The obvious thing in common is the "he/she went for my gun" excuse why you beat the daylights, living tar --"life" out of the otherwise non-armed suspect.
A simple trail of logic here has determined the most dangerous thing to the officers life is all the guns they each bring to the scene of the crime. In these cases it keeps seeming the "perps" are all unarmed and if the officers didn't have guns then they would be a lot safer.
Further proof is submitted in the fact every time there is a big gun fight -- the suspects are shot dozens of times while the officers expend hundreds of rounds. If you calculate the misses by the officers it would seem they are a much bigger threat to themselves and "innocent" camera wielding bystanders than any of the criminals they are protecting us from. Remove the officers weapons and problem would be greatly reduced if not solved.
The real problem in the majority of these cases is not the police. It's the court system - our government of checks and balances has failed. The court system does not check the government or it's enforcement function, the police.
This case is one of the few where the courts have stood up and done their job. From the supreme court on down we have been failed by the system designed to protect us from this kind of tyranny. I honestly haven't the slight idea how to fix this within the confines of the system since the system itself has failed.
As a taxpayer who is not delinquent, this doesn't bother me if the municipality is making up the costs in collections. If they use collection agencies, courts, etc.. it's going to be more costly.
I admit to not liking the nanny/babysitter/fascist state much at all, but this to me is not a unacceptable use of ALPR technology. Probably more effective that the process of foreclosure, etc.
Now I will admit the caveat that the involved government agency use some kind of common sense way to collect once they've ID'd the person/car/location. Impounding a 1500$ car on a 300$ tax bill costing a working person a job that would have paid more in return to the economy is the issue. Never seen most governments do an intelligent job in this kind of situation, that worries me much more.
Let's see, authority has toys, boys w/toys want to use them. But doesn't it seem odd that the only likely result of deploying all you military toys is to intensify the violence?
Think it through, we have folks at a game store holding folks hostage w/shotguns. So we have maybe 2-3 "active shooters" .. so we deploy 20 or so officers in battle dress, 10-15 cars, trucks, vans all with sirens and flashing lights, news crews, crime scene management folks, and finally hostage negotiation (1 person?).
How can we honestly expect it get any less violent? Why not default to a bit more restrained response, 4-5 officers, no lights, no sirens, block off traffic. Couple of snipers mainly for backup?
I don't have a problem killing the bad guys - really I don't, until you consider how to ID them.
Take the normal domestic hostage situation of 1 perp and a a couple of innocent hostages. Dangerous for everyone in particular the officers. But if you have one convict with a gun and hostages, why do you need 30-40 officers, multiple SWAT teams with the coolest black "Call of Duty" arms and attitude, helicopters, etc. Let's see if we can inject some more little boy stupidity in the situation why don't we. More cops means more chance a cop get's killed and even greater chance an innocent gets caught in the cross fire.
Officers are supposed to know how to diffuse a situation, turn down the emotions, etc. This very act goes against everything they should have been taught. When has a military response ever been known to defuse a situation. True if kill all the baddies you might actually solve the issue, but that is not the most likely event by a long shot. This does not even consider the hostages in the equation. Basically this might be the least likely to be successful response so of course to government goes with it.
Cut cableTV two years ago. Went with comcast business account 50/10. Use dedicated entertainment PC hooked to 55" in LED, blu-ray, 7.1 sound...
Before we cut cable, tv was always on some cable garbage, pawn stars, parking wars, storage wars, some old movie for 20th time. Those basic fill garbage cable junk shows! -- cost of 190-200$ a month w/cable,net,phone from comcast Xfinity.
Cut cable, HD Antenna for local channels. No Netflix though(delays!), lots of use of network websites to view.
Guess What - haven't watched Pawn Stars in 2 years, no one will intentionally watch those garbage cable fillers.. amazing what they don't miss!! Bill is down to 100$ a month for the cable business account. I did keep phone due to the nature of my business. W/O phone would be under 80$ a month vs 190-200$ and I get better viewing experience, on my own time, less fill. I do have HuluPlus! but am thinking of cutting it. Even if it cost the same I wouldn't go back, the time shifting alone is worth it.
Amazing what Real Estate comparison sites can tell you...Now should there be more equal response and coverage yes, is there a double standard yes, are cops smarter in NH than MO, yes... are folks nicer in NH - maybe. Basically you gotta see that folks are scared of cops in Keene, Cops seem to react better in Keene, maybe that is the real problem here, no one died in Keene -- it's only interesting when people die.
As to stats - cops really have a reason to not overreact in Keene -- Cops in MO don't really seem to need a reason to overreact.
