I've no problem with this. Wrongful convictions are just that -wrongful. The parties involved should pay for it, although I'm sure the monies will be reduced substantially.
I certainly agree he should be compensated, and I don't really have an issue with the amount.
I strongly suspect that he will end up incarcerated again before he gets his settlement which will give the government even more leverage over him.
This just strike me as tragic because I imagine his drug problems are largely attributable to being wrongfully locked up and (presumably) brutalized.
I love the Dodge City comment. It's deliciously ironic when you consider how incredibly tame the "Wild West" was in real life.
The best part? Guess what people the law targets, and guess who DOESN'T open carry? It's another useless government measure that will do nothing to discourage violent crime.
You know what the purpose of sex offender registries is? Show where the sex offenders are. My father is a rapist. He got out of prison in mid October. He is not on the California sex offender registry. Why have it and then not update it? Either keep it up to date, or don't have it. It's useless if it doesn't have current information.
All true.
My point is more that a lot of free time, a lot of money, and a substance abuse problem can be a really bad combination.
It can be. But it's rarely as bad as a lot of free time, no money and a substance abuse problem.
Don't forget to add in the criminal record that makes it hard to find employment even if you kick the habit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can be. But it's rarely as bad as a lot of free time, no money and a substance abuse problem.
Oh, I don't know. It keeps me endlessly amused.
I love the Dodge City comment. It's deliciously ironic when you consider how incredibly tame the "Wild West" was in real life.
The best part? Guess what people the law targets, and guess who DOESN'T open carry? It's another useless government measure that will do nothing to discourage violent crime.
And now they want to expand the restrictions even more. I just don't get California.
California lawmaker targets open carrying of long guns in public
I love the Dodge City comment. It's deliciously ironic when you consider how incredibly tame the "Wild West" was in real life.
The best part? Guess what people the law targets, and guess who DOESN'T open carry? It's another useless government measure that will do nothing to discourage violent crime.
And now they want to expand the restrictions even more. I just don't get California.
California lawmaker targets open carrying of long guns in public
When you consider the fact that California requires a reason beyond self defense in order to issue a concealed carry permit, they just banned carrying handguns for self defense in almost all circumstances. Now longarms, too?
Who commits a crime with an open carried firearm, anyway? The "public safety" issues he is reacting to don't exist. Criminals do not advertise the fact that they are armed until they are ready to whip it out and jam it in someone's face.
Hasn't California learned anything from the failure of it's strict gun laws to accomplish anything?
I really miss California, but not having to deal with this kind of thing is something I like about Colorado. Montana (where I'll be living soon), from what I understand, isn't bad, either.
I think there are going to be some incredibly stupid Murphy's rules/laws interactions from these laws and existing local laws.
I think there are going to be some incredibly stupid Murphy's rules/laws interactions from these laws and existing local laws.
And guess who gets screwed over.
BOHICA!
...Who's that?
It's an old Army acronym kind of like FUBAR or SNAFU.
Over;
Here
It
Comes
Again!
Often pronounced "BoHEEEEEca!"
Never heard that before.
Charlie Foxtrot is another one that applies.
It's an old Army acronym kind of like FUBAR or SNAFU.
** spoiler omitted **
Often pronounced "BoHEEEEEca!"
first encountered that in Negation. Truly loved that comic.
ACTA has – officially – been in the works since 2008, and was signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea in 2011. All negotiations were held behind closed doors, and it is mostly thanks to Internet hacktivist groups like Anonymous that news of the potential damage ACTA could cause has spread.
Under this new treaty, Internet Service Providers will police all data passing through them, making them legally responsible for what their users do online. And should you do something considered "breach of copyright" like, for instance, getting a tattoo of a brand logo, taking a photo and posting it somewhere, you may be disconnected from the Internet, fined or even jailed.
The best part? The president considers it an "executive treaty" and does not require senatorial approval. So we managed to get SOPA shelved and made sure that Congress knew that we were aware of PIPA, but we were kinda caught with our pants down with ACTA, seeing as how it has been negotiated in secret since 2007. Also keep an eye on TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)*
*scroll down to "Controversy over IP Provisions" in last link.
It's an old Army acronym kind of like FUBAR or SNAFU.
** spoiler omitted **
Often pronounced "BoHEEEEEca!"
We had a sitdown with management not too long ago and one of the other stewards, a vet, referred to a situation as a "goatrope." I had never heard the phrase and, consequently, was amazed when the district manager started screaming. I ran home and googled it and was astounded to learn it didn't refer to bestiality--which is what I had assumed given the vehemence of the district manager's yelling. We now call him Goatrope O'XXXX behind his back. Hee hee!
Huh. I thought this was already going on, as I can't exactly download a movie that's already copyrighted material and distribute it illegally anyway.
ACTA has – officially – been in the works since 2008, and was signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea in 2011. All negotiations were held behind closed doors, and it is mostly thanks to Internet hacktivist groups like Anonymous that news of the potential damage ACTA could cause has spread.
