Yeah, far be it from you to actually try to offer a correction. In what way do their actions not meet the standard for second degree murder, excepting that police officers have limited immunity?
I got even with my ex-california boss after he did not pay my last week of work. BANG.
Ooops I've said too much.
Are you just on a one-man crusade to make all gun owners look like retarded man-monkeys? Because you're doing a wonderful job. Between this and your previous statements about flashing your gun to make sure the cashier honoured the terms of sale that you deemed valid, and other idiotic comments, you should probably be locked up for your own safety before the real gun owners take you to task.
Yeah that makes sense, penalize a lumber yard and ignore a small store.
No, it's monopoly abusing, rent-seeking behavior. When we pass laws making shit into property we get do-nothings seeking to exploit it. They'll happily sit by while their shit is shoved onto the airwaves and then penalize anyone who decodes it.
Two things. First, vernacular - look it up. Second, it was second degree murder.
They planned to use force, used force where it was unwarranted, used far more force than would have been warranted, continued to use force after their target was subdued, failed to take medical steps following a use of force, refused orders from medical personnel to allow treatment, and participated in a cover-up of the events. That's force likely to cause death and reckless disregard.
But hey, let's send them to Poland and see what the courts have to say.
Plus they'll be paying for it anyway.
Yeah in that way of pay that involves no actual punishment or payment. Like how one of them "payed" for his next killings with paid leave. How sad, take a free vacation!
I'm guessing you have issues with police too.
And I'm guessing you get taxpayer money to abuse your authority or wish you did. It's telling how you immediately try to paint me as anti-police, instead of anti-murderer...
WHO has strong reason to believe those secrets are about harming others?
Anyone who's followed any American politics since the 1960s. Anyone with a realistic view of international relations. (Mainly gained from previous leaks.)
Who do you want to make that decision? Seems that with your line of reasoning, it's just anyone at all.
Exactly. Even you. I want anyone who sees something immoral to flag it and bring it to the attention of everyone.
The alternate is literally anarchy with respect to the control of information
Yeah a literal anarchy... with respect to censorship. That's almost totally not a literal anarchy.
some of which can get people killed or prevent them from being saved.
Anything we really want secure we treat like the enemy knows about anyways. If a secret matters we change it frequently.
Even if what you said is true in a few contrived cases it's a far safer bet that secrets, especially long-lasting ones, are being kept for harmful reasons. Even if the whistle-blower overreacted it's far better than risking letting crimes against humanity continue.
Often, it's sign of a sociopath. They enjoy showing them that spending a huge sum of money will not solve the problem.
Or, you know, the sign of an engineer. They dislike inefficient and unworkable solutions, especially when they cost a huge sum.
You freaks keep missing that nothing was harmed. He proposed a test whereby we could check the efficacy of our extremely expensive security.
I don't mind someone breaking into my house [...]
I do. But if they came to the door and saw I had a weak lock I'd love it if they'd slip me a note telling me that before someone came and broke in.
Even if it caused some robberies by a thief who only heard about the exploit from the announcement, in the end we'd all be safer once we got rid of the weaknesses.
That we'd learn either 1) they spent $1B+ and couldn't even catch a lame terrorist or 2) that they're so pissy about being called on the $1B+ that they'll spread panic about anything to look useful.
This will make it easier to prevent this kind of cronyism and corruption in the future.
As the employees of the taxpayers the police had better expect oversight.
"Hi Mr. Business Owner. I see you've spent a lot of money on your guards, scanners, etc and you're probably wondering how well it's all working. Here is an SD card with a movie I recorded of me walking into your production areas carrying banned items without being properly screened or questioned."
"Hi Mr. Politician, here is a simple metal blank the same size and rough shape as a gun that I just passed through airport security onto this flight - what else might they have missed."
Yes, I can see people getting mad in both cases, but not justifiably.
He was brutally torturing some animal to death to prove himself. If we were looking at someone who was kicking puppies and one of the puppies jumped up and ripped his balls off we'd agree it was deserved. Why isn't this?
It's not pretty but it is pretty life affirming if you look at it from the point of view of the bull.
Almost every other accident makes me feel like you say, even where people were being stupid and got hurt, but this has none of that oh-that-poor-man or it-could-have-been-me feeling at all.
More like "it's about time someone stopped this brutality" and "what an appropriate party to do so".
Or, was this an terrorist bull? Were they trying to get it to talk?
Yeah, someone like you ratted out his idea. But that doesn't mean they'd have caught someone doing the things he was going to do.
