mdk

Most anticipated Games of 2018-2019

Respawn, makers of Titanfall, are now apparently releasing a Star Wars game. Jedi: Fallen Order, set in the prequel-originals gap. Everything about this pleases me.

The Political Thread

My whole question is did he even actually point the gun? It was the SWAT team that showed up and discovered the gun on him, and that reported it was in his back pocket. If, for example, the wife of Greg Hill had entered the garage from inside the house (plenty of assumptions here) and moved the gun to his pocket, then I feel she would have been charged when they fingerprinted. I would still like an explanation as to how, after shooting him in the head, he decided he should put his unloaded gun away.

@Sanctus Spooki

None of that is in the press, so *major shrug* IDUNNO. This was tried twice and the jury heard everything we can read and more, and they're in unanimous agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable, at this point in this specific case, to go with that.

Looking at them a bit closer, it seems almost every picture actually has the garage door slightly open to elevate the apparent level at which the shots were taken. That last shot (I'm assuming it's the last shot or these police officers should have their guns taken away based on inability to aim) to the bottom is clearly excessive, there's no way he though he was shooting his foot or something. It strikes me more as a cop doing what he's told is the best result (I forget the exact phrasing but essentially it is better for the force if when they shoot someone, that someone dies)

The lowest one logically is the first shot, because the door was closing during the shooting. Again though, the whole sequence of events and all the ballistics were presented at trial(s) and administratively by IA.

Also I wouldn't necessarily call the guy an asshole. He was drunk as fuck.

I think you're misreading me there -- I'm speaking broadly with that aside. Lots of assholes DO point guns at cops, and I don't think that should be a guaranteed payout for the asshole.

If someone was banging on my door -extremely aggressively I would guess if his music was that loud- I might grab a bat in a similar state (I'm assuming he didn't hear, or they didn't announce themselves, I know police wouldn't be screaming "Police!" Around here for a noise complaint.) If he did retrieve his gun, and interpreted a threat outside, he would already have drawn it (remember btw he never loaded it, that says quite a bit about the man's character, plenty of actual assholes walk around with a loaded gun and "+1 in the chamber").

Making a lot of assumptions that aren't in evidence here.

Imagine drawing a gun, and upon opening your door the first thing you see is a police officer. Your first thought would probably be something along the lines of "Oh shit I'm about to die."

Not at all, but that's part of the problem. I have no idea how to correct the perception that "cops are here" = "I'm about to die" for minorities. Because historically speaking they're not wrong, but also that very perception itself perpetuates the problem. I don't know how to fix that.

Was he brandishing a gun? Debatable. Should he have shut the door? Obviously not. Was there excessive force implemented. Without a doubt.

That's not what the grand jury found. That shouldn't close the book on the case or anything, but there ought to be some doubt at least.

When you speak about precedent, this case is absolutely terrifying. The court found 0 excessive force and that Hill was 99% responsible because he was intoxicated. Using this as precedent any drunk belligerent assholes could be filled with lead. For example saying "Fuck you" then turning and running from a cop for public intoxication (Stupid fucking idea, I've seen it enough times that this freaks me out) and because it's dark out and the cop can't see every clear detail, he claims to see a gun (cellphone) in his hand and opens fire. In both situations the victim was clearly trying to hide/escape - even though hiding in your garage when they are outside is pretty stupid.

Here's where we're actually more okay than you think. The precedent here doesn't say that at all. The precedent here says "In the event of a clean shoot, the police are financially responsible commensurate with their role in the shooting." In this case, they also ruled that the shooting was nearly entirely Hill's fault (not an easy thing to rule, and it's even harder to see through emotions with half the evidence and a media circus, but they got there anyway), and therefore the penalty is so insultingly low. I would've rather seen it tossed out -- but as precedents go, this one's pretty fine actually.

So all a cop has to do now is say he was afraid (In this case for his partner)? A police officers job - one of them- is to handle scary situations with a level of calmness and composure.

I mean not to be cold, but a headshot through a closing door with a gun in your face is pretty composed.

If I had encountered these officers when I was covered in blood after my friend had an accident, I would be dead today.

That's not in evidence.

The Political Thread

Thank you, I'm still on the fence as to what happened, though. Atleast however, this provides an actual counter-argument to the story of "Man shot over noise complaint." The idea that he returned his gun to his waistband after being shot 3 times (once in the head) sounds a bit strange.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

These were my two main reasons for bringing this up, my Google searches were only giving me the same thing from different sites -all of which I would consider a bit left leaning- (maybe my location affected that) and I figured someone else would have better sources than me. That and 4 dollars, let alone 4 cents really is shameful for everyone involved. It implies that while he his death was a mistake, his life was barely worth a Big Kahuna burger. It would have been better saying they were entitled to nothing do to his actions.

@Sanctus Spooki

It would indeed. Every part of the actual awarding of money sounds broken as hell here -- but, again, my little internal Occam's Razor says there's probably more to THAT story too. Typically cases like this (and like the Trayvon Martin case), the deceased isn't on trial and the decision has little or nothing to do with them. Martin's conduct was immaterial to that case, and Zimmerman's council didn't (and/or couldn't, I honestly can't remember) say anything about it. In this case the question is "What is the state's financial burden for a clean shooting" (it was already tried and found legit years ago) -- and the judge/jury said "not a whole hell of a lot."

