|
Mr. Nice! posted:How do you promote progress of science and useful arts? By protecting creative expression and intellectual property. That’s the whole purpose. There is a somewhat technical but important difference between European IP law and American IP law you sort of messed up. European IP law is based on so-called "moral" rights: that IP is recognizing moral rights of a creator and that the crux of any analysis of IP law should be reference to those rights. American IP law is functional: it derives from the Constitution's mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" and so IP law is grounded, not in any moral rights of a creator, but the extent to which those laws promote science and the arts. Your post was basically assuming the European view, which doesn't apply in the United States. It's a technical issue nobody but a lawyer with some IP background will notice or care about 
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:How do you promote progress of science and useful arts? By protecting creative expression and intellectual property. That’s the whole purpose. Please explain how not having an independent invention defense for patents promotes the progress of science and useful arts and doesn't just gently caress over whoever invented second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Javid posted:However many thousands sitting in jail without bond awaiting trial, and this is what the court system has time to sperg over. you are aware that state judicial systems are separate from the federal judiciary and are where most crimes are prosecuted, right? no? huh, glad to have your input.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:How do you promote progress of science and useful arts? By protecting creative expression and intellectual property. That’s the whole purpose. Thus, promoting science and the useful arts might require less IP protection in some cases. Then again, it's unclear if the Supreme Court cares about the "progress of science and the useful arts" in any sense. There is no such argument in support of retroactive copyright extensions (those works already exist), but they approved those anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Then again, it's unclear if the Supreme Court cares about the "progress of science and the useful arts" in any sense. There is no such argument in support of retroactive copyright extensions (those works already exist), but they approved those anyway. If Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, Gisnep will go bankrupt and then who will make useful arts? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
I definitely agree that copyright timeframes are currently a bit excessive, but thanks Disney regardless!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. Mr. Rogers again strikes a decisive victory for the forces of good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I definitely agree that copyright timeframes are currently a bit excessive, but thanks Disney regardless! On the plus said Disney hasn't made any moves to have the laws retroactively changed again and it looks like the US will finally have a public domain day next year!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Not saying it’s a slam dunk, but if 2/3 of the officers behave differently, then you deserve at least a trial on the matter. This is classic survivorship bias. One of the three had to fire first. After he did the threat was eliminated, and further shooting would have been unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Then again, it's unclear if the Supreme Court cares about the "progress of science and the useful arts" in any sense. There is no such argument in support of retroactive copyright extensions (those works already exist), but they approved those anyway. Prefatory clauses are non-operative remember?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:This is classic survivorship bias. One of the three had to fire first. After he did the threat was eliminated, and further shooting would have been unreasonable. Typically if all the officers think there's a threat, all of them are going to dump their entire magazine into the person. Since that's the reasonable behavior, if only one fired then the other two thought the shooting was unreasonable in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
parasyte posted:Typically if all the officers think there's a threat, all of them are going to dump their entire magazine into the person. Since that's the reasonable behavior, if only one fired then the other two thought the shooting was unreasonable in the first place. No. It only meant two of them hadn't decided to fire yet. Or perhaps they had, but the shooting officer was merely quicker. Two reasonable people can come to two, different, reasonable conclusions given the same circumstances. I write this as someone who is convinced our police shoot too often and too quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Yeah, only a serious threat, like a black man with a cell phone warrants the entire group emptying their weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Yeah, only a serious threat, like a black man with a cell phone warrants the entire group emptying their weapons. But he might be calling for backup.  Please don't mistake me: police use deadly force far, far too often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Well maybe if there’s some argument regarding the facts we should let it go to trial?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:No. It only meant two of them hadn't decided to fire yet. Or perhaps they had, but the shooting officer was merely quicker. Two reasonable people can come to two, different, reasonable conclusions given the same circumstances. I think once one police officer starts firing, it's quite unusual for the rest not to start because they're hearing gunfire. That may be less relevant when the suspect is holding a knife instead of something that might be a gun though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:But he might be calling for backup. I wasn't meaning to accuse you, sorry. I'm pretty much with everyone else saying that it should've gone to an actual trial instead of just being decreed an appropriate use of force. At least no one died this time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think once one police officer starts firing, it's quite unusual for the rest not to start because they're hearing gunfire. That may be less relevant when the suspect is holding a knife instead of something that might be a gun though. So in cases where one officer thinks they see a weapon and fire, but get acquitted, why don't the other cops get convicted? "The other cop shot so I did" doesn't amount to reasonable fear for your life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Caganer posted:So in cases where one officer thinks they see a weapon and fire, but get acquitted, why don't the other cops get convicted? i am having a