薔薇語

But I think the problem we have here then is that what is that fear suppose to accomplish? Fear of possible consequences doesn't actually prevent serious crime - no, a belief that one will be apprehended does. But if you temper that apprehension with a butt load of fear of being shot down, felons will feel like they have every reason to shoot for the moon since they are going to die before getting to the police station anyway. That was one of the basic reasons we stopped having the death penalty for child rape cases - it only encouraged the rapist to kill the victims since he got the same punishment regardless but a dead child can't speak out against you in court and thus reduces your risk. People should feel safe around cops. People should know that cops DE-escalate situations and that when a cop draws their weapon it is an absolutely last line resort. Criminals should feel terrified in the knowledge that they will be CAUGHT not that they will be EXECUTED by the arresting cops. La Rose.

So, how classy are our cops? Classy enough to sing a joyful song about the killing of Micheal Brown at a retirement party. Vice news article about it. Heads need to roll like a d100 die for that. La Rose.

First, welcome back to the boards. It has been an extremely long time. Next up, though, I disagree. The Grand Jury process does not exist for the purposes of ascertaining guilt. Its principle purpose is to prevent over zealous or vindictive prosecutors from using their office to go after CLEARLY innocent people. If the prosecutor can not present a case without challenge strong enough to throw suspicion on the accused, then there should be no trial. That is the fundamental check that is built into our system with the use of the Grand Jury. That is why the Grand Jury decision has no far reaching consequences other than establishing or voiding the need for a trail. Now, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV), the types of evidence that is permissible in a Grand Jury inquiry is different in most states from the kind of evidence that is permissible in an actual trial. That is to say the burdens on the state are lowered. For example, polygraphs and hearsay are allowed, to my knowledge. This seems a bit too laxed in my opinion. So, I could agree with you in so far as saying that the standard for evidence in a Grand Jury and in an actual Trial ought to be largely if not completely the same. But I still think the Grand Jury processes should be a one-sided monologue for why the state has sufficient reason to go to a trial, that there must be a worthy level of culpability by the defendant. If they can't then the defendant must be clearly innocent - not innocent by technicality but clearly innocent such that a reasonable person couldn't actually assume any guilt. La Rose.

I disagree. Armed and violent felons should think they are going to be apprehended with all necessary force. Too often people think in this white and black dynamic where gunning down a guy is the only solution. It isn't and it should never be the standard mode of thinking. People have rights - violent and armed suspects have rights, too. And as has been mentioned before, police don't seem to discriminate very well between "this violent and armed felon might kill me right now" and "this guy on the street gave me a bad look". La Rose.

This, completely this! The cops have squandered the public trust so when they do things it is only natural for the public who is being robbed, molested, and killed by the hands of the cops to not trust them when they gun down someone. My first thought when I heard this story was "Did he really have a drawn on them or was he shot for giving a cop a bad look and thank heavens there was a gun somewhere near him the police could pin to him." Indeed, I still think the cops are probably lying about the incident but I most certainly do not have anything to back that up with at the moment other than their terrible history of lying about killing people without just cause, of course. La Rose.

Badger, I think you missed my counter. Our interactions with the police aren't like our interactions with our boss after we make a mistake. Completely innocent and law abiding citizens are being messed with, too. Just like that girl from Texas upthread. Luckily she was FWW: Filming While White, otherwise her choke old may have been a bullet hole. When even innocent and law abiding people are denied their basic rights because cops are too incompetent or foul to respect them, then we have no right. And post facto justice is rare and not enough. La Rose.

The bit you quoted of mine was not me "putting words in your mouth" anymore than you saying "But to claim that the police are somehow "safe" from harm is disingenuous" is putting words in my mouth. So, if you really want to go down this road of accusing me of doing things I didn't, feel free to not also do the action you accuse me of doing... I didn't claim you said anything other than I actually quoted. La Rose.

