Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 465182 times)

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1550 on: July 08, 2016, 04:25:05 PM »
A big improvement to police accountability stares us in the face... put fucking cameras on police officers. Every one of them.  Some guy reaches in the window of the cop car and tries to take the gun, resulting in the death of said guy? Video proof. done. Some guy on a snowbank, when told to raise put his hands up, grabs for something on his belt, and is shot? Video proof. No controversy.  Officer makes a joke about jamming up a darky for no reason? On camera.

If a camera and supporting equipment costs about $4,000 per officer, and there are about 1.1m officers in the country, that's less than $15 per person. I'd pay a one time levy of that much to take care of this.

That sounds great, but in practice the police officers will just 'malfunction' the camera when they know they were clearly in the wrong. Not only that, I can't imagine the logistics behind upkeep of the cameras and data.

It would become a tool that weighed even more heavily in police officer's favor.

I propose we eliminate all police departments. Every single one. Then I think we should create more Sheriff's departments and jurisdictions. If we tie officer's employment to an elected official, the sheriff, I think it would be a good start in the right direction.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 07:10:25 PM by Cyaphas »
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1551 on: July 08, 2016, 04:28:11 PM »
Some guy on a snowbank, when told to raise put his hands up, grabs for something on his belt, and is shot? Video proof. No controversy.

I know what you're saying, but really, if I don't 100% comply with an officer that is somehow justification for execution?  Should the policy really be shoot first and sort out the details afterwards?

I've got a lot of respect for law enforcement officers, but, you know, they kind of signed up for this. As a cop, one day, someone's going to move their limbs in a way you're not going to like or command them to do and unfortunately that's just part of the job.  Figuring out how to deal with that situation without executing someone seems like a reasonable thing for society to expect from police.  And yes, that means that your life is in danger, and yes that means in certain cases a cop is going to get killed but, that's kind of the gig man.  I'm not comfortable putting all of the responsibility on citizens.  Cops are supposed to be trained to defuse conflict, not to shoot on site. 

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1552 on: July 08, 2016, 04:36:39 PM »
I think it's kind of ingenious. No need to risk innocent lives to get a bad guy.  I'm struggling to imagine how it would be 'better' if a swat team had gone in and two more officers had died before shooting the suspect.  The math just seems to favor using humans less for dangerous work like this.

I don't know.  I think you're seeing the same line of thinking around all of the drone warfare we're moving towards. It's no big deal because someone on a joystick half way around the world can just drop some bombs video game style and justice is served.  Maybe it is, but i'm not sure we fully appreciate or understand the consequences yet. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1553 on: July 08, 2016, 04:52:05 PM »
I don't really care if you were a dog catcher.  No one, including me, that I've seen in this tread has said all officers are bad.  But the statistics clearly show that there is a systemic problem of racial bias.  I'm glad you acknowledge there is an issue.  While it is true it is not every officer it also is true it is more than a few bad apples.

I've seen nothing that's 'systemic'. This is always a cop-out for people on the left. They can say 'systemic' because it happens all over the country, but they can never point to laws, policies, or an actual systemic cause of systemic racism. People on the right hate racism as much as you, but jumping up and down on your pulpit shouting into the void about 'systemic racism' helps no one.

Give me laws, policies, people that are racist and we can work on solving this problem.

Hmm,  statistics clearly show the following:

1) if you are black and convicted you are much more likely to have a more severe sentence than a white guy with the same charge and same record,

2) If you are black you are significantly more likely to be stopped for no reason or for a minor traffic infraction than a white guy,

3) If you are black you are significantly more likely to hurt, killed, or incarcerated from said minor traffic violation stop than a white guy with the same record and under the same conditions.

I guess all those black, white, Hispanic, and Asian folks marching around protesting these killings are, well, just ill-informed and don't realize the cops are here to protect them.

Being a cop is one of the hardest jobs around.  They have to deal with all aspects of the underbelly of society that most of us never encounter - and are glad it's that way.  But --- there is a wide-ranging problem here where innocent people are getting killed for what should be minor interactions with police -- and when you look at the stats, minorities are getting the lion's share of the shit end of the stick.

I suggest that their demographic and social backgrounds would suggest that they ARE ill-informed. Protesters like Black Lives Matter aren't your typical educated and experienced segment of society. They're not business leaders, leaders in government or their community, and they're probably not model citizens. They seem to be mostly young and idealistic, with all too much free time on their hands to protest something they know very little about.

You still haven't proven that it's systemic. You might have an argument that the police bring in a bias, that they've had since they were recruited, but that's more indicative of the public culture than within the police since they should ideally represent the community they serve. However, any systemic bias would need documentation to specific policies, laws, and regulations that lead to those statistics you pointed out.

Don't look at discrepancies in sentencing and traffic stops and ASSUME that it MUST be systemic racism when there's no proof that it is. That doesn't solve any problems.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1554 on: July 08, 2016, 05:11:36 PM »
As we have seen in California, it basically becomes "you can keep your guns but we will make them as functionally useless as possible."

Could you please elaborate on what California does to make your guns functionally useless?

They've made it so that a magazine release is not possible.  Basically you need to permanently affix the magazine (i.e. weld) it to the receiver.  People were previously getting around this with a "bullet button" where you need to use a tool or tip of a bullet to release the magazine but a law was just passed banning it.  In order to load the rifle, you essentially need to remove the takedown pin, which splits it in half and load the magazine while it's attached to the receiver.

This was never the intention of the design and is actually quite dangerous in my view as if you have some sort of malfunction, there's no easy way to remove a fully loaded magazine.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1555 on: July 08, 2016, 05:14:42 PM »
Some guy on a snowbank, when told to raise put his hands up, grabs for something on his belt, and is shot? Video proof. No controversy.

I know what you're saying, but really, if I don't 100% comply with an officer that is somehow justification for execution?  Should the policy really be shoot first and sort out the details afterwards?

I've got a lot of respect for law enforcement officers, but, you know, they kind of signed up for this. As a cop, one day, someone's going to move their limbs in a way you're not going to like or command them to do and unfortunately that's just part of the job.  Figuring out how to deal with that situation without executing someone seems like a reasonable thing for society to expect from police.  And yes, that means that your life is in danger, and yes that means in certain cases a cop is going to get killed but, that's kind of the gig man.  I'm not comfortable putting all of the responsibility on citizens.  Cops are supposed to be trained to defuse conflict, not to shoot on site.

