PaxNova t1_jegkq8d wrote

> But the good cops that let the bad cops get away with it are as much of the problem.

The problem, imo, is that good police are restricted by requiring evidence, while bad police can easily destroy it before the ivnestigation starts. Good police can't arrest them if they cannot prove their case. Body cams should help a ton.


PaxNova t1_j9u6rh4 wrote

> Clearly the guy violently resisted.

Not to the point of requiring a lethal solution. Reaching into your jacket is a no-no when interacting with police, and the grab out of the car was likely fine. Once on the ground though, it doesn't matter how much they're kicking, the gun is only called for if they're going for a weapon.

I'm unclear as to protocol on taser vs gun when an unknown weapon may be in play.


PaxNova t1_j8saoq0 wrote

That's my point,too. The way information is framed and released matters. You end up with people who have no medical training reading an initial finding and claiming it's gospel without bothering to read further research explaining why results are not applicable.

If there were a law insisting that everybody have access to preliminary findings data, it would be very chaotic. Just because it's true doesn't mean it should be public. Wait for the final release.


PaxNova t1_j8qjwup wrote

I mean to say, these "no free will" comments tend to revolve around you being solely the product of your genetics, experiences, etc. But if the brain and the self are the same thing, then that's still "you." If you are your brain, then you are your genetics. It's pointless to separate them.


PaxNova t1_j8q9nsg wrote

> “I’m concerned we are putting information out there. I can see how that could be used as a club to those who are uninformed on this issue,” said Rep. Keven Stratton, R-Orem. “I don’t see a need to publicize it. If we’re going to be transparent, let’s be transparent with the information to those who can use it properly.”

> In other words, the general public might draw wrong conclusions from the data golf courses would have been required to post under the original version of the bill, which Welton introduced in hopes of encouraging greater efficiency.


PaxNova t1_j6n5kp1 wrote

Publishers sell books to libraries. A book can be checked out about 20 times before normal wear and tear makes it unsuitable for circulation, and a new book is purchased. Also, they'd buy multiple copies of popular books so multiple people can read them at once. Once those books have been read, they don't often get checked out again. Imagine Oprah recommends a book for everyone to read. High checkouts one month, low checkouts the next month.

For eBooks, the same sales paradigm as physical books has been replicated. Libraries purchase bundles of X number of checkouts, with a certain number of checkouts at a time.

You're right in that you absolutely could do as you say, technically speaking. But that would infringe on copyright. The rights holders have the right to sell them as they wish.

What makes eBooks different is that each time you lend an eBook, you are not actually "lending" anything. You make a new copy on your device. Even if you are prevented from accessing the original copy, it's just promising not to use it while someone else makes an illegal copy. This would invalidate copyright. That's why eBooks are treated more like software than books. Physically, they are.


PaxNova t1_j62foaf wrote

Off-duty cops. On-duty, the government is literally telling them to arm themselves and go around confronting people. I'm not sure how to get around that shy of eliminating guns for officers, and I don't think that'll fly in the US.

I don't think people are understanding this is a criminal trial, and the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. A rock could convince a jury that a group of teens that went 100+ on the shoulder to grab pizza might do something stupid, and that an officer might confront reckless driving and felony speeding while off-duty. This result is not surprising.

There might still be a civil trial, and I hope there is. I'm not sure qualified immunity will apply here, since reckless driving is sometimes specifically called out as something off-duty police are highly discouraged from confronting people over. Depends on the local policies and regulations.


PaxNova t1_j2pca28 wrote

Rehabilitation is unfortunately but one reason to send someone to prison. I firmly believe that everyone can be saved, but that doesn't mean we have the capability to save them right now. Sequestration is another reason for prison, since there's nothing we can do for them but stop them from harming others.

It feels like giving up, because it is, but sometimes there isn't a better option.