Okay, the following is a complaint from an overly entitled child who doesn't seem to understand thing one about capitalism: "What are you going to say to that? Ooh, I bet I can guess this one, too: “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.” But my individual choice not to buy Grand Theft Auto until they make this change has affected absolutely nothing over the years. I never bought a copy of any GTA game—not since my experiences seeing the third one at my friend’s house. And my decision has not affected Take Two at all." Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game should not be sold or that the game publishers should somehow magically adjust everything to fit you. This is a level of narcissism that is far too rampant in our society. Just because I don't like or buy Apple products doesn't mean I should expect them to somehow cave to my one personal demand. Next, while I have no desire to play GTA or any violence simulators it is disingenuous for the author to single out sex workers as somehow being extra put upon. They aren't. GTA and the like allow you to kill sex workers, that is right. Do you know who else they allow you to kill? EVERYONE! There is nothing special about the treatment of sex workers in the game than any other group. But the author knows that she can't make a case against the game on legit grounds so she is trying to drive up sympathy by pointing out how sex workers can be killed. Next, the author doesn't seem to understand the mechanics of the game, either. She says "[sex worker's] deaths have no in-game consequence". Well, guess what, that isn't true. If you kill any character, sex worker or not, in a public manner there are consequences. If you kill any character in a secluded place, there are only a few consequences at best. It isn't singling out sex workers but rather treating them the same way it treats every character in the game. Next up "I could link all day long..." Then do it. The problem is that there have been no credible studies that actually link in game violence with real life actions. If anything we have evidence to the opposite since violent crime has gone down year after year despite in game violence becoming more frequent, more gory, and more 'real' every day. But why should the author be expected to actually prove harm when she can just say it does. As to the actual Australian Petition: it was a worthless battle to wage. Target decided to take a game that has already been on selves for a year, that is likely not sold in any large quantity from them, and not directly sell it any more. Ten to one they bundled them all up and just sold them to another retailer at cost who would sell them. So they still made money while probably losing a few bucks in sales. As to the actual game itself (GTA in all its iterations): they seem like awful games. I really can't fathom why people would ever want to play such horrible trash. But then again, I find myself hard pressed to ever do any of the 'bad' actions available to me in any games. Heck, I find role playing anything less than a classically good or lawful neutral character to be uncomfortable. But those are my tastes. I know them and shop with an appreciation towards them. I encourage everyone to do the same. And I hope that enough people will have similar tastes to me such that only awesome games will get made. But I don't feel so entitled as the author as to assume every company must subscribe to my sensibilities. La Rose.

I didn't put words in your mouth. And don't talk to me about "lowering" myself especially when you claim I did something I didn't. La Rose.

"Don't kid yourself. The us vs. them thing goes both ways. It's a vicious cycle that isn't going to be broken any time soon, IMO." No doubt. And I will gladly start calling out murders like the above cop-killer when they happen. And you will see just as angry a post from me when we start letting such filth off after committing such heinous acts. But guess what, that isn't going to be happening. Cops get to deal out justice but never seemed to get it dealt to them. It is an us v them issue because cops refuse to live by the same rules. They make it an US vs THEM. "But to claim that the police are somehow "safe" from harm is disingenuous. Police officers have deal with violent people day in and day out. You seem to have no idea how warped some people truly are (which isn't a bad thing), or how many of them we cycle in and out of our prison system continually." I never claimed it to be a safe job. But it is SAFER to be a cop today than it has ever been in our history. And speaking of which, do you know who has a more dangerous job than cops: Loggers, Fishers, Pilots, Roofers, Construction workers, steel workers, Trashmen, electricians, truckers, and farmers. Oh, and lets top off the list with the best one: Absolutely any black kid in a big city. So excuse me if I am not buying into the 'poor defenseless cop' BS. They are given a badge and invested with all the powers that come with that - they also accept certain basic risks just like a Pilot has to. La Rose.

Here is a gem of a story. In Buffalo, NY, a cop does the absolutely horrible, evil, and puppy-hating act of trying to get her fellow cop to stop choking an already detained suspect. As a result of her absolutely wretched actions she got punched in the face, fired, and is about to lose access to her pension. I guess she should feel lucky, anyone else in her position would have just been murdered for daring to question police authority. Vice News story. La Rose.

