Firstly, let me apologize for my earlier strident tone. I normally don't argue in that fashion. If you were simply trolling, congratulations... I bought it hook, line and sinker. I think, however, that you might actually be sincere; all the more reason to press this point home.
I believe bad cops hang themselves. I also believe that a good cop can make an honest mistake. Absent evidence to the contrary, the court must, and did, agree. Have you ever made a mistake, perhaps in software design, or in a section of code? Were you vilified in the press? Called murderer, racist, inept, or stupid? Of course you weren't... but those officers were. They made a terrible mistake, and an innocent man died... that's the awful consequence of making a mistake as a police officer. It's a heavy burden to bear, and one that ONLY other police officers understand. Like you said, however, that's not your job. That's why, legally, you are not in a position to judge those officers.
What would you do if you encountered one of them in person? Would you spit in his eye, call him a "murdering piece of shit," and let him know exactly how you felt? Then, satisfied with getting in your jab, happily go on your way? Well, you'd be only one of many. These guys will have to live like that for the rest of their lives... a true death of a thousand cuts. This, of course, pales in comparison to what they'll do to themselves. Killing another human being at close range, whether in war, on the street, or by accident, does terrible things to the human psyche. These guys will suffer the memories of that night until the day they die.
How much would be enough for you? Seriously... How much suffering would you have these guys go through to atone for an honest mistake? I know you think they intentionally murdered Diallo, but there was no evidence to that effect, so let's deal with the existing facts. What does an honest mistake at your job cost you? It's already cost these guys plenty... and they aren't done paying yet. how much more would satisfy you?
If you were ever curious why police officers are so clannish, or wondered why they circle the wagons when something bad happens, honestly... it's because of people like you. These guys will get spit on for the rest of their lives, by most everyone, with one exception. Only another cop will ever put his hand on their shoulder, look them in the eye, and say "Hey pal, I understand. I might have done the same thing in your shoes." Everyone else, like yourself, mostly joe citizens who have never worked the street as a cop, will despise them and spit on them. Ever wonder why Vietman vets congregate together, and rarely talk about their experiences with non-vets? Same reason; non-vets have no common pool of experiences from which to draw, and thus lack real empathy for the veteran's pain. Nobody wants fake compassion.
The legal system has recognized that police officers bear a special burden. They have a specific body of knowledge, specialized training, and are required to, at a moments notice, make life-and-death decisions in a split second, based soley on their training and experience. Cops may also use more force than a regular citizen; "necessary force" rather than "equal force," because they have a duty to arrest, and do not have the luxury of running away. Police officers are judged by a different standard, and have greater powers, BECAUSE they have a GREATER degree of responsibility. Their mistakes have dire consequences, and are judged from a unique viewpoint, coherent with their unique training and experiences.
What I don't understand is why you hate them so much. You hate them beyond reason, beyond logic.
I think you are judging them too harshly, particularly since you have never been there. You see only four racist murderers, and your mind is clearly made up, so I know I am asking too much here. Still, it's unfortunate to read your savage indictment, particularly when you have no evidence of malfeasance on their part. It's also disturbing to witness your total lack of empathy or compassion. You don't recognize their humanity, or acknowledge their pain. You lack even the most basic commonality of experiences with those men, yet you would stand in judgement, branding them murderers and racists.
It comes down to this: I simply can't understand how you, with your limited knowledge and experience, can see fit to condemn these men.
I was incorrect about the foot chase, but the other details (refusing to respond to a verbal challenge, reaching for his pocket, etc) are accurate.
You were incorrect about the number of rounds fired, and whether they reloaded (did you think they were carrying revolvers or something?). 41 rounds were fired, 19 found their target. The officers were all carrying 16-round Glock pistols, and none reloaded. Perhaps you didn't follow the case as closely as you thought, and evidently I didn't either. I apologize for my error.
The contact officer thought he saw a gun; He fired while attempting to retreat (he was reportedly 5 feet away). When the three cover officers saw the contact officer fall backwards off the steps of Diallo's apartment building, it was to the sound of gunfire and an officer yelling "GUN!" (Running backwards quickly down a darkened set of steps might challenge the most-agile of men). The cover officers assumed, reasonably, that he had been shot, and opened fire.
It's no mystery to me why the officers were acquited... because I can see there from here. You, however, cannot or will not. Despite your earlier remarks about your local police, I think you draw from a well of philosophical bias against police... it's in everything you wrote:
Racists; "not that I would blame any black man for running from the police" (I was wondering when you'd play the race card... what about the four black members of the acquiting jury? Were they racists too?)
Stupid
Inept
Cowards
Murderers; "executed so brutally"
Did you want to add babykiller, or child molester in there? You clearly hate cops; I have no idea why, but it comes across loud and clear.
You were in the military? What branch? I find it odd that an ex-military person would state that there was "no stress" involved in that situation. That is funny, particularly from someone whose claimed job it was to "protect people," and who "took it seriously."
Mistakenly killing an unarmed man does not merit PCID counseling? Do you understand the psychological toll that can take? I seriously doubt those officers are laughing about this over beers. Now, some people might not mind if one or more of those officers cracked afterwards and committed suicide... I think it would only compound the tragedy, and deprive another family of a father. I hope you don't hate those officers enough to wish that on them... their kids never asked for this.
You are harshly judging a situation that you didn't witness, and have no frame of reference to understand. Further, to be legally correct, your joe-citizen opinion is moot; the legal standard in use-of-force cases is from the point of view of a reasonable POLICE OFFICER in a similar situation. Those four guys screwed up bigtime... a terrible, terrible tragedy. However, from an officer's viewpoint, it was reasonable based on the circumstances. I can see it, and so could the racially-diverse jury... why can't you?
