The big question not being asked, is this: Are they shooting police at random, or are they specifically targeting a list of well-known dick cops?
There is always a presumption fostered by the tone of the coverage, that when something like this (or 9-11) happens, it is simply “crazy bad guys wanting to hurt innocent people”, who have no other tactical objective. The apparent shooting skill of these Dallas snipers suggests better planning than random opportunism.
According to the reports I have been hearing on the radio, it started as a BLM protest and a bunch of police were there keeping things calm and even protecting the protesters. Then four men on rooftops with high powered rifles started shooting and eventually shot 12 cops, of whom 5 are dead, and two “civilians” (not my word, but if it is the police force’s, it shows how they thing of the rest of us). Three of the shooters have been arrested and the fourth killed in a shootout.
While I certainly cannot condone this kind of violence, it is inevitable if cops can murder “civilians” with impunity. Even the most blatant cases of this go unpunished. Violence begets violence. Lawnessless breeds lawlessness. (Ducks.)
Now we know that the “good guy with a gun” argument is invalid. All of the victims were armed when they were shot.
Probably not directly related, but the news out of Singapore is saying something is happening right now in Washington and that the city is in lockdown. I don’t see anything on CNN.
According to the police chief, a robot was sent in after negotiations failed to make him surrender.
First time I heard of a robot delivering and blowing a bomb to end a standoff by killing the perpetrator.
If the reports are accurate the perpetrator talked about the end coming, or end of times. Pointing also to madness as part of the reason.
An old high-school buddy ended up in Tulsa as the head of some sort of End of Times church. Man, those people are super nutso.
Perpetrator set out to kill white people.
I wonder if it was related to the KKK lynching yesterday.
http://usuncut.com/black-lives-matter/black-man-found-hanging-tree-atlanta-park/
What they’re saying on the radio around here is that it was likely a flash-bang that was too close to the suspect or something like that, not a grenade or satchel charge or anything like that.
I don’t know what they’re smoking down in Singapore, but apparently it was the US Capitol in lockdown, not the whole city, and out of an abundance of caution after Dallas. The lockdown is lifted now.
I don’t disagree, actually, but this was an extremely well planned, well executed attack, rivalling anything ISIS has ever done in the US. I’m very curious as to who these people are and how they came up with this plan. It’s just too premeditated to be about rage over the last two incidents.
The big worry for me though is what this might start. I’ve always felt that mass shootings are in large part a fad. It’s just the thing to do when you hate the world and are willing to die and want your name in the papers. Now anyone who hates the police enough to risk their lives is likely to try something like this in other cities.
None of those things are mutually exclusive. Yes I’ve heard directly from Dallas police officers that they were chanting it. Also heard it was peaceful and some officers were taking pictures with some protestors.
On the use of force report I guess they will have to check the block that says “other.” It has to be the first time in the US something like that has happened.
Someone presumably confused the US Capitol with the US capital.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains that the amendments were added “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”. So the Second Amendment was added as a provision “being necessary to the security of a free state”.
So, what do you know? ***The citizenry is using a constitutionally protected method of preventing abuse of state power. ***
Did you post this thinking it refuted or supported the point I made?
Exactly what “abuse of state power” is being prevented by randomly murdering innocent people?
It might of been one of the small explosives they often use to detonate suspected bombs in-place. That’s the kind of explosive the bomb squad is likely to have on hand and is designed to be detonated by the robot, after all.
I did not justify nor endorse any behavior. I offered an explanation that might account for such behavior. This may be the opening salvo in a constitutionally authorized war of the citizenry against the police, perceived as abusers of power.
But, to further the point, if in fact there has been abuse of state power, and if in fact the responsible legislatures, courts, or agencies of abuse have failed tgo address the abuse (neither of which I have asserted), then the interpretation of the Preamble and the Second Amendment can be reasonably held to be a remedy.
It remains to be shown (or even asked, as far as I know) if the “innocent people” are in fact targeted specific abusers of power. I leave it to you to defend that assertion of innocence.
Let’s take the issue of “is this the precursor to a citizen revolution” to GD. We can discuss motivations of the shooters in this thread but that’s getting too far afield for this specific news story.
Thanks.
Refuted. Unless you think the protest was positive towards the police (which would make it a rather odd “protest”), it is fair to class is as an “anti-police” protest for the sake of brevity and ease of reading. Yes, maybe the OP had an ulterior motive in that particular selection of phrasing (though it seems pretty innocuous), but it’s also pretty open to it having just been shortened for the purpose of putting it in a title.
In my eyes, your post seemed to indicate that you had missed the first sentence more than it indicated incredulity that the OP had shortened “anti-officer involved shooting” to “anti-police”. If you are incredulous about that, I’d probably vote that you might want to stay away from this thread, as I doubt that you’re going to approach it with much rationality.
I don’t think posting a phrase that backs up my assertion about the OP’s mischaracterizing the protest refuted me as well as you thought it would.
I completely disagree that “it is fair to class is as an “anti-police” protest for the sake of brevity and ease of reading.”
It appears to be deliberately mischaracterizing the protest in an attempt to implicate the protest and/or protestors as a part of the shooting, since no part of the OP’s cite used the phrase “anti-police” without the qualitative “shooting” included.
Omitting the word “shooting” generalizes the protest and protestors as anarchists who decry a vital part of society itself, attempting thus to demonize them in the vast majority of people’s minds (most people quite like living in our society, AFAICT).