They'll assure us they could catch actual terrorists committing actual terror but all they end up doing is cracking down on security researchers and other non-threats.
It depends. Are the failures induced by out-of-normal-range tests the same failures you'd get from letting it run longer? That's the supposed goal but it can be manipulated by choosing a variable your product isn't sensitive to, heat for example, and testing it at elevated heats, but not moisture levels.
On its own the claim means little (estimated lifespan: X) but if they document how they calculate it, and why they assume those variables mattered, how they tested those assumptions, etc, then it could be pretty accurate.
What predilection for smashing and burning? I want us to shut down the detainee camp, quit arresting and deporting people for torture, and to stop the useless wars.
I want us to STOP smashing things.
Don't fool yourself with you imaginary altruistic desires.
They aren't just altruistic desires, I live here too. I don't trust the US government and want its secrets exposed to force it to stop its war crimes.
You sound like one of those guys who see something that works, says, "We can't have that", and screws it up at the first opportunity.
I see a group bent on unjustified war as something not working.
Keeping the contents of diplomatic cables secret is a reasonable and smart thing to do.
Except when you have strong reason to believe those secrets are about harming others. Then eves-dropping and and leaking them is the smart answer.
Yet such a simple thing as this eludes clowns like you.
No, I don't think so. What do you think I'm missing here? That this will expose a ton of dirty dealing and hurt the dirty-dealers? I just care about the victims more than the perpetrators.
It sounds like you know which category you're in...
Pft, there were ambulance attendants on scene who told the police they needed to examine Dziekanski after the tazering, when they were sitting on his throat, and they were denied. It's not like there's any one action by any person that led to his death. Multiple police attacked him multiple times and all of them ignored multiple warnings that he could die.
It's murder however you slice it.
Worse though is the coverup withing RCMP ranks. Taking the video evidence, DENYING its existence, etc.
If we actually followed the same rules in pursuing the RCMP that we'd use against a business whose employees murdered someone and covered it up it's unlikely any of the upper management could escape conspiracy charges.
It's the G20, not G20K, it only needs to have a few hundred people at it, tops. If the bill for a three-day meeting comes to a significant fraction of the GDP perhaps you should cancel it and buy some video-phones.
A billion dollars is being thrown away, against objections, on something we don't need. If you don't think that's fraud you're harping on technicalities.
Isn't it a war crime to put targets of military value in the middle of a civilian population? That's what we're always bitching about Hamas doing.
I guess it's "okay" here because the leaders never recognize themselves as legitimate targets. They think commanding a war while dressed as a civilian separates them from the responsibility.
Many Jews were already there, buying land and homesteading in relative peace with the other inhabitants. While it wasn't thoroughly peaceful the situation took an ugly turn when the nations around the new state declared their intent to drive every last jew into the sea and attacked.
In the end the Palestinians suffer because they harbor some terrorists and thus can't (peacefully) stay where they are, but are seen as a lesser people by the Arab countries surrounding them so nobody will give them a new home.
I can't give any weight at all to the ridiculous historical claims. Yawn. The people who lived there in the past are dead. The people there now have the only reasonable claim "I was born here". So the people in the refugee camps need to be given something else, but something of comparable quality.
The info comes from an excerpt from the Manning/Lamo chat logs.
One of Mannings jobs was investigating Iraqi dissidents. One document they thought was a lead turned out to be a scholarly critique of the government's finances, not a call to arms. Manning went to the officer in charge to explain the mistake. Manning was ordered to ignore the innocence of the message and continue using it to round up people.
(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police... for printing "anti-Iraqi literature"... the iraqi federal police wouldn't cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the "bad guys" were, and how significant this was for the FPs... it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki... i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees...
(02:36:27 PM) Manning: everything started slipping after that... i saw things differently
Knowing that being falsely arrested in a war zone for dissident activities, especially where the USA already had a proven history (Abu Ghraib) of war crimes and torture it's a pretty safe bet that would have happened to some of the people who'd have been falsely arrested.
Thus is was pretty obvious that the order was illegal.
After that Manning started looking more into the issue and found the video and other documents.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, far be it from you to actually try to offer a correction. In what way do their actions not meet the standard for second degree murder, excepting that police officers have limited immunity?
Unless of course it was your code...
Here, this should help.
I got even with my ex-california boss after he did not pay my last week of work. BANG.
Ooops I've said too much .
Are you just on a one-man crusade to make all gun owners look like retarded man-monkeys? Because you're doing a wonderful job. Between this and your previous statements about flashing your gun to make sure the cashier honoured the terms of sale that you deemed valid, and other idiotic comments, you should probably be locked up for your own safety before the real gun owners take you to task.