Cowards? Being afraid does not make you a coward. If you are not afraid in a gunfight, then you are dumber than I thought. Courage is not the absence of fear... it's doing your duty DESPITE that fear.
In the heat of battle, things happen in split seconds. You clearly have never been there, and probably never will be, so I will repeat my sincere advice to STFU. 49 rounds seems excessive; but recall that there were 4 officers. Most officer-involved shooting incidents result in multiple rounds fired. The vast majority of officers interviewed after an incident CANNOT accurately tell you how many rounds they fired... they are often way off. Some reload and never remember doing so... many don't remember hearing the shots. Do some reading before you shoot your mouth off; I would recommend something in the field of Post-Critical Incident Stress Debriefing.
"The cops shot an unarmed man."
Yes... they did, and it was a terrible tragedy. However, they did NOT KNOW he was unarmed. What about a person with a toy gun? He's also "unarmed." You don't have to actually be armed, you just have to give a REASONABLE person the impression that you might be. Reference the supreme court case Terry Vs Ohio, reasonable suspicion is all you need to stop and frisk. There may have been a language barrier (not the police officers' fault), but he ran from them when challenged, ignored orders to stop, and finally holed up in a doorway, going for an object in his pocket.
What would you have done? Your adrenaline is pumping from a foot chase, the person you suspect may be armed suddenely turns on you, going for his pocket... Would you stop, fumble for a flashlight in your pocket, trying to find the switch, while faced with a person you think is going for a gun?
You are clearly uneducated, and inclined to believe that four officers got together to murder an innnocent, unarmed man. Fine... believe what you will. You, however, are an armchair QB, talking completely out of your ass. Go pick up a weapon and defend other people, get yourself into a shooting situation, and then get second-guessed by a bunch of ignorant loudmouths like yourself. Somehow, I doubt you would have empathy even then...
You speak with the moral condemnation and certainty that only total ignorance can provide; must be bliss...
Yes... I have hung out and worked with many city, county, and federal cops. Cops I know that have shot themselves accidently (in the leg for instance, while trying to holster their weapon) NEVER heard the end of it. Cops are a ruthless group when it comes to practical jokes and "locker" humor. That's something you never live down.
I suspected you were making a joke with the "stupid"... just had to be sure. I would never approach a fellow officer's widow and tell her how stupid he had been to get killed by his own gun, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
My experience with gangs is rather direct, and I do see them as a significant threat, whether it's Folk, People, or the Outlaws... they are a major force in some urban centers. They account for a large percentage of some violent crimes. That said, if you are not part of their world (ie. not a "banger" yourself, not buying drugs from them, not on their turf, or not a cop busting them) you probably have little to fear, so in that sense you are correct. If, however, you are a tourist who takes the wrong exit off the interstate, or you like to dabble recreationally in drugs... look out.
Ironically, it's not always the lifelong hard-core, dedicated gang members that are the most dangerous. Most of those are all about the gang's business, and understand that killing a cop brings down a lot of heat, something they would rather avoid. Out of the hard-cores, the affiliates, and the wanna-bes, often the most dangerous are the wanna-be's... trying to show off how "hard" they are.
You should probably do something about that large chip on your shoulder. Please point out where I made anyone out to be "physically inferior," with "nerd glasses" and a "pocket protector." And how exactly did I state that I'm "too good to be here?"
I'm as much a geek as anyone, and probably bigger than most; so it would be more than slightly hypocritical for me to attack anyone for their geekiness. I simply happen to have some expertise relevant to this topic, and am offering it to enrich the discussion.
Why am I defending these morons? Because I have been through some of the same training they have, and I can't say I would act differently in the same situation. And no, I don't personally know any of the officers involved.
You are clearly a cop-hating troll, but I'll take a moment of my time here...
What do YOU do when a guy is pulling out a gun? Hmmm? Give him the first shot as a freebie, confident in your ability to dodge the bullet? Yell "Freeze!!" while he's shooting at you? Give ME a break... are you really that stupid, or have you watched too many movies? Ever tried to accurately and rapidly shoot with one hand, while holding a flashlight steady in the other? As I recall, these were plainclothes cops; many of them don't carry flashlights.
If these cops are so inept, and you are so proficient, then why don't you head on down to your local precinct and volunteer? Even better, head down to the understaffed jail. I'm sure the officers would love to have your insight and expertise to help them do their jobs. Why not? If you are the hotshot you make yourself out to be, then pitch in and help. Most police departments are undermanned and short of money... Volunteer.
Funny... somehow I'm guessing that you are not interested in doing that.
this thing has been around for ages. Probably wouldn't be a good idea for the geeks in this forum... think about handling your floppies with one of those buggers on.
If that situation boggles your mind, then you have never been there, and should really STFU. Anyone who's ever been in a confrontation like that or used a FaTS (Firearm Training Simulator) system knows how quickly these things happen in real life.
Can a wallet look like a gun? YES. They make holsters that look exactly like a wallet... what about those? take a look
As for falling down while shooting, that's easy. Most police are taught to shoot/move at the same time (standing still makes you a target), preferably towards some cover. It's usually a good idea to put some distance between yourself and a threat. You think you could accurately shoot, whilst running backwards, whilst tripping over debris and cracks in the sidewalk, all while dealing with the biggest adrenaline surge of your life? yeah... thought not.
You need to learn and experience some things before you second-guess the guys working the street. As it is, you really just sound like a cop-hater.
Wow... I don't even know how to respond to the "look stupid" comment. I'm think I'm going to forget about that for the sake of this discussion, except to say that losing the fight of your life to some felon and dying in the process, all while trying to do your thankless job seems sad/heroic to me... "stupid" is about the last word I would have used... that's really all I have to say to that.
