cp702

Source? I may well be wrong about this.

Is that a matter of law or a matter of fact? Is it actually not possible to get or keep an air transport license with a felony conviction, or is it just that an airline wouldn't want to keep you if you're convicted of a felony?

I'm sorry, have you ever heard of the internet? That's exactly the sort of thing someone might make up.

I actually agree that policies which forever stigmatize criminals and make it nigh-impossible for them to obtain gainful employment are counterproductive, and encourage recidivism. But there's a big difference between "felons shouldn't be automatically denied gainful employment after they've served their time" and "felons shouldn't be barred from a position in which they are delegated some of the sovereign powers of the government". I don't think a felony conviction should make it effectively impossible to find a job, but nor do I think the authority of a peace officer should be given to a felon outside of exceptional circumstances (for which there is an exception: in truly exceptional circumstances in which a police department thinks it *is* appropriate to hire a felon as an officer, the circumstances are also likely enough to justify a pardon [though the reverse is not necessarily true -- just because the governor pardons, doesn't mean the police should have to take you]).

Because the real reason felons can't be peace officers isn't just that they can't carry guns (the federal rule doesn't even apply to state governmental bodies, per 18 US Code section 925(a)(1)); it's that a peace officer is a position of great trust and responsibility, and society has for the most part deemed felons unsuited for positions in which they are given great trust and responsibility (it's not just law enforcement-type positions: felony conviction generally results in an automatic loss of professional licenses [like law or medical licenses], often bars you from ever holding public office, often results in legal restrictions on you doing business with the government, etc.) NYPD auxiliaries are peace officers, with powers of arrest, the power to use force, the power to issue orders to the general public, etc.: things society is not normally willing to give to convicted felons.

A defense attorney would have a hard time indeed, getting a conviction being the opposite of his job. Under some circumstances, you can be charged with murder for any death during a felony you commit, but there are typically limits on this: in most states, the felony must be on a specific list of felonies (including robbery, not including making a false report to police) or must be inherently dangerous (which does not consider the specifics of the case at all; a given felony is or is not "inherently dangerous" depending solely on statutory definition of the felony, which making a false report to police would not be); in many states, the death must be reasonably forseeable as a consequence of the felony (there's a case you could make that police should not open fire at all in a swatting incident); only some states apply felony murder to those killed by bystanders or police (in other states, only those killed by accomplices count); and the underlying felony cannot be a component of the death (if it'd be a lesser included offense to a murder charge, they can't charge felony murder; otherwise, there'd be no such thing as degrees of murder, because just about every homicide contains a felonious assault and so would otherwise count as felony murder). Lastly, Louisiana (where the fake story was set) requires proof of specific intent to kill *and* the felony being on an enumerated list; Louisiana doesn't use the common law, and traditional felony murder is a common-law rule. Furthermore, felony murder only applies if there's a death: if no one dies, you cannot be held criminally liable for the police shooting someone. The only reason you can be liable for a death you didn't cause is that it's traditionally been that way, from back in the days where all felonies were extremely serious crimes punishable by death (as opposed to now, where felonies are just those things which have a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison). The same tradition didn't apply to assaults, and you're not criminally liable for police shooting someone unless the person dies, at which point the traditional rule kicks in. And it's still not technically the same as if you shot someone, because that would be the different crime of first-degree murder.

Nope. Technically the kid would have shot the father zero times, because the meaning of the word "shot" does not include "caused to be shot". From a legal point of view, still no -- there's a big difference between making a phone call with the intent of harassing someone that results in a police officer shooting someone, and actually pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. The latter is pretty much an open-and-shut case of murder (if they die) or aggravated assault/attempted murder (if they don't); for the former, while it's forseeable that it *might* end with someone getting shot, it isn't terribly *likely* (keep in mind that SWAT is not supposed to enter a scene with guns blazing; if they're called to a hostage situation and there's no hostage situation, any outcome besides "no one gets hurt" means someone screwed up big-time).

