and there is no longer any organized militia to stand against tyranny
Actually, it has happened as recently as the 1946, and I may not even be citing the correct instance I'm trying to recollect.
Fuck all political gun owners, every last Godless one of them, fuck them, every idiotic one.
Fuck you for being a liberal chump. I'm totally against "Stand Your Ground" type laws (Castle Doctrine is much more reasonable), but am in total support of the 2A. The founding father's "intent" was to ensure that any group that tried to infringe on a citizen's rights (to life) would have to be willing to die for it. It was just as much about subverting federal or local gov't oppression, and wasn't limited to foreign threats. That's why the 2A included the words "a well regulated militia".
If its only a shove then yes, it shouldn't be grounds to shoot him.
But if the guy attacked him, a state with "Stand Your Ground" laws basically permits the use of firearms where there is a chance the physical attacker could grab his gun, or possibly (but not likely to) render him unconscious.
Worse than spineless. He's a weasel hiding in the skin of progressive voters. And the Democrat voters would be committing political suicide if they voted him to be their PotUS candidate. He doesn't grasp how much damage he did to himself nationally by railroading in the NY SAFE act (a draconian, Potemkin village anti-gun bill).
and giving handouts to farmers just pisses them off, which he would know if he had ever met one
They don't seem to have a problem with the handout that's the biennial Farm Bill. Or forcing all gasoline to contain a percentage of corn derived ethanol.
Are you saying while posting under his pseudonym, he revealed that he had short positions on Tesla? Yes, that makes him immune to SEC action (for stock manipulation in this instance). It doesn't matter that his real identity publicly states he is shorting Tesla, if his pseudonym is not.
The problem is not that he reads Zerohedge (which is not necessarily Russian propaganda). The problem is that he's a Trump fanboy stooge who alters what the Zerohedge text actually said. Your problem is that you rely on Google to formulate your opinions for you.
You like it so much, you won't publicly associate your pseudonym to liking systemd.
> While it comes with some problems of its own it, does solve real problems and is an improvement.
Really? "Real" problems in a systems event reporter that has worked near flawlessly since its inception, over twenty years ago? What might those have been?
Because if they go up, you go bankrupt. You lose everything you have as a financial asset. And you don't have the same bankruptcy protections you did twenty years ago.
Space is a vaccuum. There's a finite amount of material needed to separate your living environment from vaccuum.
Oceans deep and far away enough from shore to avoid sovereignty claims, exert enough depth pressure to crush/collapse most human engineered structures. You don't have to travel as far as space, but depth pressures do not make those environments any more cost effective than vaccuum.
More likely the colony would be underground, in order to utilize soil as a radiation shield. But they would be trapped in their sustainable living tubes/containers/tunnels.
> . It would be far more cost effective to solve problems on earth
Its far more cost effective to start wars (that destroys infrastructure and slaughters lives) in order to utilize regions like Antarctica for survival colonies???
Its always more cost effective when dealing with reasonable parties, but that's not the state of societies on Earth right now. You can try to run far enough to not be economically feasible to target, or you can try to exterminate populations to remove impediments to "saving the world". But at least the former can be attempted without world consensus.
Declaring that fusion is the cheapest form of sustainable energy that solves all our energy problems is meaningless if you cannot implement it. Declaring its much cheaper for the world to agree to invest in survival colonies is meaningless if nations aren't willing to forgo their unilateral prerogatives..
That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.
Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place, they wouldn't be sending in a tactical team to shoot an armed killer. The police are not required to evaluate that there is a "valid" call before executing an intervention. They're asked to look for signs that its a bad call, and they're told to avoid shooting bystanders, but flawless, omniscient resolution of a hostage situation is not legally required from police. Legal culpability is based on following procedure, not evaluating guilt based on the results.
Any ROE that does not reflect this is completely invalid.
All properly designed RoEs are designed to conform to all laws, and are reviewed by department or contracted lawyers. When an officer operated within the guidelines of the RoE, and makes what can be considered a legally unacceptable kill, it means the people responsible for implementing the RoE are at fault. The purpose of the RoE is to define what is acceptable/unacceptable actions when dealing with a active shooting situation. It protects neither the bystanders or the cop.
