The police wanted the evidence on floppy discs, but Blay didn't have one.
!!!
Oh well, I'm not reading 7 pages about suicide. Although Li Dao doesn't seem very hardcore - you can hang yourself by just bending your legs, no need to bother with this over the door business.
My dad regularly hangs out at a.s.h. Apparently the latest greatest method is helium suffocation - reasonably easy to come by, and if you put a plastic bag over your head and breathe in helium, you don't get the horrible fighting-for-air feeling that too much CO2 produces.
It was an interesting article. I was shocked when they revealed that the person claiming to be a young female nurse was actually a middle-aged man.
For perspective, the biggest accomplishment any Unfogged troll has made was to convince Brock to feed moldy cheese to his kid.
3; What about what we persuaded SEK to do?
But the record of that has been expunged.
What about what we persuaded SEK to do
I keep waiting for someone to write the screenplay. That was a wild ride.
Oh well, I'm not reading 7 pages about suicide.
A decent amount of the story is how a rather Miss Marple type character tracks down the villain.
4: From the archives, and from my brain.
While he is a psychopath, under what laws does he get prosecuted? Egging people on seems hard to outlaw.
I think I'm sad that I missed that classic SEK thread. Or maybe I'm happy. Or maybe I didn't miss it, and just repressed it.
Egging people on seems hard to outlaw
JUMP!
Anybody remember the Hercule Poirot mystery in which it turns out the serial killer works by convincing other people to commit murder? This reminded me of that.
12. Kiyoshi Kurosawa's The Cure has a similar premise.
9
While he is a psychopath, under what laws does he get prosecuted? Egging people on seems hard to outlaw.
I haven't read the article, but the OP says "assisted suicide". Alternately, verbal abuse or harassment, if severe enough, falls under various criminal laws, and this seems severe enough to me. (Prosecution for harassment or whatever for this would seem like a slap on the wrist, but it's a start.)
Also, suicide is illegal in some jurisdictions, right? Never prosecuted, of course, but on the books as a crime. So this is aiding and abetting.
the serial killer works by convincing other people to commit murder
It could happen.
Is there a way of prosecuting someone who eggs on someone to drive home even though they're trashed out of the mind, and the driver does and kills someone?
Verbal abuse and harassment don't seem to apply without stretching the definitions of all of those words.
Bystander laws, maybe.
10: I'm sad that I caught the beginning, had to not be at a computer for a long time, and never found out what happened.
I wonder if you could just sue for causing pain and suffering to the survivors, without the wrongful death.
It's interesting how jurisdiction mucks things up with these long distance issues.
16: A lot of states have 'dram shop' laws, where the bartender can get in trouble if someone leaves drunk. That suggests to me that there's no viable theory for getting Joe Random Egger-On in trouble, because if there were, then dram shop laws would be redundant.
||
Christ! What is with these Wisconsin DAs?
Report: Wis DA 'most likely' masturbated at resort
||>
I'm not sure those dram-shop statutes are always enacted because there's no other viable theory for getting at the bartenders, so much as to clarify and solidify a basis for getting at the bartenders. I think there's almost always going to be civil liabilty for the egger-on (assuming egregious enough facts, where as jury is convinced the driver wouldn't have driven without the egging), and criminal liablity will probably vary frmo state to state (I think it would fit under some states' involvuntary negligence homicide laws). My guess is that it would be analyzed more or less exactly like giving your car keys to a drunk person, who then kills someone (which has clearer causation, but, again, I'm sort of assuming facts are such that causation is clear enough for the jury). I'm pretty sure there's case law on lending your keys to a drunk.
16: I can see a potential "negligent entrustment" theory -- you knew the guy was smashed and handed him the keys. Not sure that works if it's the drunks own car. Encouraging the guy to drive could be ordinary negligence, too, I think -- reasonably foreseeable that encouraging him to drive will cause him to damage persons or property with his car and the burden of avoiding that significant harm is exceedingly minor (i.e., stfu).
19: Dram shop laws don't impose liability on random eggers-on, but only on the dram shop (the bar).
I would have been pwned but for my value-added supplying of the name of the tort.
23.last: I know that. My point was that if you had a legal theory to get at the egger-on, it'd work for the bartender as well; the existence of dramshop laws suggests that there wasn't such a legal theory.
I agree that lending a drunk your keys would very very likely give rise to negligence liability (and aider/abettor liability for the DUI/negligent homicide, I'd think). Getting to negligence liability for mere verbal encouragement feels wrong to me, but I can't pin down whether it's just a feeling, or if there's something legal I'm not remembering clearly that puts it outside the realm of behavior you can be liable for.
I think many states have statutes that specifically criminalize assisting suicide.
On the tort side, it seems like a reasonably simple case on a number of different theories, including wrongful death, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Of course, a civil suit against a (presumably judgment proof) psychopath is worth about as much as this blog comment.
21 The title itself sounds like a dog bites man eats dogfood story. And even reading the story, it seems to amount to 'dude got drunk one evening, went into a deserted hotel computer room at night, watched some porn, jerked off, and was caught on a security tape'. Not the biggest deal in the world.
Josh, I just looked up sled on urban dictionary and I found nothing. I.e. I failed to decypher your cryptic answer. :-)
27: NO BIG DEAL? CAREERS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED OVER LESS!
Does Urban Dictionary have an entry for Rosebud?
My point was that if you had a legal theory to get at the egger-on, it'd work for the bartender as well; the existence of dramshop laws suggests that there wasn't such a legal theory
Ah. I see where you are going. At least in these parts, dram shop is a strict liability action; you don't have to establish negligence in the provision of the booze, just that provision of the booze led to the injuries.
27: It's a little weirder than that -- if I'm reading it right he got chased out of the public computer room by a security guard for watching porn, and then came back later to watch more porn and jerk off. Someone who can't get it together to get an internet connection in their room to jerk off with after getting rebuked for using the public computer room once is either getting off on doing it in (quasi) public, or is just kind of generally out of control.
27: It was definitely the dog-bites-man headline that attracted me to the story, but also the tie-in with the other lascivious Wisc. DA, and the fact that his behavior was so stupid. I mean, I've been to Wisconsin. They sell pornography in all the truck stops.
35,30: you learn something new every day. I should have seen that coming. somehow I feel that is pulling me even more far afield from relieving the dormance SEK suspense.
My reading skills must be going, I skipped over the chased out and then returned part. That is a little weird.
Wait, wait, wait. This happened in Wisconsin?!
And then the DA found five dollars.
