It's not fear. They are all pretending. They have to keep up the pretense that their authority and their actions are a necessary evil. Otherwise voters will come to understand that the necessary evil has become unnecessary.
So no ideas then. Not much interest either. As expected. Non-police getting killed in police encounters don't matter as long as things go ok for the blue team.
Why walk through a dark house on high alert, ready to open fire, when there are 4 preteen children there? Keeping people safe — especially young children — should always be the priority. Does police training skip over that? It really makes you wonder.
I think that's actually really difficult for them to do. There aren't two types, there's a whole range. For guys in the middle, it's probably hard to tell whether they're basically good with some bad habits and weaknesses versus being basically bad but deceptive and socially skilled.
The good cops also probably don't want to be killed or left to die by the bad cops.
Ultimately, the culture and the leadership and the laws are the problems. None of them respect non-police. When the laws and politicians tell police to bully random people for money and bully groups of people to enforce a social rank order, that reinforces already present bad personality tendencies.
I don't think the police can solve the problem. Voters need to solve it.
But local police can improve things and stop making it worse by being so ridiculously defensive in cases where the police are clearly in the wrong. No one on either side respects that.
2 weeks after this swatting incident, a cop shot a 9 year old girl in the face while trying to kill the family dog in front of 4 children. After being explicitly told not to enter the home. This is not an isolated incident.
Come on, it's a stressful job! The officer went home at the end of the day. Isn't that all that matters?
You're really being mean by Monday-morning-quarterbacking the "9-year-old girl shot in the face" incident. I bet the girl's family made a big deal about it too.
The police aren't supposed to be a dial-a-murder service. If we want a dial-a-murder service, we can call up a street gang.
The cops made a judgement and it was a bad judgement, but no one with any sense is going to blame the cops for wanting to go home alive after their shift.
Police who think that's the only thing that matters should go home at the end of their shift and stay home. We don't need police who are ok with killing a few innocent people now and then as long as it turns out ok for the police.
This attitude is 100% of the problem: police care about police and not so much about the people they were hired to protect. Maybe the job wouldn't be so "stressful" if police helped people instead of helping themselves and their greedy political bosses.
Voters need to demand police go back to "protect and serve".
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
Anyone else in the same "insanely stressful" situation fucking up in the same way would be facing a trial for killing a harmless guy standing on his porch. We have an absolute right to be safe from being murdered by government agents when we answer the door. If the job means risking murdering someone standing on his porch, then the entire occupation needs fundamental reform at the very least.
And if you guys want a show of humanity, then make it a policy to treat non-police with the same respect and humanity you'd like to experience yourself.
Being extremely defensive when you're clearly in the wrong doesn't help. Acting like accountability is an attack doesn't help.
Also, covering up for each other doesn't help. If you're not a criminal gang, stop behaving like a criminal gang.
The author's subtext here is that courts are corrupt. Otherwise why would it matter which court the challenge is heard in?
Personally, I'm happy for anything that leads to more competition for Comcast and the other cable companies. I don't necessarily like Verizon, but having a choice between Verizon and Comcast is a lot better than not having any choice.
I'll also take good 5G service over whatever benefit I'd supposedly receive from local governments charging arbitrary fees to Comcast competitors.
It's too expensive, both in time and money, for HR or hiring managers to test every single applicant to assess their skill level. Much easier and quicker to use education as a proxy or filter, then, if testing is necessary, you are only testing the skills of a few people.
Versus the expense of spending 4+ years at a college?
The simple answer would be to create an independent skills testing service that can tell hiring managers what they need to know. Even if it was very expensive, it would cost applicants a tiny, tiny fraction of what college costs.
Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.
That's the second one, where everyone else except the 2 people are lying (or whatever alternate words you prefer) almost all the time.
Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Lab samples being imperfect would explain one or two anomalous results. If all 5 results are bad, that describes a counter-perfect system that would almost always get wrong results. Is there strong evidence that all the rest of the labs' analyses for every sample are indistinguishable from random noise?
And I didn't "jump straight to that conclusion". I only said it was more likely than the other alternative conclusions. Why should we choose to believe a less likely answer over a more likely one?
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you have no answer
Typical Democrat. Even Howard Schultz can't stomach you people any more.
It's not fear. They are all pretending. They have to keep up the pretense that their authority and their actions are a necessary evil. Otherwise voters will come to understand that the necessary evil has become unnecessary.
Better yet, what about just not trying to control everything everyone does? Why should anyone care if someone cheats? What difference does it make?
You can always count on the police to ruin a kid's life in the name of pretending to care about something or other.
The cat has jumped the shark.
So no ideas then. Not much interest either. As expected. Non-police getting killed in police encounters don't matter as long as things go ok for the blue team.
Here's a news story with a picture of the dog. Cute doggy:
https://www.kansas.com/news/lo...
Here's the body cam video:
https://www.kansas.com/news/lo...
Why walk through a dark house on high alert, ready to open fire, when there are 4 preteen children there? Keeping people safe — especially young children — should always be the priority. Does police training skip over that? It really makes you wonder.
