Robbery Suspect Tracked By GPS and Killed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robbery Suspect Tracked By GPS and Killed

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday May 17, 2014 @05:46AM from the modern-crime-fighting dept.

New submitter Lew Lorton notes a NY Times story about a thief in New York City who was tracked and located using a GPS device inside a decoy pill bottle he had stolen (along with other pill bottles) from a pharmacy. When police confronted the thief, he raised a gun to shoot at an officer, and was killed "The decoy bottles were introduced last year by the police commissioner at the time, Raymond W. Kelly, who announced that the department would begin to stock pharmacy shelves with decoy bottles of painkillers containing GPS devices. The initiative was in response to a sharp increase of armed and often deadly pharmacy robberies across the state, frequently by people addicted to painkillers. ... The bottles are designed to be weighted and to rattle when shaken, so a thief does not initially realize they do not contain pills. Each of the decoy bottles sits atop a special base, and when the bottle is lifted from the base, it begins to emit a tracking signal."

450 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

use a foil-lined bag. by retchdog · 2014-05-17 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

[n/t]

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
1. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by ganjadude · 2014-05-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. Now that they have played their card, criminals will simply line the bags as to block the GPS signal, its not that hard to do
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by nurb432 · 2014-05-17 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  Most are not that smart.
  This needs to be advertised tho, so criminals know they are at a higher risk of getting caught.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
3. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  they would have to learn how to read first....
4. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by budgenator · 2014-05-17 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Dye packets in the bottles, like they use in Bank robberies would be interesting as well.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
5. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by Pinhedd · 2014-05-17 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Egh, if they really want to deter robberies they should pack them with high explosives and shrapnel.
6. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  [n/t]
  'Cos that will foil the tracker. ;)
7. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  When the previous commissioner announced it, I would find it difficult to believe the local media wasn't utilized to make criminals aware of it. And the best advertising is free advertising, aka headlines of --a man shot to death-- from a GPS tracking pill bottle. While it will make criminals aware of these GPS tracking devices, word of mouth and other sources will as well, and those same sources will give out advice on how to defeat the tracking.
  Its a catch 22 if you will, you make them aware to frighten them, thus maybe they rethink its not a good idea to rob a drug store, but in doing so they become more aware of it, and will find ways to combat your little GPS catching scheme. You make it sound as if their unaware of anything because they are drugged out, but they have the resources and the energy to acquire a gun, then go out and rob, so they are resourceful.
8. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by gl4ss · 2014-05-17 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  nah.. you're not thinking inside the bottle.
  explosive diarrhea pills labeled as "super fun time"..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
9. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by Shoten · 2014-05-18 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  Dye packets in the bottles, like they use in Bank robberies would be interesting as well.
  I think you fail to understand how cash and pills work, particularly in how they are packaged.
  Money, you see, is mostly validated using visual means. A vendor tells me that something costs $15, and I hand over two bills...one that is worth $10 and one that is worth $5. He/she then looks at said bills, seeing that they are indeed money and also in the right denominations, and the transaction is concluded. If I hand over two $1 bills, the transaction will fail, or if I hand over pieces of paper that feel like money but aren't, then the transaction also fails. Conversely, at my end, I'm checking to see the value of the bills (and that they are the right kind of currency as well, in my case, since I have both euros and dollars in my wallet) are what I need to complete the transaction. So right there, two different parties check each bill once, visually.
  Furthermore, the fact that money is visually assessed so frequently and by multiple parties makes for value in 'destroying' money by marking it in a manner that indicates that it has been wrongfully acquired. Marking from a dye pack accomplishes this. So, a dye pack destroys money by rendering it visually tainted.
  Pills on the other hand, are stored inside bottles. The thing about bottles is that they are intended both to keep the pills together and facilitate physical shipping and inventory in pre-defined quantities, and also to protect them against contamination. And people who are buying prescription meds already assume that they are wrongfully acquired...and even if they are not, they are about to be anyways, so visual marking wouldn't matter on the bottles in the first place. Indeed, it may even help confirm that the goods are of high quality for having been stolen from a reputable source. And while money must be transferable between illicit and licit actors to retain its usefulness (what good is money you can only pay crooks with?), drugs that enter the black market stay there, so nobody cares if the law was broken in their acquisition. So a dye pack is useless in the context of prescription medication and may actually serve as an accidental validation of the provenance of the stolen goods.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
10. Re: use a foil-lined bag. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Great, instead of keeping that bit of info to yourself you put it out there to help the criminals, this is why we have a police state.
11. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by budgenator · 2014-05-18 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  because sooner or later somebody is going to take the pills out of the very obvious manufactureer's bottle and either swallow some or repackage them, (probably both) and when they do pop goes the dye pack.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
12. Re:use a foil-lined bag. by bruce_the_loon · 2014-05-18 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Signal blocked right until you pull the bottle out again. Then it pings home with your home address.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 05:52 · Score: -1, Troll

Evidence points to this guy having committed armed robbery against other pharmacies on at least 4 other occasions, in addition to drawing a firearm against police officers when caught. Take this into consideration before you start to blame guns, cops etc. for him dying.
1. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Improv · 2014-05-17 06:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not all of us on the left have a problem with this.
  
  --
  For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
2. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by ultranova · 2014-05-17 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Evidence points to this guy having committed armed robbery against other pharmacies on at least 4 other occasions, in addition to drawing a firearm against police officers when caught. Take this into consideration before you start to blame guns, cops etc. for him dying.
  
  Hmm. You left out the 16-year prison sentence the guy already had behind him for "sexual abuse and robbery convictions", which seems odd for someone genuinely defending the police here. You also jump to the rather ridiculous conclusion that there's a "PC leftist crowd" ready to condemn the police for shooting an armed nutcase who pulled a gun on them. Are you simply a troll hoping to initiate a left-right tribal battle over what seems a pretty clear case of a violent career criminal making his final mistake?
  That said, we could once again blame the War on Drugs, which makes it profitable to rob damn painkillers at gunpoint. If people who want high could get high legally, and people who want to get completely messed up could do so in licensed places with medical and security staff, we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of shit. Nor would places like Mexico need to deal with their derived problems.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
3. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Happy to hear it.
4. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  "You also jump to the rather ridiculous conclusion that there's a "PC leftist crowd" ready to condemn the police for shooting an armed nutcase who pulled a gun on them."
  Exactly what western society do you come from where this ISN'T the case?!
5. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you're what was called a Democrat, before the progressive retards destroyed our party.
6. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-17 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  If people who want high could get high legally, and people who want to get completely messed up could do so in licensed places with medical and security staff, we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of shit. Nor would places like Mexico need to deal with their derived problems.
  Sigh. We'd end up with less crime, less harm to society and lesser insurance premiums; people might even begin to feel safe again.
  "Yes, yes, but how will these policies further enrich the 1%? What, It won't? Oh. Forget it then."
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
7. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  The thing you forget with legalization is that nobody wants to (or can afford to) hire a drugged up screwup, so even at legal prices, they'll probably have to steal to get their fix. I used to work for a factory. They're not overly hard to spot and they're way too accident prone, so they get weeded out. And yes, we weeded out those on legal drugs (alcoholics) as well. If you get paid on Thursday night and have a bad habit of no showing on the Friday after, it's not hard to figure out. In fact, it's the very first thing people assume because they've seen so much of it.
8. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yep that is the obvious way to solve it. (If having a job was a guaranteed way to secure what the addicts want at a price that can be afforded by doing the job then they would take the easiest option).
  Funny how Pawn Shops are not seen as part of the problem. (They are the primary way stolen goods are converted to money to buy drugs).
9. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-17 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yep that is the obvious way to solve it. (If having a job was a guaranteed way to secure what the addicts want at a price that can be afforded by doing the job then they would take the easiest option).
  Now you've done it; you're treating the drug-addicted as people with a solvable problem! Take this jab from the cattle-prod and bleat the party line "druggies are inhuman scum" thirty times as penance. Ahem, pardon my sarcasm. Unfortunately, solutions of varying efficacy are easily devised but no program will ever be attempted until attitudes shift.
  
  Funny how Pawn Shops are not seen as part of the problem. (They are the primary way stolen goods are converted to money to buy drugs).
  Now there's a good point that causes me to wonder if there's a non-obvious role pawn shops play. Maybe they cooperate with the police on bigger investigations so the boys in blue look the other way on the shadier aspects of the business. Just speculation.
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
10. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  You're assuming that addicts are rational, which makes you irrational. How much weed do you smoke?
11. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  "And people who want to get completely messed up could do so in licensed places with medical and security staff"
  Nope nope nope. This would never fly. You forgot the most important rule about drug use: No rules. No taxes. No cost. You must be able to use drugs anywhere, at any time, in any way you see fit. Any deviation from this is a violation of your rights, and the right to use drugs is more important than gender rights, minority rights, or gay rights. It is the penultimate right of every being on Earth.
  Now I agree with what you said completely, no doubt about it. But it is impossible to suggest that drug users should have any kind of control or limit on their use as you did. It must be in excess at all times with no strings attached, period. Drug users hate medical marijuana because you need a doctor's permission. Drug users hate decriminalized drugs because they only are permitted to have enough for personal use. Drug users hate marijuana dispensaries because they need to grow hundreds of plants within their own homes in the middle of a residential area. Drug users hate that drugs are taxed. Drug users hate the "soft on marijuana" stance because it's taking the limelight away from LSD, MDMA, special K, heroin, and their drug of choice.
  They are vocal in their disdain for any policy that allows drug use but imposes safety or responsibility on that use. They do not see what's happened in Colorado and Washington as a forward step in permissiveness of drug use, but a leap backwards in monetizing the sale of drugs and taking away accessibility of drugs from drug users.
  It doesn't matter that science has proven drugs are dangerous, it doesn't matter that people will be harmed by using drugs, it doesn't matter that people will lose their jobs, their families, their lives over drug dependency. That's the victim's problem, and they won't let that problem take away their own right to get high. If somebody dies, there must have been a preexisting condition. If somebody is injured, they were using drugs wrong. Drugs can't hurt people, and that's the only fact that matters. All medicine, science, and statistics that establish harm are wrong. All medicine, science, and statistics that support drug use are right.
  I hope you can understand that your suggestion, while rational, logical, reasonable, and sensible, has no place in our future that is saturated in drugs and drug use.
  Everyone must get high. End of story.
12. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Nor would places like Mexico need to deal with their derived problems."
  So you are saying that it is the USA's fault that poor Mexicans are forced to sell drugs to all those rich white USAians?
  Today the world is run by Gang Stars. There would be no drug problem if there was an actual war going on against it. When is the last time a drone launched a missle into a crack house. Instead the powers that be are indirectly profiting from the trade and so allow it to continue. Prisons in the USA, a totally locked downs society, have the highest drug abuse rate because the guards are all getting kick backs. Gang Stars and law enforcement are but buddies. Neither would be making the money they are with out the other. Sure they arrest some stoners and throw them in jail for years and keep them housed for $200 a day, to make some money for the prison corporation of America, but there is no war going on. If there was a war the dope dealers would be dead on the street. Instead we have a business enterprise going on that is making trillions of dollars off the backs of the weakest and most unfortunate (the drug addicts)
  Remember that before the Kennedys went into politics they were Gang Star bootleggers during prohibition. I guess there is more money to be made taxing than selling on the street.
13. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  Not all leftists are upset about this. He is one less polluter now for my main issue.
  And quite frankly, I would rather it be done and over with, than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, prison costs, and probation costs...
  But, hippies aren't against drug use, so it isn't the left that made it necessary to steal them. However, they need to be used correctly and America has a big time addiction problem.
14. Re:PC leftist crowd, ignore not; by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  "It is the penultimate right of every being on Earth."
  That word ... it does not mean what you think it means
Didn't deserve to die... by weave · 2014-05-17 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

OK let's get this out of the way...
He didn't deserve to die for stealing the pills... ... but soon as he chose to put the life of an officer in danger instead of surrendering, then he did.
1. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Known+Nutter · 2014-05-17 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  But, but... society forced him to steal the pills and carry a gun!
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
2. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly. He chose a shit drug that causes horrible withdrawals(providing it was a codeine of some sort) and then chose to rob a pharmacy to get it. Then on top of that made an even DUMBER decision to raise a gun to the police. Tell me how this was society forcing him.
3. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Smallpond · 2014-05-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  There are no withdrawal symptoms from GPS devices.
4. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody suggested otherwise.
5. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not exactly. If he had succeeded in killing the cop, and was later arrested, he would probably have been sentenced to life in prison.
  The officer killed him in self defense. Although the officer's actions were justified, self defense is not the normal justice system. If he had gone through a normal trial, for commiting a single murder, his punishment would have been different.
6. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He didn't deserve to die for stealing the pills... ... but soon as he chose to put the life of an officer in danger instead of surrendering, then he did.
  No, he didn't deserve to die for that, either.
  What he would've deserved for that is a fair and impartial trial, with a verdict handed down in accordance with the law, and, if found guilty, a fair sentence (which, depending on your opinion on such matters, might include the death penalty).
  The officer who killed him, meanwhile, acted in self-defense. And that's nothing one could blame him for, but to say that the robber deserved to die is a very, very different thing.
7. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:42 · Score: -1
  
  Republicans hate people that use drugs, and they want all of them murdered. A second best is to put them in a corporate prison run by a Republican. That is what they want for everyone that disagrees with them. In this case, yet another one of their violent employees decided to kill a drug user.
8. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-05-17 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  What he would've deserved for that is a fair and impartial trial, with a verdict handed down in accordance with the law, and, if found guilty, a fair sentence (which, depending on your opinion on such matters, might include the death penalty).
  And yet get ready for the chorus of people who will say we should have just had a hunter-killer drone in the sky to take this guy out rather than endanger the lives of officers.
  A chorus of voters.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by dcollins · 2014-05-17 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "police officials said"
  And police never gun down unthreatening people, and never lie about it afterward. Just sayin': you can't have anywhere close to 100% confidence about these cases.
  If I was on a jury I'd need video corroboration before believing anything asserted by police.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
10. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by ganjadude · 2014-05-17 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  cop killing for some reason is considered 1st degree murder, and can carry the death penalty
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
11. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by rk · 2014-05-17 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, in the US anyways, we have this concept called "innocent until proven guilty*" and that cuts both ways. Believe me, I'm no fan of the direction of modern "law enforcement" with its increasingly paramilitary outlook, and I don't trust the police** much at all. But on a jury? If there's no evidence they're lying, you shouldn't convict because they might be lying.
  * - I know. I've been on enough juries to know this is laughable in the real world. If I'm ever accused of a crime, I will waive my right to jury trial unless I'm going for the hail mary of jury nullification.
  ** - but I don't trust organizations of any kind. YMMV. I trust in individuals, and there are a couple cops out there who have earned it from me.
12. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by misexistentialist · 2014-05-17 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently he was stealing Viagra, the cop had no right to come between a man and his lifesaving medication.
13. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by ooshna · 2014-05-17 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  If a criminal points a gun at an officer they are pretty much waving their rights to a trial, hell they are waving their rights to live at that point. Police officers deal will dangerous people everyday and every year police officers die in the line of duty. If I was a cop I wouldn't think twice at shooting someone pointing a gun at me. At that point is it really worth risking the chance that the other person is just bluffing?
14. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-05-17 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how you define 'deserve'. If you define it as getting the appropriate & expected result of one's actions, then I'd say he deserved it, as you should expect to get killed if you raise a gun at a cop. If by deserve you mean he got an appropriate punishment for his action, then I'd say he didn't deserve it.
15. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by plover · 2014-05-17 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  And yet get ready for the chorus of people who will say we should have just had a hunter-killer drone in the sky to take this guy out rather than endanger the lives of officers.
  A chorus of voters.
  At least that would be news for nerds. Arguing about the death of a perp who pulled a gun on a cop is just stupid.
  
