If he was an adult, as he looked like, and he had pointed the gun it would have been too late.
I'll concede that point. Fine, if he had drawn the gun. But he didn't, it was in his pants and the officer didn't even know it was a gun aside from what some random anonymous "witnesses" told his dispatcher.
The officer had a split second decision to make
What split second decision? Tamir wasn't reaching for the gun and hte officer didn't even know it was a gun. Did he believe it was a gun? Sure, I could see that. But he didn't know and, even if he did, the gun wasn't a threat sitting snugly in Tamir's waistband. In fact, even in Tamir's hand, the airsoft postol and its plastic pellets were no threat. So, allow me to re-state: the office didn't know it was a gun because it wasn't a gun. Had he approached the boy he would have learned this; the boy would not have drawn on the officer and, if he had, the officer would have been justified in his actions when he shot him.
He acted in bad faith, based on bad information from bad sources. Any time an officer acts with deadly force on an eye-witness statement and that eye-witness is not another LEO, they are acting in bad faith. Period. Source: A federal agent in my family and several cop friends of mine.
When your actions are so egregious that even your own won't support you when there is plenty of history of otherwise good cops covering for bad cops, ya done goofed.
Right, because eye-witness statements are always reliable. Further, he wasn't pointing it at anyone when he was shot; it was in his pants and not a threat (even if it were real). It's quite literally exactly what I was talking about in the comment you initially replied to, so I don't feel I need to repeat myself here to explain exactly why he shouldn't have been shot.
Now, had he pulled it and pointed it an an officer (or even acted like he was going to), that would be a different story. But simply carrying a gun, or an object that looks like a gun, in your pants is not illegal, nor should it be punishable by death.
Guns don't kill people, bullets (sometimes) do, but it's usually uncontrolled bleeding and organ damage caused by the bullet. In any case, the bullet wasn't acting on its own, it was acting under the direction of a person so, ultimately, even if you want to say someone dying of uncontrolled bleeding and organ damage caused by a bullet was killed by the bullet, you have to trace the chain of events that lead to the bullet killing them in the first place. And I know you can do that; it's how you got to the gun being the killer in the first place. Go one step further, though. Who fired the gun?
Any way you cut it, guns don't kill people. Whether you want to blame the injury, blame the object that caused the injury, or blame whatever set the events in motion that lead to the death, the gun is the wrong target. The injury did ultimately kill. The bullet (object) did ultimately cause the injury, that that could have been any other weapon, or object repurposed as a weapon, just as well, rendering the gun it was fired from irrelevant. The person who made the conscious decision (or accidental action) to use that object to cause the injury that lead to that death, now that's your killer. And they'd be a killer even without that gun.
There is a huge difference between being armed and being a threat. I've been armed every single time I've interacted with an officer, but I've never been a threat. Even when I was arrested wrongly (warrant over a ticket I had actually paid, paperwork got messed up, ended up being resolved before they even booked me) and had my weapons on my person, I was no threat to the cop. I told the cop what I had and where I had it before reaching for my wallet to give him my ID, so he knew what I was reaching for and that my weapon was in my other pocket. When he told me to get out of the car, I did so without reaching for my weapon, put my hands up, and asked that he disarm me before continuing so any movements I made could not be construed as me going for my weapons. It's simple, really; if an armed person has (and displays) no intention of harming you, they're not a threat. Even if you're a cop.
All the cops I know want the citizens they're policing to be armed. I've heard it a lot: "When seconds matter, police are just minutes away." It really sank in when a cop told me "it takes you longer to call 911 than it takes someone with any intelligence to break into your house and stab you; it takes longer for police and an ambulance to arrive than it will take for you to bleed out." His point was just that; when seconds matter, you're responsible for your own safety, the police only exist to clean up the mess afterward.
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, 50 Pulse patrons and many police would be alive right now.
