I have NEVER, anywhere in any discussion of the swatting incident even hinted at thinking that police shouldn't have responded. Just that they needed to be a hell of a lot less trigger happy while assessing the situation.
I've never tried to talk down someone who has killed someone (or thinks they have) but I have talked down people having a psychotic break before. Also someone contemplating suicide. It's surprising how oriented they can seem to be as long as you stick to mundane things like what color is your house.
people who would see wages held low so that fear of starvation drives people to work long hours for poor pay are little better than that second category.
Well, it's true that I nearly didn't bother with this article. Ceretainly I didn't write it. Your beak is still over by that tree. Still smoking. Just clomp once if you understand.
Even better, the caller git some details wrong that would be impossible to get wrong had he actually been in the house, such as how many floors it had.
That should have been a huge red flag that either the call was a hoax or they were at the wrong address. Either case would have strongly suggested not shooting someone.
There's a big difference between someone who might pay a willing prostitute and someone who doesn't care if the prostitute is willing or not. The latter is simply a bad person who brings shame upon anyone who willingly associates with them.
The former should think long and hard about just how "willing" the prostitutes are. If their willingness is simply the willingness of someone who would rather not starve, perhaps they should ask if they are actually in that second category.
Many people over many generations have gone their whole lives without hiring a prostitute and you can manage it too.
Actually, many people advocating for the basic income do wonder just how willing people are to work at the more soul destroying office jobs. Certainly they believe that a basic income would force employers to make office jobs less soul destroying.
Somebody didn't RTFA! The study was looking specifically at stents used in cases of stable angina that is responsive to medication, and found that the stents were higher risk but provided no benefit over medication in the case of stable angina. The study did not attempt to address the effectiveness of stents in other cases including cases where medication did not control stable angina.
That still represents a lot of excessive costs for no benefit.
And yet, Daffy Duck like you stubborn;y refuse to learn your lesson , engage further and end up demanding that Elmer shoot you now.
Next time before you make an ass of yourself, perhaps you should consider that a 'spelling error' isn't really a very good excuse for a bizarrely smarmy feeling of superiority on your part, and might indeed be a perfectly acceptable alternative spelling you are simply ignorant of. No telepathy required, google can answer that question. Even an idiot can manage that. That way you don't appear to others as a cartoon-like smarmy, ignorant jackass..
Well here in the U.S. where I live and post to this American website, the e is optional, even when it refers to floors in a structure. Since that information is readily available to anyone capable of reading an American English dictionary, I can only presume you must have some sort of mental disability. Or, more likely, a personality disorder.
The good news for you is that your error coupled with such self assured wrongness was so cartoon-like that you can probably remove the virtual powder burns from your face by walking out of frame.
The caller also claimed he was in a single story home, not the 2 story home the cops rolled up to. If they're going to trust what they were told over the phone, they were at the wrong place. If not, then they shouldn't have necessarily have believed that anyone shot at all.
Also, they were told there were hostages. They had no reason to believe the person at the door wasn't a hostage.
No force for good kills an innocent. So they were not a force for good (whatever their intent). That they fell so very far from their intent should compel a change in approach at the very least.
If they make no changes knowing that it could result in another innocent being killed, that makes the next killing a willful homicide. I am not asking them to lie. I am asking them to make damned sure they don't make a habit of killing innocent people in their own damned homes. If they can't do that, then they should try street sweeping.
The video shows that they all had cars to duck behind to see what happened next. Had they done so, nobody would have been shot.
"Justification" as in being told the person you are being sent to has a weapon, has already killed one person, is holding three others hostage, and has stated to the 911 operator "If you send anyone out I am definitely not putting my gun down"?
So based on what the cops thought they knew, the person at the door was either the shooter or one of the hostages. Then they shot him.
No warning as in he was putting his hands up to show he wasn't armed. He was too far away to see if anything was in his hand. Whose fault was that?
But he definitely wasn't wielding the sort of weapon that could be used effectively at that range. Unlike the police, obviously.
They were also told it was a 1 story house. From the moment they rolled up and found a 2 story house, they should have been questioning the information they were given.
If there was a gunman with hostages, the odds are the person sent to the door first is a hostage, not the gunman. So he should not be shot by police. If there is no gunman and no hostages, then whoever answers the door definitely should not be shot by police.
So what happens when one cop yells don't move, one yells get on your knees, one yells put your hands up? Which one do you do? Think quick, if you guess wrong, you're dead and it'll be "your fault".
Why, would the cops shooting him instantly in the doorway bring my Dad back? I want them to get the guy in cuffs and take him away, preferably with no more bullets flying around where innocent people are.
OTOH, I'll bet that family that was having a quiet and uneventful evening REALLY wishes the cops would have been more careful so they could have determined that nobody there had done anything wrong at all.
But they actually did just roll up and shoot the first person they saw. That is LITERALLY what happened. There is no scenario out there where the police did not roll up and kill an innocent person in his own home. They can argue all they want about if it was training or procedures that failed miserably that night but end of the day, they still rolled up and killed an innocent in his own home.
If their procedures are defective, they must change them and accept guilt for killing an innocent in his own home. If their training was lax then they must fix it and accept their guilt for killing an innocent man in his own home.
How understanding do you suppose they would be if someone shot one of them and then said "gee, I didn't mean to!".
Slashdot Mirror
I have NEVER, anywhere in any discussion of the swatting incident even hinted at thinking that police shouldn't have responded. Just that they needed to be a hell of a lot less trigger happy while assessing the situation.
It doesn't lend the call any credence either.
I've never tried to talk down someone who has killed someone (or thinks they have) but I have talked down people having a psychotic break before. Also someone contemplating suicide. It's surprising how oriented they can seem to be as long as you stick to mundane things like what color is your house.
