Point a gun at the police and your life is forfeit. If you live it is because they let you live. They have a job, one that often results in individuals resisting their efforts with deadly force. They are not expected to simple let lawbreakers kill them, thus they are empowered to utilize deadly force to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. She choose to use deadly force first when she pulled out the shotgun to resist a lawful arrest warrant. Once she introduced intent to violently resist that arrest with deadly force the officers were justified in their use of deadly force.
They are able to do so without legal penalty, because the deceased is the one who initiated the criminal acts that resulted in the officers use of deadly force. A police officer cannot just kill anyone without penalty. Officers that kill without justification are charged and convicted of said murders. People claim they get off because they try to justify the criminal acts of those who police have to shoot in order to stop threats, (not all shooting events are fatal). The standards for use of deadly force by an officer are actually very clear.
The way to avoid getting killed is to comply with the officers trying to do their job and fight the charges in court.
Exactly how are they to prepare? They didn't send a single officer, they were ready for a confrontation, they may not have expected the shotgun or any armed resistance but they were ready. And yet they still tried to negotiate with her. They had a Warrant, their job was to effect the arrest. She chose to resist a lawful arrest with deadly force and paid the price. The FB angle is minor, but it is important in that those encouraging her to resist are very possibly liable for their encouragement.
Nope, freedom of speech does not cover calls to illegal action. It is not absolute. This is tantamount to the classic but often miss-cited example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. If shouting that causes a stampeded and people get hurt, your speech is not protected. You can in fact say and even shout fire in a theater. If it's part of a performance or the audience otherwise knows that there is not actually a fire and they do not need to flee, or if there is in fact a fire then the shouted warning would have no penalty. Encouraging someone to resist police trying to execute a duly sworn warrant is NOT protected speech, saying don't comply might be covered to a point, but telling someone to actively refuse to let the police make the arrests, if that results in a death or injury is NOT protected speech.
Yes, she was alive when she pointed it at the police. Even corrupt police aren't going to try to plant a shotgun. they'd plant a small easily concealable weapon pulled discretely from a pocket. Oh and then there is the FB video that likely shows the shotgun.
She was stupid, and paid the cost of her stupidity.
An open Primary allows the opposite party to choose your least viable candidate. Example. I live in Utah. Democrats are very much in the minority. If their primary was open the minority could be pushed down even further by Republicans going in and voting for the candidates least likely to beat their own. Closed Primaries protect the parties from outside interference. The general election is when everybody gets to vote on all candidates, the primaries are when the parties choose their candidates. Primaries are entirely internal, parties don't need to run primaries if there are no contenders or they could flip a coin to choose. Don't confuse a primary for a chance to winnow the general field. A primary is for the Party membership to choose who will represent them in the general election. All the parties can run primaries, even the small obscure parties.
It wasn't my CO instilling fear, it was on the job experience and expertese. I was an Army Counterintelligence Agent (MOS 97B then 35L). I investigated such crimes, yes people did get off with lesser punishment but they were brought up on the actual crimes with the potential penalties. Military Lawyers and Judges like plea deals just as much as civilian courts do. I'm not saying she needs to go to jail for 10 years x 100+ classified emails. But she should have been indicted. The crimes are real, and they do not require intent. The law as applied is that you mishandle classified information, you face charges.
Let her be indicted and defend herself, if she can plea out to jay-walking fine. But she needs to face the charges for the crimes she committed. And I'm speaking from experience not misunderstanding.
Because that "New Party" Had the majority of the membership of the previously major party but now defunct Whigs, the remainders forming the Constitutionalist Party, Meanwhile the Democrats were split into the main pro-abolitionist northern democrats and the southern pro-slavery democrats. The southern democrats being a new party grouping as well. The Republican Party was kind of new but had run a candidate four years prior. It wasn't really a third party as it was the real successor of the Whig Party which collapsed in 1854. The GOP had barely had time to form in 56, and the remainder of the Whigs joined the Know-Nothings to form the American Party in 56 and the Constitutionalist party in 60. Thus the Dems walked to the win in 56, but then were split by their own party collapse in time for the 1860 election. Four parties, the Republicans, the Constitutionalist which was a fraction of the size of the Republicans and the Democrats who split when the main party nominated an abolitionist ticket.
