If the house we're doused internally with gasoline, as the call said, and the person at the door were grabbing a flare/match/lighter/gun/other-simple-ignition-source from their waistband to light it, it would have been physically impossible for the cops to stop them once they had verified the item
Shooting them wouldn't prevent it either.
What, you think people go from alive to fully dead and decomposing the moment a bullet enters their body?
So what's the statistic for deaths to the police by race per interaction with the police? What's the statistic for deaths to the police per 1000 criminal offences by race?
The ratio of black vs white death-by-cop is heavily skewed towards people of color.
Maybe, but when you start using statistics properly we'll find out.
How the fuck did you possibly draw that conclusion from what he said? Seriously, take me through the steps here because I don't see it.
Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force.
Nobody has argued otherwise.
The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.
There is. There is also a duty of care to minimise that chance.
There sure as fuck isn't an imperative to gun down innocent people just because a police man is too fucking stupid/cowardly/badly trained to properly assess and respond to a threat.
The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public
It'll reduce violence against the police and (by the police) against the public. It'll save lives.
In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed
That's because your view is retarded, you lack the critical thinking skills needed to understand complexity, you lack the desire to fucking learn and you'd rather the police kill people than do their job properly.
some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement
If you were thinking of challenging my previous statement, I'd like to use as evidence 'do not murder people' is in your view some ridiculous PC driven rule of engagement.
make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous
Strange, other countries adopt very different approaches to the US and enjoy far lower levels of violence towards and from the police.
I understand your point but just listing the charges doesn't really reveal what Gaskill (the intended SWATing victim) is believed to have done that's illegal.
If the alleged wire fraud is 'gave a false address' then I'd hope a jury would laugh it out of court. If the 'perverting the course of justice' was lying to investigators about events, then that may well be an appropriate charge.
I suspect the prosecutors are treating "Sure, go ahead, SWAT me. Here's my address" as illegal, and that's an interesting precedent to try and set - as someone else noted earlier, that's tantamount to officially admitting that the police can be used to assassinate people.
Unless they're intelligent enough to make the 911 call anonymously, then not brag about it on the internet.
Shit, the US police don't know who just bought a shitty phone, dialled 911, ditched the phone and flew back to Europe. Meanwhile your son is dead because he answered the door instead of you.
Me, I'd rather the police in my country were a bit more fucking intelligent.
Only in America and corrupt dictatorships would "He put his hands up too quickly" be considered a fucking excuse.
he reached toward his waistline multiple times
Where are your hands? At the end of your arms, at a guess. How long are your arms? If you don't hold your arms away from your body, where do they hang, while you're stood up? Where does that leave your hands?
Oh, wait. We should fucking shoot you on sight, you're clearly reaching towards your waistband, and you just argued that this is a lethal and immediate threat towards police.
Bullets can miss. When they miss, they hit whatever was behind the target. In this case, it was a house.
Bullets travel very quickly and consequently carry a lot of momentum. This means they're hard to stop, and as people aren't terribly solid this means that bullets frequently go through a person that they've hit, and also hit whatever was behind the person. In this case, it was a house.
A bullet isn't actually a flaming arrow or whatever you seem to think it is.
But (as discussed) bullets travel very quickly. If they hit something very solid they stop very quickly too. All that momentum mentioned a moment ago gets translated from kinetic energy into heat.
Lets play a game. Stand in some gasoline and apply heat, tell me what happens.
Even if you can make the argument that police screwed up that doesn't excuse the actions or responsibility for what happened.
I haven't seen anybody suggest that the guy that made the false 911 call should avoid prosecution.
It's a common law principle that you are responsible because if you hadn't committed the felony the death wouldn't have occurred
Only in the US. In the UK a policeman murdering someone is guilty of murder even if a crime was going on at the same time*.
there should be no argument in this case at least that the felony the gamers and caller committed resulted in a mans death
The gamers that didn't make the call very much have an argument that they did not cause a man's death. I'll be fucking amazed if they plead guilty.
*unless he murders a Brazilian electrician, in which case he'll get away with it and his boss will be made Commissioner of the UK's largest police force.
