I am not enough of a military buff to know whether AA guns are generally referred to as such by non-Germans these days.
In the UK the word flak is in common use, so although it's probably not used to describe AA guns it will be used to describe the shell bursts they cause.
Ah, I hadn't heard he was shot in the head. That would support my assumption that it was an officer with a rifle and scope, and would indeed mean specifically aiming for a small body part.
In that case the basic premise is, "I'm firing because of a threat to life, and that requires elimination of the threat."
Shooting someone in the legs does not prevent them shooting back.
I do fucking blame him, outright. I also said he should be prosecuted for murder - that's the process by which my interpretation gets examined and justice is applied.
The 911 call is no justification at all. That's a prompt for the police to attend a situation, assess it, and respond appropriately. Killing an innocent man is not an appropriate response.
The video shows a man doing what he was asked to do - raise his hands. So no, that's not something to react to.
I recognise that you blame the idiot that made the 911 call, and not the victim. I agree with you on those points. I also blame the murdering cunt that killed a man, and want to see him face a court.
why doesn't the police start by shooting into the legs? Simple legshot is usually enough to take down any person.
Because shooting at someone that doesn't want to be shot is difficult. So you aim at the centre of the target, the largest mass, and minimise the chances of missing entirely.
If you have time to aim for the legs you're not in sufficient danger to justify taking the shot anyway.
That's not true. You're just going to have trouble justifying why you were carrying one in the first place, and why you felt lethal force was necessary.
I think it's pretty hypocritical of you to blame someone for believing exactly what you would believe in the same situation. [..][ Especially with people like yourself that would then blame you for being directly responsible for murdering one or more of your fellow officers by not stopping the shooter.
Stop pretending you know me, or how I would respond in such a situation. You're wrong.
If you really wish to ignore all the evidence and blame people anyway, I guess that's your call, but don't expect others to not think less of you for it.
If they think like you do then I'm not terribly concerned by their opinion anyway.
Why wouldn't you be happy to see this in a court of law that examines whether the officer's response was appropriate or not? That's all I'm asking for.
Oh, come on. Learn to use an internet search engine. 900k 'sworn officers' - http://www.nleomf.org/facts/en... (although other sources suggest 1.1m people working in law enforcement, so the 1 million number stated may not be inaccurate) 1093 deaths in 2016 - https://psmag.com/social-justi...
40 million times a year feels like a terrible under-estimate - that would involve each police officer contacting the public just 40-45 times a year. Less than once a week. Reality is likely to be an average of multiple times a day. E.g. there are approximately 240 million 911 calls a year (https://www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics) so even though a lot of those wouldn't be answered, responded to, or require police attention, it's reasonable to assume they account for somewhere between 10 and 60 million interactions a year even without the various traffic stops, patrols and other police work going on.
any officer who just arrived not seeing before this point, including the one who fired
The officer that fired was very clearly already on the scene. They wouldn't have arrived, drawn a weapon, approached into visibility and still taken control of the situation from existing officers while the guy was visible in the doorway.
On top of that, it was a single shot, and killed the man. From that range? That was a swat member with a scoped rifle, and he was in position long before the police made their presence known. Any policeman with a pistol would have fired multiple shots.
The fact that no other officers fired shows they didn't think the man was armed. This was just a trigger happy murderer going for the free kill.
Armed man sets up ambush outside man's house, waits for him to open the door, yells incomprehensible instructions while blind the man then shoots him dead a quarter of a second later.
What I'm doing is not blaming the officer for believing in that half of a second the person was about to open fire, nor blame the officer for not waiting the tenth of a second or less to hear and see someone get shot or not.
I am. I'd prosecute the cunt for murder, because he just shot an unarmed man with no warning and with no justification.
If he really felt at risk, wearing his body armour, crouching in his cover, with the support of twenty colleagues, then he needs putting in jail to protect the public anyway. There is no self-defence justification going on here.
2. The issue here is that people are swatting, not that the swat team shot someone
Strange, I think they're both issues.
I mean, someone just got killed for the horrendous crime of answering the door and raising his hands when instructed by the police.
Rule 1: do what the person with a gun says.
Looks like that just isn't good enough in the US. Rule 0: Be the one with a gun, and tell the police to send someone unarmed in to arrest you peacefully.
Oh please, DSM is a crock of shit when it comes to stuff like that.
According to DSM I have about 18 mental disorders. According to my neighbours I'm a lovely guy. According to my work colleagues I'm fair, reasonable, good humoured and intelligent. According to my friends I'm a twat but they love me anyway.
While the average programmer cannot afford a single apartment in india.
I know several Indians that have developed property portfolios there just from their earnings from major consultancies, so I went researching for evidence against this statement.
Turns out there's around a 30 times salary multiple between programmers and apartment prices in Mumbai, so you're right, that's way beyond affordability.
Interesting. Although Mumbai was a dodgy as hell choice, it's not exactly indicative of average Indian house prices.
Hmm. All of the Indians outsourcers I've worked with have been educated, they've been able to speak and write English to a parseable level, and they at least match the work ethic of the natives in my own country (i.e. the British).
