I don't know that I want to go reading comments right now :)
Unfortunately I think problems in this category are not just about the extremes like you mention; it's very easy for people to have blind spots in at least some areas even if they're ostensibly connected, and those people vote plenty.
I tend to think of blind spots like that as something to be aware of and try to compensate for, not as an opportunity to live based on my existing experience.
The police encounter really drives that home - yes, he's totally right that there are tons of occasions like that where the police really help people. But there are also far less positive stories out there. And depending on who you are, you may have experienced (or heard of) more things in the former category or the latter.
Not first-hand. And I certainly am not suggesting anything about frequency or the officers themselves, just about the existence of stories that aren't in the "they made people safer" category.
About 2 days later they came to interview me. For much of the interview they "good cop, bad copped" me ridiculously. They treated me like a solid suspect for at least half the time we spoke. So, not really misbehavior, but ugly nevertheless.
(that's obviously a pretty extreme attitude but there is a point there - to the point that if you incorrectly exercise your right not to incriminate yourself, they can use it as evidence against you)
It sounds... clumsy, I guess? Because, sounding like you know something pretty important sounds like you could've been involved, so they are probably justified in treating you as a suspect (of at least collaboration, if not the actual act).
Justified in terms of their jobs, not in terms of the correct conclusion in a just world.
@Jolenealaska the 5 were all false confessions, though. Do you mean the guy with matching DNA who later confessed?
(but yes, I totally agree that interrogations can easily lead to false confessions, which is certainly an argument against sufficiently aggressive/manipulative interrogation)
(for the non-US folks, that's the "you have the right to remain silent" thing that's in every single US police drama you might've seen)
also I think there's a caveat, where you can interview someone without the warning, and use that to investigate but not as evidence in trial
It can't be an actual interrogation, in the sense of questions likely to incriminate, but if say someone's a witness, and they let something slip that leads the police to actual evidence, then that evidence is still admissible
@Jefromi We use it as a "green" cleaner at work. There's a tank of salt water that passes through a charged filter (I think?) and we end up with anolyte and catholyte. Anolyte has a 200ppm concentration of chlorine, so it's a great sanitizer. The catholyte has a pH of 11, so it's good for degreasing and floor cleaning.
@rumtscho Well, it is mostly clear. The chlorine ends up being the same strength as when bleach is used as a sanitize (which is an industry standard). This is supposed to be more easily biodegradable, and does seem to lose potency faster than bleach. I'm not sure about energy consumption, but I know the machine only has to run for about an hour to provide all the sanitizer we need for a day.
Yes thats fine. I added a thing or two i noticed it looks diffrent but the same. Thanks joe!! Hi Jefromi!! Thanks for your honesty. Yes im venting. Im about to quit i hope they get major fines. Thanks for the advice ill tone it down