Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.

Cory Doctorow reports via Boing Boing

Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Middletown, Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire; there were many irregularities to the blaze that investigators found suspicious, such as contradictory statements from Compton and the way that the fire had started.

In the ensuing investigation, the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker, specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand, and cardiac rhythms before, during, and after the fire".

[...] The data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened.

[...] [The cops] subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud.

Cory links to coverage by Network World.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @04:32AM (#462748)

    Hi Aristarchus, you pretentious poseur.

    Every time a police officer draws a weapon and fires it, they intend to kill whomever they're aiming at. Missing means that you might hit somebody other than the intended target and aiming to wound isn't a thing that anybody trained to use firearms is trained to do. You aim for the chest as that's the easiest to hit part of the body and one of the parts of the body most likely to result in a kill.

    There's a continuum of force at play here, ideally they start with being present, followed by a verbal warning, possibly the use of pepper spray, night stick or taser and work their way up to a firearm. They don't always have the option of going through all the steps, but by the time they have that firearm out and they pull the trigger, the intent there is to kill. Calling it "neutralize" is a complete characterization. They fire the gun intent on killing the person. It may help people sleep at night thinking of it as neutralizing the threat, but the way they neutralize it is by killing. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that they're different things. Neutralizing without lethal force is supposed to already have either failed or been ruled out, and at that point, it's neutralization by killing.

    You can gussy it up however you like, but the intention is to kill as that's the only way to neutralize the effect. You're full of shit as always.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:15AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:15AM (#462798) Journal

    No shit Sherlock: Simple statement, if they intend to kill, they are murderers. You are aware, oh AC with a Law degree from Joe's Garage and Law School, that the mens re is the determining criteria in murder, "malice and aforethought". If a police officer has this, they are no officer of the law, they have gone rouge! Totally out of control! We have words for these types, "SEALS", assassins, ganstas, Judge Dredd. Or, it could be our favorite hillbilly, who has been totally and utterly spooked by one crazed man with a sharpened bit of metal, who actually wants it to be alright to actually kill people, as long as they are the right kind of people, to kill, you know. Racist. Thing about war crimes: Universal jurisdiction, no statue of limitations.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:30AM (#463004)

      As always, Aristarchus is full of shit. Killing with intent is not exactly synonymous with murder. Pretentious bastard takes a philosopher's name, and that makes him an expert in law?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:49AM (#463011)

        Did you actually read all the comments?

        Killing with intent is not exactly synonymous with murder.

        It's pretty close? Except, as aristarchus said, in the cases of execution and euthanasia. You are an expert on law? Or you just play at being one on the internets?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:46AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:46AM (#463029) Journal

          Except, as aristarchus said, in the cases of execution and euthanasia.

          And self-defense. Since there are notable and rather common exceptions, the grandparent is correct. The terms are not exactly synonymous. Let us keep in mind that aristarchus said [soylentnews.org]:

          Simple statement, if they intend to kill, they are murderers.

          That statement has been shown to be false.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:36AM (#463084)

            That statement has been shown to be false.

            Um, no it hasn't. Khallow has claimed that it is false, which is not the same thing at all. Obvious rebuttal, booyaa!

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 06 2017, @02:33PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @02:33PM (#463427) Journal

              Khallow has claimed that it is false, which is not the same thing at all.

              What is the point of saying anything at all, if it's all just "claims"? Claims that the world is flat or round are equally claims. You have to look at the supporting evidence. And here, it's not hard to construct scenarios where someone by necessity kills someone in self defense. It makes no difference in those scenarios, legally or otherwise, if the person intends to kill the other person or not.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @02:33AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @02:33AM (#465371)

                It makes no difference in those scenarios, legally or otherwise, if the person intends to kill the other person or not.

                That is exactly what aristarchus has been saying, khallow! But what if the scenario only _seems_ to be one like that? Then, legally and morally, it makes a difference what the intent of the killer was.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 10 2017, @04:10AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 10 2017, @04:10AM (#465398) Journal
                  Sorry about the lateness of my reply.

                  That is exactly what aristarchus has been saying, khallow!

                  No, he hasn't been saying that. If you happen to read, could you please read through the thread, particularly the quotes I mention?

                  But what if the scenario only _seems_ to be one like that? Then, legally and morally, it makes a difference what the intent of the killer was.

                  What exactly is supposed to be the distinction here? Since when have we spoke of appearances rather than the deed? Was anyone actually claiming it was ok legally or otherwise to kill people as long as as you made it look like they were attacking you after the fact? That didn't happen.