And drones in general is that you can kill a man without risking an Officer's life It sounds fucked up when i day it like that, but the whole situation's foobared. I mean, when it's this easy to take out a perp why wouldn't you?
You're right. When you've got a guy who's just slaughtered a bunch of people remains armed, claims to have explosives, and is swearing he'll kill more people - it's only appropriate to have the police go in with nightsticks, or perhaps sabers. Because it's only a fair bust if there's a good chance the person stopping the murderer will get killed in the attempt, right? Are you even listening to yourself?
They effectively used a suicide bomber with an IED to get the job done.
Something that we, as America, have a tendency to denounce whenever it's used against us.
Who exactly killed themselves to stop this murderer? Please elaborate.
Saying that using a tool to deliver deadly force to stop an armed mass murderer who claims he has multiple explosives and a desire to kill more people is the equivalent of sending some poor school girl strapped with explosives into a vegetable market to slaughter people is preposterous. Is the bullet used when a police officer shoots a hostage-threatening bank robber a piece of "suicide lead" with the moral equivalence of a road side bomb, as far as you're concerned?
Analogies can be very useful, rhetorically. Yours is absurd.
We've had standoffs last weeks when it involves private militia.
If, for example, the handful of guys having their annoying camp-out/sit-in at an empty park structure (the sort of "standoff" you're referring to) had been holed up there having just shot up a bunch of people and threatening to use multiple explosives in a dense urban area, you'd have seen exactly the same response: no screwing around.
Other than to the public he'd been deliberately endangering (including the civilians he shot), and his assertion that he'd planted multiple bombs, and the fact he was in possession of an unknown amount of ammo.
Great, and that was determined by a jury of his peers?
No, that was determined by his visible actions, and by his ongoing spoken statements. There is no warrant required to use force to stop someone who is in the middle of a killing spree. That you would so deliberately pretend you don't understand that is baffling. Who did you think you were kidding with the fake umbrage?
No, the idiom is "I couldn't care less." The GP deliberate wrote the opposite of that, twice.
The English language is not a static language defined by pedants.
So the English language's concept of "not" has changed into "is" along the way? So if someone asks you, "Do you want fries with that," you say, "I do not want fries with that," in order to make sure you get your fries?
I'm addressing the GP's comment about this communication happening "up front." Why would you want to hire an artist to create something for you when you and the artist disagree about why the work is being created? Should a black baker be forced to make a beautiful cake for the local KKK chapter? If not, why not?
No, he wasn't waving a gun around when they pulled up. He had been doing that to OTHER people, which is why they were called to the scene - because the guy was being threatening, dangerous, reckless. And he then went about refusing their commands and fought with them. A huge guy, known well to police for his violent crimes, with every reason to believe (accurately, as expected) he was armed, withstanding their attempts to use non-lethal means (multiple taser hits) to get him to back down, and fighting with them as they tried to restrain him. He wasn't "laying on the ground," - just advance through the video frame by frame.
Of course you know all of this. And if that same guy was waving a gun around in front of your place of business, you'd ALSO call the cops and be glad they were willing to roll up and risk their lives as they do every single day.
Actually, a second is considered long enough for 'pre-meditation'.
Citation, and actual examples of any judge or jury ever convicting on 1st on that basis, needed.
Regardless, cops showing up to a complaint of a 6'-4" 300 pound guy threatening people and waving a gun around, and having it go south when he won't simply do what they say, and then when he's combative, being unable to alter his behavior with multiple taser hits, and then having him wrestling on the ground with his hands still free while you know he's got a gun... I'd like to see you be in that position (one of the cop's) and thinking that shutting down his fight while he's armed was anything approaching premeditated murder. It's called self defense.
The police shot a man that was in no position to fight back.
No, they used force to stop a 6'-4", 300 pound guy that WAS fighting back, and who they did not have under control. And they knew he had a gun. They showed up there BECAUSE he had been threatening people and waving a gun around, and they had to get physical with him because he was fired up and refused to do what they said, they couldn't taze him into submission, and he was fighting with them. While armed. You don't actually know what the word "murder" means.
