kryptonianCodeMonkey

As another said, reasonable and articulable suspicion is required to id in every state and city in the country regardless of any lower laws or department policies. However(!), they do not have to share that reasonable suspicion with you at all, and can still demand ID without giving it to you. They can have reasonable suspicion against you that you are not aware of, such as matching a description for a crime you're not involved in. And They could very well have no reasonable suspicion and can lie in the report later if they need to justify it. So long as there isn't evidence contradicting them, the cop's word is assumed as fact. So a demand for ID that is lawful is indistinguishable from an unlawful one if they don't give you the details of their suspicion because you have no way to know if such reason exists or if it's reasonable or not.

So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.

At minimum, they need "reasonable and articulable suspicion" of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you're allowed to drive the vehicle). "Reasonable and articulable suspicion" means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.

BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren't the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn't matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn't even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don't have a clue why they are asking at all.

In other words, if they demand ID and don't explain why, there's functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it's assumed to be true. So... enjoy your "freedoms", I guess.

His polling numbers dont matter. Either he cannot run for president again or he fucks up the government bad enough to allow him to, in which case the vote is going to be rigged AF anyway.

A world and consequences of the system God created. God doesn't just make it rain, he makes it tsunami and get covered with lava too. The fact it's indiscriminate is worse, not better.

Crunchy cookies are only acceptable if they soften when dunked in milk.

25% business and product roadmapping, 15% discovery, 10% coding, 15% unit testing/debugging/refactoring, 25% scrum/huddle/other useless meetings, 10% answering stupid questions at the 11th hour about why we need this feature that they asked for.

There are plenty of evils that are partly our wholly beyond human free will. Floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, drought, blight, pandemics, plague, infestations, fires, genetic diseases, etc. Those aren't man's doing. Whether God, the Devil, or something else entirely, the problem still stands.

Sure, but the major shift in his life was over the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet they do it entirely off screen. "Tell don't show" isn't typically considered a trait of great film making/story telling.

And, yes, they did show Robert's imagination of the cheering audience being burned alive, which was horrifying. But it could also be argued that it is a bit insensitive to the real loss that they had to use white American people burning alive as stand ins to give you that visceral emotional punch instead of the actual Japanese people that actually died.

Also, no story should ever assume the audience is intimately familiar with history. It only becomes common knowledge by exposing people to it over and over. If you assume everyone knows it and so nobody ever shows it again, people never have a chance to gain that knowledge that makes it common. Particularly for something as steeped in propaganda as this event was. I'm a pretty well educated person and I have regularly learned shit in my adult life that my history lessons casually glossed over. The Nuclear bombing of Japan, specifically, is 1000% one of the most glossed over events in American education, in my experience.

My wife's family owns a fireworks store. We demo fireworks every year and record them on my phone. We post them on the store's YouTube channel. We have people that watch and comment on them all the time as soon as we post them. We also have QR codes on our price tags linking to the videos so people can scan them and watch while shopping and it is an extremely effective tool for sales. But we might be the exception.

That's why I included the last bit. The law is more relevant when you are not someone too special. The higher you get, the less it matters, if only because more people have fallen for your manipulations or are cognizant of them but support them for whatever reason, and will defend you no matter what from actual justice.

It put a bit of narrative weight behind the monstrosity of the bomb and it's use and depicted it in a very visceral horrifying way. But... the narrative weight was almost entirely on how it effected Robert's feelings about the project and future projects and the consequences he experienced professionally and socially from that change in sentiment. Which is to say... man heads project to build bomb, bomb kills hundreds of thousands of civilians and starts global nuclear armament, man feels regret and gets career ruined as a result. So, yeah, I think he's pretty right. They dodged depicting the actual devastation of the Japanese people, not even showing the bombs going off in the cities, nor showing a single Japanese person. It's all off camera and the only real lasting effect demonstrated is Robert's guilt. That's obviously central to a biopic about Oppenheimer, but they made a specific choice to avoid showing the actual destruction, probably to maintain as much sympathy as possible for him, I think.

Depends what you mean by "further". It is a trait that definitely serves well in some very lucrative areas like business or politics. But it very easy to ruin other aspects of your life like your relationships, your public image, and can run you afoul of the law. In areas of work where your image is paramount, being a liar and manipulator usually only gets you so far because it's very hard to maintain those lies and hide the manipulation under massive public scrutiny, particularly if you're doing illegal stuff in addition to it. Of course the wealthier you are, or the more fanatical your following, the more you will have others lie and manipulate on your behalf, so... accountability can decrease that way.