I donâ(TM)t really care about the article, but what I do care about is the propaganda word inserted into their. It implies that lots of people are using it: compound

Not estate⦠compound

I increasingly find myself using google only as a market place: whrn I search for something that I know for a fact must exist as a product, I use google and click on "Products" category, so I have a fairly decent chance of finding a shop with a good on-line price.

But for anything else? Nope.

I had always read that it was because Saddam was beginning to trade in something besides the petro-dollar and was apparently gaining some success.
This freaked out the administration, and both Ds & Rs decided he needed to be eliminated. But they needed a flimsy excuse.

They're people first and foremost.

They can have easy 8 hours or annoying 8 hours. Guess which they'll prefer.

Then again, the real question isn't how much you inconvenience them vs how much they inconvenience you; it's how much you inconvenience them if you let it slide vs how much if you fight back.

May I ask why you call firing people morally corrupt? Illegal, according to some artificial definitions of what is supposed to be the law, which is a system designed to force behaviors, maybe. But morally corrupt? Please explain, I really do not get it, absolutely don't understand what is morally corrupt about firing people that you don't want to work with because any reasons whatsoever. If it is your business, you should be able to fire anyone, it's not about morality, it is purely, completely a monetary decision. Do you feel morally corrupt for purchasing things on sale rather than overpaying for them?

You're 100% right. Yet one doesn't have any claim to the police not being idiots. Oe to the police giving you access to any kind of accusatory material.

Of course it's in everybody's best interest that they do, bwcause otherwise you ens up with bogus charges & cases clogging thr system for too long (until they inevitably get thrown out of court). This is also the angle I would've played, BTW: "Look sir, whatever the system told you, computers make.mistakes. It wasn't me. You don't have to show me the footage. But due process says I'll get to see it anyway before a judge does, and you *will* have to do the work and provide it eventually. But if I get to see it from you, maybe we can clear up a misunderstanding, and avoid you the paperwork for a trial preparation, and the department the embarrassment?"

I'm petty sure the whole angle here was that the video is actually difficult to obtain (probably bad UI or fucked up procedure). And the officer was therefore pissed off and vindictive about having to do the work. I would've made it clear that he'll have to anyway, *and* has a decent chance of looking like an idiot afterwards, because I sure as fuck didn't steal anyone's delivery and it's bound to eventually get solved by looking at the evidence.

But to my knowldge, the police don't *have* to give you anything, as much as it sucks. Theirs is to do, not to judge.

The prosecution, however, *has* to. That's due process. And if all else fails, just go with the flow. Most of it was designed to protect you against idiot system clerks.

Yeah, well, "stabdard procedures" is showing the defendant any and all evidence against them timely, so they can prepare a defence.

Nor doing that, _and_ charging someone who was obviously and probably at the other end of the city at the time of crime, is embarrassing. I a court of law, and in the court of public opinion.

I've been charged with theft before (didn't do it), but admittedly it was in a 1st world country.

I don't know about Colorado, but being allowed to see any and all evidence to prepare a defence is a basic pillar of "due process".

The charge can be dropped any moment.

A clear cut case like this doesn't end up in court.

You get to ask for the evidence against you as part of due process. Then you get to submit your own to the prosecutor and tell them it wasn't you and that it's obvious bith from their video and from your own GPS traces.

Then they'll drop the charge.

They may be soulless ghouls sometimes, but they don't want to embarass themselves anymore than you & me.

I don't know about the US (nor from there). But in most civilized countries... nope. It's technically illegal, but the police usually get away with saying "oopsie, my bad" after an unlawful arrest and letting you go. No further consequences unless you can really prove intent, not just negligence or stupidity.

Exactly.

You'll get to see it once they bring up the charhe, in time before the first court proceeding. It's how due process works.

And of course it's the prosecution who'll give it to you, who else?

That's a non-argument.

Of course people get "wrongfully accused / convicted all the time", but not all the people, every time, for any infraction.

And whrn they typically do, it's not because they failed to convince the police officer who stood at their door.

The lady in the story already had evidence to exonerate her. If it helped against a police officer, it would've convinced a judge, too.

And most likely, this proceeding would've never seen the inside of a courthouse. They don't just drag you to court, they inform you of yhe charge first, and give you due process to defend. Part of yhat due process is you requesting the evidence against you, and then writing the prosecutor "it's not me on that video, let me know if you also want me to embarrass you and the police officer in court by showing a GPS log of where my car has been all day."

Only because "some" get wrongfully accused doesn't mean that this would've been a likely outcome here.

Why would you spend any time in jail, or lose your job?