WBBFanWest

That doesn't mean it's racism though... It's much more likely that it's classism much more than racism. Just so happens that certain demographics are over represented in the poorest class and poverty and questionable behaviours that lead to run ins with police go hand in hand. I don't believe there is as much racism as people think. It's not like it's the middle class black people getting shot by police right? I tend to think this is a strong point. And while the outcome was 100% wrong and the actions of the cop at the end were 100% wrong, the victim was not walking down the street and was suddenly shot in the back by a racist cop. He had warrants. He was stopped for a traffic violation. He ran from police. According to his own brother (before they tried to change the narrative) he ran because he knew he would go to jail for warrants. it doesnt change the fact the cop should not have shot him. But it does add context to how events unfolded that day. We've seen incidents where a criminal attacks a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him and people argue that since it was only a knife the cop should have chosen some other action. And usually we say "dont attack a cop, you wont get shot". Losing your life is a consequence that far outweighs the infraction but it's still a sad fact that there is a very real chance the shooter in this case did not instigate events that ended with the victim's death. I hesitate to write that because I dont want to cloud the fact that the cop was wrong and murdered this guy. You have a strange way of seeing the world. What led to the victim's death was the officer aiming and firing his service pistol. That was the event that led to the death, nothing else, so yea, the shooter absolutely instigated the event. Unless you are arguing that the officer was firing a bunch of warning shots and the victim was running in front of them on purpose. Are you arguing that?

You don't need to say you've never been tased because your idea that people can "usually can run away" is wrong, unless you count lying on the ground and twitching as running. And as to whether these things are racially motivated or not, here's a relatively easy test. List all the unarmed black people that have been shot by white police in the past year or so. Now list all the unarmed white people shot by white officers. Compare.

How long will Buck's recovery be? Just kidding. Congratz to the new parents!

Does it have to be whole numbers? Because if not, 8.5 is available

My1st question (in two parts) was going to be, "Etcheverry? Seriously?" and my second would have been, "You said during the season that the run defense was fine, then after the season you said we need to get better at stopping the run. So for 2015, which opinion are you going to start the season with and when do you think you'll move to the other one?"

Being that our endzone is 20 yards deep, that makes field goals outside the 30 unlikely. That's going to reduce scoring and make last minute drives/field goals a lot more challenging. I'm not for this idea at all.

And only the blatantly naive think that they would actually be of any real use 99.99999% of the time. Smh.

Thank you. From the article: Currently, the cockpit voice recorder allows investigators to listen to the cockpit. But without video, they cannot fully understand the actions of the pilots or make safety enhancements to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. They can, through the flight data recorder and voice recorders, "see" exactly what the pilot is doing or not doing as the case may be. Do you honestly think that looking at the pilot's face as he's doing something is going to provide that "aha" moment? "See that sardonic smile he has when he turns off the autopilot? Clearly he has murder on his mind..." or "Hey, the video shows that he really did forget to lower the wheels. I know that we had no voice confirmation that the wheels were down and that the flight data recorder shows that they were never lowered but with this video, now we know!" or "Oh hey, look, he picked his nose right before it happened. We'll need the FAA to immediately ban nose picking in the cockpit." Honestly, if some in the NTSB want them, if seems that they can't really justify them or they would already be there. The FAA doesn't fool around with safety stuff.

If we can also mandate the use of a unicycle in some way, I'm all for it!

News Axiom: If it bleeds, it leads.

Me? lol Sorry, clicked the wrong one...

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested. Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday. Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators. Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... We don't need satellite gps in real time of planes either because I didnt hear anyone on cnn demand it. Well as far as I know, all commercial planes use satellite gps. What I think you are trying to say is that a lot of planes do not use real time satellite monitoring. Some do, but not many because of the high cost of satellite communications. There are some groups that are advocating installing the monitoring equipment in all aircraft but not activating it unless the plane's systems detect an issue or the crew turn it on. The discussion continues.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video...

What we are seeing today is the "We have to be seen doing something" syndrome, because the alternative is to admit the truth: there really is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. So you have the "we need camera" and the "we need two people in the cockpit at all times" demands, neither of which actually do anything to fix this problem. But at least it looks like someone's doing something.

Ummm, because the purpose of the bus camera is to monitor the passengers and/or the interaction of the driver with them. Neither of those is the issue with a cockpit cam. Seeing that a lot of agencies use dash cams, I expect you'd think that these would be a good idea on planes too?

In this case, the voice recorder captured steady breathing and the sound of someone trying to break down the door. The data recorder captured input command to drop altitude. A camera would confirm beyond all doubt that there was no medical issue. Body language could tell them a lot. It's a tool. So what doubt is there? It seems to me that if they are prepared to make a pronouncement this quickly, there must be some pretty strong, to the point of overwhelming, evidence to support it. It also appears to me that, for the most part, the only people who are calling for cameras are the people that don't actually do the investigating. If air crash investigators and regulators really believed that cameras were important, they'd already be on the plane. I'm pretty sure that no investigator is going to want to have to depend on a device that can be rendered useless with a post-it.

And the point of the camera would be what exactly? It's not going to prevent anything from happening and it doesn't appear that the investigators are having too much trouble figuring things out using just the voice recorder and later when they confirm it with the flight data recorder.. Again, if someone's going to do this, all the pictures in the world will not change anything. Personally, I think that watching the last moments of terror before someone dies are something that no one should have to do unless there's a real good reason to have to do it. Don't see that reason here. What would be useful is being able to track aircraft the are outside radar coverage so we never have to have another Korean Air Flight 902 or Air France Flight 447

The reality is that if a pilot or co-pilot wants to do something like this, there is pretty much no way to stop it. That's life sadly. We want to believe that we can prevent stuff from happening, but a lot of the time, we just can't. The illusion of control...

Alright guys, in fairness, if you lived in Saskatchewan, wouldn't you desperately want to be somewhere else and then send pictures to all your friends back home, just to show them that not only have you escaped, but you've learned to operate a camera too?.

Each time I go to Alberta, I'm reminded that the only bad part about it is the Albertans...

Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. His stance on political correctness is Big C Conservatism. No offence, but this makes no sense whatsoever. The phrase "big C Conservative" or "big L Liberal" is referring to someone belonging to a specific political party. Small c conservative is someone who holds a conservative ideology, completely different than belonging to the party. Maher is a classical liberal, which is usually called libertarian now. Ummm, libertarian<>liberal

I'll cut to the chase and tell you how the Viking series ends. They all end up in Minnesota and Gimli.

For those of you that are truly interested in educating yourselves about this isssue, I'd suggest this as a starting point: https://www.overdrive.com/media/966616/the-inconvenient-indian It's written to be more easily read than a lot of other books on the same topic, but it really does leave a lot of stuff out. Still, it is a good starting point for those who think that the residential school system was "a good idea, but poorly implemented" or have a "Pat indians on the head , treat them like children and tell them how wise valuable and interesting their old fables, traditions and culture are and beg them not to change a thing...." mentality.