How innocent were these bystanders- they might have had cameras, which would make them more dangerous to the police than Mr. Broadnax. If I were them I wouldn't be surprised to see charges of interfering with police, theft of government property (the bullet that hit each of them), tampering with evidence (where did that third bullet go?), and felony trespassing, among others.
Alternatively, they could be charged following the computer "hacker-security" model: since these bystanders have shown how poor the marksmanship of these police is, they must now pay for rudimentary firearms training for the police. If not for the action of these bystanders (getting shot) the lack of skill and proper training would never have been a problem for the police.
I'm surprised that they would settle on an infringement of this magnitude. The numbers work out to an original order of 3 servers and 90 devices. The army then installed it on 100 servers (33x what they ordered) and 9000 devices (100x what they ordered).
How can there be such a huge disparity between what they ordered and what they needed? It almost seems like the infringement was planned ahead of time. Would this count as willful infringement?
Just because a losing a privilege would make ones life difficult doesn't make it a right. But I do think that because losing a drivers license would have such a huge negative impact they certainly shouldn't be taken away lightly. Traveling freely is a right, but that doesn't mean you always get ignore the rules of the road.
What if someone in your situation were found to be repeatedly driving drunk/recklessly? Should they still be allowed to drive?
That law [relating to implied consent], established in 1961, says anyone issued a driverís license has automatically agreed to chemical testing during a DWI arrest and the results can be used against them in court. The way I read this is that the only way to legally refuse the chemical testing is if they are also driving without a license. Is this really how the state wants to incent drivers to act?
Tying what many people consider to be an essential object to implied consent is problematic. For most people, a driver's license doubles as an ID card, something nearly everyone needs to access employment and a host of other services. While an ID card can be obtained on its own, the lack of a valid license opens drivers up to many other charges if they choose to operate a vehicle, another indispensable part of many people's lives. Sorry but that's a bunch of BS. However 'many people consider' a license essential, driving is still a privilege. A state-issued non-drivers ID card works as well as a license. As far as being 'opened up to many other charges if they choose to operate a vehicle' um, well how about not operating a vehicle without a license? That's still a law last time I checked. If you choose to violate a law then you will be open to related charges, I think that's a fairly fundamental principle of law. If driving is truly an 'indispensable' part of a persons life then they shouldn't abuse the privilege.
Warrantless searches may be a problem, but including the above in your argument does nothing to help the case against them.
The talking bear has been put on furlough and is not allowed to comment.
The crew of the moon base was declared non-essential and ordered to wait outside for the duration of the sequester. They seem to have adjusted to this well, as they have not complained for several days.
ďAll of N.S.A.ís work has a foreign intelligence purpose,Ē the spokeswoman added.
Note this doesn't mean that there isn't also a domestic intelligence purpose, just that one or more of the purposes is for foreign intelligence.
Ohio State University just received an armored military vehicle for use on its premises. Now, what use could a university possibly have with a military vehicle such as this? Have a look.
They got a free MRAP, looks like a MaxxPro (from the Wikipedia page). Hilarious. I'm sure it will come in handy during frat pledge week. At least they got it for free, not that maintenance/upkeep will be free. As it seems to have no mounted weapons, the biggest danger involved is the mocking the university will receive for security theater overkill.
And then after the speech Senator Coats entered into the Congressional Record a list containing the names, e-mail address, SSN, prescription drug record, and last 7 tax returns of all those who dare to think the NSA would ever abuse their privacy.
Unless you consider a very mild shock to be "bodily injury,"
I'm sure the parents were more than mildly shocked to hear such a ridiculous thing from the school. Since a mild shock is so dangerous, for the shock they received maybe they should also sue the school for mental trauma or PTSD.