RationalBiker

Telling people about the product and granting use or rights to the product is not the same thing. If I tell you I have a car, I'm not granting you the right to take or use it.

Actually it does, if you don't drop the context of the discussion.

That's only true if you totally ignore the change in context that a business transaction is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value. I wouldn't want to think you are being deliberately obtuse in this argument, but between this and your confusion with why people are not property, it appears you are forgetting gaping amounts of Objectivism in order to poke holes in other's arguments.

But you may will be deprived of the VALUE of the idea, the VALUE which has been created by the originator's reasoning mind. Think of this less in terms of property and more in terms of the value that has been created. Think more in terms of what is EARNED versus what can be taken without EARNING it.

That's because objects and ideas do not even have rights.

Because people aren't property.

I love the psychologizing that goes on in sex threads.

Aside from the two you mention, from which protection is not full-proof, to other people sex is much more intimate and important than just "cheap fun". If you want to understand why it is more serious to other people, you might consider viewing it from beyond the perspective of just "sex to me...".

Because it can have such potentially serious consequences to one's life.

Welcome to the forum!

The Sixth Amendment requires the police to inform the arrestee of the charge or charge once they are formally being charged, like when the are in front of the magistrate. The purpose of informing the arrestee the nature of the charges was to give them them adequate time to formulate a defense for court. The charges must be accurately described. To my knowledge the law does not require that notification to be instantly provided upon arrest. I suspect that some folks think they have a legal right to know immediately so they can argue or decide to submit at the time of arrest. The authority of arrest and execution of that authority is not a democratic process. Once the officer initiates the arrest procedure, the arrestee is legally required to submit regardless of their agreement with the charge or charges. I'm reasonably sure the officers in that video adhered to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. Now, it is possible for a department to have a stricter policy regarding when they want officers to inform arrestees of charges. In most instances, it is probably prudent up inform them at the time of arrest or very shortly after if the situation is under control, but that is separate from the legal requirement. I think the specific amount of time a prison can be detained before formally charging them can vary somewhat based on the circumstances and whether not the officers need some additional time to conduct a more thorough investigation. When that investigation is through or reaches a dead end, the police have to ' put up or shut up' so to speak.

I'm not going to address your perspective, largely because there are too many different jurisdictions with too many different variations and applications of such laws that I see making a generalization like that somewhat difficult to substantiate. Over the last couple of decades, during my time in law enforcement, higher courts have been addressing the vagueness of many such statutes as well as the application of such statutes in order to address how subjectively they could be applied as you are suggesting. Here is a wiki reference. So, though such laws and applications may exist, it is the job of the courts to address the propriety of the law and the officer's arrest. Additionally, it must be pointed out again that the officers themselves have no means to pass such laws in order to give themselves carte blanche to arrest anyone they want. Meanwhile, I'm patiently waiting for Jennifer to answer my above question with, "The Sixth Amendment." I'm hoping that before she does, she looks up the Sixth Amendment and some summaries and/or case law that describe what it mean with reference to advising someone of the charges against them. If she finds some that state an officer must advise a person ON ARREST what their charges are, I'll be very surprised.

Out of curiosity, what law are you referring to here?

Interesting to you perhaps, but since they are not here to argue any of their positions, your representations of their opinions are hardly relevant. I already have 25 years experience as an officer and a sergeant in one city police department and I'm closing in on my 26th in a second career in law enforcement as an airport cop. I'm not speaking from my couch while watching Spongebob either.

For those that may doubt where I stand outside of what I have already said, I think the law about requiring a permit to peacefully demonstrate on public property is improper. What I have been addressing so far is whether or not the police were acting within the province of the existing law and whether or not their uses of force were acceptable based on what I saw in the video and what I understand of the use of force continuum. I'm not spending a lot of time arguing about the theory of what is right or wrong here, primarily on the actual situation as it is at the moment.

