Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 964

by s.petry (#48463657) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

How is it making him a scape goat if the charges issued are valid, relevant, and rational? As I said, the guy does not need to be booked for murder or manslaughter to force a systemic change with the behavior of law enforcement. A simple statement from the Grand Jury that "charges will be allowed for excessive force" would suffice.

If as you say the department(s) are at fault this will come out investigation for the use of excessive force. Legally, it would most likely result in the charges being dropped for the officer and the attention being diverted to the department. Where it should be also, but we can't seem to tackle numerous problems simultaneously during a legal process.

In reality, this is making the department the scape goat for the officers actions and not the other way around. Unfortunately this is the way it has to work due to legal precedent. If the departments training changes and future issues occur, then individuals can, and should, be held accountable for their actions.

Complacency I'm sure you will agree will result in zero change.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 964

by s.petry (#48463149) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You either know, or are pretending to know, about forensics. I am not trained in this field, and so have to go with the best source of data that I have available to me

You don't need to be a forensics expert to read an autopsy report and make valid observations. It is equivalent to saying you can't read a basic math problem unless you are a Mathematician for a living. It's an obvious cop out, serving to support a delusion.

Correct. If we don't like how he behaved in this situation, and he behaved according to his training, then the training needs to change.

If the officer behaved incorrectly there would be charges of some kind. A lack of charges means no wrong doing what so ever, and will result in NO change in training or behavior.

I don't know if the officer should be in jail for murder, I didn't interview him and that makes a difference. I do know that his behavior went well beyond what is required to make an arrest. This would be true even assuming everything the officer said was true and there is reason to doubt some of his claims. And before you say it, the answer is "No". You don't have to be a Lawyer or Judge to compare statements and read testimony to determine where stories conflict or are incredible.

Comment: Re:Hmmm ... (Score 1) 309

by s.petry (#48462937) Attached to: The Schizophrenic Programmer Who Built an OS To Talk To God
Keep on digging that hole deeper. A "regular commenter" as you originally claimed would have a consistent pattern in contributing (see the first part of 1.). A few posts 8 months ago, then a month prior, then a few months prior, does not indicate any 'regularity' or especially with the same space between individual instances.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 964

by s.petry (#48462907) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Your version of events does not seem as credible to me.

READ THE FUCKING AUTOPSY REPORT!

Wholly fuck man, the 12 shots being fired has been the only consistent piece of information we had. You doubt "my version" which excluded everything except for the first shot and the amount of rounds we KNOW hit the victim! At the point he started back peddling the cop should have stopped firing, but we have at least 3 rounds hitting the victim (due to autopsy again) where the angle indicates the guy was falling down and a lack of powder burns indicates that these shots were from a reasonable range. This is basic goddamn science, not a lesson in duality and metaphysics.

It's never excessive to defend yourself, and it asks too much from someone who is actively defending themselves to think completely clearly.

POLICE ARE TRAINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND DEAL WITH ADRENOLINE! You are trying to claim that a police officer, who receives years of training, who loses self control is not worthy of reprimand either. Bullshit.

As a veteran I know what they face to a very large degree, I also know the training that I had vs. what today's police and military have in training. They are being taught that the public is the enemy, I gave the information above and you chose to ignore it.

Comment: Re:Also ban cars (Score 1) 157

by s.petry (#48462547) Attached to: Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

Naming fallacies eliminates a class of mistakes so that more of our limited intelligence and attention-span can be applied to the actual discussion.

No, no it's not. You are demonstrating the same ignorance for logic that you claim others lack with this statement. Your are attempting to claim that your accusation of fallacy will somehow defend the original fallacy, and it does not.

Cameron's arguments are an appeal to emotion. His particular appeal is so common that we have given a name to it (as we have historically done with the several common appeals), called "save the children". This person points out another appeal to emotion, based on what is "the terrorists are gonna get you!" arguments.

Even if the person used a slippery slope, this would not negate the fallacy arguments from Cameron that they are arguing against. This is the point of debate and discourse, to flesh out "why the original argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion."

That said, the person did not use a Slippery Slope argument but an argument based on historical facts. If you had asked for the history I'm sure the person could have provided you search clues.

Your ignorance to history does not make his argument a slippery slope, it demonstrates that you are ignorant. Your claim of fallacy does not invalidate the original appeals to emotion that Cameron used. Your disconnection with logic and rhetoric indicate that you are either a shill, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 964

by s.petry (#48460673) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

According to the grand jury findings, he ceased firing once the victim stopped moving toward him.

Your statement can not be valid, because the officer alleged that he was leaning into the car when the first shot was fired. He could not move forward any further at that time, he could only move backward. Your statement has no bearing in logic or reason, at all. Testimony does not provide reason for 12 bullets being fired. A person back peddling is no longer a threat.

Further, I requested YOUR definition of excessive force, not the grand jury decision. At what point to you believe police force becomes excessive? If you truly believe that every encounter requires cops to unload full clips into people, I would ask you to turn yourself in to a psychiatric ward immediately.

The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.

That might very well be the most reasonable action to take going forward, and maybe that should be incorporated into police training. As long as the officer's actions were in line with currently established procedures, that does not make his actions criminal.

The whole point of these cases is to determine where things went wrong. Obviously lots of shit went wrong, but without even a reprimand for excessive force how much change will ensue? None, and you know it! In other words, that statement is complete horse shit.

Comment: Re:You know what's "really" really sad? (Score 1) 129

by s.petry (#48460515) Attached to: Court Shuts Down Alleged $120M Tech Support Scam

What? Not got any examples? Because the ones still being run are in India? Yep, thought so.

The examples are in the complaints that took YEARS to receive any action on. There is no reasonable or efficient mechanism for dealing with these companies in the US. How long were each of those companies listed in the order operating in the US? Some were operating for as long as a decade, so perhaps you should validate facts before attempting to claim that everything scam related is from overseas.

Researching a few facts is all that is required to demonstrate that your arguments are invalid.

Comment: Re:You know what's "really" really sad? (Score 1) 129

by s.petry (#48459719) Attached to: Court Shuts Down Alleged $120M Tech Support Scam

Your straw man is not a very good one. If you read TFA you would have seen that _all_ of the companies in the decisions are US companies.

As part of the legal maneuver, the state of Florida joined the FTC in filing two separate cases against companies who allegedly sold the bogus software and the telemarketers who sold the unnecessary tech support services. In the first case, the defendants selling software include PC Cleaner Inc.; Netcom3 Global Inc.; Netcom3 Inc., also doing business as Netcom3 Software Inc.; and Cashier Myricks, Jr. The telemarketing defendants include Inbound Call Experts LLC; Advanced Tech Supportco. LLC; PC Vitalware LLC; Super PC Support LLC; Robert D. Deignan; Paul M. Herdsman; and Justin M. Wright.
In the second case, the defendants selling software include Boost Software Inc. and Amit Mehta, and the telemarketing defendants include Vast Tech Support LLC, also doing business as OMG Tech Help, OMG Total Protection, OMG Back Up, downloadsoftware.com, and softwaresupport.com; OMG Tech Help LLC; Success Capital LLC; Jon Paul Holdings LLC; Elliot Loewenstern; Jon-Paul Vasta; and Mark Donahue.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...