In order for me to decide if I wanted to hang out with anyone, I'd have to know them on one level or another.

IRL, it's easy.   You see a person, you hear them speak, you get a feel for them and then decide "okay, a little more time like maybe lunch or something and we'll see if they are as cool as they seem to be."

Online?   Not as easy, since text sucks for trying to get a feel for who/how a person really is and is SO easy to misinterpret or deliberately hide behind a put-on persona.  So for online people?   Meh.  If I get a chance to chat or something that is at least close to that IRL method of ever-closing-distance while evaluating?   Then maybe.  Until then it's just text and whatever I/they think it is conveying.

Guys, I don't like OP. He's being way too friendly for this place.

I would have figured that people would focus more on the "stripper's stage name" instead of "being too friendly".

BRB, I am going to go break some 20's into singles.

Entropy, the tendency for systems to break down, lose energy and disperse is conceivably countered (big emphasis on conceivably) by the actions of molecules forming into ever more complex systems.   Also known as life.  As life expands and evolves, it it possible (not probable but possible) that it grows into larger and maybe even smarter systems.   Single cell to multiple cell, to self-aware organisms and ecosystems may also follow that pattern of ecosystem to biosphere to Gaia, to Galaxia, increasing in biomass, awareness, stability, and incorporating non-bio-matter into its organized and replicating system.   If all/most matter can be incorporated into such a system, it might possibly offset, balance or contain entropy.  As to whether or not it could overcome the heat death of the universe?   Life better get moving because the arrow of time keeps progressing.

When was there ever incentive? Forums are a place to waste time.

Well, there IS the witty repartee and the (slim) chance for nudes.

No you're right.  Still a total waste of time.

Meh.   Just words on a screen.   I give them as much weight as the electrons it takes to put them in front of my face.

Strangelove.

So their "beef" is that he knew and worked with gay men and an atheist?

I wonder what their position is on lepers?

The "seller" of those books is wrong for putting a pricetag on the work and words of another!   How DARE they package and market the labor of...   wait £ 1,250?   That's some righteous cash, just imagine what I could do with that kind of money.   How do I get into the publishing business because clearly there's a mint to be made!

I asked "do cops 'shoot to kill' or 'shoot to stop?'" His response is this:

Spoiler

Thank you for asking and sharing his reply.  It's a careful distinction and a fine line, but one that he clearly understands.

As I said, shooting to stop does risk the death of the subject, but the intent is to stop them, if they die while being stopped?  Well, that is an outcome, but not the specifically intended one.

If their intended goal was to kill, then they would walk up to the person on the ground and put one into their skull "just to make sure".

Right, and by "stop" you should mean "kill." A citizen can legally sue a cop for bodily injury if the person shot were to survive, which is why cops are trained to use their gun only if their life or someone else's life is in danger.

My dad's a cop, in fact, that's how I know this.

No, by stop, I mean stop.  Not "shoot to kill" and not "shoot to wound".  Stop.  End the threat.  An individual's intent when they pull the trigger (civilian or LEO) is critical, especially when the case is reviewed by prosecutors or ends up in court.

Feel free to ask your dad if he is trained to "shoot to kill" and has he ever given such a reply when testifying or in court.

"Shoot to stop" is about targeting/hitting center-mass until the target is no longer a threat.  That is stop.  Yes, death can occur in that situation, but it not the explicit goal.

"Shoot to kill" would mean that the goal is to not stop, but to immediately end the life of the subject and the target would then change from center-mass to their core-nervous system (aka head).  If an officer were to testify that they aimed and fired with an intended goal of killing the subject, they would likely be charged with homicide.  They wouldn't be cops, they would be executioners.

No LEO that I know would EVER say "I shoot to kill".  So please, double-check with your dad.

Damn. Shooting him did seem right in this situation, but 4 times?! That seem like a bit much to me. What happened to cops using tasers?

It's not like the movies.  A single bullet MAY stop someone instantly and 12 may not be capable of stopping someone else.  When someone has made the decision to pull the trigger in order to stop a threat, they can't pull it once and then wait a moment or so to see whether or not that one shot was effective at stopping the threat.  The training is, "pull the trigger and only stop pulling it when the threat stops".

If I were to shoot just once, then wait to see what happens while the threat is still armed and still moving forward, then I have attempted to use "fractional lethal force".   Any good lawyer can spin that into "so you weren't SURE that lethal force was warranted and reasonable, you only wanted to use a little and see if that worked, right?" and that sort of thinking means that even my first trigger pull was not justified or was/is in question.

Quote from: OhMeOhMy on February 24, 2015, 08:39:24 AM

A split-second decision where one individual was a clear and immediate danger to the life of another individual.

Were you able to hear what was going on?  I would imagine that the officer shouted at the person with the knife drop it.   If the person with the knife didn't and was closing on the unarmed person?  Sounds to me (based on what little information that I have) like a quick, but proper/reasonable decision to employ lethal force in order to protect another.

I was inside, so I couldn't hear. But I saw the cops mouth moving.

Well, I doubt that he was singing "Anaconda", but you never know.

Since you've witnessed the event, and it was a police shooting, my guess is that detectives will be on scene to investigate the incident.   Are you going to come forward and offer your statement?

Having worked at a job where tips were my main source of income, I can say that it is a bit of a crapshoot (as to how much you bring home).   However, by busting my ass and knowing what the customers wanted/needed, I made damned good money.

Slow nights meant little to no tips, but busy ones meant I could make some serious money.  I did the job and kept working there because I did a risk/benefit analysis and decided that it was worth the risk and my effort.  Sure, I could have taken a job where I got paid hourly and that was it, but at that point in my life, I enjoyed knowing that on a decent night, I could take home more than most of my peers were making in a full week.

The terms of my employment were based on agreed terms between me and the restaurant/bar.   They didn't see a benefit in paying people to stand around when business was slow, and I saw the potential benefit of making a lot of money when it was busy.    Of course, if the business was in a locale where tipping was not common, then my risk/benefit and decision to work in the food-service industry would have been based on those factors.