The shooter spent 3 hours walking around shooting at an average rate of about 2 minutes per shot fired. Magazines don't take that long to change, he could have still fired off all 115 or so shots in that time even with 5 round mags, let alone given the 10 round limit under Clinton's ban, and he could have easily sustained that rate of fire with a handgun or a basic hunting rifle, neither of which were affected by the ban. Hell, he could have gone around with a kitchen knife for 3 hours to kill 50 people and wound 60 or so.
If the police ignore people selling untaxed cigarettes, then all cigarettes will be sold untaxed.
They were taxed when Garner bought them from the store. In the US, we don't have VAT, we have sales tax, which is charged only once, when the retailer makes the sale; if Garner bought them at retail (which he did) it was paid.
Right. When the bullets start flying, and you're not the one who started it, the threshold for killing another human being should be much lower simply as a means of self-preservation. But when the shooting hasn't started yet, best not to be the one to start it.
You call shooting someone for having something that looks like a gun in their pants protecting? Concealed carry permits exist, so the gun may be legal; or it may not even be a gun. Protocol has, historically, been to intervene only when called upon or when it is clear a crime is being committed. If the gun had been drawn (not even aimed, brandishing is a crime in most places), that would be enough for them to stop him; if he took aim, that would be enough for them to take him down. That's protecting. What we have now is just slaughter.
Well, Spotify seems interested in pursuing it legally, so we'll get to see which of us is right, it seems. No need to continue the conversation, just grab some popcorn and sit back.
Well that just blows... I work on these systems for a living and I've dropped clients in the past who had systems that were that special kind of "user friendly" because they refused to let me fix the problems. The feels, man... the feels.
I'm not where where you get the idea that I'm a lawyer... clearly you're either not paying attention, you have a comprehension problem, or you fail at logic as I stated earlier.
For the benefit of those who haven't read the other thread, the exchange in which Dashiva Dan decided I'm a lawyer went like so:
(that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)
You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.
What part of "one more thing you're wrong about" in relation to "I'm pretty sure you're not [a programmer]" doesn't just scream "Hey, dumbass! I'm a programmer!" so loud you'd have to be massively not paying attention in order to miss it?
If you're not going to pay attention (and it's clear from your reply in the other thread that you're not) I can't continue this discussion; it would be pointless to do so.
It's not that simple--when you have multiple monthly, automatic bills paid via the account. You have to go in and change your card details on each of those auto payment accounts
That's still less work (and safer) than writing a check every month.
then in some cases deal with their slow billing systems that still use the old info and charge you fees for returned funds and then for being late.
So you cancel the automatic payment on the old card, set the new one up, and make manual payments on the due date until it kicks in. Still less work (and safer) than writing a check every month.
Nobody's using your credit card to open a new line of credit or steal your identity. Then need a fair bit more data than what's encoded on the card's magstripe for that.
I'm positive that's how a court would rule. Apps collect email addresses all the time; are you saying the courts will rule that those app developers can't contact those users via those email addresses? Or that Apple should be allowed to dictate private communications between two parties?
Why can't your other replies be this level-headed?
See, you admit Bossland hasn't broken any laws (at least in as far as the information available), which means -- GASP -- we actually agree on this point and there was no reason for us to argue in the first place.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
And yes, the outcome will be quite interesting, no matter which way it goes. My money's on Bossland's owners simply deciding to ignore it and never setting foot in the US for the rest of their lives. After all, it's a civil matter and civil extradition treaties aren't a thing (yet; thankfully).
OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.
Considering that I made the original mention of drug companies, after Calydor mentioned doping, and neither he nor I said anything about black market drug companies. Yes, I did mention black market drugs, but any prescription drug solt outside of a licensed pharmacy fits that definition. You're the one who changed the definition, I merely shifted it back.
I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay.
It doesn't "access the code", it accesses the areas of the system's RAM the game uses for data storage. Try again.
You can keep on saying that bossland isn't doing anything wrong
I could, if that's what I were saying at all. What I'm saying, however, is that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm sure you can figure out the difference and how it is key to this discussion.
(that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)
You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.
The rest of the diatribe the two quotes above came from is irrelevant, as it's based on an entirely incorrect premise.