If you, a 6'-4" 300lb career criminal, refuse to cooperate with the police who show up to deal with a call about you threatening people and waving a gun around, don't chill out after two taser hits, and then when they've got you on the ground knowing you have a gun on you, you manage to keep them from controlling your hands while you wrestle with them and start to shrug them off... them using force to make that immediate threat end is not "punishment," it's self defense. He was fighting with them because he didn't want to submit, once again, to the legal system for more of the actual punishment he'd earned multiple times for his previous crimes.
The baker should tell me upfront that he or she won't bake cakes for my big fat gay wedding.
But that's exactly what happens. Person comes in and says, "I want you to create something beautiful to celebrate something you don't support." And the baker says, up front and before any money changes hands or delivery expectations are set, "No, that's not my kind of thing, sorry!"
I haven't heard of a single case of a baker saying they'd do business with the prospective customer, allowing that person to think they've made arrangements for a delivery of a product or service, and then have the vendor surprise them LATER with, "Oh, didn't I mention I can't provide food to non-Kosher/gay/atheist/whatever meal-related events."
For the vast majority of cops, any danger on the job only comes from the fact that they're sedentary and spend a lot of time in traffic.
Yup, because if they ate more protein, less carbs, and worked out more, they'd definitely be faster than a bullet. Or able to withstand being crushed by a car. If cops weren't so lazy, they'd be immortal, and that would mean that people who try to kill them would be fine and should be left to do whatever they want. Thanks for the insight! I wonder if you personally could stand, say, one week of dealing with dangerous drivers and insane domestic violence - just those two specialties. Would you be comfortable walking up to dark cars in the middle of the night, after running tags and finding outstanding warrants or a laundry list of known gang affiliates associated with the car's owner? No? Why not?
How about we stop having panicky gunmen micromanage everyone's driving?
OK. Will you personally stop the people who shoot cops in the face when they're pulled over for having invalid tags, and for driving drunk or recklessly? You've got that all under control so that the police dealing with assholes all day long for a living won't have a single concern about getting killed because someone's driving on a highway at night with no lights on?
Thanks for stepping up and preventing all of those assaults and murders. The cops will be hugely relieved that their lives are no longer at risk when they walk up to a car having no idea what they're about to encounter. You're a hero! Appreciate that.
So somehow Facebook is causing other web sites to charge for content and access? This is Facebook's "intentional" result of providing their service for free? Are you even listening to yourself?
The liberal media collapsed in the USA a while back
Hilarious. It's always funny to hear people say that, when what they mean is, "One cable news channel has dared to court an audience that doesn't swoon over the prevailing liberal media bias found in every other outlet, and has an audience." This makes liberals crazy, and instead of wondering why some people may not be blindly devoted to, say, MSNBC, they just throw out this "there is no liberal media any more, boo hoo" sophistry, as if anyone would fall for that.
So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?
In a free market system consumers are supposed to discuss and judge products and the companies that make them, that's not a bug, that's one of the basic mechanisms that makes free markets work.
Except you know that's not how this goes. This turns into people talking about what someone running a web site should allowed or forced to do. The headline itself is already into irrational territory on this.
I always love it when people who shill for Hillary go right for the lazy ad hominem and COMPLETELY avoid acknowledging that they like to be lied to, non-stop, by the person they're working to elect. It's a curious thing, to smile and cheer for a person that's looking you in the eye and lying, and both of you know it. What a strange relationship. Combine that with your homophobia, and it's just another perplexing liberal set of self-contradictory nonsense, as usual. Thanks for displaying it again - always informative!
Why should I support the prosecution of people who haven't done anything wrong? Do you understand how strange your standards are, all so you can distract from the serial lying and recklessness of the candidate you're working for?
