102 arrested, 27 officers injured in 94 shutdown

[theyarecomingforyou]

38 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I do not care you find it abhorrent.  If you physically attack a cop, point a gun (or any other lethal or perceived weapon) at a cop ... they have every right to defend themselves ... even if their self defense cost you your life.  Plain and simple.  Don't want to get shot ... be cool and do what the cop ask.  Fight it later in a court of law. 

An officer should have to prove that their life was at risk in order to justify a killing. Otherwise you end up with the situation we see now where police can gun people down without consequence.

 

38 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I'm opposed to the individuals who think it is wise in fighting the cops.  That is the #1 reason people get shot.  Do you really think an unarmed police officer would last long in Chicago?  Would you be ok if a police officer was killed because they tried non-lethal methods to bring in a dangerous person so they could stand trial?

I'm not arguing that police officers be denied weapons, as given the current climate that wouldn't be sensible. However, I would certainly substantially raise the standard of training before an officer be allowed to carry one. Firearms should be treated with respect, not something casually used anytime they feel slightly threatened.

 

14 minutes ago, Raze said:

Your responses are full of hyperbole and fail to acknowledge that there are changes occurring, in fact you are minimizing them.  Perhaps it's because you simply do not know what you are talking about.  Again the US is not other countries, but you unable or unwilling to understand that, a continuing  display of either ignorance or arrogance or both.

I'm not unwilling to understand. I simply reject the notion that the changes you talk about will solve the policing issues facing the United States. Not enough is being done.

 

14 minutes ago, Raze said:

I did not suggest that the use of a bomb was rational, but there are times when you have to resort to an extreme act to deal with an uncompromising, extreme situation.  Your one size fits all attitude doesn't work in reality.

The problem is that if that sort of policing is tolerated then it will only be a matter of time until armed drones are used to police the streets and execute people on sight. I'd rather not see a dystopian future become a reality.

 

16 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I like how you define this so that people who disagree with you are automatically irrational. I also like how using a bomb is somehow murder from a cop, when a gun wouldn't be.

I'm not saying people are irrational for disagreeing with me, I'm saying that it's irrational to call using robot assassins to explode suspects is good policing. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm suggesting that using a gun to kill them is any better. My point is that suspects should be apprehended alive and only when there is no other alternative should lethal force be considered. In this case there were other options but instead the police conspired to kill him.

 

16 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So you think that cops should never use a firearm? Even if it means costing them multiple casualties to bring someone in alive? A bunch of dead cops is worth it? Do you see cops as not human beings or something, that their right to life is somehow superseded by those who are not police?

Strawman. I never said any such thing.

 

16 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

They negotiated with the guy for 3 hours, and got nowhere. What amount of time is reasonable to you? When would you deem it fair to end an assailant's life rather than continue throwing cannon fodder at them in the form of police? I really want to understand why you think a cop's life is worth less than the lives of people who are blatantly murdering other people. It's not as if there was any question whether or not he did what he was doing.

If they could rig a robot with a bomb then why couldn't they rig it with a taser or a flashbang? The reality is that the police set out to kill him when non-lethal options remained. It was vengeance rather than justice.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

8 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

An officer should have to prove that their life was at risk in order to justify a killing. Otherwise you end up with the situation we see now where police can gun people down without consequence.

 

I'm not arguing that police officers be denied weapons, as given the current climate that wouldn't be sensible. However, I would certainly substantially raise the standard of training before an officer be allowed to carry one. Firearms should be treated with respect, not something casually used anytime they feel slightly threatened.

 

I'm not unwilling to understand. I simply reject the notion that the changes you talk about will solve the policing issues facing the United States. Not enough is being done.

 

The problem is that if that sort of policing is tolerated then it will only be a matter of time until armed drones are used to police the streets and execute people on sight. I'd rather not see a dystopian future become a reality.

 

I'm not saying people are irrational for disagreeing with me, I'm saying that it's irrational to call using robot assassins to explode suspects is good policing. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm suggesting that using a gun to kill them is any better. My point is that suspects should be apprehended alive and only when there is no other alternative should lethal force be considered. In this case there were other options but instead the police conspired to kill him.

 

Strawman. I never said any such thing.

 

If they could rig a robot with a bomb then why couldn't they rig it with a taser or a flashbang? The reality is that the police set out to kill him when non-lethal options remained. It was vengeance rather than justice.

