Slashdot Mirror
After Cell-Phone Switch-Off, Anonymous Promises BART Protest
According to the San Francisco Appeal, the cellphone service shut-down that the BART system imposed Thursday (by disabling transponders which allow cellphone communications in the underground portion of the system), besides drawing rebukes from various civil liberties groups, has generated plans for a protest Monday organized by Anonymous.
People have the right to protest all they want, but:
1) BART has no obligation to assist them in doing so. BART had every right to turn off their equipment. Do these protesters expect to have the police drive them to the protest as well?
2) If the protesters are interfering with mass transit, they're just being assholes. Yes, it's sad that someone got killed. No, this doesn't mean that tens of thousands of people should have their schedules fucked around with.
The fact that this is such a big deal in the first place shows that these aren't real protesters anyway. They're just a bunch of spoiled SF kids thinking they're activists. Real activists wouldn't let something like not having internet access during the protest get in their way.
I condemn their DDOS, but I would surely support them if they were to call for a sit-in protest (just as in this case). Too bad, I live 200 miles from the nearest BART station. 'They' may be Anonymous, ?chans,or anybody, I would support them.
For some reason... on seeing 'Anonymous' doing so much... I begin to think there are more than one groups that call themselves anonymous... and possibly a bunch of hoaxes from attention-seekers
Protesting shootings and demanding accountability is why we have actual reputable civil liberties groups that specialize in this sort of thing.
Besides, the only people who suffer from protests held in a mass transit system are the people who are trying to get to work and keep the job they're fortunate to have.
You can never be sure that "Anonymous" is the same group of people every time, it can be different groups with different and even conflicting interests.
And then there are professional rioters that rides on any suitable group just for the pleasure of destruction - those rioters should be brought to justice by their victims.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The first point of protest should be the BART office, not the public transport channels they operate. If the employees of the head office are prevented from entering/leaving that will leave a considerable impact in the news too. Serve the protests to those that are responsible.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
What a bunch of crap. About 80% are white. And thanks for you concern, I do sleep well, irrespective of the racial demographics of the state I am in.
..shuting off cell-phones to get rid of angry protesters?
It really won't stop anybody from organizing protests, it only affects the underground system, and makes things more chaotic.
But while BART isn't as effective as Muammar, they seem to work through the same PR firm. Real clever. That will teach those kids a lesson
What's the plan: "The beatings will continue until morale improves?"
ANONYMOUS seems to have a busy month planned with taking on Facebook and all. Glad to see that young people haven't lost the industrious spirit (/sarcasm)
There's two things going on that aren't the same thing at all. One is the protests over police using black people for target practice, the other is the looting that takes place during the "riots".
The government keeps making excuses for the actions of their police officers; he was just doing his job, too bad that black person got in his way. This will continue and we'll see more of these protests
The other thing is the looting - this is (to put it simply) those who are just barely getting by taking the opportunity to grab up some of those consumer goods they could never afford to buy.
This is a symptom of the extreme imbalance in income distribution in the US (and England). Explain it however you want, the black and brown folks know that they're getting the dirty end of the stick and they aren't accepting those stories. They're kept in their place most of the time, but when things get protesty they'll come out and get some of what the "rich folks" have.
Of course, the "authorities" says that every protester is a criminal and they're busily putting "those people" back in their place. They'll never admit that it's the actions of their enforcers that start these protests - and they'll never admit that it's the greed in the upper class that creates the tensions that drive the riots and looting.
Those "upper class" folks are very aware of this and they're busily building taller fences, hiring more guards, and loading up on weaponry. They lean on their government friends to "keep things under control" and they do their best. Did you think that monitoring phone and email traffic was to stop terrorists? Maybe it's to keep track of groups forming that might present a threat to the established order in this country?
You'll keep hearing stories about how this is all about bad people - and as long as you keep believing that and supporting those who benefit from keeping those people in their place - you'll just postpone the date and increase the intensity of the "correction".
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
Wow shut the fuck up.
This latest string of BART protests are still about the death of one Charles Blair Hill, a white homeless drunkard who threw a vodka bottle at a pair of passing police officers and then pulled a knife at them. He was shot as he prepared to throw the knife. I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I'd say the idiot had it coming. It was clearly an act of self defense by the officer(s) involved.
People see "MAN KILLED BY POLICE" and instantly go into RAGE PROTEST RIOT LOOTING mode and blame the DIRTY PIGS for all of life's ills. Or people like you go and call them RACIST AGAINST THOSE BLACK AND BROWN FOLKS and then subtly threaten us white California residents by telling us we're in the minority. Maybe you were trolling, idk.
There's two things going on that aren't the same thing at all. One is the protests over police using black people for target practice, the other is the looting that takes place during the "riots".
Here's a tip for those in California - did you know that you white folks are in the minority there? Sleep well...
Um, dude? The man who was shot, Charles Hill, was not black.
He was, however, intoxicated, violent, and armed. He threw a vodka bottle at two police officers and then attacked one with a knife. The police (or pigs or whatever the PC term is now) shot him in self defense. There's partial video of the incident—he was out of camera range, but the video shows the bottle flying at the officer who is in the picture. It happened very quickly: the officers saw Hill, he threw the bottle at them and charged brandishing a knife, and the police shot him all in under a minute. It's the kind of situation no one wants to have happen, but not because the police are some sort of racist murderers waging class warfare: rather, because no one wants knife-wielding drunks rampaging in the subway.
Are the pigs guilty of keeping the black man down and put "those people" in their place because they didn't decide to hug and sing kumbaya with the drunk white guy trying to stab them? Probably, in the minds of some people. I would say that you can see their pictures here: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2931/bart-protest-delays-evening-commute/ , but they at least have a photo of Charles Hill and seem cogent enough, despite trying to climb on top of the BART trains, to know enough about the case they're "protesting" at least to realize that Hill isn't black.
Wrong, asshole. That 80% percentage of "whites" includes hispanics. If you read more closely, and I'm pretty sure you can't, you will see that "As of 2006, California has the largest minority population in the United States, though whites make up 57% of the state population. Non-Hispanic whites decreased from about 92% of the state's population in 1960 to 43% in 2006."
How about protesting outside station entrances? It is doubtful that the cellular providers would disable service at street level. Protesters also wouldn't disrupt physical transit service, though they can still make their point by disrupting individual commuters.
Most important of all: it doesn't endanger the lives of people, since platforms can be a dangerous place.
I remember hearing stories from a friend in a third world nation. When the government did something wrong they started destroying the trains in protest. The thing is, that destruction meant bugger all to the government (they don't use trains) so it really only made the lives of the protesters and the people who they claimed to represent worse. Which is exactly the sort of thing that Anonymous is doing. While it isn't quite that extreme yet, it could be within a few years if protesters keep upping the ante.
The GP I posted to, did not say 'non-hispanic whites are a minority', he plainly said whites. Even if he had said that, his statement would still have been bullshit. The 2011 census disagrees with him... About 43% non-hispanic white, about 38% hispanic. And I dont trust the source for 2006 43%.
Besides the GP's statement was alluding that blacks are the majority (the rant that blacks are evils followed by something that states whites are a minority)
you house your garden gnomes better than most of us over here!
break into your car and destroy your garden gnome
I condemn their DDOS, but I would surely support them if they were to call for a sit-in protest (just as in this case). Too bad, I live 200 miles from the nearest BART station. 'They' may be Anonymous, ?chans,or anybody, I would support them.
Agreed. I don't agree with most of the things they do but if I lived closer I would join them in this fight. This was a smart call by anon, I hope they stage more protests for this kind of thing, might make the public think more positively of them since it certainly improved my opinion.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
You should be modded up. All this mob mentality is crazy. I did a little reading and it's obvious what happened. Ha was violent, had a knife out, and he was shot. Also he was not black. Rioting makes absolutely no sense. Yes police abuse does happen, but not in this case, not every time...
linkage: http://www.sfbg.com/bruce/2011/07/11/editorial-end-bart-coverup
That sounds like a good idea (if you can trust tweeter). Maybe someone already did that. Not sure how much you can process this in real-time from twitter. I imagine there could be a bunch of typical signatures depending on what's happening. Say, for example, if there's a protest, it could grow slowly and move slowly (and at some point vanish). If it's a mayor event (blackout) it could reduce very fast, maybe with seconds variation from one place to another. If it's a tsunami, it could grow inland. Would be a interesting exercise in data processing/mining if the data could really be queried in meaningful ways (not sure how much is really possible, probably, there are a lot of limits and probably only tweeter could do this, I don't think you can access everything)....
unfinished: (adj.)
Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "majority". Then I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "plurality".
Hint: one of them means "more than 50%". One of them does not.
Now for your homework: is 43% greater than 50%? Show your work.
I love this idea. I almost want to write it myself.
Hi there, and I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "minority group". No hints for you, since you annoyed me.
The guy certainly was provoking a response, and deserved one, but I'm not so sure leading with a lethal response was in order. He wasn't even capable of doing anything lethal. He was actually throwing his weapons away (albeit in a drunken act of aggression that could hurt someone). Had they bopped him with their batons and arrested him, I wouldn't have the slightest question about the appropriateness.
Barring access to emergency services on purpose.
that's the real effect of it. the first time I read about this was "what the fuck? open season on mugging?". I mean, public transports have been going just to the opposite direction in general in past years, like offering WIFI etc while in transit. so on purpose making cell service worse is.. eh, it's just a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid show of power by some committee jockey in BART.
they better hope no-one had a stroke or something similar..
anyways - now the protests are known world wide.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't need hints, I can read the link you posted perfectly well. Maybe you're the one who needed hints, as it appears that you couldn't.
A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority â" it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively.
Good job on being confused. Nobody else appeared to be. We all figured out that 43% is less than 50%. Go ahead and broadcast the fact that you didn't and got confused though.
OP was obviously talking about a numerical minority. I'm sorry if his slightly-misleading phraseology mislead you into believing that he was referring to a socialogical minority.
He had another knife that was photographed at the scene.
You have never taken any sefl-defense courses have you? Everyone is capable of being lethal, either through size, strength, speed, or sheer luck. Going hands on is very dangerous even with an incapacitated target. Perhaps more so because they don't respond predictably to pain or fear. It only takes half a second to kill someone if you are with in arms reach.
Agreed. The fact is, we have been in a pacified state of getting nothing done for decades now. We have arrived from the 80s and 90s, a time of "plenty" into the present days which are definitely not a time of plenty. These protests are over-due and so long as they can remain peaceful, there is a chance that positive change can happen without revolution. I just hope people in positions of leadership are old enough to remember the lessons of the 60s and 70s.
Protesting in public places, even public transit places, is about drawing attention to important matters. If the matters are big enough, the disruption would also be big and so people would have to pay attention to them.
The shutting down of communications itself was a dangerous act. I'm sure emergency people have radios that continue to work under those conditions, but are those the only people who respond to and report emergencies? No. They aren't.
I wonder how much of this pendulum swinging will get noticed. At the moment, I see this as the pendulum slowing as it has not yet reversed.
I'm lovin' it... if it encourages any of the nerdier nerds, I think if you just built this with a REST API, the lower-level nerds (like me) would be happy to throw together front-ends for the unwashed masses... +1 for the idea...
In addition, just wanted to mention, WHO DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?!?!?
Right, you shut down internet access ANYWHERE in this country, and ZOMG, Anons are pissed!
People forget that the internet is serious business.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Suppose the protest gets out of hand and people start pushing passengers off the terminal onto the tracks. Then a train comes and kill them. It's speculative to say that leaving SMS enabled caused their deaths. But it is also speculative to say that the lack of signal caused their deaths due to the inability to dial 911. But that's not the point.
The point is to prevent the protest from happening in the first place. BART can't control that effectively, but they're doing their best to discourage this from happening near trains by disabling the cell signal. Their press release suggested designated areas for protest in the 'free' public areas.
Let's not forget what happened in London; one guy got killed and a whole town went apeshit (rightfully so). But I stopped supporting those dumbasses when they started trashing the city and looting; and especially when 3 pakistanis were run over to death by a car, almost igniting a new set of riots between blacks and south asians. What purpose did this riot achieve? More people would've died and fights would evolve from people vs. govt, to people vs. people. But of course, this is also speculative. But will the death of three passengers by rioters finally compare to the death of one guy by a security guy?
There are protests, and there are riots. Who can predict what can happen next? BART knew there would be an illegal assembly (not sanctioned by the police dept. or themselves), and are preparing accordingly. London rioters organized via Blackberry SMS. Should BART completely forgo this fact, and more deaths ensue under their watch, they could be liable for negligence.