  --
  John
16. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Fwipp · 2014-05-17 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Whooshed.
17. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  There are no withdrawal symptoms from GPS devices.
  He was having a bad case of lead withdrawal, so they gave him what he needed.
18. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by camperdave · 2014-05-17 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry. Did you say wifesaving medication?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
19. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by fustakrakich · 2014-05-17 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  ...but soon as he chose to put the life of an officer in danger instead of surrendering, then he did.
  Because the cops, never lie..
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
20. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by LVSlushdat · 2014-05-17 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  In the "new" America, you don't even have to *have* a gun (let alone *pull* it) to get shot by *some* police forces.. You just have to move and you either get a a lead enema or at least a taser that may/may not put you 6 feet under like the lead... Having said that, if this bozo had a record of other robberies AND pulled a gun on a cop, the cop was well within his rights to blow the guy away.. end of story...
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
21. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by ooshna · 2014-05-17 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  No. Record or not you DO NOT point a gun at a police officer. Even more so when the whole point of the GPS pill bottles were because of the violent and sometimes deadly nature of the robberies.
22. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  OK let's get this out of the way...
  He didn't deserve to die for stealing the pills...
  That's Exactly why he deserved to die. Why do you liberal assholes think that theft is a victimless crime?
  This bastard won't be stealing anything else, thanks to fast police action.
23. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  "Suicide by cop" is a legitimate suicide method.
24. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by thegarbz · 2014-05-17 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  In view of hundreds of witnesses while stuck in traffic? Because that's the scenario in this case. In all for the all police are self protecting liars line but at the moment I'm not seeing the public outcry usually associates with excessive use of force.
25. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:38 · Score: -1
  
  That's because you smoke pot. You pot smokers are all the same.
26. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  that cuts both ways
  No it doesn't. If you take innocent until proven guilty to mean that the cops are innocent of lying until proven guilty, that would mean the public is always assumed to be guilty until the police are proven to be lying.
  Innocent until proven guilty means you have to assume the police are always lying, until they manage to prove otherwise.
27. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  The story is about new types of tracking devices, which is nerd-worthy.
28. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Sarten-X · 2014-05-17 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm usually a member of that chorus.
  A drone's life is never at stake*. A drone is never in a kill-or-be-killed situation. If the suspect shoots down a drone, we tack on a charge of vandalism and send in another to watch. Any mounted weaponry can stay safely deactivated unless the suspect threatens a civilian. Then, with a few levels of commanding officers overseeing the situation, the order to fire can be given to protect the civilians.
  Giving armed drones to police isn't an issue of having more heavily-armed cops... they already have all the firepower they need. Rather, the goal is to be able to keep officers out of danger, and separate the weapon and emotions. Those of us in that voting chorus want a world where the use of force is not decided by fear or heat-of-the-moment judgement, but rather by deliberate consideration by those who never have to worry about having a target on their foreheads.
  * Let's not start making sentient drones... that's just begging for problems.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
29. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  Deserve's got nothin' to do with it. -- Will Munny
30. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  cop killing for some reason is considered 1st degree murder, and can carry the death penalty
  It was in New York, where the Death Penalty was abolished in 2007, so no.
31. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Reziac · 2014-05-18 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  A lawyer/judge friend once advised me that when a case regards a subject the public knows little or nothing about, it's easier to convince one ignorant person (judge) than 12 ignorant persons (jury).
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
32. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by onproton · 2014-05-18 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  What he would've deserved for that is a fair and impartial trial, with a verdict handed down in accordance with the law, and, if found guilty, a fair sentence (which, depending on your opinion on such matters, might include the death penalty).
  There is such a think as a fair and impartial trial anymore? Maybe he was better off dead and he knew it.
33. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  If we jailed fewer people and executed more of them, and streamlined the death row process, we wouldn't need so many overflowing jails. It'd cut way down on recidivism too.
  Or we could make a genuine effort to rehabilitate them into a production member of society, that is also an effective way to cut down recidivism.
  In a civilized society we shouldn't be killing other people, not if there is any reasonable way to avoid it.
34. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by DarwinSurvivor · 2014-05-18 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  In a situation where a Alice shot Bob but says that Bob threatened Alice first (and thus it was self defence), there would actually be 2 questions. Question A is "Is Alice guilty of murder" and question B is "Is Bob guilty of assault (the legal term for a threat against your life)". If there is not enough evidence in either direction, the court CAN actually declare them both "not guilty". This is because North American courts cannot actually declare someone "innocent" (we believe you didn't commit the crime), only "guilty" (We believe you committed the crime) and "not guilty" (We don't believe you committed the crime). There is a significant difference between believing (being convinced) someone didn't do something and not believing (not being convinced) they did it.
35. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by CauseBy · 2014-05-19 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  The rhetoric of "deserves to die" is irrelevant. The question isn't did he "deserve" to die but was killing him reasonable given the circumstances? This is a judgement call. As a participant in the democracy which sets rules for stuff like this, in my opinion yes it was reasonable.
36. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by CauseBy · 2014-05-19 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's true, more or less. The average murder sentence is for a lot less than life in prison, but the average sentence for killing a cop is longer.
  Personally I don't normally use the "self defense" phrase for police officers. We normal folks use "self defense" but I would say that a police officer killed someone "in the line of duty".
37. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by dcollins · 2014-05-19 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Despite not smoking pot, I do very much hope it gets legalized everywhere. That way you can lose your fascist job enforcing it and get to be a raving, irrelevant full-time drunk supported by your mom.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
38. Re:Didn't deserve to die... by dcollins · 2014-05-19 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  "you shouldn't convict [a law enforcement officer] because they might be lying."
  I would *love* for an independent agency to investigate shootings like this, and bring evidence to a prosecutor, and having the prosecutor bring the case to court and a jury, and if the evidence is weak or murky have the jury apply the "innocent until proven guilty" (or specifically, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt") principle. That would be great. But we both know that none of that will happen, police almost always get a free pass on shootings like this. We are not within even several country miles of a jury being seated to make a decision in any case like this.
  My point was that I do not give credence to police either in a public statement (which great-grandparent poster took at face value), nor separately in cases when police testify for the prosecution of some other person (by far the most common case), when I am on a jury.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Appropriate spying. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 05:52 · Score: -1

nt
Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 05:53 · Score: 0

Couldn't they just check all the bottles before lifting them off their base then throw the decoys/base in someone else's bin?
1. Re:Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:13 · Score: -1
  
  Think that one through just a little longer.
2. Re: Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Most criminals are not that smart. Pharmacy robbing drug addicts even less so.
3. Re:Huge flaw? by Opportunist · 2014-05-17 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Now take a wild guess what's going to happen next. Thieves are not dumb and word gets around.
  That's a bit like the trojan horse. A great idea that worked. Once. Never has since. This actually MIGHT work a few times, but eventually thieves will either find a way to disable the decoys or avoid them.
  In general, I expect the development of that tracking toy to cost more than it will eventually prevent in crimes. That's going to work a few times, the dumber thieves will bite it, and in the end you'll soon end up with pharmacies robbed where the tracking device is being left behind as a "fuck you" statement.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Huge flaw? by Baloroth · 2014-05-17 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  That requires the robbers to take time to inspect the bottles, or develop some quick method of identifying them (which is probably very difficult). Either way, it makes committing a robbery more difficult, which is the real point. You can't stop crime, not without truly draconian measures. You can, however, make it difficult enough for it to not be an enticing prospect for criminals or potential criminals.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
5. Re: Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Most people who are smarter than pharmacy robbing drug addicts would still get caught by this, due to the intensity of the situation making it difficult to think clearly. Never mind that GPS-trapped decoy pill bottles probably aren't common knowledge.
6. Re:Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Can't they just put them in a potato chip (Mylar) bag?
7. Re:Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Now take a wild guess what's going to happen next. Thieves are not dumb and word gets around.
  Actually, in many cases they are dumb, very very dumb. This has been proven over and over again.
8. Re:Huge flaw? by camperdave · 2014-05-17 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's a bit like the trojan horse. A great idea that worked. Once. Never has since.
  Ahem!
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
9. Re:Huge flaw? by Opportunist · 2014-05-17 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  So it works every what? 5000 years?
  Thanks for the link, btw, I especially love how they tried it at the Turkish embassy with "We have a gift from the Greeks here...". Classic!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:Huge flaw? by camperdave · 2014-05-17 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the wooden horse idea itself may not be popular these days, but the concept of hiding something malicious inside something desirable in order to bypass security is alive and well: USB flash drives that someone 'lost' in the parking lot, various browser toolbar addons, etc.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
11. Re:Huge flaw? by ComputersKai · 2014-05-18 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  What about people who actually need the pills, and pick these up?
12. Re:Huge flaw? by Opportunist · 2014-05-18 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's safe to assume that we're not talking about simple over-the-counter stuff, and the staff that hands out the prescription medication would know which one are fake.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:Huge flaw? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  What about people who actually need the pills, and pick these up?
  Wow. You are beyond stupid.
Interesting concept by scottbomb · 2014-05-17 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

The usual story burglary victims hear is that they'll likely never get their stuff back. I can install a GPS transmitter inside one of my computers or my guitar. As a ham radio operator, I can use APRS which is trackable almost anywhere. Very interesting.
1. Re:Interesting concept by pauljlucas · 2014-05-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I can install a GPS transmitter inside one of my computers or my guitar. As a ham radio operator, I can use APRS which is trackable almost anywhere.
  
  And they've already got it.
  
  --
  If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
2. Re:Interesting concept by phantomfive · 2014-05-17 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The usual story burglary victims hear is that they'll likely never get their stuff back. I can install a GPS transmitter inside one of my computers or my guitar.
  
  You still won't get it back. The police will file a report and put the report in storage.
  
  Unless you have a lawyer write a letter to the police. Then they will act quickly to find it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:Interesting concept by Animats · 2014-05-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  And they've already got it.
  No, that's an ad for "Tile". Range 50 to 150 feet to nearest iPhone with the Tile app. Lifespan of one year.
  It's another one of those "preorder" scams - pay now, get delivery someday, maybe. "With your help, 49,586 backers preordered Tiles totaling $2,681,297." They're vague about how many were actually delivered.
4. Re:Interesting concept by dcollins · 2014-05-17 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  But none of that stuff counts as "drug war", so it's still not a priority and the cops still won't get it back for you. This has been demonstrated many times already with phone and laptop tracking apps.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
5. Re:Interesting concept by AaronW · 2014-05-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I alreay use a product called Stick'n'Find. It's like Tile except it has a user-replacable battery and is available now. It also supports Android. It also provides a SDK and will sense temperature.
  
  --
  This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
6. Re:Interesting concept by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-17 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  Even today a GPS tracker is not trivial tech though, the sort of thing a consumer might want to buy. It needs a good battery, probably lithium. It needs a modem so it connect to the cell network and transmit its position periodically. To save the battery it might do that once a day, and the battery might last six months if it is a nice big D cell. Unfortunately lithium D cells have a lot of restrictions on them (e.g. for transportation. It needs a server to receive the location data too.
  So really a GPS tracker of this type is only suitable for short term deployment where you know there is a high probability of it being stolen.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:Interesting concept by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  The real question is why did the cops go after this robbery, but never seem to go after the suspect who stole a mobile phone? And no, I do not want to hear all that crap about the insurance/phone industry wants you to buy another phone.
8. Re:Interesting concept by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  As a ham radio operator you should know that it is illegal to transmit without being in control of the transmitter. Using APRS in this way would be illegal, don't do it, this is not what it was intended for.
ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 05:56 · Score: -1, Troll

God bless America. A righteous land among the nations, where the police are angels of God's judgement!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by compucomp2 · 2014-05-17 05:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them. What do you want the police to do, let the dude shoot them?
2. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Corny, you're losing it big time.
3. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by spiritplumber · 2014-05-17 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah, if there's one time when lethal force is justified, it's this. Doesn't excuse scumbags tazing grannies, but kudos to this officer for handling a dangerous situation optimally.
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
4. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them.
  In Britain, the police have to call in backup who carry guns. The regular patrolmen only get nightsticks and whistles.
5. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In Britain, the regular patrolmen are not tracking GPS devices in pill bottles. That would be the special police forces, who do carry weapons.
6. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, the patrolmen don't have guns? What if someone shoots at them?
  "Sir, I don't have a gun. Would you please don't shoot at me until my associates arrive?"
7. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:27 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Actually the cop will be disciplined and demoted as that is one less body for his corporate overlords to make a profit off in a private jail.
8. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  In most countries thiefs has no gun to raise.
9. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by tapi0 · 2014-05-17 06:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Generally, people don't shoot at them. Strange concept relating to NOT HAVING SO MANY F***ING GUNS.
10. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Opportunist · 2014-05-17 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe it's an outlandish concept to some, but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society. They tend to expect society to work WITH them, not AGAINST them.
  Of course, it's usually different in dictatorships.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by m00sh · 2014-05-17 06:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them. What do you want the police to do, let the dude shoot them?
  There is no video showing that the guy raised his gun. Note that he didn't actually fire, just raised his gun.
  Police will shoot and kill first and then say yeah, he raised his gun. Then, people like you will say, umm, its justified and be happy.
12. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-17 06:52 · Score: -1
  
  I will have to reserve judgement as there are many very significant facts which are unclear. Foremost among them: what was the perpetrator's race? Far from being prejudicial or bigoted, this is very important information about his motivations and chance of recidivism. Barring a civilized scientific society wherein everyone is fMRI-scanned at all times for just this purpose, it is our social and financial responsibility to use all available data in evaluating the worth of individual humanity.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
13. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by ganjadude · 2014-05-17 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  exactly, I mean this armed criminal just robbed a pharmacy, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt....
  
  I agree with you in principle, but this case looks to be pretty clearcut
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
14. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Realistically, in other countries, they trade firearms for an effective police department that actually goes after criminals. Here in the US, cities prize their commercial sports teams, so basic services get the scraps of what's left. That is why, if there is a home invasion, pretty much you are at the mercy of the intruder in most of the US.
  People talk about shooting burglars, but most places, they have more rights than the homeowner, and a shot burglar usually means the homeowner is going to prison for a long time, not the intruder.
15. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  "Don't shoot or I'll yell, don't shoot again!"
16. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by HairyNevus · 2014-05-17 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I know there's a lot of sentiment in that regard-- in general. But this isn't the time or place.
  
