cp702

I'm claiming that enforcing laws and performing criminal investigations is literally what "law enforcement tasks" are. Police do many things which are not law enforcement. The military cannot issue orders to civilians in the US off of a military installation, unless the President has invoked the Insurrection Act or in a very few other cases explicitly given by US law. Any member of the US military who attempts to force a civilian to do something off a military post (i.e. acting as law enforcement) faces court-martial. Are you claiming that "law enforcement task" is "whatever police do"? Because that's a fairly useless definition of the term in a conversation about roles of various parts of the government.

There is a profound difference between "thing law enforcement sometimes does" and "law enforcement task". For instance, the NYPD handles many technical rescue jobs, and yet they are not law enforcement tasks. Bomb defusal is likewise not a law enforcement task - it does not involve enforcing laws or assisting in any sort of criminal investigation, is purely technical in nature, and involves no (legal) authority whatsoever being given to the bomb tech [although it *is* rather stupid to refuse to listen to one]; if a bomb tech happens to be a police officer, they have authority as a police officer, but that's not related to their duties as a bomb tech. There is no need for a bomb tech to be legally allowed to order anyone but his subordinates around, and for military EOD assisting the civilian government, the military has *no* authority to provide scene control and has to ask civilian police to provide it.

Bomb defusal is not a law enforcement task; Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to it. Federal troops have been deployed a few times since the end of WWII: 1992 was the most recent, but they were also used in 1989 in the Virgin Islands (like 1992, by request of the local government), and were used *without* the approval of the state government between 1957 and 1963 to enforce desegregation (i.e. not because civil unrest was beyond what the state could handle itself, but because states were refusing to obey federal law - US marshals were also used for similar purposes, but in some instances they instead called in the army).

Does it happen as you move your crosshairs over those people and cars?

Really? What in international law disallows use of less-lethal force to control civil unrest? There's precious little in international law about what a sovereign state can do in relation to its own people (that's part of what it means to be sovereign). If you're going to say it constitutes crimes against humanity, I'd suggest you reread the definition of crimes against humanity (look at the ICC definition; it's the most recent, and though the ICC has no jurisdiction in the US [because the US hasn't consented to its jurisdiction, and isn't party to the treaty], it's still a decent definition of what the term would be considered to mean) and think hard about whether use of less-lethal force in a specific area in response to riots (or lethal force, when only used against people actively threatening lives, and if you think lethal force has been used indiscriminately I'm going to ask you for sources) in fact falls under the definition (particularly the part about "systematic or widespread").

It's actually 194 pounds, which is very different from 104 lbs.

To summarize l3ubba's post: The academy is not to get in shape. That's not the point of a police academy. They can have physical training as one component, but the point of a police academy is to learn how to be a police officer, and physical fitness is only a minor part of what makes someone qualified to be a cop (so an overweight officer is not therefore wholly incapable of doing their job). An officer who goes to the academy and then gains weight after graduation has in no way defeated the purpose of the academy, because physical fitness isn't something you need special police training for (there's no real reason PT at a police academy is different than going to a gym, while instruction in police procedure is something that the academy matters for). Also, the dictionary definition of "overweight" isn't helpful here - "considered normal or desirable" is about as vague as you can get. The question is, what weight is considered "normal"? How do you tell what weight is appropriate for someone (height isn't a good measure, because then you come to the conclusion that muscular people are out of shape)?

I'm curious to hear your definition of "prank 911 call". I'm not sure it has anything to do with the actual meaning of the term.

There is pretty much nothing that would be less appropriate for any government (except militaristic dictatorships) than opening up on rioters with the intent to slaughter as many as possible. To put it in context, if a country is doing that (putting down riots in the middle of a city with grossly excessive force), armed rebellion is an appropriate response, as is a military intervention by other countries. What you're describing is not a legitimate form of law enforcement. It is a government in open war against its citizens. There is no other reason to be launching airstrikes - it's not an attempt to keep order ("restore order in this city" is, again, a classic infantry task, which cannot be achieved by any other combat arm of the military),it's an attempt to kill rioters, who, again, are not an army, nor are they in open rebellion against the government (against an organized large-scale revolt, *then* use of larger degrees of force can be warranted [provided that the revolt was not sparked by said grossly excessive force; if it was, the government should relinquish power and submit to criminal trial for their actions]). Riots are not rebellions, there is no command structure which can surrender when defeated; rioters are not soldiers, who accept the risk of being killed in the course of a war (including in unprovoked attacks against them, because them's the rules in wars); rioters are civilians, who are committing non-capital crimes, and the majority of whom are not directly trying to kill people. You appear to have gotten the general law-enforcement mandate of "minimum necessary force" confused with the dictator's policy of "kill 'em all".

