Slashdot Mirror


Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic

The AP (here, carried by the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that recorded conversations reveal flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO, and agreed to by Federal aviation safety officials, were specifically intended to limit the access of journalists to the area, rather than purely in response to safety concerns. One FAA manager in Kansas City was recorded saying police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there." "There is really ... no option for a [Temporary Flight Restriction] that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic. The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response. Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter. But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

159 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. While I hate the media circus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is illegal.

    1. Re:While I hate the media circus... by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution, you sea lion.

    2. Re:While I hate the media circus... by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      illegal

      What statute has been violated?

      The First Amendment prohibits the prior restraint of speech except in *very* narrow circumstances.

      Lots of things are illegal without violating a statute--they may violate the Constitution, or a regulation promulgated pursuant to a statute, for example.

    3. Re:While I hate the media circus... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution,

      Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:While I hate the media circus... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      heh, you know, i never thought about that argument before. Thanks!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:While I hate the media circus... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      laws are just promises on paper.

      http://www.allposters.co.uk/-s...

    6. Re:While I hate the media circus... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      ... and to a "well regulated militia"...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re:While I hate the media circus... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Oh please, dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

      I'm staying, I'm finishing my coffee. Enjoying my coffee.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    8. Re:While I hate the media circus... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The second amendment does not say "in order to maintain a well regulated militia". There is no constraining clause at all. There is a justifying phrase. Whether or not you think that justifying phrase applies today or not makes no difference. That clause does not constrain the amendment in any way. nor is it in anyway a prerequisite of the amendment.

      The Supreme Court has allowed a lot of bullshit, yes. Just because they're in a position of authority doesn't make them correct.

    9. Re:While I hate the media circus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm glad we don't live in China or Russia............... Oh wait!!

      Does this surprise anyone really? First off I heard several things over the shooting, that sparked the media sensationalizing the killing of a black man.

      This young black man tried to steal a box of cigars, then when confronted by police he attacked the police officer, shattering his his face, then tried to steal the officers gun, resulting in the young black man being shot.

      Now what the morons in MO have done, does nothing to explain any of what happened. Where are the hospital records of the officers injuries, do these dip-shit pigs have in car cameras? This is the very problem with police, and politicians there is NO transparency, which is laughable considering their living fairly well off of tax money.

      I keeping an open mind on what MAY or MAY NOT have happened, but it is shit like this that makes me wonder, your trying to suppress press coverage instead of explaining with "official records" what happened, and yet people in this country are being thrown in prison for the dumbest of shit, based on country wide surveillance by federal, Washington Agencies, state/local law enforcement.

      This is a wonderful thing, "FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY" ( DO you get the sinister sarcasm in what I've said?)

      And I do not want to hear some bullshit over law enforcement being in the line of fire, these dip-shits have been getting a free ride for far too long, they should be held to FAR HIGHER standards..

    10. Re: While I hate the media circus... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Flying helicopters over a city is speech now?

      Read the amendment, shitwick. Not only does it apply to speech, it applies to the explicitly to the press, enabling them to both get the news and tell the news, regardless of what the government wants.

    11. Re:While I hate the media circus... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      2007? What happened in 2007? Run up to the financial crash when Wall Street screwed everyone?
      I think we should go back to 1776 to get the real story.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    12. Re:While I hate the media circus... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Yes, except in *very* narrow circumstances. IIRC, when there is a compelling government interest and exceptionally clear rules about the restraint, so that government officials do not have any discretion. (If there is discretion, then there is the possibility for censorship.) In practice, that is a much higher bar than it sounds like.

      They are allowed time place and manner restrictions on speech much more easily. If this were to go to court on a First Amendment issue, the government would try to get it thrown into that category.

    13. Re:While I hate the media circus... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      In 2008 Heller happened. Look it up.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:While I hate the media circus... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the apparent misunderstanding, but I was merely quoting John Goodman's character "Walter Sobchak" from the film The Big Lebowski (1998).

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    15. Re:While I hate the media circus... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal until the trial is over and the judge/jury has declared it to be illegal.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    16. Re:While I hate the media circus... by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Now what the morons in MO have done, does nothing to explain any of what happened. Where are the hospital records of the officers injuries, do these dip-shit pigs have in car cameras?

      First, no they didn't have cameras, but that's irrelevant, as the shooting and altercation would've happened behind the camera. At most, you'd get audio, which would only corroborate what is already known. Scuffle at car (see Brown's blood in police car and close range gun shot to hand), and some fired shots. You might hear some of the words used during the altercation and that's it.

      Second, HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...e/privacyrule/) the hospital records are not going to be released until the trial. That's even if it get's to trial. As the Grand Jury, who surely has the hospital records, is deliberating on whether Wilson will be charged.

    17. Re:While I hate the media circus... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      And you didn't have them warn your 2007 self to sell all your stock and real estate?

      You're an idiot!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    18. Re:While I hate the media circus... by dave-man · · Score: 1

      You still can't yell fire in a crowded theater. The media circus in Ferguson has conveyed riots and looting as civil disobedience. The public and US Constitution are not well served.

      --
      Bill Gates is a communist -- he's just more equal than the rest of us.
    19. Re: While I hate the media circus... by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      Actually, the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting..." As far as I know, a temporary flight restriction is not a law, and was not published by Congress. Therefore, while this may still be illegal, it's likely not unconstitutional. I am not a Supreme Court justice, so YMMV.

    20. Re: While I hate the media circus... by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Actually, the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting..." As far as I know, a temporary flight restriction is not a law, and was not published by Congress. Therefore, while this may still be illegal, it's likely not unconstitutional.

      Incorrect. The 14th Amendment extends the 1st Amendment to cause it to apply to state (and local) governments.

      In fact, it more or less -- here's where you need a lawyer -- extends every federal protection to limit state and local governments. In practice, there is a long history of this being ignored!

      The 14th Amendment was deliberately written (after the Civil War) to close loopholes that the Southern states had taken advantage of (or even created in the first place) to protect the slave system.

      For example, in James Madison's original text of the Bill of Rights, what would eventually become the 1st Amendment was explicitly written to cover BOTH state and federal governments (a fact which nicely kills the myth that the Bill of Rights was intended only to apply to the federal government). The wording was changed when the Bill of Rights went through the Senate, but as far as I know there is no documentation giving the reason the wording was changed. It was probably done by the Southern states, who then took advantage of the loophole in passing laws authorizing them to imprison people that spoke out against slavery (that happened on several occasions).

      Getting the 14th Amendment approved required some sneaky and underhanded stuff to make sure the southern states (this was just after the Civil War) could not block it (not the mention the need to run over the opposition of the President: Lincoln's successor had VERY good relations with many slave holders, and almost managed to undo the effects of the Civil War). Garrett Epps book on the 14th Amendment ("Democracy Reborn") covers this in detail.

      It shouldn't have been necessary to write the 14th Amendment, of course, since the 9th Amendment by itself should have been sufficient to assert any right needed that was not explicitly stated, even against state and local governments. That's why it was included, after all!

      In practice getting government (and the US legal profession) to acknowledge the limitations on their actions created by the Bill of Rights is often difficult, and that is just as true today as it was back then.

    21. Re: While I hate the media circus... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      to make sure the southern states (this was just after the Civil War) could not block it

      The southern states were placed under military governance and denied representation in Congress until such time they ratified it.

  2. whoever is responsible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And there are probably at least a dozen. They should all do at least 20 years. They are the worst evil garbage imaginable.

    1. Re:whoever is responsible... by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aiming guns at currently non-violent protesters was not enough to cause outrage (among a great many more blatant violations, but this is?!

      Face it, those in charge will get a slap on the wrist at best at this point. Power has corrupted, and it is too late to do anything meaningful. If you try expect to get on a secret list and have your life screwed with royally. Hunker down and hope you aren't alredy on a list to get "disappeared".