Are you fucking dense? Where are the people complaining that the police responded, that the police provided an armed response, that the police immediately approached and surrounded the property, that the police knocked on the door, that the police shone bright lights in the face of the person that opened it or that the police shouted at him?
It's the subsequent murder that people are complaining about.
They cannot win with you people.
They're not trying to, they're just happily fucking murdering innocent people and getting away with it.
Try fixing the fucked up police force. Prosecute the murderer that pulled the trigger, prosecute the police service that employed him and prosecute whichever cunt wrote the training plan because they're all culpable.
Then maybe other police services in the US will adopt approaches that don't involve murdering innocent people that answer the door.
There was no threat. The perpetrator wasn't even in the same fucking state.
SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of
..murdering someone.
Of course they fucking verify whether there is a risk of harm. Or at least, they should.
SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.
Then their RoE need to include "don't murder people". Or do you think I'm being unreasonable here?
A portion of the public believes fucking everything. That's hardly a challenge to the wisdom of the crowds.
The news has listed them as conspiracy theories.
Except for the news media published by the members of the public that believe they're true. Which, inconveniently for you, means that members of the media believe those theories to be true. Fortunately I'm not stupid enough to claim that because one fuckwit publication believes in a conspiracy theory all media is guilty as charged.
You really are fucking excellent at disproving your own points. You're a fucking magician at it.
Yes. Libel is defamation of a person through a permanent form of communication, and defamation is the expression of an untrue insinuation against a personâ(TM)s reputation.
You very much insinuated that Peterson supported removing the right of women to leave an abusive partner or have casual relationships. That's defamatory, and as you used a permanent form of communication, that makes it libel.
Luckily for you I suspect Peterson has better things to do with his life than sue the thousands of total fuckwits that actionably impugn him online.
the folks who can differentiate and care to do not need a website like this
One way I can interpret, assess and understand the accuracy of news reporting is by exploring the issues it's discussing, finding out more about them and hearing other viewpoints.
That's rather quicker, easier and more engaging if I can do it as a public exercise in the company of others. That doesn't mean it has to be a website, but it's quite hardly to engage internationally in a coffee shop.
What the fuck? You throw out a list of conspiracy theories as supposed proof that the public can't determine anything real or accurate, even though the public use the term conspiracy theory to describe them?
That's the public demonstrating that they don't think those conspiracy theories are accurate, because if they did, those wouldn't be conspiracy theories.
Now where's your list that supports you in any way?
Are you shitting me? A major reason that people in the UK voted to leave the European Union is because the media had been scoring their views and silencing the ones that the media and politicians didn't like.
Shit, it's happening to Tommy Robinson now. I don't actually know what his real views are because I've never gone to hear him speak; I just know that the media is scoring him very very low and thus refusing to give him or his views any visibility.
I think that's bullshit. If he's talking total nonsense then it's easy to demonstrate this. If he isn't then listen to what he's saying and determine whether subsequent change is warranted. If he's breaking the law arrest him.
Then there's the whole online social media side of things. The public gets very rapidly scored, and removed from social media if they go against the politics of the platform. Where there are multiple platforms this may not be an issue, but pretending that creating an echo chamber on Twitter is good for society would be foolish indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
the cop does not deserve jail time, he is not a danger to the public
I refer you to the evidence at hand.
Clearly a serious fucking danger to the public.
If the house we're doused internally with gasoline, as the call said, and the person at the door were grabbing a flare/match/lighter/gun/other-simple-ignition-source from their waistband to light it, it would have been physically impossible for the cops to stop them once they had verified the item
Shooting them wouldn't prevent it either.
What, you think people go from alive to fully dead and decomposing the moment a bullet enters their body?
can't even do statistics properly
So what's the statistic for deaths to the police by race per interaction with the police?
What's the statistic for deaths to the police per 1000 criminal offences by race?
The ratio of black vs white death-by-cop is heavily skewed towards people of color.
Maybe, but when you start using statistics properly we'll find out.
Dang man... You just want cops to die needlessly.
How the fuck did you possibly draw that conclusion from what he said? Seriously, take me through the steps here because I don't see it.
Look, cops have the right to defend themselves and go home to the wife and kids. This means that they MUST be allowed to use deadly force.
Nobody has argued otherwise.
