|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Uh... what? So we'd now have 6 Service branches?
WASHINGTON –– Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
As the House Armed Services Committee prepares to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the strategic forces subcommittee — which oversees military space matters — released its proposed additions to the bill. The subcommittee has scheduled a formal legislative mark-up session for Thursday.
The subcommittee’s top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, and top Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, said the subcommittee’s mark would require the Air Force to establish the Space Corps to serve “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force.”
“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”
“Thus, Congress has to step in,” the statement continues. “We must act now to fix national security space and put in place a foundation for defending space as a critical element of national security. Therefore, our Mark will require the creation, under the Secretary of the Air Force, of a new Space Corps, as a separate military service responsible for national security space programs for which the Air Force is today responsible. We view this as a first, but critical step, to fixing the National Security Space enterprise.”
The Space Corp would be led by its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, the bill says. It would be a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force.
The subcommittee’s markup of the bill would also set up a U.S. Space Command that would be a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command, a move lawmakers hope would improve the integration of space operations in warfighting.
The subcommittee’s action on the NDAA is one of the early steps in a lengthy legislative process. The bill would still need to get approval from the full committee before it could be debated by the House, but the chamber isn’t expected to vote on the NDAA until after the Fourth of July holiday. The legislation would also need to pass the Senate, which is working on a defense authorization bill of its own. The House and Senate must pass identical bills before sending the legislation to the White House to be signed into law by the president.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is not scheduled to hold its full markup of the NDAA until June 28.
Current Air Force leadership opposes setting up a Space Corps. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he believes the move would only cause confusion.
“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialog open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”
Source
|
I know we discussed the incident at length already, but the actual footage of Philando's shooting has surfaced. The incident unfolds very quickly.
Let this put to bed any notion that what the officer did was OK, and that what Philando himself did was wrong. I am appalled, and deeply upset, that a jury watched this and still found in favor of Officer Yanez.
|
On June 21 2017 07:27 NewSunshine wrote:I know we discussed the incident at length already, but the actual footage of Philando's shooting has surfaced. Let this put to bed any notion that what the officer did was OK, and that what Philando himself did was wrong. I am appalled that a jury watched this and still found in favor of Officer Yanez.
Because the barrier for lethal force is that the officer feels threatened, not that he is in clear and present danger.
And because such a situation is easy to create and almost impossible to disprove he acted within the law by using lethal force. And the jury did the 'right' thing by judging him within the law.
I'm not saying it should be acceptable, and the guy deserve to go to jail for it but the law allows it.
|
On June 21 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh... what? So we'd now have 6 Service branches? Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON –– Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
As the House Armed Services Committee prepares to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the strategic forces subcommittee — which oversees military space matters — released its proposed additions to the bill. The subcommittee has scheduled a formal legislative mark-up session for Thursday.
The subcommittee’s top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, and top Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, said the subcommittee’s mark would require the Air Force to establish the Space Corps to serve “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force.”
“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”
“Thus, Congress has to step in,” the statement continues. “We must act now to fix national security space and put in place a foundation for defending space as a critical element of national security. Therefore, our Mark will require the creation, under the Secretary of the Air Force, of a new Space Corps, as a separate military service responsible for national security space programs for which the Air Force is today responsible. We view this as a first, but critical step, to fixing the National Security Space enterprise.”
The Space Corp would be led by its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, the bill says. It would be a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force.
The subcommittee’s markup of the bill would also set up a U.S. Space Command that would be a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command, a move lawmakers hope would improve the integration of space operations in warfighting.
The subcommittee’s action on the NDAA is one of the early steps in a lengthy legislative process. The bill would still need to get approval from the full committee before it could be debated by the House, but the chamber isn’t expected to vote on the NDAA until after the Fourth of July holiday. The legislation would also need to pass the Senate, which is working on a defense authorization bill of its own. The House and Senate must pass identical bills before sending the legislation to the White House to be signed into law by the president.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is not scheduled to hold its full markup of the NDAA until June 28.
Current Air Force leadership opposes setting up a Space Corps. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he believes the move would only cause confusion.
“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialog open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”
Source
Rumor is they first tried to name it the Astra Militarum and then the Adeptus Astartes. Sadly GW pulled the trademark card.
|
Wow that footage. I can understand being acquited of certain charges due to an extremely lenient law writing that holds police officers to a standard lower than that of the citizenry. What I wonder about is if is he still allowed to operate as a police officer? A person madly firing 7 shots at point blank range has already proven himself unfit mentally for the job.
|
|
|
On June 21 2017 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 07:27 NewSunshine wrote:I know we discussed the incident at length already, but the actual footage of Philando's shooting has surfaced. Let this put to bed any notion that what the officer did was OK, and that what Philando himself did was wrong. I am appalled that a jury watched this and still found in favor of Officer Yanez. Because the barrier for lethal force is that the officer feels threatened, not that he is in clear and present danger. And because such a situation is easy to create and almost impossible to disprove he acted within the law by using lethal force. And the jury did the 'right' thing by judging him within the law. I'm not saying it should be acceptable, and the guy deserve to go to jail for it but the law allows it.
