News Stories

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Do not assume the "suspect" to be a criminal simply for carrying firearm. Though I suppose there's also downside to this as mentioned above.

Errr, well this is California, where they generally don't have open carry for Firearms...so technically speaking...you are a criminal simply for openly carrying a firearm in California.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They tried the "don't shoot until fired on" in the past, they ended up with dead officers in Los Angeles and other major cities.

It'd be an especially risky thing to try in this circumstance, because if this had been real, the gunman armed with a high capacity rifle would have had a substantial advantage over the two officers (presumably) armed with handguns.

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Let's be real here, you can positively assure no one about nothing here on German Intelligence activities.

Unless you actually have the kind of very high security clearance to know about those kind of things, but then those people tend to not go on the internet to confirm or deny what is it they do or don't do.

We can positively assure what our intellingence service is legally allowed to do.
Of course they may secretely be doing evil stuff too. Maybe they are the masterminds behind everything bad that happens. We don't know.
We also don't know everything the NSA does, yet (and possibly never will).

We do know however, that if they did things like that, they would be breaking German law (and likely many international treaties too).
If it came out they did it, there would be major consequences.

That is the difference here.
The argument, that everyone may, or may not be doing it, so it's ok is just stupid.
The important thing is the legal framework we lay around it. If then some players break the rules, it is our duty to stop them.
But there seem to be no such checks on the NSA.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Yep. The danger is America is trying to make unrestricted spying, LEGAL. This is not something I want to deal with.

As someone said, we are not saying America broke the law; we are saying we are surprised that America does not have to.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Really dude? Aren't you better than taking low shots like this? When did I ever say that? Do I really need to explain that I'm merely saying that society and police should how themselves to a higher standard than this? Where in there does it say the loss of one life, anylife is worth less than another? I certainly don't hold a police officers life to be of less value than a criminal and I don't hold it to be less than that of a 13 year old boy. All life is valuable and I really shouldn't even have to say that.

I'm not talking about something as abstract as "value" where you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. I'm talking about choices, and consequences. If you think suspects should be granted so much of the benefit of the doubt they're allowed to take aim and fire before policemen are allowed to defend themselves, then you think policemen's lives are worth less than that of ordinary citizens or even criminals.

I see that a lot, and not just for policemen. Joe Retail Clerk or Jane Secretary expect to be paid for their work. But teachers, nurses... what they do is a public service, it should be a passion, and they should feel privileged to do it for no pay and no respect.

Policemen, soldiers? Same, but with bullet taking on top. Oh, and they should also be super-intelligent and always know what's what, and predict the future. That reminds me of an article about superheroes' greatest power: certainty. Maybe we should remember ordinary folks, which policemen are, don't have that power.

I agree that policemen should have an interest in Robocop's three official directives. (Not the one about OCP executives, of course.) But you should be real careful about what you ask of people who aren't bulletproof cyborgs with their emotions surgically amputated.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm not talking about something as abstract as "value" where you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. I'm talking about choices, and consequences. If you think suspects should be granted so much of the benefit of the doubt they're allowed to take aim and fire before policemen are allowed to defend themselves, then you think policemen's lives are worth less than that of ordinary citizens or even criminals.

I see that a lot, and not just for policemen. Joe Retail Clerk or Jane Secretary expect to be paid for their work. But teachers, nurses... what they do is a public service, it should be a passion, and they should feel privileged to do it for no pay and no respect.

Policemen, soldiers? Same, but with bullet taking on top. Oh, and they should also be super-intelligent and always know what's what, and predict the future. That reminds me of an article about superheroes' greatest power: certainty. Maybe we should remember ordinary folks, which policemen are, don't have that power.

I agree that policemen should have an interest in Robocop's three official directives. (Not the one about OCP executives, of course.) But you should be real careful about what you ask of people who aren't bulletproof cyborgs with their emotions surgically amputated.

Awesome post!

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm not talking about something as abstract as "value" where you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. I'm talking about choices, and consequences. If you think suspects should be granted so much of the benefit of the doubt they're allowed to take aim and fire before policemen are allowed to defend themselves, then you think policemen's lives are worth less than that of ordinary citizens or even criminals.

I see that a lot, and not just for policemen. Joe Retail Clerk or Jane Secretary expect to be paid for their work. But teachers, nurses... what they do is a public service, it should be a passion, and they should feel privileged to do it for no pay and no respect.

Policemen, soldiers? Same, but with bullet taking on top.

But noone forces them to take up those jobs.

(until there's not enough of them for society to function efficiently of course.)

[monir]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

But noone forces them to take up those jobs.

True, but the point still stands about the perceived expectation and difference in standard from them despite the fact they are also people.

[Mentar]

(Struggling hard to bite back a comment about the value of gun control, mostly failing)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Mentar

(Struggling hard to bite back a comment about the value of gun control, mostly failing)

*Jedi Mind Trick*

You will speak your mind.