21: I was at a little motel with my mom a few years ago where there was a guest sitting at the computer next to the check-in desk, all day, every time we came by, viewing softcore porn images (mostly leather-bondage-gear-chick pics) and rubbing himself. No one seemed to notice except for me. It was weird.
26 to the OP, not the dram shop question.
Is there a way of prosecuting someone who eggs on someone to drive home even though they're trashed out of the mind, and the driver does and kills someone?
Yes. In many instances, this would be aiding and abetting reckless murder. You'd need to show actual egging on, though, not just someone who stood by and knew that the driver was getting into the car while drunk (I think it's the latter situation that the dram shop laws address).
You could have civil aiding and abetting liability for verbally encouraging a drunk to drive, if the encouragement facilitated the tort. In both the civil and criminal contexts, though, you'd have to show intent.
My point was that if you had a legal theory to get at the egger-on, it'd work for the bartender as well; the existence of dramshop laws suggests that there wasn't such a legal theory.
Maybe, per 32, they felt that negligence could work but was too slow / unsure, and bartenders due to the nature of their work should be subjected to a stricter standard than the regular population.
45, 47: Certainly, the existence of dram shop laws isn't more than suggestive; it doesn't establish that negligence liability wouldn't apply, just suggested to me that there was a perceived hole in the legal theory there.
45. Now I feel Incredibly creepy having to say, "check your inbox."
||
So, that went ok, but I hope that the next time I break up with someone I'll have the decency to look her in the eyes while I'm giving the speech. Bleh. Then again, at least i'm not encouraging people to kill themselves! Mmmm, perspective.
|>
Neither congratulations nor condolences seems appropriate, x, but I know that is not an easy thing to do and wish to express something along the lines of good for you, or I'm glad you got through that, or something.
50: How about a hearty "Mazel tov!"
But seriously, mazel tov, x. You did the right thing.
And ripping off the bandaid and doing it quickly is the way to do it, if you're going to break up. So, good for you.
Oh, shit, I didn't break up with anyone. Nevermind.
57: No, he gave the speech while staring at her breasts.
OT:
Sally's school is pissing me the fuck off. They have this elaborate password-protected website where you can log in to see every single graded assignment the kids have, and it includes a special webmail address for each family because it'd break their precious little hearts to use the email addresses we, you know, already have and fill out on all the damn forms we need to fill out for the school.
Actually, they'll use your real address for some but not all notices, apparently. I get some notices on my regular email account, but not the Parent Teacher Conference notice. Yesterday, Sally brought home a paper notice 'reminding' us that conferences are next week (I suppose the original notice was on the school-only webmail account, which I confess I hadn't been checking), and giving us an email address to contact for an appointment. I email this morning, and am told that there are only available slots for about a quarter of the families, and they're all full. WTF?
I got cross about it, and was offered an appointment with one of her teachers, which I took, or with the principal. I don't want to talk to the principal, I want to talk to the people who've been teaching her.
61: You should encourage the school to use Facebook instead.
49: Editing note: Seems to me that comment fit right in with the theme of the thread, and there was no need to mark it off-topic.
In any event, good show.
61: Not all parents "get" to have a conference with the teacher?
Also, the email saying there were only slots for about a quarter of the families blamed it all on 'union regulations'. My kids have been in unionized schools (the same union, even!) all along, and this is the first I've heard of the union contract making parent teacher conferences impossible.
64: I know! Fucked up, isn't it?
As if Sallymander needs a Parent Teacher Conference. LB is just using one of their precious slots to bask in her academic glory.
You know, in grade school, it's mostly about the basking -- we'd grab the last slot, and let the teacher end the night on a pleasant note of "Isn't she great?" "We've certainly always thought so, I'm glad you agree." But this new school is kicking her ass, workloadwise, and I'd actually like some feedback on whether she's being overconscientious and can pull back a little on the effort she's putting in, or if she's really just keeping up.
65: It's probably that the school is taking up a bunch of the time that's supposed to be set aside for conferences with bullshit seminars encouraging the teachers to ditch their insurance for Healthcare Spending Accounts or something.
the union contract making parent teacher conferences impossible
Somewhere, James B. Shearer is smiling.
At my daughter's high school, on parent-teacher conference night, teachers had sign up sheets outside their offices. With 20 or so slots, although they each had many more students than that.
72: PDBS = Passive Diffusion Bag Sampler?
73: But there weren't any parents that came but didn't get to talk to the teacher, right?
61/65: is this the school that drowns students?
I'm not sure I could have resisted wasting the whole conference asking for an explanation of the union regulations that forbade the holding of an adequate number of student-teacher conferences. But I'm not sure that would have helped you get to the bottom of the troubles Sally is having (per 79), so maybe that's not the best approach.
76: Oh, thanks! But no need for guilt, assuming that you drive a hybrid vehicle.
Parent-teacher conferences where I grew up were a "day", not a "night". Students were off that day. I'm not sure what families with two working parents were supposed to do.
80: I've actually taken off work to attend a parent-teacher conference, and I'm only a stepparent! Gold star for me!
82: Who is this "oeeo"? And why is he taking all the credit I deserve?
300hp worth of internal combustion engine underneath the hood
...gentelmenz.
81: You probably should feel guilty for saying bad things about your wife on a blog.
Who is this "oeeo"?
I was assuming we had a new commenter who was one of the guards at the Wicked Witch of the West's evil compound. O! E! O! E-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
75 -- Sure there were. Say you both had jobs downtown, and the one who had got to go to the thing couldn't get there until 6:30 pm -- at which time most slots would be filled. So, you have to hang around, trolling up and down the halls, hoping for (a) no shows or (b) early ends. It was intensely frustrating. Almost as bad as actually talking to the teachers.
"I My wife lives my her life one quarter-mile at a time. For those ten second or less, I'm she's free."
86: Stanley is getting much too close to the truth.
I'm gonna guess that Fleur drives an Audi A6 3.0T. Just seems right.
69: She's the same age as Rory, right? Yeah, this year's been... a transition... Of course, probably much of the difficulty could be solved by taking away electronic devices. I swear, kids these days, how they can waste so much time and sacrifice so much productivity dicking around online. Parent/teacher conferences came and went last week without us ever getting notice or an opportunity to sign up.
93: I'm not quite sure, but I think that's what the future Mrs. UNG drives...
95: Maybe you just misheard and UNG meant she had an outtie.
*ducks; runs away*
84: 300hp worth of internal combustion engine underneath the hood
Just yesterday a friend introduced me to the concept of placing "Anal" before the names of SUVs (probably an old meme that all you kids have already used up). The 'E's alone are pretty good:
Escape
Excursion
Expedition
Explorer
Also like, Hummer, Navigator, Rodeo and Samurai.
