Slashdot Mirror

"don't know how many of these cases were when an officer dropped a gun next to the dead person, but I do know that can happen." Well shit buddy, if the cops are that dirty, we should just get rid of all 900,000 of them because of 5 bad cops a year and strap on a gun when we get up in the morning. Lets just have wild wild west justice and we can shoot each other for stealing a TV...

You are pointing out that our current system is not perfect, I agree, but then you go full retard (never go full retard) and say all the cops are bad and suspect, when the facts just don't support that conclusion...

For your own safety, I will clarify a couple of glaring errors in your post in an effort to save your life on that of another reader that is misinformed by your ignorant post:

An officer in most US states can shoot your ass dead if you are resisting arrest and start getting the upper hand, because officers are allowed to use whatever force required (up to deadly force) to subdue a suspect, so sorry, but you are wrong, resisting arrest can carry a death sentence in the moment. Don't do it. It is even more dangerous because your perception and the officers perception of resisting arrest may not align, and the courts will side with him/her if you show any meaningful resistance.

Also, an officer in most if not all US states can shoot your ass dead in the back while fleeing if he reasonably believes that you are a continued eminent threat to the community (i.e. you just shot someone and are fleeing towards other people with a gun or you just shot someone and you are running towards an occupied car to car jack someone or you are fleeing in a car and are showing reckless disregard for other drivers or pedestrians safety. They can and will shoot you DEAD for that shit. Don't do it...

I don't want a police state, and you clearly have no clue what a police state is (that is what they have in Russia, China and Venezuela. If anyone in the US truly tried to enforce a police state, they would be facing 60,000,000 armed citizens, and it would not end well.

I want law and order, and I don't mind a pile of dead criminals to get it, they made the choice to break the laws and put innocents in harms way. It is a tragedy when innocent people are accidentally killed in the course of law enforcement, but we live in an imperfect world. 35,000 people die every year in car accidents and you are shitting a brick over 5 murders by police out of 900,000 police and 11,000,000 arrests? You need to get a better grasp on statistics.

It is asinine to reject the best most fair law enforcement in the world because it is not 100% perfect. I think body cameras and dash cameras are the way to go, and we should have a federal law that protects recording of law enforcement at any time, that is an improvement on our current system to ensure that the people we hire to be cops are doing their job right, but enough with the BS about all cops being killers and trigger happy, the facts just don't support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(pick 2015 and hit the drop down to see the distribution of suspect circumstance (armed with a gun/knife/toy gun/unarmed/etc).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

... that crime has increased exponentially in sync with the exponential rise in smart device sales.

Just kidding and stuff.

Today, the FBI released its annual compilation of crimes reported to its Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by law enforcement agencies from around the nation. Crime in the United States, 2015 reveals a 3.9 percent increase in the estimated number of violent crimes and a 2.6 percent decrease in the estimated number of property crimes last year when compared to 2014 data.

According to the report, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation. While that was an increase from 2014 figures, the 2015 violent crime total was 0.7 percent lower than the 2011 level and 16.5 percent below the 2006 level.

In 2016:

1604 Americans were murdered by knife. With a population of 323.1 million in 2016, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.496 per 100,000.

175 Canadians were murdered by knife. With a population of 36.3 million in 2016, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.482 per 100,000.

71 Australians were murdered by knife. With a population of 24.1 million, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.295 per 100,000.

213 people were murdered by knife in the UK. With a population of 65.6 million, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.325 per 100,000.

Despite the widespread availability of guns, Americans killed each other by knife at a higher rate than other countries. So it's not the guns. There's just something about Americans which make them more likely to kill each other, period. In that light, it's not at all surprising that U.S. police response is more aggressive than in other countries.

Slightly more blacks per capita are killed as compared to whites, but when you look at the racial breakdown of violent crimes they are disproportionately committed by blacks. When you scale for criminal activity, blacks are actually shot less than whites.

Please cite your evidence that police and especially SWAT (who execute felony warrants all the time) are not properly trained. What qualifications or special evidence do you have that the rest of the world does not, because the facts do not support you irresponsible, inaccurate assertion.

According to the FBI UCR, the total number of arrests (not traffic stops but arrests) in 2015 was 10,797,088. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... Out of all those arrests, approximately 965 were fatally shot. Of those, 564 were armed with a gun, 281 had a weapon of some kind, only 90 were unarmed and essentially all of them were attacking officers, resisting arrest or attempting to flee.

OTOH, there have only been about 54 unjustified police killings in the last 10 years, or about 5 per year So the actual numbers say if you are being arrested, you have a roughly 5 in 11 million chance of being unjustifiably killed by police. I will take those odds any day.

So you live in your fantasy world where 5 unjustified killings per year makes 11 million arrests super dangerous and the cops are loose cannons who are going to shoot you on sight. I will live in the real world where statistics are a thing and cops are still the good guys.

You act like race riots and political riots don't happen. Or that domestic terrorism doesn't exist.

