What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Has any of this big data collection or security theater made us safer? I don't think so. And you want to expand surveillance? I'll pass unless you can prove it will actually help. And even then, I would be skeptical.

Just the opposite in fact. All we've done is give intel larger and larger haystacks to sift through with a smaller and smaller likelihood of hits.

Big data is great when you want to find metrics and measure trends of stochastic outcomes. It is worse than useless if you want to predict discrete future events.

Insofar as any technique works at all, FBI serial killer profiling tradecraft does. And that means qualitiative judgments based on a sound theoretical framework and tons and tons of empirical testing. The algorithm approach of the national security infrastructure is a complete waste of time and money, but as soon as you start doing stuff like that you can never stop because you've sold the public on it as if it works, and ending it is thus either making us less 'safe,' or admitting you were bullsh-tting to get them off your back.

It's make believe, but when bad things happen people want their government to do something. So politicians do whatever thing the courtiers of that day tell them will look impressive.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Just the opposite in fact. All we've done is give intel larger and larger haystacks to sift through with a smaller and smaller likelihood of hits.

Big data is great when you want to find metrics and measure trends of stochastic outcomes. It is worse than useless if you want to predict discrete future events.

Really? Strange that so many big businesses use it for decision making and anti terror analysts don't see it as 'making the job harder':

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....pingtoPinpointTerroristActivitiesAttacks.aspx
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

That's why I sadly mentioned that it was Fox. And I know how the modern media works (both sides) and it's sad (I often rip CNN on Tweeter/other social media). However, that doesn't excuse this behavior.

BLM, at first, was to me "Ok, cool, standing for a cause." Now? Due to their methods and general lack of distancing themselves from the radicals associating with the group? Go * yourselves.

I believe the reporter was from the local Fox affiliate, not FNC.
 
The Toilet Seat Administration has admitted it's done nothing towards security. However, Ben Franklin was right: By sacrificing our liberties for temporary security, we deserve neither.
I just arrived back at UCLA for my MBA classes this weekend and walked past my favorite quote on the wall, "Don't mistake activity for achievement."

Should be on every wall at the TSA.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

I took a look at the acceleration of terror activities by year, and this 'isn't just going away'. Five years to 2004, the US averaged 2.5 terror acts a year. Five years to 2009, the US averaged 4.8 terror acts a year. Five years to 2014, the US averaged 5.5 terror acts a year. And in 2015 until now, the US is averaging 15 terror acts per year.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/10/a-timeline-of-73-islamist-terror-plots-since-911/

Although I would edit the following to include domestic terror...the following from the Heritage Foundation is pretty much accurate:

As depicted by this timeline, the threat of terrorism is not receding. Congress should maintain a proactive approach to combatting terrorism, ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence organizations have access to legitimate investigative and surveillance tools. The need for effective counterterrorism operations, though, does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government must do both equally well. The U.S. should also support stronger action against Islamist terrorist groups abroad to combat those forces radicalizing individuals to attack the U.S.

Don't really get the 'let's do nothing' crowd. But I'm a serious progressive and as you do in any change, build in safe guards rather than find excuses.

Jesus Christ you are dangerous.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Jesus Christ you are dangerous.

"I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to [[*insert your most hated candidate here*]]. S/He promised you order, S/he promised you peace, and all s/he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Unsure where to put this, so let's start here.

Father of a 2 year old, charged with illegal possession and drive-by shooting, after a drive-by shooter killed his son and wounded his daughter.
http://kstp.com/news/north-minneapolis-drive-by-shooting-toddler-killed-charges/4201633/?cat=1

I agree with the illegal possession, but if I had a gun, and I just saw my children shot, yeah, I'd be firing that weapon. Not only out of anger, but also panic. I honestly hope he gets acquitted (or charges dropped) on the drive-by charge.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Unsure where to put this, so let's start here.

Father of a 2 year old, charged with illegal possession and drive-by shooting, after a drive-by shooter killed his son and wounded his daughter.
http://kstp.com/news/north-minneapolis-drive-by-shooting-toddler-killed-charges/4201633/?cat=1

I agree with the illegal possession, but if I had a gun, and I just saw my children shot, yeah, I'd be firing that weapon. Not only out of anger, but also panic. I honestly hope he gets acquitted (or charges dropped) on the drive-by charge.

