SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Arsonist's Pacemaker Rats Him Out; Police Subpoenaed Logs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 55 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Operator, please trace this call and tell me where I am.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 10 2017, @05:37AM
I am gradually developing an intent to kill, khallow. Just today, I find out, you are a Coloradian? Do you not realize that is a Californicator once removed? You are on ground that I might just stand on.
Then when circumstances changed, they changed their minds and resulting behavior as well.
No, the behavior was the same, the deployment of lethal force. How are you so dense, khallow? The intent to use deadly force, unless it is "certain death deadly force", is not the same as the intent to kill. And even if it is "certain death deadly force", the intent is not necessarily to kill. You evidently did not grok my submarine example, and obviously, as a rebuttal, you are incapable of comprehending what spook_brat said: the soldiers did not intend to kill the attacker. The intended to stop him. Now intending to stop someone in a situation like this can mean that you use lethal force, and using lethal force could mean that you kill him. But this guy didn't die (yet, any breaking news?), and the soldiers were glad (or they should be if they are not total stone cold sociopathic killers like you an Runaway1234 appear to be) that their use of lethal force was not lethal. Which suggests, to those of us who are not arguing from the benighted position of Libertardian Racism, that they in fact did not intend to kill. They only intended to stop.
So, you cowardly Coloradian, suppose that you, as Coloradians often do, sneak up on me with the intent to kill me and take all my stuff. I have some very nice stuff! But, I hear you coming, see your murderous intent, and I shoot you down like the cowardly dog that you are! In the West, we have no sympathy for bushwackers or dry-gulchers! So, there you are, shot through the shoulder, your shooting arm paralyzed, loosing copious amounts of blood. But, you know, you are not dead! If my intent was not to stop you, but to kill you, at this point I would put one through your skull, since no one who attacks aristarchus deserves to live, right? No, that would be wrong of me. You no longer pose a threat (and in fact, on the intellectual level, you never did), and so further hostilities toward you are unjust. I should do as the French soldiers did, apply first aid, call for help, and get you to a hospital, you anti-social violent libertarian piece of shit!
So that's it, until you try to draw this out even more due to your lack of understanding and education. Can't let it go, can you. Should we talk about Marxism and Backhoes some more?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:02PM
I am gradually developing an intent to kill, khallow. Just today, I find out, you are a Coloradian? Do you not realize that is a Californicator once removed? You are on ground that I might just stand on.
I was in California before that. The plague is spreading.
Then when circumstances changed, they changed their minds and resulting behavior as well.
No, the behavior was the same, the deployment of lethal force.
"Deployment"? The obvious rebuttal here is a huge difference between deploying lethal force and using that deployed force to shoot someone. I didn't say that all exercises of self-defense required intent to kill. I merely noted that when you try to kill someone in an act of self-defense, then it is an example of intent to kill which is not murder.
The intent to use deadly force, unless it is "certain death deadly force", is not the same as the intent to kill.
The obvious rebuttal is that the certainty of the deadly force is not part of intent to kill. Most modes of killing are uncertain, such as shooting someone who is actively trying not to die. It's still intent to kill even if you got in a lucky shot.
You evidently did not grok my submarine example, and obviously, as a rebuttal, you are incapable of comprehending what spook_brat said: the soldiers did not intend to kill the attacker.
The obvious rebuttal is that if the soldiers didn't intend to kill the attacker, then they wouldn't have tried to kill him with lethal force.
If my intent was not to stop you, but to kill you, at this point
The key phrase is "at this point". A few seconds earlier there was intent to kill.
And what happens should I with murderous intent drunkenly fire a shot wide into the wall of the bar, glare at you with my beady, blood-shot eyes and bellow "HEY! YOU AIN'T ETHANOL-FUELED! HE OWES ME THREE DOLLARS!" and then go back to my boozing and losing at cards, does that mean that my prior murderous intent no longer existed because circumstances changed?
But this guy didn't die (yet, any breaking news?), and the soldiers were glad (or they should be if they are not total stone cold sociopathic killers like you an Runaway1234 appear to be) that their use of lethal force was not lethal. Which suggests, to those of us who are not arguing from the benighted position of Libertardian Racism, that they in fact did not intend to kill.
Why does it suggest that intent to kill didn't exist? The soldiers knew what guns do. They used said guns to shoot someone in a way that would kill that person.
So that's it, until you try to draw this out even more due to your lack of understanding and education. Can't let it go, can you. Should we talk about Marxism and Backhoes some more?
Your error is not my lack of education.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 11 2017, @07:46PM
Your error is not my lack of education.
Possibly. But your lack of education is not my error. It is yours alone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @05:20AM
The problem is that words have meaning. And "intent to kill" is pretty clear what it means: deliberately engage in activities you know have a high likelihood of killing people. As you've agreed in the past, it doesn't matter if there are other goals at hand. Intent to kill holds every time someone intends to perform any action with a high likelihood of death for others particularly IMHO when the more successful the action is, the higher the likelihood of death. Your various examples show this, whether it be the shooting at the Louvre or your example of the submarine (where one deliberately kills others to save others).
What's particularly bizarre is that you already have established [soylentnews.org] exceptions to your absolute claim " if they intend to kill, they are murderers". Well, Buttercup, self-defense is just another exception.
And really, there's nothing more to this thread than that. There is no libertarian agenda furthered by how we choose to interpret "intent to kill".