As far as immigration goes, Miami has a larger percentage of immigrants than San Jose and note that Los Angeles is not very far behind San Jose. And the violent crime rates of Miami and Los Angeles dwarf that of San Jose. San Jose kind of bucks the trends - I think having billions and billions of dollars in "sillycon valley" makes that happen?

Or perhaps it's not the fact they're immigrant, but whether or not those immigrants are here legally? After all, illegal immigrants are about 3.4% of the population but they overwhelmingly commit most of the violent and drug crime in the US.

Or perhaps it has to do with the race of those immigrants? You do realize that 61.4% of all immigrants in San Jose are from Asia, and Asians have some of the lowest crime rates. So maybe the fact your immigrant neighbors are here legally, making big money, and from ethnic backgrounds that for whatever reason have a much lower crime rate, you're in a unique spot and cannot being to extrapolate your experience to nationwide - because it is so different than most of the rest of the US?

"You see something in the sky, you report to the Air Force or FBI. They have a duty to investigate it if it seems at all like a credible sighting"

Really? Which office of the USAF is responsible and assigned to do so? Answer: None. Oh, and as for the FBI, it's not in their swim lane either: https://www.fbi.gov/about/miss...

Saddam agreed to complete disarmament and full inspections prior to the invasion, but not until the US and UK were on his doorstep. He even offered exile for himself. However the "coalition of the willing" ignored him and invaded anyway.

He didn't leave Kuwait before the Gulf War. And he didn't disarm verifiably before the invasion - he maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity for fear of Iran, according to George Piro who interrogated him for the FBI

https://archives.fbi.gov/archi...
"Saddam misled the world into believing that he had weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the war because he feared another invasion by Iran, but he did fully intend to rebuild his WMD program."

That turned out well. And the DPRK was watching. They know that they can't trust the USA to let them exist unless they are in a position to make them pay dearly for invading. Kim doesn't want to end up like Saddam or Ghadaffi.

The US won't attack the DPRK because it has enough conventional weapons to cause mass carnage in South Korea. Then again if you're Kim, maybe the fact that people don't want to see Korean killed doesn't even occur to you, because his regime has killed a lot of Koreans - ones in the South when the North invaded and loads in the North due to starvation, concentration camps and so on.

Other countries without much of an effective military seem to manage okay from a diplomatic standpoint.

Well it depends what you mean. The UK does OK diplomatically, but then it spends 2% of GDP on defence, has nukes and aircraft carriers and has the US as a close ally. UK diplomatic policy independent of the US wouldn't be effective. In fact the only times the UK operated independent of the US - Suez or the Falklands for example - it either lost diplomatically or had to use its military to get anything done. France mirrors the UK, except with no US alliance. Germany spends 1% on defence but has NATO to back it up. In fact most NATO countries don't spend 2% and freeloaded on the US to defend them in the Cold War. Post Cold War they're effective if they can shame the US into action, but ineffective with when they can't.

The DPRK's leadership just wants to exist. They are no real threat (or haven't been until the US pushed them into it).

Except they threaten war with almost everyone. They've killed their own people. They've attacked South Korea on multiple occasions. Now they've got nuclear ICBMs they could easily put the US in a situation where it attacks them. I.e. nukes haven't brought them security. Of course inside North Korea, you'd be killed for saying that. Which is what makes them an autistic regime. And that in turn makes them dangerous.

It's ridiculous. Just leave them alone and wait for their population to oust the leaders of a failed system. It's cheaper and safer for the planet.

What should the US do if North Korean fuels up an ICBM, puts a nuke on it and shows every sign of launching it, either at the US or a country the US is treaty bound to protect?

With prompt global strike you could hit the missile on the ground with a non nuclear weapon. With boost phase intercept you'd have a chance of hitting it in just after launch.

Earlier this week the DPRK offered diplomacy and the UN sent an envoy. The US's response so far has been "Not until you give up your nukes". Wut? You don't start a diplomatic exercise by making demands before you will agree to talks. There is no risk to talking unless you don't want a resolution.

The DPRK acts out because it gets rewarded for it. Clinton and Bush both did deals with them where they agreed to stop their nuclear and missile programs. South Korea and the US shipped them oil, food, and

HTTPS doesn't hide anything from the endpoint. That should be obvious?

If you mean the destination web server can decrypt the https traffic, then yes, it's obvious. The only difference between HTTP and HTTPS in this case is that when HTTPS is used only the destination web server can see the plaintext as opposed to every router and every three latter tap on the its path.

However, it does largely defeat the multipathing, proxy caching and rewriting possible with HTTP, all of which helps hide who accesses an endpoint

All of which also helps mess with the traffic and watch and filter the traffic on its way. That said, caching and rewriting are things that could be done locally.

as well as automatically adding an immutable identifier; the session key.

The session key is not immutable, it isn't called session key for nothing. It's about as immutable as the address+port 4-tuple that identifies a particular TCP connection.