I can't stand the KOS, but Primaries should be closed. The party is selecting it's nominee, those not part of the party should not have any say. That is what the General election is about. When the various party nominee's then run for the office in question. At that point it's open to everybody. Open primaries allow the other side to choose the weakest candidate. Had the first 10 or so primaries been closed Trump likely would not be the nominee. In early closed primaries Trump lost. Only when he had a substantial lead in the delegate count did he start winning closed primaries.
Mishandling Classified information most certainly is a crime. Espionage act, USC Title 18 para 739 (f). Nothing left or right wing about it. It's there in the code. Putting classified information on an unclassified network (civilian or government) is a crime. Sending that information via that unclassified network is a crime. I've had a clearance for over 20 years. I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail, not to the Whitehouse.
Director Comey lied and covered for her. Intent is NOT a requirement for failure to protect and mishandling of classified information. Failing to stop classified information from going out over her unclassified civilian internet server is a Felony. Being to stupid to realize that classified information does not go on an unclassified system is a felony, neither has any intent requirement. Both are 10 years per count. Comey stated flat out that there were over 100 emails that had information that was classified at the time it was sent. That is over 100 counts on both charges. No intent needed.
Any prosecutor not trying to cover her would have jumped at the chance to indict. People have gone to jail for a single email, let alone more than 100.
Trump did not call for foreign intervention, he joked that Russia should find the 30,000 missing emails among all the other stuff they'd hacked years ago when she was the Sec State.
Not a remake. An expansion on the concept. There is little in common in the actual game play between the two, other than the need to get out and visit real world locations to play the virtual game.
And this is not news. The fact that Niantic is behind PG and Ingress has been well covered.
The tap on the German Chancellor's phone line is not an illegal act for our intelligence services. It's what they exist to do. To collect on other powers, hostile, friendly and neutral. It was an intelligence coup that Snowden destroyed.
It's obvious that you do not understand the game of international espionage. The rules are simple, everybody collects on everybody. The Tap was an intelligence coup, not illegal Under US law for our intelligence services to accomplish. Yes illegal under German law, but anyone not of German nationality, caught in the process would be detained and quietly repatriated as Persona Non Grata to their home nation. Or traded for German agents caught by the other nation.
Hillary would not have been in position. Had he released just that information he would have had whistleblower status to claim in his defense. It might not have worked but as the National Outrage was high at what he released, it is likely he would have been able to claim that status. He may have been convicted but likely would have been pardoned.
Who? What lives? With regards to the German tap, combat troops if the contents of the tap results contained sensitive information about troop movements in Operations where we are working with the Germans. And the other information similarly put soldiers and agents in other less friendly nations at risk.
It's still treason because releasing the info he did, did in fact aid and abet those we are engaged in conflict with. And the fact that he has supplied a not small amount of Data to Russia in return for his Asylum does in fact constitute Treason. We were not engaged in formal war with the Russians when the Rosenbergs were executed for Treason.
Actually I do read it regularly, and don't throw the term lightly. Espionage on the Scale of Snowden and Manning are in fact Treason.
Cool, good find. Saw your other response as well, and I haven't seen such behavior and find the CC game very suspicious. But I can see that being a problem on a metered connection. (the Windows DVD I could see being counted as part of Windows that needed to be added, but as it's a paid app that is suspicious!)
Or they consider Win 10 to be the patch. The free-upgrade period ending kind of undermines that claim. They should leave the option open indefinitely. Then they can simply say, "Yes we are supporting Windows 7, the support is to apply the patch that upgrades to Win 10 and beyond at no cost to you."
Manning didn't blow any whistles. It was falsely claimed that he revealed war crimes, but once the legitimate combat actions were revealed and analyzed by people who actually know what constitutes a war crime no crimes were found. Manning simply applied a hoover to the classified network and then dumped it to WikiLeaks out of spite because he was mad at the Army. He committed espionage and is rightly serving a nice long term as a result. We the tax payers should not be paying one cent towards gender association treatments. He's doing hard time.