Mostly, I'm irritated by the "We're going to set up a speshul webmail address for you, and then penalize you for not checking it -- we'll condescend to communicate by other means sometimes, but the occasional important notice will only come to that address, where you'll have to find it in amongst the pointless spam that's most of what we send you there." Actual communications that you need to do something about should be either on paper, or at least to an email address that you've given them (which I have, and they use, sometimes).
97 is awesome. My alternate thought on the Fleurmobile, if they felt kid-driven pressure to buy an SUV, is an Acura MDX.
97: You only just now learned about that little game? Seventh-grade me is shocked.
I swear, kids these days, how they can waste so much time and sacrifice so much productivity dicking around online
Yeah. Um. *Kids*.
101: I'm nearly a fucking senior citizen with grown children of my own you little shitfucker; I don't have the time or the inclination to keep up with such juvenalia.
103: Heh. Well, my favorite is the Ranger. Sounds so adventurous!
99: yeah, that sounds highly annoying. I also can't imagine the possible reason for it--isn't that just more work on their end?
I assume there's no way to set up automatic forwarding on the special account they give you?
Anal Flex might be the winner.
Also Mariner, Forester, and Wrangler.
I assume there's no way to set up automatic forwarding on the special account they give you?
Actually, there is -- I just set it up. Still cranky, though.
It's funny in an absurd way if you do it with hybrid car names. Well, Anal Leaf is absurd. Anal Prius sounds sort of dirty.
And now, the post break-up sex!
This is for x.trapnel.
Heh. Thanks.
57: No, he gave the speech while staring at her breasts.
I wonder whether that would have been better--but no, as it happened, it was while staring fixedly about a foot and a half to the left of her face. I used to never, ever make eye contact when speaking with people; I've gotten better over the years, but awkward conversations make me regress somewhat.
Anyway. Thanks, all. I just went to the gym, and now I shall shower, and possibly clean the bathroom. Woo!
OK, scratch the MDX. I'm going with my first choice. Maybe a 5-series, but that seems too flashy for Boston.
I should really join the Flickr group. How do I do that, again?
113: You email heebie (or Armsmasher or ogged).
I don't know. That would involve talking to a girl, a baby-hater, or a Mexican, and I'm not sure I can handle that.
I think Dodge does the best, historically.
Dart.
Lancer.
Stealth.
Charger.
Rampage.
Ram.
Magnum.
Diplomat.
Anal Flex might be the winner.
Mad Cobra agrees.
I think Studebakers deserve some mention:
Big Six
President
Commander
Dictator
Champion
Speedster
Power Hawk
And for the WWII buff:
M29 Weasel
119: Not to mention Prowler.
But fundamentally, the Ford Probe wins.
No, I think "Anal Dictator" is better.
This seems to be an open-ish thread, so can I vent a bit? Mainly about my own arseholishness (am feeling a bit alameida-ish really). I have a lovely non-local group of friends and we get together regularly around the country. There have been some big birthdays in the last couple of years, and there have been surprise cakes and presents and so on. At the end of the month we (15 families) are going away together to Devon for a few days, for a 'Christmas' do.
Anyway, I'll be 40 the week after (and so will another friend who will be there), but had kind of assumed that nothing OTT would happen, although one day has been designated birthday celebration day to cover various November/December birthdays.
And then this evening I saw on twitter a tweet that should have gone directly to my daughter, asking C to get in touch with someone, and p.s. it's a secret from your mum! Now I am on edge - I hate surprises and have been known to make C give me my birthday present early in case I don't like it. I don't want to have to pretend I'm not expecting something to happen for the next 3 weeks, and and and I'm just wound up! C assures me that they are getting me a nice present that I will like and I am trying not to be an ungrateful cow (he said that no, he will not tell them that they can't do this), but, well, I am.
Honda has my favorite, the Ridgeline. Plus:
Fit
Element
Odyssey
Hey, x.trapnel. I don't know whether breaking things off in the way you did was the best or not, but hang in there yourself.
Actually, I don't think failure to make eye-contact is so bad. I, as the dumpee, would have been grateful for the lack of eye-contact because eye contact would have made me burst into tears. Far better looking just over her shoulder than doing so in a series of hand-passed, soul-bearin, type-written notes.
By being in the same room as her while ending it, XT, you're already way ahead of every guy who has ever broken off with me. Yay!
127: Huh?
Anyway, the Keith Olbermann hoohaw is a bit much, no? See Balloon Juice for teh filling in.
I would never have guessed that MSNBC would have a rule like that. What kind of crazy person would take a job as a political opinion-haver who is prohibited from acting on any of his beliefs?
But fundamentally, the Ford Probe wins.
Dodge Ram, close second.
Damn it, I suppose I should read the comments more carefully.
I find myself unable to gauge your tone.
It fucking sucks. From what I can tell, Politico dug into Olbermann's campaign contributions and disclosed them, which resulted in his having been suspended. Way to go, Politico.
Now apparently MSNBC is having a hard time finding replacements because OH LORD someone contributed to a candidate in the past.
From Balloon Juice:
I don't get it. Suspending Olbermann because he made campaign donations to progressive politicians in Arizona and Kentucky makes no sense. The policy at MSNBC makes no sense.
I keep saying this, but is it not possible that this is all a stunt to start this conversation and ultimately bring it back to a condemnation of Fox?
Olbermann is the subject of Deborah Solomon's 'Questions' column this week, by the way.
135: is it not possible that this is all a stunt to start this conversation and ultimately bring it back to a condemnation of Fox?
I'm not seeing how. You've mentioned this before? Could you explain?
I certainly see that there's material for a conversation there: Murdoch's Newscorp gave $1 million, and then another $1 million -- give or take -- to the US Chamber of Commerce and to the Republican Governors' Association. That's been widely reported, and it's pretty much immune from prosecution, which is to say censure. There's a hell of a lot to be said about all of it, sure. I think you and Sifu read Harper's, so maybe you read the recent issue's article on the ascension of the Murdoch media empire in this country.
But I'm not seeing the blacklisting of Olbermann as a contribution to any constructive discussion about the role of Fox News.
blacklisting of Olbermann
Suspending. He hasn't been fired.
I wonder if it's possible for me to care less about a "scandal" than this one.
Thanks, Parsimon.
And AWB,
By being in the same room as her while ending it, XT, you're already way ahead of every guy who has ever broken off with me. Yay!