I think that's actually really difficult for them to do. There aren't two types, there's a whole range. For guys in the middle, it's probably hard to tell whether they're basically good with some bad habits and weaknesses versus being basically bad but deceptive and socially skilled.
The good cops also probably don't want to be killed or left to die by the bad cops.
Ultimately, the culture and the leadership and the laws are the problems. None of them respect non-police. When the laws and politicians tell police to bully random people for money and bully groups of people to enforce a social rank order, that reinforces already present bad personality tendencies.
I don't think the police can solve the problem. Voters need to solve it.
But local police can improve things and stop making it worse by being so ridiculously defensive in cases where the police are clearly in the wrong. No one on either side respects that.
Software can be inaccurate. It can't be biased.
At the time when the shooting happened it was NOT CLEAR...
When the situation is NOT CLEAR, that's a good time to NOT SHOOT at people.
2 weeks after this swatting incident, a cop shot a 9 year old girl in the face while trying to kill the family dog in front of 4 children. After being explicitly told not to enter the home. This is not an isolated incident.
Come on, it's a stressful job! The officer went home at the end of the day. Isn't that all that matters?
You're really being mean by Monday-morning-quarterbacking the "9-year-old girl shot in the face" incident. I bet the girl's family made a big deal about it too.
Mistakes happen (when you open fire needlessly).
The police aren't supposed to be a dial-a-murder service. If we want a dial-a-murder service, we can call up a street gang.
The cops made a judgement and it was a bad judgement, but no one with any sense is going to blame the cops for wanting to go home alive after their shift.
Police who think that's the only thing that matters should go home at the end of their shift and stay home. We don't need police who are ok with killing a few innocent people now and then as long as it turns out ok for the police.
This attitude is 100% of the problem: police care about police and not so much about the people they were hired to protect. Maybe the job wouldn't be so "stressful" if police helped people instead of helping themselves and their greedy political bosses.
Voters need to demand police go back to "protect and serve".
The guy in Kansas just opened his front door.
I don't think blaming the victim will help.
It's all just politics to you.
Also, let's forget the "politics" for a minute. What will it take to change things so police kill fewer innocent people? Got any ideas? Any interest in that at all?
Pray tell, the stress of police work dealing with homicidally violent people equates to which other stressful jobs.
"Stressful" should excuse entirely avoidable killings of innocent people? How many?
If you had the slightest bit of humanity in you, you might see the difference between someone fucking up while doing an insanely stresfull job, and someone intentionally creating a situation meant to cause harm.
Anyone else in the same "insanely stressful" situation fucking up in the same way would be facing a trial for killing a harmless guy standing on his porch. We have an absolute right to be safe from being murdered by government agents when we answer the door. If the job means risking murdering someone standing on his porch, then the entire occupation needs fundamental reform at the very least.
And if you guys want a show of humanity, then make it a policy to treat non-police with the same respect and humanity you'd like to experience yourself.
Being extremely defensive when you're clearly in the wrong doesn't help. Acting like accountability is an attack doesn't help.
Also, covering up for each other doesn't help. If you're not a criminal gang, stop behaving like a criminal gang.
You don't give a fuck about the people involved.
Do police give a fuck about non-police?
Being in a position of authority and murdering someone: wrist slap.
Showing the people how dangerous and out of control the authorities are: 20 years in prison.
The author's subtext here is that courts are corrupt. Otherwise why would it matter which court the challenge is heard in?
Personally, I'm happy for anything that leads to more competition for Comcast and the other cable companies. I don't necessarily like Verizon, but having a choice between Verizon and Comcast is a lot better than not having any choice.
I'll also take good 5G service over whatever benefit I'd supposedly receive from local governments charging arbitrary fees to Comcast competitors.
It's only a public health issue if you want to declare yourself everyone’s mom and send out the sleep police to enforce your bedtime edicts.
It's too expensive, both in time and money, for HR or hiring managers to test every single applicant to assess their skill level. Much easier and quicker to use education as a proxy or filter, then, if testing is necessary, you are only testing the skills of a few people.
Versus the expense of spending 4+ years at a college?
The simple answer would be to create an independent skills testing service that can tell hiring managers what they need to know. Even if it was very expensive, it would cost applicants a tiny, tiny fraction of what college costs.
go up to eleven.
Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.
That's the second one, where everyone else except the 2 people are lying (or whatever alternate words you prefer) almost all the time.
Rather than spend money to bury power lines to prevent them starting fires, California has instead decided to launch a satellite and build a high speed train to nowhere.
Preventing fires isn't as cool as shiny gadgets. Californians want the other kids to think they're cool.
Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?
Lab samples being imperfect would explain one or two anomalous results. If all 5 results are bad, that describes a counter-perfect system that would almost always get wrong results. Is there strong evidence that all the rest of the labs' analyses for every sample are indistinguishable from random noise?
And I didn't "jump straight to that conclusion". I only said it was more likely than the other alternative conclusions. Why should we choose to believe a less likely answer over a more likely one?