I did no say those were the only things being done.  I said, "There are no easy, quick answers, but if you believe that nothing is being done, well, that would be very ignorant."   I listed some of the actions/efforts being done.   Again your narrow, black and white bias is showing.

 

There is a very active dialog occurring in this country about the use of a bomb to kill Micah Johnson.   Many people are stunned that it was even considered let alone actually used.  A remark that it may become tolerated/accepted is way off base.  More of your extreme notions.

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

An officer should have to prove that their life was at risk in order to justify a killing. Otherwise you end up with the situation we see now where police can gun people down without consequence.

Wow...so you think that after a cop fires his weapon ... nothing happens?  As in ... no investigation into why the cop fired his/her weapon.

 

Really? 

[Emn1ty]

52 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

If they could rig a robot with a bomb then why couldn't they rig it with a taser or a flashbang? The reality is that the police set out to kill him when non-lethal options remained. It was vengeance rather than justice.

Flashbangs do not always work, tasers do not always work. Even tear gas doesn't always work. Yes, they set out to kill him. A man, who was ex-military, that set out to murder as many policeman as he could (injuring around a dozen and successfully killing 5 of them). They didn't come to this decision lightly, as you seem to be making out to have been. And vengeance? Seriously? Of course when logic fails you'll assume motivation instead.

[ctebah]

53 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

If they could rig a robot with a bomb then why couldn't they rig it with a taser or a flashbang? The reality is that the police set out to kill him when non-lethal options remained. It was vengeance rather than justice.

Of course it was vengeance.  From the moment this guy started shooting cops, they were going to kill him without apprehension.  

[trag3dy]

47 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Wow...so you think that after a cop fires his weapon ... nothing happens?  As in ... no investigation into why the cop fired his/her weapon.

 

Really?  LOL

His blatant bias and ignorance on how things work in the US always shines through in a conversation. I've given up replying to him as there is no point because it's clear he doesn't want to understand how it is from people who actually live here. He just wants to lecture us ignorant Americans on how things work in the real world (the UK).

[adrynalyne]

54 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Wow...so you think that after a cop fires his weapon ... nothing happens?  As in ... no investigation into why the cop fired his/her weapon.

 

Really? 

Wow, his ignorance is shining bright today. 

[trag3dy]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Wow, his ignorance is shining bright today. 

Yeah my only guess is that he thinks tv show police represent reality.

[adrynalyne]

Just now, trag3dy said:

Yeah my only guess is that he thinks tv show police represent reality.

Probably has watched a little too much Justified.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

An officer should have to prove that their life was at risk in order to justify a killing. Otherwise you end up with the situation we see now where police can gun people down without consequence.

 

Tell that to the 5 dead cops in Dallas and all of the rest that died in the line of duty protecting the likes of you.

[trag3dy]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Probably has watched a little too much Justified.

 

It's a good show to watch a lot of, don't get me wrong. But in reality Rayland would have been fired if not jailed for murder after the very first scene of the entire tv series. 

[adrynalyne]

Just now, trag3dy said:

It's a good show to watch a lot of, don't get me wrong. But in reality Rayland would have been fired if not jailed for murder after the very first scene of the entire tv series. 

Right? LOL. 

2 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Tell that to the 5 dead cops in Dallas and all of the rest that died in the line of duty protecting the likes of you.

The likes of him aren't protected by our police, otherwise he would be more educated on the matter. He isn't in the US. 

[techbeck]

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Tell that to the 5 dead cops in Dallas and all of the rest that died in the line of duty protecting the likes of you.

I find it funny that these protesters, may times enticing violence towards police, want the same people they are protesting against to defend them while doing so.  And when something else violent happens or others get killed, there is little to no mention of that from these same people.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

If they could rig a robot with a bomb then why couldn't they rig it with a taser or a flashbang? The reality is that the police set out to kill him when non-lethal options remained. It was vengeance rather than justice.

You are so wrong it is pathetic. He was not going to be taken alive, he knew that when he drove himself to the scene. He had an AR-15, a Glock 19 and a .45 Caliber pistol. He could have easily dodged a taser or shoot it out of the bots grips, same with the flash bang which only works for a matter of seconds.