1. 3 murders in Keene in last 10 years... 2. 20 murders in last 10 years in Ferguson 3. White Frat boys might burn some stuff, might even rape someone but they don't shoot folks in Keene. 4. Frat boys can pay for the damage in court 5. 1 in 355 chance of being a crime victim in Keene 6. 1 in 222 chance of being a crime victim in Ferguson
You both are wrong and right ... you can block traffic within your airspace as long as you don't block other folks traffic nearby. Specifically from CISCO: ===================================================== As containment renders any standard 802.11 network completely ineffective, containment measures should taken in your airspace. Extreme caution should be taken to ensure that containment is not being performed on a legitimate network nearby and, action should only be taken as a last resort. Unauthorized containment is prosecutable by law (subject to the FCC’s Communications Act of 1934, Section 333, ‘Willful or Malicious Interference’). ===================================================
However PCI standards require you take this into account: -------------------------------------- PCI Compliance Understanding and remediating against wireless threats is also a requirement under the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), a standard required for retailers to follow when processing credit card data over WLAN networks. Examples of WIPS requirements under PCI DSS include: Section 9.1.3 Physical Security: Restrict physical access to known wireless devices. Section 10.5.4 Wireless Logs: Archive wireless access centrally using a WIPS for 1 year. Section 11.1 Quarterly Wireless Scan: Scan all sites with card dataholder environments (CDE) whether or not they have known WLAN APs in the CDE. Sampling of sites is not allowed. A WIPS is recommended for large organizations since it is not possible to manually scan or conduct a walk-around wireless security audit of all sites on a quarterly basis Section 11.4 Monitor Alerts: Enable automatic WIPS alerts to instantly notify personnel of rogue devices and unauthorized wireless connections into the CDE. Section 12.9 Eliminate Threats: Prepare an incident response plan to monitor and respond to alerts from the WIPS. Enable automatic containment mechanism on WIPS to block rogues and unauthorized wireless connections. ------------------------------------------------
So the FCC fined them 600K -- customers not seeing a dime of that in refunds for outrageous costs - am I right there.
This really doesn't suprise me though... if the service they did deliver was fast .. then 1000$ to hook up your own wireless so you could hand it out to attendees would be ok... but if it's for one client device, that is insane.
My firm has done numerous trade shows, normally we have to pay fee these days for decent internet connections (usually cable), 4-500$ for a week long show. It's all part of the space/booth fee.
Not long ago though we had to bring in our own connections - usually IDSN or if we were lucky DSL. Local telco would wire us up a circuit for the duration of the show.
If the company is running the contest to put music in "THEIR" game, they ask folks to contribute - fully voluntary, they make it clear that the vendor and runner of the contest will put the music of the winner(s) into the game, there will be no royalties, how can someone force them kill the contest?
As long as they verify the contributors are not under contract that stops them from contributing to the contest, how can some entity force them not to run it. I must be missing something here, how can an industry group have standing to do anything at all?
All I know is if the kid was tough enough to kill a dinosaur with just a gun bought locally by someone who couldn't buy a gun (we talking nerf guns here??) .... then the cops probably should be afraid. You know he was able to find and kill an extinct animal with a gun he couldn't buy ... that is what I call a DANGEROUS young man!
You know I've looked at this a few times and I see how the CHP wants to cover this up. But let's look at this particular situation. Think about this:
1. Cop has women walking out into obviously very very busy highway. 2. He's chasing her on foot risking his life trying to save hers. 3. He can see what happens if she causes an accident on highway - lots of other folks could get hurt/killed. 4. She ignores his commands causing him to have to physically restrain her. 5. Probably he doesn't relish the idea he has to run out into highway to save her, possibly getting killed himself. 6. He'd probably say good riddance (not good but realistic) and let her get hit, but someone else would probably get hurt and he would burn for that too. 7. She fights back when he's trying to grab her, he way over reacts(but in the moment I can see how he could, just needs to be a better cop)... 8. He loses it, takes out his frustration, is she trying to bit him, hit him, etc.. all on the side of the highway just begging to get killed by a car/truck that didn't see everything.
Does he need to be disciplined, "YES" - in this case does he need to vilified -- not so sure. A lot of extenuating circumstances here. It's not like it 8-10 cops beating a drunk passed out guy w/night sticks. he's one guy trying save a psycho, who's not being cooperative, all why trying dodge cars on a busy busy highway, hoping he survives and can go home to his family at the end of the shift. I don't see much of a win-win result for anyone in this case.
Of course as usual the press has a field day, everyone pontificates, CHP over reacts too trying save face, no one wins -- sorta like the original situation...
I've used a media link router for the last couple of years.. worked flawlessly just like it was supposed to. Replaced it with a ASUS 'cause I needed to run Tomato Software. I was really suspicious of all the positive reviews - I use amazon reviews all the time to evaluate products. I spot a lot of obvious shill reviews, filter them out, look at negatives for repeating issues.
Company is stupid to call out a neg review when it's so overwhelmed by positives in the MediaLink case. But then if all the companies used their heads, they would all be driving gold plated benz's ... I swear the harbinger of the downfall of any civilization is the opening of the first law school!
Standing for long periods of time - you need to move your weight from one leg to another. The Bar Business developed the bar rail for just that reason. To keep folks comfortable at the bar so they would stay. Basically that is pretty much what the chairbot is. You can do the same thing with a couple of wood foot stools or boxes for a lot less than 2700$.
I am betting they have a rule against photography in the reading room so researchers don't photograph pages, etc... not meant for someone taking pic's of the room as a whole. Just a TWIT_NIT_WIT that is probably making min wage and thinks they are important, but doesn't understand the rule and why it's there, just reading his/her script like they were told to.
Thank god for those keepers of the gate preventing terrorism and book copying -- same thing right?