    2. Re:whoever is responsible... by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pants Up, Don't Loot!

  3. What a surprise (not) by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somebody should go to jail over this.

    It won't happen, though.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    1. Re:What a surprise (not) by chromaexcursion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A boat load of federal crimes (maybe a helicopter load). A lot of people (police and local officials) deserve to go to jail.
      There are too many he said she said. Unconfirmable statements, only muddy it further. Unless an insider blows the whistle, the guilty will walk.
      A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished. They might have to dig into their retirement fund to pay for legal advice. Some pain, less than what most of them deserve. The ones simply following orders don't need a lawyer. The truth, my boss told me to do this and I believed him/her, should protect them. They didn't commit a crime. Don't kill the messenger.
      Perhaps the idiot at the FAA that accepted this may pay. Probably not fired, but at least enough damage to make someone else think twice before accepting a sack of bull$#1t.

    2. Re:What a surprise (not) by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished.

      Yeah, good luck finding a prosecutor who will go after the State for protecting its power by hiding its abuses from the press. That's a career-killer for any ladder-climbing prosecutor, and it appears all the other types have been driven from the vocation at this point.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though unfortunate, I believe you are correct. There is a lot of abuses in Ferguson which should have already landed officials in jail, outside of the obvious. Police have repeated targeted journalists, even firing Tear Gas directly at an Al Jazeera TV crew, and after chasing them away turned off their cameras and turned down their lights. RT and Infowars also had crews attacked by police. Before you "but but those guys are *insert something silly* they provide information which no other agency is providing.

      People in power _WANT_ to take out media so that the only thing people see is what they script. They want the issue to be black vs. white, because if it looks that way instead of corruption people poke at each other instead of looking at officials. The agenda behind all of this is easy to see, because they do it all the time. Citizen and Blog media is blowing their cover, and they really hate it.

      Back on point, they have already said that the cop that shot Michael Brown would probably not face any charges, even what should be obviously excessive use of force. So the trend of Police brutality and corruption will continue, until of course people just start killing dirty cops. I don't advocate vigilantism, but at a certain point people will see there is no choice.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So the guy commits a strong arm robbery on video, then attacks a cop who's investigating and gets shot while going for the cops gun at close range, and it's police brutality?

      I'm all for making police accountable, but this seems like a bad ticket to ride on.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      ... this seems like a bad ticket to ride on.

      He can't help it, he has a subscription.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to grab your gun isn't "surrender" in white cop guy land.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    7. Re:What a surprise (not) by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cop had no idea about the robbery at the time of the shooting. He was reprimanding them for blocking traffic by walking in the middle of the street.

      The perp however knew he just robbed a place and that probably drove his action to attack the cop and try for his gun. I believe the cop had reasonable fear for his life because without knowledge of the robbery, the actions seem like that of a crazy person hell bent on harming him. Had the cop known of the robbery, i suspect the entire approach as well as the outcome would have been different without anyone dieing.

    8. Re:What a surprise (not) by pete6677 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Going for a cop's gun is not anyone's definition of surrendering.

    9. Re:What a surprise (not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if he had been shot to death while struggling for the cops gun I'd agree with you. But you don't get to shoot the guy when he is yards away with his hands up in the air. The fact the cop was able to empty the entire clip into him, including two shots to the head, strongly suggests that control of the officers weapon was not in question.

    10. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They found the deceased's blood *in* the cop car and on the cop's uniform and *on his gun*. Multiple witnesses said the scuffle and shootings happened inside the car (even the guy's buddy who tried to make it sound like the cop pulled the huge guy INTO the cop car while sitting in it, LOL).

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/...

      "FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown's arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.

      In addition to Wilson's uniform and gun, forensic tests found the teen's blood on the interior door panel of his car, The Times said."

      Although I bet you'll claim CNN is some left wing news outfit making shit up and the FBI is in on it.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    11. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That might explain the shooting that occurred at the police car, but it doesn't justify the fatal shots. You just don't get to claim self-defense when your adversary is running away! (Or when the adversary has given up trying to run and has decided to surrender instead, for that matter.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries?

      No. Nobody fucking did! Why? Because there weren't any! If there were, he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him instead of standing around.

      The officer only decided to seek treatment later, because he realized it might help his bullshit excuse. That is the action of someone who not only wasn't hurt, but who knew he was wrong.

      Do you deny officer's the right to self defense? Or is it open season for police officers for you?

      I deny jack-booted thugs the right to offense!

      Do you deny the fact that you're a fascist asshole?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Killing one innocent person is a problem, but impeding the press is actually worse because it allows them to cover up the fact that the killing wasn't an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of systemic police abuse. Places like Daily Kos are compiling lists... but of course, they can't get heard on the mainstream media so nobody but the partisans has the opportunity to care.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out the Cop did not know about the robbery so it was not a factor. Now, let us say he did.. was it armed robbery? No. Even if the Cop knew about the robbery deadly force was not required. Every police department I know of has non-lethal weapons and more than 1 officer, meaning that there are obvious options outside of shooting to kill.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Oh, and eye witness reports make no claim that the guy was attacking a cop. Perhaps you have never seen a lying cop, or an aggressive cop? Even as a white male you don't have to try that hard to find that type of cop.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 2

      You completely missed the point in my GP about controlling narrative. I don't trust CNN as far as I can spit. In fact the one of the forensics experts was on the local radio here (910AM in the Bay Area) and has threatened to sue at least one media outlet for fabricating information and taking some of her work out of context, taking quotes from an off the record interview and using those with evidence instead of the correct quotes.

      CNN has a very long history of fabricating stories as "news" and being an establishment mouthpiece, not "news".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:What a surprise (not) by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      There are other cases too, like Milt Olin.

    18. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Could you perhaps post some kind of evidence to the contrary of the FBI's current findings?

      If anyone is attempting to control the narrative, it seems to be you.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    19. Re:What a surprise (not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That two rounds were fired while the participants were struggling through the car window does not contradict the claim that the officer fired the fatal rounds while the victim was standing yards away with his hands up.

      I don't know what happened. The media don't know what happened. Hopefully, the investigation will become open and independent enough to gain more credibility that either Fox, CNN or the Furgeson police. My point is: even if the altercation started because Brown sucker punched the officer and tried to take his gun, the officer loses his right to claim self defense at the point where Brown backs off, puts his hands up, and surrenders.

    20. Re:What a surprise (not) by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      The perp however knew he just robbed a place and that probably drove his action to attack the cop and try for his gun.

      Because the way to 'get away with' petty theft is to dive through the window of a car, assault a cop, steal his gun and murder him? Someone's been playing too much GTA.

    21. Re:What a surprise (not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is why you get a Federal prosecutor to do it, who has already made rank on "busting political corruption" and would like to get made a Federal judge some day by some future liberal-leaning President, with the glowing endorsement of the ACLU.

      Besides, it's a violation of a Federal law anyway (1st Amendment).

    22. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have more logical fallacies in your post than you do sentences.

      The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries? The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries?

      TFA and my argument was regarding the establishment abusing power in order to control the narrative. Officer Wilson's alleged injuries are not relevant. Worse, the officer was not reported to be harmed at the scene, received no medical treatment on the scene, or even after he was removed from the location. So you start with a Strawman and cum hoc ergo propter hoc, then move to Argumentum ad verecundiam and appeal to assertion.

      Do you deny officer's the right to self defense? Or is it open season for police officers for you?

      Ahh, the ole ad hominem based on a argumentum ad misericordiam. Obviously if I'm against police brutality I must be supporting people randomly shooting cops, because there is no place between those two points.

      I guess we know now.

      Argumentum ad populum, or perhaps argumentum ad numerum. No you don't know, and no the populace does not agree with you.

      Will no one rid me of the troublesome priest?

      False dichotomy based on previous fallacy arguments. There are countless options in between promoting vigilante killing of dirty police and allowing police free reign to abuse the populace they are sworn to protect.

      Would you care to go another round shill? I do mean shill with all of it's interesting implications, since whether you are paid or not you have a history of arguing as a pro-establishment mouth piece.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:What a surprise (not) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it excused anything, i said i can see why/where the cop was afraid for his life.

      Make no mistake, i belive this cop was in the wrong but not because of any ill or malicious intent. I believe he was scared out of his mind and acted on that fear when bullshit jaywalking stop turned life threatenting.