What's going on internally: Most likely, they're laughing their asses off at rampant speculation (I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they have a monthly "best of the ridiculous rumors" contest in the company).

Clan ads are not allowed on the forums. Nothing to see here! This topic has been closed by LCPDFR.com staff. If you feel that this topic has been closed in error, please report this post.

"Nothing gives automatic protection" is probably better phrased as "nothing gives automatic enforcement" (which is absolutely true: while a copyright entitles you to file DMCA takedown notices, the person who uploaded allegedly infringing content has the right to file a counter-notice, at which point the content provider must put the content back up until you sue the uploader and it gets worked out in the courts). Copyright *protection* generally means "you have copyright on this", and that *is* automatic literally as soon as you create a work. For US copyright law, at least, the ability to enforce is even less automatic than Jay described: you are not allowed to file an infringement lawsuit until you register your work. This means registering with the US Copyright Office (which takes time and costs money, and involves your name and address being put in the public record); while copyrighted.com says it provides "registration", this has no legal standing, and at best it provides evidence you had created something by such-and-such a date. That might (emphasis on might) help if the other person says "No, I made this first", but they could still say that even if you use such a site (there's certainly no rule saying they have to go to some third-party site to prove when they made it). It doesn't let you say "they should have known it was copyrighted", because there's no requirement to check a non-governmental database for if something is copyrighted. Also, if you want to bring copyright into a discussion, it severely restricts your source material: if you're infringing on copyrighted material (e.g. the LSPD logo) in your copyrighted logo, you don't get copyright on the part you took from the copyrighted logo (if the changes to the underlying copyrighted work are worthy of copyright in their own right, you can stop others from using *those modifications*, but you don't magically get the right to use the original logo on your site). If you just add text, for instance, the thing you added has no copyright protection; the LCPD logo plus text has no copyright protection under US law for anyone besides R*, because all *you* could claim is the text (which isn't protected). If you're using a logo from a game, or from a police department whose logo is copyrighted, you should know that they probably *have* registered their copyright, meaning large penalties for infringement, and they might actually care if you're filing a lawsuit involving your own infringement. TL;DR: Don't bother with copyright, it's not suited for what you want it for. That's not what it's designed for, not what it's intended for, and not what it works for.

As ini said, your power bill goes up if you have an A/C unit; individual window units don't draw anywhere near as much as a centralized unit (for obvious reasons, because they're cooling a room instead of a building), but A/C in general is typically one of the largest uses of power in a house in the summer. However, if the question is about putting it in a window versus, say, in the middle of the room: A typical A/C unit in the middle of a room draws the same amount of power (if not more, it may well draw more) while heating the room. The reason they're put in the window in the first place is because they need somewhere to transfer heat in the room; this is most often transferred to air outside (in a window unit, right outside, which is why it sticks out the window; in some portable units, it draws air from the room but exhausts it to the outside through a hose; they make units which use evaporating water to cool the room, but the exhaust from that is very humid and you likely don't want it exhausting inside).

MODERATOR NOTICE In reply to a hidden post: image macros remain as disallowed here as they are elsewhere. Three issues with that. The first is that there is literally no such thing as following "original principles without interpretation". What people think of as "original principles" is itself an interpretation. Sometimes individuals aren't expected to create their own interpretations (this is my understanding, which is *not* backed up by any expertise and could be very very wrong for all I know, of Roman Catholicism: the centralized Church does interpretation), but realize that "follow plain text" is an interpretation just like any other, and tends to be an absurd interpretation that few people follow. The second point, related to that, is that your statement is entirely false for literally every religion I'm aware of. *All* of them have some way in which commands are interpreted; the notion that you should follow the literal text is an extremely radical position, far outside the mainstream. In Judaism, the idea of human interpretation is so strong that there is a story in the Talmud in which there's an argument, with one rabbi against a group of them about what rules apply in a certain instance. After miracles on request by the one rabbi (such as getting a tree to walk across a garden) don't convince anyone ("We don't learn law from trees"), God actually comes down and says "This one rabbi is right, and the rest of you are wrong". The reply is that it's no longer for God to determine; he gave humans the Torah, but humans should interpret and apply it themselves, and God's now out of the loop (so prophets and miracles no longer matter) (this is *rabbinic* Judaism, which has been the main form of Judaism since the 500s AD or so; if someone says "Judaism" and isn't talking about the evolution of the religion, this is certainly what they mean). So there's one religion where your idea of how religion works is the exact opposite of what is the case. I don't know if other religions are as much about interpretations as Judaism is (where study and interpretation of the Torah is considered pretty much the best thing you can do), but none that I know about have, as a mainstream view, "read this holy book without any form of interpretation". Third, if you are not yourself a member of a religion and have not studied it, you really shouldn't be telling people who actually practice that religion how it is supposed to work.