Having a gun does change your psychology. Police are taught that there's always a gun present at any confrontation... theirs. Then again, it might not be theirs... it might become the bad guy's, if he's better-trained, or simply faster/stronger/luckier. It makes you more careful, and forces you to use better tactics.
Police academies show videos taken clandestinely in prisons; videos that show felons and gang members training one another on how to disarm police officers. Scary stuff, particularly when you think that you might encounter one of these guys on the street. If you are not careful, that gang member is going to kill you. Anyone who thinks that it's not war in some of our larger, gang-infested cities is not connected to reality.
It's particularly bad with gangs... they get better organized and more diversified all the time. Did you know that some larger gangs give money to send members to college and law school? They buy property and legitmate businesses to use as fronts... it's a true criminal enterprise. They also train, and we sometimes get lucky and catch a glimpse into how they train... As Sun-Tzu said, it helps to know your enemy
This is a training problem... one you will have a hard time fixing with technology.
As a former firearms instructor, I can tell you that retention is tough. If you are fighting for your gun, it's real, no-shit, do-or-die time, and you had better win. I'm not going to discuss specifics in this forum. Even though I have hard time imagining some slashgeek going for a cop's gun, there's probably a few here who are crazy enough, and I'm not going to give anyone any sort of tactical edge.
The reasons police officers get killed with their own guns are many, and often simply come down to bad tactics. That said, I would NEVER trust one of these smart-gun gadgets for a duty weapon.
This is the same philosophy behind the "New York Trigger" that many police officers are required to have on their handguns. Instead of better "trigger control" during training, you get one of these heavy triggers. The trigger pull weight on a New York Trigger is about 12+ pounds, and was put in place to prevent accidental shootings, ostensibly because such a hard trigger pull is difficult to accomplish "by accident." Unfortunately, it causes accuracy to suffer (perhaps increasing bystanders getting hit by stray rounds?), and makes the guns unusable for some smaller-framed officers. Again, a misguided technology fix for a training problem.
I think this is just grandstanding by some NJ politicians. It's almost funny to see them mandate something that doesn't even exist. Unfortunately, this will impact regular gun owners disproportionately, and have little effect on crime guns.
That was my favorite "phoenix"... I always liked the away/leaving/joining comments; they were all lyrics from megadeth songs.
The "War" portion of the script looked interesting, though I was never L4M3Rz enough to employ it... I was on IRC to chat, not compensate for my personal insecurities by kick/banning people, and taking over their channels.
What happened to IRC anyway? I've been on a few times recently, and it's just not the same. All the old guard are gone, and it's all "RU Single??" messages.
Sorry for the nostalgia; that C-64 screen really got me going...
Electronic Arts always had great games... except it used to be EOA, dunno when it changed.
Ah, those fond memories of my youth... 2AM, sitting in front of my C-64, watching that EOA title screen come up... gaming all night long (in between using a 300 baud modem to contact BBS's in germany, Japan...)
I almost didn't survive the beating that resulted from one month's phone bill... almost 400$ of overseas long-distance. Twenty years ago, 400$ was, as they say, real money.
Yep, I can hear the L33T K1dd13Z now... "Shut up, pops. Go take some Bayer for yer arthritis."
We've had computers in cars for years... they just were not the kind you typically think about. I think it's great that we are "open-sourcing" what goes on under the hood; I, for one, would love to know exactly what my engine is doing. Further, the potential to make changes (fuel/air mixture, timing, etc) in engine parameters would make such a project useful beyond even the geek factor.
Also, newer cars have computers in them anyway... OnStar, GPS mapping, etc. Why not have an open alternative that those of us with older cars can implement? You will have to roll your own, but so what? most geeks will probably want to anyway.
As for watching DVDs while you drive... Well... that problem might just take care of itself (hopefully with minimal collateral damage).
As long as the person never finds out about it, you are A-OK. It's not illegal to do research; it's what you do with that research that makes or breaks you.
Most anti-stalking statues have a clause or two about putting the "stalkee" in fear, emotional distress, or causing intimidation. You typically also have to show a pattern of such behavior... a single incident does not a stalker make.
Think about all the drooling britney spears fanboys out there (like 95% of slashdotters... cmon, it's cool to hate her music, but ALL of you geeks secretly want her body... admit it). They are not guilty of stalking simply because they plaster their room with pictures, and constantly google the 'net for new britney sites.
Stalking implies much more than just a google search.
IANAL, etc, etc... not legal advice, blah, blah, blah
Courts have long held that using odors is not necessarily a violation of your fourth amendment right to be free of unreaonable search and seizure (with a few exceptions).
The air around your vehicle, luggage, or other "object" is free to sniff, so drug sniffing dogs and explosive jiffy-sniffers are usable without a warrant. Vehicle "stop and sniff" random checkpoints have run into some trouble, but if you've been stopped by a police officer for some reason (traffic offense), and he suspects the presence of drugs, he can call for a dog, no problem. If said K-9 alerts on your car, probable cause to search is established. I believe the case was United States v. Place in the early 1980s.
Air around your person has been treated a bit differently, since random, agressive sniffing by a dog, without some articulable suspicion, has been considered a "search" by some courts.
There was a case of high school students being personally sniffed, and found unconstitutional... it was B.C. versus Plumas Unified School District. Here's a link with some info: Newspaper article you can probably google for the whole text of the decision.
Based on some of the above cases, this might actually BE unconstitutional, since it's a direct sniff of a person, not an object. You can sniff people without individualized suspicion, but the state has to seriously justify it... minimal privacy invasion, and compelling state interest. However, with the current terrorism problem, and simply having to walk through a gate of some kind to be sniffed (minimal invasion of privacy), this might pass constitutional muster. The lawyers will have their work cut out for them with this one.