This is just ... wow. I mean, I know you've talked about this before, but it's just amazing. You've really had some shitty luck there with finding cowardly-break-uppers.
129 proves once again that AWB and I (have) date(d) the same sort of men.
I like to think that it's because I'm too hard to break up with if my charming person is actually in the vicinity, rather than that I am a subhuman loser who doesn't deserve basic human decency.
Suspending. He hasn't been fired.
I know. "Blacklisting" is a hell of a term, isn't it, but still this is feeling kind of fucked up somehow.
Olbermann is a worthwhile ally, despite his occasional snit-fits, and if the liberal-left media is going to insist on shooting itself in the face like this, I am disgusted. For god's sake.
I am truly, truly bad at breaking up for good with people. The only really effective method has been for one party to move at least three time zones away.
. . . And that's why Jackmormon is now commenting from Kiribati.
. . . And that's why Jackmormon is now commenting from Kiribati. while in bed with three exes.
Either scenario would have the benefit of clarity, I suppose.
I feel for Olbermann, but I have to say that if my employer handed me an ironclad excuse to not give money to any political cause ever, I'd be so happy.
We should absolutely all neuter ourselves politically. It's the only compassionate thing to do. Something to do with owning the shadow and looking at your stuff honestly.
It's kind of like being a rational non-voter, except much more awesome because you're saving time AND money.
I had my cat neutered, but it keeps trying to donate to purr-gressive causes anyway.
We should absolutely all neuter ourselves politically.
Politically? You could have been more clear on that last part.
Does your cat need a snack? I don't think the docs can put them back on.
||
NMM to Jill Clayburgh. No, seriously, you have to stop now.
|>
Stanley @ 150 wins the thread; assist to Parsimon @ 148.
The NMM announcements are a bummer. What is this, the sometime obituary page?
153: You beat Wikipedia. But I refreshed before posting this, and it's there now.
What is this, the sometime obituary page?
Just sparing people from those awkward moments. Even if you're conscientious like Blandings, these deaths can sneak up on you.
It's probably a good idea to consult Wikipedia before you whip off a batch, in any case.
Look, you could all avoid this problem of mastrubating to the dead by just purchasing some new pornography now and then, you cheapskates.
Just because it's new to you doesn't mean someone in it hasn't died since it was filmed.
Look, you could all avoid this problem of masturbating to the dead by just purchasing a fresh goat some new pornography now and then, you cheapskates.
sparing people from those awkward moments
Well, okay.
I like(d) Jill Clayburgh.
I can't help but observe how conscientiously Moby corrected the typo in 159!
Any thoughts on Johannes Mehserle getting only two years, including time already served? Better than probation, but Jesus. I actually was working with someone in Oakland today whose office was closing at 2:15 in anticipation of the verdict and possible rioting.
I'm a giver.
Moby's offering hand-outs, but there's really no telling where his hand has been.
161 Just make sure you stay away from my beloved donkey, Moby.
165.--I think that for riot mitigation they probably should have announced the verdict on Monday morning.
As for the verdict itself, did the d.a. press more serious charges and this was the only one that stuck?
As for the verdict itself, did the d.a. press more serious charges and this was the only one that stuck?
"Mehserle, 28, had faced a possible 14-year maximum term after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. At the time of the shooting, Mehserle was a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer responding to a report of a fight.
In making his decision during the highly charged, 3 1/2-hour hearing, Perry threw out a gun enhancement that could have added as much as 10 years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence that it was an accidental shooting."
165 -- Probably the right sentence for the crime he was actually convicted for, which was involuntary manslaughter.
As for the underlying trial, I don't know enough about the evidence presented to know whether the jury should have found something more than involuntary manslaughter. The Alameda DA's office wanted murder, and the trial was moved to downtown LA. Without knowing all the facts other than occasionally reading the newspaper, I'd start with a strong presumption that the verdict was reasonable; neither downtown LA juries nor judges are strongly motivated by a desire to whitewash the misdeeds of white policemen.
Good job, XT!
On the SUV front, I think the Porsche Anal Cayenne is the best.
neither downtown LA juries nor judges are strongly motivated by a desire to whitewash the misdeeds of white policemen.
Eh. If by 'whitewash' you mean 'falsely claim a cop did something contrary to how they're conditioned to act,' perhaps. But, as some anarchist said, "the system, the system itself is the abuse!"--the rules about what counts as reasonable/"accidental" use of deadly force, when the user is a cop, are unacceptably lenient.
I admit I have no idea what it's really like to be a cop; maybe Gswift thinks I'm talking out of my ass; but the stuff that shows up on, e.g., Radley Balko's blog every week makes me think that, in many places in the USA, cops are trained to have a dangerously adversarial mentality.
I'm thinking of a Crooked Timber thread from that Henry Louis Gates thing, where a NYPD cop/philosophy PhD guy was arguing for the defense--it basically came down to, "the first thing, the main thing, is to Take Control of the Situation." That sickened me then, and it sickens me still--it's just not okay for that to be SOP. Defusing the conflict should be the main priority--and often enough, trying to Take Control only escalates things.
170.1: The jury actually found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter with a gun enhancement, but the judge threw the gun enhancement out. Because it requires intentional use of a gun and the judge apparently decided that the jury's convicting him of involuntary manslaughter must have resulted from their buying his defense that he thought he was firing his taser rather than his gun, which, maybe, but I don't know that that's a necessary condition for their convicting. And perhaps gswift could comment on the general plausibility of that defense.
I dunno. Here, the cop claimed he was reaching for his taser when he thought the suspect was reaching for a gun, and accidentally pulled out his own weapon instead. I have no idea how credible that is in context, but the jury bought it.
I'd start with a strong presumption that the verdict was reasonable; neither downtown LA juries nor judges are strongly motivated by a desire to whitewash the misdeeds of white policemen.
Yet somehow they manage. This guy fatally shot an innocent, unarmed, prone man. His defense was that he mistook his gun for his taser. He'll likely be out within a year.
So let us for the sake of argument assume this is true. If so, what the fucking hell is wrong with the idiot who designs tasers? Seriously, if you don't look one is indistinguishable from a gun? The city of Oakland -- along with, like, the entire rest of the country -- should sue that company into oblivion for making the bone-headed design mistake of all bone-headed design mistakes. You should not under any circumstances -- particularly not stressful circumstances where you have to make split-second life-or-death decisions -- be able to mistake the form and trigger mechanism of a pistol for that of a Taser. In fact, it's completely shocking that the Taser company would not have thought of this long ago. But (and here's where the punchline of this comment is actually quite different than I thought it would be) they don't seem to have done so. What the fuck?
the jury bought it.
But the jury also tried to hold him responsible for using his gun, in a way that would have substantially increased his sentence had the judge not thrown that part out.
176: I thought I saw this point made on RISKS-L way back when that model was first introduced, but couldn't find it when I searched. It would have been sometime in the early to mid 1990s most likely, as that was when I was reading the list most regularly.
The OT gives rise to the thought that perhaps we should charge cops who kill unarmed people who seemed to be behaving suspiciously under the assisting suicide law as well.
176.--I wonder whether the taser people haven't forced city police departments to sign some sort of agreement not to sue. That would explain a lot.
177.--But if your 173 is true, then the jury tried to rewrite the law in its verdict, which is something of a problem. Maybe the jury instructions weren't very clear about what the involuntary manslaughter charge meant.
Ah, back when the internet was full of things that ended in "-L". Those were the days.
179: now that would be some funny shit. (Sorry, gswift.)
105
yeah, that sounds highly annoying. I also can't imagine the possible reason for it--isn't that just more work on their end?
Could it be some sort of privacy issue? Regular email is not very secure.
181: And Mirsky. That was pretty good.
The "B" in "James B. Shearer" stands for "timely".
But if your 173 is true, then the jury tried to rewrite the law in its verdict, which is something of a problem.
... oooo boy, thank god it's 4am and I'm about to sleep.
So, uh, speaking of non-sequiturs: Last year I was occasionally 'working' at a local Max Plnk. Inst., and had brought in a cheap keyboard/mouse to use there. I'd lock it in one of their lockers overnight, which wasn't really kosher, but whevs. But, uh, it's now been like 3 months since I've last been there, and I really ought to at least give them back their locker key, but the shame of showing up has so far proven too much to overcome.
I seem to recall there being another HDberg lurker. If this is true, and they'd be willing to pick up my stuff and return the locker key for me, that'd be really awesome; my email's at the link.
Could it be some sort of privacy issue? Regular email is not very secure.
Whereas grade-school IT departments are usually super secure.
71
Somewhere, James B. Shearer is smiling.
It is true that unions make convenient scapegoats for incompetent management. It is also true that unions (at best) represent the interests of their members not the public at large. My teacher friend hates dealing with parents.
That's what you get for working at a Maximum Plinko Instrument.
And needless to say we've come to expect edgier drunk-commenting from you. Isn't there somebody you could drunk text, and then report back?
It is also true that unions (at best) represent the interests of their members not the public at large.
For an amusingly reductive definition of "true", yes.
187: And now it's 15 years after it is after your time?
194: well there was sort of a donut hole of my time. It is my time again on the internet, which is how I can drop this on late night unfogged.
189: Sister always kept the fluid for the Ditto machine locked, but I thought that was to keep the kids from sniffing it.
195: You can't step into the same river twice.
And needless to say we've come to expect edgier drunk-commenting from you. Isn't there somebody you could drunk text, and then report back?
Tonight was just wine with roommates, ex-roommates, and ex-roommates' friends. I may go out tomorrow night, and I'm going to at least two concerts next week, and perhaps a third, if I can find someone willing to come with me to Frankfurt. Have patience.
Sifu is the Grover Cleveland of the internet.
197: CAN AND CANNOT, DAMMIT.
200: The iTouch says "can't" is so a word.
Isn't it five in the morning out in Deutschland right now? Not that I should talk about strange waking hours.
Dropping the Grover Cleveland reference right after the Heraclitus one; damn, Moby. I think this makes you the Dennis Miller of Monday Night Football of the internet.
But if your 173 is true, then the jury tried to rewrite the law in its verdict, which is something of a problem.
That's what's not clear to me. The jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The judge then said that meant that the jury found he had mistaken his gun for his taser. If the latter conclusion (which would preclude the gun enhancement) isn't correct, the problem may be the judge. Or yes, possibly the jury instructions.
203: I had forgotten the name "Heraclitus.". Anyway, this place is reasonably full of philosophy types.
Anyway, this place is reasonably full of philosophy types.
"Reasonably" is not the descriptor that would have leapt most readily to my mind.
176: It looks somewhat pistolish but I'd bet any number of important body parts it feels considerably different in the hand compared to any powder-burning lead-thrower designed since 1900.
I couldn't tell from the videos, is there some evidence the weapon used was out of his line of sight at the time he fired it? It would be extraordinarly difficult to mistake the two from the top given reasonably normal brain functioning.
Whatever. Juries are picked for ignorance and gullibility. The defence picked those well in this case.
207
Whatever. Juries are picked for ignorance and gullibility. The defence picked those well in this case.
Your theory being he deliberately killed the guy? Hard to see a motive. Mistaking the accelerator for the brake pedal is fairly hard to do also. Which is why it is a rare event. Still there are enough drivers that it happens. As does leaving kids in hot cars. I don't see why it is so hard to believe this could have been an accident also.
A wordish game I "invented." I callit "two item grocery lists of the damned."
e.g.: a ball gag and a box if diapers
or: a dv camera and a plastic speculum
or: home pregnancy test and pack or wire hangers.
Neither item need be singular, just plausibly sold in a package.
That hasn't already been discussed in the archives?
I honestly can't remember, and it's been a reeealllly long week. I was really hoping to threadjack away from Shearer trying to excuse the police.
Found it. The archives contain everything, I think.
I just rewatched In the Mood for Love. My taste doesn't seem to have changed in the last few years; I still think it's nearly perfect. It has a bunch of reviews on Netflix that give it one or two stars and say "this is so slow! and sad! and it plays the same music over and over again!" and I'm all "yes! isn't it wonderful?"
208: I think he pulled the gun to intimidate, knew damn well it was a gun and not the taser, and pulled the trigger by accident 'cause training is lousy.
The "I thought it was the taser" defense got cooked up later.
No matter how it happened, I don't see any particular need for people who make those sorts of mistakes to be out on the street for a long, long time. He can make license plates where it's safer the rest of his life for all I care.
re: 212
Yes! The melancholy, the amazingly beautiful people. What's not to like? Cheung and Leung are proper grown-up movie stars, dammit.
the first thing, the main thing, is to Take Control of the Situation." That sickened me then, and it sickens me still--it's just not okay for that to be SOP. Defusing the conflict should be the main priority
A certain amount of control is just plain necessary. Defusing is important, but those hands still need to stay visible.
