213374U

I don't need to show you any such cases because that's not what you originally stated. Going back just one page: (emphasis mine) You were talking specifically about ending the aggressor's life. Not dissuading, not stopping, not dropping. Killing. You are now shifting your position, which is a good thing, I suppose. Just don't pretend that you said something else earlier. If it's hard to find an example of what you are asking it's most likely because police officers don't walk up to and kill assailants execution-style once they are down. Which is just about the only way to prove the "killing intent" you were describing earlier. I'm not contradicting anything. When you pull a gun you must be fully aware that doing so may result in the death of the person facing the business end, statistics notwithstanding. This does not mean you intend to *kill* them, only that it's a very real possibility of this particular use of force to end an imminent threat. And given the serious consequences of that outcome, you must only do so when you are absolutely sure that it is warranted.

I dunno, I thought it made sense when I played it.

Wrong. You shoot until you are safe. Anything else is secondary. You shoot until the *imminent* threat to your or someone else's life is stopped. That may result in the attacker's death, but resorting to deadly force at the drop of a hat and beyond the immediate protection of your own or someone else's life will land you in jail. Remember that aggressors also have rights, even if they are acting unlawfully. As far as I know, the law generally doesn't permit you to arrogate for yourself the right to kill someone (except perhaps for soldiers in combat), though death may be an unfortunate consequence of the use of force in self-defense. Using force with the intent to "permanently incapacitate" (i.e. kill) is murder. We have some actual lawyers and prosecutors here so perhaps one of them can explain it better and share some experience with actual deadly force cases. In all fairness, you don't "shoot to incapacitate", as far as I'm aware. When I was trained to use firearms, both in the military and as a bodyguard, it was made very clear to me that I should never draw a gun and point it at somebody unless I was prepared to and justified in killing that person. Not threaten, not incapacitate, not grievously injure, but kill. Not because killing the target was the goal, but because as a firearm is by its very nature deadly, death is a likely outcome, and therefore resorting to it must not be trivialized. The bottom line is that firearms are good for killing — under what circumstances killing is and ought to be a part of law enforcement are different issues. In this particular case, it's hard to judge. Personally, I'd hope that if a teenage daughter of mine, deranged or no, threatened someone with a knife, attempts would be made to resolve the situation without deadly force. Again, without details, it's all pure conjecture.

Yeah, that's a poor choice of words at best. If cops in the US are really trained to put down a mentally unstable teenager like a rabid dog, training needs to be reviewed. Especially after said training failed to prevent an escalation and also failed to resolve the situation in a non-lethal way, when the first cop for whatever reason could not or chose not to restrain her after having her face down on the ground. Cops going into full CYA mode at the first sign of trouble is par for the course though, so it's barely worthy of comment.

I find it sorta funny that the guy that is drawing the most flak for this is the only one in the whole community that posted pics of his (smoking hot) wife. That's the internets for you, I guess.

To be fair, neither these nor war/politics etc threads are appropriate for a video game dev message board, and WoT is something of a rarity. Me, I'm thankful we have a sandbox at all. There have been attempts through the years at creating parallel communities not subject to the same rules of moderation (TADS, Tarna's), but they have mostly failed AFAIK. One has to wonder why. I, too, am bewildered when people consider the human form inappropriate or offensive (let alone more offensive than the glorification of violence), but you aren't going to change centuries of religious conditioning with a few forum threads.

What should we be doing differently? Try tax resistance. Chomsky has spoken about this and organized it in the past. It's simple, really. The state simply cannot function without money from our taxes and it's a perfectly legitimate* way for people to force policy change when policy is both morally repugnant and illegal. That however puts us personally at risk (fines, incarceration) so we are naturally less inclined to do it. So... we'll stick to nodding sagely over our lattes and self-righteously wag our fingers at Russia, Iran, "terrorists", etc. I was thinking of adding "until some disenfranchised naturalized Muslim puts a bullet in our brain", but that's not likely to happen, so I'll close the sentence with "until we choke on a butter croissant and die". As for convincing... how is that Chomsky's job? He just talks about stuff. It's your civic duty to remain informed and form your own opinions. There is plenty of information about cold hard facts out there, you don't need Chomsky for that. As an aside, I'd appreciate if you guys didn't do Bruce's work for him. It's much more entertaining to see him come up with ever more ridiculous applications of his double standards to justify the atrocity of the day than just see him get behind something someone else said. *of course, only if you succeed. If you don't, it was never legitimate and you are a seditious rebel, an anarchist, an anti-social element or what have you.

"Terrorist" is not an internationally recognized legal definition for a person, for good or ill. You're a national or foreign citizen and either a combatant or a non-combatant. Someone breaching or intent on breaching the Convention (or any law, really) does not justify ignoring the law right back as punishment or in order to prevent alleged "terrorism", and the act does not forfeit the rights of the person commiting the violations. That's due process and it's kind of a big deal, for us smug Westerners at least.