"I said "fear" the cops? No, I suggested using a minimal level of common sense. If your boss chews you out for making a mistakes, do you react by cussing out your boss, or punching your boss? I hope not. People who do spend a lot of time unemployed." -- I said fear. You said we should act in a way consistent with fearing cops. Which we should because we need to fear the cops these days. And there is a vast difference between a boss chewing you out when you make a mistake and a Cop brutalizing you when you have done nothing wrong. People should never have to worry about getting beat up, arrested, or killed by the cops when they have done nothing wrong. But in the world we live in we are expecting people to bend over and take it just because some jerk in a uniform wants to get their rocks off. And if we as the citizenry can't demand our rights be respect on the spot then there is a strong argument to made that we have NO rights. "How many dirty cops do you suppose there are though?" You are right to assume that my opinion of the average cop is that low. I really don't think any cop is worth the time of the day these days. I will not go out on the extreme limb and say that the majority are murders but I will say that the majority have no moral qualms about covering for their murderous friends. Given how many daily stories we get about these jerks it isn't hard to have this view. We had the story I posted just a bit ago about a maniac cop. And there is no doubt that if the person he threatened with a gun wasn't a respected politician he would have gotten away with it. The person that filmed the Eric Garner murder found himself harassed and arrested by cops soon after - that isn't just a couple bad eggs, that is a culture of corruptions and complacency. We had the California highway patrolman who would steel nude and otherwise compromising photos of young women he pulled over and sent it around to all his cop friends because, to paraphrase him, "everyone is in on it". And he still didn't think anything was wrong with it after he was caught doing so. Cops, despite their B''''ing and whining are safer now than they have ever been. It is like how people these days complain about how violent the world is and how much safer it was back in the day - guess what, that is a lie. People are safer today than they have ever been. Cops are safer now than they have ever been - probably because enough people realize that cops are just one bad look away from executing you. Do cops have an easy job? No, they don't. That is why I always tried to give them the pass. But you know what, I don't care. They get stable job and are paid to deal with that stuff. They're big boys now playing with big boy toys. They need to be held to a high standard - and that includes accepting a certain amount of risk to make sure they aren't murdering a defenseless 12 year old. They need to accept some risks so they don't choke a clearly harmless man to death. They need to accept some risk and not shoot a boy who already surrendered like some Judge-Dread wanna be executioner. They need to accept some F'ing risks because at the end of the day, that is what they are F'ing paid to do. If they can't then they need to turn in their badge and get the F' out of the police force. La Rose.

If a man in a big white unmarked van almost runs you off the road what do you do? Honk your horn at him? I think that seems normal. Well, I have news for you, NEVER do that in Arizona. The person in that van may then choose to follow you, try to knocked you off the road and then pull a gun on you. And why am I bringing that up in THIS thread? Because of course that man will be a police officer. Road Rage Maniacs with Guns just seem to fit right in with the modern US police department. Well, I guess everyone deserves a job, right? Here is a link to a fox10phoenix report about it. La Rose.

I have no doubt that people had conflicting accounts of the murdering in Missouri, but the fact that there are conflicting accounts isn't a good reason to NOT go to trial. The prosecutor didn't want to go to trial and risk actually prosecuting a cop. He would either win and piss off all his dirty cop friends or lose and risk disbarment because he threw the trial. And rather than step up and acknowledge that he had no desire to prosecute he pulls in a Grand Jury where he does absolutely every thing he can to throw it so that they dismiss it. Absolutely NO witnesses for the cop should have been brought up . Absoltuely NO counter arguments for the cop should have been brought up. The grand jury is NOT a trial and does not operate the same way as one. It is solely a quick check on the prosecutor's authority to insure he isn't being frivolous with his judgement. And unless you are comfortable in saying that there was absolutely NO way for the state to make a case, then it should have gone to trial. A grand jury coming back with a no is not them saying "there is reasonable doubt" or that there isn't a "preponderance of the evidence" but that there is NO justifiable reason to go to trial. It is like when a judge throws out a frivolous civil court case based on his initial reading. It is a declaration that no reasonable person could assume culpability by the defendant. But it shouldn't be that way. Cops ought to know the laws and people ought not be afraid to live inside those rules. But too often cops overstep their reasonable authority without repercussion. Too often we have cops stealing from citizenry, molesting / raping the citizenry, and killing us without any good reason but still getting away with it. People should never have to fear the cops but god-damnit, cops have done a bang up job at making sure we all have to fear them. The fact that you talk about people needing to be scared how they interact with cops lest they get hurt as if that is somehow a normal and okay way of thinking is not acceptable. La Rose.

