And what should they have done differently? What did they do incorrectly?
They took control of her until the situation could be fully understood. They did respond and handle the situation, they didn't shoot on site, they held their ground and she complied. What is being said, is that if she had not complied, they would have probably shot her. If the situation is unknown, and the officer and public are in apparent danger, the officer is required to do what he thinks is necessary according to his training. They don't get to call a time out and wait for an "expert" to evaluate the situation. In this case, they contained her, arrested her stupid ass, and are going to let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose.
Maybe the officers at the scene had a suspicion that this was not a real bomb, but they controlled the situation, because they couldn't afford to be wrong. Their job is first and foremost to gain control of the situation, they did, she lived.
How do you expect them to "check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly" by any other means than stopping her with the threat of force?
And if the bomb expert wasn't right across the hall or somewhere very nearby, you could just let her keep walking until she gets right in the security line before she triggers it.
There is no good answer once a bomb, strapped to a nutcase determined to kill, gets into a crowded area. There will be deaths, there will be an explosion, the only opportunity is to make every attempt to minimize the number of dead. That might mean blocking access to a more crowded area and letting her blow them all up, or blocking her access to a more crowded area and blowing her fucking head off in hopes that there is no dead-mans switch. Lose, lose situation, but I will take that over waiting around until the "bomb" expert can get there and ask for permission to look at the bomb.
The best ones are the ones that compare your signature to the words "Please Ask For ID" and see no difference! But I guess the training at the local Wal-Mart makes every cashier into a handwriting expert.
1) As a Lindows.com Insider you agree to make your best efforts to keep the information you obtain through the Insider program confidential.
2) You understand that LindowsOS is not a product from Microsoft.
Please acknowledge that you have read and agree with the Confidentiality Agreement and Disclaimer above by typing your initials in the box below and clicking on the 'I Agree' button.
If you are not in full agreement, please click on the 'I Disagree' button and you will be taken out of the sign-up process.
Nothing about being an employee, and I am paying for this?
Well a quick look at the TRUSTe approved privacy statement reveals the following:
"When you visit a Web site displaying the TRUSTe mark, you can expect to be notified of:
What information this site gathers/tracks about you, What this site does with the information it gathers/tracks, With whom this site shares the information it gathers/tracks, This site's opt-out policy, This site's policy on correcting and updating personally identifiable information, and This site's policy on deleting or deactivating your name from our database."
And I see no mention anywhere in the privacy statement that e-mail senders and receivers are being recorded.
This seems to me that there is a bit of a violation of the TRUSTe agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
So, is this going to inspire Tommy Lee to keep at it?
And what should they have done differently? What did they do incorrectly?
They took control of her until the situation could be fully understood. They did respond and handle the situation, they didn't shoot on site, they held their ground and she complied. What is being said, is that if she had not complied, they would have probably shot her. If the situation is unknown, and the officer and public are in apparent danger, the officer is required to do what he thinks is necessary according to his training. They don't get to call a time out and wait for an "expert" to evaluate the situation. In this case, they contained her, arrested her stupid ass, and are going to let a judge/jury decide if she was just stupid, or did she do this on purpose.
Maybe the officers at the scene had a suspicion that this was not a real bomb, but they controlled the situation, because they couldn't afford to be wrong. Their job is first and foremost to gain control of the situation, they did, she lived.
How do you expect them to "check it out and determine if it is a threat and act accordingly" by any other means than stopping her with the threat of force?
And if the bomb expert wasn't right across the hall or somewhere very nearby, you could just let her keep walking until she gets right in the security line before she triggers it.
There is no good answer once a bomb, strapped to a nutcase determined to kill, gets into a crowded area. There will be deaths, there will be an explosion, the only opportunity is to make every attempt to minimize the number of dead. That might mean blocking access to a more crowded area and letting her blow them all up, or blocking her access to a more crowded area and blowing her fucking head off in hopes that there is no dead-mans switch. Lose, lose situation, but I will take that over waiting around until the "bomb" expert can get there and ask for permission to look at the bomb.
Anyone know if COPS was filmed in PA? Wouldn't this same law apply in reverse, and the cameramen charged with the same felony?
The best ones are the ones that compare your signature to the words "Please Ask For ID" and see no difference! But I guess the training at the local Wal-Mart makes every cashier into a handwriting expert.
You mean this contract?
Lindows.com Insiders Sign Up
Confidentiality Agreement & Disclaimer
1) As a Lindows.com Insider you agree to make your best efforts to keep the information you obtain through the Insider program confidential.
2) You understand that LindowsOS is not a product from Microsoft.
Please acknowledge that you have read and agree with the Confidentiality Agreement and Disclaimer above by typing your initials in the box below and clicking on the 'I Agree' button.
If you are not in full agreement, please click on the 'I Disagree' button and you will be taken out of the sign-up process.
Nothing about being an employee, and I am paying for this?
only a small label that says (I think) "Will not play on PC/MAC"
I think Sony is blowing some smoke.
Well a quick look at the TRUSTe approved privacy statement reveals the following:
"When you visit a Web site displaying the TRUSTe mark, you can expect to be notified of:
What information this site gathers/tracks about you,
What this site does with the information it gathers/tracks,
With whom this site shares the information it gathers/tracks,
This site's opt-out policy,
This site's policy on correcting and updating personally identifiable information, and
This site's policy on deleting or deactivating your name from our database."
And I see no mention anywhere in the privacy statement that e-mail senders and receivers are being recorded.
This seems to me that there is a bit of a violation of the TRUSTe agreement.