When I access http://www.fbi.gov/ and the proxy I use serve it from cache, the site won't even know that I accessed it. And when I ask for http://ww.cia.gov/page1 and http://www.cia.gov/page2 and the request comes from two different IPs, the site doesn't know that it's the same client accessing both pages. And when I access http://www.inflatableunicorns.... and my proxy deletes tracking information from the header (including IP address and browser fingerprints), they don't know that I'm the same person who visited last week. And they won't know that I looked at adcampaign.jpg either, because it can be served from a cache.

I get it, you like proxies and the ability to mess with and inspect your traffic on the way. It's ridiculous that you're oh-so-concerned about preventing three letter agencies from tracking you that you're opening them every door to get much better information - your payloads as opposed only your metadata. And obviously they're free to add their malware to your every download.

Now enter HTTPS, and how it changes this by trying to ensure a 1:1 connection.

Changes it mostly in a positive way, as pointed out.

the three letter agencies [] sit at the endpoints

For every endpoint where such an agency is actually sitting, there are 10 regular midway taps such an agency is operating.

I am, however, glad that you at least dropped the notion that https used client certificates. One step at a time.

I'm not entirely sure what "hiding who accesses the endpoint from the endpoint itself." means, but please explain how HTTPS doesn't do that.

HTTPS doesn't hide anything from the endpoint. That should be obvious?

However, it does largely defeat the multipathing, proxy caching and rewriting possible with HTTP, all of which helps hide who accesses an endpoint, as well as automatically adding an immutable identifier; the session key.

When I access http://www.fbi.gov/ and the proxy I use serve it from cache, the site won't even know that I accessed it. And when I ask for http://ww.cia.gov/page1 and http://www.cia.gov/page2 and the request comes from two different IPs, the site doesn't know that it's the same client accessing both pages. And when I access http://www.inflatableunicorns.... and my proxy deletes tracking information from the header (including IP address and browser fingerprints), they don't know that I'm the same person who visited last week. And they won't know that I looked at adcampaign.jpg either, because it can be served from a cache.

Now enter HTTPS, and how it changes this by trying to ensure a 1:1 connection.

Then consider what Google's business is, and whether it's in their interest to obtain as much accurate information as possible about who visits and who sees which ads, and how to aggregate and sell that data. That they push hard for the technology that helps their business model should not come as a surprise, nor should it be taken as them having your best interest in mind.

And consider the interest of the three letter agencies who sit at the endpoints and sees all the HTTPS data and metadata after it has been decrypted by the server. Do you think they want more accurate tracking capabilities or not?

With this argument, I believe assault/automatic rifles, high capacity magazines have been proven to cause excessive damage compared to the rights and personal freedoms of wanting such firearms.

On what do you base this position? Assault/automatic rifles have been used to kill, to my knowledge, zero people in the US in the past year. (Counterexample, anyone?) Rifles of all types have been used to kill 248 people, versus 5562 for handguns, in 2014, the last year for which data are available (ref).

If anything, the data support a ban on handguns - particularly in poor, urban areas - while legalising assault rifles. (At least, if a ban were actually effective.)

Except the FBI investigated them and found they were price fixing: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori...

Look, you are clearly from the UK and have no clue WTF you are talking about. Please stick to topics to which you have knowledge.

Just so you don't make a complete fool of yourself next time, here are some statistics. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
    Note that African Americans make up 15% of the population while accounting for ~2500 out of 5700 murders. There is clearly a sub culture of violence there that does not extend to the other minorities or indeed the other 85% of the population.

Considering you live in the UK, unless you served in the military, your only experience with guns has been TV, movies and the pap that your liberal media has spoon fed you. Meanwhile, disarmed Europe is one charismatic dictator away from another Hitler... Atheism and antisemitism area already well on their way in Europe. https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/20...

The Las Vegas shooter was firing AR15 style rifles from 35 stories up at 500 yards range at nearly full auto at night using a bump stock. (One rifle at at a time, probably swapping rifles to keep from warping the barrels). The only reason he hit anyone was the sheer number of bullets he fired and the fact that he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people. His hit ratio was ~550 injured or killed or about 2.5%. And that was aiming for a mob of people who were unaware of what was going on, at least at first. Anyone who as ever fired a fully automatic weapon knows that you cannot aim for shit at full auto. Anyone who has even seen a bump stock in action knows that you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 100 yards using one. The barrel and sight literally jump around in your hands beyond even the normal recoil... Compare that to a hunter (or retired or active duty military, many of whom were in the crowd) with a rifle crouched behind a truck looking for the shooter. At full auto, the muzzle flashes from the MGM were readily apparent to many witnesses.

Are you actually under the insane impression that Gamergate is remotely innocent? Because if so, you should really try what I'm smoking.