Be careful with your words. It's not an execution, and it's misleading to equate it as such.

noun
1. the carrying out or putting into effect of a plan, order, or course of action.
2.the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.


I think there's a large disconnect from what people think happens, and what happens in real life. In real life you can empty an entire magazine into someone and they can keep fighting back for minutes while they slowly bleed out. In real life a man with a knife within 30 feet has a VERY good chance at winning in a fight against an unsuspecting police officer. In real life, if you're disabled, the bad guy gets your weapon and there's a good chance innocents will die. In real life, you shoot to kill. So you can understand why police have a large vested interest when you're told to raise your hands and instead you make a sudden movement for your belt.

Bottom line: don't force a police officer into a situation where he/she has to make a split-second decision that may result in your death.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1556 on: July 08, 2016, 05:16:10 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1557 on: July 08, 2016, 05:18:30 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

You sound pretty sure of yourself, considering you admit you have absolutely nothing to work with.

"Bombed a US citizen on US soil" and "execution" are incredibly misleading and sensationalist descriptions. Why do I feel like you would be happier if five more officers died in order to shoot the guy?

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1558 on: July 08, 2016, 05:35:58 PM »
I suggest that their demographic and social backgrounds would suggest that they ARE ill-informed. Protesters like Black Lives Matter aren't your typical educated and experienced segment of society. They're not business leaders, leaders in government or their community, and they're probably not model citizens. They seem to be mostly young and idealistic, with all too much free time on their hands to protest something they know very little about.

LOLZ.  If I didn't know any better I would think this is satire. This is about as condescending and elitist as it gets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who take the time to march in the street probably know a bit more about what is going on in their communities than some random internet commenter.  But nah man, they don't really KNOW, you know. They need 'leaders' to put them in their place.  They've got too much time on their hands. Because they're totally lazy right?  Don't worry man, i hear your dog whistle loud and clear. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1559 on: July 08, 2016, 05:44:06 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Independent investigations were one purpose of the 1st Amendment, to prevent the "official" version from being the only version that was available.  Oftentimes, however, the official version is still the only version available.  This is likely going to be one of those times, I'm afraid.  Car cameras have become rather popular in Russia, where a shakedown of a random driver by the cops are common enough that dash cams are common now too.  This is why there are so many crash videos on youtube compiled from Eastern Europe and Russia, and so few from the US.  But they are relatively cheap devices these days, and a good idea for anyone who might wish to have a traffic stop or an accident recorded.

I have had one for several years, but never have got it out of the box.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1560 on: July 08, 2016, 05:49:01 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

So maybe we should just go ahead and arm cops with grenades then?  I mean, if they guy is cornered and no one else is around why not.   

I'm just not thrilled with police departments being able to utilize battlefield tactics against civilians. I mean, if the army had rushed into Dallas to take this guy out via smart bomb i'm pretty sure we'd have a problem with that.  I mean, why not right?  Just evacuate the building, corner him in there, and send the drone in.  Problem solved.  Or maybe that would be more palatable if the Dallas PD just had their own drone.  Then that would be 'law enforcement' and not military. 

I'm just saying- i feel like this is a dangerous path to go down. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1561 on: July 08, 2016, 05:58:15 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

So maybe we should just go ahead and arm cops with grenades then?  I mean, if they guy is cornered and no one else is around why not.   

I'm just not thrilled with police departments being able to utilize battlefield tactics against civilians. I mean, if the army had rushed into Dallas to take this guy out via smart bomb i'm pretty sure we'd have a problem with that.  I mean, why not right?  Just evacuate the building, corner him in there, and send the drone in.  Problem solved.  Or maybe that would be more palatable if the Dallas PD just had their own drone.  Then that would be 'law enforcement' and not military. 

I'm just saying- i feel like this is a dangerous path to go down.

What solution do you propose? How many more officers should have to die to accomplish the same thing another way?

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1562 on: July 08, 2016, 05:58:26 PM »

You sound pretty sure of yourself, considering you admit you have absolutely nothing to work with.

"Bombed a US citizen on US soil" and "execution" are incredibly misleading and sensationalist descriptions. Why do I feel like you would be happier if five more officers died in
order to shoot the guy?


They strapped a bomb onto the back of a robot and blew up a citizen of the US inside of the US without any due process. Is it excusable, probably. But again, the only information we have on what happened, so far, is from the very same source that did this. That is a huge conflict of interest. It's a terribly frightening precedent to continue.

I'm not happy about any of what happend. I'm actually quite upset at the actions of all parties in these situations (LA, MN and Dallas.) The government is playing the victim in all of this. News pages everywhere are displaying all of the victims in all of this. What if... for just one second we consider what they're telling us isn't the complete truth. It's our duty as citizens to at least consider it. It's our duty to question what we're being told and not take it like spoon fed children.

So again, the narrative being given right now, is probably true. But when a lot of people are killed in public and our government uses a remotely controlled bomb to kill someone, there'd better be a lot of different sources doing their own investigations to verify WTF actually happened. You can be sure there are going to be actions taken by our government account of this event and the government is going to use it as justification for those actions.

None of what happened yesterday is out of the realm of probability when our governments have been doing nothing about police abuse of citizens (of any color.) Anyone watching this chess board knows that eventually, something like this, would come to a head, all the governments have to do is nothing. Now that an event has occurred, from their lack of action, I'm sure they're going to be rewarded with more power of some kind, money, rights, hell maybe an executive order or maybe what they take away from this is... "A bunch of our citizens are killed in public, we set off a bomb to kill one of them and they're not even going to ask anyone but us what happened."

« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 06:09:20 PM by Cyaphas »
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1563 on: July 08, 2016, 05:59:06 PM »
I suggest that their demographic and social backgrounds would suggest that they ARE ill-informed. Protesters like Black Lives Matter aren't your typical educated and experienced segment of society. They're not business leaders, leaders in government or their community, and they're probably not model citizens. They seem to be mostly young and idealistic, with all too much free time on their hands to protest something they know very little about.

LOLZ.  If I didn't know any better I would think this is satire. This is about as condescending and elitist as it gets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who take the time to march in the street probably know a bit more about what is going on in their communities than some random internet commenter.  But nah man, they don't really KNOW, you know. They need 'leaders' to put them in their place.  They've got too much time on their hands. Because they're totally lazy right?  Don't worry man, i hear your dog whistle loud and clear.

