What do you think the delta is between "general population", "pending charge", "charged", and "convicted" - while we're at it?
You can make a vast majority of the population "pending charge" at some point if you take into consideration they were - at one point - marked "pending bench warrant" during the time between getting a traffic ticket and (A) paying it; or (B) fighting it.
Let's see how far we can skew the datasets, with enough motivation. And the "benefit of the doubt" that you'd reflexively give someone on not stretching the truth simply CANNOT be afforded to these people.
No this isn’t correct. A bench warrant is not a charge. Neither is an arrest warrant, but in any event most traffic violations will be civil and not criminal matters.
> You can make a vast majority of the population "pending charge" at some point if you take into consideration they were - at one point - marked "pending bench warrant" during the time between getting a traffic ticket and (A) paying it; or (B) fighting it.
This statement is incorrect. A "charge" means charged with a crime. You cannot make anyone "pending charge" if you issue them a bench warrant. Nor an arrest warrant.
Outside of the pragmatic argument of current-tech limitations for such an implementation, cars should sometimes be a weapon.
If all cars were mandated by law to not accelerate when a person is in front of them, doesn't that give carjackers pretty much guaranteed success to confront and forcibly stop their victim before stealing their car, their belongings, or taking their life?
Why would I even bother buying a nice car if I know someone can just walk up in front of its front grill and hold me at gunpoint, and my car can't help but force me to stay there?
So we should have shootings like the one yesterday just because you want to drive a Lamborghini and murder carjackers? Current tech is totally sufficient to implement this. It’s already found in Waymo taxis based on news reports I’ve seen. It probably exists in teslas too, give or take software updates. It seems almost trivial: if someone is a foot in front of the car, disconnect the accelerator or drop to neutral on high acceleration. If cars can run people over from a dead stop, and if this is a common issue in law enforcement where people try to run over cops, and it clearly is, then we will have many more shootings like yesterday’s. That’s a world you want to live in? She wrote poetry.
I just watched a video where, at night in an isolated road flanked by woods, a man stops his truck in front of a woman in her car alone. He then sprints from his car toward her driver side door.
That woman would be raped and murdered in the middle of nowhere if her car disallowed her from making an executive decision for her safety.
Your reasoning is flawed. The man could have parked his truck in front of her car and her ability to ram it wouldn’t make a difference. Most car jackers and would be rapists do not approach their victim on foot at a 0 degree approach angle, from the front, they come from 270 degrees (the driver side), where the door they will open is located. They cannot jack the car or rape without that side approach.
We're done here. If you're only going to make emotional appeals and ignore every authoritative and logical argument presented to you, there's nothing else to discuss. You're arguing in bad faith and certainly know you're wrong.
Remote start/stop of motor vehicles is dangerous. You should not be wondering at any point in your life why automotive manufacturers are ignoring your armchair design specifications.
I'm sorry, does the gated community even let you out? Or women in? It's painfully obvious you've never in your life had to be concerned about your safety in any meaningful way.
> Criminals would never get in front of a car. Especially after you legally mandate that by doing it their victim cannot escape by any means anymore.
What is the value of being in front of a car? The value is in opening the door, which is on the side. Sure you could have two jackers, one in front and another on the side but then running over 1 of the 2 (or more) again becomes useless as the side jacker would shoot you.
> Or women in?
You must be rolling in women. Lucky them. Maybe you can take them out to dinner and run over some car jackers on the way home.
In regards to edit 2, she does not hit the cop. You can see him literally wait until she's out of reverse while hovering his hand on his sidearm, putting himself in the front of the car - so that ANY movement from her after leaving reverse would result in shooting her.
Watch the distant video she bumps him he fires. I'd argue his gun seems drawn before he's hit which would make me panic and gas it. Regardless though these thugs just shouldn't have been there, ultimately that would be saving lives.