    24. Re:What a surprise (not) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Maybe Brown had been playing too much GTA. I cannot even pretend to understand all of his motivations. But we do know he robbed a store and would likely be facing jail time. Perhaps he just though the jail time would have been pound me in the ass penetentry time?

    25. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Riight I need to prove your lies. Gotcha.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    26. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      or if he attempted to lunge for the cop a second time

      According to witnesses, the officer started shooting while Brown was still running away: "The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacked the concrete."

      Brown must have been some kind of acrobat, in order to 'lunge for the cop' while facing the opposite direction!

      But, I don't think the cop was planning on killing the guy.

      Indeed, because unloading 8+ shots is what you do when you're not planning on killing.

      Against a much larger/younger/stronger assailant anything short of him falling to the ground spread eagle should be viewed suspiciously.

      So "suspicion" justifies lethal force now?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:What a surprise (not) by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Brown must have been some kind of acrobat, in order to 'lunge for the cop' while facing the opposite direction!

      Sure, or maybe eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence because people get shit wrong all the time.

      There have been 3 autopsies; none have shown any evidence that he was shot in the back.

    28. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Make no mistake, i belive this cop was in the wrong but not because of any ill or malicious intent. I believe he was scared out of his mind...

      Really? Scared out of his mind... why? He's a goddamned cop! He's supposed to be trained to deal with exactly that kind of confrontation without overreacting that way! For that matter, he's supposed to be trained to manage the situation so that he doesn't put himself in that position to begin with!

      Think about it: the asshole cop pulled up alongside and tried to talk to them through the window. If he were scared, why the Hell would he intentionally get that close, with him having the disadvantage of being seated? That, by itself, has got to go against police training (let alone everything else that was fucked up about the situation).

      Everything about how the officer initiated the situation, escalated it, reacted inappropriately, and tried to cover it up afterwards are the actions of nothing other than an incompetent, racist shithead. The actions of his fellow shitheads (i.e., just about every official in metro St. Louis, up to and including the one that used the FAA to obstruct the media) and his own prior records just reinforce that conclusion.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon

      Unfortunately for your argument, even that circumstance is under dispute. By some accounts, the officer tried to quickly open his car door while he was too close to Brown, the door bounced off him and hit the officer, and then the officer shot Brown (the first time) in retaliation for his own stupidity.

      the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender.

      (Continuing the same account) after getting shot the first time, Brown ran away (justly fearing for his life), got shot at again, and turned around attempting to surrender. Then the officer continued shooting until he fell over dead.

      The lesson black Americans are learning from this atrocity is:

      • If you attempt to assert yourself, you will be murdered.
      • If you attempt to flee, you will be murdered.
      • Even if you attempt to surrender, you will still be murdered!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:What a surprise (not) by Br00se · · Score: 1

      If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon

      Unfortunately for your argument, even that circumstance is under dispute. By some accounts, the officer tried to quickly open his car door while he was too close to Brown, the door bounced off him and hit the officer, and then the officer shot Brown (the first time) in retaliation for his own stupidity.

      I agree the facts are under dispute. I'm merely pointing out the scenario where lethal force is justified.

      the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender.

      (Continuing the same account) after getting shot the first time, Brown ran away (justly fearing for his life), got shot at again, and turned around attempting to surrender. Then the officer continued shooting until he fell over dead.

      Again, more facts that are disputed. I don't know that he was fired at when his back was turned, and I don't know that he was actually trying to surrender.

      The lesson black Americans are learning from this atrocity is:

      • If you attempt to assert yourself, you will be murdered.
      • If you attempt to flee, you will be murdered.
      • Even if you attempt to surrender, you will still be murdered!

      If any lesson can be learned by black or white Americans, it should be this. Don't rob stores. If a cop tells you to get out of the road, do it without comment, and certainly don't take a swing at him though the window of his police vehicle. But, if you've done the first three, under no circumstances reach in and try to grab his gun.

    31. Re:What a surprise (not) by Minwee · · Score: 1

      It can help with lateral move into politics at least by giving them anticorruption cred.

      Followed by another lateral move into an unfortunate fatal car accident.

      A police investigation of the scene will reveal that the cause was driver error.

    32. Re:What a surprise (not) by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Yeah none or A DOZEN, which ever:

      "Multiple witnesses in riot-torn Ferguson, Mo., said that the unarmed black teen killed by a white cop attacked the officer in his patrol car before the teen was shot, according to a new report."

      http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/w...

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    33. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You have more logical fallacies in your post than you do sentences. ... TFA and my argument was regarding the establishment abusing power in order to control the narrative. Officer Wilson's alleged injuries are not relevant.

      You seem to be suffering amnesia. Do you remember this statement in your post?

      Back on point, they have already said that the cop that shot Michael Brown would probably not face any charges, even what should be obviously excessive use of force.

      You are making a specific claim that the force used by Officer Wilson was excessive, a potential criminal offense. Furthermore, you state that it was "obvious." So let's continue to examine your statements.

      Officer Wilson's alleged injuries are not relevant. Worse, the officer was not reported to be harmed at the scene, received no medical treatment on the scene, or even after he was removed from the location.

      You have it backwards. Officer Wilsons injuries are a critical point. If Wilson was attacked and injured he was legally justified to defend himself from the attacker. As is your custom you either ignore or are ignorant of the relevant facts of the matter, to wit:

      Darren Wilson told investigators he was trapped in his car by Brown, New York Times reports

      Wilson told authorities Brown reached for the officer’s gun during a struggle inside his police SUV, the Times reported. The gun fired twice inside the car. One bullet hit Brown in the arm and the other bullet missed him, the Times reported. Brown was unarmed.

      Brown’s blood was found on Wilson’s gun, uniform, and the inside of the vehicle door, the Times reported. Wilson said Brown “punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck,” the Times said.

      Well, it seems you are wrong, he was attacked and injured. That puts your unfounded claim of excessive force into the realm of falsehoods.

      So you start with a Strawman and cum hoc ergo propter hoc, then move to Argumentum ad verecundiam and appeal to assertion.

      No amount of spurious application of Latin phrases can create missing facts, remedy false claims, or compensate for your mistaken ideas.

      Argumentum ad populum, or perhaps argumentum ad numerum. No you don't know, and no the populace does not agree with you.

      In your case it would be false argument ad nauseam.

      Would you care to go another round shill? I do mean shill with all of it's interesting implications, since whether you are paid or not you have a history of arguing as a pro-establishment mouth piece.

      Back to ad hominem? I guess you have your "game" back. You have a history of crank theories, false claims, and recently adhering to the adversaries of the US as you've become a shill for Russian aggression. You're a mouthpiece for bad ideas of all sorts. No wonder you are so popular on Slashdot.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    34. Re:What a surprise (not) by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I don't think at any point the cop ever thought "I'm going to kill this kid".

      If his finger was on the trigger and his weapon was pointed at someone whom he didn't want dead, then he should just put the gun down, walk away from it and never touch a firearm ever again.

      There are four simple rules for gun safety and if you can't be bothered to pay attention to them then the ghost of Col. Jeff Cooper is going to track you down and haunt your sorry ass.

      1) That gun is loaded.
      1 a) Yes, it is. Even if you know it isn't.
      2) Don't point a loaded gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
      2 a) Yes, it is still loaded.
      3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
      3 a) Yes, it's still loaded. Please stop asking that.
      4) Know what you're shooting at and what's behind it.
      4 a) No, that gun is loaded. Don't act like it isn't.

      If these rules are too complicated, or if you're just too loaded to remember them, then maybe you shouldn't be handling anything more dangerous than a butter knife.

    35. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      At the time of the shooting there were only 2 people present and one was on the phone. The dialogue was recorded, and does not back that statement. After the shooting there were other people on the street providing their own "opinion", but not "eye witness reports". Reading and Quoting a Newspaper that has had numerous journalists quit and blow the whistle on the NYP censoring information to control the narrative is not impressive. Try reading facts and basing _YOUR_ opinion on facts instead of relying on others to give you an opinion.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    36. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No. Nobody fucking did! Why? Because there weren't any! If there were, he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him instead of standing around.

      How inconvenient for you.

