Please lead by example and show me hard studies backing your views on every point you have made above.
In this case though, i'd say it's less of a cash grab, and more of an easy target for who to prosecute. Two companies, or potentially hundreds or thousands of companies?
Either way, i don't think Apple or Google should be the only ones being held accountable.
How does that warrant drawn weapons? Was he wielding a deadly weapon? Was he driving at the police in an aggressive manor that indicated he wanted to attack them with his car? The man did NOTHING WRONG, the officer shouldn't have told him to stop for doing NOTHING WRONG! The police need to show better judgement.
The courts are not always correct, and are far from infallible. Hopefully this will be challenged.
"To be brutally honest, at the point they start making sarcastic responses about 'what is dancing', 'what if you're out of time when making movements...', etc etc is when I lost total respect for these 'dancers'. What response did they expect out of the cops? "Oh we're sorry, carry on!"... hardly!"
The entire point of them asking those questions, sarcasm or not, was to get the officer to provide more information. If the officers can't even site the law that they are going to be arrested for, then those officers have no grounds on which to arrest the dancers. Another point with questioning "what is dance" is that it is such a broad definition. The first couple arrested were practically swaying, there was no noticeable footwork. If they went onto "So You Think You Can Dance", they would be on the gag reel.
"Dude-- No one buys an iPod to play with the trippy wheel. They buy it to listen to music."
I buy an MP3 player because i want to listen to music. I choose an iPod as my MP3 player because of it's innovative features (especially when iPods first came onto the market). I consider that a pretty important distinction.
Re:
Groping will still be provided free of charge as a courtesy to attractive passengers and young children.