nwt

Well to be honest I've never been in a knife fight or seen one in person, so I'll defer to you on how they go. I definitely agree that cops should have a lot more training. edit: I also agree that cops should be doing much more to de-escalate in general, even if I'm unsure about the specifics of this case.

So you're done defending a position nobody has been disputing? Good, that seems like a waste of time. My quote, your emphasis. I'm lost how you got from here to "open and shut prima facie" or "I guess no investigation is needed". If you have other evidence, feel free to share it. Remember, the cop is the defendant in this scenario and he's presumed innocent until guilty. You really don't think the video introduces reasonable doubt that his use of force was inappropriate? Your rhetorical questions are adding nothing to the discussion. If you are interpreting the video differently from everyone else, could you just come out and tell us what you think of it and why instead of this nonsense? I still don't understand your point with this. I struggle to understand how lunging at someone could be considered self defense, regardless of what happened prior and who the initial aggressors were. Why don't you walk us through the video and explain how and why you think self-defense is plausible here. I'm sure we'd agree that vengeance and self-defense are two completely different things, right?

Wow, sorry to hear this I take it Ottawa was the destination? What exactly does tracking say for the last scan? Have you spoken with a postal investigator yet? Do they have any initial feelings on when/where they may have been taken?

I honestly don't see where you're going with this or what you want me to think about. What difference does it make to this discussion if the person killed was the one who made the 911 call?

What's your point? That if she got stabbed and died, she deserved it, so an intervention wasn't warranted?

I dunno, from the video it looks pretty clear that there was a high risk of the one girl getting stabbed right in the chest, which can easily be fatal even with first responders nearby. Other countries seem to have better results with less force, and I think that's something to strive for. But, I don't know how we get there. If you took someone else's police system and plopped it down here overnight, it would be a disaster.

Yes, it is. Sorry if I made it sound like I had inside info.

Just that it happened shortly after and seemed very rushed. There was very little time between when any flyers were informed of the change and when it went into effect. The software and processes were buggy and they've been very strict. They've now made a second wave of restrictions with this ban on coaching, which further makes it seem like they're reacting quickly vs. planning. I didn't see this injury happen, but I heard that unofficial coaching may have been a factor. It seems to fit. It's the best explanation I've heard so far, but if you think you have a better one, I'll listen.

I commented on several different issues--could you be more specific? edit: Here's the injury I was referring to.

This seems more like continued fallout from a life-changing injury than the financial issue. They could easily stop that practice without banning the coaching itself, if that's what they wanted. I don't see the issue. Maybe they would have designed it to be cheaper had they understood where their business model was going. Maybe they wouldn't have, because instructor demos are still important. Either way, it's a sunk cost. To me it seems like a safe assumption that this will be geared toward experienced flyers, and the margins would have to be set accordingly.

Right, and what I must have meant by that is that I expect a cop to have telepathic powers. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

I never suggested that and I won't--No idea where it came from. Obviously it's a judgement call and the decision can't be made perfectly every time. In scenarios where there will be continued opportunity (time, etc.) for a definitive intervention after a failed less invasive one, I agree completely. In cases where you only have one shot, surely you see the problem? It's definitely a last resort, but that doesn't imply that you must try other things first in all situations. Should a cop be expected to tase someone who is drawing a gun?

I've explicitly stated that I don't know the details of this case, so I don't know why you're accusing me of making "hecks" of assumptions. All I did was describe the conditions under which I believe lethal force is justified. If all your saying is that those conditions are not always present, or that they were not present in this case, then we have no disagreement.

I think it's important to distinguish an intentional slide vs. a botched run-out. I think most of us have been talking about intentional slides. I agree a slide is usually not the best recovery when standing up is intended. When you get to a certain point in canopy piloting (which I'm nowhere close to), it becomes physically impossible to run out a landing in some scenarios like intentional downwinders / distance runs. If Curt Bartholomew does it, it isn't wrong. I'll just continue doing what he tells me.

What I'm saying is if someone is about to be murdered, then lethal force is the correct first action, second action, and third action, etc. until the threat is neutralized.

You might be right. Literally everything I know about this situation I've gotten from a few posts in this thread.

I disagree--lunging at someone with a deadly weapon*** is about as justifiable as it gets for lethal force. I think a taser would have been inappropriate if that were the situation. ***If that's what happened--I haven't seen the video or read about it, I just saw that someone in this thread said that's what happened.

more like decimal

Keep dreaming

I'll concede that I misunderstood this point. I don't have much of an understanding of what the efficiency gains really are at 100% WOT or at 94% WOT compared to a typical cruise setting, but I can give the idea the benefit of the doubt. The idea overall is so far beyond what makes sense that these small details won't make the difference. I understand what you mean here. My point is that you can turn these knobs around however you want, and the engineering will never work out. As you change these parameters, you're not seeing the penalties of cost, weight, complexity, etc. Correct. And once you choose the amount of excess power that "makes sense" and try to design the entire system, you'll realize you're ending up with something worth less than the sum of its parts. The overlying problem is this thread has seemingly changed from a place where we try to apply math and engineering to come up with things that might actually work, to a place where we just spout out things that sound good. Yeah, harvesting wasted energy during descent to provide power for a go-around sounds great! Let's not bother with silly little details like... How much power will be recovered, how much is required for a go-around, how much it costs, and how much it weighs. The burden of evidence is on the person proposing the idea, and none has been presented.

It comes across as absurd, but it's important to appreciate that the accused is entitled to a trial, and their counsel is obligated to make the strongest case possible. If this is the best they can come up with, that's a reflection on how weak their case is and not necessarily on the competence of their counsel or some kind of problem with our system. If it sounds absurd to you, it probably does to the jury as well. It's okay.

That's why this mRNA technology is so promising--vaccines could be tailor-made to the individual.

I'm not straw-manning and I'm not saying logically you must have 100% combustion. I'm saying (1) the numbers will never work out, and (2) you absolutely must be able to go around, climb to avoid weather/traffic, etc. Cruising at 75-80% power already negates the original idea, which was to cruise at 100% power where engines are most efficient. Where did your numbers come from? Did you just make up numbers that you thought sounded good? We can make any idea sound good if there's no requirement for the engineering to be based in reality.

More challenging for sure, but it seems highly plausible at this point.