Good luck in court with your 9th amendment interpretations, sovereign citizen...
And how do you differentiate a bystander from a psychopathic murderer (or terrorist) posing as a bystander? Can you produce a law enforcement/psychology textbook with procedures (i.e. RoE) that eliminates false positives in the field?
How the hell can you argue for this in any free, civil society?! You're talking about operating within RoE? That is a military concept.
No, it is not. The concept has existed for over a century. It has been used by both military and police before WWII; its just wasn't historically called an RoE by police. You are under the mistaken impression that RoEs only tell you when you can shoot. They also specify when you are not approved to shoot. There are many disgusted Iraq vets that criticize their local police for having shoddier RoEs than the ones they were required to follow in the military, and in the military's case, they were more restrictive and put the soldier in greater danger.
Innocent people were killed for no reason but to satisfy the petty ego of a soulless idiot social engineering savant in Wichita.
No, the 911 dispatcher was fooled by the SWATter to believe there was a live fire situation at the home of the victim. When there's a live fire situation, they send in SWAT to "resolve" the situation, beat cops are instructed to "secure the perimeter" and wait for SWAT. Tactical (SWAT) are only sent in for shooting situations, from their point of view and the hostages, it is no different from an active war zone. The victim made the "mistake" of making the policeman think he was about to shoot at him (or get away with a gun). The police shooting the victim is considered an accident. The caller putting the victim in a shooting situation with police is the "depraved, negligent" manslaughterer here.
1) This was "sloppy" tazer use, not a firearm shooting.
2) I'm at peace with banning tazers, and letting people die from unintentional beatings from police. If the arrestee does not comply, police are expected to use force to subdue the arrestee. You don't think a blow to the body, head, or ribs with a nightstick can't cause unintentional death? There's a reason why police forces have moved to using tazers.
3) The problem here was the police department's arbitrary "use of force" policy, which is another term for RoE. They're designed to avoid sloppy use of deadly force, which greatly reduces the chance of death or maiming. Blame the police chief and the taxpayers who can't pony up money to follow (FBI) recommended guidelines and train/screen their officers.
Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it?
They only cease to be a threat when they're immobilized. (Handcuffed, searched for weapons, and removed from area.) There is no "presumption of innocence" when in an active shooting situation. Its "If you want to leave alive, obey my every order so I don't unintentionally sense the urgency to shoot you. That's how I determine you are not a threat to me."
Yes. You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation. Cops are not omniscient. You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation. That is not their job responsibility and you will have a gross shortage of competent LEOs when you make suicide a requirement of their job.
The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation, and no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door. That alerts the shooter of the police presence, and that puts the hostages and police in deadly danger. The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender. Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender. As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO. If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move, that's grounds to be shot. (Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)
The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields. The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot. The only people that you give an extra discretion before shooting are people where its obvious they can't be threats (toddlers, slow moving elderly, etc.). If you're young, stupid, and think you have the "right" to argue with a cop/soldier in a shooting situation, you're going to have a short life.
Slashdot Mirror
and there is no longer any organized militia to stand against tyranny
Actually, it has happened as recently as the 1946, and I may not even be citing the correct instance I'm trying to recollect.
Fuck all political gun owners, every last Godless one of them, fuck them, every idiotic one.
Fuck you for being a liberal chump. I'm totally against "Stand Your Ground" type laws (Castle Doctrine is much more reasonable), but am in total support of the 2A. The founding father's "intent" was to ensure that any group that tried to infringe on a citizen's rights (to life) would have to be willing to die for it. It was just as much about subverting federal or local gov't oppression, and wasn't limited to foreign threats. That's why the 2A included the words "a well regulated militia".
If its only a shove then yes, it shouldn't be grounds to shoot him.
But if the guy attacked him, a state with "Stand Your Ground" laws basically permits the use of firearms where there is a chance the physical attacker could grab his gun, or possibly (but not likely to) render him unconscious.
