Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48464101) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which, at least, is an adversarial system.

Of course it's an adversarial system. It always has been, and always should be. There are two sides in a dispute. Each side is not impartial, the goal is to let each partial side make its case while an impartial third party (judge, jurors) decides which side has made its case the best.

... unlike the grand jury proceedings, in which just the prosecutor presents inculpatory evidence and asks for an indictment. Or at least, that's the normal system. Here, the prosecutor didn't even ask for charges, meaning you had no one who was adverse to the cop.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48462679) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.

I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?

Now you're lying about what I said, even though everyone can just scroll up and read it? Wow. Unbelievable. I never said that "the documents don't include the testimony of eye witnesses" and you know it, which is why you don't even use a quote here, even though Slashdot has a big ol' "Quote Parent" button. It's amazing.You actually think that you can get away with bullshiat like that?

What I actually said was that the documents don't include what you claimed, which was - and here I provide an exact quote, because I'm not a lying piece of shiat like you:

Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops).

Those are your words. And my words were:

You say I know where the testimony is and that I'm "pretending" that I can't find it? Bullshiat - you're the one who's claiming it exists. Cite some page numbers.

I never said that there were no eyewitnesses. I said that there aren't 7 of them saying what you claim they're saying. Instead, there are actually a bunch of eyewitnesses that say things very different from what you claim they said, including that Brown was surrendering. Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.

Anyways, your misrepresentations of the witness testimony aside, you've now been caught in such a complete and obvious lie over just these last few posts that no one could possibly believe anything you write here, so I think we're done. Goodbye, hypocritical, lying troll.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48462349) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?).

Nice try moving the goalposts there, but everyone can read this thread and see that, no, we're not talking about whether or not a judge oversees the panel. You called the evidence that was shown to the jury "the judge's published material." That's incorrect: no judge ever had a hand in creating it.

Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses)

You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.

[blahblahblah]

Maybe if you spent less time ranting and more time citing page numbers in the testimony to support your accusations of lying, you'd have some credibility here. But as long as you keep responding to "where's the support for your claim" with "it's out there! Somewhere! Shut up! Liar!" people will keep considering you to be a hypocrite and a fool.

Comment: Misleading Summary (Score 1) 620

by Theaetetus (#48461861) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change
The summary is so off-base that it's in the "not even wrong" category:

Two Standford PhDs, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, worked for Google on the RE<C project to figure out how to make renewables cheaper than coal and solve climate change.

Yes, that's true.

After four years of study they gave up, determining "Renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach."

Well, yeah, that quote is in the article, but it's not in response to the question "can renewables be cheaper than coal".

As a result, is nuclear going to be acknowledged as the future of energy production?

No, because you're answering the wrong question.

Let's go back to the article:

At the start of REwith steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

There's the quote in the summary, and those bolded sentences are what it's referring to. Not "can renewables be cheaper", but "even if we switch to renewables, can we significantly reduce CO2". And from the sidebar with the two graphs:

Yet because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for more than a century, reducing emissions means only that less gas is being added to the existing problem. Research by James Hansen shows that reducing global CO2 levels requires both a drastic cut in emissions and some way of pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it.

While nuclear may be a fine technology, it doesn't "pull CO2 from the atmosphere and store it". So, no, Subby, nuclear is not the answer to the question they were asking either.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48461601) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

I looked through them and saw nothing to support those claims.

Which means you didn't even give the judge's published material a cursory glance.

No, frankly, I don't know how anyone could ever trust anything you say,

I'm not asking you to trust anything I say.

That's good, since, y'know, there was no judge involved. Apparently I've given the materials a much better glance than you have.

I suggesting that you know right where the testimony is, and the lengthy reports on the forensic evidence, and that you're pretending you can't find it, parse it, or incorporate those facts into your understanding of the situation. You can't be unable to do it, which means that either you're unwilling to do it, or you've got an agenda of some kind that calls for you to try to wish it all away.

And you're wrong. I'm suggesting, based on your incorrect assertion that a judge was involved in this, that you've never even looked at the materials and are just regurgitating what you (mis)heard at the press conference, and are now calling everyone disagreeing with you a liar.