  --
  You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
17. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by _Shad0w_ · 2014-05-17 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  It rarely happens. A beat officer is unlikely to ever find themselves facing a suspect armed with a firearm in the UK. Most gun crime in the UK is gang-on-gang, they seldom use guns against the police. Which isn't to say that it never happens, but when it does it's noteworthy simply because of its rarity. The other times you get armed suspect will be hostage type situations, at which point armed officers automatically get deployed anyway.
  The only place you'll find routinely armed police officers in the UK are at airports, MOD plods (civilian police responsible for policing MOD property), and the CNC (Civil Nuclear Constabulary - responsible for policing nuclear establishments in the UK).
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
18. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Because COPS SAID SO.
  Bullshit.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
19. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think you need to have your satire module re-calibrated, Unit AC.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
20. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  We don't know that. It might have been the cop that robbed the pharmacy and then conveniently found this innocent man. Unfortuneately the man passed away before he could defend himself.
21. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  "He shot first."
  Every cop says that, and he gets up, off the handcuffed body, face down on the pavement.
  Every paper reports the claim of police spokesmen, as if it were a factual record.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
22. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by nurb432 · 2014-05-17 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  You go on believing that. Ignorance is bliss.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
23. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by LilWolf · 2014-05-17 07:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them. What do you want the police to do, let the dude shoot them?
  The difference comes from the fact that when this happens in the USA the cops shoot to kill. When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)..or they don't shoot at all and instead take cover and negotiate the guy into dropping the gun.
24. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It ALWAYS looks clearcut, when the "news reporting" of an incident consists of stenography for the police department and District Attorney.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
25. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Independent verification of police claims?
  ZERO
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
26. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by MightyMartian · 2014-05-17 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Whether I was a cop or not, if someone raised a gun and I possessed a gun, I would most certainly not wait to find out what his next move might be.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
27. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Angeret · 2014-05-17 07:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's an escalation thing. Due to the relative scarcity of guns in the UK, if criminals started to carry them as standard kit they'd be up against a lot of unfriendly cops who are generally better trained with better hardware. It would end badly in a country where the average unarmed robbery will get you a few years at worst and a kiss on the cheek and community service at least, if not acquittal on a technicality. Using a gun can up your sentence to something unpleasant, so most sane robbers don't carry them. Where nutjobs are concerned, anything goes and most of the rest of the criminal fraternity tend to avoid them. Killing a cop is just as bad here as in the US so you have to be *way* past desperate to go that route. And really stupid.
28. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by camperdave · 2014-05-17 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. Race has nothing to do with it. The fact that not only do you think it might, but that it is foremost, indicates that bigotry and prejudice are alive and well in your heart.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
29. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is the problem.
  Not enough guns.
  If you had more guns then you would need more guns.
  Because more guns is the answer to all gun related issues.
30. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-17 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  " As officers closed in, the man pointed a handgun in the direction of at least one of the officers; one or more of the officers opened fire, killing the man, the police said."
  Well. The police said it. They never lie. They said it to the New York Times. They never lie.
  Good enough for me. I sure am glad to pay for a bunch more of those GPS bottles. Maybe they should put one of those GPS things on EVERYBODY! We'll a be a LOT safer.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
31. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by rholtzjr · 2014-05-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed!!!.
  The officer did nothing wrong in the described situation. I would have done the same thing had someone raised a gun at me as well.
32. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by HairyNevus · 2014-05-17 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose given the sketchiness on some details, ("As officers closed in, the man pointed a handgun in the direction of at least one of the officers; one or more of the officers opened fire, killing the man, the police said.") and there's always a possibility of planted evidence you have a point. But cops aren't soldiers, (well, shouldn't be) so some confusion from the shootout is to be expected. On the other hand, the dead man's past record sort of seals the deal that this was legit.
  I guess we're stuck at "news breaks fast, stories take years".
  
  --
  You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
33. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by tomhath · 2014-05-17 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, except for the dozens of witnesses.
34. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by EuclideanSilence · 2014-05-17 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)...
  If a person was leveling a gun at me, and known to be in possession of pain killers, I probably wouldn't shoot him in the leg.
35. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by HairyNevus · 2014-05-17 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  I forgot to add this to a different reply of mine: more transparency from police should be a hot button issue in the U.S. I'd vote for just about anyone who campaigned for third-party investigations of police shootings. Looks like there's at least one bill, but not in my state.
  
  --
  You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
36. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sounds like suicide by cop. Maybe the idiot didn't want to go to jail.
37. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  There's a Han and Greedo joke here somewhere....
38. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society.
  
  Only if you define 'civilized' as 'most police don't carry guns'. Most police in Europe carry guns. Most police around the world carry guns. The UK and Norway don't get to dominate the stats.
  I'm not saying that we don't have problems, I'd LOVE to reform our police and justice systems here in the USA, but routine carrying of arms isn't one of them. My view is if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted to be an officer.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
39. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-17 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  From the comments I've read I'm pretty sure many of us here consider the US police little more than trigger-happy thugs.
  That said, I feel in this case they responded appropriately. The thief almost certainly knew the score; my money's on Suicide By Cop.
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
40. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  "Just raised a gun" to a cop. That will generally get you shot 100/100 times. If you don't get that, then by all means plese try this yourself.
  Cops have a tough job. Some are complete a-holes. But its kind of rediculous to expect cops to give someone the benifit of the doubt when they have gun pointed at them. There are places in Merica, (like Florida) where you don't even need to be a cop to shoot someone who is pointing a gun/knife/hoodie at you.
  Bottom line, point a gun at a cop, expect to die. Some people know this and exploit it. Its call suicide by cop.
41. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by 517714 · 2014-05-17 07:56 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
42. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Do you happen to have a source on Finnish officers shooting 'to incapacitate'? Much less in the leg? Because my self-defense and military training is that a leg shot is both potentially fatal(big arteries there, fast bleedout) and not likely to be incapacitating(if you don't hit the artery they can still fight).
  By my training 'Center of Mass' shots, IE to the chest, is both an easier shot to hit with, is more likely to actually incapacitate, and given prompt medical attention not actually all that more likely to be fatal.
  I shoot to 'stop', not to 'wound' or 'kill'.
  That being said, I'm all for officers using negotiation instead of gunfire were possible. But if that trigger has to be pulled, it needs to be pulled in the most effective manner possible.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
43. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by milkmage · 2014-05-17 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  traffic = other people = witnesses
  "The police official said the GPS device helped lead the police to the man, who was confronted as his 2007 Jeep was stuck in traffic on a service road beneath the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive at East 96th Street. "
  "He served about 16 years in prison during two stints between 1990 and 2008 for sexual abuse and robbery convictions, according to state records."
44. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:04 · Score: -1
  
  are the "civilized" countries also overrun with violent blacks who go around robbing and shooting everyone?
45. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Idarubicin · 2014-05-17 08:09 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)...
  That's a special brand of gullible you have, wherever it is you're from. The only place where police deliberately take non-lethal, specifically-incapacitating shots with a firearm is in the movies.
  
  ...or they don't shoot at all and instead take cover and negotiate the guy into dropping the gun.
  The only place where there is readily available, secure, bulletproof cover within a split-second's reach of every foot chase is, once again, in the movies. Seriously, dude. When someone fleeing an armed robbery points a gun at a cop, it's one of those occasions when use of deadly force by the police is actually justified, and not just "justified".
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
46. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-17 08:09 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I'm afraid that you are wrong. In fact, based on this and the rigorous science of Bayesian statistics, I suspect that it is highly probable that you may even be a black, a communist, or other undesirable. Please do not speak to me again.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
47. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CohibaVancouver · 2014-05-17 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Seriously, the patrolmen don't have guns? What if someone shoots at them?
  Due to strict gun control in the UK, very few criminals have guns, so police officers almost never have the risk of confronting an armed perpetrator. The criminals in the UK who *do* have guns are not petty thieves who are robbing pharmacies for narcotics.
48. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by samkass · 2014-05-17 08:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
  Do you have a source for that? According to the site linked below (which includes citations), "In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009, a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000. Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12, a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm." I couldn't find similar statistics for police officers, but you're obviously pretty sure of your facts so I thought I'd ask. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
49. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by milkmage · 2014-05-17 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  then what of this?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
  or do London Metro cops no longer carry guns, and that was just a temporary thing because this incident happened in the weeks following the bus bombings (and immediately following attempted bombings the day before)?
50. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  The US is far more violent than Britain...
  Wow wow wow, stop there for a minute. No one is suggesting that britain is the model here.
51. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Be suspicious if the video footage got sent off to Industrial Light and Magic before making it to the evidence lockers.
52. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by LilWolf · 2014-05-17 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  There are several instances where Finnish police have shot a threatening person in the leg to solve the situation. Since it has been mostly reported in only Finnish media I can't give you English sources. But here's one in Finnish. The thing is, they don't shoot in the thigh where the big arteries are. They shoot below the knee so the biggest damage can be avoided.
  
  http://yle.fi/uutiset/poliisi_...
53. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Opportunist · 2014-05-17 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. Probably because we don't discriminate against them.
  Ya know, people are more willing to accept your rules if they feel you accept them, too. It's kinda a mutual thing.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
54. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  In what country do the cops not use guns??? In Great Britain regular beat officers don't carry guns. They used to in certain high crime areas, in other parts of the common wealth they do carry guns. However; from my gleaming of information available to me; They definitely would show up with guns if they expected to find an armed robber at the location. I think they would run out of officers wiling to do that job pretty quickly, otherwise.
  Also, All countries enforce their laws at the barrel of a gun, even tax laws. Here is a thought experiment, What happens if you don't pay your taxes?? They will eventually come to arrest you or at least take your property. If you attempt to resist, they will escalate the amount of force they use. If you have a deadly weapon and basic armor even just full body leather welding equipment with face shield and gas mask which is enough to stop all non-lethal weapons. The government is going to use lethal force to stop you. And probably won't even try to stop you by non-lethal means if you have a gun. It's not worth an officers life to try to save someone who is willing to kill them. Now, Am in no way against this. The laws need to be enforced. But I feel that voters don't get what they're doing when they vote. They are voting for people who will have the power to point guns at them and other members of society.
  PS, In many countries the army brought out to control small or even potential riots but not in USA.
55. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it's an outlandish concept to some, but criminals don't tend to work WITH society. They tend to work AGAINST it, otherwise they would not have chosen to be criminals.
56. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by ArmoredDragon · 2014-05-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all too familiar with this mentality. When somebody has been in prison more than once, they often develop the mental state of "I can NOT go to jail again" and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it, even when they KNOW they deserve it. This guy clearly did - armed robbery to steal narcotics? Yeah that's going to put you away for a while, especially as a repeat offender. This decoy bottle caught him red handed, so there's not really any doubt about his guilt.
57. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Who Cares?
  The fucking thief is dead, that's all that counts.
  Nothing more needs to be said.
58. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by phantomfive · 2014-05-17 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  what was the perpetrator's race? Far from being prejudicial or bigoted, this is very important information about his motivations
  What on earth could a person's race tell you about their motivations?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
59. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  My view is if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted to be an officer.
  Amen, sir. Although it seems to me that fewer of them have demonstrated their trustworthiness with weapons than who are trusted to be officers.
60. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:42 · Score: -1
  
  Leave it to fuckin' Jerimiah Cornelius, whose opinions are so fucking important that he insists on barging his fat ass to the top of the fucking queue, by replying, off-topic, to the frosty pisser. What a douche.
61. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you've never actually taken "painkillers". ProTip: they don't actually kill pain, they just make you not care about relatively minor pains. You still feel pain, and no matter how much dope the guy was on, being shot would still put him down.
62. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:54 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  The UK only counts a murder if there is a conviction. The numbers are all lies.
63. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Police will shoot and kill first and then say yeah, he raised his gun.
  Then... don't carry ? If you reserve the right to kill your opponents on the spot, then the society (as represented by these here cops) has the right to defend against you, should you rebel against it. Even if you are not carrying, the fact that you live in a country where people carry should change your behavior around law enforcement: nu sudden moves, don't reach for the wallet, keep hands visible, firmly but calmly state your point etc.
  Law enforcement has a violence privilege so that I can lead a peaceful and non-violent life.
64. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by xvan · 2014-05-17 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  citation needed... It sounds too stupid to be true.
65. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by The+Snowman · 2014-05-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  People talk about shooting burglars, but most places, they have more rights than the homeowner, and a shot burglar usually means the homeowner is going to prison for a long time, not the intruder.
  [Citation Needed].
  Here in Ohio, if you come in my house against my will, the law authorized me to shoot to kill. The police and the family of the intruder are forbidden from suing me unless the incident meets certain criteria that are very difficult to meet (essentially, I welcome someone in then shoot).
  ORC 2901.09 No duty to retreat.
  ORC 2901.05 Burden of proof for self-defense.
  
  --
  24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
66. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by EvolutionInAction · 2014-05-17 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not that they don't trust the officers with a gun, it's that everybody knows that patrolmen don't have guns. Why spend money to get a gun when you know that you're not at risk of being shot at to start? And then why shoot at an officer who you know won't shoot at you?
  The idea is that it lowers the stakes all around.
67. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Nutria · 2014-05-17 09:07 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Strange concept relating to NOT HAVING SO MANY F***ING GUNS.
  Why do so few people have guns in Europe, Japan, China? Because they're the descendants of peasants who willingly kowtowed when their monarchs said "you're not allowed to have guns".
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
68. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between police forces who have armed units, and "most police [officers] carry guns".
  Most members of the police in the UK do NOT carry guns.
69. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-17 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  What you say makes sense if your opponent is also military trained, but most criminals are not and are pretty unlikely to carry on fighting once shot. At the very least being shot in the leg will throw them off balance and give them a chance to drop the gun and surrender. If they don't the cop can shoot again.
  Unfortunately the UK police have a similar policy of aiming for the body first, and a lot of innocent people die. Often they are unarmed, but the police think they have a weapon so decide to fire. Actually its worse than that, they tend to fire they they can't determine that you definitely don't have a weapon, like say you are under bedsheets or have your hands in your pockets.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
70. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-17 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Citation? French and German police don't routinely carry guns. Japanese police don't. Australian police don't. I couldn't find any world wide stats, but I know from personal experience that it is more than just the UK and Norway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
71. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Australian police definitely do. And they carry tazers and capsicum spray.
  (Source: I live there.)
  And there's a pretty low instance if gun violence because we have strong gun laws which I'm a fan of.
72. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  This is a pretty clear-cut case, but there are definitely a lot of gray areas, such as when an officer thinks a suspect is "reaching" for a concealed gun but the suspect was actually unarmed.
  It's a split-second judgement call in a tense situation, and when a mistake happens (either killing a non-dangerous person, or failing to take the shot and letting an officer or bystander get killed) it can be hard to say whether the training/judgement was really valid or not, whether there was sufficient warning given, etc.
73. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  I want US cops to kill as many goblins as they can so long as the shoots are legitimate.
  It's a military situation, and I take the military viewpoint that I want my enemies dead.
74. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by penguinoid · 2014-05-17 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  When somebody has been in prison more than once, they often develop the mental state of "I can NOT go to jail again" and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it, even when they KNOW they deserve it.
  Saves the taxpayers a bunch of money in courts and jail time (less any psychological counseling the cop may require). Also promotes the fact that some people consider jail more cruel and unusual than a death sentence.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
75. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-17 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  surely you can't be serious. your signature suggests that you reject the political correctness of our decadent age, and yet you persist in such intellectual folly? why? whom do you think you serve and for what prize?
  the glorious science of fMRI has inherited the mantle of phrenology (itself too brilliant for its time despite its many flaws; homeopathy it certainly was not!) and will in short order vindicate the maligned theories of racial differences. the motivation of the negro is all too simple, and the calisthenics involved in the rejection of this recognition are all the proof i need of its validity.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
76. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by penguinoid · 2014-05-17 11:31 · Score: 2
  