Under this new treaty, Internet Service Providers will police all data passing through them, making them legally responsible for what their users do online. And should you do something considered "breach of copyright" like, for instance, getting a tattoo of a brand logo, taking a photo and posting it somewhere, you may be disconnected from the Internet, fined or even jailed.
The best part? The president considers it an "executive treaty" and does not require senatorial approval. So we managed to get SOPA shelved and made sure that Congress knew that we were aware of PIPA, but we were kinda caught with our pants down with ACTA, seeing as how it has been negotiated in secret since 2007. Also keep an eye on TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)*
*scroll down to "Controversy over IP Provisions" in last link.
We had a sitdown with management not too long ago and one of the other stewards, a vet, referred to a situation as a "goatrope." I had never heard the phrase and, consequently, was amazed when the district manager started screaming. I ran home and googled it and was astounded to learn it didn't refer to bestiality--which is what I had assumed given the vehemence of the district manager's yelling. We now call him Goatrope O'XXXX behind his back. Hee hee!It's an old Army acronym kind of like FUBAR or SNAFU.
** spoiler omitted **
Often pronounced "BoHEEEEEca!"
See #5 NSFW (language)
Not sure seeing anything at that link.. Just a standard news page.
I see it.
Maybe it's because I'm on my phone... Will be checking from home computer later.
Reflections on the Iraq War 1990-2011
Im not a regular reader of SocialistWorker (comrades), but this is worth checking out.
Now to go off-topic for some government goodness!
about time this happened
Hee hee! Step one of communist conversion complete.
Now to get you hooked on the harder stuff...
Nothing funny about Iraq, though.
Huh. I thought this was already going on, as I can't exactly download a movie that's already copyrighted material and distribute it illegally anyway.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that the treaty is un-needed as existing law would already cover this? I agree with that.
Are you saying that this treaty is unworrysome as it doesnt change anything? I dont agree with that.
Now to go off-topic for some government goodness!
about time this happened
It's kind of mind blowing that this actually has to be fought out in court.
Government thugs can X-ray, wire tap, search and film the citizens without a warrant, but we have to go to court to video them in public.
Yet most people still think I'm nuts when I say we live in a police state.
when I think "police state", I think of a place where dissent is met with harsh resistance by an entrenched political class. Sounds about right, no?
Now to go off-topic for some government goodness!
about time this happenedIt's kind of mind blowing that this actually has to be fought out in court.
Government thugs can X-ray, wire tap, search and film the citizens without a warrant, but we have to go to court to video them in public.
Yet most people still think I'm nuts when I say we live in a police state.
That's because, IIRC, you believe all government are police states. Most people hear "police state" and think of Nazi Germany or something similar.
You aren't saying what they're hearing, because you're using a different definition.
I still maintain that the police state is a matter of degree, but I'm curious what definition of police state we fail to meet.
Some people won't believe anything is wrong until it's their family being taken away.
I certainly agree that there are much worse police states. I have emphasized that degree is important. We haven't butchered tens of millions of undesirables, yet.
That said, we can disappear people here with out due process. We have hundreds of thousands of people in prison for non violent drug offenses and millions of others in the system in one way or another. We criminalize life saving medications. We live in a pervasive state of surveillance and regulation, and we have spent trillions on law enforcement and prisons. We often strip convicts of fundamental human rights like voting and self defense even if they have been out of prison for decades. We censor political speech and use the law to marginalize third parties. We allow and perpetrate incredible horrors in our prison and foster care systems. We routinely violate property rights, parental rights, free exercise rights, establishment rights, free association rights, free speech rights, self defense rights, the right to travel freely, the right to contract, and so forth. I can't think of any rights that we have that are not subject to government restriction even if they don't initiate force or violence against others.
We don't live in North Korea just yet, but we certainly don't live in a very free country either. Our government does vast amounts of harm every day.
Of course the degree and scope of oppression and abuse matter, but it's getting consistently worse with more losses and fewer victories for fundamental human rights as state power grows like a cancer. When I say we live in a police state I don't think it's hyperbole; I think it's simply paying attention to what government power can and does do to us everyday.
Everybody knows how much I hate America, but I've got to side with thejeff here.
As the world's premiere imperialist power, the USA can largely do without police state measures to control the domestic population and, for the most part, can rely upon a higher standard of living and pervasive indoctrination to keep its citizenry in line.
Which in no way means that they are incapable of or are unprepared to unleash police-state measures (and they have done so time and again throughout the past). But, day-to-day, a "functioning" democratic republic is the bourgeoisie's preferred method of governing, mostly because it's cheaper.
Everybody knows how much I hate America, but I've got to side with thejeff here.
As the world's premiere imperialist power, the USA can largely do without police state measures to control the domestic population and, for the most part, can rely upon a higher standard of living and pervasive indoctrination to keep its citizenry in line.