Actually, the United States military can be and has been used in extreme cases (e.g. 1992 LA riots), under the authority of the Insurrection Act (Posse Comitatus says the military can't enforce laws except where the Constitution or act of Congress authorizes it, such as in the Insurrection Act; this was used in 1992, and before that in some civil rights cases where the state government refused to abide by federal court order). The reason it's reserved for the most extreme cases is that the government of a democratic state should not be enforcing its rule by making people fear the government. Even when the military is called in (when the situation literally cannot be controlled by civilian law enforcement), their job is to provide a presence and assist law enforcement, not to treat it like they're fighting an opposing army.

This is incredibly unlikely. The government does *not* tax SUVs for being a road hazard, for instance; the federal government doesn't levy *any* taxes on driving, and limits its involvement to tax *benefits* (like, on your income tax) and interstate trucking. What you might see is insurance rates being much lower for self-driving cars, and that's kind of the point of a market-based insurance system: if you do things that make you less likely to get in a crash, you *should* pay less in insurance. That, by the way, reduces the big reason why things like environmentally friendly cars get tax benefits (namely, that pollution is a cost that car owners do not normally bear, which means that people will pollute more than they would if they had to pay for the cost imposed on society; there's no real way to handle that outside of government, because pollution produces minor harm to tons of people, and private negotiation is impractical). Says who? Why do you assume it will choose not-the-wall? There's actually a solid reason to choose the wall there (people in cars are a lot more likely to survive crashes), and it's not as if it's unaware of pedestrians. On the other hand, honestly, you probably wouldn't hit the wall - people are more likely to choose themselves than a computer would be. For that matter, why is it heading towards a brick wall at 45 mph? Part of the point of an autonomous car is that cases like that are much less likely than with human drivers. And there is literally no reason to assume that it'll be fine for a few years and then everything will break; that can happen if there's a physical issue (e.g. the brake system might wear out over time, and so early cars start failing around the same time), but software does not degrade - failures in two cars running the same software are independently distributed in time on the scale of years ("time car has been continuously driving" is a different matter, but that caps out at hours, and is fairly independent between different cars). If there's correlation, it'd be that a situation might cause a failure (though common situations causing failure are noticed in development), but the notion that all cars start failing at once is not connected with anything to do with how computers fail. Why would it *ever* have locks you cannot control? Any automated system has an e-stop; this applies to cars as well. Locks in cars tend to have overrides. There is literally no reason to think for a minute that "automatic car" means "you can't open the door when you want"; the only time those features would be included is on rear doors (where they already have those features), as child locks. It doesn't improve safety; adults know "don't open door when car is moving", it doesn't endanger anyone else, and such a car would never pass safety testing (for exactly the reason that it could lead to you not being able to get out of the car if you have to). On kidnappings: It'd still be pretty damn hard, considering that a) autonomous cars have cameras (which could provide evidence), b) people have cell phones (to call the cops), c) the doors don't open from the *outside*, so you'd have to commit murder if they refuse to open the door (the penalties for murder being quite a bit higher for kidnapping). Meanwhile, there are lots of pedestrians walking down lots of streets who manage not to get kidnapped. For that matter, kidnappers are not that common; there are easier ways to make money, which are less likely to result in your capture. Most people don't not commit violent crimes because it's *hard*; they do it because it's not worth it, or (most often) because things like kidnapping are morally repulsive, and most people don't like being morally repulsive. And if you're comparing kidnapping to traffic accidents, the stats come out WAY in favor of reducing traffic accidents. I'm not sure you realize how much of a deal traffic accidents are - they're the leading cause of death in the US from age 5 to age 34, above which it drops down as medical conditions and suicide become more common causes of death. The risk of kidnapping is vanishingly small (especially the risk of armed abduction by a stranger, which is far less common than kidnapping in e.g. abusive relationships); the risk of death in a traffic accident is relatively high.

MODERATOR NOTICE The topics about civil unrest in the St. Louis area have been merged. Please stick to one thread per topic.