Yup, that's what it means to have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
The US would go broke, and your local military base in Buttfuck, Nowhere would shutdown. Go fuck yourselves, traitor Putin bitches.
As long as they hate the Farm Bill & useless mandates to subsidize corn prices, they're okay in my book. Otherwise, fuck their hypocrisy.
spineless career politician
Worse than spineless. He's a weasel hiding in the skin of progressive voters. And the Democrat voters would be committing political suicide if they voted him to be their PotUS candidate. He doesn't grasp how much damage he did to himself nationally by railroading in the NY SAFE act (a draconian, Potemkin village anti-gun bill).
and giving handouts to farmers just pisses them off, which he would know if he had ever met one
They don't seem to have a problem with the handout that's the biennial Farm Bill. Or forcing all gasoline to contain a percentage of corn derived ethanol.
Are you saying while posting under his pseudonym, he revealed that he had short positions on Tesla? Yes, that makes him immune to SEC action (for stock manipulation in this instance). It doesn't matter that his real identity publicly states he is shorting Tesla, if his pseudonym is not.
The problem is not that he reads Zerohedge (which is not necessarily Russian propaganda). The problem is that he's a Trump fanboy stooge who alters what the Zerohedge text actually said. Your problem is that you rely on Google to formulate your opinions for you.
Yup. Even more nuclear fuel available if the US perfected thorium fueled reactors.
Apparently, since US voters chose Trump. I wonder how many gigawatts of electricity he can generate in a single term...
You like it so much, you won't publicly associate your pseudonym to liking systemd.
> While it comes with some problems of its own it, does solve real problems and is an improvement.
Really? "Real" problems in a systems event reporter that has worked near flawlessly since its inception, over twenty years ago? What might those have been?
Because if they go up, you go bankrupt. You lose everything you have as a financial asset. And you don't have the same bankruptcy protections you did twenty years ago.
Spoken like a pointless, irrelevant, anonymous coward.
Space is a vaccuum. There's a finite amount of material needed to separate your living environment from vaccuum.
Oceans deep and far away enough from shore to avoid sovereignty claims, exert enough depth pressure to crush/collapse most human engineered structures. You don't have to travel as far as space, but depth pressures do not make those environments any more cost effective than vaccuum.
More likely the colony would be underground, in order to utilize soil as a radiation shield. But they would be trapped in their sustainable living tubes/containers/tunnels.
> . It would be far more cost effective to solve problems on earth
Its far more cost effective to start wars (that destroys infrastructure and slaughters lives) in order to utilize regions like Antarctica for survival colonies???
Its always more cost effective when dealing with reasonable parties, but that's not the state of societies on Earth right now. You can try to run far enough to not be economically feasible to target, or you can try to exterminate populations to remove impediments to "saving the world". But at least the former can be attempted without world consensus.
Declaring that fusion is the cheapest form of sustainable energy that solves all our energy problems is meaningless if you cannot implement it. Declaring its much cheaper for the world to agree to invest in survival colonies is meaningless if nations aren't willing to forgo their unilateral prerogatives..
That assumes there's a threat in the first place. There absolutely was not in this case.
Dummy, if there wasn't a presumed threat in the first place, they wouldn't be sending in a tactical team to shoot an armed killer. The police are not required to evaluate that there is a "valid" call before executing an intervention. They're asked to look for signs that its a bad call, and they're told to avoid shooting bystanders, but flawless, omniscient resolution of a hostage situation is not legally required from police. Legal culpability is based on following procedure, not evaluating guilt based on the results.
Any ROE that does not reflect this is completely invalid.
All properly designed RoEs are designed to conform to all laws, and are reviewed by department or contracted lawyers. When an officer operated within the guidelines of the RoE, and makes what can be considered a legally unacceptable kill, it means the people responsible for implementing the RoE are at fault. The purpose of the RoE is to define what is acceptable/unacceptable actions when dealing with a active shooting situation. It protects neither the bystanders or the cop.
Good luck in court with your 9th amendment interpretations, sovereign citizen...
