Posts made by Ortallus

@thatguythere said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

What should the officers have done differently? You still haven't answered that, and until you can, your arguments hold no sway over me.

How about the same thing I would expect any professional to do in any situation, determine what is actually happening before taking action.
This is doubly so when oyur action have a high probability of being uncorrectable.

That wasn't an option, excepting perhaps that the officer who took the shot did react too quickly. But given the situation he saw, and believed he was in, I can't entirely blame him, and I maintain that the fault for that situation rests solely on the fault of the caller.

@zombiegenesis said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@apu Oh man, that's a brilliant idea. My wife and I only stream occasionally but I think we'll still do that. Honestly, I'm more afraid of getting swatted and one of my dogs being shot than anything else. I'd be devastated if that happens.

Pretty sure that happened a couple times, didn't it?

@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

I think part of it is fear. I think the fear comes from poor overall training.

This, I agree with, 100%, as well. Poor training really is at the heart of things.

@zombiegenesis said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus By that logic, I'm fully justified for shooting someone in the face as he opens the door to his house because I got a phone call saying Dude X from down the street has kidnapped and is raping my wife. I don't think that defense would hold up.

The report that I read said that the guy had reached for his waist. Apparently, @Ganymede has shown other information.

But the fact remains, to the other arguments Ganymede made:

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.

Given Ganymede's facts, I can acknowledge some wrong doing. But I still think -primary blame- needs to be placed on the caller. 100%.

Should an in-depth investigation be held concerning the shooting itself? Absolutely.

But the caller should be charged with negligent homicide, at the very least.

@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Bye bye now.

Troll.

@thenomain

Do you understand English? By your own fucking definition, you're asking them to "justify" their actions.

That supposes that their actions are wrong.

What should the officers have done differently? You still haven't answered that, and until you can, your arguments hold no sway over me.

Was an innocent, unarmed bystander killed?

Yes.

Is that because of any action taken by the police that was out of line, unjustified, or against policy?

Not as has been reported by any media that I've been exposed to.

The guilty party is the angry caller who created the situation and gave the police the false information. Period.

@lithium said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@lithium I'm so sick of that phrasing, "going in guns blazing".

That's not what happened. At all. So stop saying it, please.

THE GUY CAME TO THE FUCKING DOOR WHILE THEY WERE STILL SETTING UP.

Why is that so difficult for you people to read or understand?

Who's putting words in who's mouth now?

You really need to tone it the fuck down.

How fucking stupid and arrogant to you have to be to think that posting a direct quote from one of your own posts is putting words into your mouth?

@lithium I'm so sick of that phrasing, "going in guns blazing".

That's not what happened. At all. So stop saying it, please.

THE GUY CAME TO THE FUCKING DOOR WHILE THEY WERE STILL SETTING UP.

Why is that so difficult for you people to read or understand?

@thenomain You want accountability for the death of an innocent bystander, then hold accountable those that are guilty. If you can't give any examples of what the police did wrong, then you have no basis to blame them for being guilty.

You can say that there should be an investigation, but holding someone accountable pre-supposes guilt.

@cupcake said in Good TV:

@roz said in Good TV:

@ortallus I love Sense8 with the power of a thousand suns. I know at least one person on here hates it because they always make a point to talk about how awful they think it is when it comes up, but I can't remember who. BUT I LOVE IT.

I can't stand people who do that.

I mean, it's okay to not like things, but don't be a dick about it.

Especially when the only real criticism they can come up with was "there was too much diversity, because that's real life, and I can't stand real life".

@thenomain Okay, but did you read THE WHOLE post?

I'd like to see what you think should have been done different given the actual information and situation they had, as I described it.

@ganymede said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

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.

Okay, I've heard this argument before, and I'm sorry, but I think it's rubbish. If you'd read the articles as I had, maybe you'd agree, but maybe not. Here is what my perception of the story is:

Kid gets angry at other kid over online game. Angry yells at other, threatens other. Other blusters. Angry blusters. Other says, "Sure, come to my house then, here's my address". It's not his address, but the shooting victim's.

Angry calls the police and says, "I have shot one person. I have a gun held on two more people. I want to die."

First question: What do you think police procedure should be in this incident? Because as it stands, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. Whether you have any sort of visual confirmation of a hostage or not, you err on the side of believing it's true, because if you dismiss it, someone definitely dies.Maybe multiple someones. Maybe multiple someones, and some cops.

Regardless of the above paragraph, people think that the victim was shot during a breach. This is inaccurate.

Police were just arriving outside the house of the victim and setting up. In large numbers. So victim comes to his door (speculation:) wondering what's going on? Why are there so many cops around?

(fact) Police shooter has already aimed his weapon at door (speculation:) entirely unbeknownst to victim. (fact:) Victim opens the door, and (claimed by cops:) at some point reaches for his waist. Who knows why this is? Maybe his pants were falling down. Maybe he had an itch. However, the officers, believing that they were at the home of a crazy man with a gun, took action.

So, please, explain to me where the cops were out of line? Should they have waited until they had visual on a gun? Maybe. But by then would it have been too late to stop the guy from shooting someone? The information they had, given to them by the caller, was that he was ready to die.

I'm very much against police brutality, and think a higher standard of police accountability for shootings is necessary. From what I've read, however, the police acted in the best manner they could in a shitty situation.

Now, why were they in the situation to begin with? Because of the caller.

So why the fuck would you blame the police, over the caller???????? The SWAT callers know what they're doing when they call to create a situation that the police MUST respond to. That's kind of the whole point, and why swatting works.

So, if you're so sure the police were in the wrong, what should they have done differently?

Would love to hear from @Thenomain on this too.

@duckula said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

We basically live in an age where people can reach right out over the internet to kill you. Probably good incentive to not put your personal details online.

And this, @Lithium, is why this topic came up on that other thread, because @Arkandel was saying that geography grants you safety.

Safety? Yes. Immunity? Not by a long shot.

@tnp Yeah, I'm leaving this thread open in a window to remind myself tomorrow. I don't have the brain power tonight.

And yes, I softballed that one in there. Don't take the swing.

@secretfire The genre is really "cyberpunk" if that's what you're looking for. But yeah, it's my favorite genre, so....

@secretfire ... Marvel Shadowrun? Sign me the f' up!


@tnp said in Good TV:

@ortallus said in Good TV:

@admiral 100% disagree. That's your bias showing.

So you liking it so much means your bias is showing?

No. I listed actual things that were good about it. He's saying that the only reason it was popular is "X".

In my experience, anyone who uses the term "SJW" is someone who's a bigot, or likes to be an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, and doesn't like being called on it.

@admiral 100% disagree. That's your bias showing.

@mietze said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Spending time sending a SWAT team to someone's door? That's beyond impulsivity there. I think the reason why it isn't cracked down on more is not that people think kids are just being kids, but because trying to deal with that sort of thing that crosses international or state borders is super complicated and many local agencies don't even know how to cope/where to start.

Which is why it needs to be a federal crime, investigated and dealt with by the FBI. Easy peasy.

Humorous post, though.

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus Yeah, and there are stories about that that are definitely unfair and unrealistic. If the information is present regarding the offense (and it tends to be in the notifications), people tend to be considerably more lenient, too, because common sense is still relevant.

Yes and no. Same offense: I was arrested, but charges dropped, for a fist fight with my brother.

The actual charge? "domestic assault". My face was printed in one of those "Busted" magazines. Front page. I got a loooot of angry calls.

Though, granted, that only lists the charge and your mug shot, and doesn't have the details. But a lot of people don't care about finding the details. They see a face and a charge, and get the pitchforks.

Anyway, we've digressed quite a ways off topic. Sorry @Lithium

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ortallus There are jobs around, and specific programs to incentivize hiring people are other things in Sur's Ideal Way Things Should Be.

But then, I also remember one of the video stores where I worked, where we were required to have the local sex offenders posted on the wall of the back office so they employees would be aware.

I also remember the day the man featured on one of them as a repeat offender, and rapist of girls ages 3-8, came in to rent a pile of Disney Princess movies.

Oh, I'm definitely not saying they don't serve a purpose. They're just a double edged sword.

I knew a guy during that 2 week stint I did who (or so he claimed) met a 17 year old in a bar. In. A. Bar. He was barely 21 himself. He went home with her, her parents found them, he landed on the sex offender registry for statutory rape. FOR LIFE.