Which makes sense as a precedent -- every asshole who pulls a gun on cops shouldn't earn a paycheck -- but it's also a pretty loaded subject in THIS case, at least based on the version the media's chosen to run with.

The Political Thread

globalnews.ca/news/4246965/man-shot-4…

Shot to death for a noise complaint, and the family was given 4 cents in reparation.

I try to tell myself that America isn't racist, but how do you defend shit like this?

@Sanctus Spooki

Here's BBC's writeup. The main takeaway is that the jury found no excessive use of force. If it's a justified police shooting then.... why would the police owe money? Granted the 4-cent valuation is fucking insulting and that's wildly inappropriate behavior for a judge, it's just.... I mean, I have no background on this case other than what I've read today, but it sure seems like due process was followed here.

edit: then again that ain't much for me to hold up against the guy. Maybe the jury heard some evidence I didn't get. Four gunshots at a closing door looks nakedly excessive, there.... something else, too, maybe? What, uh.... hmmmmm.... Let's see if I can dig up anything else that's not reacting to the 4-cent thing.

second edit: archive.tcpalm.com/news/grand-jury-st… Linked on the first article apparently. Okay. Yeah. Look family, I'm sorry and all, and that four-cent bullshit is still wrong but uh.... play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't point guns at cops.

The Political Thread

Edit: it just occurred to me that this premise is based upon the idea that no Tyranical Government that I know of has been displaced through entirely peaceful means, if anyone has an example of one, it would be much appreciated.

@Sanctus Spooki

Well, Libya, and that's why Kim brought it up. Gaddaffi disarmed, handed over power, did everything we could've asked for, and then we invaded him anyway because of what he did 20 years earlier/because the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to and we trusted them? Unclear. Either way it was a shitshow. What else, what else.... Well Apartheid in South Africa was ended mostly peacefully, give or take a few 'necklaces.' Of course now IT'S going to shit. You may be on to something.

The Political Thread

I wasn't aware it was the CIA's decision.

The Political Thread

@mdk There's probably no real point, but it seems odd there isn't one for such a large country. Here is a list of pros and cons though.

Also, apparently Trump's meetings with Kim Jong Un haven't gone as spectacularly as a lot of conservatives claim, though they might be back on due to Sung Kim.

@POOHEAD189

There's a plan (note the date on that tweet). And bear in mind, quite a lot of progress has already happened. I'd say things are going better than they have in 20+ years. The goal now is to do better than Clinton did, something Trump is apparently good at...?

The Political Thread

@mdkDo you think the U.S. should have a national language?

@POOHEAD189

Meh. There are social advantages to everyone speaking the same language (cfr: Poland is more unified than India), so the people saying it aren't wrong. But I can't see why it should matter at this point. Everything we'd stand to gain, we've already got, because that ship sailed in like the 1700s.

Then again I don't think we'd lose anything by having one. Just saying, what's the point.

The Political Thread

I just saw someone claim that if you tell someone they should speak english in the United States, you are a racist because there is no official language in the U.S.
"Racist" claim aside, shouldn't someone learn english in the U.S. based upon percentages of english speakers?

@POOHEAD189

I mean to be fair, there's a difference between 'should learn English' and 'telling someone they should speak English.' As if the very presence of another language was a threat to the statue of liberty's virtue.

In a non-confrontational way, yeah, you should speak English here for practical and social reasons. In a legal sense, it's a requirement for citizenship (with numerous exemptions). Also you should speak Spanish if you wanna live in the US, and also you should probably learn Chinese if you wanna live in this solar system fifty years from now. Very few people are going to learn all the languages they should, so it's kinda dumb to hold it against anyone -- like, I get it, English is tough. It can be learned through thorough thought though.

The Political Thread

@mdk

From Israel. Because, you know, they're trustworthy on this issue. /s

@Pepperm1nts

Yeah who can trust them, they're just the ones Iran has been bombing and promising to destroy. You can't take their word that Iran is violent.

Furthermore, the information Israel presented is old. Like, really old. From 2003 to 2004 when Iran was building a spherical weapon of some sort. Development of the weapon ended in 2004 and there is no evidence that they have continued development.

Well, I.... didn't go into it. But the very act of preserving that research is a violation of the agreement, so.... nyeh?

You can't knock an article from a few months ago by presenting evidence of a project from 2003. C'mon, bruh. Even the article you posted mentions that the documents are useless and outdated.

I just grabbed the first link. Netanyahu's point is, Iran never came clean about their program before the deal.

I think it was a good deal, but regardless of what you think, a deal is a deal. When you break deals you hurt our credibility and our standing. It is not the least bit surprising that North Korea is having second thoughts. Not to mention we had a deal before. Now we have nothing.

This is the deal. It requires very little from Iran, and relinquishes all safeguards within eight years. The EU+3 is granted authority to 'discuss solutions' to violations, and also forbidden from responding to them (Iran is expressly allowed to 'cease performing its commitments in part or in whole'). Nobody thought it was going to work, btw. Note that we never ratified this shit -- it was never voted up through Congress and wouldn't have passed -- and also we're totally allowed to unilaterally leave, it's part of the deal. So like.... if this deal demands so little and requires permanent bypass of democratic processes in the US to stay valid.... what was the goddamn point of it?