The unfortunate side effect is that there is a chance, however slim, that bad things will happen to innocent people.
There is. There is also a duty of care to minimise that chance.
There sure as fuck isn't an imperative to gun down innocent people just because a police man is too fucking stupid/cowardly/badly trained to properly assess and respond to a threat.
The question you need to ask and answer is how your ill-conceived theories about how policing is done will affect both the police and the public
It'll reduce violence against the police and (by the police) against the public. It'll save lives.
In my view, you *might* keep one or two innocents from harm from the police, but you will condemn an order of magnitude more people to being harmed
That's because your view is retarded, you lack the critical thinking skills needed to understand complexity, you lack the desire to fucking learn and you'd rather the police kill people than do their job properly.
some ridiculous PC driven rules of engagement
If you were thinking of challenging my previous statement, I'd like to use as evidence 'do not murder people' is in your view some ridiculous PC driven rule of engagement.
make no sense and make police's lives more complicated and dangerous
Strange, other countries adopt very different approaches to the US and enjoy far lower levels of violence towards and from the police.
I think that unless the rule of law applies to the police too, you have no rule of law.
In the UK that means the police must be genuinely in fear of imminent loss of life before they can use lethal force.
That's the standard the courts use too. It can feel very harsh at times, but it's a fuck of a lot better than the situation in the US right now.
I understand your point but just listing the charges doesn't really reveal what Gaskill (the intended SWATing victim) is believed to have done that's illegal.
If the alleged wire fraud is 'gave a false address' then I'd hope a jury would laugh it out of court. If the 'perverting the course of justice' was lying to investigators about events, then that may well be an appropriate charge.
I suspect the prosecutors are treating "Sure, go ahead, SWAT me. Here's my address" as illegal, and that's an interesting precedent to try and set - as someone else noted earlier, that's tantamount to officially admitting that the police can be used to assassinate people.
Unless they're intelligent enough to make the 911 call anonymously, then not brag about it on the internet.
Shit, the US police don't know who just bought a shitty phone, dialled 911, ditched the phone and flew back to Europe. Meanwhile your son is dead because he answered the door instead of you.
Me, I'd rather the police in my country were a bit more fucking intelligent.
"Put up your hands" Man puts up his hands. Bang.
Only in America and corrupt dictatorships would "He put his hands up too quickly" be considered a fucking excuse.
he reached toward his waistline multiple times
Where are your hands? At the end of your arms, at a guess. How long are your arms? If you don't hold your arms away from your body, where do they hang, while you're stood up? Where does that leave your hands?
Oh, wait. We should fucking shoot you on sight, you're clearly reaching towards your waistband, and you just argued that this is a lethal and immediate threat towards police.
Well, given that Viner and Gaskill aren't being charged with manslaughter (or similar charges) they're not being held responsible for the death.
I think Gaskill is guilty of stupidity but even then not necessarily to criminal levels. It'll be interesting to see how this case progresses.
They were not shooting the gun in the house....
Yes, they were.
Bullets can miss. When they miss, they hit whatever was behind the target. In this case, it was a house.
Bullets travel very quickly and consequently carry a lot of momentum. This means they're hard to stop, and as people aren't terribly solid this means that bullets frequently go through a person that they've hit, and also hit whatever was behind the person. In this case, it was a house.
A bullet isn't actually a flaming arrow or whatever you seem to think it is.
But (as discussed) bullets travel very quickly. If they hit something very solid they stop very quickly too. All that momentum mentioned a moment ago gets translated from kinetic energy into heat.
Lets play a game. Stand in some gasoline and apply heat, tell me what happens.
Risk summary execution and go with "misplaced merkin".
Even if you can make the argument that police screwed up that doesn't excuse the actions or responsibility for what happened.
I haven't seen anybody suggest that the guy that made the false 911 call should avoid prosecution.
It's a common law principle that you are responsible because if you hadn't committed the felony the death wouldn't have occurred
Only in the US. In the UK a policeman murdering someone is guilty of murder even if a crime was going on at the same time*.
there should be no argument in this case at least that the felony the gamers and caller committed resulted in a mans death
The gamers that didn't make the call very much have an argument that they did not cause a man's death. I'll be fucking amazed if they plead guilty.