The FBI couldn't find any proof, so you tell me. The only proof they found was of 3rd party trolls, that was it. If you think gamergate is responsible for 'harassment' or 'doxing' or whatever bullshit some socjus is pushing, you should really dig into it more. It's kinda like how Sarkeesian cancelled a talk at a university in response to a gun threat(how it was presented to people by the media). The truth is that the state is open-carry, and they refused to comply to any of her demands regarding it. This was then followed up by Kotaku who said there was a bomb threat the day(or two after). Which happened 6 months before that. On the other hand? There's plenty of evidence of the big name anti-gamergate people simply being shitty humans. You've got the list of them who have been convicted by courts for rape/sexual assault, then the others who've been accused. Then the others who called in bomb threats to synagogues. Then there's the others that engaged in doxing and harassment, but that's a whole 'nother topic. I'm sure you might bring up "seattle4truth" but never mind that he'd been banned from every chan board, reddit sub, and ignored by anyone relating to GG roughly 3 months in. Went slowly insane, went anti-gg, and then went full conspiracy retard. But then I can always bring up the anti-gg die-hard feminist who blew his girlfriends head off. So you enjoy that shitshow.

Or you can go visit one of the anti-gg boards on reddit, and enjoy the shitshow of identity politics, active doxing, threats and harassment.

Then, we can get into garbage like this. Where the media is outright lying to you, and blaming gamergate when it didn't even exist yet. Are you paying attention to the bullshit being painted now? It's just like the garbage yesterday with "Trump and a koi pond and the 'international incident'" Never mind that Trump dumped the food in after Abe(who dumped ~1/3 of a box). Go on, watch those videos. It'll only take you 15 minutes, enjoy the lies, enjoy the bullshit while you're at it.

The FBI got involved for some reason. When asked why the FBI was there the answer floored me, the scissors used to cut the victim's hair came from out of state so this was an investigation of "interstate commerce" as defined in the US Constitution. If that's the bar that has to be hurdled then everything is a federal case. Some kid steals a candy bar and the FBI is there because he was wearing shoes made in China.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigat...

As I understand it, certain crimes mandate an FBI investigation even if it's within a single state.

The FBI investigation includes confessions of those behind GamerGate.

You mean the 13 year old kid who had no connections to gamergate that you're trying to claim that was part of gamergate? I guess that makes things easy, you can go read the document dump anytime you want. Then that other guy you're talking about who was the 3rd party troll? Who also stated they weren't part of gamergate and did it because they wanted to get a rise out of both sides? You might want to actually get off your ass and read the entire thing instead of relying on an excerpt. There's critical context missing form that.

Seems to me you're doing a great job of showing that you can't even read a document, let alone stand it. You don't think women need to be coddled? That seems to go fully against your own reasoning on multiple occasions.

You could at least apologise for suggesting I might be a rapist though. I'm all for robust, open debate but that was just nasty and uncalled for.

I'm holding you, to your standards. "Listen and believe." There's a point to it, and if you think on it you'll have figured it out. If on the other hand you haven't, I can explain it to you.

A common meme is: "The Republicans already tried to look into this and couldn't make anything stick. So clearly Hillary Clinton was innocent and the Republicans are just digging for dirt and hoping to find something." Variations on this have already been posted in this discussion.

What's extraordinary here is that the Director of the FBI intervened personally on Hillary Clinton's behalf. He wrote a draft of his speech exonerating her before the FBI ever interviewed her. Her aides were given broad immunity, which is usually used to compel people to talk[1], but then they were allowed to just say things like "I don't remember". Hillary Clinton, or someone working for her, wiped her email server after a subpoena was issued requiring her to hand it over to Congress, and there were absolutely no consequences from that. A usual FBI investigation would collect as much evidence as possible as early as possible, but that wasn't done in this case... the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin copies of Hillary Clinton emails were found during an investigation of Weiner, but they should have been found earlier. When the FBI is actually investigating they are thorough about collecting evidence. They should have grabbed every computer Hillary ever touched, and as Huma Abedin was an aide to Hillary, every computer Huma ever touched. (They could have copied the hard disks and given the computers back right away.)

Most extraordinary of all: the Director of the FBI claimed that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton as no proof of ill intent was found, yet the laws she broke do not require intent but only require proof of mishandling of data.

...prosecutors are not required to prove motive. [...] Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447209/hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation-grand-jury-subpoenas

Consider what happened to David Petraeus. He was guilty, but what he did wasn't even a tenth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did. But the Director of the FBI didn't whitewash the investigation for him, so his career was over. (By the way, he didn't go to prison, so he still got better treatment than the "little people" would get. Consider the case of Bryan H. Nishimura. I would say that what Nishimura did wasn't even a thousandth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did, but he was treated much more harshly than she was. Note that he wasn't charged with any "intent", just the mishandling of data.)

I'm pretty sure that if a member of the Trump administration mishandles classified data, he or she won't get the special treatment that Hillary Clinton got. But the Democrats will get a President elected again sometime in the future and I would like to get a precedent established that the laws apply to Democrats as much as to Trump and his staff. I know that the law is not enforced perfectly even-handedly in this country (or any country in the real world) but I am appalled at the epic whitewashing done on behalf of Hillary Clinton to protect

If you READ the actually data It simply says ARRESTS, not convictions or that they actually committed the crime. don't confuse the two.