  Just to clarify, I think the war on drugs is stupid and the guy should never have had monetary incentives to steal painkillers. I think it's sad that our police state initiative for funding criminals caused yet another death.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
77. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by BMoore60610 · 2014-05-17 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
78. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by phantomfive · 2014-05-17 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Fascinating that you can write so many words without answering the question.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
79. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-17 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  not at all; fantasy and imagination are a lynchpin of the superiority and dominance of my race.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
80. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by sumdumass · 2014-05-17 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Video from a helmet cam or something would be nice in situations like this.
  Of course, details in the end could create problems because details aren't always obvious in a high risk scenario where life and limb may be in danger. But at least you will have a view from the police officer's perspective.
81. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by sumdumass · 2014-05-17 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  In Ohio, you also have the right to self defense in the State Constitution. I believe sections 1 and 4 protect these rights. So it isn't directly limited to the home if you are not in the process of breaking any other laws.
82. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  not at all; fantasy and imagination are a lynchpin of the superiority and dominance of my race.
  which is steadily becoming a minority. Good luck with that.
83. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  That's the most retarded thing I've heard in my life.
  All police officers are taught to shoot center mass. A shot to the arm or leg is more likely to miss, takes more time to aim, and might not stop the person from doing whatever it is you are trying to prevent.
  I hate pigs as much as the next guy, but once you've decided that you have to shoot someone you should do it right and shoot center mass.
  If you want to use non-lethal force, use a non-lethal weapon.
84. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by sumdumass · 2014-05-17 12:37 · Score: 2
  
  You only shoot someone if your life is in danger. If you purposely only shoot them in the leg, obviously, your life wasn't in danger.
  This is a problem. When you legitimize shooting a person for reasons other then stopping them from seriously harming or killing you or someone else, you end up with bullets flying around unnecessarily that can stray and kill and unintended victim.
  You don't aim for the leg, you aim to stop the threat and only do it when the threat is to the life or serious bodily harm that could end the life to you or another person. Guns are not toys, they are not batons used to subdue criminals. They are a means to protect life by taking life and need to be taken seriously when used by people we employ for our protection.
85. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Strict gun laws in the UK didn't prevent that one guy from going on a rampage for half a day and killing and injuring a whole bunch of people, including police.
  They never even managed to stop him. In the end he killed himself if I remember correctly.
86. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by rholtzjr · 2014-05-17 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed! I would put no blame on the officer in this scenario. I would have done the same thing if a gun was trying to be pointing my way.
87. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CohibaVancouver · 2014-05-17 12:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Strict gun laws in the UK didn't prevent that one guy from going on a rampage for half a day and killing and injuring a whole bunch of people, including police.
  Of course there will always be edge cases, but the facts speak for themselves -
  
  USA Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 10.3
  UK Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 0.25
  
  Source:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
88. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by budgenator · 2014-05-17 13:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well the US is fairly unique as the rights and privileges of sovereignty are granted to the Government by the Governed, where in European Countries the opposite is true, soveignty is granted by God, throught the Church to the King and the people were chattle. The Monarchs didn't have to say "you're not allowed to have guns" because the default is all rights and privileges are deigned unless specifically allowed by the Sovereign; which in Europe is the Government, and in the US is the people.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
89. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by budgenator · 2014-05-17 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  When I was stationed in Germany we were taught that the Polezie will shoot you in the back if you are running, they order you to halt and you don't, that was in the 1974-77. The Polezie were armed with 9MM pistols, at airports they carried submachine gun and the Border patrol had armored personnel carriers.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
90. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by DrJimbo · 2014-05-17 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  You could get statistics by scrapping this page list of British police officers killed in the line of duty. I think it is roughly 71/248 or about 30%. I would not be surprised if the GP was correct and the percentage of British police officers killed by guns is greater than the percentage of US police officers. This could be due to the fact that British police don't have guns.
  But the percentages are terribly misleading if you don't look at the absolute numbers or per capita numbers. In the US, 500 people per year are killed by the police while in Britain only 30 people total have been killed by the police (up until 2005). Since Britain has 1/5th the population of the US, the total (over all years) per capita number of people killed in Britain by police is less than 1/3rd of the per capita killed in the US every year.
  Over 100 US police officers are killed in the line of duty each year while according to the page linked to above, the number of British police officers killed in the line of duty is 2 per year (this century). So on a per capita basis ten times as many US police officers get killed on duty than British police officers. If, as the GP states, roughly 30% of US police deaths on duty are due to firearms then it is 10 times more likely for a person in the US to gun down a police officer than someone in Britain.
  Whatever the exact numbers are, it is clear that the amount of police related gun violence in Britain is drastically lower than police related gun violence in the US on a per capita basis.
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
91. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by gandhi_2 · 2014-05-17 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  True. People have no responsibility for their actions. I should be able to steal peoples shit and use guns to commit violent crimes, because it's all someone elses fault. The government should be giving this guy tax-payer funded heroin!
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
92. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by gandhi_2 · 2014-05-17 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Stop or I'll toot!
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
93. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by budgenator · 2014-05-17 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  The difference comes from the fact that when this happens in the USA the cops shoot to kill. When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)..or they don't shoot at all and instead take cover and negotiate the guy into dropping the gun.
  If the Police are not shooting to kill, then they have insuffienct fear of loss of life or limb to shoot at all. A person can bleed out scary fast when there is a though hole in the femoral artery.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
94. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it's an outlandish concept to some, but in most civilized countries police doesn't deem it necessary to carry guns to protect themselves from the rest of society.
  
  You have both the mind and the life experience of a child.
  Many cities in the world have violent inhabitants who
  will only stop doing bad things when they are forced to
  stop.
  People like you make statements based on the premise that there could
  be no world other than the world they have personally experienced. Of
  course this is not true and what IS true is that you have no idea
  what is possible in the world you have not experienced.
95. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by amiga3D · 2014-05-17 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm with him. Better dead than jail in the US.
96. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Probably because we don't discriminate against them.
  You have no idea what you are talking about.
  The behavior of violent blacks has nothing to do with discrimination. Blacks
  have a greater propensity to violence. If you doubt this, take a look at various
  African countries where blacks are in charge and are also the overwhelming
  majority. There are no whites in power in those countries yet there is incredible
  violence.
  What a clueless fucktard like you needs is to be mugged by a street gang. You'd
  understand the errors in your thinking rather quickly after that.
97. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
  Do you have a source for that? According to the site linked below (which includes citations), "In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009, a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000. Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12, a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm." I couldn't find similar statistics for police officers, but you're obviously pretty sure of your facts so I thought I'd ask. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
  Unlike the U.S., the island states of Japan and Great Britain have had centuries of unilateral culturalism--only a century or so for Canada and the island continent of Australia; their populations being about 20 million caucasians each. Otoh, there are over 200 million homes of different cultures in the U.S containing firearms.
  Of the gun deaths in the States, most (about 65%) were suicides; others were related to self defense; and then there darwinian accidents.
  Here's an incomplete list (incomplete due to issues with authorities and the dissemination information) of an interactive breakdown of gun deaths for 75 of the 200 countries in 2014; interactive, because you can reorder a column by clicking on the column's header to see the countries with the most deaths by accident, suicide, murder or overall total.
  Here's a reordering based on the ones with the highest homicide rate:
  
  Honduras
  El Salvador
  Jamaica
  Venezuela
  Swaziland
  Guatemala
  Colombia
  Brazil
  South Africa
  Panama
  Mexico
  Paraguay
  Nicaragua
  Costa Rica
  and finally next: United States
  Yes, I guess we could take the guns from the people in the U.S. (that everyone likes to illegally immigrate to) except for the police and their friends or family, but it'll probably mean that we will become more like the rest of "gunless" Latin America.
  A lot of these deaths are planned executions, staged to look like self defense. Afterall isn't it alright to kill someone if the victim deserves it; think about human nature and how one would react if someone with a thug-like demeanor came at them in everyday wear. Maybe this one wasn't a setup, there's no way of knowing since employees of the police department don't respect the idea of humanity; instead a self-serving professionalism that lacks accountability to the community.
  Enjoy the future of a living hell for the powerless unable to have anything that can be used for self defense. If you're randomly searched and found with a pair of scissors, screwdriver or pen knife, it'll be decreed you were going to use it as a weapon. (This happened to myself . This one was about having fun harassing someone they mistakenly thought was gay due a nearby event I was unaware of. It was okay, since they thought I was a victim that deserved it.)
  The same thing can and will happen when firearm ownership are illegal and are conveniently found in a raid on politically problematic people and decreed that it was being used a weapon. Killing a deserving victim is insatiable feeling that becomes a hobby that will never end.
98. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by amiga3D · 2014-05-17 14:21 · Score: 2
  
  In the end it's cheaper to give drugs away than deal with the crime that street drugs cause. People who want to do drugs will do whatever it takes to do drugs. This includes robbery and murder. Maybe it would be better to provide them free.
99. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the citation. Google translation:
  
  The police shot a knife in a man in eastern Helsinki
  Police had to use a firearm, a knife the man to subdue him at the Meri-Rastila. The police approached the man did not believe in käskytystä, when the police shot him in the leg.
  Police received about 15 o'clock Ramsinniemi beach notification that there was seen a man holding a knife and a bloody woman. The patrol arrived, a man does not 'command in spite of puukostaan given up, but approached the police. Police shot a man leg below the knee. The man was hospitalized and is not a threat to life. Also, a woman was hospitalized. It will be addressed violent opposition to the official. Any other criminal types will be confirmed later.
  My read of the situation - Police arrived to the scene of a man holding a knife on a woman, who was already bloodied. He refused to give up so they shot him below the knee.
  My take on this is that:
  1. The situation was fairly static. He wasn't moving.
  2. The threat was deadly to the woman - they had to act
  3. He was 'probably' blocking a body shot with the woman
  4. There might have been enough time to get a 'designated shooter' in place, one capable of tighter shots. Or it could have been happenstance - the officer actually missed the body shot, but the lower leg was 'good enough'.
  Again, I thank you for your response. I'm just going to dispute that this single incident can be taken as the Finnish police having a policy of shooting people in the leg to stop them. I can find incidents of US police shooting people in the leg, normally not deliberately... In the USA they likely would have resorted to Taser or even beanbag rounds.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
100. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  My take on it is more that if the police don't have guns- 'sweet, they can't stop me!'.
  I know that the guns come out if the suspect is thought to be armed, but most criminals in the USA don't arm themselves because of the Cops being armed. Indeed, in MOST cases, criminals will promptly surrender, armed or not, rather than attempt to confront police. Why? The police officer is more likely to be wearing armor, have a weapon in better condition, be more accurate with it, and even if you manage to kill one officer, how will you kill the 500+ that will shortly be coming for you?
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
101. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  I have no doubt that mandatory citizen tracking would make for a safer society. It is not, however, a society which I wish to live in.
102. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Military training doesn't teach you how to carry on once shot. It's more 'find cover, treat wound' at that point.
  As for UK police, as you say, it's not so much the shooting for the body first*, it's the firing when they so much as 'think' somebody MIGHT have a weapon. I object to this in the USA as well.
  *NOT shooting for the body increases hazards for innocents due to misses, for example.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
103. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  All the German and French police I saw when I was in Europe were armed. I initially had Japan on my list, but none of the sources I checked listed them.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
104. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by penguinoid · 2014-05-17 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  True. People have no responsibility for their actions. I should be able to steal peoples shit and use guns to commit violent crimes, because it's all someone elses fault. The government should be giving this guy tax-payer funded heroin!
  So take responsibility for your actions. If you support the war on drugs, this death is (partly) your fault, as are the thousands of other deaths caused by the illegality of drugs and the efforts to enforce said illegality. Prohibition increases the prices of drugs, while ensuring that the proceeds go only to criminals, which encourages criminal behavior. Sure, you could argue that the people who act upon those monetary incentives are solely responsible, but then you'd also be arguing that if I place a bounty on your head and someone killed you for the bounty, then I would be blameless since the fault is solely the murderer's. So, do you accept your responsibility for this death?
  (I acknowledge that by supporting legalization, I am partly responsibly for the difference in deaths and harm caused, which is incidentally why I support legalization)
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
105. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by tragedy · 2014-05-17 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if there's one time when lethal force is justified, it's this. Doesn't excuse scumbags tazing grannies, but kudos to this officer for handling a dangerous situation optimally
  Optimally? You can't think of any better outcome than this? To be sure, I'm amazed that New York City cops didn't manage to shoot bystanders on this one but, for all that you seem to think his life had negative worth, a human being did die.
106. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  For your viewing pleasure, pigger executing an undesirable loser via an overexposed running charge.
107. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them. What do you want the police to do, let the dude shoot them?
  The difference comes from the fact that when this happens in the USA the cops shoot to kill. When this happens in Finland they shoot to incapacate(in the leg etc.)..or they don't shoot at all and instead take cover and negotiate the guy into dropping the gun.
  Yah, I think slinging lead in place of tasers would be a bad idea. So is shooting at something you don't intend to kill.
108. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by wasteoid · 2014-05-17 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  the only thing that stops a gun is another gun
109. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't realize criminals in the rest of the world work with the cops.
110. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  The first thing I was taught when learning to shoot a gun was that I should never point the gun at anything I wasn't willing to shoot...
111. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-17 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  ideally, there would be no need to give it to him. the free market would lower the price significantly if it were allowed to operate, so much that it would be as ridiculous to contemplate as armed robbery of Doritos is now.
  but given that it isn't, in our current awful world, would it be that terrible to subsidize it a bit? it would cost a sliver of what it costs now to incarcerate the 'guilty' and 'accidentally' murder the innocent through SWAT raids, etc.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
112. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by goodmanj · 2014-05-17 19:19 · Score: 2
  
  "Sir, I don't have a gun. Would you please don't shoot at me until my associates arrive?"
  Yes, that's pretty much how it works. As others have noted, it works because guns are the exception rather than the rule. But another advantage: when a gun is in the picture, the beat cops back off and call the professional shooting-people cops, who're actually trained in the art of shooting people, as opposed to the American beat cops who will shoot kids with water pistols, black men reaching for their wallets, miss and shoot bystanders, shoot themselves in the foot, etc.
113. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by VortexCortex · 2014-05-17 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, I thought bullet proof vests were real. Silly me.
114. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by goodmanj · 2014-05-17 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  Great analysis. Another statistic I'd like to see is a comparison of number of shootings due to police error: cop misses and hits bystander, cop mistakes fake gun for a real one, cop shoots self in foot.
  One could argue that cops shooting bad guys and getting shot in turn is part of the ugly job of law enforcement: the bigger tragedy is when innocents get killed.
115. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Fjandr · 2014-05-17 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  He certainly was responsible for his actions. That in no way invalidates the point made in the comment to which you replied. They're not mutually exclusive. The War on Drugs absolutely creates scenarios where addicts are unable to feed their addictions without resorting to hurting others. Addicts are very frequently not rational, so the systems in place should be designed with that in mind. Those who perpetuate the War on Drugs are certainly complicit to a degree, much like someone walking into a Hell's Angels club and spitting on the first person he sees is complicit in his own beat-down. Doesn't excuse the bikers from nearly (or actually) killing him, but their behavior doesn't absolve him from his part in his victimization.
116. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by goodmanj · 2014-05-17 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Probably because we don't discriminate against them.
  HA HA HAHAHAHAHAA!
  http://www.gmu.edu/programs/ic...
  http://www.theguardian.com/com...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
  Sorry, you were saying something? Europe is absolutely racist, it's just a bit less visible because the minority population is smaller, less visible, and doesn't try to hold power. Also, the historical repercussions of your past racism are less visible because you guys mostly kept your slaves in your colonies rather than in your backyard: it's a lot easier to pretend that Nigeria isn't your problem any more than to abandon Birmingham.
117. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anne+Thwacks · 2014-05-17 19:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The UK only counts a murder if there is a conviction.
  That is definitely not true. However, the conviction rate is well above 90%, so it would not make a whole lot of difference if it was true.
  I do not deny that it occasionally takes 30 years to find the offender, but mostly its less than a year.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
118. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 19:52 · Score: 0
  
  most people aren't stupid enough to point a gun at a cop, because nearly everyone knows that's going to be an instant death penalty. middle class white folks might not because they aren't taught to fear the police, but anyone who grew up poor or as a minority knows that cops can kill and get away with it easily, thanks to the blue wall of silence. any time you see a cop claim that their life was at risk you should be twice as suspicious.
119. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by goodmanj · 2014-05-17 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's that cops always want to cover their asses. But sometimes the suspect *does* shoot first. In this case, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who should be able to straighten out the truth.
120. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anne+Thwacks · 2014-05-17 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  That was a special armed response unit (Like a SWAT team). Ordinary police here in London do not carry guns, and never have.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
121. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Fjandr · 2014-05-17 19:59 · Score: 2
  
  Only if you ignore the fact that most of those are self-inflicted deaths, and most of the rest are criminal-on-criminal.
122. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by rkww · 2014-05-17 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them.
  They don't have to shoot to kill. Here's a concrete example from England - a soldier had been beheaded in the street (my emphasis):
  "The two men made no attempt to escape and charged a police car carrying an armed response team when it arrived at the scene about 15 minutes after the killing, according to a witness.
  "'The black guy ran at them with a meat cleaver before it stopped and he was right by the car when they shot him,' said Julia Wilders, 51, who lives close by. The second man, who had a gun, was also shot, she said.
  "The men were taken to separate hospitals by air ambulance and they were expected to survive despite their injuries, according to police last night."
123. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Floyd-ATC · 2014-05-17 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Is this what they taught you in school or did you figure it out yourself? Either way, you may want to update yourself on the constitutions of the ~50 countries you're talking about. For starters, there is no "the Governent of Europe". Each country in Europe, even those within the European Union, have their own elected government. By the way, over here the governments are elected by actual majority and not by proxies. Further, if you do some research on the US constitution, you may even find that most of it can be traced back to France. Sorry.
  