Your strange cognitive problem in insisting that others must fabricate fictional crimes in order to exploit a "path" that you've provided them to (what, exactly?) getting you to admit that your candidate has just been shown (AGAIN) that she's lying to you... very peculiar. You won't admit she's a liar, but you insist that other people tell lies in order to confront reality yourself. Very strange.
Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s?
Man, how often HAVE you been killed in airplane crashes, anyway?
Such deaths are very rare, considering. If we put even a fraction of the level of effort discussed into, say, removing just 10% of the in-hospital deaths caused by medical mistakes, that would save thousands and thousands more lives every year. Not that the two areas are mutually exclusive - it's just that death in airliner crashes remain vanishingly rare. And considering how many of those are the result of crazy/religious wackadoos deliberately killing those onboard, it's not clear how making the passengers ride in pods would actually solve that part of the problem anyway.
No, NOT 'nonsense', bringing an indictment against her NOW would be MORE tampering with the election than if you waited until AFTER the election and you damned well know that.
No, bringing an indictment is the UNTAMPERING with an election that Clinton has tampered with by spending the last year and a half lying about in a grand display of tampering. She lied, over and over again, specifically to preserve her political viability for this campaign. She was a fool, thinking nobody would notice, but correcting her lies isn't tampering - it's setting things straight. The ONLY person on the hook for the timing is her. And it's still plenty early in the election cycle for her to step down, as she should, after this massive display of dishonesty before her own supporters.
Hey, look! An anonymous coward will talk about ANYTHING except the subject matter! Look over there! He's pretending to be upset about someone pointing out his callow rhetorical laziness, again in order to avoid addressing the actual evidence of his employer's reckless security behavior and public display of repeatedly lying about it. Quick! Talk about the person mentioning the facts! Anything to change the subject away from Hillary Clinton! We don't want to anger her if she becomes aware that one of her forum shills is too lazy to work off of her talking points.
Slashdot Mirror
And drones in general is that you can kill a man without risking an Officer's life It sounds fucked up when i day it like that, but the whole situation's foobared. I mean, when it's this easy to take out a perp why wouldn't you?
You're right. When you've got a guy who's just slaughtered a bunch of people remains armed, claims to have explosives, and is swearing he'll kill more people - it's only appropriate to have the police go in with nightsticks, or perhaps sabers. Because it's only a fair bust if there's a good chance the person stopping the murderer will get killed in the attempt, right? Are you even listening to yourself?
They effectively used a suicide bomber with an IED to get the job done.
Something that we, as America, have a tendency to denounce whenever it's used against us.
Who exactly killed themselves to stop this murderer? Please elaborate.
Saying that using a tool to deliver deadly force to stop an armed mass murderer who claims he has multiple explosives and a desire to kill more people is the equivalent of sending some poor school girl strapped with explosives into a vegetable market to slaughter people is preposterous. Is the bullet used when a police officer shoots a hostage-threatening bank robber a piece of "suicide lead" with the moral equivalence of a road side bomb, as far as you're concerned?
Analogies can be very useful, rhetorically. Yours is absurd.
We've had standoffs last weeks when it involves private militia.
If, for example, the handful of guys having their annoying camp-out/sit-in at an empty park structure (the sort of "standoff" you're referring to) had been holed up there having just shot up a bunch of people and threatening to use multiple explosives in a dense urban area, you'd have seen exactly the same response: no screwing around.
He was no danger to the public
Other than to the public he'd been deliberately endangering (including the civilians he shot), and his assertion that he'd planted multiple bombs, and the fact he was in possession of an unknown amount of ammo.
Your fanboyism for this murderer is pretty ugly.
Great, and that was determined by a jury of his peers?
No, that was determined by his visible actions, and by his ongoing spoken statements. There is no warrant required to use force to stop someone who is in the middle of a killing spree. That you would so deliberately pretend you don't understand that is baffling. Who did you think you were kidding with the fake umbrage?
It's an idiom which means they don't care at all
No, the idiom is "I couldn't care less." The GP deliberate wrote the opposite of that, twice.
The English language is not a static language defined by pedants.
