from the "All-lives-matter."-President-Obama dept.
Snipers in Dallas: [5] Cops Dead; [6] More Cops Wounded
The Atlantic reports:
Two gunmen shot eleven police officers in Dallas, Texas [at 8:58 PM July 7], killing at least four of them.
[...] At a Thursday night press conference, Dallas Police Department Chief David Brown said [...] officers had one of the suspects "cornered", but did not offer further details.
"Tonight, it appears that two snipers shot ten police officers from elevated positions during the protest/rally", Brown said in an initial statement. "Three officers are deceased, two are in surgery, and three are in critical condition. An intensive search for suspect is currently underway." The police department later said an eleventh officer had also been injured and a fourth officer had been killed.
[...] The shootings occurred during a protest against police killings earlier this week in Louisiana and Minnesota. Hundreds rallied in downtown Dallas, near the corner of Main Street and Lamar Street. Local news footage captured what sounds like several gunshots being fired, and the crowd scattering.
[...] No motive has yet been established and it's unclear whether the shooting was related to the protest.
The New York Times just broke the story about the latest in the police killings of black men. It seems the tide has been turned. [Five] Dallas police officers were killed tonight at a protest in that city over these shootings.
I am not surprised, nor am I particularly shocked. No doubt there will be more to come on this topic as the evening progresses. Hopefully something good comes out of this, but I am inclined to doubt it.
takyon: Some more details: One suspect was killed by an explosion intentionally caused by a police robot. He reportedly told a negotiator that he was upset about Black Lives Matter, the recent police shootings, and wanted to kill white people, especially police officers. He said he was not affiliated with any groups and acted alone. Other suspects have been arrested, and a "person of interest" (often identified as a suspect by the news media) was arrested early in the night after he was photographed with his unloaded AR-15. He handed his weapon to an officer shortly after the shootings, and later turned himself into the police for questioning.
President Obama spoke about the shootings shortly after arriving in Poland for a NATO conference. In part, he mentioned that, "When people say 'black lives matter,' that doesn't mean blue lives don't matter, it just means all lives matter — but right now the big concern is the fact that the data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents [...] This isn't a matter of us comparing the value of lives. This is recognizing that there is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens. And we should care about that. And we can't dismiss it. We can't dismiss it."
Related Stories
The Dubai police have a new officer, a life-sized robot one [...]
He has a large touch screen and can be used for paying fines and for reporting incidents of concern. [...]
"This is the official launch of our first Robocop," said Brig Khalid Al Razooqi, Dubai Police director general of smart services, according to the i. "Now most people visit police stations or customer service, but with this tool we can reach the public 24/7 and it won't ask for any sick leave or maternity leave."
Source: The Inquirer
Previous stories:
California Police use a Robot to Take Away a Suspect's Gun
Sniper Attack in Dallas: 5 Cops Dead; 6 More Wounded
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:24PM
Death by robotic explosion.
But really, this is an inseparable continuation of the previous day's coverage.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:18PM
Death by robotic explosion.
This is the very interesting part about this and the previous story. I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
This is also relevant to previous discussions about the justification of a drone strikes on US Citizens.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:49PM
Summary execution by bomb not being carried out by the national guard or military.
While using the military against civilians seems bad, letting cops use bombs to eliminate a perp is seriously reinforcing the 'police state' view many people, including these assailants (I'm sure they will call them terrorists, but given their targetted attack on police and only one civilian injury I cannot in good conscience place them with the likes of Daesh, Al Qaeda, Kazynski, or the Oklahoma bombers, whose tactics often primarily target civilians.) These guys appear to have known what they were doing, and if veterans as mentioned then it is truly on. I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 08 2016, @05:25PM
Would we consider it any less of a police state if some sort of noxious gas was used? Or robotic tazers continually shocking him until enforcers could pin and cuff him?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:52PM
I think the tazer thing would be really hard to do, robots just don't have the kind of dexterity to pull that off.
Noxious gas would have flushed him out and precipitated a fire fight.
Some sort of knock-out gas might have worked, especially if they could control ventilation and lock him in there (was he even inside a room or just a section of an open structure like a parking garage?) You can still die from knock-out gas. [wikipedia.org] But at least death is not guaranteed.