very hard time figuring out what you think i'm saying and what you're saying in response, but it's clear that what you think i said isn't what i said, and i can't figure out any sensible interpretation of what you're saying in the first part. to begin with, my post is a discussion of what, factually, tends to happen not a discussion of what the legal implications are. i didn't use the word "reasonable" and i certainly didn't discuss literally anything relating to what cops get convicted vs acquitted. the subtext of my post is that if one officer fires and the rest do not that is strong evidence that the officer firing was unreasonable because the fact there was no weapon or imminent danger was so obvious to the other cops that it overrode the "oh poo poo gunfire" response as to your second point, you're also not really understanding what i said but in a way i can more clearly understand what you're trying to say and why it's wrong. what i'm saying is that if another cop is firing then you hear gunfire so it may not be obvious that the gunfire is one-way. now, what standard we impose on police to meet before they are authorized to use lethal force is independent of that discussion: we can decide that we expect police to make sure they need to use lethal force before doing so and hold them accountable for mistakes, or we can impose a subjective standard that it was reasonable for them to think that lethal force was necessary, or some mix of the two. but the key point is that anytime you're looking at the subjective reasonableness there would be gradations of irresponsibility: the officer who shoots first is more responsible than the officers who shoot second because a mistake by the officers who shoot second is more explicable. that doesn't mean you have to set the standard so that those second-firing officers have no liability. but, as i said above, it also makes it more obvious that the initial shooter was unreasonable if other officers looked at the same situation and didn't think lethal force was required, and then looked at the same situation with bullets flying and still thought legal force wasn't required.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I wasn't meaning to accuse you, sorry. I'm pretty much with everyone else saying that it should've gone to an actual trial instead of just being decreed an appropriate use of force. Completely agree. I think the facts are in dispute in this particular case, and it should have gone to trial. Would a reasonable person have pulled the trigger? I don't know. I do know I've been in several situations where my life was in danger and I didn't pull the trigger, so maybe I'd be a poor jurist even with all the facts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Caganer posted:So in cases where one officer thinks they see a weapon and fire, but get acquitted, why don't the other cops get convicted? They don't have to be convicted, because they get fired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i am having a very hard time figuring out what you think i'm saying and what you're saying in response, but it's clear that what you think i said isn't what i said, and i can't figure out any sensible interpretation of what you're saying in the first part. "hearing gunfire" isn't cause to shoot a specific person though  so if one officer mistakenly shoots, they can make the argument HURRR I THOUGH THE CELL PHONE WAS A GUN. if another cop says I HEARD GUNSHOTS SO I SHOT A GUY IN THE DIRECTION THE GUNS WERE POINTING that's not a clean shoot. make sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Caganer posted:"hearing gunfire" isn't cause to shoot a specific person though if you think a guy's wallet is a gun, that may or may not be reasonable; it becomes more reasonable ("more reasonable" does not mean "reasonable") because once gunfire starts you can misinterpret the gunfire as two-way (coming from the wallet as well as the other cop). if you still don't think the wallet is a gun once gunfire starts going off it is evidence that it was never reasonable for the first guy to think it was a gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
I think the bigger issue if you're interested in holding police accountable for alleged constitutional violations in general than the reasonableness of any particular shooting is the pre-trial use of qualified immunity. It allows the court to dismiss a particular case on the grounds that conduct substantially similar to the officer's has not been held unconstitutional by a court in the past while simultaneously declining to determine whether it is unconstitutional for the next time. I'd think there'd be some equivalent to the substantial likelihood of repetition while escaping review that would allow ruling on the the underlying constitutional violation as pled, but apparently not. I still don't really understand where qualified immunity comes from. It's certainly not articulated in 42 USC 1983 and I don't see anything there that should subject a person acting under color of law to a different standard than in any other civil suit. It seems to me like the courts just made it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I still don't really understand where qualified immunity comes from. It's certainly not articulated in 42 USC 1983 and I don't see anything there that should subject a person acting under color of law to a different standard than in any other civil suit. It seems to me like the courts just made it up. Courts made it up so that people acting under color of law wouldn’t be dissuaded from performing their jobs by the threat of a lawsuit against them in their personal capacity. E: ie it isn’t a crazy doctrine to incorporate, but it’s been extended waaaaay the gently caress too far at this point (like most good faith exceptions when applied to police.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Courts made it up so that people acting under color of law wouldn’t be dissuaded from performing their jobs by the threat of a lawsuit against them in their personal capacity. That seems like exactly the sort of thing Congress could rectify if the statute were being applied in a way that dissuaded public officials from performing their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Courts made it up so that people acting under color of law wouldn’t be dissuaded from performing their jobs by the threat of a lawsuit against them in their personal capacity. Maybe they should be discouraged 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Imagine forums poster Vahakyla as a fireman in Shady Sides of Pittsburgh using a chainsaw to cut open the wrong loving door of a wrong house in 2011 and forcing the people out. Should I've been held criminally liable for breaking and entering, or even the damages for it? I don't think so, but I might be biased. Qualified immunity has a very clearly established role in public service, and the law is certainly needed daily in activities other than shooting brown people.
Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Imagine forums poster Vahakyla as a fireman in Shady Sides of Pittsburgh using a chainsaw to cut open the wrong loving door of a wrong house in 2011 and forcing the people out. Should I've been held criminally liable for breaking and entering, or even the damages for it? I don't think so, but I might be biased. Qualified immunity has a very clearly established role in public service, and the law is certainly needed daily in activities other than shooting brown people. Trick question, anything that stops Pittsburgh from burning down is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
That hinges rather heavily on how obvious it should've been that you were going into the wrong house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Also if, I don't know, you had actually caused the fire in the first place and chased a dog back into the fire. ... Wait, was the house on fire, how does this scenario work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Firefighters aren't really comparable since nothing they do rises near the level of what cops do. A fireman might ram down the wrong front door because somebody read 231 as 213, but he's not going to dump a mag of 9mm into the occupant when they correctly confront him with a bat for smashing into their house at 3 AM. And whoever made the number mistake should still pay for that damage, BUT a homeowner getting stuck paying for a new front door is still a much smaller worst case scenario than somebody being summarily executed as a result of the exact same mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Also I feel like competently executing the wrong information vs incompetenly executing the proper information should make a difference. So you, the fireman, correctly break down the door that dispatch wrongly gave you is different than you breaking down a different door than what dispatch gave you. And when you made that error, was it flipping 213 and 231 vs you going to an entirely different neighborhood than what you were called to. I'm not a lawyer at all, but it seems like that kind of competency call should get resolved in court and then resolved accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
The comparison is: Your house is not on fire and the firefighter goes in on accident. They see you in your house and decide that your house isn't on fire because you're the arsonist and you haven't lit the fire yet. To prevent you from lighting the fire, the firefighter EDIT: Like even assuming you think the guy has a gun AND you don't know it's his house he's sitting in front of AND you can't see him put his hands up/you think he's raising a gun, the correct action is to duck for cover and assess the situation not to murderize the guy who is threatening no one but you - a problem you fix by going for cover. CaPensiPraxis fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
I still want to know the details of this scenario because my mental picture is the guy heroically HERE'S JOHNNYing a non-burning house while smoke rises from the house next door. Not that it really matters, but
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Not saying it’s a slam dunk, but if 2/3 of the officers behave differently, then you deserve at least a trial on the matter. "A disgusting, dangerous and excessive use of force. Why can't they have just one officer shoot?" <One officer shoots the suspect> "That officer should be sued into poverty. If pulling the trigger was necessary, why didn't the other officers shoot too?" KernelSlanders posted:I think the bigger issue if you're interested in holding police accountable for alleged constitutional violations in general than the reasonableness of any particular shooting is the pre-trial use of qualified immunity. It allows the court to dismiss a particular case on the grounds that conduct substantially similar to the officer's has not been held unconstitutional by a court in the past while simultaneously declining to determine whether it is unconstitutional for the next time. I'd think there'd be some equivalent to the substantial likelihood of repetition while escaping review that would allow ruling on the the underlying constitutional violation as pled, but apparently not. hobbesmaster posted:Then it sounds like something you should let a jury determine. There is absolutely an opportunity for the accuser to have their day in court on the civil rights question, but the proper venue is a suit against the department, not the individual officer. If the courts rule that the plaintiff's rights were violated, that would establish a new standard, and any officer who acted in a similar manner in the future would not be entitled to QI. QI doesn't shield the officer from all consequences, either. If the department decides that the officer exercised poor judgement, they can totally fire them, even if the officer cannot be sued individually. Putting the department on the hook for civil suits is exactly how it is supposed to work: it incentivizes departments to hire, train and discipline officers that will demonstrate good judgment, rather than pushing all the risk down to the individual officers. Javid posted:That hinges rather heavily on how obvious it should've been that you were going into the wrong house. The thing that no one seems to consider is that Firefighter Vahakyla isn't out there cutting into houses for his personal benefit, he's doing it on behalf of the government, at the direction of other government agents. No sane person is going to intervene in a stranger's house fire or domestic violence situation if they are individually liable for any mistakes they make. No IRS auditor is going assess fines against litigious, multi-billion dollar businesses if they can be sued for damages should they make a mistake. Javid posted:Firefighters aren't really comparable since nothing they do rises near the level of what cops do... exact same mistake. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:I still want to know the details of this scenario because my mental picture is the guy heroically HERE'S JOHNNYing a non-burning house while smoke rises from the house next door. if this wasn't my mental image before, it sure is now
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:<Every officer on scene unloads into the suspect> <Every officer on scene unloads into the suspect, who was unarmed, presented no threat, and shouldn't have been shot> "A disgusting, dangerous and excessive use of force. Why can't they have just one officer shoot?" <One officer shoots the suspect, who was unarmed, presented no threat, and shouldn't have been shot> "That officer should be sued into poverty. If pulling the trigger was necessary, why didn't the other officers shoot too?" Dead Reckoning: "Gosh, can't you let the police do their jobs?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Dead Reckoning: "Gosh, can't you let the police do their jobs?" The police, as a tool of the increasingly white nationalist state, are doing exactly their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:11
|
|
