You claimed that the cop would be a scapegoat if the Grand Jury returned a verdict that he could be charged. It does not take a lawyer to figure out that this does not imply guilt, nor does it imply what charge a prosecutor would decide to file. It is impossible that the Grand Jury decision makes anyone a scape goat, a full trial would have to occur after that decision for what ever charges the prosecutor decided to file.

Yet you are defending the current decision as if you already knew all of this information, so the appeal to authority appears to be only a matter of convenience.

I gave the information, you will need to do the homework.

Holding a person accountable for their actions is the absolute opposite of anarchy.

The charge of excessive force is absolutely specific. It is not only missed here, but in every grand jury trial in the last few decades. I already covered some of the "why" it is missed, and rough statistics to back "that" it is missed. Go back and re-read what I wrote, and if you don't like the statistic the show I heard that on was 910AM SF, Gil Gross, and he was pulling data from the US DOJ for the topic (between 5:30-6:05PM 11/25/14).

Why do you continually claim that you need to be in a specific profession to be able to read, comprehend, and make decisions? Here you imply that you need to be a Lawyer to figure two dictionary words. Previously you stated that can't read and understand testimony unless you are a lawyer, and that you can't understand forensics without being a forensic scientist. I honestly don't understand that frame of mind. I see it as a repeated appeal to authority and not a rational defense for your position.

You can read what grand juries do here. I should not have to also provide the definitions for indict and charge. It is prudent to the discussion since you keep claiming that "we are throwing him under the bus", further claiming we can't hold an individual accountable for individual actions.

Pick a topic and search for it. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/gr... was the first link when searching for "incarceration by race", but militarization and psychological profiling for police officers were linked way up in the thread. I don't normally trust one places statistics, but these can usually be corroborated with various other agencies such as US Census, US DOJ, DEA, etc..

I wish history backed your theory of change without action, but I can't find any history to back it. Corruption will not just get up and walk away happy, never has and never will.

ARRRGGGHHHHH.... CLARIFIC-I-ATION. I can't even spell it wrong when I WANT to!

Indeed. Now, most of you are out in the world seeking clarity. But, as long-time contributor Bennett Haselton writes, much more important than that is 'clarifice', the ability to explain truthiness without resorting to expertise or insight. Keep reading to see Bennett's clarification of how over two hundred years or jurisprudence can be usefully transposed onto decades-old technology....

According to whom? According to what belief system?

I have yet to hear a single thought from you that's worthy of an average sophomore philosophy student, so that tells us something about its rigor. Yes, sure, you can talk about philosophy, and so can children, in much the same way that children can talk about quantum mechanics. They can talk about it, but they probably won't understand it, and the conversation will probably not be very fruitful if they're not interested in learning about the topic.

I did not overlook this at all, you are inventing something that never happened to continue your belief.

The grand jury does not charge a man, sorry. You need to do some homework on what a Grand Jury is responsible for and what their role is.

Holding someone accountable for their actions is not throwing him under the bus, stop repeating this same untrue statement in various forms. Nobody forced the officer to chase down and fire bullets into the guy. The first and probably the second are not being questioned. Perhaps even three we can say was justifiable defense. The remaining 9-10 bullets are the excessive force, and pretty obvious excessive force which you seemed to agree with above. This is amplified in his interview yesterday where he says flat out "he was a very large black guy and I was in fear" followed by "I felt it was my duty to chase and keep firing at him" (those are rough quotes, not verbose but you can check their validity).

Only if you are cherry pick. Police violence against civilians has escalated, not the other way around.. and yes most of this violent behavior is against minorities. Compare the amount of minorities in the criminal justice system to whites and you see a huge disparity. Compare economic opportunity between cultures, etc... Sure, some of the problems are self generated but not all of them and not even most of them.

For posterity, I don't support either end of the extreme. The cop in this case was not angelic, and the crowds are not altruistic. If you study Hegalian dialectic, the reason for these things is obvious.

Free market indeed, it's funny when the market is far freer in a politically communist nation

China has a huge number of trade barriers, including price caps on pharmaceuticals. The other half of the "free(er) market" you're describing is a failure to enforce IP rights (or, possibly, failure by companies to file the relevant patent applications in China, but that seems unlikely), so that pharma companies are having to compete with generic products that would be illegal in the US. You can applaud this if you like, but it's not generally considered a good environment for inventing new drugs.