Yeah that makes sense, penalize a lumber yard and ignore a small store.
No, it's monopoly abusing, rent-seeking behavior. When we pass laws making shit into property we get do-nothings seeking to exploit it. They'll happily sit by while their shit is shoved onto the airwaves and then penalize anyone who decodes it.
Two things. First, vernacular - look it up. Second, it was second degree murder.
They planned to use force, used force where it was unwarranted, used far more force than would have been warranted, continued to use force after their target was subdued, failed to take medical steps following a use of force, refused orders from medical personnel to allow treatment, and participated in a cover-up of the events. That's force likely to cause death and reckless disregard.
But hey, let's send them to Poland and see what the courts have to say.
Plus they'll be paying for it anyway.
Yeah in that way of pay that involves no actual punishment or payment. Like how one of them "payed" for his next killings with paid leave. How sad, take a free vacation!
I'm guessing you have issues with police too.
And I'm guessing you get taxpayer money to abuse your authority or wish you did. It's telling how you immediately try to paint me as anti-police, instead of anti-murderer...
WHO has strong reason to believe those secrets are about harming others?
Anyone who's followed any American politics since the 1960s. Anyone with a realistic view of international relations. (Mainly gained from previous leaks.)
Who do you want to make that decision? Seems that with your line of reasoning, it's just anyone at all.
Exactly. Even you. I want anyone who sees something immoral to flag it and bring it to the attention of everyone.
The alternate is literally anarchy with respect to the control of information
Yeah a literal anarchy ... with respect to censorship. That's almost totally not a literal anarchy.
some of which can get people killed or prevent them from being saved.
Anything we really want secure we treat like the enemy knows about anyways. If a secret matters we change it frequently.
Even if what you said is true in a few contrived cases it's a far safer bet that secrets, especially long-lasting ones, are being kept for harmful reasons. Even if the whistle-blower overreacted it's far better than risking letting crimes against humanity continue.
Actually, yes they can. They sent fifty police to arrest him, that's like one guy for ten days.
And yes, his actions could (by failing to show up on watch-lists for dangerous substances) help them many times even if they already had his name.
At least they aren't spending it in Afghanistan, half a world away and conveniently out of sight.
Often, it's sign of a sociopath. They enjoy showing them that spending a huge sum of money will not solve the problem.
Or, you know, the sign of an engineer. They dislike inefficient and unworkable solutions, especially when they cost a huge sum.
You freaks keep missing that nothing was harmed. He proposed a test whereby we could check the efficacy of our extremely expensive security.
I don't mind someone breaking into my house [...]
I do. But if they came to the door and saw I had a weak lock I'd love it if they'd slip me a note telling me that before someone came and broke in.
Even if it caused some robberies by a thief who only heard about the exploit from the announcement, in the end we'd all be safer once we got rid of the weaknesses.
That we'd learn either 1) they spent $1B+ and couldn't even catch a lame terrorist or 2) that they're so pissy about being called on the $1B+ that they'll spread panic about anything to look useful.
This will make it easier to prevent this kind of cronyism and corruption in the future.
As the employees of the taxpayers the police had better expect oversight.
"Hi Mr. Business Owner. I see you've spent a lot of money on your guards, scanners, etc and you're probably wondering how well it's all working. Here is an SD card with a movie I recorded of me walking into your production areas carrying banned items without being properly screened or questioned."
"Hi Mr. Politician, here is a simple metal blank the same size and rough shape as a gun that I just passed through airport security onto this flight - what else might they have missed."
Yes, I can see people getting mad in both cases, but not justifiably.
You actually wouldn't want that sort of excuse to just work of terrorists who just end up with extra seeds.
And he published his intent before trying to attract attention because, as you say, it wouldn't have meant much later.
It's also likely that they didn't detect him and are responding only to a tip-off from someone who heard his plans.
He was brutally torturing some animal to death to prove himself. If we were looking at someone who was kicking puppies and one of the puppies jumped up and ripped his balls off we'd agree it was deserved. Why isn't this?
It's not pretty but it is pretty life affirming if you look at it from the point of view of the bull.
Almost every other accident makes me feel like you say, even where people were being stupid and got hurt, but this has none of that oh-that-poor-man or it-could-have-been-me feeling at all.
More like "it's about time someone stopped this brutality" and "what an appropriate party to do so".
Or, was this an terrorist bull? Were they trying to get it to talk?
But it would be a great idea for our government security forces to do.
Otherwise I pity the cleaning person with a mop who proves there's a problem.