*unless he murders a Brazilian electrician, in which case he'll get away with it and his boss will be made Commissioner of the UK's largest police force.
Are you fucking dense? Where are the people complaining that the police responded, that the police provided an armed response, that the police immediately approached and surrounded the property, that the police knocked on the door, that the police shone bright lights in the face of the person that opened it or that the police shouted at him?
It's the subsequent murder that people are complaining about.
They cannot win with you people.
They're not trying to, they're just happily fucking murdering innocent people and getting away with it.
That's not mitigation. That's scapegoating.
Try fixing the fucked up police force. Prosecute the murderer that pulled the trigger, prosecute the police service that employed him and prosecute whichever cunt wrote the training plan because they're all culpable.
Then maybe other police services in the US will adopt approaches that don't involve murdering innocent people that answer the door.
Sure. Fucking sue me for not killing the unarmed innocent man. Go for it. I'll see you in court.
There was no threat.
The perpetrator wasn't even in the same fucking state.
SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of
..murdering someone.
Of course they fucking verify whether there is a risk of harm. Or at least, they should.
SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.
Then their RoE need to include "don't murder people". Or do you think I'm being unreasonable here?
When a situation dictates that SWAT be deployed, it is a combat situation
No, it's a police situation. There is a risk of harm.
That risk should not come from the fucking murdering cunts in police uniforms.
Oh, you're so such a sweetie. You just defined 'news media' as 'organisations that publish shit I agree with'.
No fucking wonder you disagreed with SuperKendall's point, he wasn't parroting whatever fucking myths you currently favour.
A portion of the public believes it
A portion of the public believes fucking everything. That's hardly a challenge to the wisdom of the crowds.
The news has listed them as conspiracy theories.
Except for the news media published by the members of the public that believe they're true. Which, inconveniently for you, means that members of the media believe those theories to be true. Fortunately I'm not stupid enough to claim that because one fuckwit publication believes in a conspiracy theory all media is guilty as charged.
You really are fucking excellent at disproving your own points. You're a fucking magician at it.
Yes. Libel is defamation of a person through a permanent form of communication, and defamation is the expression of an untrue insinuation against a personâ(TM)s reputation.
You very much insinuated that Peterson supported removing the right of women to leave an abusive partner or have casual relationships. That's defamatory, and as you used a permanent form of communication, that makes it libel.
Luckily for you I suspect Peterson has better things to do with his life than sue the thousands of total fuckwits that actionably impugn him online.
Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby
David Cameron.
the folks who can differentiate and care to do not need a website like this
One way I can interpret, assess and understand the accuracy of news reporting is by exploring the issues it's discussing, finding out more about them and hearing other viewpoints.
That's rather quicker, easier and more engaging if I can do it as a public exercise in the company of others. That doesn't mean it has to be a website, but it's quite hardly to engage internationally in a coffee shop.
I'm fascinated that you're arguing that the US is lawless, and using as proof the enforcement of (copyright) law.
It's nearly but not quite as amusing as you claiming the US is lawless, and using as proof laws being bought and paid for.
What the fuck? You throw out a list of conspiracy theories as supposed proof that the public can't determine anything real or accurate, even though the public use the term conspiracy theory to describe them?
That's the public demonstrating that they don't think those conspiracy theories are accurate, because if they did, those wouldn't be conspiracy theories.
Now where's your list that supports you in any way?
You just fucking provided it.
Are you shitting me? A major reason that people in the UK voted to leave the European Union is because the media had been scoring their views and silencing the ones that the media and politicians didn't like.
Shit, it's happening to Tommy Robinson now. I don't actually know what his real views are because I've never gone to hear him speak; I just know that the media is scoring him very very low and thus refusing to give him or his views any visibility.
I think that's bullshit. If he's talking total nonsense then it's easy to demonstrate this. If he isn't then listen to what he's saying and determine whether subsequent change is warranted. If he's breaking the law arrest him.
Then there's the whole online social media side of things. The public gets very rapidly scored, and removed from social media if they go against the politics of the platform. Where there are multiple platforms this may not be an issue, but pretending that creating an echo chamber on Twitter is good for society would be foolish indeed.