News Stories

[willx]

For reference -- Vancouver Police Department Manual - Use of Force:

PROCEDURE
Firearms/Lethal Force
1. Members may discharge their firearms if it is reasonable and necessary to do so and in accordance with the protections and authorizations provided by Section 25 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

2. The seriousness of the offence does not in itself justify the use of firearms in the pursuit of suspects, unless:
a. the member is, or is about to be, or has been fired upon, or the suspect has already killed or wounded someone;
b. the member is satisfied nothing less than deadly force will stop the fugitive or prevent their escape; and
c. the lives or safety of innocent persons will not be jeopardized.

3. Members shall not discharge a firearm at a vehicle in an attempt to disable it. Members are justified with using an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, against the occupant(s) of a vehicle if it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death to himself or herself or another person, and it is the least violent means available.

4. The discharge of a firearm as a warning shot is prohibited.

NOTE: None of the forgoing is intended in any way to convey the impression that members must unnecessarily risk their personal safety. In potentially dangerous situations, such as entering premises where there may be armed criminals, DRAWING OF THE SIDEARM AND HAVING IT "AT THE READY" IS QUITE PROPER AND IS RECOMMENDED.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Don't they have compulsory service?

There's always the unfit ones and the conscience objectors, those go for civil service or something

Originally Posted by kyp275

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.

Well, after at least a while inside you get to threat gun safety very seriously. Usually drilled into you by a very loud sergeant

Originally Posted by willx

For reference -- Vancouver Police Department Manual - Use of Force:

PROCEDURE
Firearms/Lethal Force
1. Members may discharge their firearms if it is reasonable and necessary to do so and in accordance with the protections and authorizations provided by Section 25 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

2. The seriousness of the offence does not in itself justify the use of firearms in the pursuit of suspects, unless:
a. the member is, or is about to be, or has been fired upon, or the suspect has already killed or wounded someone;
b. the member is satisfied nothing less than deadly force will stop the fugitive or prevent their escape; and
c. the lives or safety of innocent persons will not be jeopardized.

3. Members shall not discharge a firearm at a vehicle in an attempt to disable it. Members are justified with using an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, against the occupant(s) of a vehicle if it is to prevent grievous bodily harm or death to himself or herself or another person, and it is the least violent means available.

4. The discharge of a firearm as a warning shot is prohibited.

NOTE: None of the forgoing is intended in any way to convey the impression that members must unnecessarily risk their personal safety. In potentially dangerous situations, such as entering premises where there may be armed criminals, DRAWING OF THE SIDEARM AND HAVING IT "AT THE READY" IS QUITE PROPER AND IS RECOMMENDED.

That's actually quite tight... My RoE is 3 warnings, 1 warning shot, and then fire on target. Motor vehicles are considered weapons so fire away. And if intruder is armed, fire away. But then again, I was military and not civilian police.

Just wondering out loud if those policemen had been under fire or seen their fellow policemen shot. I think that if they've been under those kind of stressful situation, they would be more inclined to be more trigger happy in the interest of safety...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Well, after at least a while inside you get to threat gun safety very seriously. Usually drilled into you by a very loud sergeant

Or some dumb turd who helps to evenly distribute extras for the whole platoon to sign. Rounded up to the nearest viable whole number.

That's actually quite tight... My RoE is 3 warnings, 1 warning shot, and then fire on target. Motor vehicles are considered weapons so fire away. And if intruder is armed, fire away. But then again, I was military and not civilian police.

Just wondering out loud if those policemen had been under fire or seen their fellow policemen shot. I think that if they've been under those kind of stressful situation, they would be more inclined to be more trigger happy in the interest of safety...

Threat assessment - remember "Make sure you have a very good reason to shoot someone"?

That kid was wearing a hoodie : + to suspicion
Carrying a highly-probably automatic firearm : ++ suspicion
He turns around instead of following instructions to drop the weapon : + suspicion

Combined factors means to shoot first, talk later. If he turns around and it is a real weapon, he could have sprayed the policemen like Rambo.

That hardly counts as trigger happy - it is a valid threat assessment to shoot because if they don't, the guy will; if they are dead they can't carry out their duties, and more people will be in danger. Personal safety is in their interest.

Maybe it is because I am in a different unit from you. We don't follow the RoE as much as we follow TATI as the critical line of defence, be it first or last.

[ganbaru]

North Carolina GOP precinct chair resigns after racial remarks
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...acial-remarks/
At the very least, he said the true about the reason behind the GOP's new voter ID law...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

North Carolina GOP precinct chair resigns after racial remarks
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...acial-remarks/
At the very least, he said the true about the reason behind the GOP's new voter ID law...

The sad thing was he tried to insist he isn't racist by outright stating he was only trying to stop DEMOCRATS from voting, and that Blacks being prevented from voting is just collateral damage.

This is what happens when voting isn't compulsory, people. America should change their laws at some point, I would prefer in my own lifetime. The democratic process should not be about trying to stop your opposition from turning up to the polls, that's not why elections exist.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

North Carolina GOP precinct chair resigns after racial remarks

I watched Aasif Mandvi's original interview with the guy on The Daily Show the other night and shared Mandvi's head-slapping reaction "You know we can all hear you saying this, right?" (Mandvi has become an accomplished stage actor as well, winning kudos from critics for his performance in an off-Broadway show, "Disgraced," about assimilation and ethnic identities.)