As to the Taser being mistaken for the gun, yeah, I can imagine it happening. Blackhawk, for instance, makes a popular holster (the Serpa) for duty guns that they adapted for the Taser.
http://sssli.com/images/blkhwk2.jpg
http://www.botachtactical.com/bltax26seho.html
If someone was stupid put a polymer frame gun and a plastic taser on the same side of their belt with the same holster design, it's not inconceivable that a horrible mistake could be made. Especially if that belt setup was coupled with poor training.
Going on botched suicide calls I've learned that cutting and hanging are painful mess. Also, if you're going to do the gun under the chin thing do it right and use a rifle or shotgun. A .38 revolver mistakenly angled too far forward will leave you conscious and walking around looking like meaty version of the Predator.
And further to 215, there's significant differences between the Taser and a handgun, especially if you're experienced with handguns. Very hard to imagine making that kind of screw up, but not impossible.
When I watched the footage of the shooting it very much looked accidental. I think it was horribly negligent but it wasn't murder. Damned if I know what an appropriate punishment is under those circumstances.
A certain amount of control is just plain necessary. Defusing is important, but those hands still need to stay visible.
I don't entirely understand this. I suppose having hands visible reassures the officer of his safety to a certain degree, but this is surely a matter of degree rather than kind. Turning it into a bright-line rule, such that failing to have hands visible or whatever justifies increasing levels of physical violence, seems like it might sometimes result in the conflict escalating--especially if the non-cop is inebriated, as is not-seldom the case, right?--and as a result violence becoming more rather than less likely.
This also interacts in ugly ways with the whole 'every cop has a gun' thing. I really, really, really think the USA should rethink this policy, and assign guns only to veterans with sterling records in handling high-tension situations.
The general rules we ask for in interactions aren't particularly onerous, and most any competent cop will just tell you why things are done a certain way.
Turning it into a bright-line rule, such that failing to have hands visible or whatever justifies increasing levels of physical violence
Police involvement almost always means other more rational options have failed or are being eschewed. A big aspect of the job revolves around restoring and maintaining order. And doing that in these situations necessitates the threat of physical force. A hell of a lot of people only de-escalate because they know that failure to do so means they'll end up in handcuffs in a squad car.
And really, we're not going to play around on basic safety issues. If we go on a call of a fight and someone insists on blading away from us and putting his hand in his pocket, he's going to get instructed (and it can be polite) to please not do that. If he decides to tell us to go fuck ourselves and continues with that behavior, then the escalation is on him, not us. I'm not going to go the duration of a tense call thinking "gosh, what does he keep reaching for, I hope it's not something stabby".
This also interacts in ugly ways with the whole 'every cop has a gun' thing. I really, really, really think the USA should rethink this policy
There's literally hundreds of millions of guns floating around this country. Doing this job without a gun is insanity.
A big aspect of the job revolves around restoring and maintaining order. And doing that in these situations necessitates the threat of physical force. A hell of a lot of people only de-escalate because they know that failure to do so means they'll end up in handcuffs in a squad car.
What kind of situations are we talking about? I mean, in particular, what are the sorts of situations where there's someone who isn't obeying, and it's worth escalating, even with force, rather than, say, telling the person that if they don't calmly get in the car they're, I dunno, resisting arrest of whatnot, and will be picked up later at their home and charged and all that? (While sticking around to be sure they don't hurt someone else, obviously.)
There's literally hundreds of millions of guns floating around this country. Doing this job without a gun is insanity.
The first sentence is certainly true, but I don't see how the second follows. Having a gun doesn't protect you from guns. Is the argument that an armed criminal is more likely to shoot an unarmed cop than an armed one?
[Sorry, gswift, won't be on to reply for awhile--going to see if I can sneak into this (over-registered) conference.]
Just to chime in from the opposite side of things, I guess the Oscar Grant murder seems like a much less egregious case of than some other ones I'm familiar with. Here in Mpls., the murders of Lillian Weiss and Lloyd Smalley by Mike Sauro were really fucked up. Basically the MPD had mistook Weiss's apartment for that of a drug dealer, fired in a flash-bang grenade, which started a fire, and then Sauro (can't remember if he was a Lt. or just a Sgt. at the time) prevented the fire department from responding in a timely manner.
The recent murder of Fong Lee was also pretty bad, as his only "crime" was hanging out in a school playground and running from the cops who rolled up on him.
Basee Lor and Thia Yang were 13 year olds who had escaped from a juvenile justice facility and were unarmed when a suburban cop shot them in the back with his shotgun.
So yeah, I mean, I think the Grant murder should provoke outrage, but I dunno, it doesn't seem as bad as a lot of them somehow.
And I still remember Tycel Nelson.
I think he pulled the gun to intimidate, knew damn well it was a gun and not the taser, and pulled the trigger by accident 'cause training is lousy.
Mom always said that when you brandish a pistol, you should either keep the chamber empty or your finger outside the guard. If anybody notices your finger, it means the crazed look in you eye wasn't there.
212.2: I should watch that again. It is so good.
The first sentence is certainly true, but I don't see how the second follows.
I think on the "You can't get there from here" principle. I sympathise, but I'm not sure it's right. Isn't this the point of issuing 'non-lethal' remote person-stopping gear like TASERs? I mean TASERs may be a pile of shit, and the level of training that goes with them may be worse, but it doesn't invalidate the principle, it simply means that a good idea implemented by lazy and incompetent people doesn't lead to a good outcome.
Because: Is the argument that an armed criminal is more likely to shoot an unarmed cop than an armed one? If they're not going to get shot back, yes.
213
I think he pulled the gun to intimidate, knew damn well it was a gun and not the taser, and pulled the trigger by accident 'cause training is lousy.
How is this inconsistent with the juries' verdict? And why pull the gun rather than the taser to intimidate? And don't liberals believe it is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted?
No matter how it happened, I don't see any particular need for people who make those sorts of mistakes to be out on the street for a long, long time. He can make license plates where it's safer the rest of his life for all I care.
This apply to mothers who forget their children in hot cars also? I do agree that cops who make lethal mistakes like this shouldn't be cops anymore but I don't think a system in which there is no intermediate ground between completely justified and go to prison for the rest of your life makes sense.
204 -- having now read a pretty good article in the SF chronicle that's difficult to link on the IPhone, it looks like the jury, due to the trial judge's response tona query during deliberations, wasn't clearly instructed on the "intent to use" component of the sentencing enhancement. The entire defense seems to have been that the shooting with the gun (as opposed to the taser) was unintentional, so it's extremely hard to see how the jury could have found the sentencing enhancement but not intentional homicide.