  --
  Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
124. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Antonovich · 2014-05-17 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  And it's not like *no* police have guns. Like in the few other properly civilised countries on earth, the UK has a police unit that does carry firearms and who are involved if the crime is reported to involve guns or there is suspicion that a suspect is armed with a firearm (for raids, for example). These units are highly trained in when to use, and when not to use, lethal force. It's just a better system. I would rather sacrifice the odd police officer than the countless innocent citizens that are murdered by overzealous cowboy cops.
125. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by _Shad0w_ · 2014-05-17 20:58 · Score: 2
  
  They're SO-15, they're a specialist armed unit (formed when they combined SO-13 with Special Branch). They only get deployed when they explicitly need armed officers.
  Also we don't have "metro police", that would British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing railways nationally, railway property, London Underground, and various other things. They're not routinely armed.
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
126. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  Good to know that these "special armed response units" is there to protect us from "ordinary people wearing suspiciosly large clothing."
127. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Hognoxious · 2014-05-17 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, AmiMoJo-san. Either somebody shoot "yes" or somebody shoot "no". You somebody shoot "guess so".
  -- K. Miyagi
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
128. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
  Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
129. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  Then your cops are morons. Under full adrenaline dump (even with training) it is very difficult to make accurate shots as fine motor skills go right out the window. If they're picking and choosing where to shoot the perp then they just need to fall back and use a taser.
130. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by chrb · 2014-05-17 23:45 · Score: 2
  
  What you suggest has not been the case for a long time: "Magna Carta (1215ad) was the first document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
131. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Haha prison in the is consists of ice cream, personal electronics, outdoor grills and work release,
132. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by chrb · 2014-05-18 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike the U.S., the island states of Japan and Great Britain have had centuries of unilateral culturalism
  Britain does not have a unilateral culture. "London, England, United Kingdom is one of the most ethnically diverse cities on earth. As of 2007, there are over 300 languages spoken in it and more than 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
133. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by O('_')O_Bush · 2014-05-18 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  As someone funding those jails, I also support his decision to remove himself from existence rather than place an even greater burden on taxpayers.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
134. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  And out West the Lone Ranger just shot the guns out of the hands of all the perpetrators. This was a remarkably effective policy. Not only did the Lone Ranger never get shot, he never harmed anyone else. After the bad guys were apprehended they had time to reflect on their poor life decisions and started drinking milk instead of wiskey. They became model citizens.
  Yes we need the Lone Ranger to patrol the streets of the USA.
135. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  Strict gun laws in the UK didn't prevent that one guy from going on a rampage for half a day and killing and injuring a whole bunch of people, including police.
  Of course there will always be edge cases, but the facts speak for themselves -
  USA Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 10.3
  UK Gun Deaths per 100,000 (2011): 0.25
  Source:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  I am a rabid right wing gun nut, but I will give you this if you were to outlaw all guns in the United States Gun death would indeed go down. Homicides at the hand of armed gangstars commited against law abidding non gun owners would go up, but on the hole all the other accidental and incidenal gun deaths would go donw. On the flip side if you were to ban automobiles traffic deaths would go down. Also if you were to ban alchohal alchohal deaths would go down. Sure prohibition created its own problems of gangstar warefare but the numbers show that the fatalities due to alchohal poisoning and what not outweighed the deaths due to gangstar warefare on the streets. Today more people die due to legal drugs than illegal ones. If you were to outlaw legal drugs these drug deaths would go down too. The question in how safe/ sanitary / and sterile of a society do you want? I for one like a little chaos and think that is the price of freedom. The alternative is to create a locked down society where everything that can cause harm is controlled, people live in sterile zoos / prisons and they live LONG lives but never get to live.
  The human spirit needs a little chaos to survive. John Wayne never fought a battle in the court system, and neither should you.
136. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  If you commit robbery like this then you're attempting to refute one of the very foundations of being human: property. I would agree that he was not with much to the planet upon committing this crime, or any similar crime in the past.
  Plenty of addicts DON'T end up robbing pharmacies.
137. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Opportunist · 2014-05-18 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Nice straw man you built there. You gonna burn it down too or would you like me to?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
138. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  They would have shot for the centre of mass and it just happened not to be fatal. Take it from an ex-cop - nobody is trained to, or even authorised to, go for fancy shots when they use their gun.
139. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  what was the perpetrator's race? Far from being prejudicial or bigoted, this is very important information about his motivations
  What on earth could a person's race tell you about their motivations?
  Well surely you're not suggesting that a ghetto bunny and Rush Limbaugh would have the same motiviation?
140. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Justice wouldn't even be a thing if it were solely about cost. In even basic psychological experiments, people will spend more effort and resources to punish rule breakers than what they could possibly lose to let them continue.
141. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  You sir, are obviously a Freedom-hating socialistic Communist.
  How is our prison industry going to thrive if the criminals don't survive to be placed into cells, billable by occupant?
142. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Shoten · 2014-05-18 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Independent verification of any other claims?
  ALSO ZERO
  So, let's look at the base rate. Most shootings by police that are independently assessed or verified are justified. Thus, by all probability in the absence of independent means of verification, this one is too.
  Objectivity and a lack of hard evidence cuts both ways, dude.
  (And I know there were witnesses that actually obviate what I just said, objectively supporting the basis for the shooting. I wanted to point out the logical fallacy from the post I quoted.)
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
143. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-18 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who should be able to straighten out the truth.
  Not at the NYT.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
144. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-18 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you commit robbery like this then you're attempting to refute one of the very foundations of being human: property. I would agree that he was not with much to the planet upon committing this crime, or any similar crime in the past.
  Plenty of addicts DON'T end up robbing pharmacies.
  Property is theft.
  There were plenty of societies that functioned without the extension of personal effects into the abstraction of "property ownership" that applied to every thing from excess food withheld from other people's mouths, to the earth itself, and the lives and bodies of other people..
  Most of those societies were destroyed by the ravenous northern barbarians, who pillaged the world - to take more "property"
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
145. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by v1 · 2014-05-18 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  That makes LESS sense than giving away money to people that would otherise go out and rob someone. At least money isn't chemically addictive.
  But this guy wasn't likely a user, he was more likely a dealer or a supplier. Users are from your average slice of society, which typically don't rob or point a gun at a cop. This one was in it for the money.
  If we just gave away drugs to the addicts, this guy would have to find another way to get money, he'd be out robbing some other local store instead. Giving away drugs just enables addicts and costs ME money in the process. nothankyou. It's like sending food to starving children. So more of them survive. And breed. And now you have a BIGGER hunger problem. You have to address the cause. Help them build farms or something. If they're already in a hole, don't hand them a bigger shovel !
  For probably the best perspective on drug addition, do a google search for "chief enabler". That's who you want the government to be. Notice how this person is not part of the solution, they are an important part of perpectuating the problem.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
146. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-18 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why we LOVE the streets of this city, all other considerations not withstanding!
  The side effect of cruel Empire is the beauty of EVERYONE together here.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
147. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-05-18 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  You sir, are obviously a Freedom-hating socialistic Communist.
  How is our prison industry going to thrive if the criminals don't survive to be placed into cells, billable by occupant?
  Why did you post anon? We'd love to mod you up.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
148. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by deadweight · 2014-05-18 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  My experience long ago in the UK was like this: "Traditional" UK criminals had a distinct place in society. Different ones did different types of crimes and the police dealt with them in ways that were almost a tradition maybe centuries old. Anyone running around with a gun would be an outlier to say the least and attract a LOT of unwanted attention. It was kind of like an arms treaty - no one is going to be killed playing cops and robbers. Sadly I expect this to where off to an extent. Certain groups in the UK seem to be wanting to imitate American gang-bangers.
149. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up. False dichotomies do no one any favours. Wanker.
150. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by spire3661 · 2014-05-18 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  You realize calling yourself a 'tax-payer' makes you look like an idiot. The term 'tax-payer' carries no weight, CITIZEN does. Refer to CITIZENS, not tax-payers.
  
  --
  Good-bye
151. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by spire3661 · 2014-05-18 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Saves the CITIZENRY a bunch of money. The term 'tax-payer' has no meaning in this context.
  
  --
  Good-bye
152. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  ... and at the U.S. Embassy in London :)
153. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Two major problems with your claims. First, as the other post points out, the vast majority of deaths by weapons in any first-world country are suicides. While suicide by gun is a Bad Thing(tm), it still doesn't generally endanger others. Second, what of deaths by other means? While they lack the range, many kitchen knives can be quite deadly (and notice how the UK has started to regulate an everyday tool!), turns out the UK has a far greater number of deaths by other weapons than the US.
154. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CohibaVancouver · 2014-05-18 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Homicides at the hand of armed gangstars commited against law abidding non gun owners would go up
  This is a fallacy.
  
  Hand grenades are banned in the USA - They are highly restricted. However, hand-grenade homocides are not up as a result of hand grenades being banned.
  
  If guns are out of circulation, then many fewer people have them, including criminals.
155. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  > where in European Countries the opposite is true, soveignty is granted by God
  Dude, take some history lessons. Democracy (lit. rule by the people) was a European invention.
  Our kings & queens have much less power than your president, and are much cheaper. And we don't need hat mad lottery called 'presidential elections' every 4 years.
156. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Wootery · 2014-05-18 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  The term 'tax-payer' has no meaning in this context.
  The meaning seems pretty clear to me...
157. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, "you do realize that"... not all taxpayers are citizens.
158. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yes... let's let the government have all the guns.
  That will never turn bad for anyone.
159. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Idarubicin · 2014-05-18 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, I thought bullet proof vests were real. Silly me.
  Which would be a sound argument if (a) ballistic vests were actually able to safely absorb all shots that hit them without allowing the person wearing them to be seriously injured or even killed; and (b) police officers were only ever shot in the torso--and never below the waist, on the arms, or in the neck or head.
  Ballistic vests aren't a magical wall, except in the movies.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
160. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CohibaVancouver · 2014-05-18 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can argue about suicides until you're blue in the face, but the facts remain: In the USA, more than any other western country, more kids shoot their siblings. More kids shoot themselves. More drunks shoot either other, widowing mothers and orphaning kids. More men shoot their wives. More criminals shoot 7-11 clerks, taxicab drivers and people in movie theatres. More cops shoot teenagers because the cops think their iPod is a gun.
  
  The USA has said this is fine and this is the society they want to live in, but to the rest of us it is batshit crazy and we want no part of it. Handguns do not belong in a civilized society. Full stop.
161. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  I hope this guy's joking
162. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Samizdata · 2014-05-18 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if I have to be shot by a criminal, I would much rather it be by a gangstar than just some mook.
  
  --
  It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
163. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Headrick · 2014-05-18 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  And then why shoot at an officer who you know won't shoot at you?
  Because you know that he is no longer a threat to you and whatever you are trying to accomplish (i.e. he's dead or wounded).
  Believe me, I'm generally what one would characterize as "anti-cop", but in a nation with so many guns and our particular gun culture (along with the war on drugs among other things), I don't follow this argument.
  I don't know the complete solution but I feel that cameras on all cops and their vehicles (on at all times) is a start.
  Yes, in America often the cops are the one gang you can't call the cops on but I can't really fault any gang member for being armed.
164. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-18 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  well i came.
  thanks for the one.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
165. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-18 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  her desperate cries were sweet to my ears (can you imagine being woken up by the extrajudicial execution of your husband? LOL), but why didn't they kill the woman too?
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
166. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because criminals are well-known for their critical thinking skills and rational decision-making...more likely they'll see themselves as having an upperhand on unarmed police and thus unlikely to get caught causing more crime. Well done, Skippy!
167. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by rkww · 2014-05-18 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Daily Mail, but... "one of the images shows Adebowale raising his gun at the officers even after he had been shot in the leg and stomach, forcing the officers to shoot him in the hand - blowing off his thumb.
  "Once both the terror suspects posed no further threat, E48 used a first aid kit from the police car to treat Adebowale.
  "He added: 'Once the threat is neutralised we have a duty of care to all persons to save life, no matter who they are.'"
168. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, if there's one time when lethal force is justified, it's this. Doesn't excuse scumbags tazing grannies, but kudos to this officer for handling a dangerous situation optimally
  Optimally? You can't think of any better outcome than this? To be sure, I'm amazed that New York City cops didn't manage to shoot bystanders on this one but, for all that you seem to think his life had negative worth, a human being did die.
  No, I really can't. If you are a criminal, you refuse to abide by society's rules, and you don't deserve to live in society. Since it's impossible to otherwise remove them from society, yes, this works for me.
  The thing of it is, if you're hungry, SOMEONE will feed you. If you need clothes, SOMEONE will clothe you. If you need a place to stay for the night, SOMEONE will provide. We have so many charities and charitable people, that there is no need to turn to crime to live your life. Therefore, if you DO turn to crime, I'm perfectly ok with the criminals ending up dead. Good riddance.
169. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Huh, I thought bullet proof vests were real. Silly me.
  That's your mistake - there is NO SUCH THING as a bullet-PROOF vest. They are resistant only up to certain calibers, and certain types of bullets, and you are still injured to a lesser or greater extent, including fatally. You got to stop getting your information from the movies, they're just entertainment, dude, not educational.
170. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.
  Do you have a source for that? According to the site linked below (which includes citations), "In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009, a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000. Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm. In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12, a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm." I couldn't find similar statistics for police officers, but you're obviously pretty sure of your facts so I thought I'd ask. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
  Ok, I have an interesting exercise for you, since you're so good at finding the numbers. take the US murder number, but subtract out the murders committed in Chicago Metro, New York City Metro, and Washington D.C. Metro areas. Yeah, those areas where it's almost impossible to own a gun legally. You know, GUN-FREE zones. Subtract out those murders, and tell me what the rate is then for the rest of the US. You'll find it's very close to the rate for the UK. The murder problem in the US is that GUN-FREE metro areas have astronomical murder rates. Yeah, crazy, I know!
  So, since the REST of the US has all the guns, and the murder rate of the REST of the US is no higher than in the UK, I guess guns really are NOT the problem, are they? It sounds trite, but it's true - Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.
171. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Just to clarify, I think the war on drugs is stupid and the guy should never have had monetary incentives to steal painkillers. I think it's sad that our police state initiative for funding criminals caused yet another death.
  According to TFA he had also stolen quantities of Viagra and Cialis in previous robberies, so he was stealing drugs for resale (unless he had a really active personal sex life).
  .
172. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by kenh · 2014-05-18 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  And, of course, not all citizens are tax payers...
  
