'Broken windows' policing starts from the assumption that anything that makes a neighbourhood unsightly or unpleasant (broken windows, loud music, inoperable cars, long grass, ...) makes it a target for crime. Just look at Skid Row, it's got all those things. From that it presumes that forcing people to clean up the small things will fix the crime problem.
It also is predicated on selective enforcement. The Sheriff isn't trying to drive all the residents out of Pasco County. Just ones who happen to be black, brown, poor, mentally challenged, or otherwise bear marks of the underclass.
Emphasis on the 'not lily white'. People who are white enough get a pass on the other aspects.
Ketamine has a narrow therapeutic window. It induces dissociation and hallucinations in many. Is this what we want to use in the field on someone experiencing what is perhaps a psychotic episode?
If I recall correctly, the psych hospitals use either a fast-acting benzodiazepine such as midazolam, or else a combination of a typical antipsychotic + a sedating antihistamine (such as haloperidol + promethazine) Flumazenil is kept on hand in the event of benzodiazepine toxicity. Some have ketamine as a second option if haloperidol is too much of a risk (for example, a patient known to be on multiple Q-T prolonging agents or with previous episodes of torsades des pointes.)
And to hell with the argument that the police and EMS can't be held responsible because the victim was unusually sensitive to the drug. Look up the 'eggshell skull rule.' A tortfeasor must take his victims as he finds them.
The cops put the lie to your statement by shouting conflicting orders. "Freeze" "Lie down on the ground right now". Lying down is failing to freeze. Freezing is failing to lie down. They get to shoot either way.
If I weren't White, I'd be terrified every time I saw a cop. I have at least some minimal hearing loss. (One of the symptoms is hyperacusis. An order screamed in my ear is likely also to be unintelligible.) Even being White, I run the risk of being shot for failing to comply with an order that I couldn't quite hear.
"I'm from Context, but I don't know what it's like, because I'm so often taken out of it." - Norton Juster (quote may be inexact, can't be bothered to look it up)
I don't tweet, but I checked my blog for the last mention of suicide.
Paraphrasing: Alberto, Catherine and I turned back only about 500 feet below the summit, because the day was getting warmer and the ice was unsound. It was slushy and separating from the rock in spots, and crampons weren't holding well. To continue in those conditions would be suicide. The mountain will still be there another day.
Now, I don't know, some people might indeed consider winter mountaineering to be self-harm. but others think it can be done responsibly.
On the other hand, one could just let the bozos in Congress and the White House pass any of the incredibly bad laws they want, which will certainly be struck down as unconstitutional five times over inside a couple months. Because they aren't even trying.
The bozos in Congress are delaying the consideration of the bad laws at the moment, because they're too busy confirming judges who won't strike down the bad laws.
Remember that Pai has already expressed the opinion (for wired broadband) that there's competition in the market if you can switch to a different provider by moving to another city. You have to read all of these things with Pai's definitions of the words.
The biggest single contributing factor to overclassification is that among the military contractors, it's a way to get management attention (and funding) for your project. There's a belief there that "if it were any good, we'd want it for ourselves exclusively, and so it would be secret."
Often the only sensitive aspect to the program is precisely which model of ship or aircraft it's going into, and most people working on it neither know nor care. If you're working to optimize performance of an engine exhaust nozzle or a radar front end, it's actually pretty irrelevant whose wing the engine will fly on or what craft will be carrying the radar.
Re: Saving $50 today only to pay $10 every week afterwards
Going nuclear requires that you have the nuclear weapons.
Far too many business are forced to settle because the up-front cost of defending the suits would bankrupt them. Even if they're awarded attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs turn out to be judgment-proof. Retailers are at particularly high risk of this, since they're all shoestring operations. (Even Amazon has quite a low return on its insane market cap. I don't know what its speculators - I'm reluctant to call them "investors" - are thinking.)
It's easy to say, 'they should have gone down fighting rather than pay the Danegeld' when it's not your business at stake.
Let's see who is bribing everyone to time the yellow caution signal to an unsafely brief period.
There's no out-and-out bribe. The cameras are already in place, and the company simply has to point out that shortening the caution interval would generate more revenue, and of course tougher enforcement has to improve safety, right?
Over there, on your side of the Pacific, people are imprisoned without having been proven guilty? ... for long enough that they need to re-integrate into society?
No, that's an American specialty. Hold them while awaiting trial. There are misdemeanants who plead guilty in order to get out of jail, sentenced to time served.
"He is king, he does whatever he wants... takes the girl from her mother and uses her, the warrior's daughter, the young man's bride." - Epic of Gilgamesh
Re: Oh look, people who should NEVER be around kids again...
In this case, I don't think it was any sort of perverse desire to see kids naked. It was using the kids as weapons - the perverse desire was for power over the mother. They didn't get their gratification from seeing the kids' wee-wees, they got their gratification from seeing the mother weeping.
Re: Double jeopardy doesn’t apply to civil actions
The corresponding legal concept is res judicata - 'the matter has been decided'. It's grounds for dismissal of the action.
An appeal is not a trial. There's no jury, and no finding of fact. It's strictly arguments before a panel of judges that a lower court committed an error of law or procedure that caused a case to be wrongly decided. Ordinarily, in a civil action, if error is found, the appellate court doesn't try to make a new finding, but rather instructs the lower court on the error and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the correct law or procedure. (Hence, in criminal cases, a defendant who mounts a successful appeal ordinarily isn't simply set free, but gets a new trial. It's as if the wrongly conducted trial never happened.
Ordinarily, in criminal procedure, there's no appeal of an acquittal. The state gets only one chance to prove its case.
Unless error is found, there's only one path of appeals. For copyright, that's district court -> [petition for reconsideration] -> circuit court -> [petition for rehearing en banc] -> Supreme Court. The Supreme Court picks and chooses what cases it hears. Petitions for reconsideration and for rehearing are only occasionally granted. When a petition for reconsideration is granted, it's generally because the judge recognizes that a mistake might have been made. A petition for rehearing goes before the entire panel of appellate judges for the circuit, and is usually granted only when there's considerable controversy about the correct outcome of the case.
In any case, I suggest getting an absentee/mail-in ballot and dropping it off at a proper ballot collection spot as soon as possible instead of mailing the ballot.
Team Trump is suing to prevent this from being an option.
When decisions are made by software, we are entitled to see that source code because it is no different to seeing the wording of the laws by which we are governed.
Alas, the source code won't help. You can open it up completely, and it will remain inscrutable.
Most such software, nowadays, relies on some sort of deep learning algorithm. Those algorithms are, in their place, better than nothing: they can troll through a vast volume of data and identify regularities. Nevertheless, they are noted for their inscrutability. They produce only decisions. Nowhere do they offer any rationale; it's all based on the confluence of far too many statistical metrics ever to tease out what was the deciding factor in any individual case. They most certainly cannot offer anything resembling a legal justification.
According to The Nation, US Customs and Border Patrol spokesman acknowledges that its agents were involved in some way in the Portland arrests (but neither confirms nor denies that they were the arresting officers, nor whether they were acting under orders, much less whose orders).
In summary, there's no credible evidence that the camo-wearers are anything other than a private goon squad who happen to have government jobs. Of course, they may be beyond the rule of law, because they're shielded by the law of the ruler.
Which is what makes it important to get the word out that these "agents" are precisely what you characterize as "ammosexual whackjob[s] in camo fatigues." No government agency has acknowledged them, and their actions are in any case ultra vires for any government agency. They are therefore private actors. They cannot claim to be law enforcement officers and be accorded corresponding privileges because they are not acting in the line of duty.
Of course, the shadowy Heimatsicherheitsdienst that employs them will probably try to have it both ways: "they were rogue actors, so we're not responsible" and "they were Federal agents, so shielded from prosecution." Although we're pretty close to where these actors will simply ignore the courts, who after all have no direct enforcement power. "John Marshall has given his opinion. Let him enforce it." (A. Jackson)
If this were a war between nations, these individuals would not be soldiers subject to the Third Geneva Convention, but rather unlawful combatants. They are entitled to no protection accorded by wearing a uniform, since they wear merely a camouflage suit that is not recognizable as a uniform.
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
(Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S. 1 (1942); STONE, CJ delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, with MURPHY, J recusing.)
On the post: Florida Sheriff's Predictive Policing Program Is Protecting Residents From Unkempt Lawns, Missing Mailbox Numbers
'Broken windows' policing starts from the assumption that anything that makes a neighbourhood unsightly or unpleasant (broken windows, loud music, inoperable cars, long grass, ...) makes it a target for crime. Just look at Skid Row, it's got all those things. From that it presumes that forcing people to clean up the small things will fix the crime problem.
It also is predicated on selective enforcement. The Sheriff isn't trying to drive all the residents out of Pasco County. Just ones who happen to be black, brown, poor, mentally challenged, or otherwise bear marks of the underclass.
Emphasis on the 'not lily white'. People who are white enough get a pass on the other aspects.
On the post: Cops And Paramedics Are Still Killing Arrestees By Shooting Them Up With Ketamine
Ketamine?
Ketamine has a narrow therapeutic window. It induces dissociation and hallucinations in many. Is this what we want to use in the field on someone experiencing what is perhaps a psychotic episode?