Yes, BART is part of the govt. and all that, but so is the military. Are we allowed to protest inside their facilities? No. Does that mean the military is curbing our free speech? Absolutely not. There's an annual protest near Ft. Benning in GA, and it's well organized with no incidents of injuries or deaths. Should BART allow protests to occur near electrified rail where there's no fence or barrier of any kind to prevent passengers from being shoved down onto the tracks? Should BART just shut down the entire rail system on Monday instead?? Again, their press release states they have designated areas for gathering and protesting.
Besides, were they preventing free speech during the years prior to installing underground cell towers? Were they even obligated to install them in the first place? Can I blame them for curbing free speech if they don't have ethernet ports or N-band wifi? Instead of protesting inside the rail system, why not protest outside City Hall? Or the BART offices (away from the rail system)?
The way people throw statements like "Free Speech" here and everywhere else reminds me of the annoying kid in school who would stand in the middle of the class and starts shouting. Any reaction against this would be met with the asinine response, "this is America! I have free speech! I can do whatever I want!"
Free speech limits you from yelling "fire!" at a theater just for kicks, and other assholeness; or at least it doesn't guarantee you to go free without any negative repercussion.
Maybe everyone in the US knows the backstory but i didn't so I googled it. Here is what I found:
On the 3 July 2011 a BART ( Bay Area Rapid Transport ) police officer shot dead Charles Hill ( 45 ). It appears Mr Hill was drunk but other than that stories vary wildly. No version of the story states Mr Hill had a gun, some versions say he was acting in a threatening manner with a bottle of drink. The controversy appears to be due to a police officer shooting an unarmed man when he had and should have used a taser.
Story:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_identified_as_man.php
Video ( that misses the real action ):
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_bart_shooting_vid.php
Thanks for this, now I know that MyCleanPC is run by spamming shitsacks, and to recommend against it if anyone brings it up.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah... You're going to get a lot of sales from this group. Keep plugging away!
I'm not familiar with BART as I don't live out there, but was there an explicit promise that the fare for BART would also guarantee cellular service when on the BART system? If not, then I don't see how these people have grounds to complain. Someone else pointed out that the BART system has plenty of emergency phones available for actual emergencies, so what they are doing should not in any way be endangering public safety.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Have you been reading the comments around here? Did you notice that everyone is justifying the cop for their actions? Even saying that A COP IS REQUIRED TO KILL SOMEONE who is threatening him.
I've seen that a lot from american people. Excess 'respect' for the police. Fear, actually. And when you're afraid of the cops, you're fucked.
But they seem to forget that they're not robocop. They don't have hardcoded laws that will keep them from pulling a trigger. It's all up to their judgement (and their own fear) at the moment they're being "threatened". And that misjudgement could cost your OWN life some day. You never know what's gonna happen. You can't say "it's never going to happen to me because I'm a good person".
And lastly... YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that. You don't need to execute someone that was just pointing a knife at you. Hell, if all he had is a knife, you could have maced him and he was out. I honestly don't know how people can not only justify the execution of a man by police, but also protests. Claims like "oh but it was private space". Sure, you know what? For what it's worth they could have also go through your phone and delete your pics too...
In the U.S. the government would also be angry with the shut down. Of course, in the U.S. we (the NSA) monitor cell phone calls and would track people by listening in for calls regarding security personnel locations. We would then use this information to jail the most active people so the outbreak would quietly go away.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Anonymous is the new Westboro Baptist Church. Purposeless attention-whoring for the thrill of it, whether or not they actually bother to follow through.
That's just rationalizing the issue. I've worked security on days where there was a major protest around the building, and cell phones are just not that big of a deal. If you work around the public you're going to get surveilled, it's just going to happen. And most crowds large enough to worry about aren't nimble enough to make much use of the information anyways.
If you haven't made adjustments to the procedures afterwards to account for that you're screwed, phones or no phones.
"There are areas in the BART system that are designated free-speech areas. We support that," BART spokesman Jim Allison said.
The zones in which the Constitution is "officially" in effect are shrinking more and more. I don't seem to recall anything being in there about selective application of Constitutional protections at all (It's "officially" in effect 100% of the time in 100% of the country - it's not like a smoking zone), but ever since the idea started at political events - forcing those who want to express their views (even if it is just a t-shirt a candidate/office holder doesn't like) into a confined and invisible 'free speech zone' - the idea that people can declare where and how the Constitution can be applied has really taken root.
This may not be a case covered by Constitutional protections, but the fact that the spokesman framed it as 'we decide for your own good where your Constitution is in effect' shows how widespread and accepted this invalid idea has become.