Here's a link that gives a somewhat simplified explanation of dog and cat taste/smell... it even spares you some of the arcane aspects of organic chemistry
It would be interesting to see how they would implement this.
The theory on how animals tell people apart has to do with combinations of long-chain carboxylic acids. They have long fatty chains, and the long carbon chains keep the volatility low, but dogs can supposedly detect them. Their noses are quite sensitive for these compounds; much more so than human noses. On the other hand, humans noses are more sensitive for some other compounds... the mercaptans, for instance.
I just wonder if they can make equipment that will detect such low, low levels of these compounds, and whether there is enough variation (with the limited number of long chain fatty acids) to produce a unique signature among billions of people.
Unless I'm way off-base and they are going in a totally different direction, I don't see how this is possible.
"The sad fact is that many cops would rather bust a pothead than go after real criminals, as it is less work for them that way."
You suggest that my "anecdotes" are not enough evidence to prove my point, and then have enough balls to make a sweeping statement like the above about cops? Where, sir, are your "hard statistics?"
Heh... you sound like a troll of the first order... but I'll feed you.
By your post, I'd guess that your only experience with law enforcement is from the wrong side. What's the matter? Angry at that last traffic ticket you got? Think you didn't deserve it?
Let me just make a couple of points:
#1: Don't burn a big fat joint while you are being pulled over by a police officer. A single joint is a minor misdemeanor where I live, but it gives probable cause to search your vehicle. You could probably avoid this hassle by smoking your pot in the privacy of your own home. Since pot is still illegal, it is stupid to smoke it in public... you deserve every fine you get if you insist on being that dumb.
#2: Since pot is illegal, in my experience it is predominately smoked by partying teens, people who use it recreationally, and antisocial types who tend to committ other crimes. Most cops I know are very, very interested in the latter group, since they cause lot of crime, and it's a real "feather in your cap" to put one in prison. Most cops hate traffic duty, small-time pot busts, etc...they would like nothing better than to focus on the bigger crimes. Barney Fife is a fictional TV character.
#3: While it may be cool to hate "the man," most cops are just trying to do their job, which is to enforce the law. If they don't, they get fired, and they have families to feed, just like you. If you don't like the law, get the law changed. Don't bitch at the cop; he's just society's messenger. If society doesn't agree with you... well... what can I say? You pay your money, you take your chances. You can flaunt whatever law you like, but you'd better be prepared to take it like a man when society sanctions you. That's a hard fact of life, but one you'd better understand if you want to stay out of jail.
Crime is funny... it really does snowball. When somebody consciously commits their first crime, they probably are sweating the thought of a blue-clad policeman swooping out of nowhere to make the bust, just like on TV... when it doesn't happen, and they "get away with it," they become encouraged, even emboldened. They realize a fundamental truth... a huge number of crimes go unsolved, and unstopped. As long as they are even halfway careful... they can do whatever they want!
A powerful thought, being able to do whatever you want... and it leads to more crimes, and bigger crimes.
Like you, I think hitting the small crimes is important. Punks will always tell you "why'd you stop me for speeding? Don't you have rapists to catch or sumthin??" Well, yes... and sometimes we catch them by traffic stops.
How'd Timothy McVeigh get caught? Traffic Stop. How about Son of Sam? Parking ticket (if memory serves)
Stopping a person for a burned-out license plate light may seem like a chicken-shit stop... until you come up to the driver's window and smell the weed, or see the gun and ski mask on the back seat...
These are one of the oldest social engineering scams in existence...
They've been used on AOL subscribers (we are updated our database! Email your login/password to this address to ensure uninterrupted service), and even (legitimately) by sysadmins to check on the cluefulness of their own users... see how many ppl will Email you their login/passwords.
That mantle of authority/legitimacy is a powerful psychological tool... provides a lot of social control in some arenas. But I'm not saying it's always good... when people are trained/socialized to listen and not ask questions at all... well... you get victimized by stuff like this. Not to sound like a bumper sticker, but "question authority" is pretty good advice sometimes.
A little bit of cynicism and skepticism go a long way, particularly on the 'Net.
The law would disagree with you in many jurisdictions.
The distinction between "theft" and "grand theft" is typically determined by amount.
Often there is a scale of theft amounts that garner different levels of legal sanction... fourth degree misdemeanor, third degree, second, and so forth, up to felony theft. Then there are fourth degree felonies, third degree, etc.
Most big-city police departments are so overloaded and undermanned that I'm not at all surprised that this guy's case got the back burner. Honestly... would you rather have violent crimes prosecuted, or a few lower-level property crimes?
As much as it offends the sensibilities of the tech population (you mean computers aren't everything??), there are far more-heinous crimes that go unsolved than an ebay scammer.
I agree that it's wrong... but infinite resources and manpower are not on the radar screen of most police departments.
Two words... Consumer Reports (no, I don't work for them, receive any money from them, etc).
If you want an organization that is likely to honestly review products, try to find one that doesn't rely on advertising bucks, and doesn't sell the product in question... minimize any conflicts of interest (real, or perceived). Consumer reports does this by being member-supported... NO advertisements.
Just a suggestion... However, you DO have to pay in order to become a member, and they don't review all the products you probably want to buy (no tech book reviews), though they do hit the big ticket stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, let me apologize for my earlier strident tone. I normally don't argue in that fashion. If you were simply trolling, congratulations... I bought it hook, line and sinker. I think, however, that you might actually be sincere; all the more reason to press this point home.