Snowden was a whistleblower on the NSA Surveillance. He committed espionage on the rest of the Classified information regarding international intelligence operations that he stole and revealed. If we get our hands on him, he will be convicted and also spend many years behind bars. He would have gotten a pass had he just stopped at the surveillance program.
Who is paying for the GP to post the facts. The NSA surveillance revelation was good he would have had whistleblower protection for it. The rest of the stuff he's revealed about our international intelligence collection efforts is why he will not receive an amnesty and should not receive on. Nothing about what the GP posted was a shill. In short You fail. But then you are too cowardly to take credit for your misguided opinion.
Snowden is not a traitor for revealing the NSA Phone surveillance program. He's a traitor for the thousands of classified documents pertaining to other legitimate intelligence collection efforts that he stole and turned over to whomever. Example: he revealed that we had an active tap on the office phone of the German Chancellor. Revealing that was Treason, Germany is not a military or political enemy but all countries are economic opponents. Further it's evident that he's paid Russia for his asylum with classified information.
That is why he is considered a Traitor. Had he just stuck to revealing the unconstitutional NSA Surveillance of US citizens he would be a hero and would have been protected by Whistleblower status. But he revealed far more, damaging or destroying operations that took years to put in place and putting lives at risk.
And your brilliant reply indicates your level of intelligence. Giving a handout is a one time deal. And he's not just sitting on his money, he's returning it into circulation and giving people jobs.
I am not the idiot here. Try attacking ideas and debating with facts rather than juvenile insults that just prove you have no real argument.
The point is entirely valid. Rather than just giving the money away to be wasted by some NGO or spent on bribes or stolen or maybe maybe reach someone actually in need. He spent the money which went to employ people in order to build the room and equip and decorate it. Giving a man a job is far better than giving a man a bowl of soup.
That link is to the story immediately below this one. As bad as the editors are I doubt he meant to add that link to the story below to the story below.
Slashdot Mirror
Point a gun at the police and your life is forfeit. If you live it is because they let you live. They have a job, one that often results in individuals resisting their efforts with deadly force. They are not expected to simple let lawbreakers kill them, thus they are empowered to utilize deadly force to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. She choose to use deadly force first when she pulled out the shotgun to resist a lawful arrest warrant. Once she introduced intent to violently resist that arrest with deadly force the officers were justified in their use of deadly force.
They are able to do so without legal penalty, because the deceased is the one who initiated the criminal acts that resulted in the officers use of deadly force. A police officer cannot just kill anyone without penalty. Officers that kill without justification are charged and convicted of said murders. People claim they get off because they try to justify the criminal acts of those who police have to shoot in order to stop threats, (not all shooting events are fatal). The standards for use of deadly force by an officer are actually very clear.
The way to avoid getting killed is to comply with the officers trying to do their job and fight the charges in court.
Exactly how are they to prepare? They didn't send a single officer, they were ready for a confrontation, they may not have expected the shotgun or any armed resistance but they were ready. And yet they still tried to negotiate with her. They had a Warrant, their job was to effect the arrest. She chose to resist a lawful arrest with deadly force and paid the price.
The FB angle is minor, but it is important in that those encouraging her to resist are very possibly liable for their encouragement.
Nope, freedom of speech does not cover calls to illegal action. It is not absolute. This is tantamount to the classic but often miss-cited example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. If shouting that causes a stampeded and people get hurt, your speech is not protected. You can in fact say and even shout fire in a theater. If it's part of a performance or the audience otherwise knows that there is not actually a fire and they do not need to flee, or if there is in fact a fire then the shouted warning would have no penalty. Encouraging someone to resist police trying to execute a duly sworn warrant is NOT protected speech, saying don't comply might be covered to a point, but telling someone to actively refuse to let the police make the arrests, if that results in a death or injury is NOT protected speech.
Yes, she was alive when she pointed it at the police. Even corrupt police aren't going to try to plant a shotgun. they'd plant a small easily concealable weapon pulled discretely from a pocket. Oh and then there is the FB video that likely shows the shotgun.
She was stupid, and paid the cost of her stupidity.
An open Primary allows the opposite party to choose your least viable candidate. Example. I live in Utah. Democrats are very much in the minority. If their primary was open the minority could be pushed down even further by Republicans going in and voting for the candidates least likely to beat their own. Closed Primaries protect the parties from outside interference. The general election is when everybody gets to vote on all candidates, the primaries are when the parties choose their candidates. Primaries are entirely internal, parties don't need to run primaries if there are no contenders or they could flip a coin to choose. Don't confuse a primary for a chance to winnow the general field. A primary is for the Party membership to choose who will represent them in the general election. All the parties can run primaries, even the small obscure parties.
It wasn't my CO instilling fear, it was on the job experience and expertese. I was an Army Counterintelligence Agent (MOS 97B then 35L). I investigated such crimes, yes people did get off with lesser punishment but they were brought up on the actual crimes with the potential penalties. Military Lawyers and Judges like plea deals just as much as civilian courts do. I'm not saying she needs to go to jail for 10 years x 100+ classified emails. But she should have been indicted. The crimes are real, and they do not require intent. The law as applied is that you mishandle classified information, you face charges.
Let her be indicted and defend herself, if she can plea out to jay-walking fine. But she needs to face the charges for the crimes she committed. And I'm speaking from experience not misunderstanding.
Because that "New Party" Had the majority of the membership of the previously major party but now defunct Whigs, the remainders forming the Constitutionalist Party, Meanwhile the Democrats were split into the main pro-abolitionist northern democrats and the southern pro-slavery democrats. The southern democrats being a new party grouping as well. The Republican Party was kind of new but had run a candidate four years prior. It wasn't really a third party as it was the real successor of the Whig Party which collapsed in 1854. The GOP had barely had time to form in 56, and the remainder of the Whigs joined the Know-Nothings to form the American Party in 56 and the Constitutionalist party in 60. Thus the Dems walked to the win in 56, but then were split by their own party collapse in time for the 1860 election. Four parties, the Republicans, the Constitutionalist which was a fraction of the size of the Republicans and the Democrats who split when the main party nominated an abolitionist ticket.
I can't stand the KOS, but Primaries should be closed. The party is selecting it's nominee, those not part of the party should not have any say. That is what the General election is about. When the various party nominee's then run for the office in question. At that point it's open to everybody. Open primaries allow the other side to choose the weakest candidate. Had the first 10 or so primaries been closed Trump likely would not be the nominee. In early closed primaries Trump lost. Only when he had a substantial lead in the delegate count did he start winning closed primaries.
Mishandling Classified information most certainly is a crime. Espionage act, USC Title 18 para 739 (f). Nothing left or right wing about it. It's there in the code. Putting classified information on an unclassified network (civilian or government) is a crime. Sending that information via that unclassified network is a crime. I've had a clearance for over 20 years. I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail, not to the Whitehouse.
Director Comey lied and covered for her. Intent is NOT a requirement for failure to protect and mishandling of classified information. Failing to stop classified information from going out over her unclassified civilian internet server is a Felony. Being to stupid to realize that classified information does not go on an unclassified system is a felony, neither has any intent requirement. Both are 10 years per count. Comey stated flat out that there were over 100 emails that had information that was classified at the time it was sent. That is over 100 counts on both charges. No intent needed.
Any prosecutor not trying to cover her would have jumped at the chance to indict. People have gone to jail for a single email, let alone more than 100.
Trump did not call for foreign intervention, he joked that Russia should find the 30,000 missing emails among all the other stuff they'd hacked years ago when she was the Sec State.
Not a remake. An expansion on the concept. There is little in common in the actual game play between the two, other than the need to get out and visit real world locations to play the virtual game.
And this is not news. The fact that Niantic is behind PG and Ingress has been well covered.
The tap on the German Chancellor's phone line is not an illegal act for our intelligence services. It's what they exist to do. To collect on other powers, hostile, friendly and neutral. It was an intelligence coup that Snowden destroyed.
It's obvious that you do not understand the game of international espionage. The rules are simple, everybody collects on everybody. The Tap was an intelligence coup, not illegal Under US law for our intelligence services to accomplish. Yes illegal under German law, but anyone not of German nationality, caught in the process would be detained and quietly repatriated as Persona Non Grata to their home nation. Or traded for German agents caught by the other nation.
