Except the law says that if someone is shooting at you, that you have a right to shoot back. Would you say the same if one of his shots killed a cop or a civilian? He already strangled his girlfriend the day before. He also tried to deliberately run down a highway patrolman in his truck. If he had surrendered instead of shooting at the SWAT team then he would have been entitled to his Miranda rights and a trial.
Wrong! When you are directly endangering the lives of both police and civilians you are not equal under the law. He fired several shots inside the store and dozens at police. One reason they waited as long as they did was they were hoping he would finally sleep and they could take him alive. He was so high that he was probably up the entire time.
"Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?"
I'm afraid only Roy Rogers had that skill.
Some people will criticize the police no matter what they do. There was a PCP junkie here that murdered his girlfriend, robbed a WalMart pharmacy firing his gun in the crowded store and barricaded himself in his apartment. He shot at the police numerous times. They had reason to believe he had large quantities of ammunition and bomb making materials. The standoff went on for 36 hours and our police chief was criticized for finally saying "Let's take him out". Even after hitting the apartment with a fire hose he shot at the SWAT team as they moved in. The way some people complained you would think they shot Mother Teressa!
A few months ago a Wichita cop answered a break in call. He came up just as the man was leaving. When ordered to stop the man pulled a gun out and ran. The cop did not shoot and kill him until the guy clearly stopped, turned around and leveled the gun at him. This time there were no cries of police brutality because the entire incident was recorded on the store's security cameras. Sometimes police shootings are completely justified. In situations like this the footage means such matters can be quickly resolved. I'm sure some bleeding hearts would whine "why didn't he shoot him in the leg?" That is not how they are trained. They are taught to stop an imminent threat by shooting center mass. Too many people watch unrealistic cop shows where someone points a gun at them and instead of shooting they plead and try to reason them to put it down. Truth is; if you are stupid enough to point a gun at a cop, expect to be shot.
It puts a J in front of a very common word. In the trademark business it no longer seems to matter if there is any remote possibility of brand confusion. If Jdownloader predates any of their claims can they go after them? Common sense has no place in with all the litigious insanity.
Yes, many mistakes and collateral damage has been caused by drones and other anti terrorist actions. At least an attempt is made on our part to go after after guilty individuals and not just indiscriminate murder of bombing crowded market places and transportation like the terrorists. Are we to take no action to take out the leadership of these organizations?
Innocent people died on both sides in WWII but who was more to blame, the allies or the Nazis? I served in the army stationed in Germany in the 70's and many older Germans told me that the majority of the people hated Hitler and even when our bombs fell on their cities they blamed him for the destruction and death.
Only about 15 to 20% of them. Of course it is the largest religion in the world so that's still millions that want to kill us and don't care if our women and children die. I still remember the massive celebrations of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the streets all over the middle east on 9/11. There have been cases of pregnant Muslim women strapping on bomb vests. The families of "martyrs" who die in suicide attacks receive permanent financial support from the Muslim leadership. Kindergarten age children are taught songs about the honor of dieing for Allah. How horrible that politically incorrect label Muslims as terrorists when it's not all of them . Just a lot of them.
Muslims seem to only allow a couple dozen names and the most popular is Muhammad. There are only so many combinations and the chance of many duplicates are very likely. It's like Smith, Jones or Brown in many countries.
I thought the whole idea of trolling was quick easy settlements. Companies know how expensive it is to fight back even when they know the claim is a load of crap. The trolls then rake in big bucks with minimal legal fees. Why would they go after NewEgg when they know they will likely lose millions even they win? There are so many easier targets.
Yeah, you are probably right. It always cracks me up when NewEgg kicks some troll's ass after even companies who have the resources to fight them have paid up. You would think the trolls would eventually learn not to fuck with NewEgg!
So, if is proven in court that the crappiest song ever written has been public domain since at least 1922, does that mean Warner will have to refund everyone they defrauded? Perhaps a class action suit that retroactively includes everyone who paid fees for it is in order.
What about the player piano invented in the 1900s? Just one example. There hast to be many more products with that very common word that long predate his song. This one hit wonder thinks he owns that word? If it was called a Beatles kit there might be a case, but seriously, player? If I was looking to get back into playing in bands I might take out an ad as a bass player. Am I violating his trademark?
That may be true because anyone that drives a car violates some traffic law pretty much every day. If I get caught speeding I can expect to be pulled over and ticketed. What I don't expect is to be held at gunpoint or thrown to the ground and cuffed because some automated system thinks I may resemble some criminal.
Can't wait for all the false positives that lead to false arrests become massive lawsuits. Facial recognition isn't like DNA where the odds sometimes exceed the entire population of the planet. It's not even like fingerprints where mistakes are very unlikely if there are a decent number of comparison points. SWAT teams will be taking down people unlucky enough to just look like some felon. Wouldn't the odds of a mistake be even higher for innocent relatives who bear a family resemblance? We have been worried that 1984 will become a reality. I think we are heading more toward Person of Interest.
Does this also mean that MySpace can take down NASA and other space agencies on trademark claims if they dare to include "space" in a web site name? Since most of them probably predated MySpace perhaps the claim could go the other way. Where does this insanity end?
Does he want us to believe with that name that this is the first time he has been called ass man? I'm guessing form about the 6th grade on that is about all he was called. Still quite fitting for someone claiming his credentials and making such ridiculous arguments.
I recently opened Facebook while I was on a VPN and they locked me out. I had a much tougher time than any forgot password recovery. I had to make several attempts to identify friends photos that in many cases were their pets, kids, ancestors, friends of friends, schoolmates I hadn't seen in 40 years. After each failed attempt I was prevented from trying again for an hour. I finally lucked out and enough the photos were of the actual person I had seen in the last 10 years and got my account back. All this because Facebook saw me logging in from Dallas instead of my usual IP. Yet someone can get enough info on me to file a fake tax return.
I have always wondered why so many financial institutions still use mother's maiden name as a security question. This information is very easily obtained for just about anyone. Even if that wasn't pretty much public record already, what if a relative wants to rip you off? I grew up in the 60's so it wouldn't be a stretch to guess the Beatles are my favorite band and a few people might remember my first pet's name but mother's maiden name is about a secure as using 123456 or password as a password.