I'm not sure if you know about how arrests work, but in order for those people to be defendants in a court of law, they have to be charged with a violation of ACUTAL LAW first; they cannot be charged with violating a judge's ruling. So when an officer arrests someone (and assuming they do not issue a summons), they take them before a magistrate, the magistrate is told what the officer observed and what law the officer thinks was violated and the magistrate decides whether or not he/she thinks there is probable cause the law was violated. If the magistrate decides there is probable cause, he issues a warrant for an alleged violation of a law and then they go before the court. In other words, there is no mechanism for them to stand trial in court unless they were charged with violating an ACTUAL LAW. Now, whether or not that law is applicable to the action done is another story, but they had to have been charged with violating SOME ACTUAL LAW before they would go to court. Now, in the ruling you are talking about (referenced here), the officers did not arrest the people in the video and charge them with violating a federal judge's ruling, they charged them not for Dancing in Public, but with Demonstrating without a Permit, an ACTUAL LAW. Regarding the previous case that led to the ruling, the original case's charges were dismissed. That does not necessarily mean that people cannot still be charged with a violation of that law. The original dismissal may have been because perhaps some elements of the crime were not present. Now, lest you be doubtful that they were demonstrating, I think you should watch the video I linked above where the organizer openly admits it was a demonstration, presumably without the required permit.

So, using Rand's words to support an argument of what Rand said is "Argument from Authority"? Every user on this forum is likely guilty of that then. Or do you mean that I've taken what I've read and think I understand of what Rand said and used that to support my argument and that is an "Argument from Authority"? Again, probably every user on this board does that. Would I be arguing from authority if I said that according to what I've read from Rand, Socialism is outside the bounds of Objectivism? I think it would be necessary with respect to all those who actually fund the project. Clearly if you do not have to spend your funds on a project that you think is a waste of your money and you do not have sacrifice any of your property for it to be built on, than you would have little grounds to object. Do you see a Capitalist government still being a democracy?

Are you using any of my money to build your cell tower?

I watched another video featuring the organizer of this protest, and by listening to him it clearly is a protest, and he described what he thought the purpose of the police was in America. Starting at about 1:12; http://dmvallaccess....source=activity Now, however noble he may be in his fight against the unjust banning of dancing in a public place, he clearly has a distorted aim at who is at fault. He's blaming the police as if they passed the laws against public dancing. Then he claims that only 5% of the police force are "good" people who image is tainted by the brutal thugs that make up the other 95%. His views of policing in America are nothing short of moronic.

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest. In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level. The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy. However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

Do you have all the necessary facts to determine that? Don't we appoint judges and/or select juries for the purpose of determining whether laws were broken or not?

And just for the record, it should be noted that despite its success, many people did not want the seawall in Fudai built at the time. There was no concern for the "consent of the governed" in that instance.

I haven't claimed any right to deny anyone anything. What I've claimed is that the Rand designated what a proper government consisted of and that what Grames is describing is outside of that bounds. I haven't even claimed that Grames cannot extrapolate whatever he thinks would be consistent with Objectivism outside of those bounds, I've merely asked him to distinguish between what Rand described as proper government roles and what he believes are proper government roles. In theory, I suppose the community of people could delegate any task to government they wanted under the provisions you mention (although 2046 offers why this would probably be a bad idea in the long run). In reality however, I've never seen nor heard of any political election, referendum or vote that had a 100% unanimous support with 100% of the population actually voting. Sure, that does not prove it has not happened, but I'd doubt it. Is it remotely possible? I suppose. As I have alluded to before, it's always easy to make claims in theory, but the reality is often quite another matter. In reality, we do not even have an example of how a voluntarily funded government would perform in this area (or any other area) particularly versus a private entity. What I've challenged from the beginning of my participation is Grames' claim that a voluntarily funded government would be a better choice for this concern than a private entity. In a proper capitalist government, the financial and legal situation would be so significantly different from what it is now that all we can do is "imagine" how things would be.