Posts made by Ganymede

@auspice

I too use HRBlock.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

That shit is scary, even when it's 'you just have that kind of address'. That some little shit deliberately sent people to an address... <shakes her head> ...just ugh.

I know.

See, here's the thing I don't know: why did A use Address? Did he pick it at random? Or did he know Andrew Finch somehow?

Let's say he did know Finch. Did he specifically piss off B, knowing that B would take things too far? If so, did A do so to get back at Finch for something?

These are questions in my mind. If DickBagPlayer threatened to beat my ass, and I told him to go 123 Fake Street, I don't think I should be responsible for what happens if I don't know whether 123 Fake Street is an actual address or not. But if I knew someone at 123 Fake Street, and I picked that address for a reason, then there's some meat on the idea that I should be responsible for what happened. At least, insofar as the law (generally) is concerned.

Regarding your situation, this is why I'm a fan of reasonable gun laws. I'm happy to register and get a license to carry, if necessary. But after this one time we found a tweaker in our backyard, we knew that it was time to stop considering our monthly shooting sessions as only "fun."

Mm. SigSauer pistol.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Then why continue to go on at me at length for saying I think it's fucked up and that something is clearly broken here? That sure doesn't sound like it's OK for me to have an opinion.

Because you continued to respond and I'm lonely? Or, more to the point, you have provided different justifications for maintaining your opinion, and those justifications are worth considering and talking about.

Plus, I'm watching Captain Underpants for the eleven-billionth time, and your justifications are spurring other thoughts.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Deal with it: I think that's really fucked up. Because it is.

Deal with what? You're welcome to your opinion. I'm simply pointing out that A will likely escape legal consequences.

@surreality

Why?

Sure, A had a choice. He/she/it could have not said "come fite me bro."

But B didn't have to choose to Swat. He could've shown up there with a posse of Peruvian badger-herders, and sat in front of Address yodeling to Jim Croce's "I've Got A Name." But he chose to escalate the matter even beyond sending hired goons; he decided to get law enforcement involved.

And C could have chosen to refuse to Swat Address. Maybe she could have asked B for a name and a reason. I don't know. Again, she could have gotten Peruvian, yodeling badger-herders instead. But, she didn't: she chose to Swat.

Saying "come fite me bro" isn't a crime. Really, it isn't. They are words. And while they arguably are fighting words, I don't know a prosecutor that would go after a person for saying "come fite me bro." Would it have been any better if A used his own address? Of course not: then A would be dead, presuming the same circumstances.

The culpability rests with B and C. Neither were coerced to "come fite me bro." Or to "Swat." But they chose to Swat. And that arguably was the cause of death.

And that's why it's doubtful a jury would convict A.

If you go too far back along the chain, we might as well indict Z, A's teammate, who decided to get a blow-job from his boyfriend rather than party-up and take down B.

(Edit to add: the doctrine of intervening criminal acts also cuts off A's civil liability.)

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

It would indicate the desire to avoid that person actually following through. Which means they have to at least have considered the possibility that they might, if they had the real one.

Unfortunately, possibility doesn't get you passed Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 any more. And I haven't even gotten into the causation issues.

I see what you're saying, but the claim just isn't plausible to me.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

I have no idea if that also applies in civil cases; 'suing the asshole into the ground for the remainder of his life' would be similarly appropriate.

Yeah, that's not going to work either.

I can see how a jury would see that a person online has a duty not to invite violence at another person's location. But I don't see how that person breaches that duty if he or she did not know, or had no reason to know, that violence would actually have occurred. I mean, people say a lot of shit about raping and murdering other players if they had a chance to meet them in person -- and how many actually take steps to do it, relative to the "threats"?

It is a jury question, but I don't see it coming out in favor of the decedent.

Why would giving someone a false address would indicate anything but a desire not to give his real one? It's like if a person asks for your number at a bar, and you give them a fake number; are you responsible if the person who asked for it calls that number, gets upset when the person on the other side refuses to acknowledge meeting them, and the jilted person subsequently takes action under the false pretense that such person was you?

(Say that five times fast!)

I'm sorry, Surr. I don't see a successful prosecution or civil suit here.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Inviting violence to someone else's address seems like it shouldn't be something that gets a pass, no matter what you expect to happen.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, an actor's expectations is the crux of his mens rea.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.

Why?

There's no evidence that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address. Even if there were some evidence, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address.

I'm not seeing it in the actual facts, and have no reason to infer that.

Not even criminal mischief. Although "fighting words" can be the basis for a crime, the words, in this case, did not instigate a fight between B and A, or even B at Address.

I don't see it. Sorry.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

An initial party pulled a 'come fight me bro, I'm at this location' -- and gave an address not his own. That person is one of the people I am saying should face a charge, despite not being the one who asked someone to SWAT that address.