Holy crap -- there you have it -- dismissing a popular movement via a condescending wave of the hand.  Bravo on that one - I didn't think you would be brave enough to actually pull up that gem from the sewer.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1564 on: July 08, 2016, 06:02:27 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

So maybe we should just go ahead and arm cops with grenades then?  I mean, if they guy is cornered and no one else is around why not.   

I'm just not thrilled with police departments being able to utilize battlefield tactics against civilians. I mean, if the army had rushed into Dallas to take this guy out via smart bomb i'm pretty sure we'd have a problem with that.  I mean, why not right?  Just evacuate the building, corner him in there, and send the drone in.  Problem solved.  Or maybe that would be more palatable if the Dallas PD just had their own drone.  Then that would be 'law enforcement' and not military. 

I'm just saying- i feel like this is a dangerous path to go down.

I understand the sentiment but what is the alternative?  You either send men in who can potentially be killed or wait for the guy to come out guns blazing, potentially killing more people.  Lets not forget the guy had mentioned explosives, which made the situation all the more dangerous. 

Drones are a hyperbolic analogy.  You're obviously not going to fire hellfire missiles or whatever at a civilian building. 

I do agree that law enforcement needs to be careful in setting a dangerous precedent.  But under the circumstances, and based on the information we know, it seems like it was the right call.  When we learn more, perhaps that will change.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1565 on: July 08, 2016, 06:04:04 PM »

You sound pretty sure of yourself, considering you admit you have absolutely nothing to work with.

"Bombed a US citizen on US soil" and "execution" are incredibly misleading and sensationalist descriptions. Why do I feel like you would be happier if five more officers died in
order to shoot the guy?


They strapped a bomb onto the back of a robot and blew up a citizen of the US inside of the US without any due process. Is it excusable, probably. But again, the only information we have on what happened, so far, is from the very same source that did this. That is a huge conflict of interest. It's a terribly frightening precedent to continue.

I'm not happy about any of what happend. I'm actually quite upset at the actions of all parties in these situations (LA, MN and Dallas.) The government is playing the victim in all of this. News pages everywhere are displaying all of the victims in all of this. What if... for just one second we consider what they're telling us isn't the complete truth. It's our duty as citizens to at least consider it. It's our duty to question what we're being told and not take it like spoon fed children.

So again, the narrative being given right now, is probably true. But when a lot of people are killed in public and our government uses a remotely controlled bomb to kill someone, there'd better be a lot of different sources doing their own investigations to verify WTF actually happened. You can be sure there are going to be actions taken by our government account of this event and the government is going to use it as justification for those actions.

None of what happened yesterday is out of the realm of probability when our governments have been doing nothing about police abuse of citizens (of any color.) Anyone watching this chess board knows that eventually, something like this, would come to ahead, all the governments have to do is nothing. Now that an event has occurred, from their lack of action, I'm sure they're going to be rewarded with more power of some kind, money, rights, hell maybe an executive order or maybe what they take away from this is... "A bunch of our citizens are killed in public, we set off a bomb to kill one of them and they're not even going to ask anyone but us what happened."

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up due process - look up use of deadly force and when deadly force is authorized to make an arrest.  Out of every case ever, this is about the most clear-cut justifiable use of deadly force you will find. I'm not sure what you expected them to do - run away and wait for bombs to go off? Keep getting shot?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1566 on: July 08, 2016, 06:06:03 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

So maybe we should just go ahead and arm cops with grenades then?  I mean, if they guy is cornered and no one else is around why not.   

I'm just not thrilled with police departments being able to utilize battlefield tactics against civilians. I mean, if the army had rushed into Dallas to take this guy out via smart bomb i'm pretty sure we'd have a problem with that.  I mean, why not right?  Just evacuate the building, corner him in there, and send the drone in.  Problem solved.  Or maybe that would be more palatable if the Dallas PD just had their own drone.  Then that would be 'law enforcement' and not military. 

I'm just saying- i feel like this is a dangerous path to go down.

I understand the sentiment but what is the alternative?  You either send men in who can potentially be killed or wait for the guy to come out guns blazing, potentially killing more people.  Lets not forget the guy had mentioned explosives, which made the situation all the more dangerous. 

Drones are a hyperbolic analogy.  You're obviously not going to fire hellfire missiles or whatever at a civilian building. 

I do agree that law enforcement needs to be careful in setting a dangerous precedent.  But under the circumstances, and based on the information we know, it seems like it was the right call.  When we learn more, perhaps that will change.

Also keep in mind this guy was very good at what he did. He managed to approach, overtake, and murder a police officer who was behind cover. That's not someone you just brush off and think "oh, he'll come around eventually."

tonysemail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Location: San Jose, CA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1567 on: July 08, 2016, 06:07:57 PM »
What if... for just one second we consider what they're telling us isn't the complete truth. It's our duty as citizens to at least consider it. It's our duty to question what we're being told and not take it like spoon fed children.

you're not alone in feeling suspicious.
I bet some intrepid reporter is plotting to file FOIAs.
If you really care for investigative journalism, then the right action is to support it with donations.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1568 on: July 08, 2016, 06:10:35 PM »
I suggest that their demographic and social backgrounds would suggest that they ARE ill-informed. Protesters like Black Lives Matter aren't your typical educated and experienced segment of society. They're not business leaders, leaders in government or their community, and they're probably not model citizens. They seem to be mostly young and idealistic, with all too much free time on their hands to protest something they know very little about.

LOLZ.  If I didn't know any better I would think this is satire. This is about as condescending and elitist as it gets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who take the time to march in the street probably know a bit more about what is going on in their communities than some random internet commenter.  But nah man, they don't really KNOW, you know. They need 'leaders' to put them in their place.  They've got too much time on their hands. Because they're totally lazy right?  Don't worry man, i hear your dog whistle loud and clear.

You're right. They have nothing to lose by going out and protesting, that's why people don't take them seriously. I'd take a group of protesters far more seriously if they were skipping work, risking their careers, their lives, or engaging in real personal sacrifice in order to protest injustice. A young adult protesting between classes in college doesn't have the same impact and nowadays people are often recruited and paid to join protests, like at anti-Trump rallies.

John Hart.
Francis Lewis.
Richard Stockton.

I admire these 3 protesters.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1569 on: July 08, 2016, 06:12:55 PM »

This is the fundamental definition of a "police state".  But that is irrelevant to how this shooter was killed.  It was inarguable that he initiated deadly force & had no intention of stopping, and the police were no longer obligated to respond in any other fashion; however they chose to respond after that point, they were in the right.  The fact that they used a robot bomb to accomplish this end is also irrelevant.

