cp702

Nope. You have 3 or 4 saying they'd like it. There are over 100,000 registered members on this site. 3 or 4 is not a majority, or near a majority, or a substantial minority, or a small niche, or a statistically relevant group at all, especially compared to people who want 1.0 released more quickly. You can't go from "people who bothered replying" to "userbase as a whole"; the people who reply to this topic are biased in favor, because people who don't want task forces are much less likely to bother replying. If you want task forces, you can write the callouts yourselves with the API. LCPDFR is generally about providing the tools to make you a cop, and less so providing things to do as a cop (that's why things like Braveheart's script play nicely with it: LCPDFR makes you a cop, Braveheart gives callouts). With 1.0, there is an API, so you don't even need the callouts built into the mod: you can write them yourself. If the only suggestion is "X type of mission", you can probably make it yourself. With the API, we simultaneously satisfy *every* request for different types of callouts by providing tools that let you finally integrate them with LCPDFR (which was the issue with things like Braveheart's mod: it provided good callouts, but you lost plenty of LCPDFR features dealing with them (e.g. couldn't pull over drivers spawned by the script). If you wanted something that doesn't fall under the "callout" category, that's a different story, and could you clarify what you're proposing?

The giant bridge with the toll plaza, between the toll and Broker/Dukes, has lots of speeders.

How'd it go?

Holden = GM in Australia, which was the point.

I'd also ask your Explorer supervisor if they have tips.

What mods do you have, and what did you recently add?

I really, really wish this were true. Sadly, it isn't true in the gaming community. It's not true to an extreme level, as a matter of fact - women are treated notoriously badly throughout gaming, from game developers ("jiggle physics") to assholes on Xbox Live. For examples of some of the stuff that women who identify as women get, look at http://fatuglyorslutty.com (it doesn't seem to have pictures, but language used is pretty offensive, so mildly NSFW). I'm not really sure how prevalent it is, but it's certainly a definite feature/bug of gaming culture. Women could have a good reason for not proclaiming it from the rooftops.

Plenty of old ladies carry guns. Your experience is not even CLOSE to authoritative. The old ladies you know are a very non-representative sample, because they presumably travel in similar social circles and live in similar areas. It is almost never correct to say "I know many people of type X, and they don't do thing Y, so very few Xers do Y". The ONLY time that's valid is if a) you know a substantial portion of people of type X (you don't), or b) when you say you "know", you're really talking about a random sample. With a truly random sample, you can go from small numbers to the population; you, sadly, don't have a random sample. And old ladies can carry guns for the same reason anyone else would.

At the moment, we know basically nothing about this. There's nothing to suggest she was or wasn't armed, and the article didn't say what was happening when the officers fired shots. Not every instance of police shooting a suspect is unjustified; even if the suspect is unarmed, it can still be justified (e.g. suddenly go for a bulge in your clothes when cops have drawn on you? That's probably a justified shooting.)

I haven't been having that issue, but I have been having video playback randomly freeze at random spots and not continue unless I reload the page. The HTML5 viewer seems to work better, for the videos it's enabled for.

Nope, a tip does not necessarily constitute reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266. An anonymous tip, to count for reasonable suspicion, must at the bare minimum provide some reason to believe it is reliable in its description of illegal activity. The fact that it correctly describes the appearance of a person is insufficient. An officer who searches based on an anonymous tip that a person meeting some description is carrying a gun is violating the Fourth Amendment and has an excellent chance of getting the evidence thrown out in court. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, an anonymous tip was enough in a "close case", and that involved a tip that predicted non-obvious future behavior (the tip included when a woman would leave a building, and where she would go). The Supreme Court ruled that that prediction, once verified by police, showed that the informant knew something of the affairs of the suspect, even though it was close. In general, a tip can be the source of reasonable suspicion, but it depends where the tip comes from. Handcuffs are a detention or an arrest. While handcuffs do not necessarily an arrest make, they certainly result in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude they are not free to go. That means the person has been seized in the Fourth Amendment sense (to quote Terry again, "It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person.") Seizing/detaining a person absolutely must be supported by at least reasonable suspicion. If you explain to the person that they are free to leave but you want to handcuff them, you'll get an odd look, and it still may not hold up in court. Generally, the idea is that a cop talking to someone who is free to go is like two citizens talking on the street; handcuffs aren't part of that. If you announce that you'll "talk for a second, and I'll cuff you", a reasonable person would probably assume "lets talk" is an order, which is a detention. You'd have to bend over backwards to make cuffing someone NOT a detention, and frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would agree when they could instead agree to keep their hands in view. Also, to reply to the comment about assault rifles: It's actually a specific technical term. For you to say you don't think there's such a thing as an "assault" rifle would be like me saying there isn't such a thing as a "hybrid" car. It's a translation of the name of the first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 (Sturmgewehr = "storm rifle"). It refers to individual selective-fire rifles firing intermediate-power cartridges. Unlike "assault weapon", there is a strict formal distinction between assault rifle and not-assault rifle. EDIT: There was a mega researched info dump here, which took time, but it's been snipped because it was kinda excessive and we moved passed it.

