"I see the comments above me calling for these "blatant criminals" to "have something done.""
To see the comments I see here is a bit disturbing. Where do they think these calls for "doing something" is going to end?
Crowdfunding came about, ultimately, because the regulations for raising investment funds are SO complex and sticky that you need a significant amount of money to even START raising money (Needing $250,000 to raise $25,000 makes the effort pointless). So poor people with good ideas couldn't get anywhere.
So let's regulate crowdfunding the same way. Make it another playground for the rich. That's where this will end.
"United Nations released a report documenting a surge in shootings like Malek’s. According to witnesses, doctors and rights groups, many come as the result of an extreme crowd control tactic used by the Israeli military, where soldiers are given special rifles to shoot demonstrators in the legs when protests turn violent." source: http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2014/10/20/israel-crowd-control-palestinian-west-bank-ammunition/296 97
- ok, fair enough, but let's look with the operative phrase here "where soldiers are given special rifles to shoot demonstrators in the legs" - you're basically saying our cops should do this - but you're talking about special training and special weapons. The typical cop as nowhere NEAR that sort of training. I wouldn't argue, for example, that a Marine Sniper could do exactly that - having time to take aim, not being in the thick of things. But you're asking for the same for a typical cop on the street, in the middle of a stress situation. You're not comparing the same thing.
This is what happens more often: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5963288/ "Officers fired 16 rounds at Pena and into his house, according to both the lawsuit and the district attorney's report." - note that he was hit twice. What happened to those other 14 bullets? Our cops are bad enough shots as it is.
"Warning shots are apparently standard practice for police in Germany, where police *nationwide* fired about as many warning shots as aimed shots."
- doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous.
"Not even close. Shoot a rifle straight up, and the bullet will hit the ground at about one tenth of the muzzle velocity (handguns about one fifth)."
- ok, maybe I have the math wrong. I will grant I did not do the calculations. Doesn't mean they're not dangerous. I know one person personally who was almost killed by a shot fired into the air. There are reports of such things all the time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356851/Seven-year-old-boy-dies-hit-stray-bullet-fired-air- walked-July-4-fireworks-display.html). (Funny, I expected you to suggest shooting a warning shot into the ground, which I wouldn't have an objection to)
I won't at all argue that our cops don't use force far too often. I won't argue that they're not trigger-happy thugs who get off on shooting. It sure seems that they are. But shooting people in a crowd using a special rifle is not the same as a confrontation from 10 feet away that's over in seconds. Show me THAT situation and you might make me a believer.
"It happens in other countries, as well as firing "warning" shots"
I call BS. You're going to have to provide evidence of that claim. And not just anecdotal - show me that this is the training.
Anyone who shoots a gun for defensive purposes is trained to shoot center of mass. The reason for this is simple - it is more difficult to hit a smaller target, meaning a) you are less likely to eliminate the thread and b) you now have a bullet going SOMEWHERE that it wasn't intended to go. Where will it end up? Given how far they can travel, it could easily end in in someone else. Good idea - let's have more bullets going who the hell knows where.
Same goes for warning shots. They are incredibly dangerous. That bullet has to come back to the ground somewhere and it will be traveling just as fast when it does. I have a niece who was hit by such a bullet - so warning shots? No thanks.
And for the record, I am not a cop, and I am sickened by how they operate anymore. But policy by fantasy is terrible policy.
Please, go take a basic shooting skills class. Learn a little something about reality.
">> Were the officers returning fire and just better shots? No, because then they would have hit the person in the hand, shoulder or hip. Shooting to kill should be reserved for situations where life is in immediate peril, not just where there is the threat of immediate peril."
Shooting to wound is hollywood fantasy, not something that exists in reality. Even attempting to do so drastically increases the chance of missing completely - and WHERE DOES THAT BULLET GO?
People simply can't shoot that accurately under stress circumstances, even those as "highly trained" as police (who qualify at the range about once per year, vs. civilians who carry who typically shoot at least once per month)
Given how often cops miss already, do you really want them trying to hit smaller targets? Talk about bullets flying all over...
Hope isn't a solution. As long as the masses continue to fight over D vs R, nothing will change. And I really don't see that changing any time soon - even the comments here make that quite clear.
Re:
Replacing Greenland Ice
http://www.pr.com/press-release/547266
Re: It's not fraud when you GAMBLE and lose.
To see the comments I see here is a bit disturbing. Where do they think these calls for "doing something" is going to end?
