Bay 12 Games Forum

No, it's very illegal shoot cops attempting to arrest you.

Back up a bit there son, you just said

If someone has a gun, they're a potential threat. If a sensible person would believe that their life was in imminent danger, then shooting first is justifiable use of lethal force, not murder.

The cop had a gun ergo he is a potential threat.  And in fact he is pointing it at the kid finger on the trigger ready to shoot at a moments notice without giving it further thought.  It would be sensible for the kid to believe that there is a real chance that their life is in imminent danger.  (Personally I strongly recommend neither of them to start shooting.)

Duty of public care goes out the window when someone is a active threat. Police aren't required to allow themselves to be shot, nor are they allowed to endanger someone else's life by inaction towards a threat.

But the kid was not an active threat.  In fact although having possession of a gun temporarily they never even (to the best of my knowledge) pointed it anyone.  The kid was raising their empty hands in compliance to the orders of the officer in the second the cop decided to shoot.  The danger to the public in that situation was the trigger-happy cop.

My point about premeditation also harks back to your comment

A split second to figure out if the kid was bringing a gun out from behind his back with intent to fire.

but it is entirely valid - premeditation extends from earlier planning to the split second decision to pull the trigger. Otherwise premeditation would never be possible.  The cop had clearly decided ('been trained' might also be accurate) before the confrontation that if they were in an uncertain circumstance of possible danger that they would shoot first and ask questions later and they followed through with this to tragic effect.

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

An appeal to emotion and a strawman all in one. A summary execution is when you're brought to your knees and shot in the head. What got him shot was the appearance he was going to use it, regardless of the 20-20 hindsight that he had already dropped it.

Why not blame the gang, and the one who gave the kid a gun after using it to fire at a passing car?

Quoting the first sentence of the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
"A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial."

The cop shot an unarmed suspect who was currently complying with all orders issued by that cop.  At that point in time it had not been confirmed (although it was subsequently) that the kid even had been in possession of a firearm.

No-one is defending the gang but two wrongs don't make a right.  I see this as desperation on your part.

If someone has a gun, they're a potential threat. If a sensible person would believe that their life was in imminent danger, then shooting first is justifiable use of lethal force, not murder.

So I'm hearing that you think the kid should have shot first?  And that the police don't have a duty of public care, wtf?

Equating that officer with a 'sensible person' whose 'life is in imminent danger' is high farce.

The idea that you can "premeditate" something in a second is frankly ridiculous on its face. That's not even enough time to thoughtfully "meditate" an action.

If the officer arrived at the scene with the intention of shooting the kid (perhaps conditional on gun possession) and then carries through on that action, yes.  A full second is more than enough to time to question whether it is appropriate to shoot or not.

Hanging out with a gang member at 2am and carrying a gun is not a reason for summary execution.

A couple of quotes in response to the verdict that I thought were pertinent:

"That's what creates a lot of complexity in this moment, the fact that we were all glued to our TV sets because we knew – we saw a murder in front of our eyes and yet we didn't know if there would be a guilty verdict – it tells you everything."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"True justice requires that we come to terms with the fact that Black Americans are treated differently, every day. It requires us to recognise that millions of our friends, family and fellow citizens live in fear that their next encounter with law enforcement could be their last."
Barack Obama

sounds like a jocular jock, and dare i say, not (yet) sponsored by EU inc.; not that the buckethead competition is either.

It appears that someone forgot to send the Premier League football clubs the Brexit memo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811

Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham are among 12 clubs who have agreed to join a new European Super League (ESL).

It begs the question what continent the Not-Europe Europeans think they are (not) part of. 

Sure but most can.  And many have the same hit points, and the same speed, as the cavalry/mounted/knights/horsemans versions and yet they are bigger. 

As an example compare the battered kite shield to the battered horseman's kite shield.  They are both tier 1 with 82 speed.  The non-horseman version has in extra 5 hitpoints (175 vs. 170).  It is also somewhat cheaper (98 vs. 114 in the town I'm looking at right now, ymmv) and has substantially greater coverage.  The only downside is that it weighs somewhat more 4.2 vs. 3.6 - but that only matters if you are on foot.  So there is NO reason to use the horseman's kite shield on horseback!  On foot you'll be a bit slower so there is some argument for using the horseman's version if you are not on a horse.    (Not that it matters but sometimes they are exactly the same weight, removing even this marginal 'advantage' for use on foot.)

By the way I'm not cherry-picking this was just the one I had at hand.  There a quite a few shields which follow the same pattern.  Why would I trade greater protection/more durability/cheaper for something labeled horseman/cavalry/knight/mounted - when mounted? 

Yes the QSP minecart is recursive but a bit of ingenuity would allow the dwarfs to haul things to the feeder stockpile normally and then the behaviour of the dumped items would confirm whether or not it is the moveToGround() using script which is causing the problem.

A matter of confirming or ruling out the moveToGround() script as being the cause of the problem.  If the script is solid the search goes on.  If it is not then writing an alternate script (maybe calling autodump then iterating through the moved items to unforbid them? ... pardon me for not being a scripter or aware of all the difficulties...) is a valid approach.

Some with more DFHack knowledge might be able to help.  But I'm curious what might happen if instead the script moved the items to an empty tile one z-level above the stockpile, so that they 'naturally' fell into it?