      Darren Wilson told investigators he was trapped in his car by Brown, New York Times reports

      Wilson told authorities Brown reached for the officer’s gun during a struggle inside his police SUV, the Times reported. The gun fired twice inside the car. One bullet hit Brown in the arm and the other bullet missed him, the Times reported. Brown was unarmed.

      Brown’s blood was found on Wilson’s gun, uniform, and the inside of the vehicle door, the Times reported. Wilson said Brown “punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck,” the Times said.

      -------

      I deny jack-booted thugs the right to offense!

      No, you seem to be supporting Brown who demonstrated himself to be a thug by attacking the store clerk while stealing, fortunately it was captured on video.

      Do you deny the fact that you're a fascist asshole?

      Yes. Fascism isn't compatible with my philosophy. Of course I am often attacked by "fascist assholes," so if the shoe fits ....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    37. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I agree the facts are under dispute.

      Good, but then don't you get that your very agreement on this point means all the outrage and protests in Ferguson are justified? Don't you get that the fascists in charge of metro St. Louis don't care that the facts are disputable and are committing felony upon felony in their maniacal quest to prevent the facts from being disputed? Don't you get that you are acting as an apologist for said fascists?

      Regardless of the other circumstances, the facts that are not in dispute are as follows: (1) Brown was facing the officer when he died, which means he was no longer running away, and (2) he was way too far away to do harm to the officer. From those two facts alone, it is clear that there was no possible justification for the killing.

      If any lesson can be learned by black or white Americans, it should be this. Don't rob stores.

      Irrelevant: even if that actually happened, the officer didn't know about it at the time. The shooting had nothing whatsoever to do with any robbery.

      If a cop tells you to get out of the road, do it without comment

      Or in this case, if a cop verbally abuses you, just bend over and take it. Right?

      and certainly don't take a swing at him though the window of his police vehicle.

      Or stand doing nothing while the cop hits himself and blames you for it?

      But, if you've done the first three, under no circumstances reach in and try to grab his gun.

      Or resist in any way as he shoots you?

      So in other words, the lesson you want us to learn is to live in fear of the oppressor.... err, "authorities?"

      Even if Michael Brown did do all those things, he still didn't deserve to be shot down like a dog!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    38. Re:What a surprise (not) by Br00se · · Score: 1

      I understand the risks of carrying a firearm and that you must be prepared to use the weapon if needed. But that does not mean that you consciously plan on killing people. In a defensive situation you shoot to stop a threat, killing is a possible outcome, but it should never be your goal.

    39. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You seem to be suffering amnesia. Do you remember this statement in your post?

      At the time of the event, there was no report of the officer being attacked. In fact there was no named officer at the time of the shooting. If the Officer was actually harmed, this would have made front page news and calmed the riots that started to ensue days later. Any claim of harm to the officer (named nearly a month after the fact) is tainted (cui bono seems to back the entrenched who want this to remain an black vs. white issue instead of a corruption issue). The appeal to authority does not make you correct, no matter how often you use argumentum ad nauseam as an attempt to prove your appeal to authority..

      My opinion is based on easy to prove facts, not a long string of fallacies and questionable information. Of course to you, a mouthpiece for the establishment, facts are a dangerous thing hence you claim "crank" and "look over there!" as often as possible.

      Nothing you claim can be trusted.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    40. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      There you have it, folks: proof that cold fjord is so goddamn stupid he can't tell the difference between getting medical treatment and talking to investigators!

      No, you seem to be supporting Brown who demonstrated himself to be a thug by attacking the store clerk while stealing, fortunately it was captured on video.

      Video that had no bearing whatsoever on the officer's actions, since he hadn't seen it or heard of it.

      Fascism isn't compatible with my philosophy.

      You're the most famous Fascist on Slashdot, you stupid, deluded fool!

      Now fuck off and die, for the good of humanity.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    41. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Google is not broken, do you need me to really provide LMGT for you? http://www.politicususa.com/20..., but I can find hundreds of links with a simple search. Now lets see if you man up and apologize for the ad hominem, but I'm guessing that you will simply try and yell louder.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    42. Re:What a surprise (not) by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Just to be suere, here are 2 more links. One and Two

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    43. Re:What a surprise (not) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      FFS. Why aren't you paying attention?

      First, the cop had a job in a quiet town that paid very little. That right there tells me he wasn't at the top of the class at the academy. He's likely one who bearly skated through else he could have had a better paying job in almost any larger city.

      Second, why would he be scared when he pulled next to him. All he knew at that time was they were obstructing traffic with their jay walking. As i already pointed out, once the jaywalking turned into someone trying to kill him with his own service weapon- that is when he got scared. You would be too had someone surprised you and tried to kill you. And whether or not Brown did try to kill the cop is irrelevant because we are going off the cop's point of view or interpretation of events.

      And you have absolutely no clue if the cop was racist. I'm not even sure you understand the meaning of that word either. It certainly does not default to racism simply because of the color of skin involed. You would think if he was racist, there would be creditable evidence concerning something in his past but there isn't.

      So yeah, to recap, the cop most likely wasn't the best cop out there. He more than likely made a lot of mistakes including killing brown. And yes, i laugh at your insistance that racism had anything to do with it. The cop was poorly trained, incompetent, became scared and over reacted. It isn't more than that.

    44. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There you have it, folks: proof that cold fjord is so goddamn stupid he can't tell the difference between getting medical treatment and talking to investigators!

      Remember this statement of yours?

      No. Nobody fucking did! Why? Because there weren't any! If there were, he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him instead of standing around.

      You claimed that there were no injuries suffered by Wilson in the attack. You're wrong about that. Are you also trying to make the ridiculous claim that the investigators wouldn't have checked Wilson's treatment records? You're not going to get an award for insight here.

      Video that had no bearing whatsoever on the officer's actions, since he hadn't seen it or heard of it.

      You're trying to change the subject. The issue was, "who is a thug"? Brown was shown to be a thug in the video. It's actually a pity that Wilson didn't see the video. If he had known that he was confronting two thugs that had just committed a strong arm robbery he would have been on his guard and not treated them as ordinary jay walkers. Brown certainly knew what he had just done and that is probably what led to him attacking Wilson. He probably thought Wilson was arresting him for the robbery.

      You're the most famous Fascist on Slashdot, you stupid, deluded fool!

      No, only the ignorant claim I'm a fascist. In truth fascism has nothing to do with my philosophy. It is almost certainly much closer to yours. Please educate yourself. (You can do some cribbing here.)

      Now fuck off and die, for the good of humanity

      For the good of humanity I'll continue to post and contribute here as long as I care to so that poor deluded souls such as yourself have at least an occasional glimpse of the truth and sanity.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    45. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Remember this statement of yours?

      Yes. I very much remember claiming that "If there were [any injuries], he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him"

      You responded with some bullshit non-sequitur about "investigators."

      You're wrong about that.

      I am not wrong! What he claimed after the fact is irrelevant, because he LIED. If he were actually injured, he would have sought medical treatment, and the medical professional who treated him could testify to such. No treatment == no testimony == NO GODDAMN INJURY!

      You want to claim there were injuries? Well then FUCKING PROVE IT! That requires testimony from the medical professional or goddamn pictures of the injury, not the ridiculous bullshit spewed by a proven liar (i.e., Darren Wilson).

      The issue was, "who is a thug"?

      Indeed, and the answer is, THE GODDAMN FUCKING JACK-BOOTED FASCIST COP!

      If he had known that he was confronting two thugs that had just committed a strong arm robbery he would have been on his guard and not treated them as ordinary jay walkers.

      You're willfully ignoring the point: jack-booted thug Darren Wilson handles "ordinary jay walkers" by screaming obscenities at them and almost running them over with his squad car. And jack-booted thug Cold Fjord thinks that sort of psychopathic behavior is perfectly OK for someone who's supposed to be protecting and serving the public!

      No, only the ignorant claim I'm a fascist. In truth fascism has nothing to do with my philosophy. It is almost certainly much closer to yours. Please educate yourself. (You can do some cribbing here.)

      You say that as if you think I'm some kind of left-authoritarian. I'm not an authoritarian of any kind -- quite the opposite, in fact. You, however, are authoritarian, and whether or not "fascism" is the right word for your particular variety of totalitarian brain-damage, it's close enough!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    46. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      At the time of the event, there was no report of the officer being attacked.

