I don’t want the attention, and didn’t expect to get it. I was posting in a moment of perturbance and (I thought) with obvious sarcasm to a poster who had posted a series of rants and assertions out of proportion to the facts known about the story.
And I don’t care what anybody says, the non-random targeting of specific cops for assassination (which is how the initial resports from investigators made it sound) is so unusual that my speculation was entirely reasonable.
How’s that doucebaggery working out for ya?
The percentage doesn’t matter. One-tenth of one percent of the population could indulge in this kind behavior and you’d still have 300,000 people doing it.
The point is that police officers face a much greater threat of targeted violence due to the fact that they are police than do people in most other types of jobs.
You’re completely missing the point. If you had simply said, I wonder if the cops were involved in something they shouldn’t have been and the shooting is related to that, people wouldn’t have jumped on your shit. That would have been legitimate speculation. “How do you know they didn’t have it coming” is just shit stirring.
And now you’re just being stubborn and unreasonable and digging your heels in when it is clear you chose your words poorly.
Fucking man up and admit it already.
Of course you’ll provide a cite for this, right?
I honestly was not trying to stir shit. I was trying to take some piss from a specific poster.
It is such a senseless act, that will bring the full power of the police down on them, that it does make you wonder. This kind of stuff does not happen. Who wants to get the entire police department on their back. I need more. The police say it was not random.
I really think you and some others need a nap.
“How do you know they didn’t have it coming” may be crass, but it is *very close *to “I wonder if the cops were involved in something they shouldn’t have been and the shooting is related to that”.
It is also close to 'Why don’t you calm down and wait till we actually have something other than assumptions to go on". Argent Towers already had the shooters living like kings in luxury, with free drugs and blow jobs at taxpayer expense.
It seems to be working out fine for him; he reports as being “happy as a pig in shit”, which accords well with my mental image of him.
Stranger
You want a cite that police officers have a dangerous job and that people occasionally take shots at them? For real.
If the entire police ddepartment is 6*, and you’ve already shot 4, then having the rest of the department on your back is not much of a big deal.
No it isn’t. Not at all. “Have it coming” means they *deserved *being gunned down. What could they possibly have been involved with that would justify that?
Even if they were lying murdering scumbag child pornographers, what they *deserved *was their day in court, not summary execution.
That’s debatable. Morally anyway. Legally, yes, it was a crime (if the shooter was sane).
I think the suggestion was that people go hunting police, or respond with violence when they encounter police. My guess is that the opposite is true, that people, especially violent ones, avoid the police in favor of easier targets. But I have no actual data on this.
And how it compares to other professions? I don’t have a clue where to find a list of jobs ordered by the number of assaults people in them suffer. Repomen come to mind – I dunno, maybe process servers. Oh yeah, how about convenience store clerks?
I do recall a network news story not long ago about NFL players, who seem as a group to have an inordinate number of weapons charges placed against them. Many players are convinced that they are considered targets by large numbers of guys with a fair amount of brawn and little brain. Apparently it’s cool to be able to say you beat up a linebacker. Anyway, a lot of players arm themselves out of fear of violent assault, though I have no idea if there is any actual data collected to find out if it’s true.
Anyway, it makes a lot more sense (to me) that there are other, more likely targets for violence than cops.
The entire point is that it was a crass comment. The tone of the comment I posted is entirely different.
Perhaps you need a nap.
Nobody would dispute that particular comment.
However:
This isn’t the same as saying police have a dangerous job and sometime get shot at.
SA’s comment implies that there is evidence that being a police officer makes it much more likely to be the victim of targeted violence.
I’m not sure that’s true, but even if it weren’t true, it doesn’t mean being a cop isn’t a dangerous profession.
That’s it!!
Naptime all around!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What isn’t? At least around here.
Are you suggesting that an argument can be made that summarily executions of certain individuals by members of the population can be justified? That certain offenses are so bad that anyone with a gun can carry out said execution?
What offenses rise to this level? The ones I mentioned? Is it fair to say, then, that your question can be re-phrased as “How do you know they weren’t lying murdering scumbag child pornographers?”
If not, feel free to insert whatever offense you do believe rises to that level. As well as a reason to suspect the officers of said offense.
Of course. Bear in mind, that I’m talking morally, not legally, but yes, of course there are people who morally deserve summary execution.
Well, murderers and child pornographers, anyway. Also, how about 911 hijackers, rapists and serial killers? How about that guy who kept his daughter as a sex slave down in his basement for all those years, or the one who kidnapped that little girl and kept her in his backyard? Legally, they deserve a trial. Morally, they deserve literal crucifixion.
That is precisely how my question can be rephrased.