No, we're not playing your game. If you want detailed analysis, you need to demonstrate to us how its done. You see how that works, where the accuser gets to explain how something is "wrong" in their view, in detail with quotations and citations?
Instead, here is your debate process:
1) Say something controversial without evidence, usually with some direct or indirect ad hominem
2) Claim that anyone responding and the OP never provide any evidence or analysis
3) Act like a victim when you are rebutted or ad hom'd yourself.
I can tell you enjoy it, but let's not pretend it's actually reasoned debate.
That falls under the plain sight doctrine during inventory search. And intent is very important to understand the difference.
If you uncover plain-sight evidence in the act of an inventory search (intent = making certain there are no hidden weapons and making sure the detainee can recover his/her belongings later), you can act on it, because it was found in a reasonable manner.
If you conduct an investigatory search on someone's phone (intent = finding incriminating evidence) you need a warrant because you need to show cause for invading someone's privacy.
See the difference? Those doctrines exist to create a bright line between public security and individual privacy.
Yes and yes. My three year old even does a better job of dealing with obnoxious older brothers and somehow doesn't resort to childish threats like this.
1) it's an empty threat and there's no way they don't know that
2) it's behavior intended to intimidate
3) it offers no acknowledgement of any actual problem
4) it makes no effort to engage with any other perspectives
5) it does massive amounts of collateral damage to relationships with anyone involved
If that isn't an irrational, emotional reaction I don't know what is.
If I work really, really hard to reduce my tax burden (take all my applicable deductions, keep track of receipts, pay a tax preparer, etc.), I guess that means I must be infringing, er, I mean dodging taxes.
Pretty clear the "manifestly unjust" element is just for show
They didn't use their "out" because they don't want to be accountable for any judgment whatsoever. Regardless of the clarity of this specific situation, I'm certain that they fear letting anyone off of the hook lest they have to let everyone off the hook since we all know that 95% of the cases will fall squarely in the grey area and require subjective analysis.
But that also means they have to jettison any idea of fairness or justice because once you are "accused" you are effectively guilty. What a travesty.
Well, but you need to follow a consistent line of logic yourself. All you did was point out a reason why the nobel nominator has a faulty premise for nominating. You've done nothing to prove or support an assertion of treason vs whistle-blowing, which inconveniently for you is the basis of this post.
I feel what you're saying, I really do. But sadly, it is exactly your reaction that causes people to act in this manner. If you are in a position of responsibility and use ANY judgment whatsoever to bend policy, pause, reflect, or generally behave like a human, and something goes wrong YOU are hung out to dry.
People in positions of responsibility can no longer rely on their organizations to back them if they use good judgment even when that judgment is mistaken.
Using judgment MUST come with the latitude of making mistakes and not having those mistakes expose you to massive liability, firing, or worse.
Yeah, the "it doesn't matter if it's more so..." is just baloney. The point completely missed here is that there is no way of knowing if a) it's a positive factor, b) a negative factor, or c) a completely unrelated factor, completely biased opinions notwithstanding.
And as happens so often, the AC completely ignores any positive or broader effect from the actions of the paper. "I don't like my 'legally-requestable' information from being publicized, so it must put me at risk and anything else positive or negative is irrelevant!"
More so than your zip code? or what they can see in the window?
I think you need to spend some time understanding how burglary comes about--and using information like this is not even remotely close. Not to mention that there are so many other factors involved, it's ludicrous to speculate on the degree of risk increase/decrease as a result of this revelation.
Also by your logic, being the subject of a newspaper article (regardless of the validity) that revealed anything about your belongings would be equally irresponsible.
Do you really not understand how those are two different things? Your lawn is not a public space and placing the sign would require trespassing.
Saying they are the same thing completely ignores any context around the information requested (legally). And please don't say that context doesn't matter, because that would be an insurmountable level of willful ignorance.