There's variability in work ethic, but that's true everywhere.
My experience is that on the operations space, they are being slaughtered by modern DevOps practices.
Not even modern DevOps. It's always been cheaper in India to throw people at a problem than automate it, so they've never bothered.
Now that people are costing more, they have a myriad of optimisation opportunities. At a guess the biggest outsourcers could chop headcount by 30% in a year just by hitting the low hanging fruit.
Hmm. I should write to them and offer my services.
Check my posting history on the subject. No claims about Indian programmers based on their race, lots of comment on their collective abilities based on experiences working with them.
I've worked with very competent Indians from India. I've worked with very competent Indians from Leicester. There's a massively higher likelihood of competence in the ones from Leicester.
That's not racism, and it's not xenophobia. I liked a lot of the Indian Indians I've worked with, and some have been very capable - one was simultaneously a senior consultant at one of the big companies, a property magnate and an airline pilot. He'll be retired at 40.
But when you outsource to India, there are serious issues with the work that gets done, and thus with the people that do it. Stop throwing around accusations of racism and xenophobia and do the fucking academic research yourself.
You'd have to be a lot more nuanced than that. I've used Tata Consultancy Service, albeit only due to management demands.
Management made those demands for three bloody good business reasons: TCS were the cheapest bidder, and they delivered on time, and they delivered to budget.
That's management mana.
Of course, what they delivered was exactly what was asked for, nothing more, whether it made sense or not. What they delivered was horrific quality, so you had horrible support overheads. What they delivered was fragile as fuck, so you had an expensive project whenever anything needed changing.
So to measure a company's success based on using Tata's services would also require an understanding of how those services were used. Were quality metrics in the requirements spec, were in-house code reviews (and rework) included in the contract, was the work delivering something with an intended six month lifespan (e.g. while a competent team put something robust together), etc.
You know what you're getting with Tata, it's how you use that knowledge that makes the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
The drone crashed by being out of the control of its pilot and in the path of a military helicopter.
The helicopter didn't crash.
I am not enough of a military buff to know whether AA guns are generally referred to as such by non-Germans these days.
In the UK the word flak is in common use, so although it's probably not used to describe AA guns it will be used to describe the shell bursts they cause.
If only pilots wore flak jackets.
Cyber started to become a nasty threat in 1992.
First time I was cybered by a man masquerading as a woman :(
Perhaps you should write to the police and invite them to attend your firearms training. I'm sure they'd appreciate the assistance.
you can in Northern Ireland
I didn't know that, but it makes sense.
Ah, I hadn't heard he was shot in the head. That would support my assumption that it was an officer with a rifle and scope, and would indeed mean specifically aiming for a small body part.
In that case the basic premise is, "I'm firing because of a threat to life, and that requires elimination of the threat."
Shooting someone in the legs does not prevent them shooting back.
I do fucking blame him, outright. I also said he should be prosecuted for murder - that's the process by which my interpretation gets examined and justice is applied.
The 911 call is no justification at all. That's a prompt for the police to attend a situation, assess it, and respond appropriately. Killing an innocent man is not an appropriate response.
The video shows a man doing what he was asked to do - raise his hands. So no, that's not something to react to.
I recognise that you blame the idiot that made the 911 call, and not the victim. I agree with you on those points. I also blame the murdering cunt that killed a man, and want to see him face a court.
why doesn't the police start by shooting into the legs? Simple legshot is usually enough to take down any person.
Because shooting at someone that doesn't want to be shot is difficult. So you aim at the centre of the target, the largest mass, and minimise the chances of missing entirely.
If you have time to aim for the legs you're not in sufficient danger to justify taking the shot anyway.
you can't use them in self defence
That's not true. You're just going to have trouble justifying why you were carrying one in the first place, and why you felt lethal force was necessary.
I think it's pretty hypocritical of you to blame someone for believing exactly what you would believe in the same situation.
[..][
Especially with people like yourself that would then blame you for being directly responsible for murdering one or more of your fellow officers by not stopping the shooter.
Stop pretending you know me, or how I would respond in such a situation. You're wrong.
If you really wish to ignore all the evidence and blame people anyway, I guess that's your call, but don't expect others to not think less of you for it.
If they think like you do then I'm not terribly concerned by their opinion anyway.
Why wouldn't you be happy to see this in a court of law that examines whether the officer's response was appropriate or not? That's all I'm asking for.
Oh, come on. Learn to use an internet search engine.
900k 'sworn officers' - http://www.nleomf.org/facts/en...
(although other sources suggest 1.1m people working in law enforcement, so the 1 million number stated may not be inaccurate)
1093 deaths in 2016 - https://psmag.com/social-justi...
40 million times a year feels like a terrible under-estimate - that would involve each police officer contacting the public just 40-45 times a year. Less than once a week. Reality is likely to be an average of multiple times a day.