US federal sentencing is generally determined by the US Sentencing Guidelines (they aren't *binding* [they're developed by a sentencing commission, not directly enacted by Congress], judges can deviate from them if they so choose [as opposed to rules directly enacted by Congress, such as mandatory minimums], but they're normally followed). You can try calculating things for yourself at the (unofficial, not legal advice) website http://sentencing.us -- there, you'll find that kidnapping has a base level of 32, meaning that even with no criminal history and no aggravating factors you're facing 10-12 years in federal prison, meaning you'll serve at least 8 years 9 months if you get time off for good behavior (federal prisons take time off your sentence for good behavior, so you might serve as little as 87% of your sentence, but there is no federal parole anymore, so you don't have that shortening a sentence). Things like using a weapon, making ransom demands, keeping the victim longer than 7 days, seriously injuring the victim, etc. all increase the sentence. If you murder the victim, the sentence rises, under the guidelines, to life in prison (or possibly death, the guidelines don't cover death sentences). However, if you murder the victim during a kidnapping, it'd probably be charged as first-degree murder (instead of kidnapping with a murder enhancement), and federal courts are required to sentence those convicted of first-degree murder to either death or life in prison (that's set by act of Congress, not in the sentencing guidelines), unless the government specifically asks for a shorter sentence because you were helping them (e.g. you're a low-level mobster and help the cops convict the boss).

Yeah, window punches would work better. I don't think it's even that uncommon for police to have; not only is it useful for things like this, it can also be useful for rescue (e.g. kid locked in a car on a hot day), and it's pretty small (would fit easily on a belt, let alone in a car.

And I think it's a separate charge, hurting a dog vs. hurting a human cop. Hurting a police dog is still a felony, at least in most US states and federally, but I'd suspect you're likely to get lower punishment. I think the maximum sentence for harming a police animal may be larger than the typical sentence for assaulting a cop, but that maximum would not likely be given out except for killing the police animal, while killing a cop is a separate charge entirely which will likely net a higher penalty than that possible for any harm given to a police animal (in the US, killing a cop can often net a death sentence, which cannot legally be handed out for killing a police dog - death sentences are only allowed where a crime results in the death of a person, or for certain crimes against the state such as espionage or treason).

You know, I've heard this a lot. So far as I can tell, it has no basis in reality. Police dogs in some departments are issued badges and "take an oath", but the badges no more make them a cop than a retiree badge makes a retired cop a police officer. Police dogs cannot testify, attacking a police dog is "harming a police animal" instead of "assault on a law enforcement officer", police dogs cannot give orders that you have to obey, etc. If there's a source for the claim that police dogs are considered actual law enforcement officers (*besides* the wiki article, which makes the claim based on sources that say the opposite), I'd like to see it.

I think SHDN itself has a Tick() system.

That's just about the worst summary possible of the ordinance. What it seems to do is prohibit, on a city level, discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, etc., on the basis of race, sex, religion, and, most importantly, sexual preference and gender identity (that's the most important result because discrimination on the basis of the other things is already prohibited by federal law). The claim about bathrooms was the result of a single clause regarding transgendered people (where that is, in fact, a concern), which was removed from the legislation. The sole reference you make to the contents of the law is a clause which was not in the ordinance as passed (and which is also much, much, much more complicated than "men and women choose what bathroom they want", as the question gets rather complicated for transgendered people, because the bathroom appropriate to their identity is not the same as that which their biology would seem to dictate).

