So we know that running from ICE gets you shot at, so there is a perfectly logical reason for the gunshot in the windshield.
If you're sitting in your running car waiting to pick someone up and you see someone barreling at you, what do you do? You do the exact same thing I've seen several other people do in the same exact situation, you try to get the fuck out of the way. Well, now you're fleeing the scene. He probably was so focused on getting out of a wreck, he didn't even hear the first shot.
This theory would also explain why the agent got out of the car and started shooting. He thought the guy was already fleeing.
A lot of people here are saying "Now I'm not defending the cop", why not? Why shouldn't we defend someone, anyone when accusations are made that don't make sense? Our nation was built on the concept of justice for all. Justice is not just defined by punishing the guilty, but by also not punishing the innocent.
The evidence provided in this article fits with the cop's story. Those injuries, easily caused by face-planting into something solid while running. The face-plant is the likely outcome of a person losing motor control by a high voltage electric shock. The Taser shot is probably the correct response to the suspect resisting arrest, running away from the cop, towards some other danger.
The only thing here that even suggests the cop was in the wrong is the mother. Was she there, did she see it? No. Plus she's the child's mother, that instantly throws her accusation into question.
"or losing people willing to invest millions of dollars because of the risk of losing revinue and not breaking even meaning the movies are not produced, and that money is invested elsewhere."
Yeah, that's why Star Wars is still in the red. Piracy back in 1977 was so bad that even today Star Wars hasn't made back what was invested. It's just as bad now as then. $400,000,000 is nowhere near enough money to make up for the $100,000,000 investment.
I swear they look for anything and everything that might just be ever so slightly wrong and twist the living fuck out of it.
Tim argues against the website probably making fake accounts and the person that might be faking a repetitive stress injury, yet Blue insists that it's only about slamming the employee.
Tim obviously points out two different types of cheating, but green swirly AC up there insists that it's one type and only one type possible. Then bitches about there not being a link to a adult social network dedicated to cheating spouses even though a link isn't required or relevant to the article.
Before that green swirly defends OoTB by saying everyone else makes "Ad Hom's" and Blue is the only one being logical, even though Blue is intentionally (it can't be accidental at this point) missing half the article and making the ad hominems at the same time.
I'm sorry Tim, but I think I found the problem. You're too smart and you don't dumb down your articles enough. You assume the readers are going to use intelligence and logic when there seems to be a coordinated team of people intentionally not using them.
There's an easy way to find out. The transceiver takes up a lot of power. Charge up your cell phone the entire way and then turn it off. After a week of it being off, if the battery is around 70% or 50%, you know something's up. If it's still 99%, that thing was off.
I figured this out with my iPod touch. Since I only used it for website testing, it was on standby most of the time. Even with the wifi and GPS off, it would be completely dead in two days. Then I decided to charge it and just turn it off. After two weeks, I turned it back on to test with and the battery was 100%. My first thought was "At least I know when this thing's off, it's off."
Well, I don't have anywhere to point, only an anecdotal story.
A few years ago I helped a friend move to North Carolina to be near his mother after his father died. Stayed down there for a week and enjoyed the beach. I was the one who drove the moving van, so I didn't have a car to do little runs, so I borrowed my friend's mother's car.
When she gave me the keys she told me something interesting. She said that I had to turn the car on, but not turn over the engine, wait 30 seconds, and then turn over the engine. I asked why and she told me that it's something car dealers do where they live. There is a device that will not allow the car to start if it's not reset by the dealer every month.
Apparently buying a car and then running off without paying the monthly payments is so common dealers had to start putting the device in cars to prevent it.
It originally was a children's program. The original idea was for the Doctor and his companions to explore history and possible futures to educate. The first few episodes didn't do so well so they added the Daleks and changed the show to more of a SciFi fantasy style show. The show exploded in the ratings.
Anyone else find it ironic (and I'm fairly sure I'm using the correct definition) that this AC is bitching about a grammar error and then using "WTF" and "LOL"? Granted, I'm assuming he/she's bitching about a grammar error, I'm dyslexic so it's hard to tell some times.
This all sounds like security threw obscurity. Don't tell anyone about our security so no one can find any holes in it. The problem is if no one is allowed to find the holes, then no one knows when the holes are found and abused.
I'm sorry, did I piss off the UK Foreign Secretary by speculating that the security has flaws?
See, again you're talking without understanding. The theory of gravity is a hell of a lot more complex then apples falling from trees. It involves things like how we're pulled to the ground, why light bends around gravity wells, and time bends as well. It's far, far more complicated then when Newton started it.
Remember, a scientific theory is as close to fact as science can get without being able to reproduce it on demand. We have the math, we have the evidence, we just can't show in a lab that time slows down in a gravity well.
Same with evolution, the math is there, the evidence is there, we just can't repeat it in a lab.
You're trying to take an easy to understand concept (things fall) and apply it to everything. But everything is far too complicated. You're looking for a simple, universal answer.
And that's where I tried to turn this conversation back on topic by pointing out that what is going on with copyright is the same way of thinking. Trying to take a simple, easy to understand concept and apply it to something far, far more complicated. It ain't going to work. (wasn't saying anything about you and copyright, just trying to turn back on track)