Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1128

by gatfirls (#48462583) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

"Wilson: Um, they had been walking in the middle. I remember seeing two cars I believe go around them and they moved. I pulled up to them, stopped with them about at my hood as they kept walking towards me. I told them, “Hey guys, why don’t you walk on the sidewalk.” The first one said, um, “We’re almost to our destination,” and pointed this direction. So, I guess that’s northeast.

Detective: Okay.
Wilson: Um
Detective: So, you’re pointed into the complex there?
Wilson: Yes.
Detective: Okay.
Wilson: I said, “Okay, but what’s wrong with the sidewalk?” And then that was as they were passing my window the second subject said, “Fuck what you have to say.”

Detective: Okay.

Wilson: And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to them, ah, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said, “Frank 21, out with two, send me another car.” Um"

Only later did he try to make the association to the cigars. He initially says the reason he went back is because of what they said, not because he ID's them as suspects.

As to grand juries *routinely* opting to not indict:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

I wouldn't classify %0.0006% a routine.

Not saying that he should have been indicted or if he should have even been sent to the GJ. Just that the prosecutor clearly did not want to go to trial with this case. He presented evidence that a defense attorney would salivate over, and a lot of it. That's not what prosecutors do.

As for his motivations for not wanting to go to trial, we can only guess but having people who rely on police officers all day every day and work with them closely be in charge of building a criminal case is probably not a good idea.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1128

by gatfirls (#48462183) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Wrong, in his statement he went back because they talked smack as he drove away. He only mentions the cigarillos in passing later. Might want to ease up on calling people liars when you don't have your facts straight. (page 4)

As to the GJ *routinely* not handing down indictments:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

Simply put by an ex-prosecutor: "The only reason a prosecutor will not get an indictment is becasue they don't want one."

I'm not saying there should have been a GJ hearing at all or if Wilson is guilty. Just that this prosecutor did not want an indictment. He produced evidence of an eyewitness who completely lied and recanted and a lot of other evidence that the defense in a criminal trial would produce.

Comment: Completely agree (Score 1) 301

by gatfirls (#48363963) Attached to: Police Body Cam Privacy Exploitation

There needs to be an office with access that reviews requests for their validity and type that is completely unrelated to the entire legal system.

To much FOIA information is used solely for the purpose of entertainment at the expense of *suspects*.

Merely being accused of a crime regardless of the merits is pretty much a life sentence when your mugshot is plastered on 500 websites and magazines. It's definitely something that needs to be dealt with in a very careful way. Allowing the PDs discretion is the worst case scenario.

Comment: Impressive? (Score 1) 110

by gatfirls (#48322341) Attached to: Study Shows Direct Brain Interface Between Humans

Isn't this just taking two existing technologies and bolting them together? Asking seriously because that's what it seems like to my know-nothing self.

Find the place that's fired when the left finger is pressed and then via the internet tell the TMS to fire on the region in that person that will cause the finger to flex.

Comment: Uhhhh (Score 1) 588

by gatfirls (#48321113) Attached to: Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC

That's not the way I have ever seen it work. Usually as part of the hiring/on-boarding process they will instruct you to go (usually immediately) and get a test. I have never heard of them waiting 30 days from any point to test you. The whole point is the element of surprise from what I have seen.

I actually know someone who had a job offer rescinded because they misunderstood and waited a couple days before going to take the test.

Drug testing is another one of those things that has been perverted by lawyers and insurance companies. Most employers could care less what you do in your off time.

Comment: Walmart. (Score 1) 631

by gatfirls (#48256147) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay

This should be dead in the water but walmart customers have proven they do not care about anything more than saving a buck. If they incentivize its use, because they are saving so much from credit/debit transaction fees, I could see it taking off there. Just a fraction of their customers using it would give it mainstream status and other stores will start doing the same to compete.

Yes people educated about the flaws in the payment method see it as a terrible idea and not use it. People who will abandon their local stores, who offer their employees (neighbors) a livable wage, and drive 10 miles to a circus of terrible people, underpaid employees, and terrible customer service to save 5-10% have already sold their soul so this is just another benefit from the walmart to them.

I wouldn't care but I hate to see good ideas get shelved for bad ideas. Whoever can get the biggest userbase first is going to win ultimately and I can see walmart doing that easily.

Comment: Re:Why is the school involved? (Score 2) 323

by gatfirls (#48164649) Attached to: Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

Was any of this done on school grounds or using school equipment? From what I read it was all done at their homes.

The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school. That's a massive slippery slope and them compelling him to make a statement is now a legal problem for him and his parents.

We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.

"It's my cookie file and if I come up with something that's lame and I like it, it goes in." -- karl (Karl Lehenbauer)