Politifact is a blatantly biased organization at this point and a shill for the alt left fascist progressives.

Americans killed by guns in recorded history: 0

Americans murdered by other people with guns in 2012: 60% of all US homicides or about 8300 or about 0.0036% of the population.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

If you remove young black males, who make up less than 4% of the US population, that number is cut in half to 4150... and puts the US per capita murder rate roughly on par with European countries. On a side note, concealed carry warning and brandishing probably stops that many robberies, rapes and murders in a week... (There are about 16,000,000 concealed carry permits in the US right now).
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Americans killed by medical mistakes each year: about 250,000
http://www.npr.org/sections/he...

Americans killed by antibiotic resistant bacteria each year: 23,000
https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist...

Clearly guns are not that big a threat unless you are an alt left fascist progressive looking to dominate and subjugate the American people. Every dictator in the last 100 years from Stalin to Mao on down the line disarmed their people first and then murdered millions of them. Guns are in fact inanimate objects controlled by their wielder, which is why every LEO in the country carries one. Any group that uses "gun deaths" are political shills with no interest in truth. Gun deaths usually include suicides (who just use different methods in gun free countries), criminals shot by police or citizens, and other justified shootings that are actually a good thing for society and end up saving lives.

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status. ... About 2,000 additional emails have been retroactively classified, or up-classified, meaning the information was not classified when it was first emailed.

So, classified information is funny stuff. A "fact" can be classified, but only if it's stated in relation to another fact. Guidance states that if something is classified, it is better to never mention it unless its absence makes it notable. (e.g., for instance, a series of numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 where 5 might be classified in some relation to, say, number of x's) And yes, writing publicly releasable documents when you hold a clearance can be a real challenge.

But, back to your CBS reference and so forth - 2 document had markings, but didn't actually contain classified material, this again just proves that just because it's stamped with a classification doesn't make it so. And finally, her telling her subordinate to send the talking points insecure doesn't mean they sent classified info that way, and it even states that in your link. Take the above example about 5.... If I send that same "classified" information paragraph, removing the number and relation from the text, it's no longer classified, much like those redacted FBI documents

I still hold that her having a private email server was stupid and against general common sense security policy as practiced within at least large portions of the government. She should have known better, as should have Rice and Powell before her, but especially Powell, who has 0 excuses.

And don't get me wrong, she was still a terrible choice, just less terrible than the one we got through a fluke of an ancient system designed to overcome the limitations of technology at that time. In fact, only her, out of all the possible other dem candidates and quite a few republicans could have lost. That's how terrible she was as a candidate. Don't sugar coat that one.

I clearly read the FBI report It's clear that you did not.

You can read the entire thing here That's as official as it gets. Now, you made the claim that she knowingly sent at the time classified email. We'll await your response....

And those markings mean nothing (much like the ones in the FBI link above) once they are from a supposedly insecure source (e.g., the unclassified State Dept email server)

> Everyone knows that Hilary was by far the better candidate and has a brilliant record of public administrator
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-...
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/837704382472933376
Public administration whereby she leaked like a sinking ship and was deeply compromised by other nations? You seem to be another person who missed that the Russia narrative was started by.... Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/... documents things that only happened online.

There were very real offline consequences.

https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergat... is 170 pages of collateral from an FBI investigation into things that happened online.

It boggles my mind how the UK can in any way equate these two activities as in any way comparable. They aren't. Period.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. That doesn't stop them having offline consequences, and doesn't stop the police assessing whether the law has been broken.

Last year the fact that the FBI had closed the case made headlines, and now there are 40 people working on it?

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us...

OK, looking at the press release, the "redirected" "resources", I suppose the FBI only officially closes a case when the perp is caught...

Except the facts do not bear out that police forces are institutionally racist. Not even kind of.

What IS a fact is blacks kill more blacks than any police force.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
vs
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And bear in mind the police number isn't only a list of deaths, regardless of justification. So the number is REALLY small. (Sorry the dates don't jive, best I could do - but the point is there)

Which is a worse issue?

What IS a fact is that blacks have the highest proportion of children born out of wed lock. (a whooping 75%)
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

But, nah, let's not fix any of that. Let's get straw man to blame it all on. Let's have less policing. I mean it works so well in Chicago.

If everything were equal, we'd expect 12.5% of police shootings to be blacks.

Thing is, things are not equal. So no, we wouldn't expect 12.5% of police shoots to be of people that are black.
http://www.latimes.com/science...

We'd also expect, everything being equal, 12.5% of people shooting the police to be black. It's 39.7%:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014...

But hey, everything isn't equal. Look deeper and stop relying on base statistics.

That kind of discrepancy defies all reason

No. Exploring it may beyond your limited intelligence but please, do

let a little math stand in the way of preserving your bias

Maybe a little more than you're capable of, but at least fucking read the work being done by others.