However, this shooter was well prepared for this act, and apparently had some effective planning, but either did not expect or did not care about a bomb on a robot.  If there is a copycat attack, this trick won't work twice; bullets can stop robots too.

I have no evidence of what happened yesterday. The only information I have is mostly from the same source. The source that just bombed a US citizen on US soil. Were they in the right... probably. Should they be Questioned ABSOLUTELY. But... silence. No one dares to question them. Thats a problem. Getting all of our information from the same source is extremely dangerous. Getting it all from the same source that just performed an execution is a very dangerous slope to walk on too. I feel the execution could've been avoided. I doubt they were looking for alternatives to it, and that's a problem. I also have a huge problem with a lack of investigation by our media. The coverage was and continues to be abysmal.

Its awful what happened yesterday, but strapping a bomb on a robot and killing a citizen.  Yikes.  That shit happening, and the fact that its apparently an option, is kind of disturbing too.

I'm glad it's an option although one that should be used in very special circumstances such as this one.  The guy had already killed 5 officers and wounded many more.  No sense sending in SWAT at that point if he doesn't have any hostages.  They did try hostage negotiations but I think it was pretty obvious he wasn't coming out alive.

So maybe we should just go ahead and arm cops with grenades then?  I mean, if they guy is cornered and no one else is around why not.   

I'm just not thrilled with police departments being able to utilize battlefield tactics against civilians. I mean, if the army had rushed into Dallas to take this guy out via smart bomb i'm pretty sure we'd have a problem with that.  I mean, why not right?  Just evacuate the building, corner him in there, and send the drone in.  Problem solved.  Or maybe that would be more palatable if the Dallas PD just had their own drone.  Then that would be 'law enforcement' and not military. 

I'm just saying- i feel like this is a dangerous path to go down.

What solution do you propose? How many more officers should have to die to accomplish the same thing another way?

I don't know.  Wait him out?  Gas?  I really don't the answer. I'm not saying deadly force wasn't justified here, and I'm definitely conflicted, but forgive me for not wanting to know that my local police department can blow shit up in my neighborhood when they've decided that anything else is too risky for them.  That seems like a pretty subjective determination, with little to no oversight. 

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1570 on: July 08, 2016, 06:27:28 PM »
I suggest that their demographic and social backgrounds would suggest that they ARE ill-informed. Protesters like Black Lives Matter aren't your typical educated and experienced segment of society. They're not business leaders, leaders in government or their community, and they're probably not model citizens. They seem to be mostly young and idealistic, with all too much free time on their hands to protest something they know very little about.

LOLZ.  If I didn't know any better I would think this is satire. This is about as condescending and elitist as it gets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who take the time to march in the street probably know a bit more about what is going on in their communities than some random internet commenter.  But nah man, they don't really KNOW, you know. They need 'leaders' to put them in their place.  They've got too much time on their hands. Because they're totally lazy right?  Don't worry man, i hear your dog whistle loud and clear.

Holy crap -- there you have it -- dismissing a popular movement via a condescending wave of the hand.  Bravo on that one - I didn't think you would be brave enough to actually pull up that gem from the sewer.

:) I thought you would like that. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1571 on: July 08, 2016, 06:28:02 PM »
I don't know.  Wait him out?  Gas?  I really don't the answer. I'm not saying deadly force wasn't justified here, and I'm definitely conflicted, but forgive me for not wanting to know that my local police department can blow shit up in my neighborhood when they've decided that anything else is too risky for them.  That seems like a pretty subjective determination, with little to no oversight.

What oversight would be appropriate in your opinion?

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1572 on: July 08, 2016, 06:45:04 PM »
I don't know.  Wait him out?  Gas?  I really don't the answer. I'm not saying deadly force wasn't justified here, and I'm definitely conflicted, but forgive me for not wanting to know that my local police department can blow shit up in my neighborhood when they've decided that anything else is too risky for them.  That seems like a pretty subjective determination, with little to no oversight.

What oversight would be appropriate in your opinion?

I don't know. 

All I know is I've read page after page in this thread about how guns=freedom and that we need our guns in case our government decides to roll in against its own citizens.  I've also been told that one of the consequences of this freedom is that bad guys will shoot people up from time to time.

And yet here we are, a bad guy with a gun.  And is the answer fewer guns?  No-  it's that our local government sometimes needs to roll in with bombs.

Say what?? 

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1573 on: July 08, 2016, 06:47:23 PM »
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up due process - look up use of deadly force and when deadly force is authorized to make an arrest.  Out of every case ever, this is about the most clear-cut justifiable use of deadly force you will find. I'm not sure what you expected them to do - run away and wait for bombs to go off? Keep getting shot?

I get it; why they killed him. I don't agree with how they went about it; but I get it. The point you keep missing, that I have such a big problem with is: the same source giving us the 'facts' is the same source that made the decision to blow someone up. That's not even a little ok.

Imagine if the shooter had lived. Imagine what we could learn about him and his motives. The trial that would involve every detail of what actually happened. I would have preferred this, than what we are currently facing. Which is, an emotionally wounded police department who lost lives, blew up the shooter and is now investigating the guy they blew up.

Dead men don't get to tell their side of the story. even if it's insane, I still want to hear it. I think it's better when everyone can clearly see how insane someone like this is. What motivated them? Where did you acquire your obvious combat training? How long were you planning this? What event triggered this? Now, because he's dead, he's a martyr, a thug, a terrorist, a stereotype, a gun owner, a PTSD victim, a patsy, a scary black man, a militant, a rebel... Now people can use him for whatever purpose they want and all we have to go on is a body. Maybe he's apart of a larger group and we're going to find out later, the hard way... because we can't question a body. We can't put a body on trial.

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1574 on: July 08, 2016, 07:34:33 PM »
I don't know.  Wait him out?  Gas?  I really don't the answer. I'm not saying deadly force wasn't justified here, and I'm definitely conflicted, but forgive me for not wanting to know that my local police department can blow shit up in my neighborhood when they've decided that anything else is too risky for them.  That seems like a pretty subjective determination, with little to no oversight.

What oversight would be appropriate in your opinion?

Well, they could have asked the President. But, seeing he has previously authorized the droning of American Citizens without due process, they probably thought they'd save the tax payers the nickle for the phone call...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1575 on: July 08, 2016, 10:45:26 PM »
I don't know.  Wait him out?  Gas?  I really don't the answer. I'm not saying deadly force wasn't justified here, and I'm definitely conflicted, but forgive me for not wanting to know that my local police department can blow shit up in my neighborhood when they've decided that anything else is too risky for them.  That seems like a pretty subjective determination, with little to no oversight.