The "kid" is a 25 year old man-child.
The swatter was in LA, the swatting was in Kansas. So state lines were crossed.
And it's all wrong.
people who would see wages held low so that fear of starvation drives people to work long hours for poor pay are little better than that second category.
Well, it's true that I nearly didn't bother with this article. Ceretainly I didn't write it. Your beak is still over by that tree. Still smoking. Just clomp once if you understand.
Well there, the problem was a different one. They busted in in a "dynamic entry". Over a loud disturbance call. It might have been better to knock.
Even better, the caller git some details wrong that would be impossible to get wrong had he actually been in the house, such as how many floors it had.
That should have been a huge red flag that either the call was a hoax or they were at the wrong address. Either case would have strongly suggested not shooting someone.
And I pointed out what the study ACTUALLY said. Perhaps you need to try reading for comprehension.
There's a big difference between someone who might pay a willing prostitute and someone who doesn't care if the prostitute is willing or not. The latter is simply a bad person who brings shame upon anyone who willingly associates with them.
The former should think long and hard about just how "willing" the prostitutes are. If their willingness is simply the willingness of someone who would rather not starve, perhaps they should ask if they are actually in that second category.
Many people over many generations have gone their whole lives without hiring a prostitute and you can manage it too.
Actually, many people advocating for the basic income do wonder just how willing people are to work at the more soul destroying office jobs. Certainly they believe that a basic income would force employers to make office jobs less soul destroying.
Yet you present no evidence of anything else. So let's try again, bray once or if that has eluded you, clomp your hoof once if you understand.
Oh, and your beak is over by that tree. Just follow the smoke.
Somebody didn't RTFA! The study was looking specifically at stents used in cases of stable angina that is responsive to medication, and found that the stents were higher risk but provided no benefit over medication in the case of stable angina. The study did not attempt to address the effectiveness of stents in other cases including cases where medication did not control stable angina.
That still represents a lot of excessive costs for no benefit.
At 50 yards, the full length of a car is more than adequate to protect you from a hand gun.
The cops were standing behind the full length of their cars, not doing the hollywood crouch behind the open door.
And yet, Daffy Duck like you stubborn;y refuse to learn your lesson , engage further and end up demanding that Elmer shoot you now.
Next time before you make an ass of yourself, perhaps you should consider that a 'spelling error' isn't really a very good excuse for a bizarrely smarmy feeling of superiority on your part, and might indeed be a perfectly acceptable alternative spelling you are simply ignorant of. No telepathy required, google can answer that question. Even an idiot can manage that. That way you don't appear to others as a cartoon-like smarmy, ignorant jackass..
Now, just bray once if you understand.
Well here in the U.S. where I live and post to this American website, the e is optional, even when it refers to floors in a structure. Since that information is readily available to anyone capable of reading an American English dictionary, I can only presume you must have some sort of mental disability. Or, more likely, a personality disorder.
The good news for you is that your error coupled with such self assured wrongness was so cartoon-like that you can probably remove the virtual powder burns from your face by walking out of frame.
And others read both definitions.
The caller also claimed he was in a single story home, not the 2 story home the cops rolled up to. If they're going to trust what they were told over the phone, they were at the wrong place. If not, then they shouldn't have necessarily have believed that anyone shot at all.
Also, they were told there were hostages. They had no reason to believe the person at the door wasn't a hostage.
No force for good kills an innocent. So they were not a force for good (whatever their intent). That they fell so very far from their intent should compel a change in approach at the very least.
If they make no changes knowing that it could result in another innocent being killed, that makes the next killing a willful homicide. I am not asking them to lie. I am asking them to make damned sure they don't make a habit of killing innocent people in their own damned homes. If they can't do that, then they should try street sweeping.
The video shows that they all had cars to duck behind to see what happened next. Had they done so, nobody would have been shot.
Sure, but none of that excuses the cops for dancing to his tune without thought.
"Justification" as in being told the person you are being sent to has a weapon, has already killed one person, is holding three others hostage, and has stated to the 911 operator "If you send anyone out I am definitely not putting my gun down"?
So based on what the cops thought they knew, the person at the door was either the shooter or one of the hostages. Then they shot him.
No warning as in he was putting his hands up to show he wasn't armed. He was too far away to see if anything was in his hand. Whose fault was that?
But he definitely wasn't wielding the sort of weapon that could be used effectively at that range. Unlike the police, obviously.
They were also told it was a 1 story house. From the moment they rolled up and found a 2 story house, they should have been questioning the information they were given.
If there was a gunman with hostages, the odds are the person sent to the door first is a hostage, not the gunman. So he should not be shot by police. If there is no gunman and no hostages, then whoever answers the door definitely should not be shot by police.
So what happens when one cop yells don't move, one yells get on your knees, one yells put your hands up? Which one do you do? Think quick, if you guess wrong, you're dead and it'll be "your fault".
Why, would the cops shooting him instantly in the doorway bring my Dad back? I want them to get the guy in cuffs and take him away, preferably with no more bullets flying around where innocent people are.
OTOH, I'll bet that family that was having a quiet and uneventful evening REALLY wishes the cops would have been more careful so they could have determined that nobody there had done anything wrong at all.
But they actually did just roll up and shoot the first person they saw. That is LITERALLY what happened. There is no scenario out there where the police did not roll up and kill an innocent person in his own home. They can argue all they want about if it was training or procedures that failed miserably that night but end of the day, they still rolled up and killed an innocent in his own home.
If their procedures are defective, they must change them and accept guilt for killing an innocent in his own home. If their training was lax then they must fix it and accept their guilt for killing an innocent man in his own home.
How understanding do you suppose they would be if someone shot one of them and then said "gee, I didn't mean to!".