Another story of po-po being poor-po-po just popped up in my feed. Anyone want to watch as an ignorant piece of excriment cop brutalizes a 76 old man because he (the cop) doesn't even F*ing know the rules he is suppose to be enforcing? If so, feel free to click away. Huff post article with video. My favorite quote was ""I told the officer, 'What in the hell are you doing?' This gentleman is 76 years old," sales manager Larry Urich told the newspaper. "The cop told me to stand back, but I didn't shut up. I told him he was a goddamn Nazi Stormtrooper." La Rose.

I saw that news story earlier today. It is tragic. I wish the best for the families of the deceased officers. ---- From the article "Some union leaders suggested the mayor had sent a message that police officers were to be feared" Could it be because the police are to be feared? Not many other groups of people have free license to murder people. "“There is blood on many hands tonight,” the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said outside Woodhull Hospital. He added, “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor.”" This guy sounds like a big jerk. If anyone is to blame for the bad imagine the police have it is he and his ilk for harassing and killing the citizenry. Is there a single police department in the US that has enough brains to recognize that the problem isn't protesters, it is that POLICE keep giving people reasons to protest. La Rose.

The Young Turks did a bit about one of the 'witnesses' that the dirt bag prosecutor used to throw the case prove his case. I haven't had a chance to check other sources yet so take it for what its worth. La Rose.

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I meant my exact set up would make for a good post-apoc version because it is so easy to have the world go to hell in a pinch when things like the above occur. La Rose.

I think you are right. The entire concept of ley lines being the whole source of power doesn't lend itself well to champions in my opinion. Especially in the manner outlined above. But I think it would be a great pulp, fantasy, post-apoc setting. And there is enough room for one to have something akin to caped crusaders, just not quite as easily. La Rose.

Well, if you assume that most of the last few hundred years of human activity were unchanged due to there being no or only weak ley lines, then I think the scenario wherein they develop in the 20th century, especially if it comes about suddenly, will cause extreme panic. People will be clamoring to claim those positions of power because of what they believe is potentially possible. In the early days they most certainly may take it forgranted that the points of power are limited and thus the ability for those points to interact and affect outside environments is limited. But not knowing that every world power might fight over trying to claim them. I think that if you want to have an interesting wold story you could use a bit of pulp inspiration: We already know that the NAZIs had a peculiar fascination with the occult but what if there was something to it? Imagine a world in which long ago there was a great shaman in central Europe who, when facing down a great evil, decided the only way to stave off the rising darkness was to plunge the world into a new darkness - one without magic. Gathering all his might he sealed away almost all the leylines that transversed the world. Now, a few millennium later the NAZIs learn of this storied past and learn that the only way to remove the shaman's seal is with the shaman's blood. Now of course the shaman is long dead and there is no way to actually resurrect him because he sealed away such magics. BUT his bloodline didn't die with him. No, it continued on with his children. A few of whom moved Southeast into the Arab peninsula and intermingled with the locals - including the Israeli populations. And while there was no way to determine who among the then current Jewish population was a carrier of his blood, it was a safe bet that some sizable portion of the Jewish population would carry that shaman's blood. Thus the 'final solution' wasn't actually about eradicating the Jewish people out of simply racism, no, it was part of Hitler's and the SS's plan to revive the German power nodes so as to gain an advantage in the war. And it worked. In a terrible uprising Germany is plunged into a great darkness as the final drops of blood hit the great seals below (pick a city). The NAZIs were not prepared to deal with the aftermath, though. The monsters, including the great dark one once again roamed the land. While their magics and powers were limited to the nodes of power, their manifestations and corporeal bodies were not, so they posed terrible threats even outside of the nodes. Now with a war on each front plus extreme Chaos inside the NAZIs fell within days to a week. But not before trying to bomb the infernal abomination back to hell. Eventually the Allies had to step in and end this uprising but their conventional weapons didn't have the effects they needed to have. The US had to divert their Nuke program away from the pacific theater and onto the issue of stopping the great darkness. Many people lost their lives flying the mission but with Berlin and Dresden now turn to ash it seemed like the darkness was at last defeated. But that was only the beginning. The towering monsters of evil may have been vanquished but the nodes of power remained. The mix of evil, magic, and nuclear-fallout combined to twist the land and all those unfortuante souls in it. The world looked on with horror as new abmonations came forth. And the allies all knew that the forces at work in those cities must be put under control. Each nation vied for control and thus the rise of the cold / hot war between the Soviets, Brits, French, and Americans. ---- This situation leaves Japan mostly alone but of course they were already in a losing battle but now with the Geopolitical situation being changed it allows you to create any possible modern landscape you want. You can easily justify a hot war between the various powers as they try to claim Berlin and Dresden. And in wasting so much on trying to do so, they are not prepared for when alternate nodes of power appear around the world and soon their resources wear thin. New world orders can then easily be created with whatever systems you think appropriate. Anyway, that is just an idea. La Rose.