And how do you differentiate a bystander from a psychopathic murderer (or terrorist) posing as a bystander? Can you produce a law enforcement/psychology textbook with procedures (i.e. RoE) that eliminates false positives in the field?
How the hell can you argue for this in any free, civil society?! You're talking about operating within RoE? That is a military concept.
No, it is not. The concept has existed for over a century. It has been used by both military and police before WWII; its just wasn't historically called an RoE by police. You are under the mistaken impression that RoEs only tell you when you can shoot. They also specify when you are not approved to shoot. There are many disgusted Iraq vets that criticize their local police for having shoddier RoEs than the ones they were required to follow in the military, and in the military's case, they were more restrictive and put the soldier in greater danger.
Innocent people were killed for no reason but to satisfy the petty ego of a soulless idiot social engineering savant in Wichita.
No, the 911 dispatcher was fooled by the SWATter to believe there was a live fire situation at the home of the victim. When there's a live fire situation, they send in SWAT to "resolve" the situation, beat cops are instructed to "secure the perimeter" and wait for SWAT. Tactical (SWAT) are only sent in for shooting situations, from their point of view and the hostages, it is no different from an active war zone. The victim made the "mistake" of making the policeman think he was about to shoot at him (or get away with a gun). The police shooting the victim is considered an accident. The caller putting the victim in a shooting situation with police is the "depraved, negligent" manslaughterer here.
1) This was "sloppy" tazer use, not a firearm shooting.
2) I'm at peace with banning tazers, and letting people die from unintentional beatings from police. If the arrestee does not comply, police are expected to use force to subdue the arrestee. You don't think a blow to the body, head, or ribs with a nightstick can't cause unintentional death? There's a reason why police forces have moved to using tazers.
3) The problem here was the police department's arbitrary "use of force" policy, which is another term for RoE. They're designed to avoid sloppy use of deadly force, which greatly reduces the chance of death or maiming. Blame the police chief and the taxpayers who can't pony up money to follow (FBI) recommended guidelines and train/screen their officers.
How do you tell the difference between a bystander and a shooter pretending he's a bystander?
Shouldn't they determine that there actually is a threat before killing it?
They only cease to be a threat when they're immobilized. (Handcuffed, searched for weapons, and removed from area.) There is no "presumption of innocence" when in an active shooting situation. Its "If you want to leave alive, obey my every order so I don't unintentionally sense the urgency to shoot you. That's how I determine you are not a threat to me."
Or do you think I'm being unreasonable here?
Yes. You do not grasp the difficulty of never making a judgement error while interceding in a life & death situation. Cops are not omniscient. You cannot competently expect LEOs to always let themselves to be shot first in any situation. That is not their job responsibility and you will have a gross shortage of competent LEOs when you make suicide a requirement of their job.
The SWAT team believed they were going into an active shooting situation, and no, you don't knock on the door first and wait for someone to open the door. That alerts the shooter of the police presence, and that puts the hostages and police in deadly danger. The victim supposedly was not complying with officers orders to surrender. Potential murderers do not have a free pass to run away when confronted with a LEO demanding their surrender. As long as the (SWAT) LEO can properly demonstrate they were following their department's rules of engagement, there will be a legal bias in favor of the LEO. If the bystander makes a quick, suspicious move, that's grounds to be shot. (Of course, its the LEO's responsibility to makes sure they were following ROE when effecting the arrest. If they went off script when attempting the arrest, asking the detained to do something that could be misinterpreted as threatening, then the LEO is probably screwed if they shoot the victim.)
The tactics and procedures to immobilize/kill a possible shooter by police in America, is not much different from US soldiers overseas storming a building with hostiles with human shields. The only significant difference is that you give each person you confront the chance to surrender, but you don't give them extra chances to execute the first shot. The only people that you give an extra discretion before shooting are people where its obvious they can't be threats (toddlers, slow moving elderly, etc.). If you're young, stupid, and think you have the "right" to argue with a cop/soldier in a shooting situation, you're going to have a short life.