  --
  Ken
173. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, no cop on earth with a gun leveled at them does anything other than a double tap to the center of mass (chest). RL isn't a movie and you don't fuck around with trick shots when missing means a bullet comes your way. Ever...doesn't happen.
174. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by EvolutionInAction · 2014-05-18 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  A) Bullshit. There are lots of ways to deal with somebody who's got a gun.
  B) Did you read what I wrote? The thought is that if your patrolmen are not armed, fewer criminals will bother with guns.
175. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by EvolutionInAction · 2014-05-18 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm kinda confused here. You say that killing a cop is a terrible idea because you get 500 police with guns coming to get you, but if the patrolman doesn't have a gun he'll get shot because he's unarmed?
  It's still a bad idea to kill the cop! It's not like NONE of the police have guns, just the patrolmen. So if you shoot at that guy you're going to get taken down hard, if you just run maybe you'll get away.
176. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Imrik · 2014-05-18 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  While fewer guns will mean fewer gun related deaths, it will not necessarily reduce the homicide rate.
177. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-18 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  You say that killing a cop is a terrible idea because you get 500 police with guns coming to get you, but if the patrolman doesn't have a gun he'll get shot because he's unarmed?
  Never said that criminals don't make terrible choices. It works in England/Japan because so few criminals have guns. Here in the USA it'd result in the criminals having a force advantage(IE armed) over the cops too often.
  It's more of:
  He has a gun so it's unlikely I'll be able to take him AND if I DO manage to take him 500+ of his buddies will be coming for me.'
  Thing of it like error handling. You expect the main function to work, but want a backup just in case - though in this case which is the main function, 500 buddies or just being armed, is up in the air.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
178. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Firethorn · 2014-05-18 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  A: Grenades and fire support, for example. ;)
  More seriously in a law enforcement context: Talking them down, assuming you even try, works more often than not.
  B: Criminals in the USA don't arm themselves to confront cops. They generally arm themselves to project force on their victims, or defend themselves against other criminals. As such, disarming cops isn't going to change criminal carry rates much at all.
  Programs that HAVE worked is things like advertising* that carrying a gun while committing a crime will automatically add five years to the prison sentence. Targeting illegal guns also works.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
179. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  you grossly underestimate the craving for Doritos.
180. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  Historically, the part of the UK where a British police officer was most likely to be murdered was Northern Ireland, and the circumstances prevailing in that province also meant that there were many more guns in circulation (and in use).
  If you take those (politically-motivated) killings out of the equation, I expect the numbers would change.
181. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Britain does not have a unilateral culture. "London, England, United Kingdom is one of the most ethnically diverse cities on earth. As of 2007, there are over 300 languages spoken in it and more than 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
  Most of what you're describing is a relative new phenomenon. The same is occurring less so in Australia and Canada where the population is only half that of California. The changes may worsen those societies if the transition is poorly handled or expeiences an unexpected disruption.
182. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CohibaVancouver · 2014-05-18 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  How about this deal? Let's ban all handguns and assault weapons in the USA. If, 20 years from now, the homicide rate been reduced you can have them all back.
  
  Fair?
183. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by tragedy · 2014-05-18 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, I really can't. If you are a criminal, you refuse to abide by society's rules, and you don't deserve to live in society. Since it's impossible to otherwise remove them from society, yes, this works for me.
  Otherwise impossible... except by death. Got it. Glad you've really thought this through.
  
  The thing of it is, if you're hungry, SOMEONE will feed you. If you need clothes, SOMEONE will clothe you. If you need a place to stay for the night, SOMEONE will provide. We have so many charities and charitable people, that there is no need to turn to crime to live your life.
  
  Got it. You live in happy fantasyland and think that your imaginary picture of the real world is actually how it works. Chalk one up for ignorance and naiveté.
184. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by tragedy · 2014-05-18 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, as long as it's not blood-thirst and only soulless, cold-hearted pragmatism.
185. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by mgcarley · 2014-05-18 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  What if you're like millions of people both in this country (I assume you refer to the US) and others who are tax-payers but not citizens? Like myself. I pay tax in more than one country that I am not a citizen of... so unless you're suggesting non-citizens can get out of paying tax...
  Ergo, really, taxpayer really does seem like a more appropriate term when it boils down to it, because citizenship comes with certain rights that aren't afforded to non-citizens (so, you're right about the "weight" thing) but when it comes to the funding of government through taxes, it makes no difference whether the individual is a citizen or not because if all else is equal, the tax burdens of either are equal and their taxes are spent the same way on the same stuff.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
186. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike the U.S., the island states of Japan and Great Britain have had centuries of unilateral culturalism--only a century or so for Canada and the island continent of Australia; their populations being about 20 million caucasians each. Otoh, there are over 200 million homes of different cultures in the U.S containing firearms.
  I seem to recall quite a lot of different cultures being in and around the UK, Canada and Australia - the latter were BUILT on immigration (as the US was - and NZ for that matter) and the UK has been in a position of power for quite some time (thus attracting immigrants from various regions for centuries). Lots of early settlers arriving in the British colonies as they were being born were of non-caucasion descent and many of those weren't even from the commonwealth.
  This whole globalization melting-pot thing has been going on a lot longer than your average xenophobe realizes - it's only since jets and plane tickets (and passports and visas) became a big thing and sufficiently cheap that the whole idea has scaled up and become more obvious of an issue for people who don't like people of another skin colour.
  
  Yes, I guess we could take the guns from the people in the U.S. (that everyone likes to illegally immigrate to) except for the police and their friends or family, but it'll probably mean that we will become more like the rest of "gunless" Latin America.
  Are you sure? Not only is the US not unique in it's having "illegal immigrants", but personally if I were to think of the countries to where I would like to immigrate to (especially illegally), the US would be pretty low on my list.
  Even that whole thing about women of certain nations only wanting men from countries like the US to obtain them green-cards is complete and utter nonsense.
187. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 21:33 · Score: 0
  
  Good one
188. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  It seems Finnish police are simply bad shots. Shot placement anywhere other than center mass is extraordinarily dangerous to both the shooter and bystanders.
189. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  The "murders" are actually homicides, and a large number of those are actually suicides. When you compare non-suicide homicides to homicides by the police, you start getting interesting comparisons.
  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
  When people in the US choose to kill themselves, guns are an effective and popular choice.
190. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by stealth_finger · 2014-05-18 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  You're a complete moron, in no country will the police not shoot someone who has raised a gun at them.
  In Britain, the police have to call in backup who carry guns. The regular patrolmen only get nightsticks and whistles.
  But raise a gun at those armed officers and they will shoot you.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
191. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by stealth_finger · 2014-05-18 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
  But what if the bad guy has a nightstick and a whistle?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
192. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by dl_sledding · 2014-05-19 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ah! But that would defeat the purpose of the war on drugs! See, the "War On Drugs" is a funding initiative for our police forces in the US. It really has nothing to do with STOPPING the (import, distribution, sale, use) of illegal drugs, because that would defeat the funding initiative purpose. This article actually has NOTHING to do with the WOD, because there were no illegal or street drugs involved. This is a story about ARMED ROBBERY of a pharmacy, which typically does not peddle in illegal or street drugs, and the successful tracking and confrontation of the armed robber. I hope you realize that I am being somewhat sarcastic here... I actually agree with you, that the WOD should be a program designed to "cure" the end-user (victim?) and kill the ilicit drug business from that direction. It has been proven that this method works, but the WOD is just too much of a cash cow for the law enforcement community to give up.
193. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by matthias.loeffel · 2014-05-19 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  and most of the rest are criminal-on-criminal.
  and how does criminal-on-criminal change anything? It doesn't make the numbers any better. Homicide is still homicide, no matter if it's done against a "criminal" or not.
194. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by SourceFrog · 2014-05-19 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  British people will always assure their cops never get shot. These cops beg to differ (oh wait they can't, they're dead): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
195. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Max+Threshold · 2014-05-19 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  See also: how to lie with statistics. More meaningful, but still not at face value the way you seem to wish, are the intentional homicide rates: 4.8 per 100K in the US, 1.2 per 100K in the UK. You can't take these numbers at face value because homicide is not uniformly distributed in the US. It's strongly correlated with poverty, which in turn is strongly correlated with certain races and neighborhoods. Eliminate those hotspots by addressing poverty, and the US homicide rate is comparable to the UK's. In fact, the US rate for all violent crimes except homicide is already much lower than the UK's.
196. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by pnutjam · 2014-05-19 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ask me how I know your upper class (white?)
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
197. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by CauseBy · 2014-05-19 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about all the god nonsense, but I can definitely join you in celebrating the death of a societal leech. The best outcome is for him to not be a leech, the second best outcome is for him to get himself killed doing something stupid (as in this story), and lesser options include paying to arrest, prosecute, and imprison him.
198. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Oh so only the robbers theives and muggers can have guns.
  Ain't that special.
199. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by slapout · 2014-05-19 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  "They tend to expect society to work WITH them, not AGAINST them."
  Criminals tend not to follow societal norms.
  
  --
  Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
200. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't lower the stakes, it just empowers the criminals... Why get a gun when the police don't have them? How about to be unstoppable and in a position to call the shots?
201. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Instead of looking at "gun deaths", try looking at violent deaths and violent crimes... It's not a brilliant revelation that a country with less guns has less gun activity...
202. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Ask me how I know your upper class (white?)
  As a black guy who was born and raised in a single-parent household in a crime-ridden, working-class neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, I agree with the GP. I'll take simple pragmatism over white guilt any day when it comes to putting down the sort of violent offenders that made my childhood a little slice of hell.
203. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by david_thornley · 2014-05-19 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Optimally, nobody would have been hurt, or had reason to be afraid for their life. While having the police officer alive and the guy who pointed the gun dead isn't that bad an outcome, and there are certainly much worse, there are also better outcomes. Perhaps the culprit could have given the police some useful information, for example. (The police officer may well not have had the ability to get a better outcome, and I'm certainly not blaming the police here.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
204. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by david_thornley · 2014-05-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. I'm a US citizen and a taxpayer, along with many other roles.
  As a citizen, I want the prison system reformed, because I consider it counterproductive and a national disgrace. As a taxpayer, I consider it a waste of the money I earn. I also have humanitarian objections, etc.
  As a citizen, I have some very slight influence on the governments affecting me. As a taxpayer, I claim that certain things are good or bad uses of my tax money.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
205. Re: ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by david_thornley · 2014-05-19 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to avoid paying taxes. If you earn money, it's subject to FICA. If you spend money in most states on anything besides food and maybe clothing, you're probably paying sales taxes. If you're paying to live somewhere, property taxes almost certainly factor into your rent or other payments.
  I'm sure some adults in the US are not paying taxes, but darn few.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
206. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by pnutjam · 2014-05-19 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  My point was more about this line (why am I responding to an AC):
  The thing of it is, if you're hungry, SOMEONE will feed you. If you need clothes, SOMEONE will clothe you. If you need a place to stay for the night, SOMEONE will provide
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
207. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  So how, in the US, would citizens make any changes to their rights and privileges? Probably by electing representatives who try to pass the wanted changes into law. Seems like you do things in the US the same as we do things here in Europe. Who'd a thunk it?
208. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by retchdog · 2014-05-19 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  it doesn't really matter how many of us there are, as long as we're on top (this benefits the lesser races as well). and, by the way, we will stay on top.
  nigger.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
209. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by rtb61 · 2014-05-20 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Best way to handle, cheap drugs. Let them lock themselves up in a cheap cage of pipes, needles and tubes. Most of those drugs are dirt cheap to produce and only become expensive as a result of being illegal, an artificially government driven inflation to profit organised crime and the bribes they pay. Allow the situation to take it course, allow evolution to follow it's path, given a couple of generations the problem will largely solve itself, without any cost of enforcement, without cost of imprisonment and without millions of victims of crimes to pay for the artificially inflated cost of addictive illegal drugs so that organised crime can pay off politicians and law enforcement, not only to keep those drugs illegal but to allow drug dealers to break those laws they only enforce on people outside of the criminal loop.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
210. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-29 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the deaths "in the line of duty" are automobile accidents while on the job. It's higher than average because of it being a prerequisite of the job. Some of the few caused by firearms are from friendly fire, accidents by an overly enthusiastic co-worker. /p.
211. Re:ANOTHER DEAD BODY! SWEET JUSTICE! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-29 18:33 · Score: 0
  
  her desperate cries were sweet to my ears (can you imagine being woken up by the extrajudicial execution of your husband? LOL), but why didn't they kill the woman too?
  Personally, I originally thought it was a "respect" killing -- retaliation for having an attitude, as they like to say, due to something that happened from a previous stop.
  The setting has to many problems. Overly documentational, laying in wait, this dangerous arrest done alone without a partner, saying to stay inside the car where he can't see hands, using his first name in a threatening manner making it sound like he's being challenged by a stranger, doing it as a surprise at the moment they stop in the driveway with the police car on the opposite side, and so on. All kinds of chaos to insure it all goes wrong.
  The moment he got out it looked like he saw it was the police and went back in as instructed. But, he went back to remove his foot from a seat belt that caught his ankle (they had to cut it off his ankle later with a knife) and the cop started to put his gun back in his holster but pulling it back out when the dead man stepped out of the vehicle.
  Now I think it was just a boob with an emotional problem. People obsessed with respect have a mental illness. Some that have been dissed have a need to get even. He thought he would give him a good scare only to have it get out of hand; which is what usually happens in these situations.
  Although his wife disobeyed his orders and acted the same way, killing her couldn't play out in the same way. Now he doesn't have a good laugh video to show his buddies showing the victim's scared reaction when he points a gun at him. Instead, it's a snuff film on how not to do an arrest and what happens when you get to comfortable about your job to the point of playing punk'd with someone.
What a crap of title... by Lisias · 2014-05-17 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
1. Re:What a crap of title... by evilviper · 2014-05-17 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  And here I thought it was saying GPS has a "kill all humans" function.
  Or perhaps, much like radioactive exposure, the act of tracking someone with GPS, kills THEM!
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
2. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  We need to mod editors, not submissions. The submitters are not paid, the editors are (for God knows what).
  Slashdot has been a third rate news site for some time. This example shows again why it is dead and mostly useless.
3. Re:What a crap of title... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-05-17 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's the headline the NYT used... As is normal, the "story submission" is straight cut-and-paste.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
4. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  The title said "and", not "because". Confusing "and" with "because" is confusing correlation with causation.
5. Re:What a crap of title... by bitt3n · 2014-05-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
  Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?
  I look forward to next week's headline "Robbery Suspect Noticed Wearing Hawaiian Shirt and Killed"
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
6. Re:What a crap of title... by m00sh · 2014-05-17 06:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
  Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?
  After the police kill someone, they will always say the suspect raised a gun at an officer or tried to use some other deadly force.
  The point is that the police knew where he was and he didn't know that the police knew. Instead of dealing with the situation where nobody gets hurt, the police decided to just kill the guy. Maybe he was in traffic driving and the police didn't want to risk a deadly chase.
  What if in the future, a robber takes the GPS and then throws it in some other person's car. What if the police then kill the other person by mistake? The police have nothing but a GPS location and will kill at even the slightest gesture that they perceive to be a threat.
7. Re:What a crap of title... by Improv · 2014-05-17 06:53 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Police do a necessary and often thankless job at high risk to themselves. If a policeman needs to arrest you, it's best not to make them feel unsafe.
  
