If you are going to buy an iPhone...

Talk to me first! I know the price dropped, but I had two international buyers on ebay SCREW me and I still have 1 iPhone that I paid almost $660 for.

If you are thinking about buying an iPhone, consider buying it from me.

I will sell it to you at the current cost ($400 + tax) and you still get the same warranty from apple either way.

The other perk of buying it from me? You will get a $100 IN STORE CREDIT for the phone, since the receipt (which I will provide as well) says it was purchased at the original price. That is WAY better than buying in the store.

It is new, in the original sealed package - never opened or used.

Someone please help me out? I can't just eat the cost of this phone entirely, and I'm already going to have to eat a huge portion.

Stay Tuned...

"Don't Tase Me, Bro!"

Andrew Meyer, of video infamy and for being the man to coin the phrase "Don't tase me, bro!" has helped to highlight a growing concern about the legality of tasers being used by police officers to incapacitate suspects.

Mr. Meyer was attending a speech at the University of Florida last month when he asked Senator Kerry a question about his affiliation with "Skull and Bones" a legendary and revered secret society at Yale University. He was arrested, and tased multiple times for reasons that are still unclear to this day.

I will note that some humor has come from this, and you should watch the "Can't Tase This" remix of M.C. Hammer's classic 90's rap and Mr. Meyer's plea in this video.

A Taser works like this:

The Taser X26 (Taser, Scottsdale, AZ) is an electrical conducted energy weapon that incapacitates subjects by causing pain and muscular contractions. It is widely used by police agencies throughout the United States and other countries. It delivers a series of 19 electrical shocks per second; each pulse delivers 0.36 J at up to 50,000 V. The discharge is delivered by 2 barbed metal darts that are propelled toward a suspect and remain connected to the device by insulated wires. The standard discharge time is 5 seconds, though this can be shortened or lengthened by the operator.

(from Science Direct)

Among the potential concerns with tasing are:

People who are tased when upright tend to fall over. Any resulting injuries are usually minor but at least one person has died from a head injury. The barbed tips of the Taser darts, which are around 1 centimetre long, can cause serious injuries if they strike sensitive areas such as the eye, though there have been few reports of such injuries. The intense muscle contractions can also be damaging.

A number of weeks ago an autistic child was also subjected to severe tasing when the child, unbeknownst to her, was "resisting arrest".

Recently a paraplelgic, mentally handicapped woman was tased TEN TIMES and died as a result of her injuries.

Serious questions need to be asked about the use of excessive force by police officers, and the use of tasers in general. According to Amnesty Iternational, over 40 people have been killed in the U.S. alone as a result of police instigated tasing.

At a UN committee meeting in Geneva Switzerland, a member of the U.S. Delegation was asked about the use of tasers. This is the response:

[The question] concerns the use of Tasers. The U.S. government and others are conducting extensive research into the safety and effectiveness of electro-muscular disruption devices, including Tasers. In addition, the Department of Justice works with local police agencies to assist them in their development of policies regarding the use of these devices. This policy guidance includes consideration of community acceptance, use-of-force protocols, continuous monitoring of all uses of these devices, medical response, and training.

The use of Tasers to control arrestees and inmates is consistent with the law. Courts have reviewed the application of such devices for consistency with the Eighth Amendment’s "prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment," and have upheld their legality.

Furthermore, use of Tasers often obviates the need to use other forms of more severe, or even deadly, force. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice remains committed to investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting use of Tasers where the circumstances indicate a willful use of excessive force in violation of Constitutional standards. In addition, the Departments of Justice and Defense continue to develop less-lethal options, including novel electro-muscular devices that may provide improved safety and effectiveness to law enforcement and military personnel.

While the courts have thus far upheld the use of tasers as an effective tool of law enforcement, we are about to see a series of suits brought against state and local officials that will test that theory. The police departments of this country have through guidelines for the use of force, and it would appear that the standards currently in place concerning the use of tasers is due to be revised.

There will be a lot of issues to look at as this moves forward. What of state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment? Certainly if you sue a local police department that will not be an issue, but a state trooper may bring about questions of abrogating that immunity. Further, will the officer be individually liable for the decision to use force? Often there is a (justifiable) tendency to yield to the decision making process of an officer in the line-of-fire, so to speak, because they have the best ability to evaluate the circumstances and make a decision based on the safety of themselves, the suspect, and the bystanders.

There is a lot of material out there on this, and for your reference, I will include a series of links and articles for more information:

State Department Q/A referenced above;

Amnesty International;

Concerns Raised over Taser Saftey at NewScientist.com;

Why Police Should Show Restraint With the Taser at NewScientist.com:

Thoracic Compression Fractures as a Result of Shock From a Conducted Energy Weapon: A Case Report from Science Direct.


Stay Tuned...

Evidence, Innocence, and Baseball

Thats right...hang your head in shame...

The "breaking news" of St. Louis Cardinals pitcher-turned-outfielder Rick Ankiel's "HGH" use is dominating todays sports headlines. There is one problem with that. The story is that Ankiel was receiving shipments of HGH to his Florida home from January to December 2004. Major League Baseball (for better or for worse) did not outlaw HGH use by its players until the 2005 season. In fact, there is no evidence thus far that Ankiel has used HGH since the league banned it. So why is this such a story?

This story, while different in many respects, represents a serious problem with our nations media outlets. It applies to your "traditional outlets" (i.e. CNN, ABC, etc.) as much as it does to your "specialized outlets" (i.e. ESPN, Fox Sports, etc.) or even your "alternative outlets" (i.e. the internet). Even in the absence of hard evidence, the media was prepared to crucify the entire Duke Lacrosse team. Hell, if the ratings were there, they'd have probably put Coach K up there too. The result of the media frenzy? A prosecutor feeds off the blood, fame, and attention and presses a case that had no business being brought.

While there is not legal action being mentioned in regards to Rick Anikel, this entire story is linked to the investigation of a Florida pharmacy that is rumored to have been supplying these steroids to baseball players. The relevance? Every single fact in this story falls with in the bounds of "well, it wasn't banned at the time...but shame on you anyways!" The media is violating one of the cardinal principles (no pun intended, of course) of the Constitution. The prohibition on ex post facto laws. The government cannot charge Ankiel in court. The league cannot suspend him from playing. The press should focus on real stories and stop feeding the frenzy. We just end up with irresponsible prosecutors seeking glory.

Ankiel has been one of the best stories of the 2007 season. I say that while fully acknowledging the carnal pleasure I took in his meltdown, being a Braves fan and all. The Cardinals have overcome so much this season to find themselves only 1 game-back of the division leading Brewers and Cubs. Why do we have to drag that team through the mud now? Like Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty said, "If it's true, obviously it would be very tragic, along with everything else we've had happen to us this year." Is that true? Would it be tragic to find out that before it was banned and over three years ago a minor league pitcher/outfielder was using a supplement? What effect would that really have on the 2007 St. Louis Cardinals. What effect would that have on the record of the 2004 Class A "fill-in-the-blank's"? The answer should be "zero, zip, zilch, none, nada" because it is irrelevant. Ankiel has still overcome so much. He has still hit .358 with 9 HRs and 29 RBIs and almost single-handedly changed the fortunes of that baseball team. And that is in 2007.

Stay Tuned...