Hillary would not have been in position. Had he released just that information he would have had whistleblower status to claim in his defense. It might not have worked but as the National Outrage was high at what he released, it is likely he would have been able to claim that status. He may have been convicted but likely would have been pardoned.
Who? What lives? With regards to the German tap, combat troops if the contents of the tap results contained sensitive information about troop movements in Operations where we are working with the Germans. And the other information similarly put soldiers and agents in other less friendly nations at risk.
It's still treason because releasing the info he did, did in fact aid and abet those we are engaged in conflict with. And the fact that he has supplied a not small amount of Data to Russia in return for his Asylum does in fact constitute Treason. We were not engaged in formal war with the Russians when the Rosenbergs were executed for Treason.
Actually I do read it regularly, and don't throw the term lightly. Espionage on the Scale of Snowden and Manning are in fact Treason.
Cool, good find. Saw your other response as well, and I haven't seen such behavior and find the CC game very suspicious. But I can see that being a problem on a metered connection. (the Windows DVD I could see being counted as part of Windows that needed to be added, but as it's a paid app that is suspicious!)
The Taliban will cut off your dongle if they catch you with movies. Pirated or otherwise.
I've yet to see windows install any "new and popular" app from the store that I didn't choose to install. What apps are you talking about?
Or they consider Win 10 to be the patch. The free-upgrade period ending kind of undermines that claim. They should leave the option open indefinitely. Then they can simply say, "Yes we are supporting Windows 7, the support is to apply the patch that upgrades to Win 10 and beyond at no cost to you."
Manning didn't blow any whistles. It was falsely claimed that he revealed war crimes, but once the legitimate combat actions were revealed and analyzed by people who actually know what constitutes a war crime no crimes were found. Manning simply applied a hoover to the classified network and then dumped it to WikiLeaks out of spite because he was mad at the Army. He committed espionage and is rightly serving a nice long term as a result. We the tax payers should not be paying one cent towards gender association treatments. He's doing hard time.
Snowden was a whistleblower on the NSA Surveillance. He committed espionage on the rest of the Classified information regarding international intelligence operations that he stole and revealed. If we get our hands on him, he will be convicted and also spend many years behind bars. He would have gotten a pass had he just stopped at the surveillance program.
Who is paying for the GP to post the facts. The NSA surveillance revelation was good he would have had whistleblower protection for it. The rest of the stuff he's revealed about our international intelligence collection efforts is why he will not receive an amnesty and should not receive on. Nothing about what the GP posted was a shill. In short You fail. But then you are too cowardly to take credit for your misguided opinion.
Snowden is not a traitor for revealing the NSA Phone surveillance program. He's a traitor for the thousands of classified documents pertaining to other legitimate intelligence collection efforts that he stole and turned over to whomever. Example: he revealed that we had an active tap on the office phone of the German Chancellor. Revealing that was Treason, Germany is not a military or political enemy but all countries are economic opponents. Further it's evident that he's paid Russia for his asylum with classified information.
That is why he is considered a Traitor. Had he just stuck to revealing the unconstitutional NSA Surveillance of US citizens he would be a hero and would have been protected by Whistleblower status. But he revealed far more, damaging or destroying operations that took years to put in place and putting lives at risk.
And your brilliant reply indicates your level of intelligence. Giving a handout is a one time deal. And he's not just sitting on his money, he's returning it into circulation and giving people jobs.
I am not the idiot here. Try attacking ideas and debating with facts rather than juvenile insults that just prove you have no real argument.
The point is entirely valid. Rather than just giving the money away to be wasted by some NGO or spent on bribes or stolen or maybe maybe reach someone actually in need. He spent the money which went to employ people in order to build the room and equip and decorate it. Giving a man a job is far better than giving a man a bowl of soup.
I'm an idiot, Paramount is part of Viacom. But copyright enforcement efforts for the franchise usually come under Paramount letterheads.
*Paramount
That link is to the story immediately below this one. As bad as the editors are I doubt he meant to add that link to the story below to the story below.