Often, when jurors come in with inconsistent verdicts, courts will let them stand, but there's also often room for correction. From a distance, and without really knowing a lot about the evidence presented, the trial court's decision to not apply the enhancement doesn't look at all like an obvious error, although you'd really have to dig into the weeds of the law and the facts to be sure.
One other thing: the entire incident seems to have been the result of extremely poor training of BART cops. I hope the family has gotten an extremely generous civil settlement, because they deserve it. And it's also evidence that some of the best protections for civil liberties is simply investing in a highly trained, highly competent police force that doesn't do stupid shit like panic and mistake a gun for a taser.
I believe the cop's defense: he accidentally killed the guy he was trying to torture.
225: The jury's verdict wasn't inconsistant. They made the right decision (on that part) based on BS from the defense, IMO. (The "intent to use" part seems like extraneous gibberish).
This apply to mothers who forget their children in hot cars also?
Why should it? That's why judges have discretion. Frying one's kids is a likely self-limiting one-time occurance as long as mommy can't get a job as a day-care center driver. A bullet mistakenly fired in a city environment endangers everyone in the line of sight and some behind walls & doors.
Further, police are handed tremendous power along with the badge and gun. That power is necessary. What is also necessary is that they be held to higher standards than the rest of us. If they can't currently be held so then the recruiting and training systems need to be fixed.
I believe the cop's defense: he accidentally killed the guy he was trying to torture.
228
The jury's verdict wasn't inconsistant. They made the right decision (on that part) based on BS from the defense, IMO. (The "intent to use" part seems like extraneous gibberish).
So if you think the jury made the right decision what's with:
Whatever. Juries are picked for ignorance and gullibility. The defence picked those well in this case.
a friend introduced me to the concept of placing "Anal" before the names of SUVs
Suburban
Because: Is the argument that an armed criminal is more likely to shoot an unarmed cop than an armed one? If they're not going to get shot back, yes.
I'm genuinely curious about this. I can see how this might be true sometimes, but I can also see the opposite: the guy just wants to get away, and shoots the cop because he thinks otherwise the cop will shoot him. If the cop doesn't have a gun, he's not a threat, and the guy can turn his back and run or whatever. It's not like people typically want to shoot police; that's about the surest way to get a life/death-penalty sentence there is.
It's certainly true that my preferred policy--many fewer guns on cops--would result in cop-v-armed-arrestee situations sometimes ending with the would-be-arrestee getting away. (But not all, or even most--after all, threatening a cop with a gun is a very serious crime by itself! If you're legally carrying, and pulled over for a busted headlight, trying to threaten the cop with your gun would be insane.) The hope is that this would be outweighed by fewer shoot-outs, fewer accidental-or-not-so-accidental killings by police, and a generally lower level of anxiety associated with police/non-police interactions.
Speaking of cops and guns, here's an interesting story.
On two afternoons in a row last week, Solomon, 24, was arrested after hanging out at a North Philadelphia bus stop, and each time, the cops confiscated from him a legally owned gun and a separate license to carry a gun, the licensed security guard said yesterday.
(It's short, read the whole thing.)
Neither time, thankfully, did the situation escalate into violence. But this is the sort of case where I really believe having all cops be armed, and having "taking control of the situation" be the prime priority, is likely to make violence and death more rather than less likely.
On an unrelated note, Anne Fau/sto Ster/ling is fucking awesome. And has great fashion sense!
A week ago, about a mile from where I live, some guys were sporting fully automatic weapons on Halloween, shot a totally unrelated 5 year kid for no reason, and then resisted arrest. Even closer to home (like, two blocks away) a guy was picked up last year for murder in a house where they found an Iraq-level cache of military weapons. Crazy drunk gangbangers with guns are all over the place. I'm all in favor of community policing and having beat cops on the ground who don't alienate the civilian population (actually, I think that's the key to effective police work). But it's insane to think that cops here and elsewhere don't face real threats, and I'd prefer to keep the police force armed, thank you very much.
I know the safety of the police themselves is a legitimate concern, but I'm suspicious about how frequently it seems to be trotted out these days. Example from the Daily Cal yesterday (not about Mehserle):
White said he yelled as loudly as he could at the rioters to move and that policy states if someone comes within an officer's safety zone after they are told to move, the officer is allowed to give them a forceful shove backwards.
So if you think the jury made the right decision what's with:
Whatever. Juries are picked for ignorance and gullibility. The defence picked those well in this case.
They didn't get it right based on what I believe are the facts, they got it right based on a fairy tale told by the defense. Might as well flip coins. I've heard too many stories from people coming out of jury deliberations to have much faith in the system.
But this is the sort of case where I really believe having all cops be armed, and having "taking control of the situation" be the prime priority, is likely to make violence and death more rather than less likely.
I'm off to work soon, but take a look at where the guy from the story works.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/THE-PARAPET-GROUP/241022803695
http://www.myspace.com/concealedcarrypermits
Shall we hazard a guess as to why a 24 year old wannabe is hanging around a bus stop and known drug corner with a handgun but not getting on a bus? Maybe looking to beef up the resume with a "check out this totally random occurrence in which I used my ninja like personal security skills to cleanse the streets".
I wonder how many police departments he's applied to and been turned away from. We run into this type on a regular basis.
Crazy drunk gangbangers with guns are all over the place.
This is a bit hyperbolic. Or rather: yes, the incidents you state happened. But--the guy picked up for murder at his house; in my fantasy world (or the UK--and yes, I know there's a huge difference in firearms possession; but as your example shows, just because you have guns, doesn't mean you shoot the cops who come to arrest you.), such a situation would likely have involved the small minority of specially trained officers who would be issued guns. It's not an all-or-nothing issue.
Here's a recent look at police-involved shootings; here's a piece on shootings in Portland, OR, from 1988-1991 (when the statewide murder rate was more than twice what it is now, FYI).
One thing that struck me from the Portland report was how rare shootings are. Even during years when murder, assault, robbery were 2+x more frequent than now, we're talking one fatal-shooting per 193 police-years, and it looks like a bit less than twice that rate for non-fatal shootings, so say one per 100 P-Ys.
It seems like the threat/response model Halford has in mind is something like: drunk gangbanger goes nuts, starts brandishing or using his gun; cop happens to be nearby, and, because he has a gun, is able to take the guy out. But this does not, in fact, seem to be a remotely common situation. (Can anyone pull data on % of shootings where victim had a firearm?)
As for the officer-safety side of thing, going on the high side for cops-killed-by-shooting per year, 65, that works out to about a 1/12700 annual risk per cop.
re: 232
The British system is unarmed cops, but with specialist firearms units, who get called if weapons are involved. Although armed police are more common now than they once were, even allowing for that divide between firearms specialist and ordinary officers.