You realize that Google is already sending self-driving cars into city traffic? And that it's legal to operate autonomous cars in Florida, Nevada, and California? It's not just a proposal, it's actually happening. It is hard to keep track of things like sudden car movements, detours, etc., but they are getting pretty good at it (they started on highways, which are much easier to handle, but have now advanced to handle city streets). While many of the things proponents say about them would only work if all cars were self-driving, Google's prototypes are made for an environment surrounded by normal cars and pedestrians. It's not even remotely disastrous, and has only been associated with two collisions: in one, the car was being driven manually (so far, autonomous cars have to have manual controls as well; Google's working on a version with just an e-stop, but I don't think it's being used yet), and in the other it was rear-ended while stopped at a light, which is generally considered the fault of the driver in the rear car. This is probably the best application - one of the current main uses of autonomous vehicles is rapid transit systems (which are wholly grade-separated, so it's rather simple to be automatically controlled). Labor is one of the main costs of public transit, and eliminating it lets frequency stay high 24 hours a day. Too late; it's already being done as a prototype on real city streets.

Because people never ever do that, and the traffic fatality rate is notably low right now? If the car in front of you slams on the brakes and you hit them, it's your fault anyways - if you're keeping proper distance, you can stop before you hit them. In this case, either a person or a self-driving car can *notice* the car slamming on its brakes, slam on their own brakes in response, and so on down the line. With sidewalk vs road, it's not as though people never drive onto sidewalks, or as if sidewalks are in any way similar to roads visually, or as though these cars don't already have sensors to detect pedestrians and avoid hitting them anyway (they do *not* assume "this is a road, I can drive on the road and not worry about anything"; they actively look for obstructions, can detect pedestrians in the middle of the road [far more likely to happen than a car going on the sidewalk], and are able to stop before hitting them). You seem to be under the impression that one issue will lead to catastrophe, which is simply not true - if it were true, we'd be seeing 300-car pileups right now, and swarms of pedestrians getting run down right now. Yes, there will be bugs, and some people will die due to software issues with self-driving cars. That will happen. But it's intellectually dishonest to say "X will kill some people, so Y is better" without even looking at the outcome of Y, which in this case is many, many deaths. If one self-driving car has an issue and kills 10 children walking home from school, but large-scale adoption of them reduces traffic fatalities by one percent (by 2012 numbers, over 300 people in the US), then self-driving cars win by a huge margin. The 10 people killed in one incident hits the news, because you can look at the pictures of the victims, while the 300 people who don't die don't show up in any newspaper anywhere (even noticing it requires actually looking at traffic statistics), but that's why you simply cannot validly decide which of two alternatives is safer without taking a broader view and looking at overall statistics -- if you rely on your gut feeling, you'll undercount common incidents killing only one or two people, and overcount dramatic and rare incidents.

Self-driving cars do not use stored maps for small scale tasks (like "is there a merge lane"); they do that using cameras that detect road markings, and detecting what other cars are doing.

If you already bought it, try actually running LCPDFR on it before doing anything else - if it runs LCPDFR acceptably, no need to bother upgrading. If you hadn't bought it already, then it would be worth asking, but now that you own it it's much better to just find out empirically.

Airport security, in the sense of screening what goes on planes, is generally a federal matter. Airports themselves are patrolled by state or local law enforcement, though, with the exception of customs officers (who are obviously federal). I'm not sure states could implement their own screening even if they wanted to; it's possible they could, but it's possible the feds can say "this is our area, mind your own business" (which they can do if an area is under exclusive federal jurisdiction; for instance, states may not implement their own customs requirements on international passengers). For "right to health" -- Full-body scanners are in fact installed by the federal government, not the states, so state constitutions are irrelevant (I suspect that most if not all countries with a federal system have the same rule, where states can't interfere with the federal government doing its job). The US constitution has no right to health; the closest it gets is that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", but that's somewhat different from what I imagine a right to health would be (specifically: "right to health" to me implies a positive duty on the government to ensure the health of its citizens; the right to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property implies that they only have to worry about it when the *government* is depriving someone of something, and someone can waive it to a degree). The more significant thing is the right to protection against unreasonable search without a warrant; that is what challenges to screening rely on, because it's both far more definite than any possible health risks and harder to get around (travelers can ask for a pat-down instead of scanning, which removes the health risk but not the privacy risk. But the reason that doesn't apply is that a) flying is voluntary, so if you don't want a search you don't have to have it, and b) it's an administrative search designed to stop contraband from going on planes, not to find evidence of a crime and send people to jail, and c) judges are human, and after 9/11 no one was going to restrict airport security (yes, that's definitely a factor, as it is in all legal systems where decisions are made by humans). Also: MODERATOR NOTICE This thread isn't about anything to do with felons; make a different thread to talk about that. More than that: they can't rule on the constitutionality of a law unless there's a specific instance where a specific person or group is being affected by it. US federal courts are constitutionally forbidden from issuing abstract advisory opinions; they can only rule on concrete cases and controversies.

