Back to the original point, there were people who did not mind that a black guy got killed...
There were people who were ecstatically happy a black guy got killed because they make their living exploiting race grievance. If Travon hadn't been black, they wouldn't be daydreaming about the $$$ they're going to make from "community organizing" the aftermath. The white racists and the minority community organizers feed off each other.
... there was little evidence about what really happened...
Hence the Not Guilty verdict. When no one can really say for sure what happened, it's reasonable to doubt that he wasn't engaged in self defense. He doesn't have to prove it was self defense. The state has to prove it wasn't.
Obviously I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.
... George Zimmerman... even though he followed Trayvon Martin after police dispatcher told him not to, and is not even convicted of manslaughter.
So if you follow someone against instructions and he attacks you, you're supposed to let him kill you? I guess that's why we have jury trials: to answer those sorts of questions.
What crime would you convict George Zimmerman of for following someone against instructions where nothing bad ends up happening? You must consider following someone to be criminally reckless in some way for this to make any sense.
The police aren't to blame for something that could have been prevented. They're only rightfully blamed for things they actually do. Stop killing innocent people. Stop killing non-innocent people when there's an alternative choice. Even if that means something bad happens that could have been prevented.
"We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it."
...What you want is a physical impossibility. They can't be there before it happens unless you want a police state where they are literally listening and watching to everything from the get go.
Police exist to provide a means of settling disputes without the blood feuds and cycles of violence and revenge that exist when there's no law. That's how they prevent violence.
The problem is that they're now handling this role very poorly, bringing violence where there was none before and escalating minor situations into deadly ones.
This is also the same argument that comes out when people talk about the failing schools. Blame the teachers! The parents that are raising the feral rats aren't at all to blame.
I have a similar answer for that teacher. If the kid can't be taught, we don't need to pay you to fail to teach him. Anyone could do that. Or no one. It you can't be blamed, you aren't part of the solution. Just go away. Leave the problem to someone who can be blamed.
The point isn't that firing a few police officers solves the problem. The point is that they'll never agree to even that.
The "it's rare, so nevermind" argument is phony. What they're really saying it "it's rare and it doesn't happen to us, so nevermind". Change it so it affects them and all of a sudden it won't matter that it's rare.
Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly...
Because the police are there, and that means you're in mortal danger — a lot more danger then you'll ever face in any situation not involving the police. You were safe until the police arrived.
Anyone else, you could bargain. Anyone else, you could tell them they'll get caught and go to jail if they hurt you. Anyone else, you could appeal to their humanity.
The Conservative dichotomy: I must be armed so that I can keep the police from oppressing me/We need strong police to protect us.
Yeah, "law and order" types need to think it through. You don’t want big government messing up your life, but you want tough enforcement by big government?
You want to protect your right to own guns, but you support the police who will be at your door to take your guns the next day if courts would let them?
Some of them are old and remember being afraid of crime 30 or 40 years ago when there was a lot of crime. There’s less crime now.
Look up the number of incidents handled every year vs. shootings. You will quickly see that you already have what you ask for.
So we can immediately fire the bad officers like this guy in Kansas then? There’s only a few of them, right?
If police killings of innocents are so rare that we can just live with them as an inevitable consequence of policing, then we can just as easily live with immediately firing the few officers involved.
The theory is that every organization that surpasses a certain number of members eventually starts to make compromises when the optimal applicants start running out. In the case of police this means resorting to either hiring Wild Bills or social workers and it seems PD has made their choice.
So do less policing then. Stop trying to micromanage (for profit) everyone's driving. Stop being tax collectors. Stop worrying that a 19-year-old might drink a beer. Stop enforcing licensing rules that mostly protect incumbent businesses from competition. And, if you must do some of this enforcement, send unarmed administrators to do it so the real police can do real police work.
And - this is really critical - fire the bad police.
The only problem is leftists pretending that the shitbags are, "jus' a good boy on his way to church. He wus goin' to college next year!" when, in fact, he wus a violent drug-selling asshole who just brutalized the local deli owner, and tried to steal a cop's gun.
Whether that’s true or false, we still don't need police officers to go murder that guy. The deli owner can do it just fine. Or the rival gangs. Or just any random guy walking by. Guns are cheap and easy to fire.
We need police to prevent random violence and retaliation. Their purpose is to give a society an alternative means of dealing with problems. If the police are just another rival gang, then it's time for the public to stop sponsoring and supporting them.
We demand officers plunge headfirst into dire situations.
Time to demand they stop doing that then. Understand a situation before getting involved and opening fire on people.
Anyone can jump in and start just killing people. We don't need police for that. There are plenty of guys in the prisons who would be happy to do it instead.
Is there any? I've only heard about vague innuendo and guilt by association (usually with people who are themselves deemed guilty only by association).