Story from Vice news: "Woman Arrested for Saying 'F*** the Police' Awarded $100,000 Settlement" A bit of good news I guess. La Rose.

I wonder if you mean for these to be recent phenomenon or things that have existed since before man. If it is the latter, then I think you would see the biggest shift in the world as it is today. Things that spring to mind before of that shift are: Societies probably wouldn't invest in technological development as much because of access to alternatives. Heck, people might view "science" as little more than magic through foci. For that matter, how are the laws of physics different inside the lines of power and are they consistently different inside each layline? That is to say, if water boils at 80c in Layline 1 on Tuesday, does it still boild at 80c on Friday? Even if the lines and nodes of power are internally consistent, are they externally consistent with each other? That is to say, that if the NYC nodes allows for magic healing spells to work by doing X, does the Mt. Fuji Nexus allow healing spells to work by doing X or must one do Y? This could have MASSIVE effects on how people develop in each area if it is the latter. If one node has X properties of healing while another has Y properties of death, you might see the cultural values that people develop around those distinct points as being quite different. I know things of a magical or otherwise super nature are limited to the laylines but are they transferable between laylines? For example, if I create a potion of healing in X node, can I take that potion out of the node, walk across the inactive wasteland and enter node Y and still use that potion of healing? Does it change properties?As a consequence of it staying the same you encourage some level of trade between nodes. Armies that go to war will be able to anticipate what things can and will happen when they enter new realms (and vice versa). If they don't stay the same, then trade would likely be harder to do and thus encourage more independence between groups and maybe discourage wars. Because of the laylines, are there any resources that can ONLY be found on the line of power? Does Mythril, for example, only form under laylines? Heck, does it only develop under certain lines? Do these materials have the ability of being transfer out into the normal world without loss of properties? While powers and such can not be transferred out, can effects? For example, if Storm were to create the world's most powerful hurricane over the Miami node, could she release it and let it travel over the inactive northern Florida zone as punishment to all those heathens outside of her node? Can any aspect of the lines of power change? Are they only changed naturally and can not be interfered with or can people affect them? Could the Cabal of Cannibalistic Cretins change their layline of Loving Awesomeness so that it aligns with the land of rotten flesh thus boosting their powers? --- Anyway, that was some quick brainstorming of things that I see as being important issues. Please bear with the very rough draft nature of it. La Rose.

Images does seem like the simpliest way to go without having to diviate that much from your basic special effect. Another way would be to use something like "Change Environment" to trigger a PER roll where-in failure means they get a bad feeling. But if they pass nothing happens. La Rose.

I believe it is originally a vocaloid song that Wagakki covered. Indeed, they tend to do that a lot. And a quick google search seems to support that view. La Rose.

I think that police have good reason to be armed at most all times. If for no other reason than we can't really be sure when a gun will or will not be needed so it is best to err on the side of safety. That said, cops seem to be far too trigger happy. La Rose.