It's particularly upsetting because the footage removes all doubt as to how Philando told the officer about his gun - specifically to de-escalate any possible surprises that would result in his getting shot. In a matter of seconds the officer unloads into him because of what he said. Nothing about this is OK.
|
On June 21 2017 07:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 07:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2017 07:27 NewSunshine wrote:I know we discussed the incident at length already, but the actual footage of Philando's shooting has surfaced. Let this put to bed any notion that what the officer did was OK, and that what Philando himself did was wrong. I am appalled that a jury watched this and still found in favor of Officer Yanez. Because the barrier for lethal force is that the officer feels threatened, not that he is in clear and present danger. And because such a situation is easy to create and almost impossible to disprove he acted within the law by using lethal force. And the jury did the 'right' thing by judging him within the law. I'm not saying it should be acceptable, and the guy deserve to go to jail for it but the law allows it. It's particularly upsetting because the footage removes all doubt as to how Philando told the officer about his gun - specifically to de-escalate any possible surprises that would result in his getting shot. In a matter of seconds the officer unloads into him because of what he said. Nothing about this is OK.
If anything, it proves that current laws are not sufficient to hold police accountable. That is not sustainable long term.
And I am shocked we have not seen civil unrest as a result of this ruling and tape.
|
thats bullshit. How can a jury not find this guy guilty after showing the tape of the execution? Can the family go for a civil lawsuit or something?
|
On June 21 2017 08:38 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
thats bullshit. How can a jury not find this guy guilty after showing the tape of the execution? Can the family go for a civil lawsuit or something?
Because he operated within the boundaries of the law.
The law might be bullshit but so long as the barrier of lethal force is an emotional state of the officer your going to have stuff like this happen and them getting away with it.
|
"Announcement of this has pissed off several people among 4-chan, reddit and youtube".
Oh my!
|
On June 21 2017 08:38 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
thats bullshit. How can a jury not find this guy guilty after showing the tape of the execution? Can the family go for a civil lawsuit or something?
the family can go for a civil lawsuit; that has a decent chance of success, and generally gets a few million dollars.
In some jurisdictions the legal standard applicable for use of force is lower than it should be, and immorally low. Also, sometimes jurors just give cops far more benefit of the doubt than is appropriate. the prosecution often does an intentionally lousy job when going after cops, so as to let them get off.
|
thats pretty revolting that this guy is dead solely because he was black. I find the comments about him being reckless because he smoked dope in his car with his children in the backseat to be an insult to intelligence.
I hope the family can sue the shit out of that cop and the police department so the kids can get taken care of.
|
On June 21 2017 08:58 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
thats pretty revolting that this guy is dead solely because he was black. I find the comments about him being reckless because he smoked dope in his car with his children in the backseat to be an insult to intelligence.
I hope the family can sue the shit out of that cop and the police department so the kids can get taken care of.
Sounds like something the AG Jeff Sessions would cosign. Just imagine all of the stories that don't have camera footage, or it's deleted/obscured/"lost"/etc...
If you think what you've been hearing about is too much too frequent, know that it's actually worse.
|
Dunno if anyone else is following the special elections closely, but the results will probably be pretty interesting and spun into oblivion. Probably going to be something for everyone: odds are on a narrow R win in Georgia, but the under-the-radar SC race is looking waaaaaay closer than anyone expected (though still an R win).
|
I mean you probably shouldn't be smoking pot in an enclosed space with a child, but beside the shooting that's so minor as to be irrelevant.
Is the threshold for lethal force that low in the whole US or is this just a particularly lax jurisdiction? That seems like a pretty big problem.
|
Watching that video makes me appreciate living in a country where virtually all serious violence happens between rivaling gangs - without innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.
What a messed up world
|
out of curiosity
What do you guys think would have been the text book, as close to failproof as possible-way for that (/those) officer(s) to handle a situation like that where someone confesses to being armed - in a country as violent as USA?
|
On June 21 2017 10:26 HKTPZ wrote:
out of curiosity
What do you guys think would have been the text book, as close to failproof as possible-way for that (/those) officer(s) to handle a situation like that where someone confesses to being armed - in a country as violent as USA?
Violent crime rates are at an all-time low in the US. Reporting on violence and the influence of the media to shape narratives is at an all-time high in the US. Cops are dogshit for the most part and the state gives them cover and propaganda.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/us-crime-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-low
Being a policeman isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in this country - in fact, it's pretty darn safe. The "I feared for my life" so I killed him/her is the biggest bunch of BS. Real warriors facing real danger have higher standards of engagement (re: military in combat zones overseas). Cops are big bunch of pussies and the media fuels the flames of misconception about the state of crime in this country.
PS: Chicago, Baltimore and DC are all hell-holes and they all have the same things in common. One party rule, corruption out the wazoo, strict gun laws, drugs being illegal which give rise to violent gangs, etc. For our overseas folks don't buy the false narrative of the US from the media, even if you have a bias to fear and hate guns. Crime rates are historically low - the US is one of the safer places to live in the world.
|
On June 21 2017 10:40 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 10:26 HKTPZ wrote:
out of curiosity
What do you guys think would have been the text book, as close to failproof as possible-way for that (/those) officer(s) to handle a situation like that where someone confesses to being armed - in a country as violent as USA? Violent crime rates are at an all-time low in the US. Reporting on violence and the influence of the media to shape narratives is at an all-time high in the US. Cops are dogshit for the most part and the state gives them cover and propaganda. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/us-crime-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-lowBeing a policeman isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in this country - in fact, it's pretty darn safe. The "I feared for my life" so I killed him/her is the biggest bunch of BS. Real warriors facing real danger have higher standards of engagement (re: military in combat zones overseas). Cops are big bunch of pussies and the media fuels the flames of misconception about the state of crime in this country.
All-time low in the US does not mean low compared to other countries. That said, I suspect the points you are making are fairly reasonable - still my question remains unanswered: what in your opinion would have been the proper way to go about the situation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
