Any government employee who is found to be willfully obstructing justice or willfully violating the constitutional rights of a citizen should be banned from working in the public sector ever again.
Government employees in many cases (including all law enforcement ones) are sworn into their positions, and must swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Sadly, it seems like breaking this oath seems to be the "in-thing" at the moment.
It is sad that there has to be an "Oath-Keepers" organization, and that membership in said organization can deny you security clearance, employment, or result in legal or disciplinary action.
Doesn't matter. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies to all individuals on US soil, regardless to whether they are citizens or not. Now, she wasn't on US soil when she was prohibited from returning, but she was on US soil when she was prevented from boarding a flight at SFO and arrested/handcuffed for being on the no-fly list.
If the cable company promises speeds of up to 20 meg, I should be allowed to pay up to $49.95.
Half the time the cable company should be paying me for troubleshooting their crappy website/network. I can't even count the number of times I called them to let them know that their network was down in my area, only to be told that it is a problem with my modem (since they can't ping it.) No shit, Sherlock, your network is down. I can connect to the modem just fine, and can do a ping just fine, and your head-end is responding just fine. Your router isn't. An hour and a half later, they finally reboot their router and low-and-behold, the network is back up and running.
The latest crap with them is their website billing software, which is already buggy, says I owe them $0.00 this month (yippee.) "No more paper bills, because our online billing system is awesome," when it works. So I contact them, and explain that their billing system isn't working, and they ask me for the pin which is on my latest bill on their billing system. Might be nice though, if I could figure out a way to not pay them this month since my bill says I don't owe them anything, but something tells me I'd get cut off.
Does a gov agent get a pass for such a blatant violation of law?
If you read the D.A.'s report (http://www.ocregister.com/news/ice-363337-orange-shooting.html) it seems like the problem wasn't that the D.A. didn't want to prosecute it, but that there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction. Witnesses gave conflicting reports (even though the second agent at the scene appeared to give a different account, they weren't able to see anything other than the periphery.) No camera footage was available, and even the suspect gave a statement that conflicted with the evidence at the scene, that the agent raised his gun and shot outside of the car, when the evidence shows that the agent shot from within the car, through the windshield.
I suspect if there was more evidence, the D.A. would have brought charges against the agent.
No shit. Some unmarked car flies up on me and they will see the bull bar on my truck as its pushing them out of the way.
If a car flies up on me and I am shot at, I would certainly make every effort to get out of there, regardless to whether I thought the person was a cop or not. I'd make every possible effort *not* to hit the car or even appear to be aiming at the car, but my first effort would be to get away from the crazy person with the gun.
Under the Ethical Guidelines, it is your legal responsibility as an attorney to defend your client. It is not your legal responsibility to perjure yourself for your client.
Like cops, lawyers suffer from the same poor image of lack of ethics. Just ask Steel and Hansmeier. I don't think most lawyers are purposefully unethical, it is just that a subset of them make it difficult for everyone else.
The three police officers involved in the incident, who have been fired, failed to mention the use of force in their report? The six cops involved were removed from their jobs; the police chief left his job after being a douche; and a couple officers showed support by raising money for the defense. I am not sure how this shows there is a conspiracy to cover up or protect them from prosecution IN THIS CASE.
I am not standing up for the police abuses, especially in the case where cops use their authority to rape, pillage, and murder without fear of reprisal, but I am failing to see how this particular case fits. I don't like the police state, where cops discharge firearms because they think someone might be trying to ram their car, and I think that there is far too little prosecution of bad officers, but in this case, justice will hopefully be served.
Gee, maybe if the cops stopped protecting jackwagons such as these, we could trust them again.
SSC, normally I'd agree with you, and there is a lot of jackwagon protecting, but I am having a problem finding cops who *are* protecting these two. They were fired from their jobs for this incident and are being prosecuted for their alleged crime (only saying alleged because they have to be convicted, as our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence does appear pretty damning.)
His defense lawyer is protecting him, but if the defense lawyer wasn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. Like it or not, everyone should get their due process. Hopefully, based on the evidence, Ramos' and Ciccinelli's due process ends up with them in jail, but at least they are out from behind the shield.
Didn't buttwiper (Budweiser) do this first with "Punkin" Ale? Yup... Amheiser-Busch (the number one producer of piss that tastes something like beer) tried to block Dogfish Brewing Company from selling Punkin Ale because the name.
The majors are always doing this shit (and worse, I believe Coors tried to make it difficult legally for New Belgian to start selling their beers in Colorado,) and it looks like some of the minors who can't compete (because they make the same piss that buttwiper makes) seem to be looking to do the same.
Sorry, touched a nerve. Beer is near and dear to my heart, after years of brewing my own and enjoying most of what I've been drinking from the minors.
I dislike it, as sometimes a cotroversial comments gets hidden and I have to login and go to their forums to find it. The comment is NOT available if you just click "read comments" on any particular article.
