SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Four police officers and an unknown number of civilians have been hurt in an "active shooter" incident in the US city of Colorado Springs, police say.
Officers were exchanging fire with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, police Lt Catherine Buckley said.
It was unclear if hostages had been taken, she said.
The city's Penrose hospital said it had received six patients, but did not say whether they were civilians or police.
The situation was still active and roads were closed, the city's police said in a tweet.
"We do not have the shooter at this point but we do have all of our resources brought to bear," Lt Buckley told local TV.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"Active Shooter" in Colorado Springs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Besides, REAL computers have a rename() system call. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <7937@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:44AM
Condemnation of this kind of activity is appropriate no matter WHAT their reasoning is.
They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to live by the artificial boundaries around things defined by words, then the defiition of murder is given by law. If you are more reasonable, then you see it as the cancellation of a potential sentience. Unless you consider boundaries even more fuzzy, in which case you can scale the sentience of various entities and probably end up deciding to be a vegetarian. That is a defensible ethical position. You can even end up wanting everyone else to be vegetarians. But when you start being willing to kill them because they aren't vegetarians, then you lose all ethical validity.
Backing away from the analogy, it's quite reasonable to be against abortion as a form of murder, but not to then be willing to commit murder yourself to prevent it. At that point it is quite clear that you're engaged in an immoral activity. The boundaries aren't entirely clear, proper defense of another is valid, even if it does lead to your killing someone engaged in an attack. But I'm afraid that I can't accept all lives as of equal worth. I don't count the life of a squirrel as equal to the life of a child. And I don't count the life of an unborn infant as equal to the life of his mother. And I don't think it's right to coerce a woman to support a child that can't survive independently. Or a father. Please note that I didn't say anything about whether the child had been born. But if the child has been born, there are other ways for it to be supported, and if you care enough about life you should support them. Adoption is one way. If the child has not been born, and is dependant on the mother for life support, then the mother should have the right to remove that life support. Society has to right to, if it chooses, itself provide that support. It hasn't chosen to. (Currently at many stages of the process it's technically unready, but there hasn't been a lot of effort put into making the technology ready, either. What there has been is usualy more associated with agriculture than medicine.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:00AM
"They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so."
It is, most definitely, a homicide. In this, a "nation of laws", all homicides are investigated as murders, unless and until evidence indicates that it was not a murder. In the case of abortion, it is almost always "legalized murder".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:59AM
>> "They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so."
>
> In the case of abortion, it is almost always "legalized murder".
Did you really intend to provide a live demonstration of HiThere's point?