Caucasian committed murder rates is right in line with other european countries https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Whites killed ~2700, making the white murder rate ~1 in 100,000 which is actually below several western European countries, including France.

The sad truth no one wants to talk about is we have a violent sub culture within a small minority in the US committing a lot of murders and it is not the Asians or the Hispanics. It has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with culture.

NPR's editorial and opinion pieces are moderately left-leaning. Their factual reporting - which is to say, the news they report - is very high quality.

I also said that left-wing protests dominate the university scene, which shouldn't be a surprise. Universities tend to have a younger population, on average, and exposure to new ideas (like you get at a college or university) has a well-documented correlation with an increase in liberal opinions.

If you'd prefer, here's a 2002 report from the FBI on the subject. It, too, states that right-wing terrorism overtook left-wing terrorism in the early 1990s.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archi...

You are entitled to read and watch the sources of news you personally agree with the viewpoints of, but beware consuming opinions as facts. Debate only has purpose if all sides share the same information. If you have information that is pertinent to the topic at hand, I welcome you to share it.

Fake news doesn't work on people thinking critically, but you're not after those.

Not true in the least. Remember when Dateline used model rocket boosters to blow up the gas tanks on pickup trucks? You know their target audience for that show at the time was 30-45 college educated or higher. Fake news works well on anyone who's ideologically deep in a rabbit hole and wants to engage in confirmation bias.

Let's look at two cases over the last 3 years: Gamergate, where the FBI could find no incidences of harassment from anyone tied to it. Demographics educated at college level or higher, married, has family, has high disposable income, roughly 15% are female, has a significant minority quotient from all over the world to boot and aligns politically left. But the media continues on with the lie that they're harassers who pump out death threats, are worse then isis, and then scrub away those women and minorities because they don't fit the narrative(that is if the anti-gg people simply don't call them house n*iggers, or uncle toms). The media view of the people in Gamergate are: single, white, males who live in their parents basement or are virgins living alone. Nice fabrications huh?

Or you can take a look at the "Trump-Russia-Collusion" story. Which has evolved from "Russia colluded with Trump" to "his son talked with a lawyer who's visa expired that the Obama administration specifically let back in at the behest of Susan Rice" along with "Putin talked with Trump during dinner." But the entire thing has fallen apart to the point where pundits outside of the main of the party are saying "shut-up, this is hurting us more then helping." If the media has one narrative, it's very easy to see from the outside. But it sure is self-reinforcing if you're in that rabbit hole.

90% of murdered blacks were killed by blacks, whilst 83% of murdered whites were killed by whites. And 57% of all murders were commited by blacks. Was it 99%? no - but it wasn't far off from 90%, the real statistic...

Take a gander at the total number of blacks, then the total number of murders, manslaughters, and robberies.

Here's the data you asked for. Blacks commit more than half of all murder/manslaugher, and robberies. Assuming race is not the motive for shootings by police, we would expect about half of all police shootings to be of black suspects. So when we see statistics that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be shot by police, that would actually indicate police restraint, since whites are about 5 times more populous than blacks.

Here are some facts. If you are a shooting victim, you are twice as likely to be white and shot by a black versus being black and shot by a white. Overwhelmingly people are shot by their own race, but cross shootings between whites and blacks, it's about a 2:1 of black-on-white shootings.

You are so full of shit it is mind-blowing. Whites commit just as many crimes.

Yes indeed! And there happens to be about four times as many whites as blacks. Meaning - the crime rate for blacks is higher. Source of statistics. Half of all murders were committed by blacks; about 45% by whites. Yet whites outnumber blacks by 4:1. Does that mean all blacks are thugs and killers? Of course not! But it does mean, if there is a murder or robbery, chances are it was commited by a black criminal. Facts are facts - even if you don't like them.

Federal Bureau of Investigation
https://tips.fbi.gov/thank-you...

Thank You
Your tip has been submitted.

phantomfive you really shouldn't talk about making bombs online and claim it's "always a good idea" to "blowing things up".

Remember when the FBI couldn't find any harassment from Gamergate? Me too. Remember when Quinn's little organization turned around and was harassing people and doxing them? Me too. Remember when all those SJW's(by their own definition) she supported tried doxing people too and one of the key people in her "anti-harassment" organization were caught being the ringleaders of it? Yep me too.

Seems to me you need to start growing up, in nearly 3 years and copious amounts of proof you're hanging onto that "harassment narrative" pretty hard.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.

As someone with ties to law enforcement, I can tell you that the reality is far from what the media would have you believe. When you've actually had a beer with someone who stopped a trunk-full of hand made Colt 1911 clones from illegally crossing the border, then you can talk to me about how many illegal guns enter the country legally.

You're working form an ignorant viewpoint and quoting media-approved statistics while I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, you're trying to claim we can "make [guns] inaccessible" while admitting that some number of guns enter the country illegally. You can't have it both ways. You can make guns less accessible, but as long as they exist they'll be accessible to anyone sufficiently motivated.