Yeah, someone like you ratted out his idea. But that doesn't mean they'd have caught someone doing the things he was going to do.
They'll assure us they could catch actual terrorists committing actual terror but all they end up doing is cracking down on security researchers and other non-threats.
Near a restricted area isn't IN it.
And water(/everything) has been used in protests before.
As for his associations, they're irrelevant. Either what he did was problematic or is was not.
It depends. Are the failures induced by out-of-normal-range tests the same failures you'd get from letting it run longer? That's the supposed goal but it can be manipulated by choosing a variable your product isn't sensitive to, heat for example, and testing it at elevated heats, but not moisture levels.
On its own the claim means little (estimated lifespan: X) but if they document how they calculate it, and why they assume those variables mattered, how they tested those assumptions, etc, then it could be pretty accurate.
What predilection for smashing and burning? I want us to shut down the detainee camp, quit arresting and deporting people for torture, and to stop the useless wars.
I want us to STOP smashing things.
Don't fool yourself with you imaginary altruistic desires.
They aren't just altruistic desires, I live here too. I don't trust the US government and want its secrets exposed to force it to stop its war crimes.
You sound like one of those guys who see something that works, says, "We can't have that", and screws it up at the first opportunity.
I see a group bent on unjustified war as something not working.
Keeping the contents of diplomatic cables secret is a reasonable and smart thing to do.
Except when you have strong reason to believe those secrets are about harming others. Then eves-dropping and and leaking them is the smart answer.
Yet such a simple thing as this eludes clowns like you.
No, I don't think so. What do you think I'm missing here? That this will expose a ton of dirty dealing and hurt the dirty-dealers? I just care about the victims more than the perpetrators.
It sounds like you know which category you're in...
Actually he survived the tazering and died from them sitting on his neck/chest and denying him medical attention.
They'd want a lot less zeros on the check if we sent them the zeros who committed the murder to serve their sentences in a Polish jail. Just sayin...
Pft, there were ambulance attendants on scene who told the police they needed to examine Dziekanski after the tazering, when they were sitting on his throat, and they were denied. It's not like there's any one action by any person that led to his death. Multiple police attacked him multiple times and all of them ignored multiple warnings that he could die.
It's murder however you slice it.
Worse though is the coverup withing RCMP ranks. Taking the video evidence, DENYING its existence, etc.
If we actually followed the same rules in pursuing the RCMP that we'd use against a business whose employees murdered someone and covered it up it's unlikely any of the upper management could escape conspiracy charges.
It's the G20, not G20K, it only needs to have a few hundred people at it, tops. If the bill for a three-day meeting comes to a significant fraction of the GDP perhaps you should cancel it and buy some video-phones.
A billion dollars is being thrown away, against objections, on something we don't need. If you don't think that's fraud you're harping on technicalities.
Isn't it a war crime to put targets of military value in the middle of a civilian population? That's what we're always bitching about Hamas doing.
I guess it's "okay" here because the leaders never recognize themselves as legitimate targets. They think commanding a war while dressed as a civilian separates them from the responsibility.
Many Jews were already there, buying land and homesteading in relative peace with the other inhabitants. While it wasn't thoroughly peaceful the situation took an ugly turn when the nations around the new state declared their intent to drive every last jew into the sea and attacked.
In the end the Palestinians suffer because they harbor some terrorists and thus can't (peacefully) stay where they are, but are seen as a lesser people by the Arab countries surrounding them so nobody will give them a new home.
I can't give any weight at all to the ridiculous historical claims. Yawn. The people who lived there in the past are dead. The people there now have the only reasonable claim "I was born here". So the people in the refugee camps need to be given something else, but something of comparable quality.
The info comes from an excerpt from the Manning/Lamo chat logs.
One of Mannings jobs was investigating Iraqi dissidents. One document they thought was a lead turned out to be a scholarly critique of the government's finances, not a call to arms. Manning went to the officer in charge to explain the mistake. Manning was ordered to ignore the innocence of the message and continue using it to round up people.
(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police... for printing "anti-Iraqi literature"... the iraqi federal police wouldn't cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the "bad guys" were, and how significant this was for the FPs... it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki... i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees...
(02:36:27 PM) Manning: everything started slipping after that... i saw things differently
Knowing that being falsely arrested in a war zone for dissident activities, especially where the USA already had a proven history (Abu Ghraib) of war crimes and torture it's a pretty safe bet that would have happened to some of the people who'd have been falsely arrested.
Thus is was pretty obvious that the order was illegal.
After that Manning started looking more into the issue and found the video and other documents.