a) Damn, ninja'd by c13 on "need reasonable suspicion for detention." b) You aren't detained when cuffs are put on. Being handcuffed is sufficient to conclude that you're being detained, but you are involuntarily detained the instant that you are told that you aren't free to go. Now, I might actually challenge the idea that skirting around "Am I free to go?" means he isn't; I'd imagine that that might be a cop who knows he has no basis to detain him trying to not let him know. I think a court would likely rule that he'd reasonably think he was being detained and wasn't free to go, though. The exact language from Terry v. Ohio, which is the basis for police stopping people on reasonable suspicion, is "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." If the cop implies you aren't free to go, courts can find that you aren't. Tom H: It isn't unusual for civilians who carry to be better marksmen than police. Police are trained to the level that's required for their jobs; civilians who carry do it by choice. People who do something because they have to for their job tend to be worse at it than those who do it because they want to. Now, you could make a really good case that marksmanship on a range has nothing to do with marksmanship in actual firefights (I'm pretty sure numerous studies have found exactly that), but often, neither police nor civilians do the sort of training that'd help in real situations. For example, the NYPD basically does the bare minimum under state law, because every year they need to requalify all of their 35,000 or so officers. Police who only shoot for their annual qualification may be worse shots than civilians who go to competitions once a month.

We also have the right to bear arms (by the way, Slimory: "bare arms" means you're wearing short sleeves. The term is "bear", meaning to carry). The Supreme Court has ruled that "man with a gun" is legally rather similar to "man with a wallet". In general, the police may not detain you except if they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed or are about to commit a crime. If they detain you, then they may frisk you and ask for your name. However, if there is no reasonable suspicion (carrying a firearm isn't reasonable suspicion where it's legal to do so), you are free to walk away without providing any information. Simply possessing a firearm generally isn't reasonable suspicion, absent other factors. If you're peering into the windows of closed stores at night, that counts as reasonable suspicion; if you're just walking down the street and happen to be carrying a gun, that isn't, unless you're carrying it in an illegal way.

Slimory, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic-only firearm; assault rifles MUST be selective fire (meaning they MUST have fully-automatic capabilities). It IS extremely expensive to acquire full-auto weapons in the US; the only weapons that can legally be full-auto were made before 1986, so they cost a lot of money because there aren't many of them left. Also, the Second Amendment isn't going away for a long, long time. Not sure how constitutional amendments work in Canada, but here they need two-thirds of each house of Congress to even be formally proposed, and then need three-fourths of the states to ratify it. There have only been 27 , and the first 10 and the 27th were proposed together (yeah, the 27th Amendment was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 and ratified in 1992). The only amendment that actually took away an individual right was the 18th (allowing Prohibition), and that was also the only amendment to be repealed by another. It's really, really hard to amend the US constitution. Also, what are you talking about when you dare someone to go into a gun shop and say they're buying a gun for self-defense? That's going to get a reaction of "Oh, OK." It's not weird or anything, it's a perfectly normal reason to buy a gun. I'd imagine that the only other reason that's around as common would be "I like to go to gun ranges, and I think this gun would be fun to shoot" and "I like hunting". c13 knows more about this than I do, but gun store clerks are generally armed themselves to protect themselves and the store (people might try to rob a gun store to get more/better guns, so clerks are armed to prevent it).

Dark sites aren't so great, visually. At the time we changed it, the light theme (this theme used to be much lighter, with bright blue background instead of dark) was a nice contrast. It also helped visually differentiate us from GPM, which was especially nice at the time.