Microsoft seems to learn from their mistakes and get better (slowly). Google seems to learn from getting caught doing things and get better at hiding it.
The federal government effectively could nationalize the 5G network by removing the spectrum once the current leases are up.
That would be turning it off, not nationalizing it. It doesn't operate itself.
The spectrum is owned by the American people - period. The carriers bid on spectrum and may use it at our discretion. If we (read Congress) do not believe that the spectrum is being used in our best interest, we can re-purpose it however we see fit.
You can actually read the document. It doesn't say they'll "Nationalize 5G" (which they couldn't do even if they wanted to).
It's a lot of talk about how 5G is good and they want to speedup deployments of it and take away Huawei's marketshare, maybe by building their own network. It's low on practicality. Most of the actions it talks about are unrealistic. They won't be nationalizing any 5G networks.
Problem 1: We can't get the economy to grow at a sustainable 3% because we already have 4% unemployment. Without productivity growth or population growth, the economy is not capable of 3% growth long term. The labor is just not available.
Problem 2: Automation at restaurants, grocery store checkouts, and with driverless cars and trucks will allow businesses to do the same work with fewer workers. This huge increase in productivity will put millions of cashiers and drivers out of work.
Each problem is the solution to the other -- unless government steps in and prevents it from happening.
Because spending your life trying to reform government is a good substitute for just not buying a product. Those are the two models of human interaction under discussion. Don't like a business, walk away from the transaction and be free of it. Don't like government, spend many years trying (and probably failing) to enact reforms. But you guys still think government is a better way for people to interact. So any reforms have to be enacted into a headwind of delusional fanaticism.
This is why H1Bs need to be limited. Companies need workers. For medium skilled positions, companies could either import foreign labor or find a way to source that labor in the US. Make it more expensive and uncertain to import foreign labor and it begins to make financial sense for companies to train Americans for these jobs.
It’s just too bad the government education system fails to provide Americans with these skills. People in other countries get a better return on their tax money spent on education.
Slashdot Mirror
Back to the original point, there were people who did not mind that a black guy got killed...
There were people who were ecstatically happy a black guy got killed because they make their living exploiting race grievance. If Travon hadn't been black, they wouldn't be daydreaming about the $$$ they're going to make from "community organizing" the aftermath. The white racists and the minority community organizers feed off each other.
... there was little evidence about what really happened...
Hence the Not Guilty verdict. When no one can really say for sure what happened, it's reasonable to doubt that he wasn't engaged in self defense. He doesn't have to prove it was self defense. The state has to prove it wasn't.
Obviously I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.
... George Zimmerman ... even though he followed Trayvon Martin after police dispatcher told him not to, and is not even convicted of manslaughter.
So if you follow someone against instructions and he attacks you, you're supposed to let him kill you? I guess that's why we have jury trials: to answer those sorts of questions.
What crime would you convict George Zimmerman of for following someone against instructions where nothing bad ends up happening? You must consider following someone to be criminally reckless in some way for this to make any sense.
The police aren't to blame for something that could have been prevented. They're only rightfully blamed for things they actually do. Stop killing innocent people. Stop killing non-innocent people when there's an alternative choice. Even if that means something bad happens that could have been prevented.
"We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it."
...What you want is a physical impossibility. They can't be there before it happens unless you want a police state where they are literally listening and watching to everything from the get go.
Police exist to provide a means of settling disputes without the blood feuds and cycles of violence and revenge that exist when there's no law. That's how they prevent violence.
The problem is that they're now handling this role very poorly, bringing violence where there was none before and escalating minor situations into deadly ones.
This is also the same argument that comes out when people talk about the failing schools. Blame the teachers! The parents that are raising the feral rats aren't at all to blame.
I have a similar answer for that teacher. If the kid can't be taught, we don't need to pay you to fail to teach him. Anyone could do that. Or no one. It you can't be blamed, you aren't part of the solution. Just go away. Leave the problem to someone who can be blamed.
The point isn't that firing a few police officers solves the problem. The point is that they'll never agree to even that.
The "it's rare, so nevermind" argument is phony. What they're really saying it "it's rare and it doesn't happen to us, so nevermind". Change it so it affects them and all of a sudden it won't matter that it's rare.
Next time you raise your hands, raise them extremely slowly...
Because the police are there, and that means you're in mortal danger — a lot more danger then you'll ever face in any situation not involving the police. You were safe until the police arrived.
Anyone else, you could bargain. Anyone else, you could tell them they'll get caught and go to jail if they hurt you. Anyone else, you could appeal to their humanity.
The Conservative dichotomy: I must be armed so that I can keep the police from oppressing me/We need strong police to protect us.
Yeah, "law and order" types need to think it through. You don’t want big government messing up your life, but you want tough enforcement by big government?
