Slashdot Mirror
Robbery Suspect Tracked By GPS and Killed
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."
[n/t]
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
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.
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
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
... a use GPS devices I can support.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No money in it for the manufacturers to sell replacements.
Have gnu, will travel.
In Britain, the regular patrolmen are not tracking GPS devices in pill bottles. That would be the special police forces, who do carry weapons.
... 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)
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!
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?
It would have been far better if a drone had gunned him down. That way the cop would not have been at risk.
Generally, people don't shoot at them. Strange concept relating to NOT HAVING SO MANY F***ING GUNS.
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in prison... You take the red pill - get tracked by GPS and Killed.
Nothing more to add than that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Why? Because COPS SAID SO.
Bullshit.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I think you need to have your satire module re-calibrated, Unit AC.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"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..."
Because robbers don't read /.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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!
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.
" 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..."
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.
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.
Well, except for the dozens of witnesses.
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.
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.
Sounds like suicide by cop. Maybe the idiot didn't want to go to jail.
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.
I believe you're what was called a Democrat, before the progressive retards destroyed our party.
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
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"?
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
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."
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!
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"?
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.
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.
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
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_...
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.
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.
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.
Who Cares?
The fucking thief is dead, that's all that counts.
Nothing more needs to be said.
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."
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.
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?
The pill bottle didn't hurt the guy.
citation needed... It sounds too stupid to be true.
[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!
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.
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"?
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.
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
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
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!
So if you're going to steal pills, remember to pour them into a bag and leave the bottle
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
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
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
Fascinating that you can write so many words without answering the question.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
not at all; fantasy and imagination are a lynchpin of the superiority and dominance of my race.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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
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
Stop or I'll toot!
THL phish sticks
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
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.
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
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
I'm with him. Better dead than jail in the US.
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.
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.
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
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
You consider armed robbery to be petty theft?
Interesting.
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
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
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.?
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
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.
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.
the only thing that stops a gun is another gun
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.
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
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.
Huh, I thought bullet proof vests were real. Silly me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Only if you ignore the fact that most of those are self-inflicted deaths, and most of the rest are criminal-on-criminal.
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."
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
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.
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.
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."
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."
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
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...
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...
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);
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.
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.
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..."
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..."
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.
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..."
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..."
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.
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
Saves the CITIZENRY a bunch of money. The term 'tax-payer' has no meaning in this context.
Good-bye
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.
The term 'tax-payer' has no meaning in this context.
The meaning seems pretty clear to me...
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
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.
What about people who actually need the pills, and pick these up?
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.
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.
well i came.
thanks for the one.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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
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.'"
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.
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
well, that can be helped.
Next time put some TNT in it!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
And, of course, not all citizens are tax payers...
Ken
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.
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.
While fewer guns will mean fewer gun related deaths, it will not necessarily reduce the homicide rate.
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
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
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?
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.
Well, as long as it's not blood-thirst and only soulless, cold-hearted pragmatism.
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ask me how I know your upper class (white?)
Cheap storage VM.
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.
"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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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