If you think Facebook keeps you in a bubble where you aren't exposed to ideas you don't like, you must have never been on Facebook. Try a day on my feed...
And they shut down my shell account 15 years later citing that we can easily host our web content elsewhere. Nevermind that I'd built a web presence on non-rotting link URLs for 15 years. so yea... I paid the ACM for decades, and if i could go back in time, I would un-join, and not pay them a damn penny. Special thanks to Virginia Tech sysadmin John Edstrom for ruining it for us.
I actually don't need to name any. The fact that I believe there are other options means that when I say the words I'm saying, I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're trying to say I'm saying, and shoehorn in my mouth. You don't get that privilege.
Again, there are options other than executing and chasing, and you're an asshole for repeatedly arguing a false dichotomy to create a strawman out of what I said. Repeating yourself like a broken fucking record. Go fuck yourself twice.
No, that is not the only way to protect the innocents. You make it sound like once someone starts driving, there is no way to protect innocents. I don't know if you're incredibly unimaginative or a deliberate asshole. Many departments don't give chase for certain offenses. For instance, private property theft of already-insured property is not worth violence over. (Oh sure, for the *owner* it is, not for the rest of us.) Most stolen cars are not recovered via a dramatic and dangerous chase.
You can surveil a vehicle and wait until the driver gets out on foot. The gas tank wont last forever.
Casual googling seems to imply that about 1/3rd of deaths in police pursuits are people not in the fleeing vehicle. If this is to recover already insured, stolen vehicles, these people died to help an insurance company CEO stay rich. And oh, I guess the cars got back to the original owner, bashed up. Protecting private property shouldn't involve the deaths of anyone other than the criminal. Especially if it's already insured.
No, my argument is not that. At the point where your first sentence is you shoving words in my mouth via a false dichotomy you just made up, should I even bother to type this conversation? Nevermind the fact that he *was* being pursued. They stopped. That doesn't mean it did not start. He would not have been driving like that if they had not started an unnecessary (in this day & age of technology & tracking) chase. That was the original comment that started this entire thread -- someone questioning the wisdom that this is how we handle the situation. At some point, this morphed into you telling me that I'm asking for police to shoot people for not yielding. Go fuck yourself.
"Wouldn't it be much better to deploy a helicopter, drone or other means of tracking the car from a distance, and not risk killing several bystanders in a crash?"
*other guy responds, more or less stating non-death penalty crimes should be death-penalty crimes because people like their cars, despite the risk of innocent bystanders being killed which that was the initial and main point of Koyaanisqatsi's post, and the first thing he talked about*
Are you up to speed yet? I can't help it if there are multiple people in the thread whose heads the point whooshed over. I've always reviled my fellow americans for being so incredibly over-punitive as to actually blind themseles to the unintended consequences; and it's been a problem in American history, especially the last 2 generations. But I didn't know that it worked online, too. So blinded by the punitive aspect as to miss Koyaanisqatsi's central point.
He changed what we were talking about in mid-stream, and you apparently were unable to go up to the beginning of the discussion and determine this for yourself as well. I'm glad some random anonymous person already mentinoed this...
I was unaware only criminals died during high speed car chases. I can't believe there's not a single shred of evidence on the entire internet ever showing that an innocent person died in a car crash during a police pursuit! Thank you for correcting my stupid beliefs!
There's nothing obvious about it. Why the hell do you think they didn't do this? This is par for the course for news you hear every week from American police.
Not being in touch with what your friends are saying makes you more likely to be manipulated by mainstream media for lack of having as sizeable/technically-augmented of an alternative.
And anyone who wants to blame someone's suicide on the content of that person's facebook feed... is the type of person who blames a death on a gun, instead of the real cause.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a mental barrier. People have price points, and they are often round numbers like $1/M, $1/G (depending on when you grew up), etc.
Especially because, in actuality, Slashdot says my karma is excellent. The sig is a lie.
post?
If you think Facebook keeps you in a bubble where you aren't exposed to ideas you don't like, you must have never been on Facebook. Try a day on my feed...