You want to protect your right to own guns, but you support the police who will be at your door to take your guns the next day if courts would let them?
Some of them are old and remember being afraid of crime 30 or 40 years ago when there was a lot of crime. There’s less crime now.
Look up the number of incidents handled every year vs. shootings. You will quickly see that you already have what you ask for.
So we can immediately fire the bad officers like this guy in Kansas then? There’s only a few of them, right?
If police killings of innocents are so rare that we can just live with them as an inevitable consequence of policing, then we can just as easily live with immediately firing the few officers involved.
The theory is that every organization that surpasses a certain number of members eventually starts to make compromises when the optimal applicants start running out. In the case of police this means resorting to either hiring Wild Bills or social workers and it seems PD has made their choice.
So do less policing then. Stop trying to micromanage (for profit) everyone's driving. Stop being tax collectors. Stop worrying that a 19-year-old might drink a beer. Stop enforcing licensing rules that mostly protect incumbent businesses from competition. And, if you must do some of this enforcement, send unarmed administrators to do it so the real police can do real police work.
And - this is really critical - fire the bad police.
The only problem is leftists pretending that the shitbags are, "jus' a good boy on his way to church. He wus goin' to college next year!" when, in fact, he wus a violent drug-selling asshole who just brutalized the local deli owner, and tried to steal a cop's gun.
Whether that’s true or false, we still don't need police officers to go murder that guy. The deli owner can do it just fine. Or the rival gangs. Or just any random guy walking by. Guns are cheap and easy to fire.
We need police to prevent random violence and retaliation. Their purpose is to give a society an alternative means of dealing with problems. If the police are just another rival gang, then it's time for the public to stop sponsoring and supporting them.
We demand officers plunge headfirst into dire situations.
Time to demand they stop doing that then. Understand a situation before getting involved and opening fire on people.
Anyone can jump in and start just killing people. We don't need police for that. There are plenty of guys in the prisons who would be happy to do it instead.
How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Let’s hire cops like that.
Learn what’s going on before opening fire on people. Or don't be police officers at all.
We don’t need you to shoot us. We can shoot each other just fine. We need a police force to prevent violence and loss of life, not cause it.
Google judges you.
There are no high school kids in the NFL. Stop using “think of the children” as an excuse to mind everyone else’s business but your own.
... any evidence Muller has obtained ...
Is there any? I've only heard about vague innuendo and guilt by association (usually with people who are themselves deemed guilty only by association).
In other words, 75% believe made up stories about the future and want to spend money other people earned on a problem that might not exist at all.
NFL players don’t spend their time worrying about your problems. And if they did, wouldn’t you tell them to mind their own business?
Microsoft seems to learn from their mistakes and get better (slowly). Google seems to learn from getting caught doing things and get better at hiding it.
Good tech, good software, amazing future. Also good: Apple, Amazon, Illumina, TMobile.
The federal government effectively could nationalize the 5G network by removing the spectrum once the current leases are up.
That would be turning it off, not nationalizing it. It doesn't operate itself.
The spectrum is owned by the American people - period. The carriers bid on spectrum and may use it at our discretion. If we (read Congress) do not believe that the spectrum is being used in our best interest, we can re-purpose it however we see fit.
Stop believing in fantasy scenarios.
You can actually read the document. It doesn't say they'll "Nationalize 5G" (which they couldn't do even if they wanted to).
It's a lot of talk about how 5G is good and they want to speedup deployments of it and take away Huawei's marketshare, maybe by building their own network. It's low on practicality. Most of the actions it talks about are unrealistic. They won't be nationalizing any 5G networks.
Problem 1: We can't get the economy to grow at a sustainable 3% because we already have 4% unemployment. Without productivity growth or population growth, the economy is not capable of 3% growth long term. The labor is just not available.
Problem 2: Automation at restaurants, grocery store checkouts, and with driverless cars and trucks will allow businesses to do the same work with fewer workers. This huge increase in productivity will put millions of cashiers and drivers out of work.
Each problem is the solution to the other -- unless government steps in and prevents it from happening.
Because spending your life trying to reform government is a good substitute for just not buying a product. Those are the two models of human interaction under discussion. Don't like a business, walk away from the transaction and be free of it. Don't like government, spend many years trying (and probably failing) to enact reforms. But you guys still think government is a better way for people to interact. So any reforms have to be enacted into a headwind of delusional fanaticism.
This is why H1Bs need to be limited. Companies need workers. For medium skilled positions, companies could either import foreign labor or find a way to source that labor in the US. Make it more expensive and uncertain to import foreign labor and it begins to make financial sense for companies to train Americans for these jobs.
It’s just too bad the government education system fails to provide Americans with these skills. People in other countries get a better return on their tax money spent on education.