E.g. there are approximately 240 million 911 calls a year (https://www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics) so even though a lot of those wouldn't be answered, responded to, or require police attention, it's reasonable to assume they account for somewhere between 10 and 60 million interactions a year even without the various traffic stops, patrols and other police work going on.
any officer who just arrived not seeing before this point, including the one who fired
The officer that fired was very clearly already on the scene. They wouldn't have arrived, drawn a weapon, approached into visibility and still taken control of the situation from existing officers while the guy was visible in the doorway.
On top of that, it was a single shot, and killed the man. From that range? That was a swat member with a scoped rifle, and he was in position long before the police made their presence known. Any policeman with a pistol would have fired multiple shots.
The fact that no other officers fired shows they didn't think the man was armed. This was just a trigger happy murderer going for the free kill.
The police didn't murder anyone in this story.
Armed man sets up ambush outside man's house, waits for him to open the door, yells incomprehensible instructions while blind the man then shoots him dead a quarter of a second later.
Sounds like murder to me.
What I'm doing is not blaming the officer for believing in that half of a second the person was about to open fire, nor blame the officer for not waiting the tenth of a second or less to hear and see someone get shot or not.
I am. I'd prosecute the cunt for murder, because he just shot an unarmed man with no warning and with no justification.
If he really felt at risk, wearing his body armour, crouching in his cover, with the support of twenty colleagues, then he needs putting in jail to protect the public anyway. There is no self-defence justification going on here.
Unless the police bodycam footage is from a different incident.. yeah, the police basically shot the first person they saw.
2. The issue here is that people are swatting, not that the swat team shot someone
Strange, I think they're both issues.
I mean, someone just got killed for the horrendous crime of answering the door and raising his hands when instructed by the police.
Rule 1: do what the person with a gun says.
Looks like that just isn't good enough in the US. Rule 0: Be the one with a gun, and tell the police to send someone unarmed in to arrest you peacefully.
Ah, a member of the "everybody I disagree with is a nazi" crowd. It must be terrible for you living among so many nazis.
Oh please, DSM is a crock of shit when it comes to stuff like that.
According to DSM I have about 18 mental disorders. According to my neighbours I'm a lovely guy. According to my work colleagues I'm fair, reasonable, good humoured and intelligent. According to my friends I'm a twat but they love me anyway.
DSM has no credibility at all on these topics.
While the average programmer cannot afford a single apartment in india.
I know several Indians that have developed property portfolios there just from their earnings from major consultancies, so I went researching for evidence against this statement.
Turns out there's around a 30 times salary multiple between programmers and apartment prices in Mumbai, so you're right, that's way beyond affordability.
Interesting. Although Mumbai was a dodgy as hell choice, it's not exactly indicative of average Indian house prices.
Hmm. All of the Indians outsourcers I've worked with have been educated, they've been able to speak and write English to a parseable level, and they at least match the work ethic of the natives in my own country (i.e. the British).
There's variability in work ethic, but that's true everywhere.
Maybe you just failed to motivate them?
My experience is that on the operations space, they are being slaughtered by modern DevOps practices.
Not even modern DevOps. It's always been cheaper in India to throw people at a problem than automate it, so they've never bothered.
Now that people are costing more, they have a myriad of optimisation opportunities. At a guess the biggest outsourcers could chop headcount by 30% in a year just by hitting the low hanging fruit.
Hmm. I should write to them and offer my services.
China doesn't have the graineries to feed it's people, and they're not gonna get them from India.
Have you seen the Chinese investment in Africa lately? As always the Chinese are several steps ahead of you.
Check my posting history on the subject. No claims about Indian programmers based on their race, lots of comment on their collective abilities based on experiences working with them.
I've worked with very competent Indians from India. I've worked with very competent Indians from Leicester. There's a massively higher likelihood of competence in the ones from Leicester.
That's not racism, and it's not xenophobia. I liked a lot of the Indian Indians I've worked with, and some have been very capable - one was simultaneously a senior consultant at one of the big companies, a property magnate and an airline pilot. He'll be retired at 40.
But when you outsource to India, there are serious issues with the work that gets done, and thus with the people that do it. Stop throwing around accusations of racism and xenophobia and do the fucking academic research yourself.
You'd have to be a lot more nuanced than that. I've used Tata Consultancy Service, albeit only due to management demands.
Management made those demands for three bloody good business reasons: TCS were the cheapest bidder, and they delivered on time, and they delivered to budget.
That's management mana.
Of course, what they delivered was exactly what was asked for, nothing more, whether it made sense or not. What they delivered was horrific quality, so you had horrible support overheads. What they delivered was fragile as fuck, so you had an expensive project whenever anything needed changing.
So to measure a company's success based on using Tata's services would also require an understanding of how those services were used. Were quality metrics in the requirements spec, were in-house code reviews (and rework) included in the contract, was the work delivering something with an intended six month lifespan (e.g. while a competent team put something robust together), etc.
You know what you're getting with Tata, it's how you use that knowledge that makes the difference.
Maybe they measure competence as "People actually paid us for this person's time".
It's frustratingly difficult to get specific people taken off an account.