[PaulATMOS]

12 hours ago, MikeChipshop said:

 

... Do you know what left wing means?

Hey Mikey.....sure I do. I know the various groups that fall under the guise of "left wing". Maybe I was being a bit harsh referring to you as being an anarchist, which would be at the extreme end of the left.

Do you consider yourself to be left of centre?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

18 minutes ago, freqnasty said:

Hey Mikey.....sure I do. I know the various groups that fall under the guise of "left wing". Maybe I was being a bit harsh referring to you as being an anarchist, which would be at the extreme end of the left.

Do you consider yourself to be left of centre?

An anarchist can lean both ways I believe.

[PaulATMOS]

6 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

An anarchist can lean both ways I believe.

Possibly. When you consider communism is also left, yet traditonally communist regimes are based on strict rules and order. An anarchist would hate this side of it.

[wakjak]

1 hour ago, freqnasty said:

Possibly. When you consider communism is also left, yet traditonally communist regimes are based on strict rules and order. An anarchist would hate this side of it.

And what does an anarchist have to do with communism? 

[PaulATMOS]

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

And what does an anarchist have to do with communism? 

I was merely pointing out groups that were left wing. Anarchists (traditionally) and communism are both on the left side of politics. Anarchists largely don't like capitalism or establishment.

[Depicus]

8 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

while we're playing video tennis.. 

 

 

Yes I'm educated enough to know black people are just as bad if not worse racists but two wrongs don't make a right.

[restroom]

13 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

You say that without specifying what exactly I'm 'misinterpreting'.

 

That's completely wrong. Per million there are 1.42 white people killed and 3.33 black people killed (The Guardian); the figures also highlight an under-reported trend, which is that Native Americans are killed at a rate of 3.4 per million. Please don't claim you 'saw statistics' without verifying their authenticity, as that is how misinformation spreads. If you weren't sure you should have gone and checked for yourself rather than erroneously challenging me.

 

I never suggested otherwise. There is a massive problem with police brutality across the board, it just happens to disproportionately affect ethnic minorities.

 

Ad hominem. If you can't win the argument you attack the person challenging you. I'm happy to have my opinions challenged and accept when I'm wrong. So please, if you take issue with something I'm saying it then please do challenge it. If you have evidence to support your position then please provide it.

Lol. I've not attacked you mate. Sorry if you feel that way. You must be easy to upset.

 

On that note I'll leave you too it. I'm all for your opinion and a debate, but you seem unable to have a rational one without getting upset or ignoring\twisting people's words.

 

Ely if you like, but this will be my last reply to you on this subject at least.

 

Have a great day!

[restroom]

5 hours ago, Raze said:

I did no say those were the only things being done.  I said, "There are no easy, quick answers, but if you believe that nothing is being done, well, that would be very ignorant."   I listed some of the actions/efforts being done.   Again your narrow, black and white bias is showing.

 

There is a very active dialog occurring in this country about the use of a bomb to kill Micah Johnson.   Many people are stunned that it was even considered let alone actually used.  A remark that it may become tolerated/accepted is way off base.  More of your extreme notions.

 

 

Glad to see I'm not the only one finding this member difficult to debate with, without him twisting or misinterpreting me.

[Depicus]

11 minutes ago, restroom said:

Glad to see I'm not the only one finding this member difficult to debate with, without him twisting or misinterpreting me.

I thought that was the whole idea of debating is that both sides put their views forward. Much like life the two sides are so extrinsically and diametrically opposed that consensus is impossible. If you don't like somebodies argument you have to rebut their points, throwing your toys out of the pram is just an admission that you lost. 

[restroom]

1 minute ago, Depicus said:

I thought that was the whole idea of debating is that both sides put their views forward. Much like life the two sides are so extrinsically and diametrically opposed that consensus is impossible. If you don't like somebodies argument you have to rebut their points, throwing your toys out of the pram is just an admission that you lost. 

No. A debate is about taking in board someone's view point and coming back with a counter argument.

 

In that guys case he literally takes people's posts either totally out of context or twists them to argue you have said something you haven't.

 

Just read through the thread and you'll see how many times he had done this to people.

 

I am throwing my toys out of the pram admittedly. Not because I've lost the debate against him, but because it's impossible to debate with them for the above reasons.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

 

Quote

What if Whites Strike Back?