Point of order: I'm pretty sure non-governmental jobs can't see if you're in a police report or not. Arrests that lead to charges are obviously public info unless expunged (as court records tend to be public), but I'm under the impression you can get an arrest record expunged unless you were convicted, and then you'd only need to disclose it if you want a government job or a security clearance. I may be totally off on this one, though.

That is, to put it mildly, completely and utterly incorrect. While the Bill of Rights initially only affected the federal government, the 14th Amendment says that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The courts have determined that almost any violation of the Bill of Rights by a state government has the effect of denying due process; for example, the entire First, Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments apply to the states in their entirety, the Fifth Amendment applies except for the right to be indicted by a grand jury for felonies (which has been held not to apply against the states), the Sixth Amendment applies except for the part where juries must be from the state and district of the crime, the Seventh Amendment applies except for the part about jury trial in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendment applies except maybe for the part about excessive bail and fines. Everything else applies to the states as well. Your argument might work before the 1860s, but it is totally wrong today. I'll explain it for him. First, c13 doesn't "hate cops". He hates cops that abuse their power and violate Constitutional rights, and there are certainly cops who fit that description. He also doesn't instantly assume "cop = good person"; he expects cops to earn respect, just like everyone else. The only way that is "hating cops" is if you take the most simplistic rule possible of human opinion. Unfortunately for that, people are actually kind of complicated, and you can't divide people into "hate cops" and "uncritically accept everything the police have to say and how DARE you say a cop might have done something wrong". Second, people who play GTA would, by and large (there are probably a few twisted exceptions), hate people who go around murdering random bystanders, shooting up bars just for fun, driving cars down the street running everyone over, throwing bombs on half the cars they pass, and doing really pretty much anything any GTA protagonist does. GTA protagonists are not good people. If one existed in real life, they'd attract the justified hate of pretty much everyone. And yet, millions of people play GTA. Explain that to me. Explain how people can play a video game and disagree with their character's actions.

You don't get to close a thread. Moderators can close threads; that is not something members are allowed to do. I'll cut you some slack because you're new, but know that in the future, trying to act as though you have authority to close a thread (especially "officially"), tell members what they may and may not say in a thread, and generally direct discussion is itself a violation of the rules; we consider it backseat moderation.

I'll start by saying I understand how you'd feel about this. I have a parent who works on Capitol Hill; I actually had to wait for a text message confirming they were OK. I'd agree DC is a sort of special case, security-wise. I'd agree that saying "It's America..." seems to imply that this is a crazy overreaction that wouldn't happen elsewhere. That said: Statements like that, while you may not like them, don't break the rules. Members who feel that this was an overuse of force can post and say as much. What you feel is a preconceived notion isn't abusive, nor is it discriminatory. He's not saying "all Americans are X". He's generalizing about the government, and I'm pretty sure the government can take preconceived notions of criticism. The fact that someone doesn't think that protecting the president justifies a severe police response doesn't mean we lock the thread. Unless rules violations happen or we need to prevent a flamewar, we won't lock the thread. If you feel incapable of participating without flaming, then feel free to not participate; we'd love if everyone was self-aware enough to know when they can't avoid flaming.

You know that "Golden State" is just California's state nickname, right?

Nope. If you pose an imminent threat to a life, you may be legally stopped by any means necessary, including lethal force if it is the only option. The problem with trials is that they don't stop the crime; if police let you kill someone and then arrest you, the person you killed is still dead. The general rule of thumb is that if it comes down to the life of an aggressor versus the life of a victim, the aggressor should be stopped even if they die in the process. If you've ever wondered why police carry guns in the first place, that's pretty much the reason: so they can defend themselves and others from assailants. @Sam: I assume part of the reason they were worried was a bomb risk. Keep in mind that that's exactly WHY those concrete barriers she hit are there: to stop car bombs from getting near the building. Something like this definitely could look like an attempted bombing. @c13: Right, these cops actually hit their target and had the right target, unlike in the Dorner case.

Nope. The Taser is now much more realistic; instead of hitting T from your pistol, you hit Alt+T to draw the Taser (which is actually a model ingame, which is what installing the Taser file adds - it replaces the nailgun with a Taser). When you draw the taser, you then use it like any other gun; it causes the suspect to go down in convulsions.

You're on a site devoted to a police mod that lets you roleplay a cop. Have you given LCPDFR a try?

The release date is "when it's done".