Policefreak55

Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me solve this issue. I'm currently using LSPDFR 0.4, and Ultimate Backup 1.4.4.0 (as well as misc. callout plugins). I have my backup configured to have a spawn distance to simulate realistic response times for backup units, however none of these units show up to assist on the pursuit. Upon checking the RPH console, it is showing something along the lines of this: From what I've gathered from this, there's an issue with the officers spawning too far away. Upon first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything that would cause an issue in my Ultimate Backup ini. Is this something new with LSPDFR 0.4? If so, is there a way to disable this or request an option to disable the distance limit? Any help would be appreciated!

This definitely has the potential to be the successor to the old LCPDFR MDC, if anyone remembers it. There was another, Pro MDC, that was in development at one time, but I believe he isn't working on it anymore. Hopefully we see some more neat stuff come out of this, I'll be looking forward to it!

Ohhhh man, this post is gettin' me right there... nope, don't, awww you did it! There go them feels! I have to say that FC:RP was one of the best times I've had gaming. The roleplay there was some of the best to be had (with some fun to be had too, like giving a full police escort to the man street sweeping the roads out on route 9, the real roleplay MVP), and I met a lot of great guys too who I still keep in touch with. It's nice to see these pictures of the server (I even see me too!) and rehash the old memories from back then. Gooooood times.

I remember going to the Canton Municipal Building and City Hall back in middle school. I met a lot of great people, among them are a few that I still remember. The first person I met was Judge Frank Forchione, at the time though he was a Canton city prosecutor. He was, and still is, a very firm man, and his no-nonsense judicial practices reflect that. The second, was a Canton K-9 officer and his furry partner, who for the life of me I can not remember their names, which is regrettable. They were extremely kind, answering questions, showing off their vehicle, even allowing me to take a video of the lights. These guys are a really cool group, and it is a damn shame that this happened. Just glad to see the outpouring of community support. I will definitely be at the funeral services to honor K9 Jethro.

But he was approached by the other party to the fight AFTER retreating to his car, as I understand it. At what point can you say the altercation ended with absolute certainty without knowing the details of what transpired? Was the fight continuing while he retreated towards his car? What was the distance to the car from the sight where the altercation occured? He had a friend with him as well, what was happening to him in this instance? Was he still fighting? Was there alcohol involved? Which would open him up to a litany of charges regarding possession and storage while intoxicated. Who started the fight? All questions with no answers for the general public. It doesn't look good with what we've been given, but neither did the Zimmerman or Wilson cases (thanks a lot, social media). Cooler heads prevail, which is why I will choose to wait and see what the prosecutor has to say in court, as well as the defense. I appreciate your intentions, but your satire's sole intent is to ridicule and insult the other side (you even did it in your post again whether you realize it or not). You never heard that argument from me, and I'm what some would consider "pro-gun". Okay, now show us a society with as large and open aired of a gang culture. It's in rap videos, on the streets of metropolitan cities. It was even worse in the decades running up to now (firearms deaths, as well as all crime, has been in a steady decline. I like to think advancements in law enforcement and community policing as well as pro-active measures helped with that). The fact is some of our largest areas have the worst socio-economic standings in our country. Just like the greater LA area in the 60s and 70s, people banded together to form these gangs, which are now used for feuds and nefarious purposes all around. I'm using the Hebdo attack as an example of a shooting because it literally was, by definition, a shooting. People were shot and killed. There's video of it if you don't believe me. It's not as if I'm saying planes are guns, but guns are... well, guns. The political or ideological message attached has no bearing on the fact that people were shot with weapons and died. Yes, I do like statistics, so when your same link shows us that we have 2.9 firearms deaths per 100,000, while they have 18.1 firearms deaths per 100,000 (more recent figures put it higher, at 21 per 100,000, and rate of almost 100 firearms related deaths every day), it tells me that we have a lot more killing to do before we are on par with a country that has a low ownership rate of firearms (around 8 per 100 residents) and a large number of deaths contributed to them.