Only a very few end up perma-banned. But I agree, the comments should be hidden and you should be allowed to unhide them easily, which Ars has problems with in a very few cases.
Some people use the report button as a "I disagree" button here on techdirt, but the instances where non-trollish comments are hidden are exceedingly rare. And even in those cases, I can very easily click "show comment".
Having a like/dislike system here, with hidden comments that are easily accessible would be an improvement. As it is, the report button being the dislike button is a poor substitute, especially for someone who values Free Speech and the ability of everyone to speak their mind even if it is controversial, but wants to increase SNR by removing derailments such as inane/off-topic discussion and wanton spambots. To keep it on topic, the same could be true for Facebook too (though it would need some work, since I hate clicking the like button every time someone mentions something bad happening, when dislike would be far more appropriate.)
You are wrong. This has been beaten over and over again here and elsewhere. The problem is that people use the report button as a "I disagree" button.
I actually prefer Ars Technica's moderation system, where the likes/dislikes are shown below the comment, and after a number of dislikes, the comment is hidden (but still accessible.) I don't mind group censorship, so long as the comment is still available to those who want to read it (as I often do with ootb comments that get reported here.)
Report should really only be used for those comments that are so vile or so spammy that the commenter should be brought to the attention of the site hosts (for banning purposes.)
I think the main reason that lawyers are dismissed early is because attorneys on both sides and the judge do not want someone on the jury who can act as an expert on law and sway other jurors contrary to only the presented evidence or to the judges precise instructions.
I think you're right, but it doesn't make the sting any better when I get dismissed as an engineer/computer scientist. I've been called almost every year to sit through the process, and I'd really like to participate in the entire process of being a juror. But no matter how many times I sit through the process of jury selection (which is probably close to 30 times now,) I always get dismissed (except the one time I got in as an alternate, and then excused and the other time I got to be a juror, and the defense took a plea and the jury was dismissed.)
What bothers me most is for a system set up to find fair and impartial jurors, they seem to get rid of an awful lot of people based merely on their occupation. In our state, it is a single day/single trial system for jury pools, but if you don't serve on a jury, you remain eligible to be called in again while if you sit on a jury, you are ineligible for three years. It seems like I get called in every year (and I've been called in twice in one year on several occasions.) If you've been called in five times and dismissed five times, you should no longer be eligible for jury duty. Once they kill off their pool of those who want to serve, but can't because of their occupation, they might have to start thinking reasonably.
Until that happens, they are just jerking us engineers around.
The sad thing is they don't particularly like lawyers on juries either. As an engineer, I am usually the first person off the jury. even though I usually can render a fair and impartial judgment. But in at least two jury selections I sat near a lawyer who was removed before I was. I told one of the lawyers that I was surprised he was removed before I was, and he told me he was always the first off the jury.
So I think it is more "The system is built by lawyers, for stupid people."
1 USPS is faster delivery on mail and most packages...3 days.
USPS's tracking system, though improved, is still a joke. Unless you pay for the tracking number, good luck with tracking a package. With packages from the other two systems, I can go online and request a hold on the package, and for a couple bucks a year I can ask them to hold all my packages for that year. With USPS, the package ends up on my doorstep, and then soon after in the trunk of the local thief's car. If I didn't have cameras to catch the delivery and the theft, I'd never know it had been delivered. Fortunately, the police have the pictures, but unfortunately, they can't seem to nab the guy. I called USPS and asked if they could hold packages, and was told that I had to ask the sender to work with USPS to hold the package.
2. CHEAPER then UPS.. you can send 6lbs for around $8.
And here, you certainly get what you pay for. When UPS loses a package in the mail, they make every effort to find it, usually without your involvement. When USPS loses a package, if you purchased insurance, you make a claim with the insurance company. If no insurance, good luck. You have to go to the post office and file paperwork so they can place a trace on the package, and if you are lucky, they may find it. Having lost (and had packages stolen,) it is usually cheaper to pay more for UPS/FedEx and know that the package will get to its destination.
I am not against the USPS, as they try hard, but some times trying hard just isn't enough.
3. USPS was NOT designed as a FOR PROFIT, business..
I kinda wish they were. Might make them better at dealing with the competitive pressures of doing business. Of course, doing so would result in loss of some of the less successful programs.
Actaully, if all your home computers are connected to your home's WIFI access point, most probably you're encrypting it already.
Doubtful, especially if you aren't using 802.1x and wireless separation mode. Everyone on the network has the session key and can decrypt everyone else's traffic. Only outsiders can't decrypt the traffic (unless you are using a short key, WPS, WPA 1 or WEP, in which case, they probably can.) And it isn't going to stop the NSA, who just hires your provider to give the unencrypted traffic from the backbone or compromises your switch/router to grab the traffic which is unencrypted on the wired LAN.