Courtesy the City of Houston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5FxMvpcsSI#!
1. More of those office people should have been overweight or obese.
2. No crying males depicted.
3. No recommendation to bring a gun to work for self-defense. :(
And the security guard was useless, so that was realistic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 11, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
And the security guard was useless, so that was realistic.
He was too busy chatting up an attractive female.
LUST WILL GET YOU KILLED.
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Maybe that's the shooter in the video is doing.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Maybe that's the shooter in the video is doing.
Well ideally, people should be educated on preventing this crap like identifying and quarantining disgruntled workers, the likeliest source of workplace violence. Even further, K-12 education should focus on mental/emotional training and humanistic ethics cultivation.
And harmony augmentation.
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Courtesy the City of Houston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5FxMvpcsSI#!
Watched the first 30 seconds, it's a comedy sketch isn't it.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Maybe that's the shooter in the video is doing.
Well ideally, people should be educated on preventing this crap like identifying and quarantining disgruntled workers, the likeliest source of workplace violence. Even further, K-12 education should focus on mental/emotional training and humanistic ethics cultivation.
I see what you are doing here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 11, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
And the security guard was useless, so that was realistic.
I always thought security guards are mainly for keeping bums out, not real security.
They are for deciding if you get new chairs or a new copier.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 11, 2012, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 11, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
And the security guard was useless, so that was realistic.
I always thought security guards are mainly for keeping bums out, not real security.
That and escorting terminated employees to the parking lot.
If there is a golf cart joust, the security guards at my old employer could dismount the attacker.
Quote from: mongers on August 11, 2012, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Courtesy the City of Houston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5FxMvpcsSI#!
Watched the first 30 seconds, it's a comedy sketch isn't it.
All the response videos are awesome. Thank heaven that gun nuts are few and far between up here, and haven't got a huge and powerful lobby group for their antisocial hobby.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Maybe that's the shooter in the video is doing.
Well ideally, people should be educated on preventing this crap like identifying and quarantining disgruntled workers, the likeliest source of workplace violence. Even further, K-12 education should focus on mental/emotional training and humanistic ethics cultivation.
That sounds like liberal hippie BS.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 11, 2012, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Courtesy the City of Houston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5FxMvpcsSI#!
Watched the first 30 seconds, it's a comedy sketch isn't it.
All the response videos are awesome. Thank heaven that gun nuts are few and far between up here, and haven't got a huge and powerful lobby group for their antisocial hobby.
You do know the "gun nuts" up here did eventually suceed in getting the gun registry abolished...
We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2012, 01:40:53 AM
You do know the "gun nuts" up here did eventually suceed in getting the gun registry abolished...
The long gun registry? I'm a bit more sympathetic to them than I am for people who have to carry handguns, whose only purpose is to murder, on them at all times.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 12, 2012, 01:15:36 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 11, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
Wouldn't bringing a gun to work get you fired?
Not unless you fire first.
Maybe that's the shooter in the video is doing.
Well ideally, people should be educated on preventing this crap like identifying and quarantining disgruntled workers, the likeliest source of workplace violence. Even further, K-12 education should focus on mental/emotional training and humanistic ethics cultivation.
That sounds like liberal hippie BS.
Nah, it's not about making everyone a feel-good winner for doing no work.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2012, 07:47:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2012, 01:40:53 AM
You do know the "gun nuts" up here did eventually suceed in getting the gun registry abolished...
The long gun registry? I'm a bit more sympathetic to them than I am for people who have to carry handguns, whose only purpose is to murder, on them at all times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zUGd-VC3wk
By the way, why is it called an "active shooter event"? To differentiate it from "passive shooter events"?
I think because the shooter is moving around and hunting people. Compare that to guys who just go up in a bell tower, or guys who just stand in place and spray bullets around.
I believe the term came about after that officer shot up Fort Hood. "Active shooter" sounds like the kind of stupid terminology the Army would come up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter
QuoteAn active shooter is defined as "... an armed person who has used deadly physical force on other persons and continues to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims."[1]
The definition includes so-called "school shootings" and "snipers", but not usually suicide bombers. Active shooters have caused a paradigm shift in law enforcement training and tactics, especially as these persons do not necessarily expect to escape or even survive these situations.[2]
[...]
1. ^ a b "Chapter 7". Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure Manual. Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA: El Paso County Sheriff's Office. 2004-01-01.
2. ^ a b Scanlon, James J. (July/August 2001). "Active Shooter Situations: What do we do now?!!". North American SWAT Training Association.
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
Either active or ongoing. Conveys useful information.
I think the word "shooter" indicates that he's active.
The Ft. Hood shooter has been inactive for some time, just to mention one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
The Ft. Hood shooter has been inactive for some time, just to mention one.
Well then he's not a shooter if he's inactive, is he?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 05:00:12 PM
Well then he's not a shooter if he's inactive, is he?
Sure, if you want to make the distinction between shooter events and former shooter events that would work too. Although I don't see how that's an improvement over active shooter event.
Well the word "event" seems to describe an occurrence. A guy sitting in a jail cell or six feet under can hardly be described as a "shooter event". Perhaps the terms "Mass shooting", and describing the guy as a "spree killer" would be better.
They should have made Ft. Hood guy stop breathing.
I think the term is basically meant to differentiate a mass shooting from someone walking into a location, shooting a particular individual, and then either fleeing, surrendering, or killing themselves.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:39:15 PM
Well the word "event" seems to describe an occurrence. A guy sitting in a jail cell or six feet under can hardly be described as a "shooter event". Perhaps the terms "Mass shooting", and describing the guy as a "spree killer" would be better.