I believe bad cops hang themselves. I also believe that a good cop can make an honest mistake. Absent evidence to the contrary, the court must, and did, agree. Have you ever made a mistake, perhaps in software design, or in a section of code? Were you vilified in the press? Called murderer, racist, inept, or stupid? Of course you weren't... but those officers were. They made a terrible mistake, and an innocent man died... that's the awful consequence of making a mistake as a police officer. It's a heavy burden to bear, and one that ONLY other police officers understand. Like you said, however, that's not your job. That's why, legally, you are not in a position to judge those officers.
What would you do if you encountered one of them in person? Would you spit in his eye, call him a "murdering piece of shit," and let him know exactly how you felt? Then, satisfied with getting in your jab, happily go on your way? Well, you'd be only one of many. These guys will have to live like that for the rest of their lives... a true death of a thousand cuts. This, of course, pales in comparison to what they'll do to themselves. Killing another human being at close range, whether in war, on the street, or by accident, does terrible things to the human psyche. These guys will suffer the memories of that night until the day they die.
How much would be enough for you? Seriously... How much suffering would you have these guys go through to atone for an honest mistake? I know you think they intentionally murdered Diallo, but there was no evidence to that effect, so let's deal with the existing facts. What does an honest mistake at your job cost you? It's already cost these guys plenty... and they aren't done paying yet. how much more would satisfy you?
If you were ever curious why police officers are so clannish, or wondered why they circle the wagons when something bad happens, honestly... it's because of people like you. These guys will get spit on for the rest of their lives, by most everyone, with one exception. Only another cop will ever put his hand on their shoulder, look them in the eye, and say "Hey pal, I understand. I might have done the same thing in your shoes." Everyone else, like yourself, mostly joe citizens who have never worked the street as a cop, will despise them and spit on them. Ever wonder why Vietman vets congregate together, and rarely talk about their experiences with non-vets? Same reason; non-vets have no common pool of experiences from which to draw, and thus lack real empathy for the veteran's pain. Nobody wants fake compassion.
The legal system has recognized that police officers bear a special burden. They have a specific body of knowledge, specialized training, and are required to, at a moments notice, make life-and-death decisions in a split second, based soley on their training and experience. Cops may also use more force than a regular citizen; "necessary force" rather than "equal force," because they have a duty to arrest, and do not have the luxury of running away. Police officers are judged by a different standard, and have greater powers, BECAUSE they have a GREATER degree of responsibility. Their mistakes have dire consequences, and are judged from a unique viewpoint, coherent with their unique training and experiences.
What I don't understand is why you hate them so much. You hate them beyond reason, beyond logic.
I think you are judging them too harshly, particularly since you have never been there. You see only four racist murderers, and your mind is clearly made up, so I know I am asking too much here. Still, it's unfortunate to read your savage indictment, particularly when you have no evidence of malfeasance on their part. It's also disturbing to witness your total lack of empathy or compassion. You don't recognize their humanity, or acknowledge their pain. You lack even the most basic commonality of experiences with those men, yet you would stand in judgement, branding them murderers and racists.
It comes down to this: I simply can't understand how you, with your limited knowledge and experience, can see fit to condemn these men.
It appears we are both mistaken.
I was incorrect about the foot chase, but the other details (refusing to respond to a verbal challenge, reaching for his pocket, etc) are accurate.
You were incorrect about the number of rounds fired, and whether they reloaded (did you think they were carrying revolvers or something?). 41 rounds were fired, 19 found their target. The officers were all carrying 16-round Glock pistols, and none reloaded. Perhaps you didn't follow the case as closely as you thought, and evidently I didn't either. I apologize for my error.
The contact officer thought he saw a gun; He fired while attempting to retreat (he was reportedly 5 feet away). When the three cover officers saw the contact officer fall backwards off the steps of Diallo's apartment building, it was to the sound of gunfire and an officer yelling "GUN!" (Running backwards quickly down a darkened set of steps might challenge the most-agile of men). The cover officers assumed, reasonably, that he had been shot, and opened fire.
It's no mystery to me why the officers were acquited... because I can see there from here. You, however, cannot or will not. Despite your earlier remarks about your local police, I think you draw from a well of philosophical bias against police... it's in everything you wrote:
Racists; "not that I would blame any black man for running from the police" (I was wondering when you'd play the race card... what about the four black members of the acquiting jury? Were they racists too?)
Stupid
Inept
Cowards
Murderers; "executed so brutally"
Did you want to add babykiller, or child molester in there? You clearly hate cops; I have no idea why, but it comes across loud and clear.
You were in the military? What branch? I find it odd that an ex-military person would state that there was "no stress" involved in that situation. That is funny, particularly from someone whose claimed job it was to "protect people," and who "took it seriously."
Mistakenly killing an unarmed man does not merit PCID counseling? Do you understand the psychological toll that can take? I seriously doubt those officers are laughing about this over beers. Now, some people might not mind if one or more of those officers cracked afterwards and committed suicide... I think it would only compound the tragedy, and deprive another family of a father. I hope you don't hate those officers enough to wish that on them... their kids never asked for this.
You are harshly judging a situation that you didn't witness, and have no frame of reference to understand. Further, to be legally correct, your joe-citizen opinion is moot; the legal standard in use-of-force cases is from the point of view of a reasonable POLICE OFFICER in a similar situation. Those four guys screwed up bigtime... a terrible, terrible tragedy. However, from an officer's viewpoint, it was reasonable based on the circumstances. I can see it, and so could the racially-diverse jury... why can't you?
Cowards? Being afraid does not make you a coward. If you are not afraid in a gunfight, then you are dumber than I thought. Courage is not the absence of fear... it's doing your duty DESPITE that fear.