This is the problem with vigilantism. It starts out with a target many agree with, and then just starts looking for targets.
Anonymous, you're now just another garden-variety thug. Proud of yourselves? Time for a new group to shut you down.
The guy certainly was provoking a response, and deserved one, but I'm not so sure leading with a lethal response was in order. He wasn't even capable of doing anything lethal.
Anybody is capable of doing something lethal (especially when they're impaired by substances), and Hill was charging with a knife. A determined attacker standing 21 feet away can have a knife in your body within a second and a half, and the way Hill started fucking with those cops as soon as they exited the train shows he had some motive.
That being said, I think it would have been better for the officer to draw and use his Taser rather than a firearm. The reason for choosing a gun is unknown to me, but it would have garnered the same retarded anti-police mob response anyway. In my eyes, the officer used proper force, and perhaps people can learn from this incident: If you're going to attack police officers with deadly instruments, you might get shot.
And lastly... YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that. You don't need to execute someone that was just pointing a knife at you. Hell, if all he had is a knife, you could have maced him and he was out. I honestly don't know how people can not only justify the execution of a man by police, but also protests. Claims like "oh but it was private space". Sure, you know what? For what it's worth they could have also go through your phone and delete your pics too...
You've been watching too many Chuck Norris movies. In movies the good guys (after being shot at and missed multiple times) expertly shoot guns out of people's hands and disarm thugs with a soda straw while doing cartwheels and back flips. In the real world, police officers are trained that when you shoot, you aim for the centre of mass (chest) and shoot to put them down as quickly as possible. The intent is not to kill (that is often the result), but to stop the threat quickly.
Put yourself in the position of being a police officer who is being attacked by a man with a knife. Now imagine that you are required to stop him, but rules require you to defend yourself with a little bottle of pepper spray. Oh yeah - and you do this for a public sector wage.
Maybe you're only 12 years old, but you are using language that you don't seem to understand. Unless they handcuffed him, put him on his knees and then shot him in the head, a police shooting is not an execution. Now I'm not from the US, and we don't execute criminals in Canada, but an execution, even in the US, is a court ordered sentence imposed by the state after a trial, conviction and usually multiple appeals. A police shooting is an instantaneous act of a police officer defending himself, his partner and the public against an armed and dangerous assailant.
All police shootings are investigated, and not all are found to be justified. Here in Vancouver, police at the airport tackled and then tasered to death this unfortunate Polish dude whose only crime was that he didn't speak English and couldn't get anyone to assist him in getting out of the security screening areas where he has been wandering for 5 hours. In this case, they tried to cover it up (confiscated and suppressed the cell phone video) and claimed he was armed (he had a stapler in his hand). The initial investigation cleared the police officers, but (I believe) a subsequent, more independent investigation has recommended that charges against the 4 RCMP officers be reinstated. The family reached an out of court financial settlement with 2 levels of government, the RCMP and the YVR Airport Authority.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT SOMEONE TO DEATH GOD DAMN IT, you can shoot him in the leg, shoulder, arm, whatever. Cops know about that.
You have been watching too many movies.
Shooting someone in the leg is still lethal force (since it's still possible for them to die that way), but also says "I didn't think I was actually justified in using lethal force". Intentionally shooting someone in the leg is, therefore, a very bad thing.
Either you have the right to use lethal force, in which case you need to use the method most likely to stop him (generally aiming for his center of mass), or you don't, in which case you can't shoot.
According to the witness reports, he was NOT charging and was moving "like Frankenstein". That sounds fairly incapable to me. A sloppy drunk determined attacker standing 21 feet away will be lucky if he doesn't fall down and piss himself within a second and a half.
I'm certainly not defending Hill's actions, I just don't see why a lethal response was justified. The Taser would have been a better choice. Perhaps some would still complain, but that's beside the point.
Is there a version for Linux?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You aparently aren't aware that the police are taught that they are NOT ALLOWED to shoot to disarm/wound. Did you know that? They are actually told, in exactly these words, that they are not allowed to shoot to wound, or to disarm. They are ONLY allowed to shoot to protect their own life, or that of someone else. When they do shoot, they are required by the law and their job to shoot center mass.
