Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Arm the first responders... (Score 1) 935

Let's examine an earlier school shooting: Columbine

Were you aware that Columbine was supposed to be a bombing, not a shooting? The BATFE estimates that had their bombs worked, they would have had casualties in the triple digits. But when their bombs failed, the assholes "settled" for just running around and shooting...

What if they couldn't do that? What if they went home and build better bombs instead?

Remember: the deadliest school attack in US history was not a shooting...

Comment Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score 1) 1165

This has become a regular event in America.

Gun violence, as well as violent crime in general, has dropped significantly in the last 2 decades or so

America is FOURTH in death by gun, after Thailand, Nigeria and Colombia; that's the company we keep.

Actually, America isn't even in the top ten.

We have more murders by gun than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations.

That's cherry-picking, unless you can explain why it makes sense to compare the US vs Sweden, but not the US vs Russia. Also, Turkey (considered a developed country depending on definition) has a higher murder rate than the US. And why would "murders by gun" matter more than just simply "murders"?

The NRA *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace.

The ACLU *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep criminals and rapists on the streets. But instead of calling it a national disgrace, we refer to it as the inherent risks of essential liberty.

What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?

What exactly about them? Safety and/or protection from criminals and madmen isn't exactly a right, and the supreme court has made it clear repeatedly that citizens have to expectation of police protection...

Comment Re:This whole make your own gun is like the homebr (Score 1) 391

Except 14 rear olds generally live in their parent's house, and brewing takes a long enough time to risk discovery by said parents.

You would think the same would apply to inmates (whom live in a jail cell surrounded by cops). However, the prison wine keeps getting made alongside weapons. San Quentin even has a museum for some of the contraband they've found...

Comment Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

No, I'm simply limiting my comments to legal justification, since otherwise it's a subjective ethical debate that I don't have a particular desire to engage in. Seeing as you yourself admitted there clearly are cases that would be justifiable in an ethical sense, it would appear that you agree with my point in an ethical context as well.

Clearly, there are situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is legally justifiable. As you stated, there are clearly situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is ethically justifiable. Therefore, my point that Scribe's comment is inaccurate seems to be correct in both a legal and ethical context...

Comment Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

An unarmed suspect can certainly still meet the definition of someone who poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Hence why you yourself said "almost by definition"...

Scribe's point was that NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away. The fleeing felon rule, when properly applied, does exactly this. Think of it as a "never say never" point. Because, just as cops have been found not to be justified in shooting armed suspects approaching them while brandishing, other cases have found cops to be justified in shooting fleeing unarmed suspects. So, legally speaking, something DOES justify shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back (at least some of the time), despite Scribe's statement...

Comment Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.

Except, legally, the fleeing felon rule does just that:

The Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Granted, this doesn't mean the fleeing felon rule applies in this case (especially considering the seemingly false statements made by the officer), but saying NOTHING justifies it isn't quite accurate...

Comment Elected by RNG (Score 1) 1089

I have to imagine that mandatory voting would simply replace our current system with a human-powered random number generator...

either that, or folks will skew towards the top/bottom/middle option. I could see a lot of candidates changing their names to Aaron Aabraham and such...

What I don't see happening is a large impact in voter turnout:

Comment Re:Hmm? (Score 2) 112

Isn't that a bit like saying someone auditing Java must also audit the Linux kernel because Java can run on Linux? After all, compromised HDD firmware would affect more than just TrueCrypt. PGP/GPG, Bitlocker, etc... I think it's reasonable to say compromised HDD firmware, while a serious problem, is outside the scope of a TC audit...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354