Of course an experimental ebola vaccine wasn't worth that much in 2010 since the Africans needing it then didn't have lots of cash to pay for it.

Also: it's experimental, which by definition means that someone has to invest a lot of time and money figuring out if it actually works. Drug companies license experimental therapies like this all the time. Nine times out of ten (probably more), they're buying something that turns out to be worthless. When they actually get hold of something that really works, of course it looks like a steal in retrospect, but there's no way to predict that in advance. (Although I do sometimes wonder why academic IP holders don't push for profit-sharing agreements more often.)

Machismo has nothing to do with it, a person has the right to protect himself with deadly force when attacked and should not hesitate once it's a full frontal attack, do not leave the attacker capable of returning, coming from behind, coming after you later, take care of it once and for all right there and then and be done with it. Yes, taking another man's life is better than losing your own.

I don't believe you need to be a lawyer to see that you are incorrect in your opinion. Let me present why I believe this way, feel free to correct the logic if you believe I am incorrect.

1. The individual took an action and is responsible for their action. There are no reports that indicate that anyone from his department ordered him to chase and shoot an unarmed suspect. The only case that could possibly be presented is the officer's action.
a. Was training, department policy, culture, or other factors are involved in the officer's decision?
i. If yes, change in the factors involved should occur (revamp training, counseling to change culture, etc... (would most likely result in charges being dropped against the officer.)
ii. If "no", the officer should be charged with some criminal offense.
2. If the officer had received orders we would loop back to the first item with the issuing officer on the hook, but that did not happen so we can not argue that case.

Where we seem to have a disconnect is that you appear to assume that if an officer is charged, he is automatically guilty of the charge. The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, it's to issue a finding for whether or not the officer can face charges and define what the officer can be charged with. (Interestingly, Federal grand juries return 99.9% of the time for some charges to proceed while all other Law enforcement agencies return less than .1% to proceed with some charge.

In cases where there are institutional problems which were impacting to an event, charges are generally dropped against individuals and moved to the institutions (this is how the legal process works). Institutions fight hard to prevent that from happening, because this places them in civil liability for wrong doing.

In other words, with no charges filed against the officer there will be no action, no change, business as usual. No determination will, or can, be made as to whether or not institutional problems resulted in the officer actions. The next time a cop feels it's his duty to gun down a suspect we will be back to the same arguments. We have effectively changed nothing and blocked dialogue because of the grand jury decision.

Claiming that the DOJ is going to take any action after the fact runs contrary to nearly all history (including recent history). Nothing is impossible, but history demonstrates that unless there is incentive to make change it won't happen.

"Older"? How about "only" spelling, when dealing with a computer program (primarily in Unix systems) as was referenced. The word has a meaning going pretty far back, but has never changed. https://kb.iu.edu/d/aiau>Daemon stands for Disk and Execution Monitor.

I didn't miss the point at all. The economics of tape backup has _never_ favored home users over businesses. Tapes have never been that expensive, but the drives are a huge amount of capital.

I think you missed my point regarding VTL though, which is that multi-site replication of virtual tapes is subject to the same issues of corruption as replicated volumes, or any other backup file format that remains only on disk. For economics, we have moved some of our backups to VTL but these are the convenience backups and not our data that needs real DR (long retention and guaranteed data integrity).

Well, it allows you to recover data in the event of a hardware failure specifically on one of the hard drives, nowhere else, in such a way that doesn't cause data corruption first. In much the same way that if you have a redundant power supply, it will protect you against the specific event of hardware failure where one of your power supplies fails without there being a problem with your power source or damage to any of the other internal components.

That is to say, it's hardware redundancy. Nothing more. Of the events that lead to data loss or power failure, hardware redundancy does protect you against the case where the problem is limited to hardware failure of one of the redundant parts, and everything else works properly. A "backup" however should be a more generalized strategy for protecting against a total loss of the service, i.e. power goes out or data is lost.

This isn't a competition. I'm not saying, "Screw RAID! It's a terrible backup." It's just not a backup. I'm not going to fight with you over this. Go ahead and use RAID as a backup. Maybe you'll be lucky and you'll never need to learn your lesson.