This has been one of the best weeks for both Stewart and Colbert in months. Stewart has upped his criticism of the Administration substantially focusing on the problems with the healthcare rollout and the rise of the surveillance state. He conducted a much more amusing and informative interview than I expected with Charles Krauthammer about the latter's move from left to right over his career. Colbert visited a food bank that provides "navigators" to help people sign up for the coverage under the ACA. In his usual style he tried to embarrass these folks by offering to drop his trousers for the physical examination he claimed to have expected as a requirement for coverage. In fact the interview illustrated how little information people really have to provide to get some basic answers about coverage and rates. He also interviewed the PBS Newshour team of Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifell, the first all-female news anchor team in the US, on the nature of journalism and how it has evolved. I strongly recommend watching the last three or four nights of both shows for a mix of intelligent humor and serious reflection.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/
http://www.colbertnation.com/

[Ithekro]

The logic would be viable if there was no cost for a voter ID. The idea, on a basic level, would be to prevent non-residents of that district, non-citizens, and the dead, from voting.

The problem comes when the restrictions prevent legal voters from voting in any way.

[SeijiSensei]

The guy in North Carolina admitted that in his jurisdiction of 60,000 voters there was one known case of voter fraud via attempted impersonation. In Texas, these laws are being implemented with widespread problematic consequences, especially for older women. For decades Texas required women to obtain driver's licenses using their married names. For some women, like a local district judge, that name does not match her voter registration which uses her pre-nuptial surname. She has voted for five decades but was turned away in a local municipal election because of this conflict in documentation.

The Republican Attorney General of Texas who wants to succeed Rick Perry as Governor next year has trumpeted his anti-fraud activities, despite the fact that the state only has 66 documented cases of fraud since 2004, a period during which tens of millions of ballots were cast. He has even admitted that the new voter-ID law would have caught only four of those sixty-six votes.

I don't think jurisdictions can charge for IDs since that would constitute a "poll tax," an abomination we ruled illegal in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. For people who live in countries with a unitary, as opposed to federal, constitutional structure these types of conflicts must seem strange. States and localities have much more power and authority in the US than in, say, France or Singapore. Many political and constitutional conflicts in this country derive from the division of powers among Federal, state, and local officials.

[AnimeFan188]

Eavesdropper tweets former NSA chief's train chat:

"“Former NSA spy boss Michael Hayden on Acela behind me blabbing ‘on background
as a former senior admin official,’ “ Matzzie wrote. “Sounds defensive.”

For the next 15 minutes, the accidental eavesdropper gave periodic — and detailed —
updates about Hayden’s conversation. At one point, Hayden dropped the name
“Massimo,” which led Matzzie to suspect Hayden was talking to Time’s national security
reporter, Massimo Calabresi."

See:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/view...f-s-train-chat

[TooPurePureBoy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ashington-tim/

What do you guys make of this?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ashington-tim/

What do you guys make of this?

the Left is guilty of double standard here. If the Bush had done something like this there would riot in streets calling for impeachment. So far however not peep form the left.

[ganbaru]

Merkel to seek 'no spy deal' within EU as well as with U.S.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/to...31025?irpc=932

U.S. charges man with seeking to buy missiles for Iran
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/to...31025?irpc=932

Analysis: Obama's aversion to Mideast conflicts fuels backlash from allies
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/to...31026?irpc=932

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ashington-tim/

What do you guys make of this?

I see nothing wrong so far except overreactions from the usual suspects.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I watched Aasif Mandvi's original interview with the guy on The Daily Show the other night and shared Mandvi's head-slapping reaction "You know we can all hear you saying this, right?" (Mandvi has become an accomplished stage actor as well, winning kudos from critics for his performance in an off-Broadway show, "Disgraced," about assimilation and ethnic identities.)

I had a really surreal experience watching that daily show clip because at first I thought it was a parody, and then slowly became abhorred when I realized this was a real life guy. Astonishing what kind of people have power in this country.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I see nothing wrong so far except overreactions from the usual suspects.

Aside from it being illegal siezure? Remember the civilians have rights that the government is to uphold, not break on a whim because someone feels they need to cover something up, because that is how it reads for the Air Marshals.

One cannot have ones police state or marshal law within US borders no matter what you may feel.

[monir]

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.

In the near future, it won't matter when things like 3D printer becomes easily available/accessible/affordable and what not. People that wish for more guns may actually have their wish come true. What difference will that make in terms of curving gun related violence, I don't know.

[Sumeragi]

Somewhat amusing:

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Somewhat amusing:

[snip]

There is a mistake. When most of these clucks actually get on a platform to voice their views, they either squawk unintelligibly or chicken out.

Wonder what egged them to do so.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by monir

In the near future, it won't matter when things like 3D printer becomes easily available/accessible/affordable and what not. People that wish for more guns may actually have their wish come true. What difference will that make in terms of curving gun related violence, I don't know.

None, for all the attention 3D-printed guns gets, they are essentially worthless as a weapon.

Barring enormous leaps in material and 3D printing technology, the only thing 3D printing is good for as far as firearm goes is non-stress bearing components at best, and unreliable ones at that.

[Anh_Minh]

I like the idea of people pointing weapons that may blow up in their hands at each other. You know they're really determined when they're not sure they'll kill the other or themselves when they pull the trigger.