Yes but he only used it after being approached by someone else, and identifying himself as an armed person. To be able to fully understand his mindset at the time (totality of circumstances), we'd need a whole lot more than what the news is giving us. Arizona is a stand your ground state, so he had no duty to retreat (even though stories show he did retreat to his vehicle, depending on how you interpret his actions). Unfortunately I'd like to know more to form an opinion. However, given the information, I can't form one, and I don't see them releasing much more since this is a pending trial, and prosecutors do not want to taint their potential jury pool, we won't be getting much more until the trial I'd imagine. What I would like to know is, what were the victims doing at the time of the shooting when they approached him. What did they say, how were they positioned, their stances. I want to see any photos, things like that.Injuries to the shooter would be a big help. They helped to establish credible assault stories for Officer Darren Wilson and everyone's favorite Floridian George Zimmerman. Right now, we just don't have enough information. No it wasn't the best, but given their involvement in World War I and their contributions compared to others, it's understandable why they didn't receive as much as other nations participating in the Treaty of Versailles. Japan was getting over three-fourths of their domestic oil supply from imports, mostly from the U.S., Britain, and the Dutch government in exile (exiled when they surrendered to Germany after a week-long invasion, part of Fall Gelb. The Germans, to circumvent the Maginot Line along the France-Germany border, decided to go through the Ardennes in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, since France didn't think Germany would be so bold to attempt it, and France's mighty Maginot ended up being not quite as effective as they'd have hoped). When the Second Sino-Japanese War began, They needed that oil from somewhere, since most of their oil suppliers embargoed them for their actions in Manchuria and China, as well as out of fear of expansion into the Pacific, and more specifically, the Dutch East Indies, which were rich in oil, and still under control of the exiled government. The entire reason we moved our Pacific Fleet from Cali to Pearl was a show of force towards Japan, in case they decided to continue expansion into the pacific (we see how well that move turned out). It was do or die, so to keep their conquests and secure their materials, they decided to launch a preemptive attack on Western forces. Absolutely, the successor to the League isn't much of a step up from the dissolution of the League in 1935, and the Abyssinian incident is a good parallel to the U.N. response to Russian involvement in Ukraine. When forced with an obvious show of defiance and military involvement, the aggressors in both incidents were met with nothing but economic sanctions. However, after Japan was exposed for their involvement in the Mukden incident, and their renegade army invasion of Manchuria using that as a pretense, they had no choice but to leave their seat. History's a very important topic, I love it lol. Japan's always had a bit of an imperialistic bug in them since early dynasty periods, and I think their post- surrender pacifism days are wearing thin, with their most recent bill allowing the JSDF to operate in more than a self sefense policy, and assist allies in foreign engagements. Of course China's expansion in the South China Sea isn't quelling anyone's fears of conflict. DAMN YOU, PACIFIC ISLANDS!!!!!!

