Nothing the Obama administration has done has been original or remarkable.
Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.
It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.
And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?
The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.
That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.
And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.
Of course they have a say! But what they're trying to say is it's not cool (it's "playing for the other team") to shop around for the best tool for the job because it might be bad for their future marketing efforts and PR.
... he probably also hopes that other countries around the world will consider buying and using products and services that originate in the EU. Just so long as people in the EU can't shop around. Like he hopes others will do, and wind up spending money in France. I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy." How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?
The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.
So when those two people are the SAME person, using the same equipment to acquire the exact same images - how does that work? You're saying that regulations should be applied not because of any material difference in skill, flight, equipment, or any circumstance other than motivation? You're actually cool with prior restraint based on thought crime? Really?
I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference
That's your reason? You're exhausted by the burden of your doubts? That's why you can't muster the energy to cite a single example of something you say history is full of, that would explain why two identical operators doing exactly the same things in the air and on the ground with identical equipment should be either let off the hook or subject to an enormous fine? If you were watching me twice fly exactly the same route, with the same procedures, the same care and the same equipment, and didn't know which of those two flights was for fun or for compensation, how would you (and I mean you, yourself) decide which of those two 10 minute flights over a farm field should result in my being fined $10,000 just for having done it, and which of the two identical flights was just fine with you? Would you flip a coin?
Regardless, it seems a little silly to speculate about whether I'd come away from your actual explanation with a different perspective when the only explanation you'll provide boils down to, "The government has its reasons, and they're good, and you wouldn't understand."
your failure to understand the reason
How about this: try actually mentioning the real reason. Saying that the FAA's reason for subjecting a kid flying his 3-pound plastic RC model to a $10,000 fine if he enters a prize-giving contest at his local AMA hobby club is that the feds consider his motivation to be much more dangerous than the motivations of a totally inexperienced, uninformed noob who just unpacked his first multi-rotor and makes exactly the same flight... but without your personal righteous condemnation because there's no prize involved... that doesn't cut it. Provide a rational explanation.
Saying, "Tust me, there are good reasons..." might work on people who respond well to patronizing platitudes, but it doesn't work with people who want to know what those reasons actually are. The FAA's recently published interpretation document outlines a policy position that is going to kill off a multi-billion dollar industry (unless you're a defense contractor) and the retailers and service providers who are engaged in commerce that involves testing, showing, and using RC models (unless of course the $10/hour-earning employees at your local hobby shop are going to look under their sofas for some spare change so they can spring for a commercial license, right?). The feds are doing their best to chase innovation out of the country (sorry, all you engineers who want to work for companies developing and employing this technology - you can't actually touch it, try it, or work to improve it in the field unless you walk away from your hard-won profession and work instead to become a licensed commercial pilot!). But of course, all you engineers... you can go out on your lunch break and fly exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same way, and FlyHelicopters is OK with that, because your motivations are pure if you fly while you're chewing your ham sandwich.
But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.
How did you sustain employment in that industry without being able to articulate something as central to your entire position on this as... what it is that th
I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...
They've come right out and said that things like any use of hobby RC aircraft by people who are in any way compensated during their use would bring fines. They've already sent out Cease & Desist letters to one-man operations doing things like photographing farms out in the middle of nowhere - what makes you think they'll ignore businesses that sell lots of hardware and have multiple employees? If you think they put a lot of effort into the Pirker case, imagine how happy they'll be to go after people who (unlike Pirker) actually live in the US and have real money in the bank. And no, they haven't dropped (or lost) that case. They've appealed it up the food chain from that administrative judge's finding, to the full NTSB panel - and it's the NTSB that also just said they're leaning towards outright banning of this stuff.
History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.
If history is full of examples that show how the same pilot operating the same quad copter twice in the same hour, making the same exact flight in the same exact place using the same exact equipment is suddenly less safe when an exact repeat performance is compensated, then I'm sure you can provide an example. Or, you can just say why YOU think that operators second flight is more dangerous than his first one. Really - assume I'm just dumb, and can't guess at which step of the second flight the danger increases. Why not just tell me, instead of making me guess, or comb through all of history for an example? Because I can't think of what action the operator is taking in the second flight that is less safe than the first. Or, more likely in terms of your view, what is it about that first flight that is more safe? Which extra safety precautions is the operator taking when he's flying his same exact equipment for fun? Please, be specific about that exact scenario.
You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case.
No, I think a lot of the push back is from small businesses - specially, old-school AP operators who have taken on the overhead of operating commercial full-scale, team-based rigs in order to do things that can now be done for some uses with a $500 piece of equipment carrying a $300 camera, flying lower and more safely than full-scale operators can. The FAA has come right out and said that some of their choices to shut down certain RCAP operators came as a result of competing full-scale operators finding web sites for RC-based competition, and writing to the FAA to get them shut down. Shocking, no doubt.
But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really. We both operate equipment in the real world. Explain it in real world terms, not in vague "because the government says so" terms.
First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.
Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same. They make no distinction between a hobbyist's 4-pounder and a much larger machine. This is why large organizations populated by mostly hobbyists are currently freaking out - because the FAA is gearing up to ban their events, meets, contests, etc. It's not about "drone"-ness, it's about "it flies in the air, period." Other government entities, like the Department of the Interior and all of their sub-departments, also lump them together. That's why you're no longer allowed to operate ANY sort of RC device on any of the millions of acres, ten thousand miles of coastline and river boundaries, etc., that fall under the administration of that agency. They don't care if you're getting paid or if you have a camera or downlink - it's just about whether you're flying something by remote control, period. The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot, or prevent hundreds of decades-old model clubs from ever again holding contests where you might, say, win a free radio. No professionals will be allowed to demonstrate new products at events, no kids will be allowed to be sponsored as they fly RC. Why? Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.
If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.
No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce. Flying over your own soybean field to look for dry spots is using an RC aircraft to help your farm business. You now owe $10,000 or worse. But if your friend asks if he can fly the exact same device in exactly the same way, and wants to use your bean field as a place to goof around - that's OK. And you're saying that's OK because the hobby guy has "more skin in the game" than the farmer does? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.
So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer? Or better yet, what about ONE guy who flies a lap around a stock pond just for fun (hey, it's a hobby!), and then ten minutes later makes exactly the same flight while allowing the pond's owner to look over his shoulder at a high-def downlink display so he can see where the algae is blooming and pay $15 for that useful information - the EXACT SAME GUY FLYING THE EXACT SAME RIG MINUTES LATER - that that guy should be free and clear at 12:15 PM, but at 12:25, when the farmer is looking over his shoulder with a $20 bill in hand, he should be subject to a $10,000 fine? Yes or no, please. The FAA has already said yes - that the 12:25 flight is more dangerous and should be subject to life-altering financial damages, while the 12:15 flight is just fine, and that's because the 12:25 flight is inherently more risky because... well, they never actually explain that part, because they can't.
They won't say what differentiates those two flights - in terms of equipment, practices, safety, risk, experience, or anything else - but perhaps you have the secret knowledge. When does the 12:25 risk begin? As the operator checks the props?
I totally agree with you that the presence of a camera recording locally for later viewing has no bearing on the license. If that was the parent's intent he's misguided.
Why should it matter if the camera's output can only be seen after the fact vs. live via downlink? The ability to frame the camera's shot in real time during the flight makes the flight more efficient, shorter, and safer. A live video downlink provides the operator with telemetry that shows the orientation, movement, battery health, GPS status, and other important information - all of which greatly improves the safety of the flight, whether it's for fun or for money. The with/without camera concept is an absurd distinction when it comes to separating a hobby flight from a commercial one.
You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.
Why? That's the issue here.
Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.
Which if them is doing the thing that the other is not, which is somehow making the flight riskier? Which of those two operators presents a risk to general aviation or a kid on the ground that the other does not? Specifically. Provide details that explain why one of them should have to spend huge amounts of money before making that exact same 50-foot flight over the soybeans, using exactly the same equipment in exactly the same way, that the other guy does not. You can't point out a difference in any single thing about how they operate or what they're using, or what the chances are of one of them making a bad judgement call or having equipment failure. Stipulate that everything is exactly the same except for one of them helping the farmer out with spotting dry spots in his field as an enjoyable favor, and the other one doing it for pizza money. I want to know how the physical presence of some twenty dollar bills in the one operator's pocket is suddenly causing his flight to be so much more dangerous than the empty-pocketed guy standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing. Again, please be specific.
But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
You're responding to the wrong person. I don't think that doing the equivalent of mowing someone's lawn for $10 (like millions of teenagers do for their neighbors every day, using dangerous gas-powered machines with spinning blades, no less!) should suddenly be pushing the guy who owns a 4-pound quad copter into a position where he's subject to a $10,000 fine from the FAA for not having a commercial pilot's license that it costs thousands of dollars to obtain, not even including medical exams, hundreds of hours of training, etc. Don't you see how absurd that is?
no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence
Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?
Consider, say, Harry Homeowner who is using his hobby drone (say, a 4-pound DJI Phantom) to fly 50' in the air to see if his house's gutters are clogged with leaves. He's line of site, he's flying hundreds of feet below any air space used by "real" aircraft, and he's just using his little flying robot like the fun tool it is. The fact that he's got a tiny camera onboard, looking at his own roof, makes that commercial use, and reason to have the FAA fine him for not having acquired an actual commercial pilot's license? Are you even listening to yourself?
And for that matter, how is the safety of the situation any different if he's doing that, and then Neighbor Bob says, "Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.
That will surely weed out most of the idiots
How? What mechanism do you have in mind that will stop somebody from throwing together $200 worth of parts and flying a nice little camera-carrying quadcopter anyway? The ONLY people you're looking to give trouble to are the ones who will already be informed, and operating with safety in mind. I suspect that your actual agenda is to preserve some piece of the AP market for yourself, at the expense of people willing to run a cheap little machine over a farmer's field or rooftop for pay.
But in practical terms, I'm more interested in your truly strange sense of what makes something suddenly commercial (carrying a camera? really? have you never used or even contemplated the use of a video downlink as a way to make the hobby more fun and more safe?), or why you think that people operating commercially aren't already doing so far more safely than somebody who just clicked "buy now" at Amazon because a little flying-drone-thing looks like fun to play with.
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lying. Wilson fired 12 times. Brown was hit 7 times. So Wilson missed 5 times, and some of those may have been fired toward Brown's back.