Beyond that, have you stopped for one moment to think there's a reason we kill each other in this country and that guns have nothing at all to do with it? The kinds of guns people of your ilk most often try to remove from circulation (black rifles) account for fewer deaths than knives (which you seem to be fine with), blunt objects (basically every solid object without a blade falls into this category and you seem to be fine with that), or *gasp* fists and feet.

In 2014 (the most recent data I can find), that's 248 rifle deaths. That's all rifles, not just the scary black ones, so the number is even smaller for those, but the FBI doesn't differentiate so I'll be generous and give you all of those. Compare that to 1756 knife deaths, 435 blunt objects, and a whopping 660 people killed with fists or feet. Hell, on that last point I'll add in all other non-pistol firearms: 262 shotgun deaths and 93 "other gun" deaths. That brings the non-handgun firearm total (where the type of firearm was known) up to a whopping 613, still fewer than fists and feet. If we divvy up the "type not stated" category proportionally, we can add 29 rifle deaths, 84 shotgun deaths, and 78 "other gun" deaths, for a total of 804 non-handgun firearm deaths. Finally, we've stretched the numbers so that non-handgun guns kill more people than fists and feet, though the number still pales in comparison to knives.

That's not to say guns don't account for most murders in this country; they certainly do when you also consider handguns, but nobody is calling for those to be banned.

That's right, the simple handgun accounts for more than half of this country's murder rate; yet, I can more easily get a handgun than a black rifle. Why is that?

Also, I am reminded of our previous argument, where I pointed out that, per capita, "gun-free" Francs has more gun violence than the US. Yes, the US has higher overall numbers; we also have a higher overall population; if our population was the size of France, or vise-versa, they would very much outrank us in terms of overall numbers.

But that reality makes you uncomfortable, so you refuse to face it.

It's not my fault you never learn and can't face reality.

Here's a fun exercise: Look at this data (source) and tell me where you, if murdered, are most likely to have been murdered by a gun. The answer is Liechtenstein, followed closely by Puerto Rico, but they've got incomplete data, so we'll have to look at #3, which is Sierra Leone, ranked #164 worldwide in gun ownership with 0.6 firearms per capita and 128 annual homicides by firearm. That's 2.28 per 100,000, to the US' 2.97, where the US has 88.8 guns per capit

How is that not a hate crime?

Because it's not the definition of what a hate crime is. "hate crime" is an actual term with an actual definition. Concern trolling about the particular name of a term is about the weakest form of argument.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm sure a lot of criminals who don't have the gall to assault a regular truck may be able to justify going after a self-driving truck, since there are no people onboard to leave behind as witnesses.

Well there's also nobody to intimidate. Nobody with any keys or codes to give you access to or control over the truck. My first thoughts apart from the constant cell phone/GPS tracking to alert police would be to just kill the engine, lock the brakes, give a little light and siren show and if you can't draw anyone's attention and they're really determined to break in by force before the police get there, just set off a few dye packs/stink bombs. Sure it'll ruin the cargo but zero payoff will make the highway robberies stop pretty quick.

Using that logic, we should have eliminated bank robberies by now. There were 4,030 bank robberies in 2015. 4,091 if you want to include bank-related burglaries and larceny.

In the USA? The cops steal five times as much stuff, year in year out as burglars do.

Yes, yes.. Cops are bad, gub'mint is bad... I'm quite familiar with the typical bias of Slashdotters.

Fortunately, statistics are easily available which provide a more reasonable picture: In 2015, the last year for which full reports are available, burglary alone cost Americans $3.6 billion, while asset forfeiture only totaled $1.6 billion.

Also, some bendejho federal judge has recorded an opinion that opening your door amounts to inviting the cops into the front room.

I'm not familiar with the precise case in question, but the usual rule of thumb is that the officers are allowed to check to ensure their own safety. If that means they have to check the area immediately inside the door, then so be it.

Not sure where you are, but in Atlanta, it's only press reporting of bank robberies that has become rare. They're too commonplace to be interesting. Something like 60 unsolved over the past 2.5 years ( https://bankrobbers.fbi.gov/ ), not counting the ones who managed to get caught.

If my hate for black criminals (i have the same hate for white criminals) makes me a racist then so be it. Most of my friends are from other areas of the world and most of them have the same view as me. If you act like a hoodlum you will be treated as a hoodlum.. If a large number of people in your race acts (not is) like hoodlum's then the expectation, before meeting the person, will be that he/she is a hoodlum.
Same goes if i would visit a white-trash area.. I would expect that many people i meet will be drug-addicts/drunks and other types of white-trash.

Thing is that when you adjust for % of population you have more black drug-dealers and criminals that causes harm to others or others property. This is a problem in society that is cased by bringing up kids around those kinds of people, and it creates a feedback loop that will continue to produce more and more criminals.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
Black people are more prone, or people raised in predominantly black areas, to some types of crimes.
White people are more prone, or people raised in predominantly white areas, to commit some types of crimes.
Indian people (as in native-american) are more prone, or people raised in predominantly native-american areas, to commit some types of crimes.