In the heat of battle, things happen in split seconds. You clearly have never been there, and probably never will be, so I will repeat my sincere advice to STFU. 49 rounds seems excessive; but recall that there were 4 officers. Most officer-involved shooting incidents result in multiple rounds fired. The vast majority of officers interviewed after an incident CANNOT accurately tell you how many rounds they fired... they are often way off. Some reload and never remember doing so... many don't remember hearing the shots. Do some reading before you shoot your mouth off; I would recommend something in the field of Post-Critical Incident Stress Debriefing.
"The cops shot an unarmed man."
Yes... they did, and it was a terrible tragedy. However, they did NOT KNOW he was unarmed. What about a person with a toy gun? He's also "unarmed." You don't have to actually be armed, you just have to give a REASONABLE person the impression that you might be. Reference the supreme court case Terry Vs Ohio, reasonable suspicion is all you need to stop and frisk. There may have been a language barrier (not the police officers' fault), but he ran from them when challenged, ignored orders to stop, and finally holed up in a doorway, going for an object in his pocket.
What would you have done? Your adrenaline is pumping from a foot chase, the person you suspect may be armed suddenely turns on you, going for his pocket... Would you stop, fumble for a flashlight in your pocket, trying to find the switch, while faced with a person you think is going for a gun?
You are clearly uneducated, and inclined to believe that four officers got together to murder an innnocent, unarmed man. Fine... believe what you will. You, however, are an armchair QB, talking completely out of your ass. Go pick up a weapon and defend other people, get yourself into a shooting situation, and then get second-guessed by a bunch of ignorant loudmouths like yourself. Somehow, I doubt you would have empathy even then...
You speak with the moral condemnation and certainty that only total ignorance can provide; must be bliss...
Aren't you the guy whose Mac laptop was stolen via Ebay? Something to do with a forged certified check, if I recall correctly...
I'm curious... What's the latest update on that?
Yes... I have hung out and worked with many city, county, and federal cops. Cops I know that have shot themselves accidently (in the leg for instance, while trying to holster their weapon) NEVER heard the end of it. Cops are a ruthless group when it comes to practical jokes and "locker" humor. That's something you never live down.
I suspected you were making a joke with the "stupid"... just had to be sure. I would never approach a fellow officer's widow and tell her how stupid he had been to get killed by his own gun, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
My experience with gangs is rather direct, and I do see them as a significant threat, whether it's Folk, People, or the Outlaws... they are a major force in some urban centers. They account for a large percentage of some violent crimes. That said, if you are not part of their world (ie. not a "banger" yourself, not buying drugs from them, not on their turf, or not a cop busting them) you probably have little to fear, so in that sense you are correct. If, however, you are a tourist who takes the wrong exit off the interstate, or you like to dabble recreationally in drugs... look out.
Ironically, it's not always the lifelong hard-core, dedicated gang members that are the most dangerous. Most of those are all about the gang's business, and understand that killing a cop brings down a lot of heat, something they would rather avoid. Out of the hard-cores, the affiliates, and the wanna-bes, often the most dangerous are the wanna-be's... trying to show off how "hard" they are.
Slow down there, speed buggy.
You should probably do something about that large chip on your shoulder. Please point out where I made anyone out to be "physically inferior," with "nerd glasses" and a "pocket protector." And how exactly did I state that I'm "too good to be here?"
I'm as much a geek as anyone, and probably bigger than most; so it would be more than slightly hypocritical for me to attack anyone for their geekiness. I simply happen to have some expertise relevant to this topic, and am offering it to enrich the discussion.
dumbass indeed...
Why am I defending these morons? Because I have been through some of the same training they have, and I can't say I would act differently in the same situation. And no, I don't personally know any of the officers involved.
Let's see... you've accused them of:
Premeditated murder - "wanting to kill sombody"
Incompetence - "too inept"
Cowardice - "clumsy cowards" "too easily panicked"
Stupidity - "too stupid"
You are clearly a cop-hating troll, but I'll take a moment of my time here...
What do YOU do when a guy is pulling out a gun? Hmmm? Give him the first shot as a freebie, confident in your ability to dodge the bullet? Yell "Freeze!!" while he's shooting at you? Give ME a break... are you really that stupid, or have you watched too many movies? Ever tried to accurately and rapidly shoot with one hand, while holding a flashlight steady in the other? As I recall, these were plainclothes cops; many of them don't carry flashlights.
If these cops are so inept, and you are so proficient, then why don't you head on down to your local precinct and volunteer? Even better, head down to the understaffed jail. I'm sure the officers would love to have your insight and expertise to help them do their jobs. Why not? If you are the hotshot you make yourself out to be, then pitch in and help. Most police departments are undermanned and short of money... Volunteer.
Funny... somehow I'm guessing that you are not interested in doing that.
Here's a link...
This explains it
this thing has been around for ages. Probably wouldn't be a good idea for the geeks in this forum... think about handling your floppies with one of those buggers on.
If that situation boggles your mind, then you have never been there, and should really STFU. Anyone who's ever been in a confrontation like that or used a FaTS (Firearm Training Simulator) system knows how quickly these things happen in real life.
Can a wallet look like a gun? YES. They make holsters that look exactly like a wallet... what about those? take a look
As for falling down while shooting, that's easy. Most police are taught to shoot/move at the same time (standing still makes you a target), preferably towards some cover. It's usually a good idea to put some distance between yourself and a threat. You think you could accurately shoot, whilst running backwards, whilst tripping over debris and cracks in the sidewalk, all while dealing with the biggest adrenaline surge of your life? yeah... thought not.
You need to learn and experience some things before you second-guess the guys working the street. As it is, you really just sound like a cop-hater.
Wow... I don't even know how to respond to the "look stupid" comment. I'm think I'm going to forget about that for the sake of this discussion, except to say that losing the fight of your life to some felon and dying in the process, all while trying to do your thankless job seems sad/heroic to me... "stupid" is about the last word I would have used... that's really all I have to say to that.
