Not according to my database.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner.

You can't shoot a fleeing suspect in the back unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect "poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm".

No apparent weapon. At the time of the shooting, fleeing teen was merely in a vehicle matching the description of a vehicle seen in a shooting. Officer is white, is part time, and has been through 4 police departments in 7 years (http://www.wtae.com/article/east-pittsburgh-police-officer-identified-in-antwon-rose-shooting/21754207).

As someone who has relatives in the police force, I can tell you that officers don't change jobs that often unless they are having issues or are moving to a completely different area. All 4 of the dept. were in Pittsburgh, so I am willing to bet this officer kept getting cited or failing evals.

That is the problem. We don't have a system in place to PREVENT these unfit officers from simply playing musical chairs with different departments. We have a national criminal database, it is beyond time that we have a national unfit officer database to prevent these assholes from being rehired by an unsuspecting department.

Interestingly, the DNA research site gedmatch, a site where people publicly post genealogy and DNA data, was just used to identify the golden state killer.
One would think that if all DNA data was already in the hands of law enforcement, they wouldn't have taken so long to identify him.

That said, it's naive to believe your data is safe in anyone else's hands. The reason chip cards aren't protecting us is every company keeps your data in their not so secure databases, negating all the new security features newer credit cards have.

I think one of the key things is that it was filling in the eyes with eyes. It was using completely different color eyes even and it knew where they needed to go. Content Aware only uses what's in the image, so it would just fill in that area with flesh and random bits of hair and mouth. This seems to pull from a neural network database thingymajigger.

I don't trust Uber Drivers to be properly insured - I can't see myself Flying Uber.

So fun fact, you all know Uber is owned by Jeff Bezos

You may know him as the owner of Amazon.
Well he owns Uber and he also owns Twitter, The Washington Post, Linden Labs (AKA Second Life), and more tech companies than I can list.

As of March 14, 2018, he has an estimated net worth of $130.5 billion.

He is creator of the Amazon Echo which is designed to sit in your home and monitor your every word. It databases everything you say in exchange for on-demand music and news, similar to Siri on your iPhone.

"Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a “private cloud” for the CIA to use for its data needs." For $6 Billion, he will be supplying the data for use by the CIA.


Just some information for everyone to play around with in their heads

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

@MilkmanDan

One big problem is that different states are passing different laws. Connecticut, after Sandy Hook, made it illegal to sell guns or ammo clips that can accept more than 10 rounds and required owners of guns that were semi-automatic and could fire more than 10 rounds to register them. Additionally you need a permit to purchase a gun and background checks are required for all private sales.

Contrast that with other states like Missouri where literally anyone who is not a felon can buy a gun, doesn't have to register it, and doesn't even need a background check if the sale is private.

Legislation on gun control needs to be centralized. Until the federal government establishes uniform laws about licensing and registering firearms, which should include mandatory background checks, training classes, and a federal database that tracks all guns sold in the U.S., it's just going to be too easy to head to a state that has lax gun laws and stock up on all the firepower you need to carry out whatever heinous crime a person has in mind.

And I'm thoroughly pessimistic about it ever happening. The NRA and gun "enthusiasts" as well as the gun manufacturing industry are just too strong as a lobbying group. These kids are absolutely doing the right thing by protesting and they'll get their time in the spotlight, but eventually that spotlight will shift to something else and it will be business as usual in D.C. with politicians taking political donations from the NRA to fund their never-ending re-election campaigns.

I never even thought to question why I've had to solve so many captchas of late, even on sites that should know me by now... but now that he mentions the fact they do all involve click on cars, click on street signs, click on storefronts (as seen from street view)... it starts making more sense. I'd guess it knows 98% of the ones it presents, but then thinks image 43 might be one, so it presents it, and when 99% of the people click it, then it adds that to the database of confirmations... and so it learns more...
*promote the future of AI and even more automation.

I like how he mentioned the inability of the CDC, due to regulations, to gather a comprehensive database on gun violence. As that seems to be an oft to ignored law. Undo that law, let the CDC gather all the various data points into one set, and then let that set be used for analysis. A gun used to commit a robbery, rape or other violent crime? That needs to be reported to the CDC database, along with any details known such as gun source, legality etc. A gunshot victim gets treated at a hospital or clinic, that gets reported to the CDC database along with cause, which in most cases is accidental. Suicide by gun, homicide by gun, mass shooting, all get put into that database. That data then can be used by all sides to support their cause, perhaps it will show that many of the proposed regulations would have little effect. I suspect, however, the fact that the gun lobby fights so hard to prevent the CDC from gathering the data for others to use, means they fear it will be far less favorable to their side.

I personally would be happy enough for now though for this step to be taken. So that we aren't making choices based on incomplete data and conjuncture.

I personally support the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. I'm not sure how an AR-15 or something like that would be useful in either case, short of an unrealistic scenario of a zombie apocalypse... and before the right-wingnuts suggest self-defense of in case of a military invasion, or from some odd right-wing fantasy of our own military, let me remind you of how well even better weapons and training worked out for the Branch Davidians. Admittedly, a military invasion scenario of either type is more likely than a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, but exceedingly low... Now if Trump gets us into WW3, and we lose power for years, and it becomes survival of the fittest, then there may be an argument, the solution to that, of course, is don't get the world into that situation with idiots like him at the wheel.

I bet it's a database and not a spreadsheet

Nothing is going to get done in Congress because the animosity between the two parties at this point in Congress is at Defcon 1. Bipartisanship is completely DOA. Both sides are just looking to criticize the other while crafting the narrative that their side is the one that knows what's best for the American people.

I think what you're going to see more of are things like what's happening in Hawaii. State representatives are going to realize the untapped voter potential that's out there by crafting gun laws before Congress does. In fact, probably the best solution to this problem right now is for States to work with each other and standardize all disparate gun laws across the U.S.

The real question here is how the Supreme Court is going to view these state laws when they (inevitably) get challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Scalia is gone now, so I honestly don't know how the Court will decide. But if you look at how gay marriage was essentially legalized in the U.S. state-by-state, I think you can see a road-map to how gun control laws could follow a similar path.

What's missing right now is an advocacy group that cares as much about this issue as the NRA does about "gun rights." It's easier to get people behind the legalization of gay marriage because it's a human rights issue and at the end of the day most people have a relative or friend (or several of each) who is affected. Sadly, it may take a day to come when everyone has a relative or friend who has suffered from gun violence to get the same kind of groundswell necessary to nudge things meaningfully forward.

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

NBA's Response


NBA Response to New York Times Story on Flagrant Fouls and Charlotte Hornets guard Jeremy Lin
April 15, 2016

After reviewing our extensive officiating database, we have found no data that suggests Jeremy Lin is disadvantaged by our officiating staff. NBA referees use a set of criteria (available here) provided by the league office in determining whether a foul should be called flagrant. Following the game, contact that is deemed flagrant by referees and other hard contact (whether called or not) is reviewed by NBA Basketball Operations. As part of that review, Basketball Operations uses that same set of criteria, multiple video angles and enhancements, and its comparable database to calibrate its judgment. When deemed appropriate, a foul can be upgraded or downgraded and applicable penalties can be assessed. While some of the plays in the video involved hard contact, none was subsequently deemed a Flagrant Foul given the full circumstances, angles and comparables from past games.

With respect to the data, over the last three seasons, Mr. Lin ranked 21st among all players in number of drives to the basket with 1,537. While he has not drawn a flagrant foul in that time, neither have other guards known for their driving ability like Reggie Jackson (2,031 drives), Tony Parker (1,974), Tyreke Evans (1,969), Ty Lawson (1,891), Kyrie Irving (1,649) or Victor Oladipo (1,544). Conversely, Mr. Lin has drawn more common fouls on those drives than any of those previously listed players and has drawn fouls at the seventh-highest rate among the 23 players with more than 1,500 drives.

Furthermore, given the infrequency of flagrant fouls (roughly 1 per every 500 foul calls), it is not statistically significant that none of Mr. Lin’s 814 fouls drawn were deemed flagrant.

Anyone ever use the OS called CP\M on old Kaypro computers? My first computer job in 1985 was supporting an auto salvage yard database on those computers in Texas. CP\M was painful, you could erase the hard disk you booted from, if you weren't careful. Which I did, I spent a whole day entering inventory into the hard drive, then went to back it up by erasing a bunch of floppies first. The one time I forgot to specify A: for the floppy drive to be erased, it defaulted to the C drive. So when it said "Are you sure you want to erase this disk?" I tapped Y and it erased the boot drive, with the OS, the inventory program and all that data I had typed in all day. I took a long walk and considered a career change, I was so angry. Then went back and typed it all in again.

Sorry @newtboy, gotta downvote this one on the basis that Cenk is making a big deal out of nothing.

Michigan didn't make sodomy and oral sex illegal, it's ALREADY illegal in Michigan. (Hell, it was illegal to swear in front of women and children until 2002, when they were forced to repeal the law after a man fell out of a canoe, swore, got arrested, and then was represented by the ACLU.)

But here's the thing, the ban is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.

Now, should it be removed? Of course.

However, the idea behind this bill was an amendment to the existing bill to create an animal abuser database, and the guy who proposed the bill (Republican Senator Rick Jones) decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort to fight to get this removed when it's already unconstitutional anyway.

In other words, he took a pragmatic approach to fixing an important issue (animal abuse) by ignoring something that doesn't matter (an unenforceable law).

To his credit, he actually suggested another bill that would automatically strike unconstitutional laws from the state (which kinda seems like something that should be happening anyway).

"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." Rick Jones

http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/

Yes, it's fucking stupid, but "fucking stupid" seems to be the defining trait of most of the US system of government (two party system, electoral college, tacking on stupid amendments, etc)