  --
  For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
8. Re:What a crap of title... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-17 06:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It gets better - in the sidebar, I've see two submissions like this: "New functionality at Google Maps" ... "Robbery Suspect Tracked by GPS and Killed". ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
9. Re:What a crap of title... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-05-17 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  And here I thought it was saying GPS has a "kill all humans" function.
  It does - but your phone has to be jailbroken before you can access it.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
10. Re:What a crap of title... by ganjadude · 2014-05-17 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  well if someone threw the GPS in my car, just a guess, but i dont think the first thing id do is pull a gun on them
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
11. Re:What a crap of title... by houghi · 2014-05-17 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  As the police never lies about these kind of things, I am sure that is what happend and not just some trigger happy police officer.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
12. Re:What a crap of title... by Thruen · 2014-05-17 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. With the recent headline about people using "Find my iPhone" to track down criminals, this headline made me immediately think somebody had their phone stolen so they loaded up their gun and went criminal hunting. Headline should read, "Police act reasonably, suspect not so much."
13. Re:What a crap of title... by camperdave · 2014-05-17 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  The thief was killed because he raised a gun to an officer, not because he was tracked down by GPS.
  Can we mod a submission as "-1 TROLL"?
  Yes, you can. It's called the Firehose. Just click on submissions in the menu at the top left of the page.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
14. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm modding you up because of APK's crapflooding. Anyone who annoys that little shit gets my vote.
15. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:01 · Score: -1
  
  Quit cryin' K.S. Kyosucky: We know ya use sockpuppets to mod yerself up n' yer opponents down.
16. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:05 · Score: -1
  
  ROTFLMAO: Appears K.S. Kyosucky ran outta modpoints from his sockpuppets & is annoyed.
17. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:06 · Score: -1
  
  Oh, absolutely! K.S. Kyosucky's "projecting" again, lmao!
18. Re:What a crap of title... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:44 · Score: -1
  
  The "little shit"'s making ya look stupid and like someone whose mouth wrote checks his ass can't cash K.S. Kyosuke.
19. Re:What a crap of title... by LordVader717 · 2014-05-17 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  What does thankless even mean? Any person who has had a situation resolved by the police will be very greatful, and the profession is well regarded in society.but this doesn't place them above criticism and scrutiny when something bad like this happens. We need to know if all the necessary precautions and reasonable alternatives were considered, that the best practice was executed. A simple "he pulled his gun first" isn't adequate.
20. Re:What a crap of title... by CauseBy · 2014-05-19 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Was this the title you are complaining about?
  "Robbery Suspect Tracked By GPS and Killed"
  What part of that do you object to? It's a plainly worded summary of the facts of the case. What's the problem?
  You sound as if you are responding to a headline reading "Robbery Suspect Killed Because He Was Tracked Down By GPS" which doesn't even make sense.
21. Re:What a crap of title... by Improv · 2014-05-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thankless means that few people in broad society adequately respect the need for or the practices of police officers. They're underappreciated.
  Police don't usually have the time, when people pull a gun on them, to carefully consider every possible option. If they can pick the least bad option, great, but if the situation is that someone pulls a gun on an on-duty cop (meaning pulls it out and begins to point it at them), I'd be very reluctant to second-guess them if the policeman shoots that person.
  
  --
  For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
22. Re:What a crap of title... by LordVader717 · 2014-05-26 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  You've being overly vague and ambiguous in your first paragraph. It might indeed be the case that few people understand the intricacies of police situations, they're not professionals after all. But that doesn't mean they're thankless. And scrutinizing their procedures doesn't equate to being disrespectful.
  As I said before, we shouldn't just be looking into the final dilemma that resulted in this tragic end. We should be asking how it got this far in the first place and whether best practices were adhered to.
A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by Richard+W.M.+Jones · 2014-05-17 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

People are becoming addicted to prescription painkillers. They cannot just buy these products. Therefore they (or others) have to rob them. Men worry about "erectile disfunction" because of advertising. Robbers steal the same products that are advertised for this. Guns are widely available in the US. Guns are used to commit these robberies. Police shoot the suspect because he's carrying a gun.
The decoy pill bottle is just a symptom in all this.

--
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
1. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by russotto · 2014-05-17 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, meanwhile I'm sitting here on a bunch of broken bones, carefully rationing my painkillers because if I ask for more I'll be put on the DEA drug-seekers list and be dispensed nothing stronger than acetaminophen for the rest of my life. (NSAIDs are contraindicated for broken bones, BTW
  Drug laws suck. Still doesn't mean armed robbers ought to be excused, particularly armed robbers dumb enough to pull a gun on the cops.
2. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by fnj · 2014-05-17 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Absolute zip to do with the Darwin award for drawing down on a cop, but prohibition is just as stupid today as it was in 1920-33. Stupid as in none of anybody's fucking business what someone puts in their own body - liquor, funny kind of smoke, or drugs. THe ones who deserve to be kicked and stoned to death are the oh-so-superior thug assholes who champion prohibition.
3. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-17 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  THe ones who deserve to be kicked and stoned to death are the oh-so-superior thug assholes who champion prohibition.
  I agree with your sentiment exactly, prohibition is about other people arrogant enough (and likely on a moral crusade) to want to run other people's lives. The sort of people that would mandate a national religion if they could.
  We saw how well prohibition worked versus legal sale within the confines of an age-restricted substance (alcohol). How long do we need to play dumb with our fingers in our ears? The Netherlands haven't collapsed into a fiery pit have they? But apparently that's exactly what would happen to the rest of the world if the do-gooders lost their grip on the 'moral majority'.
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
4. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  They cannot just buy these products. Therefore they (or others) have to rob them.
  They can be bought, just not over the counter. Theft/robbery is never an inevitability or requirement just because somebody likes to do drugs.
5. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by russotto · 2014-05-17 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  They can be bought, just not over the counter. Theft/robbery is never an inevitability or requirement just because somebody likes to do drugs.
  If you buy oxycodone on the street, where do you think the people you buy them from got them? Maybe they got them with a fake prescription or some other merely fraudulent means, but most likely they stole them.
6. Re:A lot of screwed up stuff in this story ... by zippthorne · 2014-05-18 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  One wonders who supports the drug laws most loudly (other than the LEO's who get to play with cool, expensive paramilitary gear). The superior-to-thou teetotalers, or the drug smugglers themselves. An end to prohibition would also be an end to the profit margins of the illegal drug trade.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Now there's... by MitchDev · 2014-05-17 06:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

... a use GPS devices I can support.
1. Re:Now there's... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  But... someone puts a GPS tracker in their $500...$1000...$10000 bike (laptop, ipad, smart phone, etc), it gets nicked, and the cops won't lift a finger to go find the bike, even though the owner says, "here it is, please go get it back for me". So, the owner decides to. Maybe the owner gets killed, maybe the thief gets killed (and the owner charged with manslaughter...mans laughter).
  What a straaange world.
welcome to the next boom by recharged95 · 2014-05-17 06:03 · Score: 2

The pill bottle is an example of the coming Internet or things.
Much like drones and big data, there's lots of policy to abuse, and much ethics to be discussed... Much like the last boom with wireless and content (rights management).
but, but what about privacy by alen · 2014-05-17 06:06 · Score: 0

of the perp
the police tracked him down with no search warrant
1. Re:but, but what about privacy by Noah+Haders · 2014-05-17 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  the police tracked him down with no search warrant
  No they didn't. They tracked the pill bottle. Same way I would use Find My iPhone if somebody took my phone, then go kick in his door.
2. Re:but, but what about privacy by Culture20 · 2014-05-17 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Forget the perp. That GPS pill bottle has to remain active all the time. So while it's not being stolen, the police are tracking the location of the PHARMACY. 24/7! They never don't know where the pharmacy isn't!
3. Re:but, but what about privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA
  The GPS is inactive, probably to remove the need for battery maintenance more than any other reason including privacy, until the bottle is removed from the base unit.
4. Re:but, but what about privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you didn't read the last sentence of TFS, then :/
5. Re:but, but what about privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  I can't believe this WOOSHed two ACs. The pharmacy is a stationary building. Of course they always know where the pharmacy is.
British cops will. Bring a whistle to a gunfight? by raymorris · 2014-05-17 06:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Nm
good idea by defective_warthog · 2014-05-17 06:09 · Score: 1

Seems like a good idea to me.
The theif didn't have to raise his gun at a cop. Who wouldn't shoot at someone pointing a gun at them?
But they won't track down and tase phone thieves by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:09 · Score: 0

Built-in GPS and software to do it. No bother.
Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

For all you statists here who want to government to decide what you can and can't put into your own body, I hope you're happy. This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
1. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:26 · Score: -1
  
  Only a pothead could defend a criminal who stole products. What the fuck is wrong with you? Oh right, a permanent reduction of grey matter due to marijuana abuse.
  Glad the War on Drugs is making life miserable for people like yourself. If you want the ultimate high, consider suicide and save taxpayers some money.
2. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by fnj · 2014-05-17 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Completely aside from the most basic human right of all - dominion over your own body - you would think anyone with a functioning brain would have learned from Prohibition, but scum-sucking power freaks and those who countenance and support them will never get it.
3. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  For all you statists here who want to government to decide what you can and can't put into your own body, I hope you're happy. This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
  Quoted for inconvenient truth.
4. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  He was sitting in traffic, so there goes your argument about the dangers of a public chase. He was also shot after drawing his weapon on the police, before they saw a single drug bottle. That would happen to a priest who was simply making a joke by wielding a weapon. Your war on drugs argument has nothing to do with this article. An Armed Robber killed after threatening police. That's it.
5. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Opportunist · 2014-05-17 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  And who are you to keep him from eliminating himself from the gene pool in the way he chooses works best for him?
  Fuck, let people snort, sniff, shoot and smoke themselves to grave and back, for all I care, give them MORE of the stuff! If this planet has more than it can take of one thing, it's humans!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-05-17 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  you would think anyone with a functioning brain would have learned from Prohibition
  Oh, they learned it well. They learned about how many cops they could hire, how big of a buracracy they need, how many prisons are built and staffed, how the power balance turns against the "citizens" (and, amazingly, they even get other "citizens" to cheer them on) and how much easier it is to go after people for other prosecutions once you nail them for a vice.
  The brain malfunction is among the people who don't see this as a War on the People.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
7. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by ganjadude · 2014-05-17 07:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  a permanent reduction of grey matter due to marijuana abuse.
  clearly you know nothing about marijuana based on that statement. Marijuana does not reduce grey matter and in fact http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
  
  maybe you should do some research before you go out calling other people names and make yourself look like a fool
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
8. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Fwipp · 2014-05-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you "make a joke" by waving a weapon at cops who have just surrounded your vehicle... you're not very bright.
9. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by tomhath · 2014-05-17 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
  Read a bit of history. Before the late 19th century there were no restrictions on drugs. Opium dens were commonplace and the resulting damage to people who used those drugs was enough to bring about the laws restricting their use.
10. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by bussdriver · 2014-05-17 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah and those laws didn't work. So we continue to do the same thing... definition of crazy.
  Some people are fuck ups and it is their right to be an example to others. Let them do what they want; however, since a big part of the problem is the inability to UNDO a 1 or 2 time mistake you tax it and put out plenty of warnings and treatment programs.
  Alcohol does more harm than anything. STILL. The Police State probably does most the rest.
  Me, I would have government provide everything for free. People like to say how government can't do business etc. and how it harms the market etc. Well, if that is so true... how come nobody is for having the government entirely kill the black market by getting into it? Go to a gov clinic, get put into a padded room and shoot up whatever you like, safely as possible. No restrictions. As soon as you limit it too much you create a black market (and the people lobbying for limitations are likely connected to cartels...) Also while taxing is OK to fund stuff-- over taxing is also a potential problem and I am confident without taxes it would STILL be much cheaper than what is spent on prohibition and we don't have any direct tax funding today's mess.
  There are so many solutions to try out but we can't seriously do anything except what doesn't work.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
11. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by PPH · 2014-05-17 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  The initiative was in response to a sharp increase of armed and often deadly pharmacy robberies across the state, frequently by people addicted to painkillers.
  
  Put what you want in your body so long as you sit alone by yourself, bothering no one. And when it goes wrong, you o.d. and die by yourself as well. But if your drive to ingest substances drives you to violence and puts other members of society at risk, we can do without you.
  I'd like to walk down the street without pants. But considering the legal consequences, I choose not to. People who can't make reasonable trade offs w.r.t. such consequences don't function well in society. Not at all if their choice trumps the right to life of others.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
12. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Read a bit more history. All of the US's drug laws came about due to racism and little more.
13. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Qzukk · 2014-05-17 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Opium dens were commonplace
  Is that what they called them back then? I thought they were called soda fountains.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
14. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-05-17 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  If the decision is made by a competent individual I'm fine with it.
  However I think that there is a lot of evidence that people addicted to pain killers aren't necessarily capable of making such decisions any more.
15. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  This person (and you) have proven yourselves too stupid to be given dominion over "your own body". "I want to get high" is not a good enough reason to allow you to rob me.
16. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  The right to self harm has never been a right in the US. The FDA, for example, exists to prevent harm as much as possible. We have laws and regulations designed explicitly to minimize harm. It's an imperfect system, but the ludicrous claim that self-harm is a right is a flat-out lie.
  Drug addicts don't think, they feel. You feel strongly about this, but you haven't actually thought about it yet. Before you damage your brain any further from continued marijuana use, use what little grey matter you still have left and really think about this.
17. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by stephenpeters · 2014-05-17 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm entirely happy that drugs such as Flunitrazepam (AKA Rohypnol, roofies etc.) with limited use outside of hospital inpatients are restricted to prescription only. While it is reasonable to desire freedom to put what you want into your own body it is also reasonable for society to restrict some classes of drug that are often used to assist with date rape and other crimes. This is not statism and is quite different from the control of recreational drugs. Regardless of where the recreational drug debate ends up there will always be some restricted drugs.
18. Re:Another casualty of the War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  !!!
  Legalize everything. Halve the police force.
or not commit robberies and burglaries by raymorris · 2014-05-17 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

One could do that. Another common method of avoiding decoys is to avoid committing robbery and burglary. Felony crime as a career path doesn't tend to attract the brightest and most careful practitioners.
1. Re:or not commit robberies and burglaries by Rande · 2014-05-17 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The smart ones go into law and politics....
  Where you can buy, bamboozle or masonic handshake your way out of your crimes. ...or even retrospectively make it legal.
2. Re:or not commit robberies and burglaries by fustakrakich · 2014-05-17 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Felony crime as a career path doesn't tend to attract the brightest and most careful practitioners.
  You obviously don't work in politics... And yes it does attract the brightest. We only see the 5 or 10 percent who get caught.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:or not commit robberies and burglaries by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-17 10:26 · Score: 2
  
  I doubt many people committing petty theft consider it a career. More like an act of desperation because they don't have a career, or because they need money to feed their addictions (drugs, gambling, whatever).
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:or not commit robberies and burglaries by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  Which are problems most often faced by those who are neither the best nor the brightest. There are exceptions, but such is the balance of probability.
5. Re:or not commit robberies and burglaries by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  But white collar crime does. Steal a bag of chips go to jail for 10 years. Steal 50 million get six months probation. Funny thing is is that it is the smart criminals who are writing our laws. Who would have thought they would have allowed themselves an easy out. The U.S. prison industry is going strong, and needs bodies to ensure that our representative can continue to send their daughters to prestigious ivy league schools and continue to write laws.
Re:But they won't track down and tase phone thieve by PPH · 2014-05-17 06:13 · Score: 1

No money in it for the manufacturers to sell replacements.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Only works if by tiny69 · 2014-05-17 06:22 · Score: 1

... the criminals are not aware of what is being done. Good job NYT for letting the cat out of the bag.