Except that the witnesses (who went to the police, quietly and in hopes of remaining anonymous out of concern about retribution by the kind of people who burn down businesses out of spite) who related the events in a way that - what a shock! - was completely consistent with the physical evidence ALL said that there was no point at which Wilson was shooting at Brown from behind. Rather, that he was yelling, loudly and repeatedly, to stop - and that he (Wilson) was backing away from the 6'-4", 290lb Brown who has NOT stopped when told, and was instead charging at him. So, yeah, the people who said he was shot in the back, and the people who said that Wilson was shooting from his cruiser window, and the people who said that Wilson stood over a kneeling, hands-up Brown "pumping bullets into him" - were, indeed, lying.
Considering how many witnesses were caught telling multiple, incompatible versions of their story for the grand jury, part of me wonders if someone actually did have a video but kept quiet.
They didn't need a video. They had abundant physical evidence that debunked the obvious BS that a bunch of the Get Me On The TV types were trying to sell. And then there's the number of witnesses who finally admitted they hadn't seen anything at all, and just told what they assumed (hoped?) had happened, or heard from somebody else.
There were a core of witnesses who said very similar things, and whose observations were right in line with the physical evidence. It's very telling that most of those witnesses wanted to be sure that their reports would be kept private, and out of the media. Gee, I wonder who they're scared of? Not the police - they went TO the police.
Most bizarre logic fart I've ever seen on an online forum in ages...
No, you're just not thinking about it. If something that currently doesn't cost you anything, and which does a job you need it to do, and which other people occasionally make better at no cost to you... suddenly becomes something into which you have to invest a lot of the finite hours you have available in your short life, then the cost to you of being involved with that hunk of software suddenly goes way, way up. In many cases, you can't even contribute a useful suggestion without doing a lot of homework that - as a simple user - you'd otherwise not have to do. Don't know about you, but time is the single most precious thing I know.
If, and I quote, he's 'always been "The Man" ' then how has he made something of himself?
Other than by a shrewd choice of parents, that is.
Well, I suppose it's possible that his parents played a roll in making sure he had the intellect and ambition necessary to be self employed since he was young. I've certainly met kids (and the associated parents) like that. Mostly it just has to do with not being lazy and resentful.
Well, simply. We've been without real liberties so long people can't respect them. Including you. If lasers are such a big problem stop flying in aircraft. Won't bother those of us flying drones safely. We won't blink an eye. Man I'm glad I bought my rig before you assholes signed yours AND MY rights away to have them banned. You live in a cowards state.
Reading comprehension. Try it.
It's not people "like me" (I have about $15,000 tied up in flying camera robots - you?) that will take rights away. It's people who run around saying that anything that might inconvenience them (like being told they can't fly their 15lb octo in the approach path of an airport) is having their liberty taken away in the context that that the "deserves neither" quote was originally made. People trot out that platitude without having any understanding of why it was first said. You're clearly in that group.
If lasers are a problem, stop flying? Really? So if I stand out side and shoot a rifle into targets around your driveway, you should just decide to give up driving a car because my liberty to sling lead anywhere and anytime I want to trumps your right to pass by without getting hit? Do you even listen to yourself?
Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.
So you're all for letting idiot kids shine lasers into cockpits, right? Even better, much bigger ones! In fact, they should be able to park their cars right at the edge of the runway, and use massive generator-powered lasers that can blind pilots from miles away. Why? Because out of context quote about liberty. I mean, if you give up your liberty to paint incoming aircraft cockpits with lasers, then you obviously want to live in a police state.
Without a long history of white police treating black people badly, a single incident would not have sparked such protests.
Without a wildly higher-than-average rate of violent crime among young black men in some areas, cops in those areas wouldn't be having to face every situation like another one in which they might get killed doing something simple like a traffic stop. And do you really think that there'd have been riots in Ferguson if the breathless media reports immediately in the wake of what happened had been reporting the observations of credible witnesses instead of the absurdly transparent lies of the criminal running buddy of the guy who had just assaulted the cop? But why did the crowds there, and social media, and some mainstream media outlets catch on fire with the obviously false narrative? Because the honest people who saw what happened were afraid of what would happen to them if they got caught telling the truth. Those witnesses weren't afraid of the cops (they went to the police as soon as they could do so quietly), they were afraid of people in their own neighborhoods.
What sparked violent protests was a bunch of deliberate BS that got trotted out in an attempt to gloss over what that 6'-4", 290 lb "sweet child" and his store robbing, warrant-out-for-him sidekick had just done. If he hadn't stood there in front of cameras and spouted a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense about Wilson shooting out the window of his cruiser, or chasing Brown down and shooting him in the back, or shooting while he was on his knees with his hands in the air and on and on about stuff that did not happen, don't you think that might have been a little different? If the people who live right there weren't so scared of guys just like him and Brown, don't you think the many witnesses who were standing right there and saw what actually happened might also have been on video, talking down the idiots? That would have been great. But they're scared - for their lives - of the very people that the cops also have to confront on a regular basis.
You're right, it's not a single incident. It's years and years of people growing absolutely terrified of the rudderless, violent young men in their own neighborhoods. And when the cameras role, those voices of reason are nowhere to be seen, because they don't want to be another statistic in the huge problem of black-on-black violence - numbers that completely dwarf even the most demonstrably real cases of some dumb cop (white or black... black cops kill black men, too, not that you'd know that from hearing the coverage) acting rashly.
They'd be fools to do so merely on the word of a clearly hostile outsider, and even if they believe you, the perceived risk from Ebola might still be smaller than the perceived risk from social isolation.