Why would I watch the obfuscated view? Watch it up close and on the side closest to the so-called "hit" cop - as you say (and silently edited out to "bump"):
Watch the one titled "LEFT-full-duration". Watch it in slow motion. Everything in my GP is correct:
1.) The lady reversed to make room to drive away AFTER conflicting orders to "get out of there" and to "get out of the car";
2.) An ICE agent got in front of her car mid-reverse and hovered for his sidearm;
3.) The lady gets out of reverse and turns her wheels to face to the right, the ICE agent is now middle-left of her car, and commits to drawing his weapon;
4.) Lady commits to her right turn and didn't hit the cop, as evidenced by the fact that he was literally out of the way, he didn't lose footing, and most of all - he was able to shoot the driver at point-black from the driver's side window. If the car was aimed for him - let alone if he was hit, it would have been physically impossible for ANY of those to occur on their own AND ESPECIALLY in combination - most of all, the point-blank shot from the driver's side window.
The agent who fired NEEDS to be tried for murder, simple as.
I don't think murder charges will deter anything at this point. I don't know anything about US laws, but these activities deserve to be charged with and treated as acts of terrorism. At least the foreign nations need to start designating and sanctioning ICE as a state-sponsored terrorist organization involved in criminal activities including criminal intimidation, arbitrary detention, kidnapping, child abuse, hostage taking, human trafficking and murder. Their known leadetship and agents should be captured and tried at Hague if they step outside the US. Deal with them the same as Gestapo.
100% I think it is ridiclous what happened and that ICE being law enforce is expected to have training on more than I see I shoot training. They dishonor any trained law enforcement and if they want to have no standard they are simply thugs on the street
Another day, another incident to justify the "tree of liberty".
ICE has a blank check on power overreach and qualified immunity for a domestic, dominating police state that WE DON'T NEED - and this is how they use it. Their actions are grotesque, and their words are worthless. They don't even honor what the judicial documents say that they claim to "enforce" - they flat-out ignore active asylum statuses, wait outdoors of immigration court hearings and check-ins, deport people to countries that they have a court order not to be deported to, and sometimes just go for citizens anyway - why not?
Speaking of "blank check", remember that ICE has an approved budget that's 3x the US Marine Corp, folks. This isn't a game anymore, this isn't playtime.
We are all cowards. A dozen people watched their friend murdered and all they did was shout 'murderers' and then back off from helping the corpse when instructed by the people in masks and unmarked cars claiming to be police.
I surely wouldn't have been braver, we all saw the consequences of even the meakest assertiveness. Those people are the bravest we have to offer, we are fucked.
Your point is apathy and fatalism. Someone who points to that doesn't believe in building infrastructure. They don't believe in building political power. They don't believe in building local community power.
They don't really believe in anything, and it's due to an inability in their own self to bring about real change in themselves and others.
Look at the comment section. Are they all bots? Maybe they are, but if they aren't, trying anything would be a suicide. You would just be labelled a terrorist, and no one would support you.
If you do it for the approval and validation of others, you might as well side with the downslopes. You do it for yourself and your own beliefs, some people will put a lot on the line for that - believe it or not.
"We live in an era of fraud in America. Not just in banking, but in government, education, religion, food, even baseball... What bothers me isn't that fraud is not nice. Or that fraud is mean. For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once. Eventually you get caught, things go south. When the hell did we forget all that? I thought we were better than this, I really did."
You SHOULD be making things in a human/LLM-readable format nowadays anyway if you're in tech, it'll do you well with AIs resorting to citing what you write, and content aggregators - like search engines - giving it more preferential scores.
Well, be the change you want to see. CEOs know that part of the justification of their existence relies on solidarity between each other - and that they can collectively bargain with institutions to remind of that justification.
Dont try to tell us what we are choosing to focus on. Everything in the message from Pike and the comments below his post are relevant. There was no assumption in my mind that this was all about Pike.
Please don't reinterpret my comment. I didn't say anything about what you're focusing on. I made the simple and clear point that clicking on Pike's name leads to an unattributed quotation that (it turns out) isn't from Pike.
You can make a vast majority of the population "pending charge" at some point if you take into consideration they were - at one point - marked "pending bench warrant" during the time between getting a traffic ticket and (A) paying it; or (B) fighting it.
Let's see how far we can skew the datasets, with enough motivation. And the "benefit of the doubt" that you'd reflexively give someone on not stretching the truth simply CANNOT be afforded to these people.
reply