Now, I prefer to wait until all the facts are clear before forming an opinion, however after reading another article about the encounter, I'm pretty torn between whether this was self defense or not. Jones is claiming that, after being struck in the face, he returned to his car for his pistol, and ended up firing at an approaching person after announcing he was armed, and even surrendered himself to a samaritan present at the scene. http://www.kpho.com/story/30255251/court-documents-reveal-moments-leading-up-to-deadly-nau-shooting I remember a few years ago that six people were shot at a fraternity party in Akron after a fight. That being said, Akron is not a friendly place, especially after dark. Just to clarify some things, here we go, because World War II is my shiz: The Japanese really began their tirade in 1931 with their invasion of Manchuria, leading up to the eventual start of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Depending on who you ask, some would say Japan was responsible for some of the worst atrocities of World War II (see the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731). Somewhere in between, in 1933, Hitler gained his rise to power when President von Hindenburg granted Hitler the position of Chancellor. However, Hitler's invasion would have ventured further than Europe, as he looked towards Russia and the Far East for lebensraum (living space) for the Germanic people, regardless of our involvement in World War II (he outlined his plans for expansion in Mein Kampf, which he wrote while in prison for the Munich Putsch of '22). Hitler had actually begun his expansion plan before Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, launching Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, in June of '41 (delayed from an initial launch date in May of the same year). The only reason Hitler had declared war alongside Japan was because of the Axis pact, the same reason we declared war on them. Technically, even though we were not directly involved in combat, we had been involved in the war since the beginning, giving over billions of dollars in lend-lease equipment to China, the Soviet Union, Britian, France, and other Allied nations. Japan had actually gotten a pretty sweet deal out of the Treaty, including governance over all of Germany's territories in Asia and the Pacific, and a permanent position in the League of Nations. (Sources: My bookshelf.) You do, it probably just doesn't get as much coverage, but there's crazies everywhere, in every nook and cranny. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7771505/Video-game-fanatic-hunts-down-and-stabs-rival-player-who-killed-character-online.html There's other sorts of crazies too: http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/german-nurse-says-sorry-for-killing-over-30-patients-in-thrill-seeking-game http://www.nbcnews.com/id/57525243/ns/world_news-europe/t/man-kills-three-ploughing-suv-austrian-shoppers/#.Vh8ZFflViko And who can forget the recent Hebdo attack earlier this year? I put my thoughts and comments in the quote in bold, just some things I wanted to point out and discuss. And there will always be ad hominems thrown around all over the place stereotyping the response and views from people who don't share the same viewpoint as you. Tsk tsk. These situations are moments for reflection and discussion about underlying social constructs that could contribute to incidents and what we can do to better prevent incidents like this from happening again, in my case while respecting the rights and wishes of a people. I believe a responsible, peaceable society with firearms exists. One where these tragic incidents never occur. It already exists in small sub societies within the U.S. Tell me why, the District of Columbia, can have a population of roughly 600,000, a firearm ownership rate of 3.7%, and a firearm homicide rate of 16.7 per 100,000? Did I mention they also have what would be considered some of the strictest firearms laws on the books? NOW tell me why Vermont, can have a population of roughly 625,000, a firearm ownership rate of 42%, and a firearm homicide rate of 0.3 per 100,000? A state that has no registration requirement, and allows open carry and concealed carry without permits (what is known as constitutional carry). A state that was given an F by the Brady Scorecard on gun laws, has the lowest gun murder rate out of all 50 states (coincidentally, D.C., which was included in the first scorecard ever issued by the Brady Campaign, no longer appears to be scored). Discussing possible solutions is fine and dandy, even proactive in finding THE solution. However, when you are verbally insulting others and demeaning them or their intelligence because of another viewpoint, that's just a dirty pool, mister.

Guns are only as dangerous as the person and their intents. Guns are absolutely tools, and have MANY different purposes. For people who live in rural areas, they are their sole source of sustenance. There are still people who don't, or choose, not to have access to structured civilization, or can't financially. For these people, game is the only feasible access to food they have. Hunting has every right to be included in a conversation about firearms, because game is a very important topic when it comes to human survival. They are also very essential in crop survival. Firearms are used for pest control, because varmints will destroy crops intended for others. This not only destroys food, but income as well. I will take a moment to use an anecdote. I met this kind old woman, 102 years old. She ran a farm nearby, and had been having pest problems, as groundhogs had been destroying her potential harvest. Because of her old age, there was nothing she could do, so a few of us had volunteered to help secure her harvest and remove them. Without that help, her crop would have been significantly destroyed, and her diminished income would have put her in a financial strain. This is a service that is absolutely vital to the survival of all farms' harvests. And of course, they are used for recreation, just like archery, which was another invention designed for warfare that has been transformed by modern society. There are many national shooting sports that people compete in, and they are very popular among people People who do not intend to kill anyone, they simply love shooting. As they say, you can not speak about something until you have tried it for yourself. I can tell you have never used a firearm before, and convincing yourself that because you are shooting a gun you are training to kill someone, is a very narrow minded view (unfortunately one that many share). Simply because one uses a firearm, does not make them psycho. Simply enjoying the sporting of it and the rush, does not make them psycho, because that is the body's natural reaction to adrenaline and dopamine releases. It is what that person is doing, or using a weapon for, that potentially makes them psycho. Gun control just doesn't work that way, thankfully, because people have civil liberties and personal freedom. There is a place and a need for law, but to overstretch the limits and impositions on a people invites a very dystopic and authoritarian future. What you described, already happens, and people still are able to obtain illegally purchased firearms. Identifying the people most at risk of doing harm, and preventing them from obtaining it, while allowing those legally allowed to do so the ability, is what saves innocent lives, and protects rights and freedoms. We don't allow anyone and everyone to own guns, that's why we have the NICS and 4473s, and we don't support psychotics either, but that was a nice straw man.