Crowdfunding came about, ultimately, because the regulations for raising investment funds are SO complex and sticky that you need a significant amount of money to even START raising money (Needing $250,000 to raise $25,000 makes the effort pointless). So poor people with good ideas couldn't get anywhere.
So let's regulate crowdfunding the same way. Make it another playground for the rich. That's where this will end.
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
Re: Re: Re: This is America
Will the young simply accept the loss of the liberty protected by the bill of rights just because that is all they know?"
For the most part, yes, because the parents don't know, don't care, or are too busy to actually teach their kids the truth.
But there are a few. My son, for one, and some of my daughter's friends, who we talk to regularly and who understand the real meaning of liberty.
Far too few, though.
Re:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887392/lenovo-hit-with-lawsuit-over-superfish-snafu.html
Re:
I used to think that was nutjob conspiracy theory crap.
Not so much anymore
Re: On thing gets lost in the War Against Carbs
Re: Losing the revolution
Don't give them ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's review who's really at risk here
source: http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2014/10/20/israel-crowd-control-palestinian-west-bank-ammunition/296 97
- ok, fair enough, but let's look with the operative phrase here "where soldiers are given special rifles to shoot demonstrators in the legs" - you're basically saying our cops should do this - but you're talking about special training and special weapons. The typical cop as nowhere NEAR that sort of training. I wouldn't argue, for example, that a Marine Sniper could do exactly that - having time to take aim, not being in the thick of things. But you're asking for the same for a typical cop on the street, in the middle of a stress situation. You're not comparing the same thing.
This is what happens more often: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5963288/ "Officers fired 16 rounds at Pena and into his house, according to both the lawsuit and the district attorney's report." - note that he was hit twice. What happened to those other 14 bullets? Our cops are bad enough shots as it is.
"Warning shots are apparently standard practice for police in Germany, where police *nationwide* fired about as many warning shots as aimed shots."
- doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous.
"Not even close. Shoot a rifle straight up, and the bullet will hit the ground at about one tenth of the muzzle velocity (handguns about one fifth)."
- ok, maybe I have the math wrong. I will grant I did not do the calculations. Doesn't mean they're not dangerous. I know one person personally who was almost killed by a shot fired into the air. There are reports of such things all the time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356851/Seven-year-old-boy-dies-hit-stray-bullet-fired-air- walked-July-4-fireworks-display.html). (Funny, I expected you to suggest shooting a warning shot into the ground, which I wouldn't have an objection to)
I won't at all argue that our cops don't use force far too often. I won't argue that they're not trigger-happy thugs who get off on shooting. It sure seems that they are. But shooting people in a crowd using a special rifle is not the same as a confrontation from 10 feet away that's over in seconds. Show me THAT situation and you might make me a believer.
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's review who's really at risk here
I call BS. You're going to have to provide evidence of that claim. And not just anecdotal - show me that this is the training.
Anyone who shoots a gun for defensive purposes is trained to shoot center of mass. The reason for this is simple - it is more difficult to hit a smaller target, meaning a) you are less likely to eliminate the thread and b) you now have a bullet going SOMEWHERE that it wasn't intended to go. Where will it end up? Given how far they can travel, it could easily end in in someone else. Good idea - let's have more bullets going who the hell knows where.
Same goes for warning shots. They are incredibly dangerous. That bullet has to come back to the ground somewhere and it will be traveling just as fast when it does. I have a niece who was hit by such a bullet - so warning shots? No thanks.
And for the record, I am not a cop, and I am sickened by how they operate anymore. But policy by fantasy is terrible policy.
Please, go take a basic shooting skills class. Learn a little something about reality.
Re: Re: Re: Let's review who's really at risk here
No, because then they would have hit the person in the hand, shoulder or hip. Shooting to kill should be reserved for situations where life is in immediate peril, not just where there is the threat of immediate peril."
Shooting to wound is hollywood fantasy, not something that exists in reality. Even attempting to do so drastically increases the chance of missing completely - and WHERE DOES THAT BULLET GO?
People simply can't shoot that accurately under stress circumstances, even those as "highly trained" as police (who qualify at the range about once per year, vs. civilians who carry who typically shoot at least once per month)
Given how often cops miss already, do you really want them trying to hit smaller targets? Talk about bullets flying all over...
Re: All we need now is a good, rowdy (yet non-violent) protest...
Re:
What they DON'T want is a place where people can post corrections to a story when they screw up the reporting.
Re: Hope isn't a solution...
Re: That is the solution.
Re: solution
Re: Re: Re: RE: Lawful Use of Deadly Force
Re:
More comments from Tony >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tony.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt