Unlimited Ferguson Thread of police state nightmare fuel.

[von]

To derail a moment, where are we actually up to with less-lethal weapons? I'm guessing there's still nothing reliable enough to consider switching to yet, but surely that's got to be coming too?

I can understand that trying to shoot a limb isn't particularly practical in high stress situations, so that would seem to make less lethal alternatives even more compelling. Lawsuits are expensive, I'm told. It might just take a few forces going bankrupt before this is taken remotely seriously though.

Thing is, that changes the messages to and from the cop.

From the cop:  I'm here to fuck your shit up, because it's non-lethal.
To the cop:  Our go-to response is thump first.

Don't tase me, bro.

Just because it's non-lethal (I prefer "less-lethal", you can kill anyone with pretty much anything, if you're so inclined) doesn't mean you get to whip it out and hose down the whole street into compliance though. You still need to demonstrate you're using fair force for the situation at hand. I say "demonstrate", I mean "get away with". Thinking back, I seem to recall a discussion based around research that cops were more likely to fire a taser than a gun, and that seemed to extend to other shit like rubber bullets. It's an area of many issues and probably more relevant to another/new thread. Or remembering what the old one was.

There was something earlier about Republicans supporting camera on cops reforms, now I'm more certain than ever that the concept must have serious flaws I've not considered/realised/understood the full implications of.

About cop-cams:

they're pretty exploitable. Just consider

>suspect is a violent shit head who makes a bad example of himself and can be used to drive a narrative if need be
Camera comes out fine and is used as evidence, and mailed to every news org from here to the hinterland.

>cop acts inappropriately and brutalises a legitimately decent citizen
Camera is conveniently "damaged in the altercation" or the storage media suffers from some sort of "misfiling" issue.

Or we can just arrest anyone who takes a pic, right?   

Like your heroes in Ferguson.

Oh yes, exactly, and it would be far more stream lined too because cameras don't have civil rights...not even on paper. You can beat the shit out of a nikon and no one cares...sic dogs on it, burn it to death, misfile it (which we ALL know is just a big codeword for extraordinary rendition), and even torture it to make sure it never takes a picture again.

And the best thing: there wouldn't be some national association for the advancement of coloured photography to stop them.

They'll have every DSL-R in america in a fucking camp where they belong!

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

You know those funds to donate money to the cop who shot that kid. How hard/illegal would it be to set up a fake one that  sends money directly into my booze fund? What if I didnt explicitly state that it was going to the cops. What if I just said it was going to "our great american heroes(which I am)" and plastered a bunch of pics of police brutality around a donate button. Only half joking about this, I havent had a drink in hours, getting pretty desperate.

[von]

You know those funds to donate money to the cop who shot that kid. How hard/illegal would it be to set up a fake one that  sends money directly into my booze fund? What if I didnt explicitly state that it was going to the cops. What if I just said it was going to "our great american heroes(which I am)" and plastered a bunch of pics of police brutality around a donate button. Only half joking about this, I havent had a drink in hours, getting pretty desperate.

check for competitors first because this is hardly an original idea.
crowdsource fraud has been a thing for a while now. an easier and more sustainable market is vapourware game development for remakes of cult classic games that have grey-area copyrights.

if you're smart about it, though, yes, it would be easy as fuck to capitalise on this...not particularly legal though, as it IS fraud...

[Junkenstein]

To derail a moment, where are we actually up to with less-lethal weapons? I'm guessing there's still nothing reliable enough to consider switching to yet, but surely that's got to be coming too?

I can understand that trying to shoot a limb isn't particularly practical in high stress situations, so that would seem to make less lethal alternatives even more compelling. Lawsuits are expensive, I'm told. It might just take a few forces going bankrupt before this is taken remotely seriously though.

Thing is, that changes the messages to and from the cop.

From the cop:  I'm here to fuck your shit up, because it's non-lethal.
To the cop:  Our go-to response is thump first.

Don't tase me, bro.

Just because it's non-lethal (I prefer "less-lethal", you can kill anyone with pretty much anything, if you're so inclined) doesn't mean you get to whip it out and hose down the whole street into compliance though. You still need to demonstrate you're using fair force for the situation at hand. I say "demonstrate", I mean "get away with". Thinking back, I seem to recall a discussion based around research that cops were more likely to fire a taser than a gun, and that seemed to extend to other shit like rubber bullets. It's an area of many issues and probably more relevant to another/new thread. Or remembering what the old one was.

There was something earlier about Republicans supporting camera on cops reforms, now I'm more certain than ever that the concept must have serious flaws I've not considered/realised/understood the full implications of.

Perhaps you missed our national fad with tasers?

Is that an ongoing thing? I was under the impression everyone was back to good old guns now. Pepper sprays for the liberal lot. Edit to add - Mainly under this impression as not seen many/any deaths reported of through such means. I remember a bunch a while ago so I guess they're either keeping it quiet or had just gone back to shooting people.

Cop cameras - You're all still thinking about currently existing tech. Add 5/10 years and a device that auto-records everything 360 degrees /X distance (increases as time passes) from you automatically uploaded and stored indefinitely. Damage and tampering can be made easily irrelevant, consider it as a police black box. 

Von - I've re-read the thread and this appears to be your most valuable insight:

Do more of that.

[von]

To derail a moment, where are we actually up to with less-lethal weapons? I'm guessing there's still nothing reliable enough to consider switching to yet, but surely that's got to be coming too?

I can understand that trying to shoot a limb isn't particularly practical in high stress situations, so that would seem to make less lethal alternatives even more compelling. Lawsuits are expensive, I'm told. It might just take a few forces going bankrupt before this is taken remotely seriously though.

Thing is, that changes the messages to and from the cop.

From the cop:  I'm here to fuck your shit up, because it's non-lethal.
To the cop:  Our go-to response is thump first.

Don't tase me, bro.

Just because it's non-lethal (I prefer "less-lethal", you can kill anyone with pretty much anything, if you're so inclined) doesn't mean you get to whip it out and hose down the whole street into compliance though. You still need to demonstrate you're using fair force for the situation at hand. I say "demonstrate", I mean "get away with". Thinking back, I seem to recall a discussion based around research that cops were more likely to fire a taser than a gun, and that seemed to extend to other shit like rubber bullets. It's an area of many issues and probably more relevant to another/new thread. Or remembering what the old one was.

There was something earlier about Republicans supporting camera on cops reforms, now I'm more certain than ever that the concept must have serious flaws I've not considered/realised/understood the full implications of.

Perhaps you missed our national fad with tasers?

Is that an ongoing thing? I was under the impression everyone was back to good old guns now. Pepper sprays for the liberal lot. Edit to add - Mainly under this impression as not seen many/any deaths reported of through such means. I remember a bunch a while ago so I guess they're either keeping it quiet or had just gone back to shooting people.

Cop cameras - You're all still thinking about currently existing tech. Add 5/10 years and a device that auto-records everything 360 degrees /X distance (increases as time passes) from you automatically uploaded and stored indefinitely. Damage and tampering can be made easily irrelevant, consider it as a police black box. 

Von - I've re-read the thread and this appears to be your most valuable insight:

Do more of that.

http://t2.rbxcdn.com/5988e44ae3b90ce833bc210a7e14c9b2

besides, according to labour theory of value, that's the least valuable contribution I've made -- it takes no labour to perform.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

Earlier this month, a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting and the response have reignited concerns about racial profiling, police brutality and police militarization. The incident has also drawn attention to a remarkable lack of knowledge about a seemingly basic fact: how often people are killed by the police.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't think we've ever had any National Anarchists.  Which is probably just as well, as I'd never stop laughing....

Is that even a thing? If so, how is that possible?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

No, that was Bhode_Sativa.  The Lamanite was "we should all be hunter-gatherers, the herds will migrate where they are needed" and "the BiP is racist".

I remember we were joking about that when we came up with the Latin translation of Black Iron Prison, and then, just as sure as Poe's Law...

Funny enough, there is a small nuance in Latin when it comes to the color black. Niger/nigra/nigrum implies a glossy or shiny kinda black, where ater/atra/atrum has a dull quality. The latter is where the word atrium comes from, apparently, since the walls might be a bit sooty. Or so I've been told.

Eta: both translations would be good. Niger for a metallic thing, ater, for a dreary type of thing. Hmmm... sorry going off in a thought tangent.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And then THIS fucking thing:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cell-phone-video-emerges-refutes-st-louis-cops-version-shooting/

Not exactly work safe. The full video of the other guy shot in St. Louis.

That was horrible. But it still looks like suicide by cop to me.

The cops account of the situation was exaggerated, but what would you do if someone walks toward you with a knife after saying "Shoot me, shoot me now"?

I would say in a clear loud voice "NO". Ok maybe that's because I am a sadist, but more likely its because I am a damned pinko liberal european who finds your murrican gun culture repugnant. I am shocked, the fact that a guy like you N E T, whose opinion I have always respected even if I didn't agree can so blithely write it off as suicide by cop. WTF does that even mean in a country where being black seems to carry a suspended death sentence. Jesus Fuck America, you have hardly moved on race matters since, well EVAR.

You can make me out to be some kind of callous monster if you'd like. But suicide by cop is a thing in the US, and it's perhaps the most fucked up way to kill oneself.

And the United States gun-cat is out of the bag. It's not going back in the bag. What do you think would happen if we tried to ban guns at this point?

I would also like to point out that guns are still useful to Americans. We still have predators, and quite a bit of area that is not urbanized. In fact, most of the US is not urbanized, it's just that the majority of Americans live in urban areas. I'm ambivalent about gun ownership, truth be told. It's your right in this country, and that right was written down not long after a violent revolution. At the same time, what the fuck do you need a gun for? Firearms laws and firearms positions aren't necessarily cut and dry here. I'd never own one, due to the pacifism and not needing to shoot mountain lions or deer. But the reasons for gun ownership aren't all redneck bullshit.


And Net is right. Suicide by cop is a legit thing here.

[hooplala]

I can see owning a rifle... I don't understand why anyone needs an AK-47.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Whatever happened to shooting to incapacitate?  Wouldn't a bullet in the lower leg down most people, without killing them?

That can be considered intent to maim, which would (ironically?) land you in hotter water than "proper" use of deadly force.

Yes. The person you shoot could sue you.

My guitarist looked into firearms licensing and the instructor said, if you draw, it's no going back. If you draw the intent is to kill in self-defense, because if they live, even if you don't shoot them, the might sue you. Now, this is second if not third hand, but that's pretty fucked up. I'd just be happy the dude didn't shoot me.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I can see owning a rifle... I don't understand why anyone needs an AK-47.

The argument there is that it's fun. I've never shot a firearm, but I've enjoyed medieval weapons. I think the mentality, more than anything else, is what needs to change. We have it in our heads that We The People NEED guns to fight off tyranny, which is lurking around at all times (and we totally didn't vote for anyway). Which is just stupid. The USA is the best armed and best funded military in the world. Your AK isn't doing shit for you against the NWO at that point.

[von]

I can see owning a rifle... I don't understand why anyone needs an AK-47.

What about the AK platform is so not understandable? its a cheap rifle that can throw a deer adequate round and is also decent for varmint control and home defense.
perhaps it doesnt seem reasonable in an urban setting, but for removing coyote or habitat destroying dangerous invasive nuisances like feral pig: its ideal.

On a more arrogant note, i can gurantee youd find "rifles" in fudd calibers like .270 or .308 to be "not understandable" if there were to be a campaign to cast them as "dangerous hi powered sniper rifles".

[hooplala]

I can see owning a rifle... I don't understand why anyone needs an AK-47.

The argument there is that it's fun. I've never shot a firearm, but I've enjoyed medieval weapons. I think the mentality, more than anything else, is what needs to change. We have it in our heads that We The People NEED guns to fight off tyranny, which is lurking around at all times (and we totally didn't vote for anyway). Which is just stupid. The USA is the best armed and best funded military in the world. Your AK isn't doing shit for you against the NWO at that point.

The fun thing, I can see. When I was in Vegas they had ads all over for some ranch you could go shoot an AK... If had had more time, I certainly would have.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I can see owning a rifle... I don't understand why anyone needs an AK-47.

The argument there is that it's fun. I've never shot a firearm, but I've enjoyed medieval weapons. I think the mentality, more than anything else, is what needs to change. We have it in our heads that We The People NEED guns to fight off tyranny, which is lurking around at all times (and we totally didn't vote for anyway). Which is just stupid. The USA is the best armed and best funded military in the world. Your AK isn't doing shit for you against the NWO at that point.

The fun thing, I can see. When I was in Vegas they had ads all over for some ranch you could go shoot an AK... If had had more time, I certainly would have.

One of my favorite things to do is shoot Borg while pretending to be an admiral on the computer machine. It fulfills the same purpose. Except maybe that visceral feel. I would go to a gun range , but I still honestly have no interest in owning projectile weapons.