So the English language's concept of "not" has changed into "is" along the way? So if someone asks you, "Do you want fries with that," you say, "I do not want fries with that," in order to make sure you get your fries?
I'm addressing the GP's comment about this communication happening "up front." Why would you want to hire an artist to create something for you when you and the artist disagree about why the work is being created? Should a black baker be forced to make a beautiful cake for the local KKK chapter? If not, why not?
No, he wasn't waving a gun around when they pulled up. He had been doing that to OTHER people, which is why they were called to the scene - because the guy was being threatening, dangerous, reckless. And he then went about refusing their commands and fought with them. A huge guy, known well to police for his violent crimes, with every reason to believe (accurately, as expected) he was armed, withstanding their attempts to use non-lethal means (multiple taser hits) to get him to back down, and fighting with them as they tried to restrain him. He wasn't "laying on the ground," - just advance through the video frame by frame.
Of course you know all of this. And if that same guy was waving a gun around in front of your place of business, you'd ALSO call the cops and be glad they were willing to roll up and risk their lives as they do every single day.
Actually, a second is considered long enough for 'pre-meditation'.
Citation, and actual examples of any judge or jury ever convicting on 1st on that basis, needed.
... I'd like to see you be in that position (one of the cop's) and thinking that shutting down his fight while he's armed was anything approaching premeditated murder. It's called self defense.
Regardless, cops showing up to a complaint of a 6'-4" 300 pound guy threatening people and waving a gun around, and having it go south when he won't simply do what they say, and then when he's combative, being unable to alter his behavior with multiple taser hits, and then having him wrestling on the ground with his hands still free while you know he's got a gun
I could care less about the company I work for. they could care less about me.
How much less could each of you care? What does that mean?
The police shot a man that was in no position to fight back.
No, they used force to stop a 6'-4", 300 pound guy that WAS fighting back, and who they did not have under control. And they knew he had a gun. They showed up there BECAUSE he had been threatening people and waving a gun around, and they had to get physical with him because he was fired up and refused to do what they said, they couldn't taze him into submission, and he was fighting with them. While armed. You don't actually know what the word "murder" means.
If you, a 6'-4" 300lb career criminal, refuse to cooperate with the police who show up to deal with a call about you threatening people and waving a gun around, don't chill out after two taser hits, and then when they've got you on the ground knowing you have a gun on you, you manage to keep them from controlling your hands while you wrestle with them and start to shrug them off ... them using force to make that immediate threat end is not "punishment," it's self defense. He was fighting with them because he didn't want to submit, once again, to the legal system for more of the actual punishment he'd earned multiple times for his previous crimes.
This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple.
You don't actually know what 1st degree murder is, plain and simple.
The baker should tell me upfront that he or she won't bake cakes for my big fat gay wedding.
But that's exactly what happens. Person comes in and says, "I want you to create something beautiful to celebrate something you don't support." And the baker says, up front and before any money changes hands or delivery expectations are set, "No, that's not my kind of thing, sorry!"
I haven't heard of a single case of a baker saying they'd do business with the prospective customer, allowing that person to think they've made arrangements for a delivery of a product or service, and then have the vendor surprise them LATER with, "Oh, didn't I mention I can't provide food to non-Kosher/gay/atheist/whatever meal-related events."
For the vast majority of cops, any danger on the job only comes from the fact that they're sedentary and spend a lot of time in traffic.
Yup, because if they ate more protein, less carbs, and worked out more, they'd definitely be faster than a bullet. Or able to withstand being crushed by a car. If cops weren't so lazy, they'd be immortal, and that would mean that people who try to kill them would be fine and should be left to do whatever they want. Thanks for the insight! I wonder if you personally could stand, say, one week of dealing with dangerous drivers and insane domestic violence - just those two specialties. Would you be comfortable walking up to dark cars in the middle of the night, after running tags and finding outstanding warrants or a laundry list of known gang affiliates associated with the car's owner? No? Why not?
How about we stop having panicky gunmen micromanage everyone's driving?