I don't think anyone that just experienced that kind of trauma could be considered of sound mental capacity. Seems like a classic case of "temporary insanity ".
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

I don't think anyone that just experienced that kind of trauma could be considered of sound mental capacity. Seems like a classic case of "temporary insanity ".

I don't know the legalese of such a defense, I believe it's really tough to actually prove, BUT, with our system, that "reasonable doubt" is good enough. And if I were on a jury....
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Temporary insanity is really hard to prove (any defense about mental capacity is) and often times it doesnt mitigate the crime it just lessens it.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

I don't know the legalese of such a defense, I believe it's really tough to actually prove, BUT, with our system, that "reasonable doubt" is good enough. And if I were on a jury....

I think there is a difference between the burden of proving a defense (insanity) and the burden the prosecution must meet to prove ts case (pick a crime). In other words, to benefit from an insanity defense, you have to do more than establish reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane. If that is what you meant, Brent.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

I think there is a difference between the burden of proving a defense (insanity) and the burden the prosecution must meet to prove ts case (pick a crime). In other words, to benefit from an insanity defense, you have to do more than establish reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane. If that is what you meant, Brent.

It doesnt work that way. (if I am reading what you posted right) Now I am not a lawyer but if I remember the law classes I took in many states it comes down to the question of "did they know what they were doing is wrong". Also, in the majority of states and the Federal System it is on the defendant to prove he/she is insane based on a preponderance of the evidence not the prosecution.

Insanity is a very hard to prove and "temporary insanity" is way worse. (as it should be) In the case being discussed, if I was a juror I am definitely convicting him of something beyond just the illegal firearm. The dude knew what he was doing and he definitely was not "insane". (stuff like this is why terms like that are misunderstood by the public) I am sure there is a lesser manslaughter charge or low end homicide charge they could charge him with and he definitely earned it. I feel for him, and even might think he is in the right, but it is not his job to take justice into his own hands.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

It doesnt work that way. (if I am reading what you posted right) Now I am not a lawyer but if I remember the law classes I took in many states it comes down to the question of "did they know what they were doing is wrong". Also, in the majority of states and the Federal System it is on the defendant to prove he/she is insane based on a preponderance of the evidence not the prosecution.

Insanity is a very hard to prove and "temporary insanity" is way worse. (as it should be) In the case being discussed, if I was a juror I am definitely convicting him of something beyond just the illegal firearm. The dude knew what he was doing and he definitely was not "insane". (stuff like this is why terms like that are misunderstood by the public) I am sure there is a lesser manslaughter charge or low end homicide charge they could charge him with and he definitely earned it. I feel for him, and even might think he is in the right, but it is not his job to take justice into his own hands.

You did misread me, Handy. Or I probably just wasn't clear. I simply meant to point out that the defendant has the burden of proving defenses, which is very different from saying the prosecution did not prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

You did misread me, Handy. Or I probably just wasn't clear. I simply meant to point out that the defendant has the burden of proving defenses, which is very different from saying the prosecution did not prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gotcha, I misread it completely my bad :)
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

It doesnt work that way. (if I am reading what you posted right) Now I am not a lawyer but if I remember the law classes I took in many states it comes down to the question of "did they know what they were doing is wrong". Also, in the majority of states and the Federal System it is on the defendant to prove he/she is insane based on a preponderance of the evidence not the prosecution.

Insanity is a very hard to prove and "temporary insanity" is way worse. (as it should be) In the case being discussed, if I was a juror I am definitely convicting him of something beyond just the illegal firearm. The dude knew what he was doing and he definitely was not "insane". (stuff like this is why terms like that are misunderstood by the public) I am sure there is a lesser manslaughter charge or low end homicide charge they could charge him with and he definitely earned it. I feel for him, and even might think he is in the right, but it is not his job to take justice into his own hands.

I am definitely not in the know when it comes to MN's self-defense laws, but if it was proven (or can be said) that the man/family was fired upon first...I mean, what would your first reaction be in that situation, assuming you had a gun/in the same position as he was, etc etc? Asking in a very sincere manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top