Oh, The US legal system is horrible, most legal systems are, but they're the best we have, and one of the few avenues open to Blizzard.
But, Bossland has broken now laws and committed no civil infractions, so it will be a tough road for them.
Of course they'll take it, and while noone thinks the USA governs Germany, I'm pretty sure most here have a decent understanding of trade partnerships, and what happens when 2 countries don't get along.
Right, and the US and EU have no problems exchanging criminals for trial; however, this is a civil matter and we still (thankfully) don't have civil extradition agreements in place. Imagine that, someone anywhere in the world being allowed to bring suit against you in their home country and you having to travel, at your own expense, to defend yourself. Jurisdictional borders exist for a reason.
Look at Cuba, think they'll pull the same stuff this time round?
That was the result is armed conflict, not civil disagreements between US and Cuban businesses. Totally not relevant here.
Projection of what? You keep making these little comments, but never offer any substance to them.
You were projecting your head-placement habits onto me. Clearly, you had it firmly stowed when you wrote this reply. I see a second reply, as well.. that should be fun.
I agree about arguing; however, there is a huge gray area between arguing and debate. My wife and I certainly enjoy discussing dinner plans and a semi-formal debate procedure for major decisions like buying a car (that we're both paying for and will both be using) allows us to put our wants and needs on the table for consideration and, overall, increases our combined satisfaction with such decisions, as well as with each other.
Regarding couples arguing, the primary difference between argument and debate, in that setting, is respect. Once respect is gone, there's no hope for a relationship. There is no need for the debates my wife and I have over our household decisions to enrich anyone other than ourselves; but I don't think that makes them poor debates, as they serve a valid purpose, and they're certainly not arguments. And yes, semantics vary wildly; most of our misunderstandings come from the vast differences in our communication styles. It keeps things... interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
If he was an adult, as he looked like, and he had pointed the gun it would have been too late.
I'll concede that point. Fine, if he had drawn the gun. But he didn't, it was in his pants and the officer didn't even know it was a gun aside from what some random anonymous "witnesses" told his dispatcher.
The officer had a split second decision to make
What split second decision? Tamir wasn't reaching for the gun and hte officer didn't even know it was a gun. Did he believe it was a gun? Sure, I could see that. But he didn't know and, even if he did, the gun wasn't a threat sitting snugly in Tamir's waistband. In fact, even in Tamir's hand, the airsoft postol and its plastic pellets were no threat. So, allow me to re-state: the office didn't know it was a gun because it wasn't a gun. Had he approached the boy he would have learned this; the boy would not have drawn on the officer and, if he had, the officer would have been justified in his actions when he shot him.
He acted in bad faith, based on bad information from bad sources. Any time an officer acts with deadly force on an eye-witness statement and that eye-witness is not another LEO, they are acting in bad faith. Period. Source: A federal agent in my family and several cop friends of mine.
When your actions are so egregious that even your own won't support you when there is plenty of history of otherwise good cops covering for bad cops, ya done goofed.
Right, because eye-witness statements are always reliable. Further, he wasn't pointing it at anyone when he was shot; it was in his pants and not a threat (even if it were real). It's quite literally exactly what I was talking about in the comment you initially replied to, so I don't feel I need to repeat myself here to explain exactly why he shouldn't have been shot.
Now, had he pulled it and pointed it an an officer (or even acted like he was going to), that would be a different story. But simply carrying a gun, or an object that looks like a gun, in your pants is not illegal, nor should it be punishable by death.
Tamir Rice
Data?
Guns don't kill people, bullets (sometimes) do, but it's usually uncontrolled bleeding and organ damage caused by the bullet. In any case, the bullet wasn't acting on its own, it was acting under the direction of a person so, ultimately, even if you want to say someone dying of uncontrolled bleeding and organ damage caused by a bullet was killed by the bullet, you have to trace the chain of events that lead to the bullet killing them in the first place. And I know you can do that; it's how you got to the gun being the killer in the first place. Go one step further, though. Who fired the gun?
Any way you cut it, guns don't kill people. Whether you want to blame the injury, blame the object that caused the injury, or blame whatever set the events in motion that lead to the death, the gun is the wrong target. The injury did ultimately kill. The bullet (object) did ultimately cause the injury, that that could have been any other weapon, or object repurposed as a weapon, just as well, rendering the gun it was fired from irrelevant. The person who made the conscious decision (or accidental action) to use that object to cause the injury that lead to that death, now that's your killer. And they'd be a killer even without that gun.
So, he shouldn't have complied with the officer's order to produce his ID?
There is a huge difference between being armed and being a threat. I've been armed every single time I've interacted with an officer, but I've never been a threat. Even when I was arrested wrongly (warrant over a ticket I had actually paid, paperwork got messed up, ended up being resolved before they even booked me) and had my weapons on my person, I was no threat to the cop. I told the cop what I had and where I had it before reaching for my wallet to give him my ID, so he knew what I was reaching for and that my weapon was in my other pocket. When he told me to get out of the car, I did so without reaching for my weapon, put my hands up, and asked that he disarm me before continuing so any movements I made could not be construed as me going for my weapons. It's simple, really; if an armed person has (and displays) no intention of harming you, they're not a threat. Even if you're a cop.
All the cops I know want the citizens they're policing to be armed. I've heard it a lot: "When seconds matter, police are just minutes away." It really sank in when a cop told me "it takes you longer to call 911 than it takes someone with any intelligence to break into your house and stab you; it takes longer for police and an ambulance to arrive than it will take for you to bleed out." His point was just that; when seconds matter, you're responsible for your own safety, the police only exist to clean up the mess afterward.
Indeed, a bullet to the head is much more humane than the terror of falling 50 stories. Both are just as final.
Especially when knife, club, and fist deaths outnumber gun deaths in the US.
Not really, Afghanistan is no less civilized than the US. It's different from the western world, but it's not uncivilized.
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, 50 Pulse patrons and many police would be alive right now.
The shooter spent 3 hours walking around shooting at an average rate of about 2 minutes per shot fired. Magazines don't take that long to change, he could have still fired off all 115 or so shots in that time even with 5 round mags, let alone given the 10 round limit under Clinton's ban, and he could have easily sustained that rate of fire with a handgun or a basic hunting rifle, neither of which were affected by the ban. Hell, he could have gone around with a kitchen knife for 3 hours to kill 50 people and wound 60 or so.
If the police ignore people selling untaxed cigarettes, then all cigarettes will be sold untaxed.
They were taxed when Garner bought them from the store. In the US, we don't have VAT, we have sales tax, which is charged only once, when the retailer makes the sale; if Garner bought them at retail (which he did) it was paid.
Right. When the bullets start flying, and you're not the one who started it, the threshold for killing another human being should be much lower simply as a means of self-preservation. But when the shooting hasn't started yet, best not to be the one to start it.
You call shooting someone for having something that looks like a gun in their pants protecting? Concealed carry permits exist, so the gun may be legal; or it may not even be a gun. Protocol has, historically, been to intervene only when called upon or when it is clear a crime is being committed. If the gun had been drawn (not even aimed, brandishing is a crime in most places), that would be enough for them to stop him; if he took aim, that would be enough for them to take him down. That's protecting. What we have now is just slaughter.
So you're saying cops are the new Millennial SJWs? I can see that.
Well, Spotify seems interested in pursuing it legally, so we'll get to see which of us is right, it seems. No need to continue the conversation, just grab some popcorn and sit back.
Well that just blows... I work on these systems for a living and I've dropped clients in the past who had systems that were that special kind of "user friendly" because they refused to let me fix the problems. The feels, man... the feels.
ugh... I meant "I'm not sure where"... typos...
For the benefit of those who haven't read the other thread, the exchange in which Dashiva Dan decided I'm a lawyer went like so:
(that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)
You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.