What oversight would be appropriate in your opinion?

Well, they could have asked the President. But, seeing he has previously authorized the droning of American Citizens without due process, they probably thought they'd save the tax payers the nickle for the phone call...

They waited for hours.  Maybe they made that phone call.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1576 on: July 09, 2016, 01:00:23 AM »
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up due process - look up use of deadly force and when deadly force is authorized to make an arrest.  Out of every case ever, this is about the most clear-cut justifiable use of deadly force you will find. I'm not sure what you expected them to do - run away and wait for bombs to go off? Keep getting shot?

I get it; why they killed him. I don't agree with how they went about it; but I get it. The point you keep missing, that I have such a big problem with is: the same source giving us the 'facts' is the same source that made the decision to blow someone up. That's not even a little ok.

Imagine if the shooter had lived. Imagine what we could learn about him and his motives. The trial that would involve every detail of what actually happened. I would have preferred this, than what we are currently facing. Which is, an emotionally wounded police department who lost lives, blew up the shooter and is now investigating the guy they blew up.

Dead men don't get to tell their side of the story. even if it's insane, I still want to hear it. I think it's better when everyone can clearly see how insane someone like this is. What motivated them? Where did you acquire your obvious combat training? How long were you planning this? What event triggered this? Now, because he's dead, he's a martyr, a thug, a terrorist, a stereotype, a gun owner, a PTSD victim, a patsy, a scary black man, a militant, a rebel... Now people can use him for whatever purpose they want and all we have to go on is a body. Maybe he's apart of a larger group and we're going to find out later, the hard way... because we can't question a body. We can't put a body on trial.

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

ahoy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1577 on: July 09, 2016, 03:25:53 AM »
Someone mentioned "battlefield" somewhere above.   it is a battlefield when you have snipers shooting.  I guess war tatics need to be employed.  What the hell will America look like in 20 yrs??  Syria?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1578 on: July 09, 2016, 06:54:29 AM »
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up due process - look up use of deadly force and when deadly force is authorized to make an arrest.  Out of every case ever, this is about the most clear-cut justifiable use of deadly force you will find. I'm not sure what you expected them to do - run away and wait for bombs to go off? Keep getting shot?

I get it; why they killed him. I don't agree with how they went about it; but I get it. The point you keep missing, that I have such a big problem with is: the same source giving us the 'facts' is the same source that made the decision to blow someone up. That's not even a little ok.

Imagine if the shooter had lived. Imagine what we could learn about him and his motives. The trial that would involve every detail of what actually happened. I would have preferred this, than what we are currently facing. Which is, an emotionally wounded police department who lost lives, blew up the shooter and is now investigating the guy they blew up.

Dead men don't get to tell their side of the story. even if it's insane, I still want to hear it. I think it's better when everyone can clearly see how insane someone like this is. What motivated them? Where did you acquire your obvious combat training? How long were you planning this? What event triggered this? Now, because he's dead, he's a martyr, a thug, a terrorist, a stereotype, a gun owner, a PTSD victim, a patsy, a scary black man, a militant, a rebel... Now people can use him for whatever purpose they want and all we have to go on is a body. Maybe he's apart of a larger group and we're going to find out later, the hard way... because we can't question a body. We can't put a body on trial.

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

He deserved what he got.  Although I am less concerned in this unique situation how he was taken out, I am generally concerned if the police have bomb making materials on hand and/or if this tactic becomes more widespread.  I haven't heard a lot of detail on how they were able to procure/obtain/assemble this bomb so quickly.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1579 on: July 09, 2016, 09:26:24 AM »
Although I am less concerned in this unique situation how he was taken out, I am generally concerned if the police have bomb making materials on hand and/or if this tactic becomes more widespread.  I haven't heard a lot of detail on how they were able to procure/obtain/assemble this bomb so quickly.
Standard anti-terrorism provision.  In order to deal with bombs set against a civilian population you use a robot loaded with explosives to detonate the bomb in a controlled explosion.  In your particular case, you just remove the normal shielding from the detonating explosion in the direction of the terrorist - which I think is novel outside active war zones.

Those of us who worked for 20 years behind bomb-proofed windows, and worked with colleagues injured by bombs, and heard explosions going off, and attended meetings in bomb-damaged rooms, know these things.  Although in my case I was working in central London and the bomb-makers were Irish and supported financially and politically by a politically significant element of US society.  The fuckers.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1580 on: July 09, 2016, 11:17:20 AM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1581 on: July 09, 2016, 11:38:27 AM »
I really don't understand why a lone sniper (remember the freeway snipers back east) would equate to "need a gun in my house".

Just an opinion (although somewhat professional one): Police should have assault weapons stored in various tactical response armories to respond to people shooting at police, or Presidents, to respond to the Hollywood Bank Robbers, or anyone going Columbine. Guys in towers, buildings, or trees shooting people have nothing to do with the Mel Gibson Beretta 9mm on your headboard.

Provided the local law enforcement is properly armed they will not have to ask a gun shop owner to lend them stuff like they did in the Hollywood robberies. Then again if we quit deploying our national guard to the middle east maybe an Apache Helicopter could have shown up with thermal vision and nailed that fucker in the face. Just a thought. A comforting one for me.
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1582 on: July 09, 2016, 11:40:10 AM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

They had the guy cornered, he was no longer a threat to the wider public.  I don't understand why there was an urgency to have to end it and go home.  There were no hostages.  So after a couple hours we send in the bomb machine?  No matter how despicable is anyone's crime, one of the foundations of our country is due process, trial by jury, and sentencing.   

How was this a legal maneuver?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1583 on: July 09, 2016, 11:43:28 AM »
Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Well, he was shooting at police during the standoff/negotiation. From prior actions the shooter was intent upon inflicting harm to police, he was armed and not willing to surrender, and the longer he remained a threat the greater possibility he'd get an opportunity to claim another victim. That's a legitimate reason for the senior person on the scene to make this decision, I don't think any sane person would argue that. I'd also pretty much guarantee that this decision came with the blessing from the civilian leadership.

So.. I'm not sure what method of 'oversight' you think a situation like this requires. Maybe a committee of no more than 10, but no less than 5 community leaders? A commune of police chiefs? A democratic solution based on polling the populace?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1584 on: July 09, 2016, 11:56:25 AM »
I really don't understand why a lone sniper (remember the freeway snipers back east) would equate to "need a gun in my house".