You say I know where the testimony is and that I'm "pretending" that I can't find it? Bullshiat - you're the one who's claiming it exists. Cite some page numbers. Otherwise, you're no better than someone claiming they proved the existence of God while insisting that everyone else is lying about not being able to see the evidence (that you're unwilling to discuss).

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 0) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48460197) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

It's a little hypocritical that you accuse me of an ad hominem, considering that I replied to your post repeatedly calling someone a liar based only on hearsay, no?

No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.

And your evidence for this is...?
I asked for that evidence, and you were unable to provide it and instead called me lazy and accused me of ad hominems. How do we know that you're not spreading false information on purpose? You know, deliberate deception. Lying.

And, it's also hypocritical that you call me lazy

Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?

You made very specific and explicit claims about the documents. I looked through them and saw nothing to support those claims. So I asked you for support. You have now repeatedly failed to support your claims, and instead just pound the table with your name calling. Why? Since there are all sorts of searchable, link-able documents, why do you repeatedly decline to provide any specific citations that would support your claims? Is it because you know they don't exist? Is it that you hope to throw thousands of pages of documents at me, hoping that I won't look through them all, because you know that nowhere in those thousands of pages are support for what you're saying? If that's true, wouldn't that be "deliberate deception" or "lying"?

You make a claim; I ask for support; you start demanding to know why everyone doesn't immediately accept you at your word and how therefore everyone else must be liars and not you... And you think that that helps your credibility?

No, frankly, I don't know how anyone could ever trust anything you say, if simple questions asking you for citations are met with angry ranting and name calling.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48459955) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Prosecutors can 'indict a ham sandwich' with a grand jury. If they didn't indict, it's because the prosecutor didn't want them to.

Regardless of how one feels about the outcome, this much is apparent. Normally, prosecutors go to a grand jury and ask for specific charges, and present only inculpatory evidence (i.e. evidence that points towards the likelihood that a crime was committed). The prosecutors are under no requirement to present exculpatory evidence (i.e. that points away from guilt), and can even present only witness testimony that supports the charges while suppressing witness testimony that undermines the charges. This is considered fine, because (i) grand jury indictments are a low bar, (ii) that exculpatory evidence will be presented at trial, and (iii) theoretically, a reasonable jury could find all of the exculpatory evidence non-credible and inculpatory evidence credible and vote to convict so there's no need to show the potentially non-credible exculpatory evidence to the grand jury when determining mere probable cause.

That's normally. Here, the prosecutors didn't ask for any charges, and simply put all of the various contradictory testimony before the grand jury. It's not surprising that they returned with no indictment.

You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but you have to at least ask them to indict. Simply serving them lunch doesn't qualify.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 0) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48459833) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Wow, are you lazy. Well, lazy about everything except ad hominem - the comfort zone for people who don't like facts.

It's a little hypocritical that you accuse me of an ad hominem, considering that I replied to your post repeatedly calling someone a liar based only on hearsay, no?

And, it's also hypocritical that you call me lazy when I ask you for citations of the very explicit claims you made - 7 witnesses, 6 of whom were African-American, all agreeing on a specific story - and you then link to... all the evidence, including the evidence which contradicts your claims.

Let's be clear here - it's not an ad hominem to point out that you're being a hypocrite, because you clearly are. It's also not an ad homimen to ask that you provide support for your claims before you call other people liars. It is an ad hominem to call someone lazy or say that they "don't like facts" when you haven't provided any such facts, simply to cover your own hypocrisy.

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48459653) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

I think this whole thing is fucked up. I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here but your post seems to be looking at this from a technical point of view and I'd like to point out a flaw, from my perspective, in your argument. If there was no evidence against him, why waste the resources trying him? Someone breaks into your house and comes at you with a ninja sword. You yell for them to stop or you'll shoot but they don't and they come charging. You blow their head off. All of this was caught on your home security camera and you happily hand it over to the cops when they get there. They view it, show it to the DA, and they say "clearly self defense, no charges will be filed". If I get what you're saying, you think they should go ahead and drag you through the courts even though you know you're innocent and you'll win the case. I'd not want to waste my resources defending myself from an obviously frivolous case.

