"Also, the lack of tactical command often exhibited by the US police probably also made matters worse, how many of the three officer there were screaming commands at the suspect."
Yes, there are a lot of facts about this case that are not evident in this posting, hence my original disclaimer pointing that out.
Ordinarily, I look at police use of deadly force with an extreme amount of skepticism. I always side on the principle that public safety, trumps officer safety (perpetrators included). That is their job, after all. In this particular case, as described by this posting (big 'IF' here), my opinion is the Supreme Court was correct. The officer was trying to protect another civilian, not himself.
If an officer orders you to drop a weapon, gives you a chance to do so and you don't, all bets are off. Even if you are not brandishing said weapon.
Having said that, it is a valid point that this decision will embolden some officers to act as unprofessionally as this one did. Could he have handled this better? Most certainly. But the issue before the court, was not his job performance, but rather criminal liability. I don't see any, if the weapon holder was in a mental state to comply. The very arguments given by Mr. Cushing, indicate this was indeed the situation.
Somebody help me out here. I seem to remember some case law that implied that if a service provider was completely ignorant of forum content they were blameless, and that if they knew of the content and didn't take it down [fast enough], they were liable. The effect being that it was legally better to not moderate.
Technically, there is also no public evidence that the NSA intercepts and modifies shipments of Cisco routing equipment either. But I seem to remember some photographs...
I can see the case of violating the EULA, but not copyright. Patching [any] code should classify the modified code as a derivative work, thus not a copyright violation. Not saying that the new code would then be eligible for a new copyright, for the one doing the patching. That would be a bit of a mess.
If I did pass laws like this, I sure as heck would add very specific mandates for upgrades ans expansions. It would be their one and only chance, to retain the market. Otherwise, the city takes it over.
That border issue is an abuse by the executive branch that the court has chosen not to correct [yet]. To lay all blame on the court alone is disingenuous. Again, the court is not at the root of the problem.
In that scenario, I would say that the root of the problem is that the law preventing you from lying about anyone without legal risk, is a toothless piece of legislative crap.
Actually, legislative crap is is rather the norm these days. It's no wonder people want to shift blame to the court.
I don't mean to imply that the ruling involved is correct, or a good thing. But in regards to the function of the court, it is they who dictate our understanding of what a law means, not what we want them to understand it means.
When adverse consequences get bad enough, the push is to get the law rewritten. But that's not the court's fault.
Any lineman worth his paycheck would be sure to isolate the circuit he is working on, regardless. In addition, they could easily have a law mandating a cut off for any solar system when the grid is unavailable, if yours was their actual concern.
The problem with the broadband market is not one of regulation or deregulation but consumption. People pay ungodly amounts for internet and video because they want to. Eventually, the price will get so high that people will come to their senses and go without [the video piece]. The cord cutting trend is the start of this. As to the internet piece, there is no way to get around the hard wired network, right now. Eventually, there will be a connectivity solution that gets rid of the start up cost of the network. That advance will change the market to allow competition. Then there will be a massive adjustment. Then, Comcast et al, and AT&T will cry to Congress for help. "We don't have the money to upgrade our network to compete with this." {sob}
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: With Apologies
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Not my usual stance, in this case.
Yes, there are a lot of facts about this case that are not evident in this posting, hence my original disclaimer pointing that out.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Not my usual stance, in this case.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Not my usual stance, in this case.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Not my usual stance, in this case.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Not my usual stance, in this case.
If an officer orders you to drop a weapon, gives you a chance to do so and you don't, all bets are off. Even if you are not brandishing said weapon.
Having said that, it is a valid point that this decision will embolden some officers to act as unprofessionally as this one did. Could he have handled this better? Most certainly. But the issue before the court, was not his job performance, but rather criminal liability. I don't see any, if the weapon holder was in a mental state to comply. The very arguments given by Mr. Cushing, indicate this was indeed the situation.
On the post: Wired's Big Cover Story On Facebook Gets Key Legal Point Totally Backwards, Demonstrating Why CDA 230 Is Actually Important
I seem to remember some case law...
On the post: Verizon Folds To Government Pressure To Blacklist Huawei Without A Shred Of Public Evidence
Evidence, schevidence
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisc o-router-getting-implant/
On the post: Epic Sues 14 Year Old It Accuses Of Cheating In Videogames After He Counternotices a DMCA On His YouTube Video
Why isn't this considered a derivative work?
On the post: Cop Loses Immunity After Shooting, Headstomping Gravely-Injured Suspect
Aren't 9 bullets enough?!
On the post: Michigan Lawmaker Doesn't Understand Her Own Bill Hamstringing Broadband Competition
Re: If I were elected president
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
Re: Re: Who's misunderstanding?
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
Re: Re: Who's misunderstanding?
Actually, legislative crap is is rather the norm these days. It's no wonder people want to shift blame to the court.
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
Re: Re: Who's misunderstanding?
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
Who's misunderstanding?
When adverse consequences get bad enough, the push is to get the law rewritten. But that's not the court's fault.
On the post: Florida Utilities Lobbied To Make It Illegal For Solar Users To Use Panels In Wake Of Hurricanes, Outages
Re: Not to worry
On the post: Florida Utilities Lobbied To Make It Illegal For Solar Users To Use Panels In Wake Of Hurricanes, Outages
Re:
On the post: Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping
Re: Re: East Texas becomes the new Deleware
"...now cases will need to be filed where the alleged infringer is actually incorporated."
On the post: FTC Commissioner: If The FCC Kills Net Neutrality, Don't Expect Our Help
The problem is consumption
Next >>