Just an opinion (although somewhat professional one): Police should have assault weapons stored in various tactical response armories to respond to people shooting at police, or Presidents, to respond to the Hollywood Bank Robbers, or anyone going Columbine. Guys in towers, buildings, or trees shooting people have nothing to do with the Mel Gibson Beretta 9mm on your headboard.

Provided the local law enforcement is properly armed they will not have to ask a gun shop owner to lend them stuff like they did in the Hollywood robberies. Then again if we quit deploying our national guard to the middle east maybe an Apache Helicopter could have shown up with thermal vision and nailed that fucker in the face. Just a thought. A comforting one for me.

Two things, first you have no Constitutional right to police protection. You can be getting raped in your living room and call the police, and they can decline to show up if they perceive that their priorities are elsewhere. In more rural areas, police response times are huge which puts the immediate burden of self-defense more onto the individual. That's just the self-defense aspect, not really addressing the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment which is why your comment is strange.

Secondly, the National Guard are weekend warriors. They're not trained for policing efforts, thwarting lone gunners, protecting the innocent, etc. They're a blunt weapon and they're military, don't ask the military to become involved in policing efforts unless you're prepared for something very bad to happen. They're not a policing force and they don't train to be one. The military trains to kill, not talk to people, solve civil affairs, or disable assailants.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1585 on: July 09, 2016, 12:17:09 PM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Your lack of understanding for law and practice regarding the use of deadly force is also painfully evident, but perhaps we should refrain from violating forum rules #1/#2.


Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

They had the guy cornered, he was no longer a threat to the wider public.  I don't understand why there was an urgency to have to end it and go home.  There were no hostages.  So after a couple hours we send in the bomb machine?  No matter how despicable is anyone's crime, one of the foundations of our country is due process, trial by jury, and sentencing.   

How was this a legal maneuver?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/
Quote
Police initially said at least two snipers fired "ambush-style" from an "elevated position" before they exchanged gunfire and negotiated with a suspect, later identified as Johnson, for hours at a parking garage in downtown Dallas.
Before authorities killed him with an explosive, Johnson told negotiators more officers were going to get hurt, and that bombs were planted all over downtown.

You might be perfectly happy to let more officers die to serve your twisted perspective of justice, but that does not mean you are right.

You should comprehensively review law (and case law) on appropriate use of deadly force before you attempt to discuss this topic.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 12:23:33 PM by JLee »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1586 on: July 09, 2016, 12:26:46 PM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Your lack of understanding for law and practice regarding the use of deadly force is also painfully evident, but perhaps we should refrain from violating forum rules #1/#2.

This was what I was thinking too, and as a lib, I'm one of those that believe that governments shouldn't have that monopoly of use of deadly force as a rule.  But in this case, what if instead of police, the shooter was targeting a "private" militia group (let's take the Black Panthers as an example) would they have the right to respond to deadly force with deadly force in turn?  The core libertarian principle, (the Non-Aggression Principle) one of the most pacifistic use of force rules outside of "turn the other cheek", says that they would.  Should we take their word that they were in the right?  Of course not, but after action analysis will occur for this event as well.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1587 on: July 09, 2016, 12:28:38 PM »
I really don't understand why a lone sniper (remember the freeway snipers back east) would equate to "need a gun in my house".

Just an opinion (although somewhat professional one): Police should have assault weapons stored in various tactical response armories to respond to people shooting at police, or Presidents, to respond to the Hollywood Bank Robbers, or anyone going Columbine. Guys in towers, buildings, or trees shooting people have nothing to do with the Mel Gibson Beretta 9mm on your headboard.

Provided the local law enforcement is properly armed they will not have to ask a gun shop owner to lend them stuff like they did in the Hollywood robberies. Then again if we quit deploying our national guard to the middle east maybe an Apache Helicopter could have shown up with thermal vision and nailed that fucker in the face. Just a thought. A comforting one for me.

Two things, first you have no Constitutional right to police protection. You can be getting raped in your living room and call the police, and they can decline to show up if they perceive that their priorities are elsewhere. In more rural areas, police response times are huge which puts the immediate burden of self-defense more onto the individual. That's just the self-defense aspect, not really addressing the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment which is why your comment is strange.

Secondly, the National Guard are weekend warriors. They're not trained for policing efforts, thwarting lone gunners, protecting the innocent, etc. They're a blunt weapon and they're military, don't ask the military to become involved in policing efforts unless you're prepared for something very bad to happen. They're not a policing force and they don't train to be one. The military trains to kill, not talk to people, solve civil affairs, or disable assailants.

I have gone over this before. Buy a mace fogger. No one will want to step in your living room if you start spraying while they kick down the door, or your hallway, or whatever. The whole argument for a gun to stop a burglar is 99% bull crap.

Second snipers are a battlefield environment and do call for military in my opinion. My point is is the guard is good enough to go to war (really I think using them is abuse of the government) then they can help handle a snipe with mechonized weapons like tanks or warbirds. Take out a sniper is not much different that targeting a terrorist in an urban environment. If you don't think we should do that then we have zero reason to be in the Middle East. I am more around we have 10% reason to be in the Middle East
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1588 on: July 09, 2016, 12:34:09 PM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Your lack of understanding for law and practice regarding the use of deadly force is also painfully evident, but perhaps we should refrain from violating forum rules #1/#2.

This was what I was thinking too, and as a lib, I'm one of those that believe that governments shouldn't have that monopoly of use of deadly force as a rule.  But in this case, what if instead of police, the shooter was targeting a "private" militia group (let's take the Black Panthers as an example) would they have the right to respond to deadly force with deadly force in turn?  The core libertarian principle, (the Non-Aggression Principle) one of the most pacifistic use of force rules outside of "turn the other cheek", says that they would.  Should we take their word that they were in the right?  Of course not, but after action analysis will occur for this event as well.

I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question. I really don't understand how some people are arguing that this should or could have ended any other way...the main complaint seems to be "omg robot drone bomb execution", but when the alternative is to let more people die, I think that was a brilliant improvisation. The impression I get from everyone was that if a SWAT team assaulted the shooter's location and half of them died, but they shot the guy, that would've been perfectly acceptable.  It's a weird world to live in where people are more concerned about the welfare of the mass murderer than they are of the people trying to stop him.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1589 on: July 09, 2016, 12:42:43 PM »
The whole argument against using a robot seems to be "that's not fair- that's something the military might do-- if I start shooting police I want them to play fairly".