[Seitsuki]

'Guns don't kill people. People kill people!'


Ban people.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Mentar

(Struggling hard to bite back a comment about the value of gun control, mostly failing)

To add to your struggle, this one's for you...

http://247wallst.com/special-report/...un-violence/2/

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by monir

To add to your struggle, this one's for you...

http://247wallst.com/special-report/...un-violence/2/

You realise than such statistic don't discourage anti-gun-control folks, they claim than the problem is than there's not enough gun.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

You realise than such statistic don't discourage anti-gun-control folks, they claim than the problem is than there's not enough gun.

But the solution is neither taking guns away from people.

From my POV as a foreigner, US of A is an interesting place who gives credence to "grey" rather than insisting on "black" and "white", the problem it has are twofold - setting ground rules and enforcing them.

In short, it has a problem with regulating whatever laws and administrative procedures it enacted. The Swiss have guns, but they don't use it to randomly shoot people, because they keep them in the hands of sane people, making sanity/rationality the biggest barrier to buying and owning guns.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by monir

True, but the point still stands about the perceived expectation and difference in standard from them despite the fact they are also people.

I see. Well, it's sort of a "double-edged sword", with higher expectation and respect comes more disappointment. Like in the case of doctor vs lawyer.

Doctors still manage to maintain a positive image to the public. But when they fail to live up to professional or ethical standard, they would take a bigger hit.

Lawyers' image is much less positive in comparison, but people are already "desensitized". So even when people complain about lawyers, it's usually no longer than one to two sentences.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

But noone forces them to take up those jobs.

(until there's not enough of them for society to function efficiently of course.)

All the more reason to be grateful when they do, then, don't you think?

Originally Posted by maplehurry

I see. Well, it's sort of a "double-edged sword", with higher expectation and respect comes more disappointment. Like in the case of doctor vs lawyer.

But that's the thing. The expectations may be high, but the respect isn't.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

In short, it has a problem with regulating whatever laws and administrative procedures it enacted. The Swiss have guns, but they don't use it to randomly shoot people, because they keep them in the hands of sane people, making sanity/rationality the biggest barrier to buying and owning guns.

Or that they give guns, mostly service rifles, to people who have undergone military service. And by that time they finish it, most would either be so sick of guns that they don't even want to think about it or understand that those things are not toys or bling bling accessories you want want to carry to show off.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

That is the difference here.

The argument, that everyone may, or may not be doing it, so it's ok is just stupid.
The important thing is the legal framework we lay around it. If then some players break the rules, it is our duty to stop them.
But there seem to be no such checks on the NSA.

FFS people, why does me pointing out the obvious implausibility of a rather naïve “our shit don’t stink” statement somehow gets warped to me agreeing with what the NSA is doing in your minds?

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

From my POV as a foreigner, US of A is an interesting place who gives credence to "grey" rather than insisting on "black" and "white", the problem it has are twofold - setting ground rules and enforcing them.

Sorry, it’s already been decided that it is a black and white issue, if you’re pro-gun, you’re a terrible human being who wants innocent children killed, and if you’re anti-gun, you’re also a terrible human being who wants innocent children killed.

What? Actual discussions? Naw, why bother when the other side are such terrible people?

Originally Posted by JokerD

Or that they give guns, mostly service rifles, to people who have undergone military service.

Don't they have compulsory service?

And by that time they finish it, most would either be so sick of guns that they don't even want to think about it or understand that those things are not toys or bling bling accessories you want want to carry to show off.

I can recall quite a few people who insist that anyone, including prior and current military, who chose to own/carry firearm are just doing it to show off, or a myriad of other more derogatory claims.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

FFS people, why does me pointing out the obvious implausibility of a rather naïve “our shit don’t stink” statement somehow gets warped to me agreeing with what the NSA is doing in your minds?



Sorry, it’s already been decided that it is a black and white issue, if you’re pro-gun, you’re a terrible human being who wants innocent children killed, and if you’re anti-gun, you’re also a terrible human being who wants innocent children killed.

What? Actual discussions? Naw, why bother when the other side are such terrible people?

It is always the minority extremists that make noises like that.

Except that in US, they are more vocal about their views.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is always the minority extremists that make noises like that.

Except that in US, they are more vocal about their views.

No, they're just as vocal everywhere else. The difference is that the US media gives the extremists the spotlight. Elsewhere, they're ignored as outliers generally should be.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GDB

No, they're just as vocal everywhere else. The difference is that the US media gives the extremists the spotlight. Elsewhere, they're ignored as outliers generally should be.

You have more clarity of thought than me on that. Yes, it is likely that because extremist views are better for volume of viewership than mundane news.

So much that it convinces people that it is okay to be an extremist. No finer work draws more attention that is stark.