If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)
Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.
Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)

Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.

Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.

He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:

In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?

Yes, I have and I thought it was an interesting video that I mostly agreed with. I also think it's complete overkill in this situation.
You're not being investigated for murder (which seemed to be the canonical example in the Don't Talk to Cops issue), you're being asked to submit to a breath test while driving. Now if you were at home, at work, or just out in public, I would say get stuffed. But you are literally in control of a vehicle at the time. There's no ambiguity here.

Much like the theoretical woman at the hospital swallowing Plan Bs like Tic Tacs, @NetRunner is taking NO CHANCES that Paul might win the nomination!

Seriously: this guy is in an offside position, but he is not offside. He's only offside if he is in an offside position when team mate passes the ball and he is interfering with play (i.e. touches the ball, blocks an opponent, etc). He certainly "interferes with play" but not from a team mate's pass so no foul.

I could see this being ruled out because the sneaky player leaves the pitch and comes back on without permission. This happens all the time (slide tackles, taking corners/throws) but I think if used to gain an advantage, a referee could pull the play up and book the player.

In this case, the guy is just coming back and takes the chance, but I've seen players go right around the back of the opponents' net to gain position and maybe catch someone out and that is pushing it.

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway.

This world was originally without any death, or suffering. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered the world with it, and that is the reason it is fallen. They made that choice out of free will. God could have forced their obedience, or could have simply never given them a choice, but you can't have a loving relationship with robots who can't choose not to love you.

You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

Satan is a created being. He isn't omni-anything. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, but it isn't his fault persay. He didn't force them to sin.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.

Or He created them as free moral agents who are capable of defying His will, and they freely chose to defy His will and wreck His creation, even over His direct warnings. He sent Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin, which He did on the cross 2000 years ago. God has adjudicated the entire matter through His Son, and anyone who wishes to obtain forgiveness for sin and avoid punishment, as well as receieve eternal life, can do so through Him. Whoever wants to reject their pardon and ignore Gods warnings and take their chances will face Gods judgement at the end of the world.

>> ^messenger:
God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.
If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

There is no rational argument to be had here. The left doesn't view life through the prism of right and wrong, only rich and poor (or rich versus poor).

On the one hand, the video is amusing and at least there is an attempt at creativity. On the other, this is nothing to celebrate, and while some use these cards as intended, many are sold or traded for cash, drugs and booze, yet another wasteful government system with no oversight or accountability (but who cares as the intentions are good).

The top 1% wealthy already pay 40% of the taxes. Forcing them to pay more will weaken the economy but snag a few more voters seeking "revenge" for perceived economic injustices.

Maybe the wealthy aren't "creating jobs" at the rate the left wants (that is, enough to stay in power) but what we DO know for certain is the socialist retards of this regime can't create a single job for less than half-a-million dollars each. Hasn't the Kenyawaiian already blown 4 trillion in fiat money with nothing to show for it? I'll take my chances with the 'evil' rich investors.

PS who are the real racists, the one who demand Black Americans need special gummint help at all times or those holding them to the same standards as everyone else?



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So let's ignore the whole wealth & income inequality reality..
to wallow in the fantasy that uneducated darkies & leftists are really to blame for "stealing all taxpayers' money"..

Hey, Mushroom.. I think one of your masters needs another 100k or so.
You know, so he can hurry up and "create jobs" for you and all your friends. ; ]

seriously?
we eat rice with dinner about 60% of the time.
wash you rice properly, get the ratio right, bang it in a PROPERLY designed microwaveable rice cooker.
cook your stir fry.
BING!
serve and eat.
our thai and japanese friends don't even notice when they come over to eat.
sure doing it the 'authentic way' is hip.

but shit man i got little three kids and those little fuckers will slay you and fingerpaint with your blood and skip rope with your intestines if they don't get fed when dinner time is on.

would you take that chance?

>> ^nock:

No one in their right mind would make rice by microwaving it.

You may also notice the tall gold buildings in the background which is Oral Roberts University. Having grown up just a few miles from there I can tell you that there are a ton of crazies like her, but it's not all bad; some of the best parties I've ever been to were thrown by ORU students.

There's just something about kids that were raised in uber religious families and going away to another stifling institution that turns them into party animals taking every chance they get to do something naughty.

Man I miss those parties.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I guess my issue with telling people they should try everything in life is that there is the potential for people do so with no other reason than because someone told them they should or they are "missing out". I agree it's their choice to do so, but it's going to happen in an irresponsible way when anything they try is illegal, unsafe, or socially unaccepted whether it be drug or activity.
In my opinion it's why we end up with a lot of adults who are unable to cope with life sober, they get into "something" in their teens and learn to function in society while going on their highs and lows along with all the stuff everyone else has to learn to cope with. They just simply never learn to balance themselves. Now if we tell people who've got a relatively stable life with the ability to put things in perspective, they COULD experiment with drugs or other activities.....presumably they would have people who could tell them they are fucking their life up over a powder, pill, or plant.
My experience so far with older adults who smoke weed and don't really hide it is that they can deal with it, they do it in the privacy of their own home and they don't spend their time trying to talk people into joining them or convincing others. However if their kids start using, they usually start early and in secret and I haven't met one yet that didn't constantly talk about smoking: when they last did, when they will next do it, how much, how you should join them, how one kind strain is better, etc, etc. They may not abuse it, but they sure sound like they would if they could keep enough money in their pockets to do so.
So.......as long as it's "for the experience of it" very infrequently and not because they never learned to function without it. Personally I don't drink, smoke, use drugs, etc....and I don't really care if other people do (well except for smoking, can't stand when people smoke near me or smell like an ashtray) but you never know when people are moderate and balanced in their usage of most things.
I mean honestly unless a kid has someone older showing them quantities and how to cope......it's basically like encouraging them to skydive when they can't afford the equipment and training to actually walk away unharmed. People are pretty fucking stupid when they want to "be cool" and fit in.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^mxxcon:
i guess after smoking that shit every time they kept finding their windows broken and couldn't figure out how it happened so they decided to record their "Adventures"
On a serious note, they are fucking idiots for taking these drugs
and equally fucking idiots for posting it on the internet.
This is as good EIA as
any.