That might be a caricature buts it's how I see it. I think an Apache taking out a sniper that's killing everyone in sight is totally fair. Very fair. I prefer it really. If you dont want military then give the police one with an on call military pilot under police direction. These snipers would be stopped quick but I'm a dreamer and that wouldn't happen.
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1590 on: July 09, 2016, 12:50:10 PM »
The whole argument against using a robot seems to be "that's not fair- that's something the military might do-- if I start shooting police I want them to play fairly".

That might be a caricature buts it's how I see it. I think an Apache taking out a sniper that's killing everyone in sight is totally fair. Very fair. I prefer it really. If you dont want military then give the police one with an on call military pilot under police direction. These snipers would be stopped quick but I'm a dreamer and that wouldn't happen.

How quickly the tables would be turned, if everyone protesting the use of the robot was given the option of sending in a robot, or walking in themselves...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1591 on: July 09, 2016, 12:50:18 PM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Your lack of understanding for law and practice regarding the use of deadly force is also painfully evident, but perhaps we should refrain from violating forum rules #1/#2.

This was what I was thinking too, and as a lib, I'm one of those that believe that governments shouldn't have that monopoly of use of deadly force as a rule.  But in this case, what if instead of police, the shooter was targeting a "private" militia group (let's take the Black Panthers as an example) would they have the right to respond to deadly force with deadly force in turn?  The core libertarian principle, (the Non-Aggression Principle) one of the most pacifistic use of force rules outside of "turn the other cheek", says that they would.  Should we take their word that they were in the right?  Of course not, but after action analysis will occur for this event as well.

I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question.

Well, to be clear, one definition of a "government" is an organization that claims a monopoly on the use of (deadly) force within given geographical boundaries.   Part of the point of the 2nd is to make it clear, to everyone but particularly the government itself, that it does not possess such a monopoly.  Arguably, the many layers of government that exist within the United States do not claim a monopoly, per se, but they do claim privilege in this arena.  For example, if the actual scenario that I described had happened, and the Black Panthers had taken this guy out after getting shot at, the government definitely would be the entity doing the 'after action analysis' as such, inside a courtroom most likely.

Likewise, your civilian sniper above most certainly would have been 'questioned' in like manner.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1592 on: July 09, 2016, 12:55:20 PM »

Perfect example of one huge reason I'm glad I changed careers. To paraphrase, I am basically reading "I think the police department made a bad decision and they shouldn't have killed the gunman who was shooting at them. I don't know what the right decision would be, but it is something other than what they did."

Your reading comprehension sucks. The same entity who has the ability to kill a civilian using a robot and a bomb on US soil, with no trial, not only shouldn't exist, it probably shouldn't be able to just make the call solo with zero over sight.

Your lack of understanding for law and practice regarding the use of deadly force is also painfully evident, but perhaps we should refrain from violating forum rules #1/#2.

This was what I was thinking too, and as a lib, I'm one of those that believe that governments shouldn't have that monopoly of use of deadly force as a rule.  But in this case, what if instead of police, the shooter was targeting a "private" militia group (let's take the Black Panthers as an example) would they have the right to respond to deadly force with deadly force in turn?  The core libertarian principle, (the Non-Aggression Principle) one of the most pacifistic use of force rules outside of "turn the other cheek", says that they would.  Should we take their word that they were in the right?  Of course not, but after action analysis will occur for this event as well.

I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question.

Well, to be clear, one definition of a "government" is an organization that claims a monopoly on the use of (deadly) force within given geographical boundaries.   Part of the point of the 2nd is to make it clear, to everyone but particularly the government itself, that it does not possess such a monopoly.  Arguably, the many layers of government that exist within the United States do not claim a monopoly, per se, but they do claim privilege in this arena.  For example, if the actual scenario that I described had happened, and the Black Panthers had taken this guy out after getting shot at, the government definitely would be the entity doing the 'after action analysis' as such, inside a courtroom most likely.

Likewise, your civilian sniper above most certainly would have been 'questioned' in like manner.

Speaking very generally, use of force law between civilian and law enforcement entities are remarkably similar with the specific exception that police are allowed to use force to make arrests.

I strongly believe that anyone who had stopped this guy would not have been charged, and I can't think of any historical incidents which would indicate any other outcome.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1593 on: July 09, 2016, 01:13:11 PM »

Speaking very generally, use of force law between civilian and law enforcement entities are remarkably similar with the specific exception that police are allowed to use force to make arrests.
Are you trying to say that arrest powers are not a special use-of-force privilege that governments claim for law enforcement personnel?  And before you say that isn't a lethal use of force privilege, what does every single person who ends up roughed up or dead by cop get charged with?

Answer: Resisting arrest.

Quote

I strongly believe that anyone who had stopped this guy would not have been charged, and I can't think of any historical incidents which would indicate any other outcome.

This is known as a "defense of a third party" case, and is specifically not protected under the Castle Doctrine used by many states.  States that do not use the Castle Doctrine charge the defensive shooter as a rule, and let the court sort it out anyway.  While "defense of a third party" has been a valid defense against murder since English Common Law ruled over the various colonies, that only applies after one has been charged in court of murder.  So yes, even in Texas, the civilian shooter should expect to be arrested & charged with murder before it was all said & done, whereas everyone knows that a police sniper in the same situation would get a medal first.


Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1594 on: July 09, 2016, 02:03:03 PM »
I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question. I really don't understand how some people are arguing that this should or could have ended any other way...the main complaint seems to be "omg robot drone bomb execution", but when the alternative is to let more people die, I think that was a brilliant improvisation. The impression I get from everyone was that if a SWAT team assaulted the shooter's location and half of them died, but they shot the guy, that would've been perfectly acceptable.  It's a weird world to live in where people are more concerned about the welfare of the mass murderer than they are of the people trying to stop him.

Ask a hammer how to solve a problem. Ask the hammer what he should be allowed to hit. We get it. I'm sure you're used to silence being permission, so you attack anyone who dares to ask questions. I've talked to a few police officers about the MN & LA incidents. They all were more than happy to justify the policemen's killings. They wouldn't even concede that maybe... just maybe, there could've been a better way. Maybe two guys charging, tackling and standing on someone's chest, pulling their guns out and shooting him in the heart might not have been the best course of action. Maybe shooting a guy who has never committed a crime, in his own vehicle, in a situation initiated by the police officer, with his kid in the back seat and fiance in the passenger seat WAS A BAD THING. Every one of them immediately went into the officer's fearing for their lives. We don't have a problem... nope... trust the hammers, just ask them.