Luckily, they (say, a village family in rural Ghana) are equipped with essentially the same meat computer your are. They are perfectly able to perceive the fact that the neighbor is dying with blood pouring out of her body, just like tens of thousands of other people just have. They are able to perceive that the ultimate social isolation is having everyone you care about die. It's nice to see you're not one of those people who thinks that a farmer in Liberia, who deals with life and death every day as he tends to livestock or hunts, isn't somehow too dim-witted to grasp cause and effect when he has the basic facts. This is about social behavior DESPITE knowing the facts.
Culture has value
Unless it's what's just killed off everyone you know. Or look at places like Ferguson, MO, where culture just decided to burn down local shops in a tantrum over reality disagreeing with an instantly concocted bogus media mythology. Culture, like the culture of castigating your neighbors for daring to go get an education or acquiring a broader vocabulary - as seen in swaths of urban culture or patches of, say, Appalachia - is often destructive, the opposite of valuable. Pious political correctness, which employees poisonous moral equivalence in the name of assuaging misplaced guilt over the fact that some cultures actually work better than others, preserves and actually perpetuates that destructiveness.
Do you understand the average education levels in Africa? The average wage? The living conditions?
Yes, and the three countries in the worst shape (as it relates to the spread of Ebola) all have a miserable record of taking lots of external support that could be educating their people, bolstering their healthcare systems, and generally improving the lives of everyone in those countries. But because of cultural inertia and rampant corruption (you know, the people who feel entitled to skim the support cash/material personally and not do things like march out into the rougher parts of their own country to explain to the rural population that they're killing themselves with primitive rituals), those are places that can't shake off the problem.
Do you want to know who is a smug western douche? You are. "Africa" isn't a place you can talk about in sweeping terms like you just have. Your dim, uninformed vision of it as a single, monocultural place with a common level of education and sophistication is absurd (and incredibly condescending, Mr. Holier Than Thou). "The entire continent" isn't the same. Countries like Nigeria have seen cases in this outbreak, but have headed it off at the pass because the population, culture, and approach to things like this are very different there than they are in, say, Liberia.
I'll tell you what, you go to a Baptist church and tell them they need to give up a "ridiculous part of their culture". Or try it at a Mosque.
I have no trouble telling ANY group of superstitious people that what they think is ridiculous. Especially when they do things insist a capricious god is going to cure their kid's cancer, or kiss the bodies of Ebola victims, and then wander back to their own homes and, a couple of weeks later, wonder why their whole family is dying - despite a helpful aid worker risking her life to explain to them the basic facts of life and death. It's the 21st century. Billions and billions of dollars in aid flows into the countries most vulnerable to issues like this, and it gets squandered, diverted, or mis-applied because of toxic levels of corruption by comparatively educated people. They want to have a piece of that foreign aid action while also having the lazy inertia of backwards cultures that can't cope with this much human density. That sense of entitlement to both a primitive past and a piece of the largess of other countries that have moved on - it's unmistakable.
Quit being such an entitled white racist asshole with your critiques of their culture.
No, the entitled assholes are the ones who feel no reason to stop doing the very things that are spreading the disease. You're the one with the skin color obsession, everyone else is talking about what people actually do. Like laying hands on the corpse of someone who's just died of Ebola, while simultaneously asking the rest of the world to risk their lives and spend their money and time to come help... even as they refuse to stop their idiotic, suicidal customs. That is a sense of entitlement, and a ridiculous part of a culture that simply has to stop if they want to quit spreading that disease around.
So all of your fuss about having someone else do your work for you, challenging is just you looking for a meaningless fight?
I never said that there were no eyewitnesses
You just doubt that the grand jurors listened to eye witness testimony from the half dozen in question (out of the 60 witnesses they heard from) that actually told them what they needed to hear. Yes, they heard from LOTS of other witnesses who had anything from minor variations to outright debunked fabrications to share, but - as the prosecutor seeking charges against Wilson said - they heard from a consistent, corroborated core of media-averse African American witnesses who told the tale you don't want to hear.
Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range.
Why are you focusing on the known liars? What's the point? We all know that dozens of people reported pure BS in order to get attention or while grinding some I-hate-police axe or the like. I'm not mentioning those people because, just like the grand jury concluded, their testimony was anywhere from muddle-headed to outright fiction-for-malice's sake. You're the only one who cares what the liars had to say. But they're irrelevant. It's the physical evidence and the credible witnesses that it corroborates that count. And speaking of counting, you're still not finding it comfortable enough to count all fingers on one hand, and move on to the next hand? Really? Or should we just right back to your opening complaint, the implication of doubt and dismissal about their testimony because you hadn't bothered to read it?
That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.
A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.
You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.
I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?
And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing the Obama administration has done has been original or remarkable.
Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.
It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.
And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?
The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.
That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.
And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.
Of course they have a say! But what they're trying to say is it's not cool (it's "playing for the other team") to shop around for the best tool for the job because it might be bad for their future marketing efforts and PR.
... he probably also hopes that other countries around the world will consider buying and using products and services that originate in the EU. Just so long as people in the EU can't shop around. Like he hopes others will do, and wind up spending money in France. I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy." How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?
We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday
The motivations of the two people are different, and that often produces very different outcomes.
So when those two people are the SAME person, using the same equipment to acquire the exact same images - how does that work? You're saying that regulations should be applied not because of any material difference in skill, flight, equipment, or any circumstance other than motivation? You're actually cool with prior restraint based on thought crime? Really?
I highly doubt that anything I type here would make a difference
That's your reason? You're exhausted by the burden of your doubts? That's why you can't muster the energy to cite a single example of something you say history is full of, that would explain why two identical operators doing exactly the same things in the air and on the ground with identical equipment should be either let off the hook or subject to an enormous fine? If you were watching me twice fly exactly the same route, with the same procedures, the same care and the same equipment, and didn't know which of those two flights was for fun or for compensation, how would you (and I mean you, yourself) decide which of those two 10 minute flights over a farm field should result in my being fined $10,000 just for having done it, and which of the two identical flights was just fine with you? Would you flip a coin?
Regardless, it seems a little silly to speculate about whether I'd come away from your actual explanation with a different perspective when the only explanation you'll provide boils down to, "The government has its reasons, and they're good, and you wouldn't understand."
your failure to understand the reason
How about this: try actually mentioning the real reason. Saying that the FAA's reason for subjecting a kid flying his 3-pound plastic RC model to a $10,000 fine if he enters a prize-giving contest at his local AMA hobby club is that the feds consider his motivation to be much more dangerous than the motivations of a totally inexperienced, uninformed noob who just unpacked his first multi-rotor and makes exactly the same flight ... but without your personal righteous condemnation because there's no prize involved ... that doesn't cut it. Provide a rational explanation.
..." might work on people who respond well to patronizing platitudes, but it doesn't work with people who want to know what those reasons actually are. The FAA's recently published interpretation document outlines a policy position that is going to kill off a multi-billion dollar industry (unless you're a defense contractor) and the retailers and service providers who are engaged in commerce that involves testing, showing, and using RC models (unless of course the $10/hour-earning employees at your local hobby shop are going to look under their sofas for some spare change so they can spring for a commercial license, right?). The feds are doing their best to chase innovation out of the country (sorry, all you engineers who want to work for companies developing and employing this technology - you can't actually touch it, try it, or work to improve it in the field unless you walk away from your hard-won profession and work instead to become a licensed commercial pilot!). But of course, all you engineers... you can go out on your lunch break and fly exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same way, and FlyHelicopters is OK with that, because your motivations are pure if you fly while you're chewing your ham sandwich.
Saying, "Tust me, there are good reasons
But I do know from first hand experience, both working in the industry and being on the management side, that those rules are needed.
How did you sustain employment in that industry without being able to articulate something as central to your entire position on this as... what it is that th
I would disagree with your view of their position on that one... I don't see the FAA going that far...
They've come right out and said that things like any use of hobby RC aircraft by people who are in any way compensated during their use would bring fines. They've already sent out Cease & Desist letters to one-man operations doing things like photographing farms out in the middle of nowhere - what makes you think they'll ignore businesses that sell lots of hardware and have multiple employees? If you think they put a lot of effort into the Pirker case, imagine how happy they'll be to go after people who (unlike Pirker) actually live in the US and have real money in the bank. And no, they haven't dropped (or lost) that case. They've appealed it up the food chain from that administrative judge's finding, to the full NTSB panel - and it's the NTSB that also just said they're leaning towards outright banning of this stuff.
History has many examples of why they are not the same in terms of safety. You clearly don't want to hear that, and that's fine.
If history is full of examples that show how the same pilot operating the same quad copter twice in the same hour, making the same exact flight in the same exact place using the same exact equipment is suddenly less safe when an exact repeat performance is compensated, then I'm sure you can provide an example. Or, you can just say why YOU think that operators second flight is more dangerous than his first one. Really - assume I'm just dumb, and can't guess at which step of the second flight the danger increases. Why not just tell me, instead of making me guess, or comb through all of history for an example? Because I can't think of what action the operator is taking in the second flight that is less safe than the first. Or, more likely in terms of your view, what is it about that first flight that is more safe? Which extra safety precautions is the operator taking when he's flying his same exact equipment for fun? Please, be specific about that exact scenario.
You seem to believe these rules are put into place to protect big business, but that simply isn't the case.
No, I think a lot of the push back is from small businesses - specially, old-school AP operators who have taken on the overhead of operating commercial full-scale, team-based rigs in order to do things that can now be done for some uses with a $500 piece of equipment carrying a $300 camera, flying lower and more safely than full-scale operators can. The FAA has come right out and said that some of their choices to shut down certain RCAP operators came as a result of competing full-scale operators finding web sites for RC-based competition, and writing to the FAA to get them shut down. Shocking, no doubt.
... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really. We both operate equipment in the real world. Explain it in real world terms, not in vague "because the government says so" terms.
But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements
First, the thing is, that 4 pound quad might not be a drone, it might be a radio controlled aircraft, and it may not be subject to much regulation at all.
Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same. They make no distinction between a hobbyist's 4-pounder and a much larger machine. This is why large organizations populated by mostly hobbyists are currently freaking out - because the FAA is gearing up to ban their events, meets, contests, etc. It's not about "drone"-ness, it's about "it flies in the air, period." Other government entities, like the Department of the Interior and all of their sub-departments, also lump them together. That's why you're no longer allowed to operate ANY sort of RC device on any of the millions of acres, ten thousand miles of coastline and river boundaries, etc., that fall under the administration of that agency. They don't care if you're getting paid or if you have a camera or downlink - it's just about whether you're flying something by remote control, period. The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot, or prevent hundreds of decades-old model clubs from ever again holding contests where you might, say, win a free radio. No professionals will be allowed to demonstrate new products at events, no kids will be allowed to be sponsored as they fly RC. Why? Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.
If you go out and buy your own aircraft and take pictures of your own field, the idea is that you have enough skin in the game to be willing to assess the risks and should have enough knowledge to be able to do so.
No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce. Flying over your own soybean field to look for dry spots is using an RC aircraft to help your farm business. You now owe $10,000 or worse. But if your friend asks if he can fly the exact same device in exactly the same way, and wants to use your bean field as a place to goof around - that's OK. And you're saying that's OK because the hobby guy has "more skin in the game" than the farmer does? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
If it is your own aircraft and you're flying it, hopefully you have enough personally invested that you care that you're safe.
So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer? Or better yet, what about ONE guy who flies a lap around a stock pond just for fun (hey, it's a hobby!), and then ten minutes later makes exactly the same flight while allowing the pond's owner to look over his shoulder at a high-def downlink display so he can see where the algae is blooming and pay $15 for that useful information - the EXACT SAME GUY FLYING THE EXACT SAME RIG MINUTES LATER - that that guy should be free and clear at 12:15 PM, but at 12:25, when the farmer is looking over his shoulder with a $20 bill in hand, he should be subject to a $10,000 fine? Yes or no, please. The FAA has already said yes - that the 12:25 flight is more dangerous and should be subject to life-altering financial damages, while the 12:15 flight is just fine, and that's because the 12:25 flight is inherently more risky because ... well, they never actually explain that part, because they can't.
They won't say what differentiates those two flights - in terms of equipment, practices, safety, risk, experience, or anything else - but perhaps you have the secret knowledge. When does the 12:25 risk begin? As the operator checks the props?
I totally agree with you that the presence of a camera recording locally for later viewing has no bearing on the license. If that was the parent's intent he's misguided .
Why should it matter if the camera's output can only be seen after the fact vs. live via downlink? The ability to frame the camera's shot in real time during the flight makes the flight more efficient, shorter, and safer. A live video downlink provides the operator with telemetry that shows the orientation, movement, battery health, GPS status, and other important information - all of which greatly improves the safety of the flight, whether it's for fun or for money. The with/without camera concept is an absurd distinction when it comes to separating a hobby flight from a commercial one.
You just can't get paid by someone else to do it for them.
Why? That's the issue here.
Picture two guys with their 4-pound quads, standing at the edge of a soybean field. Exactly the same equipment, exactly the same experience, exactly the same safety precautions, and about the fly the exact same route 50 feet off the ground with a GoPro looking down at the field. They'll each be in the air for under 10 minutes. One guy is doing it for fun, and the other guy, doing exactly the same thing is doing it for $100.
Which if them is doing the thing that the other is not, which is somehow making the flight riskier? Which of those two operators presents a risk to general aviation or a kid on the ground that the other does not? Specifically. Provide details that explain why one of them should have to spend huge amounts of money before making that exact same 50-foot flight over the soybeans, using exactly the same equipment in exactly the same way, that the other guy does not. You can't point out a difference in any single thing about how they operate or what they're using, or what the chances are of one of them making a bad judgement call or having equipment failure. Stipulate that everything is exactly the same except for one of them helping the farmer out with spotting dry spots in his field as an enjoyable favor, and the other one doing it for pizza money. I want to know how the physical presence of some twenty dollar bills in the one operator's pocket is suddenly causing his flight to be so much more dangerous than the empty-pocketed guy standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing. Again, please be specific.
But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
You're responding to the wrong person. I don't think that doing the equivalent of mowing someone's lawn for $10 (like millions of teenagers do for their neighbors every day, using dangerous gas-powered machines with spinning blades, no less!) should suddenly be pushing the guy who owns a 4-pound quad copter into a position where he's subject to a $10,000 fine from the FAA for not having a commercial pilot's license that it costs thousands of dollars to obtain, not even including medical exams, hundreds of hours of training, etc. Don't you see how absurd that is?
no cameras, that instantly puts it into a commercial licence
Why would a hobbyist using a GoPro to take some landscape pictures from 100' in the air be instantly considered - by you - to be a commercial operator?
Consider, say, Harry Homeowner who is using his hobby drone (say, a 4-pound DJI Phantom) to fly 50' in the air to see if his house's gutters are clogged with leaves. He's line of site, he's flying hundreds of feet below any air space used by "real" aircraft, and he's just using his little flying robot like the fun tool it is. The fact that he's got a tiny camera onboard, looking at his own roof, makes that commercial use, and reason to have the FAA fine him for not having acquired an actual commercial pilot's license? Are you even listening to yourself?
And for that matter, how is the safety of the situation any different if he's doing that, and then Neighbor Bob says, "Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.
That will surely weed out most of the idiots
How? What mechanism do you have in mind that will stop somebody from throwing together $200 worth of parts and flying a nice little camera-carrying quadcopter anyway? The ONLY people you're looking to give trouble to are the ones who will already be informed, and operating with safety in mind. I suspect that your actual agenda is to preserve some piece of the AP market for yourself, at the expense of people willing to run a cheap little machine over a farmer's field or rooftop for pay.
But in practical terms, I'm more interested in your truly strange sense of what makes something suddenly commercial (carrying a camera? really? have you never used or even contemplated the use of a video downlink as a way to make the hobby more fun and more safe?), or why you think that people operating commercially aren't already doing so far more safely than somebody who just clicked "buy now" at Amazon because a little flying-drone-thing looks like fun to play with.
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lying. Wilson fired 12 times. Brown was hit 7 times. So Wilson missed 5 times, and some of those may have been fired toward Brown's back.
Except that the witnesses (who went to the police, quietly and in hopes of remaining anonymous out of concern about retribution by the kind of people who burn down businesses out of spite) who related the events in a way that - what a shock! - was completely consistent with the physical evidence ALL said that there was no point at which Wilson was shooting at Brown from behind. Rather, that he was yelling, loudly and repeatedly, to stop - and that he (Wilson) was backing away from the 6'-4", 290lb Brown who has NOT stopped when told, and was instead charging at him. So, yeah, the people who said he was shot in the back, and the people who said that Wilson was shooting from his cruiser window, and the people who said that Wilson stood over a kneeling, hands-up Brown "pumping bullets into him" - were, indeed, lying.
Considering how many witnesses were caught telling multiple, incompatible versions of their story for the grand jury, part of me wonders if someone actually did have a video but kept quiet.
They didn't need a video. They had abundant physical evidence that debunked the obvious BS that a bunch of the Get Me On The TV types were trying to sell. And then there's the number of witnesses who finally admitted they hadn't seen anything at all, and just told what they assumed (hoped?) had happened, or heard from somebody else.
There were a core of witnesses who said very similar things, and whose observations were right in line with the physical evidence. It's very telling that most of those witnesses wanted to be sure that their reports would be kept private, and out of the media. Gee, I wonder who they're scared of? Not the police - they went TO the police.
Most bizarre logic fart I've ever seen on an online forum in ages ...
No, you're just not thinking about it. If something that currently doesn't cost you anything, and which does a job you need it to do, and which other people occasionally make better at no cost to you ... suddenly becomes something into which you have to invest a lot of the finite hours you have available in your short life, then the cost to you of being involved with that hunk of software suddenly goes way, way up. In many cases, you can't even contribute a useful suggestion without doing a lot of homework that - as a simple user - you'd otherwise not have to do. Don't know about you, but time is the single most precious thing I know.
If, and I quote, he's 'always been "The Man" ' then how has he made something of himself?
Other than by a shrewd choice of parents, that is.
Well, I suppose it's possible that his parents played a roll in making sure he had the intellect and ambition necessary to be self employed since he was young. I've certainly met kids (and the associated parents) like that. Mostly it just has to do with not being lazy and resentful.
Well, let's now hope that is sooner than later, you PoS
Ah, nothing like someone who sees the entire world in terms of how much he hates the people who make something of themselves.
Well, simply. We've been without real liberties so long people can't respect them. Including you. If lasers are such a big problem stop flying in aircraft. Won't bother those of us flying drones safely. We won't blink an eye. Man I'm glad I bought my rig before you assholes signed yours AND MY rights away to have them banned. You live in a cowards state.
Reading comprehension. Try it.
It's not people "like me" (I have about $15,000 tied up in flying camera robots - you?) that will take rights away. It's people who run around saying that anything that might inconvenience them (like being told they can't fly their 15lb octo in the approach path of an airport) is having their liberty taken away in the context that that the "deserves neither" quote was originally made. People trot out that platitude without having any understanding of why it was first said. You're clearly in that group.
If lasers are a problem, stop flying? Really? So if I stand out side and shoot a rifle into targets around your driveway, you should just decide to give up driving a car because my liberty to sling lead anywhere and anytime I want to trumps your right to pass by without getting hit? Do you even listen to yourself?
Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.
So you're all for letting idiot kids shine lasers into cockpits, right? Even better, much bigger ones! In fact, they should be able to park their cars right at the edge of the runway, and use massive generator-powered lasers that can blind pilots from miles away. Why? Because out of context quote about liberty. I mean, if you give up your liberty to paint incoming aircraft cockpits with lasers, then you obviously want to live in a police state.
Without a long history of white police treating black people badly, a single incident would not have sparked such protests.
Without a wildly higher-than-average rate of violent crime among young black men in some areas, cops in those areas wouldn't be having to face every situation like another one in which they might get killed doing something simple like a traffic stop. And do you really think that there'd have been riots in Ferguson if the breathless media reports immediately in the wake of what happened had been reporting the observations of credible witnesses instead of the absurdly transparent lies of the criminal running buddy of the guy who had just assaulted the cop? But why did the crowds there, and social media, and some mainstream media outlets catch on fire with the obviously false narrative? Because the honest people who saw what happened were afraid of what would happen to them if they got caught telling the truth. Those witnesses weren't afraid of the cops (they went to the police as soon as they could do so quietly), they were afraid of people in their own neighborhoods.
... black cops kill black men, too, not that you'd know that from hearing the coverage) acting rashly.
What sparked violent protests was a bunch of deliberate BS that got trotted out in an attempt to gloss over what that 6'-4", 290 lb "sweet child" and his store robbing, warrant-out-for-him sidekick had just done. If he hadn't stood there in front of cameras and spouted a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense about Wilson shooting out the window of his cruiser, or chasing Brown down and shooting him in the back, or shooting while he was on his knees with his hands in the air and on and on about stuff that did not happen, don't you think that might have been a little different? If the people who live right there weren't so scared of guys just like him and Brown, don't you think the many witnesses who were standing right there and saw what actually happened might also have been on video, talking down the idiots? That would have been great. But they're scared - for their lives - of the very people that the cops also have to confront on a regular basis.
You're right, it's not a single incident. It's years and years of people growing absolutely terrified of the rudderless, violent young men in their own neighborhoods. And when the cameras role, those voices of reason are nowhere to be seen, because they don't want to be another statistic in the huge problem of black-on-black violence - numbers that completely dwarf even the most demonstrably real cases of some dumb cop (white or black
They'd be fools to do so merely on the word of a clearly hostile outsider, and even if they believe you, the perceived risk from Ebola might still be smaller than the perceived risk from social isolation.
Luckily, they (say, a village family in rural Ghana) are equipped with essentially the same meat computer your are. They are perfectly able to perceive the fact that the neighbor is dying with blood pouring out of her body, just like tens of thousands of other people just have. They are able to perceive that the ultimate social isolation is having everyone you care about die. It's nice to see you're not one of those people who thinks that a farmer in Liberia, who deals with life and death every day as he tends to livestock or hunts, isn't somehow too dim-witted to grasp cause and effect when he has the basic facts. This is about social behavior DESPITE knowing the facts.
Culture has value
Unless it's what's just killed off everyone you know. Or look at places like Ferguson, MO, where culture just decided to burn down local shops in a tantrum over reality disagreeing with an instantly concocted bogus media mythology. Culture, like the culture of castigating your neighbors for daring to go get an education or acquiring a broader vocabulary - as seen in swaths of urban culture or patches of, say, Appalachia - is often destructive, the opposite of valuable. Pious political correctness, which employees poisonous moral equivalence in the name of assuaging misplaced guilt over the fact that some cultures actually work better than others, preserves and actually perpetuates that destructiveness.
Do you understand the average education levels in Africa? The average wage? The living conditions?
Yes, and the three countries in the worst shape (as it relates to the spread of Ebola) all have a miserable record of taking lots of external support that could be educating their people, bolstering their healthcare systems, and generally improving the lives of everyone in those countries. But because of cultural inertia and rampant corruption (you know, the people who feel entitled to skim the support cash/material personally and not do things like march out into the rougher parts of their own country to explain to the rural population that they're killing themselves with primitive rituals), those are places that can't shake off the problem.
Do you want to know who is a smug western douche? You are. "Africa" isn't a place you can talk about in sweeping terms like you just have. Your dim, uninformed vision of it as a single, monocultural place with a common level of education and sophistication is absurd (and incredibly condescending, Mr. Holier Than Thou). "The entire continent" isn't the same. Countries like Nigeria have seen cases in this outbreak, but have headed it off at the pass because the population, culture, and approach to things like this are very different there than they are in, say, Liberia.
I'll tell you what, you go to a Baptist church and tell them they need to give up a "ridiculous part of their culture". Or try it at a Mosque.
I have no trouble telling ANY group of superstitious people that what they think is ridiculous. Especially when they do things insist a capricious god is going to cure their kid's cancer, or kiss the bodies of Ebola victims, and then wander back to their own homes and, a couple of weeks later, wonder why their whole family is dying - despite a helpful aid worker risking her life to explain to them the basic facts of life and death. It's the 21st century. Billions and billions of dollars in aid flows into the countries most vulnerable to issues like this, and it gets squandered, diverted, or mis-applied because of toxic levels of corruption by comparatively educated people. They want to have a piece of that foreign aid action while also having the lazy inertia of backwards cultures that can't cope with this much human density. That sense of entitlement to both a primitive past and a piece of the largess of other countries that have moved on - it's unmistakable.
Quit being such an entitled white racist asshole with your critiques of their culture.
No, the entitled assholes are the ones who feel no reason to stop doing the very things that are spreading the disease. You're the one with the skin color obsession, everyone else is talking about what people actually do. Like laying hands on the corpse of someone who's just died of Ebola, while simultaneously asking the rest of the world to risk their lives and spend their money and time to come help ... even as they refuse to stop their idiotic, suicidal customs. That is a sense of entitlement, and a ridiculous part of a culture that simply has to stop if they want to quit spreading that disease around.
I never said that there were no eyewitnesses
You just doubt that the grand jurors listened to eye witness testimony from the half dozen in question (out of the 60 witnesses they heard from) that actually told them what they needed to hear. Yes, they heard from LOTS of other witnesses who had anything from minor variations to outright debunked fabrications to share, but - as the prosecutor seeking charges against Wilson said - they heard from a consistent, corroborated core of media-averse African American witnesses who told the tale you don't want to hear.
Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range.
Why are you focusing on the known liars? What's the point? We all know that dozens of people reported pure BS in order to get attention or while grinding some I-hate-police axe or the like. I'm not mentioning those people because, just like the grand jury concluded, their testimony was anywhere from muddle-headed to outright fiction-for-malice's sake. You're the only one who cares what the liars had to say. But they're irrelevant. It's the physical evidence and the credible witnesses that it corroborates that count. And speaking of counting, you're still not finding it comfortable enough to count all fingers on one hand, and move on to the next hand? Really? Or should we just right back to your opening complaint, the implication of doubt and dismissal about their testimony because you hadn't bothered to read it?
That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.
A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.
You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.
I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?
And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?