And they shut down my shell account 15 years later citing that we can easily host our web content elsewhere. Nevermind that I'd built a web presence on non-rotting link URLs for 15 years. so yea... I paid the ACM for decades, and if i could go back in time, I would un-join, and not pay them a damn penny. Special thanks to Virginia Tech sysadmin John Edstrom for ruining it for us.
Using a road isn't the same as being funded by the govt. The road was already built. That might be the crux you're looking for?
Govt funds airlines through FAA and TSA. Partial funding counts for 1st amendment purposes.
You don't have to be govt owned, you just need govt contributions. TSA and FAA should count.
I mean it's great that they discovered it, but can you tell ME in a way I can understand?
p.s. i see in your logic trying to stop and chase mean the same thing. Another very convenient mechanism.
I actually don't need to name any. The fact that I believe there are other options means that when I say the words I'm saying, I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're trying to say I'm saying, and shoehorn in my mouth. You don't get that privilege.
Again, there are options other than executing and chasing, and you're an asshole for repeatedly arguing a false dichotomy to create a strawman out of what I said. Repeating yourself like a broken fucking record. Go fuck yourself twice.
Casual googling seems to imply that about 1/3rd of deaths in police pursuits are people not in the fleeing vehicle. If this is to recover already insured, stolen vehicles, these people died to help an insurance company CEO stay rich. And oh, I guess the cars got back to the original owner, bashed up. Protecting private property shouldn't involve the deaths of anyone other than the criminal. Especially if it's already insured.
No, my argument is not that. At the point where your first sentence is you shoving words in my mouth via a false dichotomy you just made up, should I even bother to type this conversation? Nevermind the fact that he *was* being pursued. They stopped. That doesn't mean it did not start. He would not have been driving like that if they had not started an unnecessary (in this day & age of technology & tracking) chase. That was the original comment that started this entire thread -- someone questioning the wisdom that this is how we handle the situation. At some point, this morphed into you telling me that I'm asking for police to shoot people for not yielding. Go fuck yourself.
"Wouldn't it be much better to deploy a helicopter, drone or other means of tracking the car from a distance, and not risk killing several bystanders in a crash?"
*other guy responds, more or less stating non-death penalty crimes should be death-penalty crimes because people like their cars, despite the risk of innocent bystanders being killed which that was the initial and main point of Koyaanisqatsi's post, and the first thing he talked about*
Are you up to speed yet? I can't help it if there are multiple people in the thread whose heads the point whooshed over. I've always reviled my fellow americans for being so incredibly over-punitive as to actually blind themseles to the unintended consequences; and it's been a problem in American history, especially the last 2 generations. But I didn't know that it worked online, too. So blinded by the punitive aspect as to miss Koyaanisqatsi's central point.
The conversation was a conversation specifically about the risk to bystanders. Go read the fucking thread and pull your head out of all of OUR asses.
He changed what we were talking about in mid-stream, and you apparently were unable to go up to the beginning of the discussion and determine this for yourself as well. I'm glad some random anonymous person already mentinoed this...
I was unaware only criminals died during high speed car chases. I can't believe there's not a single shred of evidence on the entire internet ever showing that an innocent person died in a car crash during a police pursuit! Thank you for correcting my stupid beliefs!
And that is a mechanism making it okay for innocent people to die because _______________?
If being charged with a felony doesn't harm anyone, may I charge you with one? After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear, right?
I find your evaluation of which stories are credible to be PISS POOR.
There's nothing obvious about it. Why the hell do you think they didn't do this? This is par for the course for news you hear every week from American police.
Fair enough.... Though I'm not sure that all of us sitting in isolated boxes free of any "interference" results in better decisions.
Not being in touch with what your friends are saying makes you more likely to be manipulated by mainstream media for lack of having as sizeable/technically-augmented of an alternative.
And anyone who wants to blame someone's suicide on the content of that person's facebook feed... is the type of person who blames a death on a gun, instead of the real cause.