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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @05:46AM
子 曰 ： 「 不 憤 不 啟 ， 不 悱 不 發 ， 舉 一 隅 不 以 三 隅 反 ， 則 不 復 也 ． 」
Francis can probably translate for you.
I missed this piece of shit. You probably could translate that for me too. Fuck off, if you're too busy playing language dominance games to make an argument that a SN reader who knows English can understand.
Which two terms, khallow? Perhaps I am misunderestimating your malfunction. My point is that if you, or anyone like you, or anyone, intends to kill another human being, that is murder.
And you already allowed (even on the very next few paragraphs no less) that execution and euthanasia can be exceptions to that point. I merely noted that self-defense is another exception.
Oh, Tom Sawyer, I believe, related a boiler explosion on a Mississippi steamboat, and when his aunt asked, "Was anyone hurt?", he said: "No, killed a nigger, though." Of course, that is racist, and though it has a long history in America (Smithsonian expeditions to collect native American skulls?), it is wrong. So, any intended killing of a human, whatever the motivation, whether it be money, hatred, serial-killer reasons, all wrong, all murder.
I guess you better not reason that way then, if you dislike it so much. I'll also note that Tom Sawyer was fictional and I'm no Tom Sawyer. But even if we look at real world people who had a casual attitude about killing people, those people aren't me. Their opinions are thus quite irrelevant to any point you think you're trying to make here.
Unless, as St. Augustine said, and as you would know if you had read him and obviously (no rebuttal necessary) you have not, you are a authorized officer of the state. But even then, and this is the point, the police do not have authority to execute anyone! They only have the authority to apprehend, and then remand the "suspect" over to a court of law. Now if the court, in the few remaining countries who do not think that the death penalty is an abomination (both Wyoming and Montana still have the death penalty, do they not, khallow?) determines that the just punishment for the crime is death, then the executioner can legitimately intend the death of the criminal. How do we know? My God, khallow, even here we err on the side of life! If an execution goes awry (except in Texas, of course), it is the will of God, and we have to reprieve the convict.
Another sign that your reasoning is all fucked up. This is again quite irrelevant to the claim at hand, since one doesn't need to be either an authorized officer of the state or a court of law in order to defend oneself from harm.
Now to the other exception to our rule, that intending to kill people is wrong. Euthanasia. Most of the world, especially the west and Runaway2000, are ambivalent about this one. But if it is permissible to end suffering, by the touch of grace, the "coup de grâce" then it would be permissible to intend to kill. But that is hardly ever the case in law enforcement or war, unless, like the Conquistadors, you think it is an act of mercy to kill the pagans (and libertarians), instead of letting them persist in their heresy? No, neither of these conditions apply to a situation of self-defense, except for racists or Crusaders. And fuch them.
Ok, so you brought up a couple of practices, spewed some ignorant tripe, and then say it's irrelevant to our discussion? Ok then. I want my 40 seconds of life back.
Ok, I'll bite. What would that "considerable literature" be either relevant or interesting? This looks a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy. Oh, shit, khallow! Do you think you are Milo Youwantobeallupinmyassious? You are taking on the entire cultural history of the planet, and putting your paltry opinion up against it? Who is arrogant? Who is the Poseur? You have no idea of the powers you are dealing with! The appeal to authority fallacy is only a fallacy if the authority to which you are appealing has no more knowledge of the pertinant matter than you do, and this is exactly what you so when you insist that your uninformed pleblian opinion is equal to those who have actually acquired some expertise on the topic. You are wrong, khallow! Everyone who knows anything about the topic says you are wrong. If you intentionally kill another human being, even if it was originally a situation of self-defense, you commit murder.
The appeal to authority continues. I see my trust in your ability to explain yourself was once again completely unwarranted. If you can't do it without appealing to St. Augustine and others, then you can't explain it. Let the grownups talk.
So, to all the ammosexuals here on SoylentNews, I just want to say, if you intend to kill, you are a murder.
Except of course, for the exceptions of execution and euthanasia which you've already granted in this very post. You can say whatever you want, but you are wrong by your own arguments. Consistency is essential to philosophy and you fail hard here - as usual, I might add.
This discussion was really over some time ago. But it is interesting to poke over the various flaws, inconsistencies, and rhetorical fallacies you bring to the table. I wonder if it will ever be possible for you to make a decent, rational argument?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 13 2017, @06:03AM
The obvious rebuttal is that you have had too much to drink, khallow. Go to bed. Things will seem better in the morning, after your head stops hurting. Let it go, khallow, let it go.