You don't consider the threat of being shot and then having your property taken a violent crime? The fact the weapon turned out to not be able to shoot bullets doesn't matter, nor should it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If you notice ruling was from an event in 2007. This was probably one of the incidents that let to police departments having to get warrants for phones. While this is interesting because it shows that law enforcement can't do it without a warrant, I would be surprised if any of them did it anyways.
Our local police department hasn't been able to for at least 4 years, they aren't even supposed to open/look through your wallet.
That data is calculated by looking at police reports, the police reports are not perfect. With fatalities they have to guess a lot of information, unless you find a cell phone in mid-text/phone call, plate of food on the person's lap, or something you're not going to be able to determine if they were distracted. Likewise people would be reluctant to admit if they were doing something distracting if it resulted in someone's death. Frankly 16% is way higher than I would be, but probably about 1/3 of what it really is.
Just think about it, what causes car accidents? A very small percentage is going to be unavoidable to someone paying attention, animals, falling rocks, extreme weather, etc. Almost all are going to be people being reckless, distracted or drunk.
They are making no such claim. Yes they are searching everyone without a warrant / PC / RS, but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.
There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.
I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason (we obviously are going to have different interpretations on what is reasonable), for example pretty much saying the word 'bomb' at the airport regardless of the context will most likely result in getting detaining, that seems reasonable to me.
Ah, so the government should be able to arbitrarily declare that the constitution no longer applies in certain areas (airports)? Because that's what's happening: they're searching people without a warrant or even a cause.
It almost sounded like you were defending security theater in that sentence. Need I remind you that the TSA is a government organization? I certain feel I have a right to not be searched and harassed by them simply because I want to get on a plane.
Flying is an optional activity, you subject your self/property to search in exchange for the privilege of not having to drive/train/boat/etc.
With appropriate clarification/modifiers for "walking" and "public roads", I would say yes. (For example, freeways are public, but you can't walk on them.)
From TFA: Why not just give up my liquids and/or tell them medical info?
Because it's a violation of my 4th amendment rights, and because the law (including TSA rules) do not require me to do so. (Not to mention, they're not HIPAA compliant)
I tried to be extremely polite throughout, even though I was pretty angry. I don't think that yelling helps anything. But there's a big difference between being polite, and giving in to an unlawful demand.
I don't believe that I should have to give up my privacy *or* my ability to bring with me liquids of my choice. Their job is simply to make sure that what I bring isn't an explosive, and I totally support that. If they want to x-ray, ETD, LCS scan, whatever, I'm perfectly cool with it.
Maybe you should have read the article...
His own question implies that he would have been allowed in with his juice if he provided the medical reason why it is needed. Without a medical reason you don't have a "medical liquid" you have a "liquid".
He can't have it both ways; you can't claim to be exempt from normal procedure based on a disability and then refuse to provide any information about it.
Also "policy" is not the same as "law".
Secondly this guy has a pretty rare medical condition that is sometimes assisted by having juice. But then he
doesn't want to provide any documentation about his condition to support his claim that he needs his juice citing
(among other things) HIPAA, which doesn't apply to the airport or TSA since they are not medical providers.
He doesn't want to purchase his juice from the concessions because they don't have his 'favorite' brands of juice
and also is carrying 3 liters of it.
So he expects anyone to be able to get by with liquids just by saying "I need my juice, for medical reasons, I'm not
going to tell you more."
While I think the no liquid rule is silly, it is the rule. That would defeat the purpose of it.
In fact I heard about some states looking into passing laws that say: "Refusing to take a blood/breath test is a misdemeanor."
People always think they 'passed' sobriety tests, they are wrong most of the time. The things that cops look for are really small. For example for a walking test people think they have to fall down or something to fail, it is really small things like feet being inches away. Did your friend fail the blood test?
I think the amphetamine pills were used more to keep people awake when working long shifts, not because it made them better pilots.
At the very least being forced to pay a bunch of money might be considered a punishment, and would hopefully reconsider doing it again.
If it's #1 your only hope of getting off is by a technicality.
The only people who do #2 are people who are drunk enough to know they are wasted.
<wolf> 1. Save every Free Credit Card Offer you get, Put it in pile A
<wolf> 2. Save every Free Coupon You get, put that in pile B
<wolf> 3. Now open the credit card mail from pile A and find the Business
Reply Mail Envelope.
<wolf> 4. Take the coupons from pile B and stuff them in the envelope you hold
in your hand.
<wolf> 5. Drop the stuffed to the brim envelopes in your mail and walk away
<wolf> I have now received two phone calls from the credit card companies
telling me that they received a stuffed envelope with coupons rather
then my application. They informed me that it they are not pleased that
they footed the bill for the crap I sent them. I reply with "It says
Business Reply Mail" I'm suggesting coupons to you to ensure that your
business is more successful. They promptly hang up on me.
<wolf> Now, I did this for about a month before it got boring, so I got an
added idea! I added exactly 33 cents worth of pennies to the envelope
so they paid EXTRA due to the weight. I got a call informing me about
the money, I said it was a mistake and I demanded my change back. After
yelling at the clerk and then to the supervisor they agreed to my
demands and cut me a check for the money. I hold in my hand at this
very moment a check from GTE Visa for exactly 33 cents.
I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stuff to not be controlled, but it shouldn't really hurt anyone (running, balling themselves up, etc)' level.
BTW being tased isn't a big deal, it is not like on TV, after the 5 seconds, you are fine, you can hop right back up. That is the problem, a taser is a 'pain-compliance' tool, like pressure points, if someone wants to they can go right back to fighting, or at least resisting right after the 5 seconds, so the cop will use it again, etc. That is how you get stories of cops tasing someone 15 times, because (in theory) the person continued to resist 14 times.
In Hawaii they recently passed a cellphone law, but emergency workers in the performance of their duties are except. I'm assuming that is a fairly standard practice.