News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

(SAN FRANCISCO) — A girl who was aboard the Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed died Friday, the same day that authorities confirmed one of the two Chinese teenagers killed in the disaster was hit by a firetruck.
The disclosure about the teen raised the tragic possibility that she could have survived the crash only to die in its chaotic aftermath.
No one knows yet whether the two teens lived through the initial impact at the San Francisco airport. But police and fire officials confirmed Friday that Ye Meng Yuan, 16, was hit by a firetruck racing to extinguish the blazing Boeing 777.


http://nation.time.com/2013/07/12/th...from-injuries/

3 dead so far, 1 maybe by the firetruck.



and form South Korea

A Seoul newscaster has drawn sharp criticism for appearing to express relief upon learning Sunday that the two dead passengers on Asiana Airlines 020560.SE +0.10% flight 214 were Chinese and not South Korean.


“We just received an update that the two dead are assumed to be Chinese….We can say it is a relief at least for us,” Channel A presenter Yoon Kyung-min said on a news broadcast for the cable news channel on Sunday.


http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2...h-korea-china/

this is even worst then when the american broadcaster keep talking about the dozen American dead vs the thousands of other dead during the Indonesia tsunami.

[KiraYamatoFan]

That broadcaster missed the opportunity to just shut it up. Just sack that idiot in the morning, plz.

[SeijiSensei]

US Negotiates Expanded Military Role in Philippines

Raul Hernandez, a spokesman for the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, reiterated that no new American bases were planned and said any new agreement would be in line with the Philippine Constitution. He said the discussions with the United States involved the use of “rotational” forces.

James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor for IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly, said a likely model for the use of such forces in the Philippines was the Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines, a contingent of about 500 members of the United States military who come from various branches.

The task force, which focuses on counterterrorism, has been based on a Philippine military base in the southern Philippines since 2002 in a facility that is officially considered temporary.

The United States has also used its former naval base in Subic Bay for ship visits.

Subic Bay is a special economic zone catering to private investors. Last year a subsidiary of the United States defense contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries set up operation for the stated purpose of servicing United States Navy ships, suggesting to some that the American presence in the area would grow.

Mr. Hardy said the American military’s use of Subic and the rotational presence model used in the southern Philippines were both indications of what an American presence in the Philippines might look like.

A "temporary" facility that has been in use for over a decade? But not a base, no, we can't have that.

[Ithekro]

As far as I can recall, Subic Bay hasn't been used by the US Navy since he 1990s. Before that it was used for a very long time.

[ganbaru]

Chinese economic reforms front-and-center in talks with U.S.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96B11U20130712

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

and form South Korea



this is even worst then when the american broadcaster keep talking about the dozen American dead vs the thousands of other dead during the Indonesia tsunami.

I guess this is a way to appease the nationalist part of the audience once in a while...

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As far as I can recall, Subic Bay hasn't been used by the US Navy since he 1990s. Before that it was used for a very long time.

The return of the US Navy to Subic has been developing over the past year.

http://thediplomat.com/2012/10/16/ju...o-philippines/

In some ways, the increase in troop and platform rotations is similar to the deal that the U.S. and Australia unveiled in November 2011 that will eventually see 2,500 U.S. Marines train in Darwin. Unlike that arrangement, however, Subic will be hosting a lot of U.S. hardware and will also act as a support and servicing facility for the U.S. Navy. AMSEC, a subsidiary of U.S. shipbuilder Huntingdon Ingalls Industries announced in April that it would set up a maintenance, repair, and logistics hub at Subic using facilities owned by Korean shipbuilder Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction (HHIC).

[SaintessHeart]

Singapore cop arrested for gruesome double murder

Suspect in Kovan double murder is police officer with 14 years of experience

Being someone previously from the security/homeland protection line, I say that being a policeman has been increasingly unpleasant due to the expectations placed on them by both public and an increasingly "blur" government. It isn't a wonder that any of them would snap and suddenly do something crazy in a moment of frenzy and confusion.

Where is the support when they need it?

[ganbaru]

Florida jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96C07420130714

[Mr. DJ]

Looking from both possible perspectives, he should have been guilty of manslaughter.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Florida jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96C07420130714

According to the BBC report, the jury was asked to consider whether Zimmerman "acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force".

The verdict has to be understood in the context of Florida's "stand your ground" law. If the jury found him to be acting in self-defence, then neither murder nor manslaughter would justifiably apply to his actions that day.

But then, I never understood the American penchant for vigilante justice and the right to bear deadly arms. So, yes, count me among those who find the verdict hard to accept. Only in America, it seems.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

According to the BBC report, the jury was asked to consider whether Zimmerman "acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force".

The verdict has to be understood in the context of Florida's "stand your ground" law. If the jury found him to be acting in self-defence, then neither murder nor manslaughter would justifiably apply to his actions that day.

But then, I never understood the American penchant for vigilante justice and the right to bear deadly arms. So, yes, count me among those who find the verdict hard to accept. Only in America, it seems.

The logic behind vigilante justice is when you have to take down someone who can cause physical hurt and distress within an immediate radius; it is certainly more effective against criminals than a bunch of boys in blue ordered out onto the streets by some overrated government scholar with more tongue than brains. Of course, when Murphy's law kicks in, it causes more damage than a "legal process" would.

That verdict is borne from courtroom drama and politics - that is the problem with juries, most members of them are more prone to emotional decisions than logical ones. The question asked is loaded, so why didn't anyone challenge it?

So they just let a murderer walk away scot-free. Hopefully there is another vigilante out there with his name on a bullet; when the court fails to dispense justice, it is up to the citizenry to do so.