If I recall correctly, the psych hospitals use either a fast-acting benzodiazepine such as midazolam, or else a combination of a typical antipsychotic + a sedating antihistamine (such as haloperidol + promethazine) Flumazenil is kept on hand in the event of benzodiazepine toxicity. Some have ketamine as a second option if haloperidol is too much of a risk (for example, a patient known to be on multiple Q-T prolonging agents or with previous episodes of torsades des pointes.)
And to hell with the argument that the police and EMS can't be held responsible because the victim was unusually sensitive to the drug. Look up the 'eggshell skull rule.' A tortfeasor must take his victims as he finds them.
On the post: Cops And Paramedics Are Still Killing Arrestees By Shooting Them Up With Ketamine
"Did not resist"
The cops put the lie to your statement by shouting conflicting orders. "Freeze" "Lie down on the ground right now". Lying down is failing to freeze. Freezing is failing to lie down. They get to shoot either way.
If I weren't White, I'd be terrified every time I saw a cop. I have at least some minimal hearing loss. (One of the symptoms is hyperacusis. An order screamed in my ear is likely also to be unintelligible.) Even being White, I run the risk of being shot for failing to comply with an order that I couldn't quite hear.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Detecting Sarcasm Is Not Easy (2018)
I wish that I knew what context was like
"I'm from Context, but I don't know what it's like, because I'm so often taken out of it." - Norton Juster (quote may be inexact, can't be bothered to look it up)
I don't tweet, but I checked my blog for the last mention of suicide.
Paraphrasing: Alberto, Catherine and I turned back only about 500 feet below the summit, because the day was getting warmer and the ice was unsound. It was slushy and separating from the rock in spots, and crampons weren't holding well. To continue in those conditions would be suicide. The mountain will still be there another day.
Now, I don't know, some people might indeed consider winter mountaineering to be self-harm. but others think it can be done responsibly.
On the post: Could A Narrow Reform Of Section 230 Enable Platform Interoperability?
The bozos in Congress are delaying the consideration of the bad laws at the moment, because they're too busy confirming judges who won't strike down the bad laws.
On the post: T-Mobile Merger Approval Violated Every Last One Of the DOJ's Updated 'Antitrust Principles'
Remedies must preserve competition.
Remember that Pai has already expressed the opinion (for wired broadband) that there's competition in the market if you can switch to a different provider by moving to another city. You have to read all of these things with Pai's definitions of the words.
On the post: The Government Has Been Binging On Classification. Senators Say It's Time To Start Purging.
Classification as corporate politics
The biggest single contributing factor to overclassification is that among the military contractors, it's a way to get management attention (and funding) for your project. There's a belief there that "if it were any good, we'd want it for ourselves exclusively, and so it would be secret."
Often the only sensitive aspect to the program is precisely which model of ship or aircraft it's going into, and most people working on it neither know nor care. If you're working to optimize performance of an engine exhaust nozzle or a radar front end, it's actually pretty irrelevant whose wing the engine will fly on or what craft will be carrying the radar.
On the post: Facebook Says It Will Block News Sharing In Australia If Murdoch's Social Media Tax Becomes Law
Re: Saving $50 today only to pay $10 every week afterwards
Going nuclear requires that you have the nuclear weapons.
Far too many business are forced to settle because the up-front cost of defending the suits would bankrupt them. Even if they're awarded attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs turn out to be judgment-proof. Retailers are at particularly high risk of this, since they're all shoestring operations. (Even Amazon has quite a low return on its insane market cap. I don't know what its speculators - I'm reluctant to call them "investors" - are thinking.)
It's easy to say, 'they should have gone down fighting rather than pay the Danegeld' when it's not your business at stake.
On the post: SafeSpeed Executive Charged With Bribing Cook County Officials For Red Light Camera Contracts
Re:
There's no out-and-out bribe. The cameras are already in place, and the company simply has to point out that shortening the caution interval would generate more revenue, and of course tougher enforcement has to improve safety, right?
On the post: Federal Court Temporarily Extends The NYPD's Famous Opacity, Blocks Release Of Misconduct Records
No, that's an American specialty. Hold them while awaiting trial. There are misdemeanants who plead guilty in order to get out of jail, sentenced to time served.
On the post: Federal Court Temporarily Extends The NYPD's Famous Opacity, Blocks Release Of Misconduct Records
'Sexual gratuities' as a perq
"He is king, he does whatever he wants... takes the girl from her mother and uses her, the warrior's daughter, the young man's bride." - Epic of Gilgamesh
On the post: Federal Court: No, You Fucking May Not Force Your Way Into A Home And Strip Search Six Very Young Children
Re: Oh look, people who should NEVER be around kids again...