OK. Will you personally stop the people who shoot cops in the face when they're pulled over for having invalid tags, and for driving drunk or recklessly? You've got that all under control so that the police dealing with assholes all day long for a living won't have a single concern about getting killed because someone's driving on a highway at night with no lights on?
Thanks for stepping up and preventing all of those assaults and murders. The cops will be hugely relieved that their lives are no longer at risk when they walk up to a car having no idea what they're about to encounter. You're a hero! Appreciate that.
So somehow Facebook is causing other web sites to charge for content and access? This is Facebook's "intentional" result of providing their service for free? Are you even listening to yourself?
The liberal media collapsed in the USA a while back
Hilarious. It's always funny to hear people say that, when what they mean is, "One cable news channel has dared to court an audience that doesn't swoon over the prevailing liberal media bias found in every other outlet, and has an audience." This makes liberals crazy, and instead of wondering why some people may not be blindly devoted to, say, MSNBC, they just throw out this "there is no liberal media any more, boo hoo" sophistry, as if anyone would fall for that.
So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?
In a free market system consumers are supposed to discuss and judge products and the companies that make them, that's not a bug, that's one of the basic mechanisms that makes free markets work.
Except you know that's not how this goes. This turns into people talking about what someone running a web site should allowed or forced to do. The headline itself is already into irrational territory on this.
I always love it when people who shill for Hillary go right for the lazy ad hominem and COMPLETELY avoid acknowledging that they like to be lied to, non-stop, by the person they're working to elect. It's a curious thing, to smile and cheer for a person that's looking you in the eye and lying, and both of you know it. What a strange relationship. Combine that with your homophobia, and it's just another perplexing liberal set of self-contradictory nonsense, as usual. Thanks for displaying it again - always informative!
Why should I support the prosecution of people who haven't done anything wrong? Do you understand how strange your standards are, all so you can distract from the serial lying and recklessness of the candidate you're working for?
... very peculiar. You won't admit she's a liar, but you insist that other people tell lies in order to confront reality yourself. Very strange.
Your strange cognitive problem in insisting that others must fabricate fictional crimes in order to exploit a "path" that you've provided them to (what, exactly?) getting you to admit that your candidate has just been shown (AGAIN) that she's lying to you
I've never been killed in an aeroplane crash but I've been scared half to death in one. Twice.
But you've never been scared as a driver or pedestrian or passenger or bicyclist on the road, of course.
Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s?
Man, how often HAVE you been killed in airplane crashes, anyway?
Such deaths are very rare, considering. If we put even a fraction of the level of effort discussed into, say, removing just 10% of the in-hospital deaths caused by medical mistakes, that would save thousands and thousands more lives every year. Not that the two areas are mutually exclusive - it's just that death in airliner crashes remain vanishingly rare. And considering how many of those are the result of crazy/religious wackadoos deliberately killing those onboard, it's not clear how making the passengers ride in pods would actually solve that part of the problem anyway.
No, NOT 'nonsense', bringing an indictment against her NOW would be MORE tampering with the election than if you waited until AFTER the election and you damned well know that.
No, bringing an indictment is the UNTAMPERING with an election that Clinton has tampered with by spending the last year and a half lying about in a grand display of tampering. She lied, over and over again, specifically to preserve her political viability for this campaign. She was a fool, thinking nobody would notice, but correcting her lies isn't tampering - it's setting things straight. The ONLY person on the hook for the timing is her. And it's still plenty early in the election cycle for her to step down, as she should, after this massive display of dishonesty before her own supporters.
Hey, look! An anonymous coward will talk about ANYTHING except the subject matter! Look over there! He's pretending to be upset about someone pointing out his callow rhetorical laziness, again in order to avoid addressing the actual evidence of his employer's reckless security behavior and public display of repeatedly lying about it. Quick! Talk about the person mentioning the facts! Anything to change the subject away from Hillary Clinton! We don't want to anger her if she becomes aware that one of her forum shills is too lazy to work off of her talking points.