Law enforcement officers should be able to not resort to... the use of force except as a last resort or at very worst in proportion to the force they're encountering. A crabby suspect is not cause for taser fire.
Acting that belligerently to virtually any cop will draw the same kind of treatment
Maybe it shouldn't.
It's one of those corrupt politicians sorts of things. We expect politicians to be corrupt, but that's not to say they ought to be.
Law enforcement officers should be able to not resort to
And if I recall, it was the officer, not the suspect, who initiated the shoving match. As a civilian who is used to de-escalating matters, my response to her would be You can stand anywhere you like. You can even hang out with us while we wait for the K-9 team, though I doubt you'll find our company much comfort.
If you cannot mete out force with care and reservation, maybe you shouldn't have the authority to mete out force at all.
The worst case scenario is if such monitoring is accepted as a social norm.
And all of South Korea's children are forced to stay children until they are nineteen. Then rather than making all their excursions into establishing independence piecemeal (Including getting into trouble, and then getting out of it and learning responsibility and crisis management) they'll have to learn all that stuff in their twenties when they can be tried as adults and have no parental support.
Kids don't grow up instantly on a designated birthday. It's a process.
And fortunately they're going to fight to engage in that process and will just level up their sneakiness to the degree that the new degree of scrutiny demands.
I suspect that we're soon going to see push-service apps that allow you to block or promote messages from specific sources, so you can shut off the nags from your service and highlight chats from BFFs and family.
Yeah, I'm with John Fenderson and skeptical. How exactly is feminism and Marxism related. (We're talking the more moderate gender equality based platforms of feminism, but feel free to match Marxism with an extremist platform.)
It's a cause for outrage for me to watch our representatives show a conspicuous amount of delight at the thought attacking Iran. It's certainly a naivete of the US that we've not experienced modern war on our own soil. And the Civil War was so long ago as for its horror is long forgotten. I think because of this, it's easy for the US to go to war unsympathetic of the peoples affected, and it's a factor of our identity crisis after 9/11 what was essentially a Doolittle raid.
The UK and west European nations leave some of the devastation on WWI and II untouched as memorials that war is the sort of thing we don't want to inflict even on enemy peoples, if it can be avoided.
A friend of my father's once shared a conspiracy theory that WWI was started by bored nobility looking for something to do and subverting diplomatic efforts. It runs parallel with Vonnegut's observation that our troops in the mid east are being treated like toys a rich kid got for Christmas
Well, firstly I don't think we can compare strikes in the modern day to WWII legitimately. In WWII the US had legitimate concerns about its ability to defend itself in both theaters.
Justifications for limitless hostilities are less sound in those campaigns based on containment, on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Were we to approach these theaters with the same degree of force that we applied in WWII, it would quickly raise ethical questions as to whether our presence is causing more of a problem than it's resolving. Since our war is not technically with the people of Afghanistan but a specific (minority) faction, we can't even justify civilian deaths as a matter of pragmatism.
The massacre of Dresden is regarded to this day as a catastrophe, and one that is regrettable with uncertain value towards the allied victory. Imagine, then, if it were in industrial city in France that we bombed, and the civilians in question were not Germans, but occupied French. That is closer to the nature of the Afghani civilians we are massacring in our War on Terror. And imagine then that we're doing it just for revenge regarding 9/11...against people who had nothing to do with the attack except existing near the same corner of the earth.
The difference is how the technology has been used.
In the 20th century we knew that dropping bombs on civilians was wrong. We did it anyway. We fretted about it and tried to reserve that choice as a late resort (much in the spirit Sun Tzu's doctrine about sieging cities). This is why Operation Arc Light -- Carpet bombing no-fly zones in North Vietnam -- was done in secret as a necessary but shameful act.
And yes, military policy has always been to understate casualties to the public rather than admit that yeah, they just murdered a fucktonne of people. Still, generals and politicians allegedly lost sleep over it. It was part of their job description.
In the 21st century we seem to regard our high-casualty strikes as proper and justified, to the point that the conservative end of the people-on-the-street spectrum sleep well knowing that we kill fifty civvies for every person-of-interest just like they sleep well knowing we torture.
I suspect it has to do with the civvies being Islamic towel-heads rather than human beings. Our propaganda machines these days are really good and play on our basest fears so that it's okay to wipe out entire cultures or races or religions on the premise that we can not fear the occasional violent act of dissent.
I think the new technologies are much like the Davy Lamp which saved miners from asphyxiation and explosive gas pockets, but allowed them to mine deeper and get killed by other hazards. The stealth technology of the B2 and the remote-pilot drone technology keeps our pilots safer, which allows us to reach further into enemy territory and strike at civilian populations rather than military emplacements. It's not that the technology is bad, but it allows for crueler strategies, which our administrators -- and the CIA -- eagerly prefer.
After ICE raided Kim Dotcom for the MPAA I thought that defined government agencies as now mercenary services for big industry (rather than, y'know, keepers of the peace and actual law enforcement). It was affirmed when SWAT guys raided someone's house for a stolen iPhone prototype.
So of course the FBI works for big oil. If that was a problem, we would have been worried about it when symptoms of corporate occupation were evident long ago.
Even if we were to decide that child porn = porn + child (using whatever previous definition of porn), it gets really difficult to discern on a world-spanning cultural arena what child porn actually is. Let me offer some examples of where definitions of crime and enforcement have gotten ambiguous.
Glamour Model Lindsey Dawn McKenzie debuted in Mayfair Magazine in the late eighties / early nineties. The way the UK worked it then (and probably still does) is to allow photos to be taken of models at sixteen, after which they're held and published only after a release is signed at age eighteen. Still, in the US, naked non-naturist sixteen-year-olds are regarded as child porn. How did Mayfair handle Miss McKenzie's debut in the US? By removing (that is, having someone black-out) all texts that suggested she was less than eighteen years of age. I'm not sure of the legality of this maneuver, but the implication is child porn in the US is in the eye and mind of the beholder: If you think it is, it is, and you can be charged with consuming it. Because America.
The Russian Porn Industry does not have the same degree of (dubious) age checks that are required / enjoyed by the United States (put in place to discourage porn production rather than to actually protect minors -- I'm sure no medical checks are required so long as your papers look legit.). Practice is to declare as exactly eighteen (birthday yesterday) any from fourteen to twenty-five that can pass as eighteen years old. During the era of the Belavezha Accords and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the most popular schoolgirl ambition (age eleven and up) was wage prostitute. The Russian porn industry has been riding that train ever since.
And of course, art and computer renders vary not just from nation to nation but in the United States, sometimes from county to county within the same state regarding their legality. A cartoon of Bart Simpson having sex is criminal in Australia (Bart is officially 10 and has been for 26 years of the Simpsons series. He was created in 1986 and is voiced by a 58-year-old woman. Fan art -- including some porn -- depicts Bart Simpson at various ages). And yet, Japan is a font of lolicon which is pornographic and features fictional (drawn) children, or fictional characters that look like children but aren't. And then, anyone with access to the Source Filmmaker (or Poser or a dozen or so more rendering engines with libraries of customizable human figures) can try their hand at constructing their own fictional porn...with anyone or between any set of characters or persons. And they do.*
* This, incidentally is a good case example of how the juggernaut of progress will not be slowed by people trying to censor 3D gun parts. Just as 3D renderers have made for an amateur porn market, 3D printers will make for an amateur gun-part market. It's inevitable. Also 3D porn figurines...of ponies.