Conversation started Jul 24, 2015 at 2:48.
Jul 24, 2015 02:48
For the record, the site that I later added was not the original. When requested, I went searching for a mainstream media reference which happened to contain the video.
I am hesitant to edit my original response, although apparently it's custom for moderators here to hack another person's post without comment. I'd like to clarify the "am I free to go" comment. Is that OK?
As to borderline-political, I found the "but he had THC in his system" comment in meta to be the same. Where is it OK?
@bobstro If you need to make edits to the answer to improve it, then you can, and should.
Thanks. Would've appreciated the opportunity to do so rather than have someone else tailor it to suit their sensibilities. Something to consider when trying to encourage participation.
@bobstro Certainly, I'm sure @feetwet would be happy to address any concerns you have with this.
I am very wary of editing other's peoples posts; I haven't had to yet, and don't foresee many situations where I would have to.
For the concerns that you raised re: attribution.
Happy to point anybody to original site, but don't want to promote it here. Pretty much a horrorshow of current law enforcement. I'm not trying to be evasive.
Of course, with actual posts as opposed to comments, the history is very clear and shows who has edited your post.
@bobstro No, I understand. It's just that anecdotal evidence (which is what a story without references is) is a very weak answer in and of itself.
And I completely understand and sympathise with your desire not to have people hurt themselves based on our information. But this is the internet.
We can't hold everyone's hands on every part of our site, and as I said in my comment, our answers need to contain legal information because, well, we're Law Stack Exchange.
Jul 24, 2015 03:02
I agree it's a turd. Wanted to get it out there but didn't have a lot of time.
If they wanted general information on what is right, wrong, and common sense, they can use Yahoo Answers or Twitter or something.
The fact that it is Law Stack Exchange means that we have domain over lots of everyday things.
Well... where in the meta about this group would you know that? What would indicate to a potential visitor to a locale that answers here aren't necessarily indicative of safe or healthy behaviors?
@bobstro You're welcome to include it in your post, but it shouldn't be the main thrust of your answer unless it in fact answers the question directly.
Eg if the OP had asked "are there examples of law enforcement apparently using excessive force"
Then it would probably be fine to just answer with the story that you did.
Well, to paraphrase you if I may: The main problem is that people tend to act according to their interpretation of legality, even if it defies common sense.
Well, people tend to do things that I wouldn't try to explain so simply.
Some people will do things in accordance with common sense, even if they don't have to.
Jul 24, 2015 03:05
My point was that not cooperating, even if legal, can result in rapid and potentially deadly escallation.
You must not watch much YouTube. :)
@bobstro Yep, that's fine. if that was your entire point, then you can add it as a comment to an existing answer, since it doesn't really answer the question that was posed.
So... the focus here is really about splitting hairs, not practical applicability of law? "Lawyering" if you will?
@bobstro I suggest you stop trying to misquote me.
The focus here is on law.
Are some things legal, but not safe? Sure.
Skydiving is legal in most places, within certain regulations.
Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not.
Should every question about skydiving come with "oh, and here's a story about a horrific skydiving accident?"
Driving is legal, is it safe?
I'm not misquoting,other than paraphrasing your line to make a point.
I think there's a world of common-sensical difference between base jumping and running from armed humans. Is it not appropriate to point that out?
@bobstro I don't know, I'm paraphrasing your general idea that you "don't want people to injure themselves"
If I go too far, I'm sorry. But in the end:
This is the internet.
This is a focussed section of the internet.
There's no shortage of websites containing warnings about how law enforcement abuse their power.
There's no shortage of websites proclaiming commonsense should prevail over everything else.
Jul 24, 2015 03:11
I'll admit to being upset about the topic. I took the topic here as focused on the practical aspects of law in everyday life.
I don't think it's our job to make sure that there is a 0% chance that anyone reading our site will get injured based on the content.
There are many questions that address the practical aspects of law in everyday life
In my defense, I'm not seeing a lot here proclaiming such, but OK.
9
A: Is it legal to be detained by a private rail or bus company for not having a valid ticket?

jimsugI'm not a lawyer; I'm not your lawyer. In this case, if you don't have a valid ticket (or refuse to produce one), and don't provide your name and address, the officer of a railway company may detain you1 (my emphasis): If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to delive...

I wasn't trying to ensure anything. Just pointing out that things don't happen in isolation.
This is practical, no?
Or is that still too abstract? This is a direct application of law to a set of circumstances.
Which millions of people in England and Wales may be subject to every day.
3
Q: Big corporation in the UK, Intellectual Property and a Contract

JamesI've recently been offered a job at a large technology corporation based in the UK. I've yet to sign the contract but I found something in it which concerns me. Intellectual property, ideas and inventions Any Ideas or Inventions you have or make or any Materials that you create or devel...

This is a question about the applicability of employment contract to the production of intellectual property.
Most people in salaried roles will have signed something like this, and so this question applies to them.
Am I misunderstanding your point re: practical applicability of the law?
Jul 24, 2015 03:14
So it's pretty clear what you and the select mods want it to be. To be honest, I wouldn't have bother if I'd noticed as much written down anywhere.
@bobstro What is "it"?
Specific and limited to the bounds of the question with little or no tolerance for other discussion. I find that on other SE sites, so nothing new.
@bobstro Do you mean that we want our answers to answer the question that was asked, within the scope of the site? Sure. That's true.
No big deal. At this point, I'm having fun watching the up/down voting more than anything.
Interesting to catch the vibe that way.
I'll dump out in a day or so. Thanks.
Good luck on the beta.
> **Answer the question**
Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.
> With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about law.
@bobstro If you're ever unsure about what's appropriate for a site, you could, perhaps, ask in the meta site first, and then post. But that's your prerogative.
@bobstro Thanks. If you do have questions about law, or answers with legal information, please feel free to contribute.
 
Conversation ended Jul 24, 2015 at 3:23.