In this case, I don't think it was any sort of perverse desire to see kids naked. It was using the kids as weapons - the perverse desire was for power over the mother. They didn't get their gratification from seeing the kids' wee-wees, they got their gratification from seeing the mother weeping.
On the post: On Appeal, 'Star Trek Discovery' Still Doesn't Infringe On Video Game's Copyright
Re: Double jeopardy doesn’t apply to civil actions
The corresponding legal concept is res judicata - 'the matter has been decided'. It's grounds for dismissal of the action.
An appeal is not a trial. There's no jury, and no finding of fact. It's strictly arguments before a panel of judges that a lower court committed an error of law or procedure that caused a case to be wrongly decided. Ordinarily, in a civil action, if error is found, the appellate court doesn't try to make a new finding, but rather instructs the lower court on the error and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the correct law or procedure. (Hence, in criminal cases, a defendant who mounts a successful appeal ordinarily isn't simply set free, but gets a new trial. It's as if the wrongly conducted trial never happened.
Ordinarily, in criminal procedure, there's no appeal of an acquittal. The state gets only one chance to prove its case.
Unless error is found, there's only one path of appeals. For copyright, that's district court -> [petition for reconsideration] -> circuit court -> [petition for rehearing en banc] -> Supreme Court. The Supreme Court picks and chooses what cases it hears. Petitions for reconsideration and for rehearing are only occasionally granted. When a petition for reconsideration is granted, it's generally because the judge recognizes that a mistake might have been made. A petition for rehearing goes before the entire panel of appellate judges for the circuit, and is usually granted only when there's considerable controversy about the correct outcome of the case.
On the post: Judge Recommends Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Be Removed From Roll Of The Court For Misconduct In Default Judgment Case
Re:
As far as I've heard, the only other lawyer in Liebowitz Law Firm is his sister.
On the post: Just As The Postal Service Is Being Dismantled To Prevent The Handling Of Mail In Ballots, It Tries To Patent Blockchain Voting By Mail
Re:
Team Trump is suing to prevent this from being an option.
On the post: Tennessee Court Strikes Down Law Criminalizing Calling Political Candidates 'Literally Hitler'
We've already heard Godwin on the general principle
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
On the post: Appeals Court Bashes Predictive Policing And The Judge Who Argued People In High Crime Areas Want Fewer Rights
Machine learning
Alas, the source code won't help. You can open it up completely, and it will remain inscrutable.
Most such software, nowadays, relies on some sort of deep learning algorithm. Those algorithms are, in their place, better than nothing: they can troll through a vast volume of data and identify regularities. Nevertheless, they are noted for their inscrutability. They produce only decisions. Nowhere do they offer any rationale; it's all based on the confluence of far too many statistical metrics ever to tease out what was the deciding factor in any individual case. They most certainly cannot offer anything resembling a legal justification.
More over at Technology Review (paywall warning).
On the post: Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge
CPB may be responsible
According to The Nation, US Customs and Border Patrol spokesman acknowledges that its agents were involved in some way in the Portland arrests (but neither confirms nor denies that they were the arresting officers, nor whether they were acting under orders, much less whose orders).
In summary, there's no credible evidence that the camo-wearers are anything other than a private goon squad who happen to have government jobs. Of course, they may be beyond the rule of law, because they're shielded by the law of the ruler.
On the post: Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge
Yes. That's the point.
Which is what makes it important to get the word out that these "agents" are precisely what you characterize as "ammosexual whackjob[s] in camo fatigues." No government agency has acknowledged them, and their actions are in any case ultra vires for any government agency. They are therefore private actors. They cannot claim to be law enforcement officers and be accorded corresponding privileges because they are not acting in the line of duty.
Of course, the shadowy Heimatsicherheitsdienst that employs them will probably try to have it both ways: "they were rogue actors, so we're not responsible" and "they were Federal agents, so shielded from prosecution." Although we're pretty close to where these actors will simply ignore the courts, who after all have no direct enforcement power. "John Marshall has given his opinion. Let him enforce it." (A. Jackson)
On the post: Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge
"Looking for all the world like a branch of the military"
Nope. They don't look at all like any branch of the military. I'm not being pedantic. This is an important point.
If they serving with a branch of the military, their battle dress uniforms would have displayed prominently their names, their services, the insignia of their units, and their insignia of rank, as can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Dress_Uniform#/media/File:Defense.gov_News_Photo_970806-N-4790M -012.jpg
If this were a war between nations, these individuals would not be soldiers subject to the Third Geneva Convention, but rather unlawful combatants. They are entitled to no protection accorded by wearing a uniform, since they wear merely a camouflage suit that is not recognizable as a uniform.
Next >>