[Seitsuki]

Wouldn't that just result in a case of circular logic?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Wouldn't that just make this a case of circular logic?

There isn't any circular logic; the problem with this case is glaringly highlighted in the judicial and courts system; juries are used instead of real judges; who are trained to sideline emotions then use logic and critical reasoning to pass judgements (or what idiots would call "psychopathic thinking").

Vigilantes are fine. The problem is when due process kicks in and there isn't sufficiently competent people running the legal process. Shooting someone who you think is armed and shooting someone who you know is actually armed are two different things.

The problem with the Stand Your Ground law is that there is no section pertaining to proper rules of engagement. Considering Zimmerman actually tracked down that person without listening to the dispatcher, it should have been considered vengeance killing. That is murder.

[monir]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

According to the BBC report, the jury was asked to consider whether Zimmerman "acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force".

The verdict has to be understood in the context of Florida's "stand your ground" law. If the jury found him to be acting in self-defence, then neither murder nor manslaughter would justifiably apply to his actions that day.

But then, I never understood the American penchant for vigilante justice and the right to bear deadly arms. So, yes, count me among those who find the verdict hard to accept. Only in America, it seems.

Well, the real kicker is when the family of the kid files the civil suit for wrongful death on the premise of manslaughter charges the criminal court just cleared him for. I think Florida went through this motion because they had to. If this guy was convicted, Florida would have gotten some brown eggs thrown at their face for allowing idiots like him carry a gun and "stand your ground."

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monir

Well, the real kicker is when the family of the kid files the civil suit for wrongful death on the premise of manslaughter charges the criminal court just cleared him for. I think Florida went through this motion because they had to. If this guy was convicted, Florida would have gotten some brown eggs thrown at their face for allowing idiots like him carry a gun and "stand your ground."

So why are they still letting him? And he is still in the Neighbourhood Watch?

There should be a promotional system where Watchmen would be promoted from baton to taser to gun. In fact, there should be some sort of ROE and training for guns in the first place.

Carrying a piece takes alot of personal responsibility; that is what gun ownership is about.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem with the Stand Your Ground law is that there is no section pertaining to proper rules of engagement.

The law has very specific clauses that explain how it should be applied. It does not help that George Zimmerman was, in fact, physically attacked by Trayvon Martin. During the immediate events that led to the shooting, it can be justifiably argued that Zimmerman was acting in self-defence.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Considering Zimmerman actually tracked down that person without listening to the dispatcher, it should have been considered vengeance killing. That is murder.

I don't know how it is a "vengeance killing". Zimmerman spotted Martin wearing a hood walking about in a gated community and followed him against police advice. That's the point I'm surprised wasn't argued more strongly in court by the prosecution. The whole incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to the authorities' instructions. I've read the interviews with Florida police who were very specific about what neighbourhood watch patrols are supposed to do. They are supposed to alert the police of suspicious activity, not take matters into their own hands.

Was it ever determined conclusively whether Martin was trespassing? I don't recall the decision on this point.

[monir]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

So why are they still letting him? And he is still in the Neighbourhood Watch?

There should be a promotional system where Watchmen would be promoted from baton to taser to gun. In fact, there should be some sort of ROE and training for guns in the first place.

Because states like Florida allows it!!!! But if he is smart, he wouldn't want to be the Neighborhood watch any more.

Carrying a piece takes alot of personal responsibility; that is what gun ownership is about.

As far as personal responsibility goes, it was argued in the court that Zimmerman was the best student in that class he took which teaches you to be a responsible gun owner.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Was it ever determined conclusively whether Martin was trespassing? I don't recall the decision on this point.

Yes, the family rented a property there recently.

I see this case as one where both sides are not wrong, just that the results were tragic. Putting it in another way, if the killing had not happened, it could be the kid being in the docks for assault charges. After all, 'stand your ground' works both ways and we know that Zimmerman was following Martin.

Still it was troubling that people would rush to use the race card (Martin was a black, Zimmerman is... very mixed) until it was proven otherwise. Although I might be biased, I thought Zimmerman was a decent fellow from what I've read. Just that he made various wrong decisions that night.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

According to the BBC report, the jury was asked to consider whether Zimmerman "acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force".

The verdict has to be understood in the context of Florida's "stand your ground" law. If the jury found him to be acting in self-defence, then neither murder nor manslaughter would justifiably apply to his actions that day.

But then, I never understood the American penchant for vigilante justice and the right to bear deadly arms. So, yes, count me among those who find the verdict hard to accept. Only in America, it seems.

This is just plain disgusting. The juries were nothing short of a bunch of 12 cowards not asking themselves what is the rationale behind that Stand Your Ground law nor what the hell was Zimmerman doing when he completely disregarded an order after the 911 call.

I don't understand that concept of vigilante justice either, considering how many other advanced countries have seen their respective societies evolve so there would be no need for it. Now, I understand why Canada went on the path of placing law and order (cheers to our Mounties) first before colonizing new territories in the 19th Century rather than the opposite.

Originally Posted by monir

Well, the real kicker is when the family of the kid files the civil suit for wrongful death on the premise of manslaughter charges the criminal court just cleared him for. I think Florida went through this motion because they had to. If this guy was convicted, Florida would have gotten some brown eggs thrown at their face for allowing idiots like him carry a gun and "stand your ground."

It's because of several idiots like him that I'm against that concept of Neighborhood Watch, especially with the blatant lack of rules of engagement surrounding this. Either way, Florida was screwed from the moment this story broke out. One of my friends living in Tampa is not very kind about the mentality of a number of people in the region.

I'm absolutely gutted.