The reasons for this are not particularly appetizing. Because these rules exist to limit legal liability. Can you imagine the lawsuit that comes when you've crippled a "suspect" with a couple shots to the legs? Your IAB rep can, and he's going to ream your ass and then run you off the force, in the slight hope that the city, police force, and DA's office can avoid getting named in the suit.
So no, the cops CAN'T actually shoot to disarm/wound someone. They simply aren't allowed. Nor are they trained for it.
You have been watching too many lawyer shows.
Yeah, don't let those coma patients fool you it's KILL or be KILLED in the long term care ward! Be careful of that fussy baby, they don't call it projectile vomit for nothing!
Engage the brain first. I suppose a sloppy drunk who can't stand up could kill if you helpfully stand next to him with your arms out, especially if you help him aim the knife. Otherwise, he probably won't be able to get within arms reach.
Meanwhile, people respond fairly predictably to an on-target Taser.
Meanwhile, you've never taken a knife away from someone before, have you?
People can die, and have died, from being shot by a Taser, so the same faulty logic holds that you can't Taser a suspect unless you intend to possibly kill him. And only an idiot would use logic like that. Or a lawyer. But I repeat myself.
You are distorting my words and making a lie out of it. Maybe that's why we are having civil problems...? And can't you identify a simple second level critic in a sentence? Or must I put something [imcriticizingamerica] tags around the critics?
I will repeat myself, because you might have missed the last few words of my post (most reply can be resumed by tl;dr anyway). The main point is intent. I have not information on the intent of the people taking the network down, but, somehow, I do not think it was to block people from expressing themselves, getting together and exchanging idea or what ever people can do everywhere else. My understanding is that the decision was made by people that couldn't care less about what ever civil matter is being rioted for. All they want is their transit system to work as fluently as possible and securely as possible. That's their job. And they do this job for other people, who also have rights. Rights to have a good working transit system they paid for. Right to move through the transit system safely.
Nothing is white or black, like think it is. But if you can't pick up a strong second order critic in a sentence, I don't expect you to pick up the gray in civil matters.
Yes, that is correct. I think that what they want to prevent is on-the-fly adjustments.
Are you retarded?
You're more likely to die from a shot to the chest than being tasered.
So it's OK to kill someone to save your career.
Only in America!
No. Maybe YOU are retarded, or maybe you just failed to comprehend my simple point. I'll try again.
You are also more likely to die from a shot to the chest than a shot to the arm or leg. But Jiro claimed that if there's even a possibility of it killing someone, the police shouldn't be allowed to do it unless they intend to kill. And that's just plain stupid, because people have died from being shot by a Taser too.
And we're down to the argument of "saving your career". We kill people only because of a fucked up system where killing someone is less of a burden than keeping him alive.
The same system that looks for "a" guilty person rather than "the" guilty person.
You know what the problem it? It assumes that the police are one step above the law, they're not normal citizens. And criminals are one step below normal citizens, so if you kill them, well, it wasn't a big loss anyway. Which is a complete illusion anyway: we're all equal. That's what laws say, anyway.
For that matter, if a muslim guy starts killing people in the US, he should walk free. In his view, he is above them, he killed people HE considered inferior, sinners, and getting rid of them was for a greater good.
...clearly an act of self defense by the officer(s) involved.
Kinda funny how one sided that argument always goes given that it we aren't permitted the same luxuries
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That's the explicit intention and plan of Anonymous, to be anonymous even in the physical sense of being a bunch of different, unknown groups.
To be fair, what he was describing was not out of a Chuck Norris movie, but is the way most of the world really does deal with these types of situations, day in, day out.
Appropriate forms of protest, yes. The First Amendment doesn't grant the right to protest in any way imaginable. (For instance, you can't protest abortions across the street from an abortion provider in some jurisdictions in the US.) Clogging up a mass transit system for the lulz is certainly not an appropriate form of protest.
Oooh. Modded down from 3 to 0.
Someone has cops in the family.
This space available.
Yes I have. I have quite a bit of experience in SD and combat, and I'm not talking about on an xbox. Obviously I'm not talking about a coma patient or other completely paralyzed individual, but even a slobbering drunk can be dangerous even if they aren't fully mobile.
You know what? I can't argue with that. I apologize for calling you retarded. But I assume you already knew that online words like "retarded" and "stupid" tend to be thrown around as "someone who I disagree with".
I'm not sure I've ever met a person I didn't disagree with... on something, at least... and if I did, I don't think I'd much like them.