As dps pointed out, active indicates that it is an ongoing event.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 06:39:15 PM
Well the word "event" seems to describe an occurrence. A guy sitting in a jail cell or six feet under can hardly be described as a "shooter event". Perhaps the terms "Mass shooting", and describing the guy as a "spree killer" would be better.
As dps pointed out, active indicates that it is an ongoing event.
What would an inactive event be called?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2012, 08:32:44 PM
What would an inactive event be called?
How the fuck do I know? :huh:
:lmfao:
reading this in one go, this is a perfect conversation about nothing.. but it made me chuckle :lol:
V
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Quote from: Scipio on August 13, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
As for alleged marijuana, if they just said marijuana the defence lawyer would certainly point out the officer didn't know for sure it was marijuana at the time...
See? The legal system ruins absolutely everything it comes into contact with.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
As for alleged marijuana, if they just said marijuana the defence lawyer would certainly point out the officer didn't know for sure it was marijuana at the time...
Yes, but in your defense, they carry it off into orbit a bit themselves.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 13, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
As for alleged marijuana, if they just said marijuana the defence lawyer would certainly point out the officer didn't know for sure it was marijuana at the time...
I prefer "a baggy containing a substance believed at the time to be marijuana." Alleged marijuana sounds like you didn't pass 6th grade.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 13, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
What other F-150s are out there?
Guy in vid reminded me of Siege. Also think it would have been a good idea to knock out red headed bitch who wouldn't stop making noise.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2012, 11:33:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 13, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
What other F-150s are out there?
You know, if you have jurors that aren't into automobiles at all, you might have to ask the officer to clarify what an F-150 is. But if you've got jurors who don't know what a car is, you might as well give up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2012, 11:33:20 PM
What other F-150s are out there?
Maybe it's so people won't confuse it with a F-15 O variant.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2012, 12:45:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2012, 11:33:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Scipio on August 13, 2012, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Active shooter: typical unnecessary over-wrought Cop Speak that makes it sound more important, and less literate, than it needs to be. That's all it is.
"At which time we approached the suspect vehicle in question."
"You mean, you walked up to the car?"
"I together with Officer X and Officer Y seized the suspect baggy of alleged marijuana."
Sadly its us lawyers that make them talk that way. :(
"walked up to the car" - which car is that? What is a car anyways? I frequently have an officer describe pulling over a, say, F-150. I then have to ask "Is a Ford F-150 a motor vehicle"? :rolleyes:
What other F-150s are out there?
You know, if you have jurors that aren't into automobiles at all, you might have to ask the officer to clarify what an F-150 is. But if you've got jurors who don't know what a car is, you might as well give up.
The thing is...
the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk. It doesn't use the word car. And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle? Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
The thing is...
the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk. It doesn't use the word car. And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle? Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2012, 03:40:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
The thing is...
the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk. It doesn't use the word car. And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle? Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?
Judges.
There is a minority of judges who really view law as just some enormous game. It isn't about the search for truth", but rather whether or not the Crown has complied with a whole series of technicalities.
I once had a case thrown out because my officer used an "Approved Screening Device" and called it an "AlcoSensor", but the judge felt that because the list of Approved Screening Devices in the Code didn't have an "AlcoSensor", but only an "AlcoSensor IV DWF" listed, I hadn't proven that the cop used the right kind of device.
I had to go to the Court of Appeal, which said you don't need to name the precise make and model, just saying it is an "Approved Screening Device" is enough. But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".
Juries are much less likely to buy into this kind of ultra-technical argument.
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".
Well yeah.
If is for the finder of fact to decide if the device used is an approved device under the act. The officer is to give evidence as to what device he used and then the judge decides whether that device is an approved device.
Dont get lazy counsel!
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2012, 03:40:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 14, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
The thing is...
the statute is worded that it is against the law to drive a motor vehicle while drunk. It doesn't use the word car. And there are just enough pinhead judges who will say "well he talked about a "car" - how do I know it was a motor vehicle? Maybe it was a horse-drawn carriage?" that it's safest to ask "and was that a motor vehicle?".
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about members of the jury, or about judges?
Judges.
There is a minority of judges who really view law as just some enormous game. It isn't about the search for truth", but rather whether or not the Crown has complied with a whole series of technicalities.
I once had a case thrown out because my officer used an "Approved Screening Device" and called it an "AlcoSensor", but the judge felt that because the list of Approved Screening Devices in the Code didn't have an "AlcoSensor", but only an "AlcoSensor IV DWF" listed, I hadn't proven that the cop used the right kind of device.
I had to go to the Court of Appeal, which said you don't need to name the precise make and model, just saying it is an "Approved Screening Device" is enough. But heaven help you if your cop calls it an "Approved Device" or a "Screening Device".
Juries are much less likely to buy into this kind of ultra-technical argument.
That's kind of what I thought, which was why I asked the question. It didn't sound like run-of-the-mill stupidity, but the kind of stupidity you only get after several years of law school.
Stuff like this is why people talk about "the death of common sense" in the modern legal system.
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 01:45:03 AM
We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111
If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2012, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 01:45:03 AM
We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111
If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111
If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2012, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2012, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 01:45:03 AM
We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111
If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111
If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.
Do you get turned on by playing the God? :)
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2012, 12:03:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2012, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2012, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 12, 2012, 01:45:03 AM
We should ban all guns in the hole wold!!!!11111
If everyone carried a gun, noone would get shot!!!11111
If I had a gun and no one else did, I could pick who gets shot.
Do you get turned on by playing the God? :)
Not really, but if only one person can have a gun, I trust me with it more than anybody else I know.