Note to all about SHDN: LCPDFR 1.0c comes with a somewhat tweaked version of 1.7.1.7. According to LMS, LCPDFR 1.0 will not work with other versions, but other mods should not have any issues whatsoever with the LCPDFR version of SHDN if they have no issues with 1.7.1.7. Just throwing that out there, though: if you have LCPDFR 1.0 and it works properly, your SHDN version is fully up-to-date and switching to the last one HazardX released could cause issues.

I think re-implementing from scratch is allowed, though (this means no looking at anything about ELS code, just having your own thing that toggles extras). However, now that ELS a) does a lot of fairly complex stuff with sirens that I don't think is publicly documented (as opposed to, say, toggling extras), and b) uses AdvancedHook, meaning it actually hooks into GTA's internal functions instead of relying on the native functions (and it's a *lot* more difficult to work with GTA's internal functions, because there aren't nice convenient lists of them by name like you have with natives), it'd be orders of magnitude harder to re-implement ELS 7 or 8 than the earlier versions of ELS. Especially with V about to come out (and if you're skilled enough to reverse-engineer GTA IV, you're probably going to have more fun working on V than continuing to mod for IV), I highly doubt it's worth it. @Jackson I don't think it counts as stealing an idea if it's a fairly common idea.

Good luck, stay safe.

I missed any joke, but I heartily agree it's gone too far and time to end it. Sorry.

And then completely misinterpreted your own definition. You went from "deterring lawbreaking" to "preventing the deaths of innocents". If you bother to read your own definition, it refers to deterring *crime* and rehabilitating *criminals*. Bomb defusal is not deterring crime, nor is it rehabilitating criminals. It is saving the lives of people who are not criminals. If you seriously read "discovering, deterring, rehabilitating or punishing persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society" to mean "saving the lives of people who are breaking no law", you frankly need to step back and look over the sentence again. Hint: "discovering, deterring, rehabilitating or punishing" takes "persons who violate..." as a direct object for each of "discovering", "deterring", "rehabilitating", and "punishing". The full expansion is "discovering persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society, deterring persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society, rehabilitating persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society, or punishing persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society". You instead act as though "rehabilitating" means "saving any lives of anyone", which is simply not how that sentence works. I do realize law enforcement is not all police do. That's what I've been trying to say. I'm not sure you do, because you have been saying essentially "police do it, so it's law enforcement".

So you've gone from "law enforcement is enforcing the law" (correct) to "somehow, something that has nothing to do with enforcing the law is law enforcement because it's preventing the loss of innocent lives, and because police sometimes do it (even though it's not always police doing it)"? Is firefighting law enforcement? Heavy rescue (I mean, why would the NYPD train ESU people in something which isn't their job? Because they train them in heavy rescue, clearly it's not just part of their job, but a law enforcement task, right?) Hell, cops are trained in basic first-responder medical tasks; is that law enforcement, then? Are EMTs then performing a law enforcement task when providing medical care? Simple question: do you define all tasks that any police officers are trained to do as part of their jobs as law enforcement tasks? If so, your definition of "law enforcement task" is a) dead wrong according to standard usage (as things cops do that are not enforcing the law fall under your definition but not the standard one, and b) utterly useless in a discussion which is about when the military can perform law enforcement tasks, which requires distinguishing between "what police do" and "law enforcement".

Is the scenario all cops in the US turning psychopathic at once, or is it some sort of coup? How do police (who are split into many, many different departments) unite for a coup? Or why do they all turn psychopathic? Is there some reason this affects civilian police but not the military (who really are much more likely to organize in a coup, because there's a more centralized command structure)? Have you really thought about the details of this scenario at all, or do you just love thinking about the army getting called in to slaughter people who are in no way able to resist it?