      It looks to me like you didn't get this one right.

      From August 11th:

      Fatal police shooting in Missouri sparks protests

      The officer tried to leave his vehicle just before the shooting on Saturday afternoon, but Brown pushed him back into the car, "where he physically assaulted the police officer" and struggled over the officer's weapon, Belmar said.

      From August 11, updated the 15th:

      What we know about Michael Brown's shooting

      Without revealing what led to the dispute, Belmar said the preliminary investigation showed that the Ferguson officer tried to exit his vehicle, but Brown pushed him back into the car, "where he physically assaulted the police officer" and struggled over the officer's weapon, Belmar said.

      A shot was fired inside the police car, and Brown was eventually shot about 35 feet away from the vehicle, Belmar said.

      The officer was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for a "swollen face," Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said, adding he had not personally seen the officer's injury.

      -----

      In fact there was no named officer at the time of the shooting.

      How is that important?

      If the Officer was actually harmed, this would have made front page news and calmed the riots that started to ensue days later.

      Nonsense. Many of the people were there to protest the death of Brown regardless of what he had done, and others were agitators coming from outside the area. They wanted the officer put in jail, punished for killing Brown regardless of the circumstances.

      Any claim of harm to the officer (named nearly a month after the fact) is tainted

      The fact that this is apparently a new fact to you just means that you are uninformed, not that the information is fabricated. And as we have seen the information was out there long ago.

      My opinion is based on easy to prove facts, not a long string of fallacies and questionable information.

      In this case it appears that your opinion is based on ignoring facts or ignorance of them. From that faulty base you build your house of cards.

      Of course to you, a mouthpiece for the establishment, facts are a dangerous thing hence you claim "crank" and "look over there!" as often as possible.

      Facts are indeed dangerous, mainly to your position.

      Nothing you claim can be trusted.

      I've already demonstrated that you've gotten simple questions of easily knowable fact wrong. This is just another instance of that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    47. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yes. I very much remember claiming that "If there were [any injuries], he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him" .......

      I am not wrong! What he claimed after the fact is irrelevant, because he LIED. If he were actually injured, he would have sought medical treatment, and the medical professional who treated him could testify to such. No treatment == no testimony == NO GODDAMN INJURY!

      You want to claim there were injuries? Well then FUCKING PROVE IT! That requires testimony from the medical professional or goddamn pictures of the injury, not the ridiculous bullshit spewed by a proven liar (i.e., Darren Wilson).

      This will do just fine.

      What we know about Michael Brown's shooting

      ... the preliminary investigation showed that the Ferguson officer tried to exit his vehicle, but Brown pushed him back into the car, "where he physically assaulted the police officer" and struggled over the officer's weapon, Belmar said. ..... The officer was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for a "swollen face," Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said...

      --------

      Indeed, and the answer is, THE GODDAMN FUCKING JACK-BOOTED FASCIST COP!

      Michael Brown, strong arm robber and thug.

      You're willfully ignoring the point: jack-booted thug Darren Wilson handles "ordinary jay walkers" by screaming obscenities at them and almost running them over with his squad car.

      Yes, and we've also heard from some people that Brown was trying to run away and was shot in the back. That turned out to not be true either as proved by the autopsy and just as the claim you repeat probably isn't either.

      You say that as if you think I'm some kind of left-authoritarian. I'm not an authoritarian of any kind -- quite the opposite, in fact. You, however, are authoritarian, and whether or not "fascism" is the right word for your particular variety of totalitarian brain-damage, it's close enough!

      Well, perhaps you're simply a confused crank, but either way I'm neither a fascist nor an authoritarian.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    48. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      First, the cop had a job in a quiet town...

      False. That "quiet town" had more arrests than people! (I agree with your implication that Wilson was a bottom-of-the-barrel police officer, however.)

      Second, why would he be scared when he pulled next to him. All he knew at that time was they were obstructing traffic with their jay walking. As i already pointed out, once the jaywalking turned into someone trying to kill him with his own service weapon- that is when he got scared. You would be too had someone surprised you and tried to kill you. And whether or not Brown did try to kill the cop is irrelevant because we are going off the cop's point of view or interpretation of events.

      He created the situation. He escalated the situation. I don't believe for a moment that Brown actually tried to kill him or that Wilson was justified in thinking he might (unless he believes that every black man is a murderous animal, which is of course invalid). Moreover, even if Wilson were legitimately scared for his life when he shot Brown from inside the car, he sure as Hell wasn't when he got out of the car and hunted him down!

      And you have absolutely no clue if the cop was racist.

      How fucking ignorant can you possibly be? Darren Wilson was fired from the Jennings, MO Police Department for being racist! And even if he weren't racist before joining the Jennings PD, he was certainly so by the time he left it -- you cannot exist in such an environment without the racism rubbing off on you.

      I'm not even sure you understand the meaning of that word either.

      I'm a white man, with a mixed-race wife, living in a majority-black neighborhood in the South. If you think I don't understand racism, you've got another think coming.

      It certainly does not default to racism simply because of the color of skin involed.

      Indeed, it does not default to racism whenever people of different races interact. However, when a white police officer (who spends all day, every day, looking for criminals in a town where just about every criminal is black (because only black people live there)) starts out his interaction with some petty jaywalkers by yelling obscenities at them, and somehow manages to escalate the situation from jaywalking to fucking homicide? Yeah, that's some fucking racism there. I do not believe for one femtosecond that he would ever have treated white jaywalkers with such utter contempt, and if he had exhibited even the barest shred of professional decorum or common human decency (let alone respect for the fact that he was talking to a person, not an insect) the entire incident would never have happened.

      So yeah, to recap, the cop most likely wasn't the best cop out there. He more than likely made a lot of mistakes including killing brown.

      Indeed he did, but he would not have made all the same mistakes if he were working in a white town, dealing with white jaywalkers.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    49. Re:What a surprise (not) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      This will do just fine: The officer was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for a "swollen face," Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said...

      No, it won't. I don't trust a damn thing any Ferguson police officer says, because they've already proven that they're willing to blatantly lie to protect their partner-in-crime. The police chief's statement is nothing but worthless, vague bullshit.

      In order to prove it, they need to name the hospital in question, then get a statement from a representative of that hospital saying that they treated Darren Wilson.

      Well, perhaps you're simply a confused crank, but either way I'm neither a fascist nor an authoritarian.

      What are you then? 'Cause between your hard-on for the Constitution-violating three-letter agencies, sniveling cowardice about imaginary "ter'rists," drug smugglers, ebola, or whatever the panic-du-jour is, and constant praise for police acting like Gestapo, you sure as Hell fooled me!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    50. Re:What a surprise (not) by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. I don't trust a damn thing any Ferguson police officer says, because they've already proven that they're willing to blatantly lie to protect their partner-in-crime.

      So you think that they lied, and the State Police that came in to run things there after the Governor stepped in, and the FBI, and the local prosecutor, and the state prosecutor, and the Justice Department are all going to cover for them when a number of them are just itching to fry a local cop if they can to appease the demonstrators and "prove" it was all racially motivated or something? That's rich.

      The police chief's statement is nothing but worthless, vague bullshit.

      The police chief's statement provides enough detail to the fair minded especially in light of my previous statement.

      In order to prove it, they need to name the hospital in question, then get a statement from a representative of that hospital saying that they treated Darren Wilson.

      Well you just go ahead and hold your breath till you turn blue then. The rest of us will carry on with life.

      'Cause between your hard-on for the Constitution-violating three-letter agencies, sniveling cowardice about imaginary "ter'rists," drug smugglers, ebola, or whatever the panic-du-jour is, and constant praise for police acting like Gestapo, you sure as Hell fooled me!

      It takes very little work from anybody to "fool" you since you do almost all the work yourself. You seem to have difficulty with facts, exagerate, and don't seem to be interested in clear thinking and reasonable discussion. You actually seem to be trying to live up to what your username evokes.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    51. Re:What a surprise (not) by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I have actually read the interview with said expert. While it's true that she was misquoted, what she was claiming was basically to effect of replacing her statement "facts are consistent with the police report" with "facts support with the police report". She did find the blood on the gun and on the officer's uniform, that much is fact. What she didn't like is that the newspaper then proceeded to claim that it was proof of the cop's story - and in a way that put those words in her mouth. As an expert, she is not supposed to make such conclusions, only report facts.