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this? And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly? What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Apparently, the guy in the Jewish deli disagreed with that assessment. "Every time, they try to make you think Muslims are terrorists. I was born in France. If they hadn't been attacked elsewhere I wouldn't be here." At this point, I don't expect anyone to take anything at face value, but there's that.

Seriously, how long have you been waiting for an opportunity to use that line? Protip:

How about, instead of suggesting that countries just up and start perpetrating crimes against humanity based on the actions of an extremely small minority, you go outside and make an effort to know people of all "classes", cultures and religions? Especially those with views that may clash with your own. Remember that a "country" is an abstract and arbitrary creation and therefore it does not think, feel, or act. Do not hide behind a piece of cloth. I mean, you can always deport a few millions later if you aren't satisfied with the results, right? As for the gun control point, I find it irrelevant in this context. Even if everyone became a concealed carry pro, wackos would just start wearing vests and helmets. Or placing bombs in trash cans. Or running you over with cars. Or crashing airliners into your workplace. "Security" is a myth that has been used through the ages to justify the abuse of power and oppression. Take solace in the fact that you are much more likely to die in a domestic fire, as a result of poisoning, or in a car crash, than in a terror attack, and stop living in fear.

Seems they've been captured. It just occurred to me that this kind of thing is simply the price we pay for free speech. It's not "valiant heroes" dying in some country that half the population can't find on a map, it's not cops hitting a "terror cell". It's just average joes that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they died because somebody didn't like something somebody else drew, said, or thought. No amount of laws or public or private force can completely prevent this. There were armed cops at the scene as the magazine had been attacked previously. They died like the others. Thinking that one could do better from the comfort of his computer chair strikes me as wishful thinking, at best. It's not guns or laws preventing society from crumbling down into a Mad Max-style dystopia. It's the simple fact that most people aren't psychopaths. It sucks when you run into someone that is, though.

I was referring specifically to how the economic effect of the Treaty of Versailles, while being devastating both on paper (per Keynes) and in practice (huge unemployment, hyperinflation, large budget deficit), did not prevent Germany from rearming and rising to challenge all the major European powers (+ the US) 20 years later. Thus casting doubt on the usefulness of economic pressure as a means to strip the material means to wage war from a country. Russia has more in common with Germany than with Iraq or Cuba. If sanctions don't seem to be hurting Putin's popularity and they don't seriously hinder his ability to wage war... what do they accomplish?

Did... did you really copy the citation list from the link I posted? And you talk about "lazy" in the same post? Do you realize that some of those articles either require research or uni credentials to access or are simply not available online, while others are cited but are simply not relevant or do not concern this issue but are cited merely for context reasons such as (1) or (6)? Of course you do, but you are more concerned with looking rigorous and certain than actually discussing merits. Not too subtle. Where the hell are you getting the idea that I was using that quote to refute anything? I literally said "it's not as clear cut", meaning the issue is not as black/white as you make it out to be, a pov backed by research. Specifically, research you linked. And yes, I certainly do expect you to provide "info" to back your theories. This is called the burden of proof, I'm sure you've heard of it? Gromnir's word doesn't carry probative value, sorry! Now, for the meat of the post. Thanks for the link, it was very interesting. You should read it yourself. If you did, you'd discover that it doesn't deal with cop disciplining at all — it studies only the incidence of arrests, violence and searches in police-suspect encounters and what relation there is (if any) between that and officer education. Here, let me take a few quotes "out of context": "Officer education level yielded no influence over the probability of an arrest taking place in an encounter. This was true not only when suspects- and encounter-level characteristics were held constant but also when individual officer characteristics were considered alone." "When compared to arrest and search behavior, there have been substantially more studies that have examined the role of education on the use of force. Much of this work, especially more recent research in this area (Aamodt, 2004; McElvain & Kposowa, 2008; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002), has found that college-educated officers use force less often than their less educated counterparts. Our analysis indicates similar findings. More specifically, officers with some college exposure or a 4-year degree are significantly less likely to use force relative to non-college-educated officers." "According to these researchers, one advantage to hiring college-educated, as opposed to non-college-educated, officers is that higher education “[permits] the individual to learn more about the history of the country, the democratic process and appreciation for constitutional rights, values and the democratic form of government” (Carter et al., 1988, p. 16). This particular hypothesis may be reduced to posit that higher education positively influences an officer’s appreciation of and commitment to democratic values." - How interesting, this, while not being part of the conclusions of this study itself, is actually consistent with the findings of the study I linked before which showed that BA holders compared very favorably vs BSc holders. "The findings of the present analysis alone do not warrant a reversal of the statement of the National Academics Panel on Police Policy and Performance (Skogan & Frydl, 2004) when it found that there was insufficient evidence to recommend a college education requirement for employment as a police officer. This is not particularly good news for proponents of higher education (although it does not represent bad news either). There is simply not enough quality evidence to determine whether higher education has a desirable effect on police performance." - Ouch! Now, what merits do you want to discuss?