Which in no way means that they are incapable of or are unprepared to unleash police-state measures (and they have done so time and again throughout the past). But, day-to-day, a "functioning" democratic republic is the bourgeoisie's preferred method of governing, mostly because it's cheaper.
I don't agree, but if millions of victims of the war on drugs or the war on terror don't convince you that we are living in some degree of police state then I'm not sure what will.
They used to keep millions of people in chattel slavery, but very few people would refer to antebellum America as a police state. Repression of the masses, historically speaking, is not mutually exclusive with the operation of a democratic republic.
They used to keep millions of people in chattel slavery, but very few people would refer to antebellum America as a police state. Repression of the masses, historically speaking, is not mutually exclusive with the operation of a democratic republic.
Interesting point, we tend to associate things with police states like pervasive surveillance, secret police and the like. I imagine it would be difficult to think of historical states as police states in spite of their brutality and injustice. I agree that, "Repression of the masses, historically speaking, is not mutually exclusive with the operation of a democratic republic.", and I think plenty of modern police states fit this model quite well. Lots of people get to vote on who will oppress them, but as some of my friends say, "If voting made any difference, they would have made it illegal by now."
I don't agree, but if millions of victims of the war on drugs or the war on terror don't convince you that we are living in some degree of police state then I'm not sure what will.Everybody knows how much I hate America, but I've got to side with thejeff here.
As the world's premiere imperialist power, the USA can largely do without police state measures to control the domestic population and, for the most part, can rely upon a higher standard of living and pervasive indoctrination to keep its citizenry in line.
Which in no way means that they are incapable of or are unprepared to unleash police-state measures (and they have done so time and again throughout the past). But, day-to-day, a "functioning" democratic republic is the bourgeoisie's preferred method of governing, mostly because it's cheaper.
I have to concede that most people probably don't feel like they are subject to a police state, it's one thing to see Waco on TV or read about violent drug raids on the wrong houses or how the TSA humiliates an elderly woman in a diaper. People seem to think, "It won't happen to me.", until it hits them or someone close.
However, even when the numbers of people that are directly brutalized are proportionally small the fact that the government can and will brutally violate basic human rights leaves the remainder in grave danger even if they feel like it can't happen to them. I think this sense of false safety is made worse by the fact that countless violations of human rights are covered up or classified. I wonder if it would change anything if tens of millions of Americans found out that their personal emails had been read or their personal finance data had been mined without a warrant.
Oh, I know that it very well could happen to me. When I was active on the left, I was involved in at least two expulsions of police informers from the organization I was a member of and have had friends interviewed by the FBI for their involvement in the Palestinian solidarity movement. As I think you know, I have some indication of what's going on.
At the same time, however, I can't help but feel that my very existence is a small proof that we aren't living under a police state quite yet. An openly communist dude with a position of some small authority in one of the most powerful American trade unions who brags online about the copious amounts of marijuana that he smokes? I don't think I would have lasted a day under, say, Franco or Pinochet.
Anyway, I wonder if you have an opinion about roughly when America became a police state? Just curious.
And, finally, if you want to persist in calling America a police state, well, I don't really care. I think it's a little imprecise, but who am I to reign in people's anti-Americanism? ;)
Roughly when the US became a police state? That's a tougher one than I would have thought. Let me get back to you on that one.
Meanwhile, I wasn't sure where to share this oddity so I thought I would put it here.
Polo Club Founder Adopts Girlfriend Amid Civil Suit Over DUI Death
Wow... That's strange.
What the f*~$? WHY? Why is the court allowing this? It's a blatant gaming of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just wondering if there are any incest laws that can backfire on him.
He's adopted his girlfriend. Legally, he's sleeping with his daughter.
Good question, this just seems wrong on so many levels.
And now, for an example of something good from the government.
As a transgendered woman, I find this highly inspirational, especially since I would love to get a job as a police officer someday.
Parting thought: etc.
I missed this last time. +1,000,000
And now, for an example of something good from the government.
As a transgendered woman, I find this highly inspirational, especially since I would love to get a job as a police officer someday.
Attitudes change slowly, but they do change.
Things like this give me hope. Maybe we can actually learn.
I especially love how the department didn't make a big deal of it or give it a lot of publicity. Her superiors basically acted like it wasn't a big deal at all, which is heartwarming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand your excitement, but, to paraphrase Pete Townshend, "Meet the transgendered cop, same as the old cop."
Speaking (kinda) of new bosses, my new one was informing me today of how he intends to "fix" our attendance problems.
"I don't know what you've heard, but I try to get along with people. I don't like disciplining people, I'm not hard-hearted, I'm a vegetarian--"
"Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?" I said to shut him up. Hee hee!
[Before people start writing back about there were other dictators who ate meat--I know, it's an argument with no validity behind it. There's very few things, however, that I won't say to piss off my supervisor.]