      Nevertheless, the facts reported do in fact make the "hands up, don't shoot" story utterly bogus.

  4. Political science by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why we need to give power back to the states!

    Oh, wait, that didn't work.

    Give it to the feds!

    Honestly? They were pretty shit too.

    Hail the king!

    Ehh, he really made a mess of things last time.

    Power to the corporations!

    No, wait, that was a complete disaster.

    We could try giving it to the people again, but let's face it: they're as selfish and shortsighted as the rest.

    Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Political science by koan · · Score: 1

      An AI.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Political science by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Informative

      One word: Kodos.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Political science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      douglas adams once said we should find the man who doesn't want to rule the universe and tries not to whenever possible, and he will be therefore is the ideal candidate for the job

    4. Re:Political science by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Give it to God?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Political science by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      The lawyers.
      nope.

      the whole system has become shit.
      We need a better septic system.

    6. Re:Political science by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Kaze no Stigma (if you like anime).

      BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.

    7. Re:Political science by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Give it to God?

      So... you want to go back to Israel's period of being rule by judges?

      Bold. I love it.

    8. Re:Political science by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Kaze no Stigma (if you like anime).

      BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.

      Gah! Sorry, I'm juggling too many series lately. I meant Psych-Pass.

    9. Re:Political science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?

      Ok, here's a really radical concept. Lets institute laws that apply to EVERYONE equally, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen, the rich, the poor, a police officer, a government official, or a corporate executive. If you are found guilty, the punishments actually apply (including prison time, I'm tired of listening to the excuses of judges who refuse to punish police who are caught red-handed committing perjury).

    10. Re:Political science by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Any position of power is going to get abused by someone. Period. This is why we have checks and balances.

      Checks and balances means that anyone in a long chain can "veto" use of force, and prevent it from being used:

      0. The Constitution has to grant the legislature powers to propose a law
      1. The legislature has to propose a law granting powers to the executive branch
      2. The executive has to sign it into law
      3. The treasurer has to put money towards enforcing the law
      4. The sheriff has to begin enforcement of the law
      3. The prosecutor has to decide to enforce the law
      6. The judge has to be willing to hear a trail for the law (or can decline if any of the above has been done illegally, i.e. unconstitutionally)
      7. The relevant parties (e.g. prisons) have to be willing to impose the judgments ordered

      Ideally, checks and balances means that anyone in this system can say "Nope, I don't agree with that use of force" and veto, and the use of force dies. They shouldn't have to worry about losing their position: This is why Federal judges get life tenure.

    11. Re:Political science by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      pshaw! Vote Kang!

    12. Re:Political science by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?

      Citizens selected by lot. It worked in Athens.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:Political science by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Kang's a genocidal alien monster.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    14. Re:Political science by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Lets institute laws

      You mean "let's", as in "let us". But who actually institutes the laws? That's the "power" that pushing-robot is referring to.

      Give it to the people ("us") and it's mob rule. Give it to anyone else and they'll entrench their own power or the power of their supporters/backers/financiers.

      Personally I think a systematic version of mob rule is the least dangerous, but there's something of a memetic-hatred of giving power to the masses, "Tytler Calumny" and all that.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    15. Re:Political science by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      How about the method of selection of the Doge of Venice? A mix of super-majority voting (to force compromise), combined with selection by lot (to break voting blocks). Works a bit like evolution by natural selection. Each round effectively selects better candidates for the next. Almost guarantees a wise and benevolent dictator.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    16. Re:Political science by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Dolphins

    17. Re:Political science by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The law, justly and equally, forbids a man from panhandling in the street or sleeping under a bridge, regardless of whether than man is rich or poor.

      Not saying your sentiment is wrong, just that it's never that straight-forward.

    18. Re:Political science by chgros · · Score: 1

      Horses, maybe?
      Sure, if they're Houyhnhnms.

    19. Re:Political science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what do you propose we do when all the people in power have decided to solve their Prisoner's Dilemma and collude?

      Ideals are a fine thing, in theory. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are nothing alike.

    20. Re:Political science by reikae · · Score: 1

      No problem, just have him stop by any time and he can have it.

    21. Re:Political science by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      An AI.

      That may not work out so well either.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    22. Re:Political science by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      he also made it clear that we had to vote for a lizard, otherwise the wrong lizard might get in...

    23. Re:Political science by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Give it to Cthulhu, why settle for the lesser evil?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    24. Re:Political science by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Moreover, for all the talk about democracy and equality in Athens, everything important was run by a small set of elites who wielded enormous power not because of official position but because of wealth and influence.

      So select the officials by lot from the general population, not only the racially privileged males.

      and there's the reality of a state that never worked very well

      Compared to what? States that oppressed even their elites?

      acted as a tyrant over its fellow Greeks

      Which is how governments have always acted, and how most of them still act

      and was defeated both by the Spartans and by Philip largely because of its own dysfunctions.

      Isn't that always the way? Every system seems to lead to this eventually.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Political science by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Most democracies outside the US handles it by having at least one check/balance that is NOT elected and thus not subject to the same corruptive influences as the elected parts of government - while simultaneously having no power of their own to make laws, only the power to scrap laws the elected part wrote (thus limiting the effects of their different corruptive influences).
      In England and Canada the Queen is theoretically doing that job (though in practise she hasn't vetoed a law in decades so it's pure theory). England also has the house of Lords doing the same job though.
      In the US the supreme court is also doing that job - but the problem there is that supreme court judges are appointed by the president and so presidents tend to stuff the court with judges who'll rubberstamp their ideas. The same problem crept in when England started allowing the PM to grant lordships.

      Ideally however access to this particular check should be through a means over which the elected government has zero influence. Like the House of Lords in the days when only born aristocrats could get in.
      South Africa comes close with our system for the constitutional court - the president cannot appoint judges to it, he can make nominations when a seat opens up but the other judges choose from the nominees. This is an improvement over the US supreme court system - though it's definitely still not ideal.

      In the end though - democracy by itself has corruptive influences. To get elected you need to campaign, that means getting rich donors on your side, that means selling out.
      It's still better than any other way we have to appoint a government though.
      But in theory the balance should include somebody who isn't elected in order to keep the campaign donors from being the real power.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Political science by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Power to the porpoises?

    27. Re:Political science by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:Political science by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Why not reform the way election laws work, so elected representitives of both state and federal government reflect the will of the people?

      There's a certain nerd (Lawrence Lessig) who used to work for the EFF who's working on precisely that.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  5. Feds leaking shit for the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The feds sure seem to be leaking a lot of things in the run up to the elections on Tuesday.

    Ferguson.

    George Zimmerman going to a fed grand jury, where a witness has suddenly "remembered" something:

    Following Zimmerman's acquittal on a murder charge, Taaffe has reversed his position and now says that he believes Zimmerman was motivated by race the night he followed then shot Trayvon in 2012.

    Taaffe cites a phone conversation he had with Zimmerman in the days following the shooting but before Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

    When originally interviewed by federal investigators in the weeks following the shooting, Taaffe did not tell them about the phone call...

  6. Why did the FAA go along? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they knew the police were just trying to impede the media, why did they go along? Heads should roll at multiple levels.

    1. Re:Why did the FAA go along? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Because if they weren't true, they would be "plants", not "leaks" :-)

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. OK... by koan · · Score: 1

    They are scared of trouble catching on in other cities.

    It ill still be videoed and "televised" via youtube etc.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. at least now we know. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    coming soon to your town.

  9. Hearing what you want to hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was an attempt to suppress the press or maybe it wasn't but the above article doesn't prove it wasn't about safety. Commercial traffic on approach is a completely different animal than single or multiple helicopters loitering over a confined area. Somewhere around 6 or 7 years ago two media helicopters in Phoenix collided as they covered a police chase because they were too busy covering the police chase and not watching the other four helicopters around them, and that was during the day. Last thing the cops needed were helicopters crashing down on top of them in addition to the protests and other safety concerns. And come on, what would have been the value add anyway? Lots of clips for the evening broadcast of the city burning as seen from the air in addition to the ones reporters on the ground were already taking?