Except there's no international, or for that matter, national standard for the definition of a "mass shooting". These shootings such as Oregon, SPREE shootings, happen infrequently, while anti-firearm propaganda groups will take any shooting with more than one victim, and lump them into one problem they CLAIM can only be solved with this one solution to ban firearms. Take this site for example: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Take a look at the cites. Lounge shootings. Nightclub shootings. Murder-suicides. These aren't unprovoked, random acts of violence. These are mostly revenge killings, personal incidents, and a lot of ,what appears to be, gang related. These situations can NOT be solved with a be-all-end-all solution such as gun control, because these incidents would have carried out, firearms or not. Take China, for instance. They have an incredibly high rate of stabbings, which has been getting worse in certain professions. It's even been reported on most recently by our media outlets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/22/chinese-doctors-to-disgruntled-patients-please-stop-stabbing-us/ There was even a large massacre last year, in which 29 people were stabbed to death. That's almost as high as the Virginia Tech Massacre which occured in 2007. Men with knives killed about as many people as someone with a gun did. People can kill with anything, and those with the desire to kill, will. The largest massacre, the Bath School Massacre, was committed using a series of bombs. These deaths are NOT the problem child spawned by lax gun control, but by many more problems that we find within all societies (China, as per the article, as one such example). Problems such as poverty, mental illness, even something basic, such as human emotions. Branding every single incident the problem of gun control is a cop out of dealing with the root of the issues, and a lot of politicians don't want to because the solutions to these problems are too costly or time consuming. Just as McKinnion said, Oregon cut Mental Illness spending recently. That creates more problems than it solves, because people like this shooter, who need that treatment early on, won't get it, and WILL cause problems later on in his life. Guns can be dangerous. Guns can kill. That can be said of everything in existence. But they're used to provide food for families, because not everyone lives in suburbia near a supermarket. They're used for recreation, because shooting a gun IS a rush, it IS fun, and no one can deny it, even the anti-gunners. And they're used for self defense, because there ARE people out there who wish to do harm to you, simply because you're an opportunistic target for them, or you represent something they fear, or envy, or just plain loathe. Guns simply, are a tool, just like any other tool. They have many purposes, just like other tools, and to blame them for the actions of a human being, is plain wrong.

For those interested, here's the full dispatch audio from the UCC response: I have to say, the radio traffic was very well done. All traffic was concise, coordinated, no confusion and people weren't walking over each other's transmissions. A very nice way to handle such a dynamic and developing situation, kudos to all the responders.

It's a truly sad day when the court of public opinion and emotions takes more precedence over the court of law. No longer is it about facts, it's about what you read on social media, about what you hear on the news. People used to demand truth, now they believe whatever they read from the latest Facebook post or tweet on their wall. Ambushes on law enforcement are a growing trend, and unfortunately, I think it won't end any time soon. RIP to all the officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, including Officer Liu and Officer Ramos, whose names have been added to the list of officers this year killed in cold blooded ambush. Police Officer Wenjian Liu EOW: 12/20/2014 Police Officer Rafael Ramos EOW: 12/20/2014 Deputy Sheriff Christopher Smith EOW: 11/22/2014 Corporal Bryon Keith Dickson, II EOW: 10/12/2014 Patrolman II Nickolaus E. Schultz EOW: 10/07/2014 Patrolman Jeffrey Brady Westerfield EOW: 07/06/2014 P olice Officer Igor Soldo EOW: 06/08/2014 Police Officer Alyn Beck EOW: 06/08/2014 Police Officer Brian Jones EOW: 05/30/2014 Deputy Sheriff Ricky Del Fiorentino EOW: 03/19/2014 Sergeant Cory Wride EOW: 01/30/2014

Short answer, nah. Long answer, nah, but we do have the highest instance of teenage pregnancy in any developed nation in the world. Source: Dept. of Health and Human Services http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html