The rights officially cannot be limited by any law; they can be reasonably regulated by any level of government, but reasonable regulation isn't technically "limiting" the right. The main idea of Constitutional rights is that they aren't granted by the Constitution; they are rights that all citizens are inherently entitled to (the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, which reflects the general idea, is that "[men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"), and which the Constitution merely recognizes. Under that logic, there's no way a law can override them: if they weren't given by the government, the government doesn't get to take them away. The most the government can do is reasonable regulation (e.g. they can require protests to register with the police for regulatory purposes, but cannot discriminate based on content of the protest) -- the idea is that that regulation isn't actually limiting the core of the right, it's just filling in the gaps left by an extremely broad right, doesn't seriously burden people exercising their rights, and so it's not violating those rights. Whether a regulation is reasonable or not is determined by the courts. The way it works in practice is that no law can ever explicitly override a Constitutional right. Instead, a law has to put a limit that would allegedly be implied in the right, or just reasonably regulates exercise of that right (which it's generally implied a sovereign government can do) -- for instance, the inherent right to free speech would never reasonably be considered to include the right to incite a riot (implied exception), or the right to use a heavy-duty sound system to share your views with the world at 4 AM in a residential neighborhood (reasonable regulation). The people who decide whether a limitation on the plain text of the right is a limitation on the inherent right, or whether it restricts something that wouldn't be considered one of the things encompassed by the right, is done by the courts. The normal process is: Government passes law arguably restricting a constitutional right; it gets enforced (laws can't be challenged until they actually have an effect on someone, normally because they were enforced [though there are other ways to get standing, you can't just say "I think that law's unconstitutional, so I'm going to sue to stop it" -- you have to be able to show that it harms you in particular in an actual concrete case]); someone raises the objection that the law is unconstitutional; the trial court decides whether or not it violates the Constitution, but the other side can then appeal to higher courts to answer that question; and, eventually, it stops going higher (in federal courts, it either hits the Supreme Court or they decline to take the case), at which point whichever the highest court that ruled on the constitutionality of the law has decided it for all courts that appeal cases up to it (or all other courts, for the US Supreme Court). If the court finds that it violates the Constitution, it's invalid to the degree it does so, with no exceptions -- the only way to get a limitation in is to get a court to agree that it doesn't actually violate the right, and is just regulatory in nature or just bans something that would not be considered to be implied by the right (which there can be arguments about; obscenity is considered "traditionally unprotected" by free speech rules, so banning it is legal). If the government wants to restrict the part of a right that is protected in a way that isn't reasonable regulation, they have to do so via Constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 of each house of Congress *and* 3/4 of the states (each state either has to have their legislature approve the amendment, or it has to be passed by a popular referendum). It's really really hard to get an amendment passed (there have been only 27 in US history, and 11 of those [1-10 and 27] were proposed as part of the Bill of Rights; 1-10 were proposed and ratified as a group).

It's basically a way for the feds to bring their resources to bear on big-time frauds, by making fraud that uses telecommunications at any point to further the fraud into a federal crime. Mail fraud is similar - fraud using the US Post Office is a federal crime. Between them, the feds can investigate and charge for just about any serious fraud (as it's hard to pull it off without ever using the mail or telecommunications at some point to assist in the fraud). It's not all that inaccurate to read "mail fraud" or "wire fraud" as just "fraud, prosecuted in federal court instead of state court".

Nope, that kind of thing generally means a longer sentence (it's not like you only can be convicted of one thing). They don't drop it; if they would drop a charge for wearing body armor while committing a felony every time, they won't bother passing the law in the first place.

Ah, for felons. In that case, it's at the very least illegal under federal law for anyone convicted of a violent felony to wear body armor, unless you're wearing it because you need it to do your legal job (and your supervisor first has to give you a written certification that you need body armor to safely do your job, and that the job is normal legal business activity; if you have no supervisor, another employee has to give that certification), and you can only wear it while doing that job.

What state? This is almost certainly different on a state-by-state basis.

Moved to proper section: the LCPDFR Development section is only for help using the LCPDFR 1.0 API, not for general requests.

ELS only works with a fixed set of cars: everything in EFLC vanilla (I think, might be IV vanilla plus police3, police4, policeb, but I think it's EFLC vanilla), plus emerg1 to emerg7. By the way, to reduce confusion: "Scripting" in the GTA modding community tends to refer exclusively to programming; config file editing isn't typically called scripting.

Presumably, the reason they use CloudFlare is to protect themselves from people committing crimes against them to force them to stop exercising their right (assuming they're from the US) to free speech. DDoSing is in no way an acceptable reaction to speech; the proper response to people being terrible is not to decide all by yourself that these people don't get to speak. Even though you're right that they're being terrible.