I'm sorry, but i have to take this up. You are not necessarily an idiot for trying a drug. It's all a matter of opinion, but mine is that you're pretty closeted if you don't ever try a drug - or rather if you pour scorn on someone and label them as an idiot for trying one. If you don't want to try them, fine. You've got say 85 years on this earth, give or take, and i recommend you try and find any kind of meaning, experience everything you can, try everything before you're asked to leave because what the hell is the point in being alive if you don't do anything? We didn't get to be the top of the food chain by not experimenting with stuff.
This guy approached a drug which plays with what you percieve as reality. He went about it in a stupid way. He is not stupid for trying the drug.
I ask only one thing of people in relation to their opinions on drugs - express your desire not to take them, express your reasons why you don't want to take them, but for goodness sake don't judge something you haven't tried.



But that's all good man - you expressed your desire not to try it, you've expressed why, but you didn't judge any drug which you haven't tried.

Counter to your experience, i knew a guy who started smoking weed at 14, 15 ish. His mum told him - fine, do it in the house where i can make sure you're ok. So he did with his close friends, and they had a great time, were grateful for the ability to do it in a warm comfortable place, and were delivered muffins and cakes from time to time because his mum was a great cook and gave her a chance to make sure everything was fine. They didn't talk about it all the time, they didn't overdo it, and he's a fireman now. Oh, and we eventually found out that his mum smoked it too. Their house was great, a proper home, proper family.

I suffered hard with depression in the past, and if i hadn't tried weed when i was 17, perhaps i might not be around today, you know? It took the horrible bottomless pit away from under me and showed me that perhaps life isn't all misery, it was no permanent cure but it showed me that i didn't always have to feel down. And that didn't lead to further use, because it was enough to feel good for the rest of the day, my one good day in a thousand bad ones.

I think we simply disagree philosophically, or something. I think people should - within the realms of reason - try things for the hell of it. I don't think drugs are irresponsible merely by dint of being illegal. I think people should question what the government tells us we can put in our bodies. Because i think if people did put some weed in their bodies regularly, they might just realise how supercilious we are when we take material wealth and work to be of utmost important to us. That might be dangerous for the government, because people might decide not to spend the majority if their lives doing something they despise, and actually start reaching out, trying for something better - taking a chance.

Remember, it's all very easy for someone to tell you the bad sides of things, because they're much publicised and fear mongering is a cinch. Governments want bad drug rumours to be spread, and they like bad emotional baggage to be attached to the word "drugs". Numerous propaganda attempts in the past surely show us that they've got some agenda. And it'd be very easy for people to say "LOL, if people stopped 'doing what they despise', the world would collapse and we'd have no food, no electricity, etc. etc!" But it ain't necessarily so. People do it already. There's alternatives, in my opinion better alternatives, but for a world like that we might all NEED to reach the higher level of relaxedness associated with weed

And finally - how's amsterdam doing? Because last i heard it's a fking great place to live. Better than where i live even if it's half as good as the last time i heard, and we prohibit drugs.

Is that in someones backyard??? Um I think I will take my chances with the spiders, snakes and sharks we have down under.

From one of the links in the description:

A traffic stop is viewed by police officers as a potentially life threatening situation, regardless of the impetus for the stop. The cop doesn't know whether the driver of the car stopped for some trivial reason is the nicest guy in town or a mass murderer. He is not about to take any chances finding out.

To the officer, the "threat" initiates with the refusal to comply with commands. There are some basic rules of a safe encounter, that the driver remain in the vehicle with his hands where they can be seen. No, the officer has no reason to believe he has a gun or the inclination to use one, but he's not willing to take any chances finding out.

When the driver alights from the vehicle, the cop immediately feels threatened. When the driver refuses to comply with commands, the sense of threat is elevated. When the driver argues, the threat reaches an untenable position.

Seems like the real problem was what happened at the very end.

I get that it was a tense situation, but from the video and reporting, once they had him subdued they kicked his ass. That wasn't necessary, and constituted excessive force.

They then got sued for exactly that, and wound up settling out of court over it.

Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?

>> ^blankfist:

Let me ask you this, since you've obviously got an opinion on it, why is the public court system so expensive? Why is a trial by jury something that can often lead to bankruptcy for the defendant so they typically settle for a plea bargain?

I wouldn't say I had a preexisting opinion on that, but it is an interesting question either way. I really can't say for sure, but there are a lot of factors involved.

There's a large initial investment in education to obtain a law degree, which certainly factors into the income needed to pay off those debts. Demand for reputable lawyers could be a part of it too... everyone wants a good lawyer, so why not charge more? How many people are willing to take a chance on a cheaper lawyer with little experience?

I'm really not well-versed in the economics of legal representation.