Ah, I see. My mistake.

Yeah, no.

The facts don't show that Party A knew, should have known, or had any reason to know, that Party B would have Swatted Party C at the provided address. That's stretching it. Party B attempted to Swat Party A, and should be indicted for it, even though Party C was the ultimate victim.

I mean, unless Party A said something like: bro, I totally double-dog dare you to Swat me at this address. And I don't see that being the case here.

@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

I would say giving the info for the purpose of having the swat take place would be worth prosecuting.

... as involuntary manslaughter, at least.

I would have the guy starting this chain face the same charge as the caller. You don't need intent to be guilty, there is depraved indifference which to me starting a swat in motion counts as.

Intent isn't the issue here, if you're going for involuntary manslaughter. Depraved heart murder is stretching it. And I don't think felony murder is going to work here.

Aim for involuntary manslaughter.

I do have some empathy for the officer he messed up trying to do his job and I have seen nothing to lead me to believe he had malicious intent so I would leave him to a civil or procedural solution rather than a criminal one.

He and his department are definitely facing a civil lawsuit. That's a given.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

He didn't even need to know it was a real address, in my book. He pulled a 'come fight me, I'm here'. He literally invited violence to a location, and... yeah, not knowing what it would lead to isn't much of a defense, in my book.

Defense against what? The decedent doesn't need to put on a defense.

Calling the swat was intentional. That's all you need to show. If you put a bear trap in your background to catch a burglar and it ends up severing the leg of and killing a mailman, that can still be sufficient grounds for an involuntary manslaughter charge.

(Edit: re-reading your post, I think I mis-read it. Sorry. Agreeing with you, basically.)

@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

The police didn't have TIME to call the house. They didn't have TIME to establish eyes. They didn't have time for anything except showing up and preparing defenses measures. Then the guy, who they had to believe was armed and dangerous, and suicidal (Otherwise SWAT Wouldn't have shown up to begin with) came to the door.

To be fair, this is possible. Then again, the first step, again, is to get the hostage-taker to talk to you. The police chief said the matter is being investigated, so I think we're just speculating, but I find it unlikely that the police had no time to make a call between the time dispatch received the call, and a plan was made to intervene. And I think it more likely than not that SWAT was called because there were hostages involved, although SWAT also gets called in cases of the armed, dangerous, and suicidal.

@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Back on track: There's a lot of statistics out there, as to why cops are killing people, but in the end I think it comes down to fear. Cops are scared too because they are getting killed also. It doesn't make it right by any stretch of the word, cops are supposed to be /better/ than the average person, that's what makes them capable of serving and protecting.

I think part of it is fear. I think the fear comes from poor overall training. International statistics show that countries with similar gun laws as the United States and high levels of gun ownership also have different philosophies when it comes to training police officers and firearms users.

@ortallus

This is a snippet from an article regarding the shooting in Kansas:

In this case, Wichita local Andrew Finch, whose family members say did not play video games and was a father of two young boys, answered his door only to face down a SWAT team-level response. Allegedly, one officer immediately fired upon Finch, who later died at a hospital. It’s unclear why Finch, who is said not to have had a weapon on him, was fired upon. The Wichita Eagle reports that the police department is investigating the issue, which occurred late Thursday night.

Here's another account from a Kansas news site:

On Thursday, Deputy Wichita Police Chief Troy Livingston said a substation received a call that there was a hostage situation in a house in the 1000 block of West McCormick — and that someone had been shot in the head.

“That was the information we were working off of,” he said, explaining that officers went to the house ready for a hostage situation and they “got into position.”

“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said Thursday night. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”

Livingston didn’t say if the man had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man.

Here's something apparently from the NYPD negotiation handbook regarding hostage-takers:

Crisis Negotiation Skills #1. “Talk to Me”

The NYPD HNT’s motto, “Talk to Me,” emphasizes communication as an essential police negotiation technique for their crisis negotiators, and for good reason. Opening up avenues of communication to your counterpart signals that you are ready to listen, an integral first step to building rapport between negotiating counterparts by “build[ing] trust…as well as display[ing] empathy,” which can lead to further mutual gains at the bargaining table as the negotiation progresses beyond the initial stages.

Do you see the first step? Is it "shoot at the suspect when he's coming to the door"?

No.

People, like you, think it is okay to shoot at the suspect before ascertaining the situation. It is not. In a hostage situation, you don't point and shoot. You just don't. There is no evidence that Finch had a gun; there is no evidence there were any hostages; and there is no evidence that anyone bothered trying to reach the occupants of that house prior to shooting.

Having personally trained police officers as a prosecutor, I can tell you, right now, that what happened is not how police officers are trained to deal with active hostage situations. At least, not in places that actually put time and effort into training their law enforcement officers.

Think about it for just a second.

Did anyone try to call Finch in the house? No.

Did anyone try to ask for Finch to come out with his hands up? No.

Did anyone use any of a large number of devices to scan the interior of the house? No.

So, how could they have known he was armed? That he had any hostages? If you know anything about procedures in hostage situations, it is that a breach is the last thing anyone wants to do, so you should make all reasonable efforts to make contact with the hostage-taker. And when that fails, then a breach may be necessary.

@ortallus

In many juvenile cases, the delinquent's parents are responsible for restitution to the victims. A finding of delinquency also does not affect the estate or family of the decedent to pursue the parents, if they can show some serious dereliction of duty.

It's happened.

My issue? The police. Not the caller, the police. Everyone's looking to the caller in the other case, but no one's talking about how the police apparently did very little to confirm that a crime was taking place.

The purpose of the police is to serve and protect. Neither of those interests are being met where the police do not, from the start, investigate the scene and figure out what's actually happening.

@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

Having said all that, if you asked me who the GOAT is, I want to strongly consider Kareem as well.

I hate that question. Who's the greatest of all time? As if the game doesn't change over time.

Basketball has evolved. You can't compare Russell to Bird, or Bird to Ginobili. Russell would straight-up fuck Bird's shit up, and Bird would ass-kick Ginobili. But tone down the physicality, or heavily-penalize it, and Shaq rocks Chamberlain and Bryant dances around Thomas.

But if I had to pick, Kareem's a top contender. When you have a sport change their rules to make sure others have a sporting chance against you, chances are you're pretty damned good. If you do it the other way around, you're a puffball (I'm looking at you Brady-baby; you still lost twice against little Manning when it mattered the most).

And then there's someone like Wayne Gretzky who is just indescribably better than everyone around him, and anyone who tells you any differently is just dead wrong, sorry Penguins fans.

@buttercup said in Good TV:

Lol, I acknowledge I may be the unhealthy one in this aspect of a relationship.

Insofar as the binge watching, yes.

I have a similar problem as you did. My partner is studying to be a PA, but she is in the portion where she also has to do rotations at other locations, and therefore has odd hours. It makes binge watching an impossible together-activity. I like watching things I want to watch when I want, but I prefer being in a relationship with her (and thus not have to worry about our kids together). So, I suffer by playing Persona 5, working out, going out with friends when she's studying at home, and so on.

Go watch The Magicians Season 1 now. And good for you kicking her the fuck out. Who the fuck steals from a six year old? I would've crotch-punched her myself.

My experience is vastly different, but I've worked with great casts and crews.

I've heard horror stories.

Just you wait for Guffman.

@buttercup

I lean towards LeBron.

Most people pick Jordan because he had more rings. Of course, Bill Russell had a lot of rings too, but I'm pretty sure Russell would not want to have to deal with Jordan or LeBron.

LeBron has consistently played well and at a high level with teams that could not dominate without him. The Bulls in '94 and '95 still had decent winning records, even if they didn't win the Championship. The Cavs and Heat without LeBron didn't have winning records.

LeBron is marginally better career-wise than Jordan in MPG, FG%, and 3P%, but a full point better in APG and RPG. Plus, in this day and age -- I'm sorry to say it -- but Jordan wouldn't cut it. When he was 34, he was done; LeBron is 34, and still chugging.

@arkandel

You said "shoot the ball." You didn't say "hit three-pointers."

You and I both know that three-pointers were adopted in the early 80s. Calling out Ewing or English or King for being bad at the three-pointer is silly: they played in a completely different era. Criticism of Wade or Duncan or O'Neal is fine, but those players had vastly different games: cutting PG; finesse C; and monster that eats Tokyo.

The thing is that, unless you're Shaq, there is little chance you are physically-developed enough to be a dominating C. Like Oden, Embiid is very talented but he wasn't properly conditioned before hitting the NBA. This is why requiring players to spend 3 to 4 years in college is important: those are the peak times of physical development. That's why the NFL requires it.

So, I'll say it again: if you can't shoot, you probably won't be picked up in basketball. Go play football or hockey.

@arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

These days if you're over 6'8 but can't shoot the ball you're not going to do well. If you don't have a significant wingspan (something you can't do anything about) that's a mark against you - because you'll be unable to spread the floor for your guards, and you won't keep up with opponent bigs who can shoot.

Dude, I'm pretty sure that if you can't shoot the ball, you're not going to do well in basketball. That's like a quarterback who can't chuck the ball out of his hand in under 3 seconds (see Tim Tebow).

If you're over 6'8" and you can't shoot a ball, consider becoming a tight end or a defenseman.