  10. Re:News For Nerds Please by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You're not even a member, not even a greenhorn, how would you know what this website is about? Answer, of course, you have no idea.

  11. Legal requirements by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what the legal requirements for filing these restrictions are, I know most similar documents require those filing them attest to the real reason for the request under penalty of perjury. If that's the case for these documents then someone effectively committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Also a quick browse of the relevant advisories in regards to Temporary Flight Restrictions does not suggest there is any allowance for "because we don't want the media to see", National security (specifically mentioning the DOD), High ranking politicians movements, Spacecraft launches, major sporting events, hijacking incidents & wildfires, but nothing about the press so I doubt that was the reason put down on the forms.

    http://www.faa.gov/documentLib...

    1. Re:Legal requirements by multriha · · Score: 2

      You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.

      Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whose authority the system is being used under in any immune).
       

    2. Re:Legal requirements by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request?

      A common misconception. The penalty of perjury only applies to the statement that the complaining party is acting on behalf of someone else.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Legal requirements by multriha · · Score: 1

      The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.

      My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would basically amount to perjury.

    4. Re:Legal requirements by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keeping the press away is a matter of National Security. That's how it is in every police state.

    5. Re:Legal requirements by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The wording of U.S. Code 17 Ã 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.

      I don't think that a court has looked at it yet, so I am going to believe that the plain text means what it says and that the penalty of perjury only applies to the part: "and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Especially, since part (v) explicitly states: "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that ... See that? "Good Faith".

      Bottom line, put up (with actual case law), or shut up.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Legal requirements by multriha · · Score: 1

      First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.

      As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.

      Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in anyway), but was just relating the opinions of my law professors I've had the discussion with.

      The main argument (ignoring any that address the grammar of the law, which very fit and miss when talking American English) is that (vi) mentions the accuracy of the information in the notification. In addition to (v) that address the good faith belief (and (v)'s mention of agency). The overlap suggests that the first clause in (vi) has to be operative in some manner for it to be included.

      If you want to talk plain text (which really means little given the looseness of grammar in the law, even major SCOTUS decisions have ignored sentence clauses of the Constitution for seemingly arbitrary reasons), In (vi), neither the second or third clauses can be individually excluded with the sentence making sense. The perjury clause is subordinate to the accuracy clause, but is adjunct to the agency clause.

      There's no way to parse that sentence's grammar that really makes sense, Whether you want the perjury to apply to just the agency, just the accuracy, or both. So I don't think an appeal to the 'plain text' of it clears anything up.

      I doubt there's much of anything useful in terms notes on legislative intent for something that minute, but can't access that easily from off-campus anyway, and given the politeness of the discussion, I doubt it would matter.

      Again, just opinion and the results of my reading and discussion with my law professors. Take it for what you want. There's no need to get rude about it.

    7. Re:Legal requirements by PPH · · Score: 2

      major sporting events

      I'm pretty sure chasing black people around with hound dogs qualifies as a major sporting event down south.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Re:News For Nerds Please by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What relevance does this story have with respect to nerd news? The answer: none. Where were your other Ferguson stories??

    Timothy, this is not your personal blog. Post this on your own soapbox.

    This is outrageous political trolling and you should be ashamed and fired.

    Nerds and geeks and general information-types are all about the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is anti-nerd.

  13. Re:News For Nerds Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, what they did was disingenuous and immoral but not illegal - they really didn't want the eyes of the world judging them if they had to pull out the beanbag rounds and teargas (i.e. Everything is legal if no-one catches you doing it).

    They're behaving like children when caught stealing candy or going out joyriding. They don't understand that what they're doing is wrong and they don't respond with remorse. They basically respond by trying to cover up what they're doing. Point at someone else. Choose a different time next time. Just do anything so as not to get caught. The one thing that was overlooked completely is that "maybe they shouldn't be doing that".

    It's basically an upscaled version of what Right To Be Forgotten is doing, or how companies threaten lawsuits if negative reviews and bad press aren't removed from public view. None of this addresses the problem, it just makes it harder to find the truth.

  14. Media in the are for the Verdict by headhot · · Score: 1

    I hope this means they know people are watching now, and there will be media in the air for when the verdict is read.

    1. Re:Media in the are for the Verdict by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> I hope this means they know people are watching now

      Doubt it. I hadn't read anything about this story for the past few weeks until this Slashdot article.

    2. Re:Media in the are for the Verdict by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Sigh. It is terrible seeing shitheads giving opinions on things they are ignorant of , like not knowing that grand juries don't return indictments, they return true bills/no bills.

  15. Screw those hicks by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO

    Since when is a suburb allowed to declare "no-fly" zones.

    Not only have we militarized local police, but it looks like we've now given them the power generally reserved for the State Department and Justice Department.

    If we had an Attorney General who was worth a damn, there would be a bunch of Ferguson officials and police facing charges and civil rights suits right now. Instead, we've had an AG who was only concerned with making sure that no Wall Street banking criminal got his hair mussed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Screw those hicks by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on. Here we have the locals ordering the feds around, which that law kinda frowns upon. But, I assume they did ask nicely, so that should make it okay.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Screw those hicks by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on.

      After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military. And this is coming from someone who served in the US Army for 6 years as a combat arms MOS (M1A2 crewman to be exact). The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    3. Re:Screw those hicks by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military.

      The police have poorer trigger and muzzle discipline, and less training overall. That's the difference. They're less qualified to carry around all the shiny shiny.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Screw those hicks by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      It's not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on.

      After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military. And this is coming from someone who served in the US Army for 6 years as a combat arms MOS (M1A2 crewman to be exact). The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.

      Police wear black, military wears camo. That's about it as far as I can tell.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Screw those hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Police wear black, military wears camo.

      Sometimes the police (SWAT teams) wear camo. But I think the police ought to be made to wear pink, or lavender, or some such. There's no particular reason for cops to be camouflaged, and pink uniforms and tactical gear would help discourage the kind of macho mindset types who shouldn't be cops anyway. Might even be safer -- better visibility at night -- and higher visibility might better help deter crime in the first place.

    6. Re:Screw those hicks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.

      True that bro. I couldn't believe how many cluster bombs the police dropped on the streets of Ferguson.

    7. Re:Screw those hicks by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You joke, but I am starting to become convinced that the only reason they have not used cluster bombs is because the police do not have them (yet). Police rarely receive any repercussions for excessive use of force, and any repercussions they do face are disproportionately light compared to a civilian or even ROE violations for service members. For example two situations that were similar but had vastly different outcomes:

      • On July 2 2012 1LT Clint Lorance was leading a patrol in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan when his platoon was approached by three unidentified Afghans on motorcycles. he gave the order to open fire, killing two while the third man fled. He was found guilty of murder by court martial and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
      • On February 7th 2013 seven police officers opened fire on a blue toyota pickup containing Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez during their search for Christopher Dorner. The officers were not charged with any crime and will face at most dismissal from the police force.

      Two cases, two similar situations (unknown target moving in on a position). Yet it is the soldier who is found guilty of murder while the police get a slap on the wrist if that. I find it incredulous that soldiers in a hostile encounter situation are held to a higher standard to positively identify their target than the police in peacetime. And no I am not arguing that the Military should be held to a lower standard, I think the US military is the best and most professional fighting force in the world. But I do think the police should be held to a higher one, right now they are not seen as professionals but a bunch of thugs with guns and it should not be that way.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    8. Re:Screw those hicks by bughunter · · Score: 1

      British commandos' desert kit is pink. A dull greyish carnation color. It melds into the sand better at a distance.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    9. Re:Screw those hicks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's a valid point, but there's a massive difference between the two situations you refer to; in the former 2 people died, in the latter nobody died. If the LT in Afghanistan hadn't actually managed to kill anyone, it's unlikely he'd have been charged at all, and he certainly couldn't have been found guilty of murder.

