How is it making him a scape goat if the charges issued are valid, relevant, and rational? As I said, the guy does not need to be booked for murder or manslaughter to force a systemic change with the behavior of law enforcement. A simple statement from the Grand Jury that "charges will be allowed for excessive force" would suffice.
If as you say the department(s) are at fault this will come out investigation for the use of excessive force. Legally, it would most likely result in the charges being dropped for the officer and the attention being diverted to the department. Where it should be also, but we can't seem to tackle numerous problems simultaneously during a legal process.
In reality, this is making the department the scape goat for the officers actions and not the other way around. Unfortunately this is the way it has to work due to legal precedent. If the departments training changes and future issues occur, then individuals can, and should, be held accountable for their actions.
Complacency I'm sure you will agree will result in zero change.
"Regular" posters would be daily, or at least weekly. This has nothing to do with OCD, but rather an interest in the process of dialogue on the site and ability to find interesting subjects to join in dialogue.
You either know, or are pretending to know, about forensics. I am not trained in this field, and so have to go with the best source of data that I have available to me
You don't need to be a forensics expert to read an autopsy report and make valid observations. It is equivalent to saying you can't read a basic math problem unless you are a Mathematician for a living. It's an obvious cop out, serving to support a delusion.
Correct. If we don't like how he behaved in this situation, and he behaved according to his training, then the training needs to change.
If the officer behaved incorrectly there would be charges of some kind. A lack of charges means no wrong doing what so ever, and will result in NO change in training or behavior.
I don't know if the officer should be in jail for murder, I didn't interview him and that makes a difference. I do know that his behavior went well beyond what is required to make an arrest. This would be true even assuming everything the officer said was true and there is reason to doubt some of his claims. And before you say it, the answer is "No". You don't have to be a Lawyer or Judge to compare statements and read testimony to determine where stories conflict or are incredible.
Keep on digging that hole deeper. A "regular commenter" as you originally claimed would have a consistent pattern in contributing (see the first part of 1.). A few posts 8 months ago, then a month prior, then a few months prior, does not indicate any 'regularity' or especially with the same space between individual instances.
Your version of events does not seem as credible to me.
READ THE FUCKING AUTOPSY REPORT!
Wholly fuck man, the 12 shots being fired has been the only consistent piece of information we had. You doubt "my version" which excluded everything except for the first shot and the amount of rounds we KNOW hit the victim! At the point he started back peddling the cop should have stopped firing, but we have at least 3 rounds hitting the victim (due to autopsy again) where the angle indicates the guy was falling down and a lack of powder burns indicates that these shots were from a reasonable range. This is basic goddamn science, not a lesson in duality and metaphysics.
It's never excessive to defend yourself, and it asks too much from someone who is actively defending themselves to think completely clearly.
POLICE ARE TRAINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND DEAL WITH ADRENOLINE! You are trying to claim that a police officer, who receives years of training, who loses self control is not worthy of reprimand either. Bullshit.
As a veteran I know what they face to a very large degree, I also know the training that I had vs. what today's police and military have in training. They are being taught that the public is the enemy, I gave the information above and you chose to ignore it.
Naming fallacies eliminates a class of mistakes so that more of our limited intelligence and attention-span can be applied to the actual discussion.
No, no it's not. You are demonstrating the same ignorance for logic that you claim others lack with this statement. Your are attempting to claim that your accusation of fallacy will somehow defend the original fallacy, and it does not.
Cameron's arguments are an appeal to emotion. His particular appeal is so common that we have given a name to it (as we have historically done with the several common appeals), called "save the children". This person points out another appeal to emotion, based on what is "the terrorists are gonna get you!" arguments.
Even if the person used a slippery slope, this would not negate the fallacy arguments from Cameron that they are arguing against. This is the point of debate and discourse, to flesh out "why the original argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion."
That said, the person did not use a Slippery Slope argument but an argument based on historical facts. If you had asked for the history I'm sure the person could have provided you search clues.
Your ignorance to history does not make his argument a slippery slope, it demonstrates that you are ignorant. Your claim of fallacy does not invalidate the original appeals to emotion that Cameron used. Your disconnection with logic and rhetoric indicate that you are either a shill, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You are not helping your case for sanity. Get the irony, chuckle, and move on down the road... It was not "regular" even before March, unless again you are trying to redefine the word
Good grief! Quite shocking that someone with a 4 digit UID can make mistake "daemon" for "demon" and then "deamon". Were you were the guy programming all of those pesky TSR programs while the rest of us wrote daemons?
According to the grand jury findings, he ceased firing once the victim stopped moving toward him.
Your statement can not be valid, because the officer alleged that he was leaning into the car when the first shot was fired. He could not move forward any further at that time, he could only move backward. Your statement has no bearing in logic or reason, at all. Testimony does not provide reason for 12 bullets being fired. A person back peddling is no longer a threat.
Further, I requested YOUR definition of excessive force, not the grand jury decision. At what point to you believe police force becomes excessive? If you truly believe that every encounter requires cops to unload full clips into people, I would ask you to turn yourself in to a psychiatric ward immediately.
The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.
That might very well be the most reasonable action to take going forward, and maybe that should be incorporated into police training. As long as the officer's actions were in line with currently established procedures, that does not make his actions criminal.
The whole point of these cases is to determine where things went wrong. Obviously lots of shit went wrong, but without even a reprimand for excessive force how much change will ensue? None, and you know it! In other words, that statement is complete horse shit.
What? Not got any examples? Because the ones still being run are in India? Yep, thought so.
The examples are in the complaints that took YEARS to receive any action on. There is no reasonable or efficient mechanism for dealing with these companies in the US. How long were each of those companies listed in the order operating in the US? Some were operating for as long as a decade, so perhaps you should validate facts before attempting to claim that everything scam related is from overseas.
Researching a few facts is all that is required to demonstrate that your arguments are invalid.
Your straw man is not a very good one. If you read TFA you would have seen that _all_ of the companies in the decisions are US companies.
As part of the legal maneuver, the state of Florida joined the FTC in filing two separate cases against companies who allegedly sold the bogus software and the telemarketers who sold the unnecessary tech support services. In the first case, the defendants selling software include PC Cleaner Inc.; Netcom3 Global Inc.; Netcom3 Inc., also doing business as Netcom3 Software Inc.; and Cashier Myricks, Jr. The telemarketing defendants include Inbound Call Experts LLC; Advanced Tech Supportco. LLC; PC Vitalware LLC; Super PC Support LLC; Robert D. Deignan; Paul M. Herdsman; and Justin M. Wright.
In the second case, the defendants selling software include Boost Software Inc. and Amit Mehta, and the telemarketing defendants include Vast Tech Support LLC, also doing business as OMG Tech Help, OMG Total Protection, OMG Back Up, downloadsoftware.com, and softwaresupport.com; OMG Tech Help LLC; Success Capital LLC; Jon Paul Holdings LLC; Elliot Loewenstern; Jon-Paul Vasta; and Mark Donahue.
Then explain the justification for unloading a full clip into an unarmed suspect then. If you have no logic then you are just as guilty of emotional judgement as the person you accused of doing the same.
Build your case on reason and logic, and in no way should you come to the conclusion that this level of force was justified or justifiable. There were countless other actions for the cop to take which did not have to result in death of a suspect due to the officer unloading all 12 rounds from his weapon into an _unarmed_ man who was at least in retreat from the cop.
The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.
What constitutes excessive force in your mind? Ignore the Grand Jury's decision for this question, because we have ample evidence demonstrating that the system does not always work toward justice. You can see how many charges law enforcement agents have had to face, even after they brutally beat a homeless person to death on the street. This is one of at least several similar events where no charges were filed.
It is that question that has many people bothered about this event.
Buried under the racism and claims of execution and murder is a valid concern, which is that law enforcement has undergone a fundamental change in the last few decades which does not benefit society. The slogan of "Protect and Serve the Public" today is invalid, officers are placed above all members of the public and the statement "Officer Safety" has become a mantra justifying any and all actions the officer takes.
The take away we should be discussing is the question I proposed initially. The psychological profiling of potential law enforcement officers is a concern, the militarization of police forces is a concern.
I'm not a pacifist. If an armed suspect is threatening the public, the police have the right to shoot to kill. It's when suspects are not armed that we need to draw a firm line on the amount of force required versus the amount of force used. Unloading a full clip into an unarmed suspect from a vehicle goes beyond necessary force, especially in this case where bullets kept flying after the suspect was 15feet from the vehicle (from the evidence released to the public).
Further reading can be found pretty much anywhere, from cases of officers shooting dogs in yards to tossing flash bangs into the wrong house during an unannounced raid to serve a warrant.
I don't think they are keeping "hush" as claimed, I think the reality is quite different.
1. Drones are of limited value to the overwhelming majority of IT companies.
2. Drones have a negative stigma attached to them and generate bad PR and suspicions.
There are a couple companies that looked at floating WiFi for certain areas, and maybe they started thinking about the logistics and costs. Blimps are much cheaper than drones, reduced chances for hardware failure, etc...
I received an email from a moderator that they thought the messaging issue was fixed. Looks like it is now, as I'm starting to see responses from the last week pour in.
So lets see if they can answer why moderation seems to be borked as well..
Sure, some records may contain what could be considered sensitive. Redacting IP addresses is not overly complex, but in this case may be time consuming. Considering that the Government has tons of super computers why not let one of these systems parse and redact the text.
Just deleting makes things appear bad, even if they are not.
This trend started last week when the system went into off line mode for several hours, so has little on the surface in common with long timers leaving.
I have not seen very much moderated for myself, which is fine for the most part but I'm seeing a trend. Has the moderation system been killed and we have no notification that the system is dead? Here is some evidence. Yeah, you have some explaining to do!
What you said, but also they should be honest. If they are giving.5% of "profits" to charity the wording in TFA could have reflected this more accurately than the implication that all profit is going to the foundation as the wording attempted to imply.
Reread the post you responded to, in particular "If you actually care about AIDS, budget for the full retail price, get the best deal possible (maybe even not an iThingy), and donate the difference yourself.". The complaint is the intentionally misleading wording, and pointing out a better way of helping if you really wanted to support the cause.
So much negativity and cynicism here.
Would there be a similar/. backlash if, say, Ubuntu would do a similar effort this week?
Why yes, yes there would be similar backlash. Funny how you attempt to paint realism as "negativity and cynicism" prior to asking your question. This is called poisoning the well, shame on you!
The realism I'm referring to is that people are against the use of suffering as a propaganda tool. People are against the deception in advertising, such as "Apple To Donate Profit Portion" which is intentionally misleading in the headline and should read "Apple to donate a portion of profit". Save the excuse about writers and moderators not knowing what text they use/approve. The person that wrote the title is a professional writer, they know how words work.
If you think that everyone would automatically defend Ubuntu and it's owner Canonical you really don't pay much attention.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it making him a scape goat if the charges issued are valid, relevant, and rational? As I said, the guy does not need to be booked for murder or manslaughter to force a systemic change with the behavior of law enforcement. A simple statement from the Grand Jury that "charges will be allowed for excessive force" would suffice.
If as you say the department(s) are at fault this will come out investigation for the use of excessive force. Legally, it would most likely result in the charges being dropped for the officer and the attention being diverted to the department. Where it should be also, but we can't seem to tackle numerous problems simultaneously during a legal process.
In reality, this is making the department the scape goat for the officers actions and not the other way around. Unfortunately this is the way it has to work due to legal precedent. If the departments training changes and future issues occur, then individuals can, and should, be held accountable for their actions.
Complacency I'm sure you will agree will result in zero change.
"Regular" posters would be daily, or at least weekly. This has nothing to do with OCD, but rather an interest in the process of dialogue on the site and ability to find interesting subjects to join in dialogue.
You either know, or are pretending to know, about forensics. I am not trained in this field, and so have to go with the best source of data that I have available to me
You don't need to be a forensics expert to read an autopsy report and make valid observations. It is equivalent to saying you can't read a basic math problem unless you are a Mathematician for a living. It's an obvious cop out, serving to support a delusion.
Correct. If we don't like how he behaved in this situation, and he behaved according to his training, then the training needs to change.
If the officer behaved incorrectly there would be charges of some kind. A lack of charges means no wrong doing what so ever, and will result in NO change in training or behavior.
I don't know if the officer should be in jail for murder, I didn't interview him and that makes a difference. I do know that his behavior went well beyond what is required to make an arrest. This would be true even assuming everything the officer said was true and there is reason to doubt some of his claims. And before you say it, the answer is "No". You don't have to be a Lawyer or Judge to compare statements and read testimony to determine where stories conflict or are incredible.
Keep on digging that hole deeper. A "regular commenter" as you originally claimed would have a consistent pattern in contributing (see the first part of 1.). A few posts 8 months ago, then a month prior, then a few months prior, does not indicate any 'regularity' or especially with the same space between individual instances.
Your version of events does not seem as credible to me.
READ THE FUCKING AUTOPSY REPORT!
Wholly fuck man, the 12 shots being fired has been the only consistent piece of information we had. You doubt "my version" which excluded everything except for the first shot and the amount of rounds we KNOW hit the victim! At the point he started back peddling the cop should have stopped firing, but we have at least 3 rounds hitting the victim (due to autopsy again) where the angle indicates the guy was falling down and a lack of powder burns indicates that these shots were from a reasonable range. This is basic goddamn science, not a lesson in duality and metaphysics.
It's never excessive to defend yourself, and it asks too much from someone who is actively defending themselves to think completely clearly.
POLICE ARE TRAINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND DEAL WITH ADRENOLINE! You are trying to claim that a police officer, who receives years of training, who loses self control is not worthy of reprimand either. Bullshit.
As a veteran I know what they face to a very large degree, I also know the training that I had vs. what today's police and military have in training. They are being taught that the public is the enemy, I gave the information above and you chose to ignore it.
Reductio ad absurdum
Naming fallacies eliminates a class of mistakes so that more of our limited intelligence and attention-span can be applied to the actual discussion.
No, no it's not. You are demonstrating the same ignorance for logic that you claim others lack with this statement. Your are attempting to claim that your accusation of fallacy will somehow defend the original fallacy, and it does not.
Cameron's arguments are an appeal to emotion. His particular appeal is so common that we have given a name to it (as we have historically done with the several common appeals), called "save the children". This person points out another appeal to emotion, based on what is "the terrorists are gonna get you!" arguments.
Even if the person used a slippery slope, this would not negate the fallacy arguments from Cameron that they are arguing against. This is the point of debate and discourse, to flesh out "why the original argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion."
That said, the person did not use a Slippery Slope argument but an argument based on historical facts. If you had asked for the history I'm sure the person could have provided you search clues.
Your ignorance to history does not make his argument a slippery slope, it demonstrates that you are ignorant. Your claim of fallacy does not invalidate the original appeals to emotion that Cameron used. Your disconnection with logic and rhetoric indicate that you are either a shill, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You are not helping your case for sanity. Get the irony, chuckle, and move on down the road... It was not "regular" even before March, unless again you are trying to redefine the word
Good grief! Quite shocking that someone with a 4 digit UID can make mistake "daemon" for "demon" and then "deamon". Were you were the guy programming all of those pesky TSR programs while the rest of us wrote daemons?
RISC vs. CISC! Bring it on!!
Not just creepy and crazy - but also a regular commenter here on Slashdot.
Oh how I enjoy irony. In your world "regular" means something different from how the rest of us read a dictionary.
Hint: last post was March of 2014 and from there you can do the math.
According to the grand jury findings, he ceased firing once the victim stopped moving toward him.
Your statement can not be valid, because the officer alleged that he was leaning into the car when the first shot was fired. He could not move forward any further at that time, he could only move backward. Your statement has no bearing in logic or reason, at all. Testimony does not provide reason for 12 bullets being fired. A person back peddling is no longer a threat.
Further, I requested YOUR definition of excessive force, not the grand jury decision. At what point to you believe police force becomes excessive? If you truly believe that every encounter requires cops to unload full clips into people, I would ask you to turn yourself in to a psychiatric ward immediately.
The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.
That might very well be the most reasonable action to take going forward, and maybe that should be incorporated into police training. As long as the officer's actions were in line with currently established procedures, that does not make his actions criminal.
The whole point of these cases is to determine where things went wrong. Obviously lots of shit went wrong, but without even a reprimand for excessive force how much change will ensue? None, and you know it! In other words, that statement is complete horse shit.
What? Not got any examples? Because the ones still being run are in India? Yep, thought so.
The examples are in the complaints that took YEARS to receive any action on. There is no reasonable or efficient mechanism for dealing with these companies in the US. How long were each of those companies listed in the order operating in the US? Some were operating for as long as a decade, so perhaps you should validate facts before attempting to claim that everything scam related is from overseas.
Researching a few facts is all that is required to demonstrate that your arguments are invalid.
Your straw man is not a very good one. If you read TFA you would have seen that _all_ of the companies in the decisions are US companies.
As part of the legal maneuver, the state of Florida joined the FTC in filing two separate cases against companies who allegedly sold the bogus software and the telemarketers who sold the unnecessary tech support services. In the first case, the defendants selling software include PC Cleaner Inc.; Netcom3 Global Inc.; Netcom3 Inc., also doing business as Netcom3 Software Inc.; and Cashier Myricks, Jr. The telemarketing defendants include Inbound Call Experts LLC; Advanced Tech Supportco. LLC; PC Vitalware LLC; Super PC Support LLC; Robert D. Deignan; Paul M. Herdsman; and Justin M. Wright.
In the second case, the defendants selling software include Boost Software Inc. and Amit Mehta, and the telemarketing defendants include Vast Tech Support LLC, also doing business as OMG Tech Help, OMG Total Protection, OMG Back Up, downloadsoftware.com, and softwaresupport.com; OMG Tech Help LLC; Success Capital LLC; Jon Paul Holdings LLC; Elliot Loewenstern; Jon-Paul Vasta; and Mark Donahue.
Then explain the justification for unloading a full clip into an unarmed suspect then. If you have no logic then you are just as guilty of emotional judgement as the person you accused of doing the same.
Build your case on reason and logic, and in no way should you come to the conclusion that this level of force was justified or justifiable. There were countless other actions for the cop to take which did not have to result in death of a suspect due to the officer unloading all 12 rounds from his weapon into an _unarmed_ man who was at least in retreat from the cop.
The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.
What constitutes excessive force in your mind? Ignore the Grand Jury's decision for this question, because we have ample evidence demonstrating that the system does not always work toward justice. You can see how many charges law enforcement agents have had to face, even after they brutally beat a homeless person to death on the street. This is one of at least several similar events where no charges were filed.
It is that question that has many people bothered about this event.
Buried under the racism and claims of execution and murder is a valid concern, which is that law enforcement has undergone a fundamental change in the last few decades which does not benefit society. The slogan of "Protect and Serve the Public" today is invalid, officers are placed above all members of the public and the statement "Officer Safety" has become a mantra justifying any and all actions the officer takes.
The take away we should be discussing is the question I proposed initially. The psychological profiling of potential law enforcement officers is a concern, the militarization of police forces is a concern.
I'm not a pacifist. If an armed suspect is threatening the public, the police have the right to shoot to kill. It's when suspects are not armed that we need to draw a firm line on the amount of force required versus the amount of force used. Unloading a full clip into an unarmed suspect from a vehicle goes beyond necessary force, especially in this case where bullets kept flying after the suspect was 15feet from the vehicle (from the evidence released to the public).
Further reading can be found pretty much anywhere, from cases of officers shooting dogs in yards to tossing flash bangs into the wrong house during an unannounced raid to serve a warrant.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke
http://www.sagepub.com/gabbido...
http://www.copwatch.org/databa...
I don't think they are keeping "hush" as claimed, I think the reality is quite different.
1. Drones are of limited value to the overwhelming majority of IT companies.
2. Drones have a negative stigma attached to them and generate bad PR and suspicions.
There are a couple companies that looked at floating WiFi for certain areas, and maybe they started thinking about the logistics and costs. Blimps are much cheaper than drones, reduced chances for hardware failure, etc...
I received an email from a moderator that they thought the messaging issue was fixed. Looks like it is now, as I'm starting to see responses from the last week pour in.
So lets see if they can answer why moderation seems to be borked as well..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Iceland
I'm sure you do, it's obvious that English is not your forte.
Sure, some records may contain what could be considered sensitive. Redacting IP addresses is not overly complex, but in this case may be time consuming. Considering that the Government has tons of super computers why not let one of these systems parse and redact the text.
Just deleting makes things appear bad, even if they are not.
This trend started last week when the system went into off line mode for several hours, so has little on the surface in common with long timers leaving.
I have not seen very much moderated for myself, which is fine for the most part but I'm seeing a trend. Has the moderation system been killed and we have no notification that the system is dead? Here is some evidence. Yeah, you have some explaining to do!
3 moderated posts 2 funny 1 insightful.
0 moderated posts.
2 moderated posts 1 insightful 1 interesting.
0 moderated posts.
1 moderated post 1 insightful
No, this is not about me it's about concern for a system that has been repeatedly fucked with at the expense of the members.
What you said, but also they should be honest. If they are giving .5% of "profits" to charity the wording in TFA could have reflected this more accurately than the implication that all profit is going to the foundation as the wording attempted to imply.
Reread the post you responded to, in particular "If you actually care about AIDS, budget for the full retail price, get the best deal possible (maybe even not an iThingy), and donate the difference yourself. ". The complaint is the intentionally misleading wording, and pointing out a better way of helping if you really wanted to support the cause.
So much negativity and cynicism here. Would there be a similar /. backlash if, say, Ubuntu would do a similar effort this week?
Why yes, yes there would be similar backlash. Funny how you attempt to paint realism as "negativity and cynicism" prior to asking your question. This is called poisoning the well, shame on you!
The realism I'm referring to is that people are against the use of suffering as a propaganda tool. People are against the deception in advertising, such as "Apple To Donate Profit Portion" which is intentionally misleading in the headline and should read "Apple to donate a portion of profit". Save the excuse about writers and moderators not knowing what text they use/approve. The person that wrote the title is a professional writer, they know how words work.
If you think that everyone would automatically defend Ubuntu and it's owner Canonical you really don't pay much attention.