What part of "one more thing you're wrong about" in relation to "I'm pretty sure you're not [a programmer]" doesn't just scream "Hey, dumbass! I'm a programmer!" so loud you'd have to be massively not paying attention in order to miss it?
If you're not going to pay attention (and it's clear from your reply in the other thread that you're not) I can't continue this discussion; it would be pointless to do so.
It's not that simple--when you have multiple monthly, automatic bills paid via the account. You have to go in and change your card details on each of those auto payment accounts
That's still less work (and safer) than writing a check every month.
then in some cases deal with their slow billing systems that still use the old info and charge you fees for returned funds and then for being late.
So you cancel the automatic payment on the old card, set the new one up, and make manual payments on the due date until it kicks in. Still less work (and safer) than writing a check every month.
Nobody's using your credit card to open a new line of credit or steal your identity. Then need a fair bit more data than what's encoded on the card's magstripe for that.
I'm positive that's how a court would rule. Apps collect email addresses all the time; are you saying the courts will rule that those app developers can't contact those users via those email addresses? Or that Apple should be allowed to dictate private communications between two parties?
Why can't your other replies be this level-headed?
See, you admit Bossland hasn't broken any laws (at least in as far as the information available), which means -- GASP -- we actually agree on this point and there was no reason for us to argue in the first place.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
And yes, the outcome will be quite interesting, no matter which way it goes. My money's on Bossland's owners simply deciding to ignore it and never setting foot in the US for the rest of their lives. After all, it's a civil matter and civil extradition treaties aren't a thing (yet; thankfully).
OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.
Considering that I made the original mention of drug companies, after Calydor mentioned doping, and neither he nor I said anything about black market drug companies. Yes, I did mention black market drugs, but any prescription drug solt outside of a licensed pharmacy fits that definition. You're the one who changed the definition, I merely shifted it back.
I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay.
It doesn't "access the code", it accesses the areas of the system's RAM the game uses for data storage. Try again.
You can keep on saying that bossland isn't doing anything wrong
I could, if that's what I were saying at all. What I'm saying, however, is that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm sure you can figure out the difference and how it is key to this discussion.
(that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)
You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.
The rest of the diatribe the two quotes above came from is irrelevant, as it's based on an entirely incorrect premise.
Oh, The US legal system is horrible, most legal systems are, but they're the best we have, and one of the few avenues open to Blizzard.
But, Bossland has broken now laws and committed no civil infractions, so it will be a tough road for them.
Of course they'll take it, and while noone thinks the USA governs Germany, I'm pretty sure most here have a decent understanding of trade partnerships, and what happens when 2 countries don't get along.
Right, and the US and EU have no problems exchanging criminals for trial; however, this is a civil matter and we still (thankfully) don't have civil extradition agreements in place. Imagine that, someone anywhere in the world being allowed to bring suit against you in their home country and you having to travel, at your own expense, to defend yourself. Jurisdictional borders exist for a reason.
Look at Cuba, think they'll pull the same stuff this time round?
That was the result is armed conflict, not civil disagreements between US and Cuban businesses. Totally not relevant here.
Projection of what? You keep making these little comments, but never offer any substance to them.
You were projecting your head-placement habits onto me. Clearly, you had it firmly stowed when you wrote this reply. I see a second reply, as well.. that should be fun.
I agree about arguing; however, there is a huge gray area between arguing and debate. My wife and I certainly enjoy discussing dinner plans and a semi-formal debate procedure for major decisions like buying a car (that we're both paying for and will both be using) allows us to put our wants and needs on the table for consideration and, overall, increases our combined satisfaction with such decisions, as well as with each other.
Regarding couples arguing, the primary difference between argument and debate, in that setting, is respect. Once respect is gone, there's no hope for a relationship. There is no need for the debates my wife and I have over our household decisions to enrich anyone other than ourselves; but I don't think that makes them poor debates, as they serve a valid purpose, and they're certainly not arguments. And yes, semantics vary wildly; most of our misunderstandings come from the vast differences in our communication styles. It keeps things... interesting.