Actually, my post is looking at it from a political point of view. From a purely hypothetical standpoint, ignoring all of the context, you are correct - there's no point in pursuing charges when it's that slam dunk. But the thing is, there also wouldn't be rioting over something like that (excepting the fact that Ninja home invaders don't really inspire protests, of course). You could just provide your camera footage to the media, they play it on the news, protestors shrug and go back home. Here, dash cam or body cam or security camera footage was absent. Instead, there was witness testimony, some of it more credible, some less, with some very different stories.

Now, maybe you could say that there's a 1% chance of proving the cop guilty based on the various contradictory witness testimony, and that no reasonable prosecutor would waste the resources going after the accused on those grounds and that someone shouldn't have to waste their resources* defending themselves from such barely plausible charges, and generally I'd agree... But here, you've got (i) closed proceedings, (ii) no true adversarial proceeding to ensure that all of the evidence is heard, and (iii) a community rioting in protest. Going through with an open trial that the prosecutor knows they have almost no chance of winning still provides transparency and closure for the community. Is it a waste of resources to spend money on a trial that's going to be dismissed, if it saves millions in riot police and subsequent damages and cleanup? Focused purely on the trial, yes, but politically looking at the bigger picture, no.

*the police union would defend him anyway, so it's not like he'd be spending anything.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48459557) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

So I'm sure you have a citation to support at least 7 witness statements that say that, at least 6 of whom are African American?

The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.

Translation: "I don't actually have a citation for what I'm claiming, I'm just repeating what was summed up during the press conference and what I've read from some journalists."

No problem, Mr. Pot, I understand that you can't actually provide any citations. You shouldn't sling around accusations that someone is lying when you haven't read any of the testimony yourself and are just relying on hearsay from the authorities.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48459017) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Why are you lying about this? What's your agenda that you are deliberately spreading false information?

Excuse me, Mr. Pot, if I may interrupt your rant at Mr. Kettle... You say:

Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops). There's blood on the street that shows Brown covered significant distance TOWARDS Wilson, just as described by those same witnesses.

... So I'm sure you have a citation to support at least 7 witness statements that say that, at least 6 of whom are African American?

No? Well, back to your rant:

... deliberately lying. Like you are, right now.... you are lying for some reason. Not quite sure what your actual purpose is in doing so. It's strange.

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1080

by Theaetetus (#48458147) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.

No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which, at least, is an adversarial system.

As it so happens, the DA promised to release all the evidence they have to the public shortly. When, how, and in what format I do not know, but nonetheless, that's what they intend to do according to their statement.

And we can believe that they (a) are going to actually release all the evidence, and (b) that they bothered looking for all the evidence, why exactly? There was no transparency to this, which is what a trial would have provided.

A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.

Agreed. The reason for having one in the first place is to determine whether there is enough credible evidence and testimony to be worth a trial.

But, you've also heard the saying that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, right? They indict people all the time over illegally obtained evidence that is subsequently thrown out at trial, killing the case; over questionable evidence such as weighing the roots, dirt, and terra cotta pot in order to find that a pot operation was growing more than than the required amount to hit felony levels; over anonymous tips, etc. A grand jury indictment is a very low bar.

And even if there was absolutely no case, a trial still provides transparency, which grand jury proceedings do not. In a case like this, they should absolutely have issued an indictment and gone to trial, simply because the open proceedings would forestall rioting. Instead, you get something equivalent to the police saying "we've done an internal investigation and we found that we've done absolutely nothing wrong, so suck it."

Comment: Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... (Score 1) 474

by Theaetetus (#48453081) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho?

Where exactly did I say anything about you allegedly saying something about "getting tough or macho"?

Let's roll the tape, Johnny:

"If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

That wasn't in the post you're replying to. If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered.

With all due respect, you have a severe reading disorder. First, you think the GP poster was saying you "consent". When I corrected you on that, you then think I was saying you were talking about being "macho". In actuality, no one was ever talking about consenting, being macho, or doing anything else stupid.

Comment: Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... (Score 1) 474

by Theaetetus (#48449173) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

"If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

That wasn't in the post you're replying to. If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered. File your complaints and lawsuits later. You can't negotiate with the guy with the gun.

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...