Having a gun does change your psychology. Police are taught that there's always a gun present at any confrontation... theirs. Then again, it might not be theirs... it might become the bad guy's, if he's better-trained, or simply faster/stronger/luckier. It makes you more careful, and forces you to use better tactics.
Police academies show videos taken clandestinely in prisons; videos that show felons and gang members training one another on how to disarm police officers. Scary stuff, particularly when you think that you might encounter one of these guys on the street. If you are not careful, that gang member is going to kill you. Anyone who thinks that it's not war in some of our larger, gang-infested cities is not connected to reality.
It's particularly bad with gangs... they get better organized and more diversified all the time. Did you know that some larger gangs give money to send members to college and law school? They buy property and legitmate businesses to use as fronts... it's a true criminal enterprise. They also train, and we sometimes get lucky and catch a glimpse into how they train... As Sun-Tzu said, it helps to know your enemy
This is a training problem... one you will have a hard time fixing with technology.
As a former firearms instructor, I can tell you that retention is tough. If you are fighting for your gun, it's real, no-shit, do-or-die time, and you had better win. I'm not going to discuss specifics in this forum. Even though I have hard time imagining some slashgeek going for a cop's gun, there's probably a few here who are crazy enough, and I'm not going to give anyone any sort of tactical edge.
The reasons police officers get killed with their own guns are many, and often simply come down to bad tactics. That said, I would NEVER trust one of these smart-gun gadgets for a duty weapon.
This is the same philosophy behind the "New York Trigger" that many police officers are required to have on their handguns. Instead of better "trigger control" during training, you get one of these heavy triggers. The trigger pull weight on a New York Trigger is about 12+ pounds, and was put in place to prevent accidental shootings, ostensibly because such a hard trigger pull is difficult to accomplish "by accident." Unfortunately, it causes accuracy to suffer (perhaps increasing bystanders getting hit by stray rounds?), and makes the guns unusable for some smaller-framed officers. Again, a misguided technology fix for a training problem.
I think this is just grandstanding by some NJ politicians. It's almost funny to see them mandate something that doesn't even exist. Unfortunately, this will impact regular gun owners disproportionately, and have little effect on crime guns.
They did a hilarious version of "Oh Holy Nights" that went something like "Oh Modem Lights"
Here's the link... I kept this as my desktop wallpaper long after christmas was past.
Oh Modem Lights
That was my favorite "phoenix"... I always liked the away/leaving/joining comments; they were all lyrics from megadeth songs.
The "War" portion of the script looked interesting, though I was never L4M3Rz enough to employ it... I was on IRC to chat, not compensate for my personal insecurities by kick/banning people, and taking over their channels.
What happened to IRC anyway? I've been on a few times recently, and it's just not the same. All the old guard are gone, and it's all "RU Single??" messages.
Sorry for the nostalgia; that C-64 screen really got me going...
"Guess you missed the phreaking/call extender train too!"
Heheheh... I didn't say I paid 400$ EVERY month...
Electronic Arts always had great games... except it used to be EOA, dunno when it changed.
Ah, those fond memories of my youth... 2AM, sitting in front of my C-64, watching that EOA title screen come up... gaming all night long (in between using a 300 baud modem to contact BBS's in germany, Japan...)
I almost didn't survive the beating that resulted from one month's phone bill... almost 400$ of overseas long-distance. Twenty years ago, 400$ was, as they say, real money.
Yep, I can hear the L33T K1dd13Z now... "Shut up, pops. Go take some Bayer for yer arthritis."
We've had computers in cars for years... they just were not the kind you typically think about. I think it's great that we are "open-sourcing" what goes on under the hood; I, for one, would love to know exactly what my engine is doing. Further, the potential to make changes (fuel/air mixture, timing, etc) in engine parameters would make such a project useful beyond even the geek factor.
Also, newer cars have computers in them anyway... OnStar, GPS mapping, etc. Why not have an open alternative that those of us with older cars can implement? You will have to roll your own, but so what? most geeks will probably want to anyway.
As for watching DVDs while you drive... Well... that problem might just take care of itself (hopefully with minimal collateral damage).
As long as the person never finds out about it, you are A-OK. It's not illegal to do research; it's what you do with that research that makes or breaks you.
Most anti-stalking statues have a clause or two about putting the "stalkee" in fear, emotional distress, or causing intimidation. You typically also have to show a pattern of such behavior... a single incident does not a stalker make.
Think about all the drooling britney spears fanboys out there (like 95% of slashdotters... cmon, it's cool to hate her music, but ALL of you geeks secretly want her body... admit it). They are not guilty of stalking simply because they plaster their room with pictures, and constantly google the 'net for new britney sites.
Stalking implies much more than just a google search.
IANAL, etc, etc... not legal advice, blah, blah, blah
Courts have long held that using odors is not necessarily a violation of your fourth amendment right to be free of unreaonable search and seizure (with a few exceptions).
The air around your vehicle, luggage, or other "object" is free to sniff, so drug sniffing dogs and explosive jiffy-sniffers are usable without a warrant. Vehicle "stop and sniff" random checkpoints have run into some trouble, but if you've been stopped by a police officer for some reason (traffic offense), and he suspects the presence of drugs, he can call for a dog, no problem. If said K-9 alerts on your car, probable cause to search is established. I believe the case was United States v. Place in the early 1980s.
Air around your person has been treated a bit differently, since random, agressive sniffing by a dog, without some articulable suspicion, has been considered a "search" by some courts.
There was a case of high school students being personally sniffed, and found unconstitutional... it was B.C. versus Plumas Unified School District. Here's a link with some info: Newspaper article you can probably google for the whole text of the decision.
