from within a structure), a search requires a warrant, based on probable cause, which specifies the items, or items, and specific places to be searched. The "Terry Frisk" is an exception, which requires RAS that one, or multiple potential suspects have just committed, are currently committing, or will soon be committing a criminal act, based on training and/or experience, and such a "search" is limited to "patting down" the outer clothing of any subject that qualifies.

I should also add that a traffic stop requires probable cause to effect. In other words, I can't initiate a traffic stop because some "asshole" didn't present or return a friendly gesture(wave at me, or wave back at me), or because I see an attractive female in a "rough neighborhood". Traffic stops are initiated because I, as a law enforcement officer, or another certified and sworn law enforcement officer personally witnessed the target of said traffic stop violate the portion of state law that applied to violations of traffic law(in the State of Georgia, that would be Title 40 of the O.C.G.A., or "Official Code of Georgia Annotated"). I can't intelligently comment on states outside of the Southeastern United States, but in Georgia, specifically, a citizen cannot legally witness an alleged traffic law violation, report said violation, and have that report be sufficient to provide probable cause to initiate a stop, or effect an arrest(outside of an extreme few violations, which cover the intentional loss of life, loss of life during the commission on another offense, etc). A law enforcement officer must personally witness, or have a verified third-party certified and sworn law enforcement officer(Georgia law enforcement-only, and said law enforcement must have a certification in good standing with the Georgia POST Council, which oversees all law enforcement certification on both the State(Georgia) and local level).

This isn't a completely comprehensive commentary on the subject. I hold a certification from the State of Georgia's POST Council(Peace Officer's Standards and Training Council), among numerous other certifications and recorded training. I am an ex-law enforcement officer, and I keep myself up-to-date on current training, case law, and other important information, as it pertains to law enforcement.

I am also happy to see this ruling, as it was long overdue. I am grown tired of this, among other problems, within the law enforcement field.

I like work; it fascinates me; I can sit and look at it for hours.