Yes, I don't necessarily believe Gromnir's conclusions simply because Gromnir believes them to be self evident, or w/e. I'm sure you understand. I posted a quote because... it's exactly the same you have done yourself in previous posts. Only I have actually afforded you the courtesy of providing a link. And I did read the links I posted, thank you very much. Is there any particular point you want to discuss or are you just having some Good Fun?

Having been part of a group exactly like the one you're describing, I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Putting a misunderstood concept of loyalty to your comrades before (or even at the same level as) the deontological code one is sworn to and especially self-respect is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to people enabling the abuse of authority or force. And I say misunderstood because loyalty is something that shouldn't be granted automatically, it should be earned instead. Also, I'm not certain where loyalty ends and herd mentality begins. Acting decisively against bad apples sets an an example to others who may otherwise lack the strength of character to break away from "the group". Then again, I was basically kicked out, so what do I know... Also, who cares about Volourn. Discuss me. I'm sexier too. edit: WHY THE **** DOES THE FORUM RANDOMLY CHANGE THE FONT SIZE!?!?

And another one. From reports it looks like this one was an armed robbery gone wrong, doesn't look like it matters to people on the streets, though. Unless Gromnir produces the actual study so we can see if it really supports his theory, we'll have to make do with summaries. (1) (2) While that seems to support his idea, it's not as clear cut, apparently. Stuff like age, experience and even the kind of degree are all factors. (3) "But possessing a four-year degree at the Saint Paul Police Department does not necessarily correlate with positive work habits."

Point taken.

"Cops get paid more than teachers, so cops get paid more than all college graduates" is a ridiculous fallacy because you refuse to acknowledge that teachers are an anomaly and not representative of what a college grad can expect to make. I can do that too: "chemical engineers almost double an average cop's salary so there is no way in hell you'll get college grads to apply for a job in law enforcement". Bleh. Also, do you have any figures for cop turnover rates? Because what I could find varies from 5 to 20%, comparable to teacher turnover. In addition, I've read that turnover is also in part due to performance reasons, that is, they just aren't good enough. A higher education requirement may or may not result in better performance, though I'm inclined to believe it would. Prohibitive, really? I could bring up defense or intelligence budget figures, but you'd just say that those are fed spending items and the fed can't do anything about local and state budgets or some other bureaucratic cop-out. The point still stands that there is more than enough money around to do it should there be a political will... same for programs aimed at getting minorities through college. For some reason your spending priorities are all ****ed up though. The issue is indeed complex, and as this (chapter 2 in particular) shows, police staffing problems aren't fixable magically in a single stroke, though I'm not sure where I suggested that. I was just commenting on an idea of yours... which amusingly enough you deemed unfeasible, to manufacture a disagreement as soon as I agreed. Good Fun indeed!

As LC says, it probably got installed into Program Files(x86)/Black Isle/etc. Do a search for baldur.sav if you still can't find it, that should point you to the folder where the files actually are. edit: search again -> custom (assuming you have W7, I don't know squat about that abortion known as W8, nor do I want to)

I don't think I'm getting through to you here. Cops earn good money, for someone without higher education. However, someone with a college degree will be an underearner if they get into a career in law enforcement*, so why would they? You said it would be a good idea to have only college grads carry a gun and a badge, and I agree. In order to have that, you must first raise the entry requirements, and then raise the pay grades (not just entry level) to make it worth a college grad's while. You think this is unfeasible? *According to the gov't, a law enforcement worker's mean annual wage is $54,990. Barring early education-oriented degrees which, as you noted, pay badly, someone with say, a secondary math and science teacher degree who actually works as a teacher will earn more ($58,170), while still being far below the average of college grad earnings. As an aside, gotta love Americans' obsession with statistics. You can find a ton of data regarding just about anything.

Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 That doesn't solve the demand for more black cops in black neighborhoods though. Are there programs to help police officers get through college? Like in the military? I really don't want to hijack this thread, but he's right. Formally the monarchy is powerless, but in reality the royal family is still very influential and their word carries a lot of weight, especially with business circles. A member of the family has been accused of money laundering and fiscal fraud in one of the many high-profile cases of corruption we have going on, and the whole process is a disgrace. The prosecutor acting as a defense attorney, pressure being applied on the judge by higher judiciary organs, etc. Consider that the previous king was appointed by Franco before his death and as such a lot of the social and political elite have seen a sort of continuity of power, that is evidenced by the fact that the party currently in power is the heir of Franco's single party, after some facelifting. We really are a much more backward country than it would seem (if that's even possible).