Based on some of the above cases, this might actually BE unconstitutional, since it's a direct sniff of a person, not an object. You can sniff people without individualized suspicion, but the state has to seriously justify it... minimal privacy invasion, and compelling state interest. However, with the current terrorism problem, and simply having to walk through a gate of some kind to be sniffed (minimal invasion of privacy), this might pass constitutional muster. The lawyers will have their work cut out for them with this one.
Here's a link that gives a somewhat simplified explanation of dog and cat taste/smell... it even spares you some of the arcane aspects of organic chemistry
Animal senses
It would be interesting to see how they would implement this.
The theory on how animals tell people apart has to do with combinations of long-chain carboxylic acids. They have long fatty chains, and the long carbon chains keep the volatility low, but dogs can supposedly detect them. Their noses are quite sensitive for these compounds; much more so than human noses. On the other hand, humans noses are more sensitive for some other compounds... the mercaptans, for instance.
I just wonder if they can make equipment that will detect such low, low levels of these compounds, and whether there is enough variation (with the limited number of long chain fatty acids) to produce a unique signature among billions of people.
Unless I'm way off-base and they are going in a totally different direction, I don't see how this is possible.
"The sad fact is that many cops would rather bust a pothead than go after real criminals, as it is less work for them that way."
You suggest that my "anecdotes" are not enough evidence to prove my point, and then have enough balls to make a sweeping statement like the above about cops? Where, sir, are your "hard statistics?"
Heh... you sound like a troll of the first order... but I'll feed you.
By your post, I'd guess that your only experience with law enforcement is from the wrong side. What's the matter? Angry at that last traffic ticket you got? Think you didn't deserve it?
Let me just make a couple of points:
#1: Don't burn a big fat joint while you are being pulled over by a police officer. A single joint is a minor misdemeanor where I live, but it gives probable cause to search your vehicle. You could probably avoid this hassle by smoking your pot in the privacy of your own home. Since pot is still illegal, it is stupid to smoke it in public... you deserve every fine you get if you insist on being that dumb.
#2: Since pot is illegal, in my experience it is predominately smoked by partying teens, people who use it recreationally, and antisocial types who tend to committ other crimes. Most cops I know are very, very interested in the latter group, since they cause lot of crime, and it's a real "feather in your cap" to put one in prison. Most cops hate traffic duty, small-time pot busts, etc...they would like nothing better than to focus on the bigger crimes. Barney Fife is a fictional TV character.
#3: While it may be cool to hate "the man," most cops are just trying to do their job, which is to enforce the law. If they don't, they get fired, and they have families to feed, just like you. If you don't like the law, get the law changed. Don't bitch at the cop; he's just society's messenger. If society doesn't agree with you... well... what can I say? You pay your money, you take your chances. You can flaunt whatever law you like, but you'd better be prepared to take it like a man when society sanctions you. That's a hard fact of life, but one you'd better understand if you want to stay out of jail.
I agree with you... absolutely and totally.
Crime is funny... it really does snowball. When somebody consciously commits their first crime, they probably are sweating the thought of a blue-clad policeman swooping out of nowhere to make the bust, just like on TV... when it doesn't happen, and they "get away with it," they become encouraged, even emboldened. They realize a fundamental truth... a huge number of crimes go unsolved, and unstopped. As long as they are even halfway careful... they can do whatever they want!
A powerful thought, being able to do whatever you want... and it leads to more crimes, and bigger crimes.
Like you, I think hitting the small crimes is important. Punks will always tell you "why'd you stop me for speeding? Don't you have rapists to catch or sumthin??" Well, yes... and sometimes we catch them by traffic stops.
How'd Timothy McVeigh get caught? Traffic Stop.
How about Son of Sam? Parking ticket (if memory serves)
Stopping a person for a burned-out license plate light may seem like a chicken-shit stop... until you come up to the driver's window and smell the weed, or see the gun and ski mask on the back seat...
These are one of the oldest social engineering scams in existence...
They've been used on AOL subscribers (we are updated our database! Email your login/password to this address to ensure uninterrupted service), and even (legitimately) by sysadmins to check on the cluefulness of their own users... see how many ppl will Email you their login/passwords.
That mantle of authority/legitimacy is a powerful psychological tool... provides a lot of social control in some arenas. But I'm not saying it's always good... when people are trained/socialized to listen and not ask questions at all... well... you get victimized by stuff like this. Not to sound like a bumper sticker, but "question authority" is pretty good advice sometimes.
A little bit of cynicism and skepticism go a long way, particularly on the 'Net.
The law would disagree with you in many jurisdictions.
The distinction between "theft" and "grand theft" is typically determined by amount.
Often there is a scale of theft amounts that garner different levels of legal sanction... fourth degree misdemeanor, third degree, second, and so forth, up to felony theft. Then there are fourth degree felonies, third degree, etc.
Most big-city police departments are so overloaded and undermanned that I'm not at all surprised that this guy's case got the back burner. Honestly... would you rather have violent crimes prosecuted, or a few lower-level property crimes?
As much as it offends the sensibilities of the tech population (you mean computers aren't everything??), there are far more-heinous crimes that go unsolved than an ebay scammer.
I agree that it's wrong... but infinite resources and manpower are not on the radar screen of most police departments.
Two words... Consumer Reports (no, I don't work for them, receive any money from them, etc).
If you want an organization that is likely to honestly review products, try to find one that doesn't rely on advertising bucks, and doesn't sell the product in question... minimize any conflicts of interest (real, or perceived). Consumer reports does this by being member-supported... NO advertisements.
Just a suggestion... However, you DO have to pay in order to become a member, and they don't review all the products you probably want to buy (no tech book reviews), though they do hit the big ticket stuff.