(Criminal in my eyes is someone that physically hurts someone or causes loss or damage of property. This includes drug-dealers that sell hard drugs.)

-- My point for the above, since statistics points to black people are more likely to cause damage to the property it creates a higher risk to rent out to a unknown person you met over the internet if the only thing you know about that person is that he/she is black.
On the other hand if you can meet the person before you can form an opinion how trust-worthy he/she is and then suddenly the skin-color does not matter.. After that you trust a white/asian/black/whatever person the same based on his/her's behaviour.

Before the West imported large numbers of Muslims, we did not have . . . somewhere between 6 and 12% of the terrorism we get in the West today.

I fixed that so the viewers at home could see the truth rather than a complete fabrication with no basis in reality. But by all means, don't let facts and data get in the way of a good old fashioned islamophobic blame-the-brown-people polemic.

We guarantee the right to protest, not riot. If a group is rioting, the crowd must disperse immediately. This glorified RV is not the right solution, the right solution is to send out the national guard with orders to shoot rioters/looters. If you don't respect the rule of law, I have no respect for you or your position or your life.

The black lies matter cartel is directly responsible for the Dallas mass shooting that you reference and they are a bunch of lying race pimps who have been proven wrong at every turn and their only goal is to whip up emotion of the ignorant population they take advantage of (not the entire black population) for their own political advantage. Unfortunately, if you allow yourself to be ignorant and lied to, you expose yourself to this and further if you choose to riot and destroy others property, you should be harshly punished. If you fight with the police or disobey lawful orders, you may get shot. Stupidity and ignorance have consequences. The war on black men is waged by other black men (2245 blacks murdered by other blacks https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... ) not police http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

The relevant part:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.

to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.

Comey says here that there are "potential violations," but that's not "violations."

"Potential" can mean that you might find a violation after investigating more facts and more laws (but you might not), and you weren't able to find it so far. In other words, it's a prosecutor's speculation that a violation might (or might not) have occurred.

Saying that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" is legal-speak for saying that he found no provable violations, or in simple language, as far as the legal system is concerned, she's innocent. It's not just that she doesn't "merit" prosecution, but that the prosecutor doesn't think a prosecution could succeed. If the courts would never accept a situation like this, then in our legal system of common law and precedent, it's not illegal.

BTW a "violation" is not the same as a "crime."

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

There was not a lack of evidence. There was a decision not to act on the evidence.

Is a person with security clearance sending, receiving, creating, and storing classified material on a private server in their bathroom illegal? Yes.

Was Hillary doing that? Yes.

Did they decide to prosecute her for it? No.

There was no trial due to lack of will, not lack of evidence.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

The relevant part:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

So, what she did was wrong and illegal (mishandling of classified documents), and that it's very likely someone doing this would be punished (administrative sanctions like getting fired, losing security clearance, etc). However, in his opinion, they would not be subject to criminal prosecution. And remember this is all the FBI can do...say that there is a case or is not a case. They can't find you guilty as that's the purpose of a trial.

Now, the next point of dispute here would be that the statute surrounding the handling of classified material that she violated doesn't say anything about "intent," so it doesn't matter what she intended by mishandling the classified material, she could still be prosecuted. Your opinion on whether what Hillary did was wrong enough to merit prosecution is likely dependent on whether you vote R or D, but to say Comey and the FBI determined that Hillary did nothing wrong is completely false. It is wrong and illegal for a person with a security clearance to have classified and SAP information on a private server in their bathroom, the FBI says that's what Hillary did, but not so egregiously that it merits prosecution.

Indeed, it depends on what you read. I did mention the nature vs. nurture in the first post I made.
When it comes to the Joker/Dexter argument: I've seen the Joker been described as a prototypical psychopath in a book from Carolyn Kaufman (Psy.D.). She also writes about psychopathy being an antisocial personality disorder hallmarked by sadism, which makes psychopaths very dangerous. She doesn't write much about sociopathy though.
According to what I read, the parents of people who are later diagnosed with severe APD - psychopathy - usually learned from an early age that their child was behaving 'different'. It suggest biological reasons and through neural imaging it has been established that the brains of these people appear to work differently. Although there is empirical evidence that some mental conditions like schizoid personality disorder or schizophrenia can be hereditary, I haven't read much about psychopathy in this regard.

I completely agree that the term "psychopathic" was used correctly in the article according to the above definitions. The FBI appears to agree as well (and also offers some information on the topic): https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/novem...

When did I ever argue that a judge should not hear any case, or this one?

What evidence is being withheld? Did you miss where the FBI released everything from their investigations?

I'll say it yet again: Presumption of innocence. It's important, regardless of your suspicions.

The only thing that happened was that in deciding that she had done nothing worth an indictment over,

That's not what Comey said. Here:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Earlier in that statement he says that there is good evidence of mishandling of known Top Secret material. But finding a prosecutor who would prosecute would be hard.