So when I start asking questions about why the hammers used the force they did; what limits should we set; suggesting maybe it could've been handled better, here's a hammer, putting words in my mouth, questioning that I dare to apply any critical thinking to their actions. 
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1595 on: July 09, 2016, 02:12:20 PM »

So.. I'm not sure what method of 'oversight' you think a situation like this requires. Maybe a committee of no more than 10, but no less than 5 community leaders? A commune of police chiefs? A democratic solution based on polling the populace?


I'd prefer it not be legal. But if we're going to start setting off bombs to kill criminals, maybe the Governor?
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1596 on: July 09, 2016, 02:13:36 PM »
I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question. I really don't understand how some people are arguing that this should or could have ended any other way...the main complaint seems to be "omg robot drone bomb execution", but when the alternative is to let more people die, I think that was a brilliant improvisation. The impression I get from everyone was that if a SWAT team assaulted the shooter's location and half of them died, but they shot the guy, that would've been perfectly acceptable.  It's a weird world to live in where people are more concerned about the welfare of the mass murderer than they are of the people trying to stop him.

Ask a hammer how to solve a problem. Ask the hammer what he should be allowed to hit. We get it. I'm sure you're used to silence being permission, so you attack anyone who dares to ask questions. I've talked to a few police officers about the MN & LA incidents. They all were more than happy to justify the policemen's killings. They wouldn't even concede that maybe... just maybe, there could've been a better way. Maybe two guys charging, tackling and standing on someone's chest, pulling their guns out and shooting him in the heart might not have been the best course of action. Maybe shooting a guy who has never committed a crime, in his own vehicle, in a situation initiated by the police officer, with his kid in the back seat and fiance in the passenger seat WAS A BAD THING. Every one of them immediately went into the officer's fearing for their lives. We don't have a problem... nope... trust the hammers, just ask them.

So when I start asking questions about why the hammers used the force they did; what limits should we set; suggesting maybe it could've been handled better, here's a hammer, putting words in my mouth, questioning that I dare to apply any critical thinking to their actions.

There is always room for improvement. Sometimes there is even some rare abuse. In a country this large you will see a lot even if rare. However, this is what happens when a cop hesitates or is reluctant to shoot, and this isn't hypothetical-- it is real:

https://youtu.be/k8-ycSkoYfc
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1597 on: July 09, 2016, 02:49:29 PM »
Two things, first you have no Constitutional right to police protection. You can be getting raped in your living room and call the police, and they can decline to show up if they perceive that their priorities are elsewhere. In more rural areas, police response times are huge which puts the immediate burden of self-defense more onto the individual. That's just the self-defense aspect, not really addressing the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment which is why your comment is strange.

Secondly, the National Guard are weekend warriors. They're not trained for policing efforts, thwarting lone gunners, protecting the innocent, etc. They're a blunt weapon and they're military, don't ask the military to become involved in policing efforts unless you're prepared for something very bad to happen. They're not a policing force and they don't train to be one. The military trains to kill, not talk to people, solve civil affairs, or disable assailants.

I have gone over this before. Buy a mace fogger. No one will want to step in your living room if you start spraying while they kick down the door, or your hallway, or whatever. The whole argument for a gun to stop a burglar is 99% bull crap.

Second snipers are a battlefield environment and do call for military in my opinion. My point is is the guard is good enough to go to war (really I think using them is abuse of the government) then they can help handle a snipe with mechonized weapons like tanks or warbirds. Take out a sniper is not much different that targeting a terrorist in an urban environment. If you don't think we should do that then we have zero reason to be in the Middle East. I am more around we have 10% reason to be in the Middle East

You've gone over it before, and it's STILL implausible. Guns can shoot through walls, guns have a much longer range, guns aren't stopped by someone willing to get maced and keep fighting. I've been maced and pepper sprayed, it's horrible but it doesn't incapacitate someone and it won't stop someone from harming you. If I had a choice between a gun, or a nonlethal short-range annoyance measure I'd choose the gun every time. I'm not a big fan of cowering inside my house, spraying mace, and hoping for the best. Plus, with a gun you have the option to go on the offense. I like the fear the sound of a pump-action shotgun brings.

I don't know what you do professionally, but you don't sound like an expert on the military or its operations and strategy. It's probably best to just drop it.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 02:53:02 PM by Yaeger »

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1598 on: July 09, 2016, 03:07:44 PM »

I don't know what you do professionally, but you don't sound like an expert on the military or its operations and strategy. It's probably best to just drop it.

Okay, what I think is most people want the fear of lethal force to hang over peoples heads. You are making lethal force an option from the get-go when you have an unlocked firearm in your home. Additionally you will paint your house as a target for burglary from your kids friends when you are not home. Additionally you are increasing the odds greatly of one of your children or friends being shot. Additionally you are increasing the odds you will end your own life on a drunk binge after you lose someone you care about, or your job, or any major life changing event you are not able to deal with.

You may say Im not an expert in matters of dealing with snipers. It's true I never was special forces. Its true I would never want to deal with that situation because unrealistic assholes in the public would expect me to be a martyr and wave a white flag and ask him nicely to put his weapon down. I would want a Apache to nail him with a 30mm armor piercing round that no building would stop and whos optics could easy see right through walls. Hell we have video footage of just that from the 90's. However, I am a certified law enforcement expert with a Glock so its technically wrong not to call me an expert.
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1599 on: July 09, 2016, 03:26:12 PM »
Damn, I thought I could leave it alone but I just cant. Help me Joel

Quote
Guns can shoot through walls
Know your target and whats behind it

Quote
guns have a much longer range
Like right through the wall to your neighbors boy.

Quote
guns aren't stopped by someone willing to get maced and keep fighting
You ever been hit by a fog, not a stream, fog? Doesn't sound like it. You might have 30 seconds- might. I also keep a sledgehammer in my room to exercise my forearms. And I have a 50# recurve strung up on my wall. I know my kid cant pull it back right now. Don't tell me I cant keep it strung. That BS

Quote
I'm not a big fan of cowering inside my house
So you want to be Charles Bronson. You badass.
Quote
Plus, with a gun you have the option to go on the offense
I think you better let the experts handle that.

Quote
I like the fear the sound of a pump-action shotgun brings
Ah yes, the fear that people really want to instill. I recommend a penis extension. At least when you hurt someone they will like it.
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably