The raving lunatic with a machete is a clear threat to everyone in the area. Incapacitating him with tasers is far quicker and safer (to the cops and civilians) than trying to contain him with riot shields. Is there a chance that the taser could kill him? Sure. However, the chance is far lower than if you shoot him with a gun. And again, it isn't just the life of one man at stake. The suspect was obviously deranged, violent and unpredictable. At any point, he could have made a beeline for one of the cops or some random pedestrian and done serious damage. That's 30 minutes of putting lives at risk vs 1 minute of relatively safe tasering.

As for the possible positive outcomes... what, he recovers and leads a mediocre life working as a janitor because nobody wants to hire someone with a history of violent psychosis? How many years would it take to reach that point? How much taxpayer money would be spent? Is a single lost cause worth all that time, money and risk? If humanity were on the verge of extinction and every life really mattered then sure, he might be worth it. However, there's no shortage of perfectly sane and productive members of society that don't run around swinging machetes and howling like animals. Society already puts down animals that pose a threat to humans. Why not extend that policy to the most dangerous animal of all?

First statement = opinion
The remaining life of one man versus 30 minutes of time for 30 men.

Second statement = uninformed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Third statement = uneducated opinion
The incident involved a large number of trained officers presumably adequately trained to assess and address the situation

The entire last paragraph = biased conjecture
All projected outcomes proposed are negative. All possible positive outcomes ignored.

Troll Score = 10/10
Every word inflammatory and pointless yet I am compelled to reply...

Well played sir.

One man's stupid is another man's gnarly.

You might like this one. MAN Diesel and Turbo Factories, featuring very big engines:

I know several bar bouncers (not trained police officers) who have told me that any 5 trained men can restrain any one man, no matter what.

They should have just cuffed him and thrown him into a squad car.

End of story.

In off road racing (which I used to do), equipment failure was really usually more of an issue than driving speed. Something broke in almost every desert race I ran, it's not letting that stop you that the sport was all about, even more so when you are a lone wolf racing team (one man driver/owner/mechanic-no pit crew). I have to think the same goes in mountain biking.

Problem is were all people here,Speechless.One mans comedy is another's trigger. Unless it becomes cancerous for everyone its better to let people ignore systematically, effectually banning personally. I do think its a little much to remove them from the thread entirely, like Facebook does, because it will potentially fracture conversations. At least show that x ignored user posted, if not the content.

This could totally be done per user settings too.

I hate to say it, but he's only a one man drummer, not a one man band. Even with that, I was less than impressed, but he did keep the beat while spinning like a top. Can I give a 1/2 vote?

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

From my point of view, your argument is asinine.
He (Lantern) made a definitive statement based on some witnesses and evidence by saying 'credible evidence' (which strongly implys that only the witness and evidence/interpretations that agreed with the police version is credible, and all others are not), I pointed out that far more witnesses had disputed that version of events, and the evidence is up for interpretation, not definitive.
You also discount (nearly) all local witnesses (and go on to insult them for no reason, or is it just racism that makes you label them 'low intelligence'?), then you try to make a point about group impressions using a group that absolutely DOES lie, in the performance of their duties they are TRAINED to lie to get information and/or compliance, and some are just natural liars to boot, and also a group that's historically well known as being incredibly over-defensive of their own, even when it's insanely obvious their own are in the wrong. I can't fathom how you think that makes a good point. (also not sure why you bring race into it again)

Another interpretation of the head shot evidence is that he was falling, having been shot multiple times already, and was shot in the top of the head on the way down. That was what more than one eye witness said happened. Are you implying that they were (low intelligence) criminalist masterminds that instantly knew what false story could still be born out by evidence, colluded, and gave that version? There was no gun shot residue on him, so he was not within arms length to grab anyone. That's fairly certain.

Yes, the DA certainly seemed to throw the case away. He did not act as prosecutor, (giving only evidence and interpretation that implies guilt,) but instead gave the jury all 'evidence' (including that which implied innocence, and allowed the jury to interpret it), allowed 'defense testimony' (without question, cross, or dispute), and gave insane legal instructions in order to confuse (like giving them the long invalidated law, then last minute telling them it might or might not apply, but don't worry why, it's not a law class). That's all totally abnormal, so the grand jury process was clearly abused by the DA with an aim to not get a trial. I'm fairly certain that's how most people see it too. It seemed fairly blatant.

I would agree that the more officers the better seems logical, but no longer holds true if ALL the officers over react (like 8 people on top of one man for an infraction, or never trying tasers because they 'might not stop the aggressor', even when there's already 10 officers with guns drawn). If officers tried the least amount of force required FIRST, rather than jump to the maximum allowed instantly, everyone would be happier. Sadly they do not.

If the feeling in the community (local and at large) was that this was an isolated incident, no amount of cajoling by a single distraught parent would cause rallies or riots. Instead they're happening across the country, and yet you blame a grieving father rather than the aggrieved's stated issue(s)/targets.

I'm glad that at least in the Garner case, you can see the injustice of killing an unarmed man (or even 'just' brutally attacking him) over such a minor infraction.

One mans trash...

Obama seeks to paint Gruber as a marginal player in crafting Obamacare. That explains why he was only paid $392,600 to consult.

Will the house of cards come crashing down? Stay tuned...

At least originally, I think that was the point of Dredd. He was never meant to be the good guy, he was a cautionary tale.

As the character became more popular, they had to justify his actions more and more until he eventually became the good guy, even if only in comparison to his enemies.

I liked that about him though. The writers weren't heavy handed. Dredd could do something incredibly cool one minute, and then they would remind you that, yeah, this guy's a one man personification of the police state. It made for uncomfortable reading.

While the movie didn't really capture that, it was still a great flick and it's a shame they never made a sequel

Wouldn't it be better, and safer for everyone, if we could just build some sort of "place" for these homeless people to live? Provide them with the basic needs of life like food, clothing and shelter. A cot to sleep on. A yard to exercise in. A place where they could make friends and network with other desperate people?

Hell, maybe we can even put them to work! One man's "slave labor" is another man's "productive member of society", after all.

Granted, some of these people are dangerous! When you hit rock bottom and have nothing left to lose, that can turn a man into an animal. So maybe we should surround the place with barbed wire and electric fences. And guard towers, just in case.

Maybe put bars on the windows and doors?

I'm just spitballing ideas here.