What disappoints me the most is people didn't wait. From the beginning, people took to social media to dictate the events surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was vilified by people because of the narrative the media and the internet developed surrounding the shooting of this gentle giant who was surrendering peacefully. Then, the facts started slipping out slowly but surely as the investigation progressed and the detectives, prosecutor and the DA saw that the information wouldn't compromise the possible jury pool in case of indictment. STILL, people clung to their rallying cry of HANDS UP! DON'T SHOOT! The robbery footage provided motive for Wilson's version of events, but it was irrelevant. Dorian Johnson, Brown's friend, admitted to committing strong arm robbery, recanting previous testimony and calling into question the credibility of ANYTHING he said, yet he witnessed it all. People wanted an indictment, because they EXPECTED IT from the made up "evidence" spawned from rampant rumor and speculation. Anyone who paid attention knew what was going to happen. With the release of the no true bill readings, comes the release of the Grand Jury evidence with it. There's 77 released documents. Over thousands of pages of evidence, including witness testimony, toxicology reports, ME reports, radio transcripts. 987 MB (uncompressed) worth of information provided to the Grand Jury that helped them reach their decision. The worst part of it all? People won't look at it. They will continue to remain ignorant of what really happened, because they "already knew" what happened, and no amount of actual evidence will change that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=0 The law is tricky business. As I said before, I've found no case law regarding cases like these, so I have no idea how the judge and juries will rule regarding the charges. It's quite possible the charges could be dropped, or the defendant's found not guilty of the charges. It may very well set the precedent for future cases like this, if the precedent isn't set already. They must have presented a very compelling case to the Grand Jury to return an indictment, I think any good defense attorney could argue incompetence on part of the police officers' actions, and may very well be right.

While I understand what you're trying to say, I feel you are a bit misguided on "traditional" law. You can still be held criminally liable, even if no one dies, if your actions contributed to death OR injury of a bystander in the procession of a crime. While such cases are few and far between, with little case law on the particular circumstances, it does happen. The Grand Jury in New York indicted a man recently for felonious assault when two bystanders were injured when police opted to open fire on him after he reached into his pants. Louisiana's legal system is little different from the rest of the U.S., the big difference being that Louisiana does not have to rely on precedent, and judges can rule based on their own interpretation of the law, however precedent usually guides LA rulings. It has no bearing on statutory interpretation of the law from the perspective of the attorney's office, and someone may still be charged if their actions directly or indirectly facilitated the injury or death of someone else, should it fit the statute.

From a legal point of view it's up for debate. If the D.A. believes the charges can be warranted, they'll file them. It's just as well if a prosecutor can prove that the defendant's actions caused the death of another being, whether directly or indirectly. Technically someone can legally be culpable for the crime even if they didn't directly kill anyone. Even now there's a case like this currently going on. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-charged-with-murder-after-stray-police-bullet-kills-woman/

They make baton caps that have window breakers on the end, they can be pretty darn effective.

If I'm not within arm's reach of a firearm, I'm usually equipped with some other defensive weapon. Lets just say if you try and play the knockout game with me...

Did you just blame the existence of racism on an entire continent? Racism exists throughout the world, and it would exist even if (North) America didn't, because people are almost always going to have a predisposition towards other groups, whether it's ingrained in them when they're brought up, or form that attitude themselves because of their contact with that group. Until the cycle breaks (which I will be one to admit doesn't look like it is any time soon), the hate will continue.

these are some weapons recovered from a Chicago street gang member's property, including high powered rifles, and yes, what appears to be a M72 LAW . These weapons were recovered by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Gang Task Force from Sacramento gang members. Among them are multiple AK variants, an M16A1, and the butt-stock of what appears to be an MP5. And lastly, these weapons were stolen and going to be sold to a Tulsa, OK street gang before a traffic stop led to their recovery. All of these weapons were recovered from highly populated, urban areas. Thinking that street gangs don't have or want these weapons is as ignorant as thinking they don't have the means to obtain them and use them. Gangs don't need a reason to have what they have, nor do they need to carry these around on the street. They could just as easily be used for a drive-by, a planned retaliation, or protecting a stash house. Lest we not forget, gangs ARE in a war, and as long as there's at least two gangs, there will always be a war. Armor piercing rounds were banned for import and sale by the Gun Control Act of 1968, so I can assume you mean full metal jacket rounds, which isn't the case at all. It's very widely available (I've even purchased them off of the internet and had them shipped to my home), considering it's one of the most common rounds, and is pretty effective at stopping somebody, granted it doesn't have the expansion a hollow-point does, but it will tumble and chew through your body regardless. And what's more, an alert I read from the Blue Alert System had stated that Bloods gang members from all over the country are being called to New Jersey to enact a war against the police department and kill some cops, so it's very possible that weapons like these can find their way into a shootout/ambush type scenario there. Lets just hope the police department is prepared for this and prevails, and that everyone stays safe out there.

I made an NYPD raid jacket way back when, I'm sure I still have the texture (it was for the FIB officer) if you want me to send it to you.