      In any event, poor training obviously tends to result in all sorts of horrible outcomes, regardless of whether we're talking about the military or the police, but that doesn't say anything about your earlier generalization. Granted the line between policing and military ops has narrowed quite a bit over the last decade, but that's primarily due to changes in how we fight wars, not changes in how the police operate. If you can't see any difference between military and police you couldn't have been in any real firefights.

  16. Re:News For Nerds Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't call it news for nerds or stuff that matters. Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years. The reasoning seems to be with police flights and reletive dangers of closeness when they respond to incidents.

    No they don't. You are wrong. Cities don't have the authority to ban flights, only the FAA does. I'm a commercial pilot, airplane owner and a flight instructor, so I know what I'm talking about.

  17. Gee, the cops lied... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Who would have ever expected that? So, are we accustomed to it yet? I would say we have been for a very long time, and in fact, approve. And I am pretty certain that approval will be reaffirmed on Tuesday. Sure would love to be proven wrong on that one.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. Re:News For Nerds Please by sabri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years

    I call total bullshit on this.

    First of all, cities are unable to ban anything, it is the FAA that sets up no-fly zones. Second, if there are no-fly zones, they would be documented as restricted areas on sectional charts. You show me any sectional FAA approved chart that specifically forbids news flights, and I shall eat the dust from underneath your shoes.

    Even NYC has most of its airspace as open (class B and C). As long as flights maintain the proper altitude (usually at least 1000ft AGL), everyone holding a private pilot's certificate can fly there.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  19. Obvious by Livius · · Score: 2

    Of course it was about the media. Photographs without on-the-ground context, for example, could spark further public demonstrations and there could be safety concerns.

    That's not a good trade-off between public safety and freedom of the press, but the reasoning wasn't really a secret.

  20. Re:News For Nerds Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This isn't stuff that matters? Hoo boy. You apparently don't give a shit about your citizenship. Why not give it up and move to North Korea with Cold Fjord?

  21. Re:News For Nerds Please by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What on earth would make you say something like that? Everyone who isn't blinded by ideology knows that Ferguson is a mountain made out of a mole hill for political reasons and ratings. Shit like what happened there happens all over the place with at least three incidents i know of happening after it and no one is excited about them. Ferguson just happens to be in the right place to muster the troops so to say.

    It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do wiyh motivating the right people to the polls. We've already seen the flyers claiming some are will be turned into ferguson if certain people are elected.

  22. Personal liability is the key by bl968 · · Score: 1

    We need to make infringement of a constitutionally protected right both by the government and its agents personally liable in a civil suit. I would say a minimum of $100,000. Then these rights violations will come to a rapid stop.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:Personal liability is the key by dbc · · Score: 1

      Check out section 1983 of the civil rights act of 1871. Still in force, and has been for nearly 150 years. It was used pretty effectively after the Civil War, when the sheriff might also be a member of the Klan...

    2. Re:Personal liability is the key by bl968 · · Score: 1

      I've seen it but it also requires a prosecutor to bring the suit.

      The citizens need a direct cause of action and it needs to be made clear that no privileges or immunities can apply in cases when a protected right was infringed.

      --
      "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    3. Re:Personal liability is the key by dbc · · Score: 1

      No, I believe you are mistaken. AFAIK, an individual may bring a private cause of action under section 1983. A quick Google search seemed to confirm that. IANAL.

  23. Oh brother! Here's a real gem by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    "The local authorities, including police, have a responsibility to be transparent and open." -- Barack Obama

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Re:News For Nerds Please by Phibz · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do wiyh motivating the right people to the polls. We've already seen the flyers claiming some are will be turned into ferguson if certain people are elected.

    How exactly?

    There is no US Senate race in Missouri for 2014 and Obama and co really only care about keeping the Senate.

    So you would have to be claiming they are trying to influence elections in other states.

    How? Are you trying to link the Missouri local politics to the national Republican party? Because that is a reach I don't think the average voter on the fence will make.

  25. Re:News For Nerds Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No they don't. You are wrong. Cities don't have the authority to ban flights, only the FAA does. I'm a commercial pilot, airplane owner and a flight instructor, so I know what I'm talking about.

    On internet, claims to authority are meaningless. Especially anonymous ones. I'm the inventor of the internet, so I know what I'm talking about.

  26. Re:Bingo by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Bingo, we have a winner. This is a legitimate use of a TFR; to prevent mid-air collisions over things like this. While it's a jesse jackson created disaster (the rioting, not the murder), the purpose of the TFR is to allow the police to fly safely.

    I'm half surprised they haven't fitted their helicopter with stingers to just shoot down any pesky media trying to see what's going on. Not like we should expect the pilots to have situational awareness and be good enough not to crash into things.

    If the case was pure police safety then a height restriction is adequate, not a full on no fly zone.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  27. s/USA/$hellhole/g by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    This is something you'd expect of some place like China or worse.

    I hope the rogue drone operators get rich from this.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  28. Re:News For Nerds Please by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    really??? now we think republicans are telling cops to execute black kids??? wtf is wrong with you?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  29. Re:News For Nerds Please by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Shit like what happened there happens all over the place with at least three incidents i know of happening after it and no one is excited about them. Ferguson just happens to be in the right place to muster the troops so to say.

    First, people should be pissed off about the other incidents too.

    Second, Ferguson is where the "troops are being mustered" because its officials (not just the officer who perpetrated the shooting, but pretty much every other official in the entire metro area) are acting so incredibly, egregiously, blatantly, thuggish and corrupt. Officials elsewhere have been less incompetent at hiding their corruption under a veneer of feigned concern and bureaucratic procedure.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  30. Re:News For Nerds Please by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    What on earth would make you say something like that? Everyone who isn't blinded by ideology knows that Ferguson is a mountain made out of a mole hill for political reasons and ratings. Shit like what happened there happens all over the place with at least three incidents i know of happening after it and no one is excited about them. Ferguson just happens to be in the right place to muster the troops so to say.

    It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do with motivating the right people to the polls. We've already seen the flyers claiming some are will be turned into ferguson if certain people are elected.

    It has to do with the systemic violence directed toward black people, young black men more specifically. Like you said, it happens all the time. It's wrong, and it's past time that the nation dealt with it. Yes, the incident in Ferguson was just one example, but it has become a flash point for the larger issue.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  31. Worst PR firm ever... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    It seems that when these guys have a choice between transparency and something that would make them look like even bigger autocratic police state thugs, they choose to double down on thuggery. Who ever they've hired for a P.R. firm needs to be fired...

    It would appear the only choice this police department is going to have soon enough to be completely dispanded and taken over by the state police. Then an entirely new group of officers with new commanders and a new chief need to be put in place.

    If these officers would like to apply for positions in other communities they are more than welcome, but not in Ferguson.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  32. Re:News For Nerds Please by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Who said ferguson was about any senate race? It is being used in them though, someone is distributing flyers in minority neighborhoods claiming if republicans are elected, those neighborhoods would turn into Ferguson.

    However, right about the time ferguson happened, Tavis Smiley was blasting about how the black community has suffered under this administration, about how the hopes for improvement were shattered, and how many blacks feel taken advantage of. Along comes ferguson, you have armies of outside protesters move in with the race baiters- mostly from chicago and boom, Eric Holder via Obama and all the sudden the adminstration cares again.

  33. You're all part of the conspiracy by Minwee · · Score: 1

    This isn't about police brutality and it never was.

    This is all about ethics in games journalism.

  34. Re:News For Nerds Please by sabri · · Score: 1

    Wrong!

    Where exactly am I wrong? A presidential TFR is issued by the FAA in a NOTAM, and so are all other TFRs (which is something completely different than a Restricted Area, like the airspace over camp pendleton).

    A TFR always follows the President (TFR POTUS designation)

    Total bullshit again. They are designated Temporary flight restrictions for VIP Movement.

    Have a look at tfr.faa.gov.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  35. Re:News For Nerds Please by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    It's in the HTML title of the front page, moron.

    Which, at least if you're logged in, very quickly gets changed by (I assume) a bit of JavaScript to display the number of new stories, rather than the NFNSTM tagline; if you don't look quickly, or actually check the source manually, you'd never know it was there.
    Incidentally, there's a lot of interesting stuff in the /. html source. Take a peek sometime.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......