--
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
1. Re:Only works if by aviators99 · 2014-05-17 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  the criminals are not aware of what is being done. Good job NYT for letting the cat out of the bag.
  True. This is a technology that gets less useful the more it is used. Even if you're an idiot crook, you don't have to be a genius to understand when your crook buddy says, "Hey, I got popped for taking the drugs that are on the special holder. Don't take those."
2. Re:Only works if by Known+Nutter · 2014-05-17 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Good job NYT for letting the cat out of the bag.
  
  Of course you realize it was an unauthorized NYPD official who let the cat out of the bag, and not the NYT, right?
  
  The decoy bottle was among a cache of drugs taken in an armed robbery about 1:30 p.m. from HealthSource Pharmacy, at Second Avenue and East 68th Street, according to a police official, who was not authorized to speak about the investigation.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
3. Re:Only works if by misexistentialist · 2014-05-17 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like it's not too easy to find or block the transmitter, so they probably want the message out there to deter dangerous thieves from bothering them.
4. Re:Only works if by CauseBy · 2014-05-19 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Right. And that's why nobody has tracked down criminals using fingerprints for over a hundred years, since about a year after someone first was caught because of fingerprints. Nowadays, no crimes are ever committed by ungloved hands.
  Also, no stolen cars are ever identified by license plate number, because all car thieves swap out plates, every single time.
  Right? That's what you are saying, right? That all police tactics are useless as long as there is some possible workaround to the tactic?
Yes they did by dutchwhizzman · 2014-05-17 06:22 · Score: 1

Yes they did, or at least that's one of the often used reasons why police won't follow up on a "find my phone" app location given to them on a silver platter by the owner of the telephone. Maybe we need to have a clear look at what constitutes "tracking" and what not?

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:Yes they did by Noah+Haders · 2014-05-17 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless, I'm still going to kick in the door.
2. Re:Yes they did by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  You are *so* cool ...
Wonderful! Another dead drug addict. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 06:23 · Score: 0

Nothing will solve our problems faster than throwing out the trash.
Glad to see technology helping law enforcement in a positive way.
How Old School! by JimSadler · 2014-05-17 06:27 · Score: 1

It would have been far better if a drone had gunned him down. That way the cop would not have been at risk.
Blue or Red pill? by ChadSmith4920 · 2014-05-17 06:35 · Score: 1

You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in prison... You take the red pill - get tracked by GPS and Killed.
Good. by WillyWanker · 2014-05-17 06:38 · Score: 1

Nothing more to add than that.
Why reveal the trick? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:00 · Score: 0

Although we could safely say that those kind of robbers aren't the most literate, why explain the trick of the decoy?
1. Re:Why reveal the trick? by kthreadd · 2014-05-17 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because robbers don't read /.
2. Re:Why reveal the trick? by david_thornley · 2014-05-19 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Because robbers don't read /.
  We could use the added diversity in the comments section, frankly.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:08 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:25 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:26 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:27 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:29 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:30 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Measure and countermeasure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:33 · Score: 0

So put the pills in a ziploc bag and the GPS-enabled bottle in the back of a truck.
Then they'll put a fake pill with a GPS in the bottle.
Then someone will swallow the fake pill and sue the government.
Where does it end?
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:33 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:35 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:36 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:37 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Decoy Pill Bottle by roofingsaltlakecity · 2014-05-17 07:47 · Score: 1

I think thats the dumbest thing I ever heard of why would anyone go through so much effort to track down a pill thieve doesn't our government have better ways to spend our tax dollars. I have a suggestion use that tax money to send the marines to our closest drug distributing neighbor (Mexico) and put an end to that shit I don't want to hear another person rtell me about a war on drugs until I see the marines handle business like they do in real wars. As I see it the only war our government is waging against drugs is the one waged against American citizens that have been hooked on drugs (They are the victims not the enemy) The real villains all push their drugs across our borders while Americans pay the price.
1. Re:Decoy Pill Bottle by xvan · 2014-05-17 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  The real villains all push their drugs across our borders while Americans pay the price of those drugs.
  FTFY. And remember that mexican cartels get their weapons from the US
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 07:59 · Score: 0

For years I've been saying we should deploy traps and decoys throughout our urban habitats to trap and exterminate dangerous and defective people.
...and of a corrupt health care system by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:10 · Score: 0

Not only has the US bought in to the lie of prohibition effectiveness, but the US also has little to no health care available to allow those who have gotten themselves in trouble. Introduce a widely-available, non-judgemental, prosecution-free, single-payer option for maintenance of addicted individuals, and you'd see pharmacy robberies drop to zero overnight. Clean pharmaceutical supplies of some of these drugs cost less than $5/month to manufacture, and allow people who have made costly mistakes years ago to return to being economically productive.
People have allowed their Calvinist "morality" you-deserve-it bullshit to eat this country alive, and everyone is paying for it. Prohibition generates desperation.
steal a pill bottle? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:35 · Score: 0

wouldn't it be easier to buy Aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen instead of stealing OxyContin? I must be missing something.
We should also put out bait cars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 08:42 · Score: 0

that lock the doors and gas the occupants after they break in.
1. Re:We should also put out bait cars by tomhath · 2014-05-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  The pill bottle didn't hurt the guy.
2. Re:We should also put out bait cars by Optali · 2014-05-18 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  well, that can be helped.
  Next time put some TNT in it!
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
It is possible... by amosh · 2014-05-17 08:54 · Score: 1

That the title of this story could have been written a bit more neutrally? Or more in line with the story? Or even the summary right below it?
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:03 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:07 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:22 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:36 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:37 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:38 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:40 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 09:41 · Score: -1

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-05-17 10:26 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
leave the bottle by AndyKron · 2014-05-17 10:40 · Score: 1

So if you're going to steal pills, remember to pour them into a bag and leave the bottle
1. Re:leave the bottle by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  It takes more time to open the bottles and pour them in a bag. Time is important when the police is on its way.
Probably not GPS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 10:55 · Score: 0

Is anyone else annoyed by the probable misuse of the term "GPS device" to describe this device?
I don't know for certain, but the device probably simply emitted an RF beacon and was triangulated, rather than receiving or re-transmitting its coordinates based on GPS calculations.
And even if it calculated its own location via GPS and transmitted that data back on some frequency to the cops, calling it a "GPS device" simply reinforces ignorance among muggles who think that GPS tracks *you* rather than the other way around.
Only works if by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 12:01 · Score: 0

... the criminals are not aware of what is being done. Good job NYT for letting the cat out of the bag.
Well dye-packs are known yet work pretty well. Really even if it is well known it can still be an effective tool. Say have some mixed in with the pain pill stock and a barcodes as the only thing differentiating them externally. The cashier scans it to see if it is a real bottle or not and swaps it back if it isn't. Even if the crooks knew about the measures it would still slow them down since their choices are to check every bottle or risk carrying a tracker.
Because those pills are so dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 13:29 · Score: 0

The problem isn't the pills, but the assholes regulating them.
Yeah, addiction is a problem; its a fucking personal problem; not a criminal problem. If and some joker wants to buy narcotics from a pharmacist, the pharmacist should be allowed to fucking sell them to him!
Motherfucking puritan assholes.
Weighted but with no pills? by Pichu0102 · 2014-05-17 14:03 · Score: 1

Er, wouldn't it be easier to put sugar pills in the bottles that have the appearance of pain medication? If a robber wises up and checks in the bottle before leaving and sees nothing, that pharmacist is going to be in trouble.
Painkiller addiction by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:05 · Score: 1

I'd say there's no 'becoming', it's not like it's an emerging problem. The sick thing is, it'd probably be cheaper to simply put them on maintenance doses to manage the addiction. Heroin is dirt cheap if produced commercially.
I favor legalizing, taxing and regulating most 'recreational' drugs.
Legalizing - not decriminalization. Much of the benefit I want is defunding organized crime. You can't do that without making production and distribution legal.
Taxing - approximately the difference between how cheap it is to produce legally and street price. Tax more dangerous stuff a bit more, stuff that isn't as dangerous a bit less.
Regulate - No under 18, true labeling, pharmacy grade production, etc...
Take some of the tax money and put it towards treatment centers and other remediation programs.

--
I don't read AC A human right
GPS tracking & police response by Firethorn · 2014-05-17 14:07 · Score: 1

Depends on the location. Some areas the police will be all over it.
You know what the sad thing is? Most criminals that steal things like bikes & laptops are serial thieves. Knocking one or two out of the trade can be enough to improve the local area's crime stats substantially.

--
I don't read AC A human right
armed robbery is petty theft now? nm? by raymorris · 2014-05-17 14:32 · Score: 1

You consider armed robbery to be petty theft?
Interesting.
Then again... by mattr · 2014-05-17 14:39 · Score: 1

I've never used drugs, am not pro-guns and don't mean to make a political statement, but I've been thinking a bit more since a relative's young friend died from heroin overdose. If you take a step back though, eliminate the guns and robbery and whatever turned the guy into what he was until he got himself killed, you've got to admit:
- That's a rotten way to die, getting yourself addicted then having to commit armed robbery to sustain it.
- The other side of the coin is what if he was just stealing to sell it on the street, then fuck him?
- But if the police were capable of any kind of restraint or strategic planning, couldn't they have invented a way to arrest him without precipitating a shootout in traffic? They *knew* he would likely be armed. They *knew* the traffic and the route he was on. Couldn't they have followed him in advance of is car, thrown gas into the car, etc.?
Cops could be lying by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 14:45 · Score: -1

There was a incident where a police had shot a black man in the back and then went and plant a gun next to him and say that the guy had had a gun on him. What we found out after the investigation is: guy didn't have no gun. Police had just shot a man in cold blood.
Sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-17 15:51 · Score: 0

This idea is stupid and we just saw what can, has, and will go wrong.. The only thing I see here is the lives of officers were put at risk for a few fucking pain killers. The war on drugs is pointless and no measure taken will ever deter a junkie.
Trust me I know, the only thing that deterred me was the methadone clinic.
Problem solved! by cyn1c77 · 2014-05-17 16:29 · Score: 1

Someone willing to steal, traffic narcotics, and kill is off the streets.
As a bonus, we won't have to pay for his legal fees and incarceration.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can feel that this was anything other than a win-win situation. If you're worried about Big Brother, keep in mind that he actually stole the tracking device that lead to his capture.
1. Re:Problem solved! by mattr · 2014-05-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  I do not know anything about the story but frankly, I think you need to think about it a bit more deeply. There is some very bad problem which led to a desperate person to get a gun, commit a robbery, escape and then get murdered in a shootout in the middle of traffic.
  What caused him to develop into such a person, what brought him to the point of desperation? We will never know. What really happened? The police destroyed a life that might have been rehabilitated. The only story we know is that of the murderers. Who got the guy a gun and sent him to steal? We will never know until their next victim appears. Or was he acting alone? If so would the desperation have been solved by providing free therapy / painkillers? Was he going insane from pain, was he mentally ill? We may never know and there is little incentive now for anyone to try and find out.
  Yes, it is not that I am anti-police but I would call it murder when a militarized force has the luxury of time and options, a satellite fix and ownership of the entire map, and still they intentionally pick the most highly graphic, most extremely violent, most dangerous solution which was to kill. (I mean dangerous to the murder victim and the people in cars nearby, though also a shootout is dangerous to police of course.)
  I really have little understanding of this case, but it seems to me that if a person is highly addicted, economically disadvantaged and stupid, then it would be very easy for him to become desperate and crazy enough to get a gun, steal, even kill to get his fix. I have no experience except what one reads in fiction, sorry to say, so even here I admit I may not have all the information necessary to understand everything perfectly.
  In order for our society to somehow cure itself from multiple insanities, we need to roll back the ultra-militarized force and the way of thinking that removes any possible valid story except that of authority, and we need to use the leeway that generates to do some actual investigation into the root causes, and fix them. Maybe organized crime, a past injury, a psychotic episode, who knows what was involved. We are not looking to justify his actions but to understand the train of errors that led to this catastrophe, like the train of errors that almost always exists behind a plane crash. Perhaps there are 100 reasons over the past 30 years why the man who was killed finally got to that point. Perhaps if he had grown up with the same genes in another country than the U.S., he might have gotten a chance to live longer. If we can identify any of those 100 reasons, those 100 errors, we could reduce murder, desperation, incarceration, drugs, and so on. And we might get more productive and happier members of society.
  I appreciate that you are telling the way you see it honestly. That means this is an opportunity for you to learn. We are not living in Batman's Gotham City. If you have any respect for human rights or interest in our civilization advancing in maturity and not reverting to animalism or despotism, you must think harder. It is not win-win at all. NOBODY won. We all lost. You can only think of this as a win if you willfully ignore most of the story and subscribe to a fantasy where life is a zero-sum game. Perhaps like monopoly or a card game. Or the way it looks like on a police themed TV series. That is cognitive dissonance and is not reality. There were many opportunities for real win-win, if you think of it as society vs. this individual, or you vs. this individual, in the past. This was not one of them. This is when all opportunities for winning were lost forever and we failed.
Another casualty of the War on Drugs by SlurpingGreen · 2014-05-17 18:26 · Score: 1

As a statist, I think you're making the wrong argument. The question is not whether the state should be able to tell you what to do. It does (eg, stop signs) and it should (eg, vaccines) for very practical reasons. The question is does the benefit to society from prohibiting drugs out weigh the cost in freedom, blood, and treasure. In my opinion, things like the enormously bloated prison population suggest it does not.
AK Mark by Hognoxious · 2014-05-17 21:43 · Score: 1

No doubt AK Mark will be along shortly to claim that since they must have known in advance that he would steal the bottle that means it's entrapment.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Personal location tracker by caluml · 2014-05-17 21:47 · Score: 1

I've written a little Android app that updates a webpage with your location. I've thought that people with an expensive sports car might like to use it by leaving it in their glove box when their car is serviced, and seeing if the garage takes it on a "Ferris Bueller" style jaunt around town.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:03 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:04 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:06 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:09 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:11 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:12 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:13 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:14 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:16 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:18 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:19 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 01:20 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why release this information? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:21 · Score: 0

i'm sure that you will have continued success now that you have released this information to everyone. What in the hell were you thinking?
Pharmacratic inquisition by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:08 · Score: 0

Fuck the drug war. Fuck patents. Fuck the prison industrial complex. Fuck the police. Wake the fuck up.
You don't like it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 09:08 · Score: 0

The system works pretty well, not perfect, but the numbers are ok. The police protect you and let you sleep safely in you bed at night. You would change your tune if you were in that same position. If you hate them so much then don't make the call next time you are in trouble. Ungrateful!
The "killing" part is off-topic by Optali · 2014-05-18 09:17 · Score: 1

Wether he was or not killed is off-topic.
Interesting from the tech/nerd point of view is that he was tracked by GPS, the fact that the police shot at him after raising a gun is a) an obvious result and b) has nothing to do with either the GPS or technology

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast
What? No GPS-hunting drone kiill? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 10:04 · Score: 0

From the title, I thought this article had more potential.
Placebo by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 13:04 · Score: 0

I'd actually put sugar pills in the decoy bottles, just in case a thief opens the bottle to check to see if it's a decoy.