It's actually surprisingly rare for police officers to get shot here, even allowing for them being largely unarmed.
However, I'm not sure if that's really relevant to the US where the historical situation vis a vis guns is so different.
Going by this list of UK police deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
4 have been shot in the last 20 years.
Shall we hazard a guess as to why a 24 year old wannabe is hanging around a bus stop and known drug corner with a handgun but not getting on a bus?
Of course, it could also be that "it's the same bus stop he waits at every day and that he allowed four buses to pass by him because it was about 3 p.m. and he didn't feel like riding a bus full of kids leaving school." Who knows? But that's a decent reason, certainly.
However, I'm not sure if that's really relevant to the US where the historical situation vis a vis guns is so different.
It's certainly much more likely for a cop in the USA to get shot than one in the UK, but we really shouldn't overstate the riskiness of the job. it's not like they're fishermen or even cabdrivers.
Not sure we want to give the civil servant we're paying 50k a year to go into dangerous situations even more of an incentive to sit in the squad car and do nothing. And I'll leave it at that.
http://policelegal.com/2010/05/26/dash-cam-video-of-hamilton-montana-police-shooting/
I recall the truly disturbing frequency of accidental discharges* by Boston (and environs) police officers being reported in the newspapers when I lived there. I wonder (i) whether the trend persists and/or exists in other cities and (ii) how many police shootings that have been controversial might have been avoided,** had the firearms safety training been (A) better and (B) more frequent.***
I don't imagine that a more rigorous education would eliminate questionable police shootings, but I wonder whether there are statistics comparing hours trained per officer to shootings per officer, by city.
* Fruit, low-hanging, etc.
** Given the descriptions of the circumstances available to the public.
*** And, inevitably, (C) more costly.
Not sure we want to give the civil servant we're paying 50k a year
Just a bit of context--I'm sure that 50k is true for some departments, for some level of experience. With the NYPD, you hit 53k after 2.5 years, not counting overtime, and are at almost 91k after 5.5. (Promotions can take that up to 109k / 125k / 160k.) And that's not all! Take it away, NYPD website!
Additional Benefits
10 Paid vacation days during first & second year
13 Paid vacation days during third, fourth & fifth year
27 Paid vacation days after 5 years of service
Unlimited sick leave with full pay
A choice of paid medical programs
Prescription, dental, and eyeglass coverage
Annuity fund
Deferred Compensation Plan, 401K and I.R.A.
Optional retirement at one half salary after 20 years of service
Annual $12,000 Variable Supplement Fund (upon retirement)
Annual banking of $12,000 Variable Supplement Fund after 20 years of service (if not retiring)
Excellent promotional opportunities
Educational opportunities
Additional benefits are available to military personnel.
I'm sure most police are decent people, and I'm sure it's a very hard job, but at least in NYC, they get amply rewarded.
246: By way of contrast, until the 1990s the first-year salary in the New Orleans P.D. was around $18,000 "and all you can steal."
187: x, I can help you out with that. I'll email you about where & when to meet up.
238: I wonder how many police departments he's applied to and been turned away from. We run into this type on a regular basis.
When I was in HS, the older brother of a friend of mine REALLY wanted to be a cop. The problem is that he was an inveterate racist, and he knew that he would have to pass the MMPI and other psychological tests in order to be admitted to the Police Academy. So he walked around for months repeating the mantra: "I'm NOT a racist, I LIKE black people." I think he failed in Minneapolis, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to move to another city with less stringent requirements.
239
One thing that struck me from the Portland report was how rare shootings are. Even during years when murder, assault, robbery were 2+x more frequent than now, we're talking one fatal-shooting per 193 police-years, and it looks like a bit less than twice that rate for non-fatal shootings, so say one per 100 P-Ys.
Which is consistent with guns being an effective deterrent.
237
They didn't get it right based on what I believe are the facts, they got it right based on a fairy tale told by the defense. Might as well flip coins. I've heard too many stories from people coming out of jury deliberations to have much faith in the system.
Do you have any reason to believe this particular jury was ignorant and gullible as you claimed?
By way of contrast, until the 1990s the first-year salary in the New Orleans P.D. was around $18,000 "and all you can steal."
Oy. Okay, point taken; generalizing from NYC salaries, in any field, is stupid. My bad.
And thanks, lurker!
Oooh, neat: the International Journal of Conflict and Violence has all of their content available without paywall, and lets you DL entire issues as a single PDF! Fun fun! 3/1/2009 sounds exciting: "Is a General Theory of Violence Possible?"
http://www.ijcv.org/index.php/ijcv/issue/archive
One wonders what they think about St/ven P/nker's wading into their turf.
sounds exciting: "Is a General Theory of Violence Possible?"
Less exciting once you take into account H/inch/liffe's Ru/le.
249: Maybe the mantra worked as far as it went, but he should have expanded it to include other minority groups.
How about cultish murder-suicides? Heide Fittkau-Garthe was evidently charged with such in the Canaries (sorry can't link from phone). Obviously different country, etc. Also they are considered murder because of the children involved. A cult adults-only mass suicide where the leader didn't die: murder?
251: "he was convicted in July of involuntary manslaughter and a separate charge of intentionally firing a gun"
They were certainly confused. Based on the questions asked during jury selection and observing who got picked and who didn't, I'll stick with my idea that juries tend toward dumbth.
247: Weren't some New Orleans officers doing contract killing for fees in the three figures.
I think he failed in Minneapolis, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to move to another city with less stringent requirements.
If it's any comfort, some kind of MMPI type test as well as an in person psych interview is pretty much the standard nationwide. MMPI was weird, and damned if I know what they were looking for. That aspect is pass/fail and you're not sent your results, just a letter "congrats on moving on to the next round of testing..."
224: Is the argument that an armed criminal is more likely to shoot an unarmed cop than an armed one? If they're not going to get shot back, yes.
chris, I'm guessing that very few police officers return accurate fire after actually being shot. That's how you tell the difference between a police officer and a Terminator.
261. Not everybody who gets shot at gets hit.
Weren't some New Orleans officers doing contract killing for fees in the three figures.
That would be the sign of a market in the doldrums. I mean, $50-$100 is what you expect to pay for a hit in Manila. I would have hoped that New Orleans murderers would charge higher rates. Especially given the advantages of hiring a policeman, who could definitely deliver a higher-quality product than the average hitter.
The Economist should run an index, but I think the market's probably not liquid enough in most countries.