I would have offered to send him a soda and then spiked it with a knock-out drug. Maybe they did try it and he didn't bite.
But I'm thinking a stun grenade might have been a good first pass at a kinetic solution. If they can send in a robot, they can look at him to see if he's got equipment that would mitigate its effectiveness.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @06:13PM
I think the tazer thing would be really hard to do, robots just don't have the kind of dexterity to pull that off.
Dystopian stun gun drone [youtube.com] disagrees (not that they had one handy).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:41PM
lol no dexterity needed when the target stands absolutely motionless.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @07:35PM
I'm not ure how much dexterity is needed when the target is corned, either. My question was whether or not the target would shoot first. The drone does fire pretty soon after the guy in the video turns around, which I assume was the cue to fire.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @06:32PM
Yes. There is no question here that he needed to be captured, using death as a solution is the slipperiest of slopes. There will be no trial, the investigation will be missing a pretty large piece (the perp), and it greenlights the use of murder to quell any dissidents. This is very likely to evolve police tactics to where killing the suspect is the preferred option when the suspect is armed, which will be the final nail needed to lock us in the police state coffin. As a society we have been whipped into a fearful frenzy that denies all statistical reality, which is the first step towards accomplishing true authoritarianism / fascism. Anyone who cries foul here will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, thus a large segment of the population will be further scared into saying nothing for fear of reprisal.
This is how it works, and I would like to say we're walking blindly into it but there is a significant percentage of the population screaming about it constantly. I think the real turning point was when the POTUS got the power of a secret kill list, and drones started being used to kill at will. Every empire becomes the largest terrorist organization, raining death upon those that get in its way and not just those trying to kill those in the empire.
We have the tools to push back against this tyranny, the facebook video is one great example where the information got out before it could be hidden. I guess it is now up to the government and "powers that be" whether to reform and start considering the welfare of the people, or whether to keep running this country into the ground through fear and violence.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:12PM
Erm... Just a point of information here. Killing the perpetrator when they are armed and belligerent has always been the preferred method in these United States.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @09:29PM
True, but we sell the population on hostage negotiators talking the perp down, or that the police only shoot after they shoot first. Basically, I think that police are provided with protective gear and it is their job to stop violence. The statistics show that police don't get injured nearly as much as most other professions, so I think it is fair to say they should wait for a gun to be pointed at them at the least.
I get that this guy already killed officers, and I don't have any real qualms with the fact that he is no longer alive, I just feel its a very bad idea to let police use these methods. He wasn't an imminent threat at the time since if he popped his head out it would have been shot off. They have already militarized heavily, and using subterfuge like a cell phone bomb just seems wrong. I don't know all the details, but the slippery slope scares the crap out of me. License to kill and all that, and yes I realize officers already have that. Anyone who steps out of line and tries to fight their oppressors will be labeled a terrorist and murdered. Too easy for those in power to use these scenarios to conveniently get rid of someone.
In the traffic stop incident the cop already had his gun out and aimed, he would have been able to shoot as soon as he saw a gun coming out. Shooting first is a cowardly way to approach the situations and makes citizens very nervous since they don't know what/when a cop will "fear for their life". Reach towards your back pocket to get your ID in just the wrong way, get shot 4 times in the chest...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:39AM
Your position creates confusion in the whole issue of cops killing unarmed black young men. Key word, "unarmed". There is far to much of that.
I am pissed that cops can shoot first, and ask questions later if ever. I'm pissed that young men with no weapons at all are almost routinely gunned down. It is outrageous that cowards can fire their weapons into a man's body, just because his hands were somewhere near his waistband. FFS, I'm six feet tall, and my hands are never much further than three feet from my waistband! According to cop's stories, I present a threat to them, just by existing.
Now, in this case, an armed man had already killed 4 (soon to be five) and put 7 others out of action. Sniper or not, he was at least moderately competent with his weapons. The cops are not obligated to put themselves at any further risk to talk the guy into surrendering. I have no problem at all with "executing" him. I am just surprised that they used a robot with a bomb.
Cops in general need to be brought under control, but there must always be an option to bring down a truly dangerous man. There is simply no point in being upset that this particular individual was gunned down, or blown up, or poisoned, or killed by whatever means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:40AM
As long as he was not an immediate threat, it seems wrong to allow the police to execute him with no due process. The cops had/have the resources to starve him out and summary execution is considered a no-no in all civilized countries. Especially in a country with so many armed people, allowing the cops to summarily execute people because they are a threat or perceived as a threat is a very slippery slope to embark on. Though I guess it can be argued that any armed person or person that might be armed is a threat and should be summarily executed, which seems to be the direction that America is headed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:43PM
"The cops had/have the resources to starve him out"
You are making one huge assumption and/or presumption. We didn't know all this two nights ago, but the fact is, the man was a combat veteran. Starve him out? If/when he was ready to make a move, he fully intended to take some more cops with him. He wasn't surrendering. He stated clearly that he wanted to kill cops, especially white cops. A combat veteran need not be armed to be dangerous, and this one was armed. He refused to surrender, the cops couldn't just leave the next move to him. Doing so would have been criminally negligent. Mention was made of explosive devices - leaving him alive for an extended period of time, still armed, he may or may not have detonated his explosives.
Again, we didn't know this at the time, but his apartment was supposedly a stash for explosives. Knowing what we now know of him, a threat of explosives was a credible threat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 10 2016, @03:28AM
As long as he was not an immediate threat, it seems wrong to allow the police to execute him with no due process.
But he was an immediate threat. He just killed people and he was still dangerous.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Sunday July 10 2016, @02:43PM
The point was he was cornered enough for negotiations and phone delivery, so not much of an immediate threat. Though runaways comment about explosives is a good component.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:46PM
The point was he was cornered enough for negotiations and phone delivery, so not much of an immediate threat.
How many more innocent lives should we gamble on the unwarranted assumption that he can't kill anyone else just because he's pinned down at the moment? I don't grant your assertion here because it's idiotic and insane. Police shouldn't be risking their lives in this way for someone who had already killed five armed people and shot a number of others. So no, as long as he didn't surrender, he remained an immediate threat. It would have been wrong to give him more time to figure out how to kill more people.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:10AM
The methods used and representation of society is important. No one is sorry this guy is dead, but its like standing up for freedom of speech even when you hate what someone else is saying. I would have to get a good account of the whole situation, did they communicate with him at all? What demands were then either way, etc. I for one would like to have sent him a tapped phone to hear who he'd call, what he'd say. You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't a dozen other ways they could handle the guy with little to no risk. This is the kind of story that could be so easily spun into a movie, hopefully Hollywood won't touch it out of respect for those whose lives were lost. There are always the extreme edges of every situation, its how we change our behavior after that is really important.
But aside from that, thanks for pointing out the killing of unarmed men. It is a very important distinction with events that many choose to ignore (or are zombified to not even see).
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:45PM
"did they communicate with him at all?"
I can't answer any of your other questions, but the Dallas police chief and the mayor both stated that they were in negotiations with the shooter for quite some time. Apparently, the demands on each side were rejected by the other side. Maybe we'll get to hear those negotiations in coming days.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:57PM
Yeah, ultimately I would probably support their choice to take him out. The only real point that bugs me (beyond the ideological issue with police killing people) is wanting to know what he would have done with a cell phone, and if he was going to call for "support" then it would also have been good to find out who his compatriots are since they may go down the same road.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:10PM
Maybe. Documents about the JFK killing "which could amount to tens of thousands of pages" are still secret.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/11/25/government-still-withholding-thousands-documents-jfk-assassination/PvBM2PCgW1H11vadQ4Wp4H/story.html [bostonglobe.com]
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0817/50-years-later-sealed-JFK-files-still-raise-questions [csmonitor.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:59PM
Other commentators have said that killing is preferred when the suspect is black, whereas whites—for example Ammon Bundy; James Eagan Holmes; Dylann Roof; Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.—are often captured alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lewis_Dear [wikipedia.org]
Cliven Bundy was in an "armed standoff in 2014 with federal agents" but wasn't arrested until 2016.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/cliven_bundy_arrest_2_years_la.html [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @05:31PM
From TFA:
"We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,"
I like how the term "bomb robot" has been contorted in place by retrofitting a bomb disarming robot into a bomb delivering robot. I also wonder whose bomb it was.
From Fahrenheit 451:
They walked still farther and the girl said, "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"
"No. Houses have always been fireproof, take my word for it."
"Strange. I heard once that a long time ago houses used to burn by accident and they needed firemen to stop the flames.”
From parent AC:
I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
Yeah, that was bothersome to me as well. I'm wondering if the government is going to release a recording of that statement (ideally with enough context to make fudging it difficult), or if we're just expected to take their word on the divisive language that lumps most of America in with them as targets. Cops lie all the time, and have a clear incentive to do so here. Lots of people are also overtly racist, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that the cornered gunman could have said what they claim. I just don't have any reason to believe it yet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:41PM
Yeah, that was bothersome to me as well. I'm wondering if the government is going to release a recording of that statement (ideally with enough context to make fudging it difficult), or if we're just expected to take their word on the divisive language that lumps most of America in with them as targets.
Even if he straight up said that, nobody should take it at face value. The consciously expressed thoughts of people who are so motivated that they commit acts of political violence are generally a poor means of understanding their personal motivations. Being contemplative and analytical are traits that don't often go hand-in-hand with shooting sprees. That's more the province of hot-heads and the unstable - going out in a "blaze of glory" is usually the last step on a long path of increasingly disturbed behavior.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:45AM
" Being contemplative and analytical are traits that don't often go hand-in-hand with shooting sprees"
You know this - how? Maybe it would be more accurate that if any contemplative, analytical people have gone on shooting sprees, those people didn't survive to talk with psychologists and analysts.
How many published works written by racists have you read? May I suggest the Turner Diary? How about works published by convicts? Maybe you've read everything ever written by the KKK, and the Black Panthers?
I suggest that your claim is unsupported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:38AM
> How many published works written by racists have you read?
It is weird you equate going on a murder spree with being a racist.
And then you cite a bunch of racists who did not go on murder sprees.
If all racists were spree killers we'd all be dead. And I sure as hell would not want to be living anywhere near your racist ass.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:21AM
THIS murderer was indeed a racist. Many of the mass killers have been racists. But, whether the individual killer is racist or not, the challenge remains: how many of their published works have you read? That guy, Anders, wrote quite a bit. The claim that shooters lack introspection, that they lack the ability to communicate their reasons and goals lacks merit.
Some of those people are thoughtful people. The establishment doesn't want to promulgate their thinking, which is anti-establishment, so you have to dig a little bit to find their thoughts.
As for living anywhere near my "racist ass", don't worry. There is someone down the street from you who has ideas about your own worthless carcass. Maybe Michael Madison's cousin lives around the corner from you. And, Wayne Gacy's nephew lives a couple blocks over, in the other direction. There's no reason for you to feel "safe" - that's just an illusion that you allow yourself to fall into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:44AM
> THIS murderer was indeed a racist.
Maybe. But so what? There are tens of millions of racists. You are a racist. Are you plotting a spree killing?
> Anders, wrote quite a bit.
And said very little. Mostly just a regurgitation of the same stuff you masturbate to.
> The claim that shooters lack introspection, that they lack the ability to communicate their reasons and goals lacks merit.
A focus on the perceived evils in others is literally the opposite of introspection. It is pretty much all you do, so I can see why you would like to think that counts as introspection. But damn! You are the last person here, well maybe second to the mighty butthurt who has the mentality of an insecure middle-schooler, to understand introspection.
It is kinda creepy that you are here defending murdering racists as having deep self-knowledge. Its like you were insulted.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:57AM
You insist on proving yourself a complete fool.
GP's post indicated that every shooter is some kind of unthinking moron. I countered that not all of them are unthinking morons. Here you come to his defense, trying to paint me as a racist, and insisting that there is nothing to learn from any of the published works of any of the shooters.
Try pulling your head out of your arse, take a nice deep breath of fresh, oxygenated air, and THINK about what you're writing.
Then, go look for some of those published works, and read through them. Not every shooter is an idiot. Not only that, but sometimes they do make valid points. In fact, BLM is trying to make some of the same points that some of the shooters have made. Life is unfair, injustice and corruption hammers at people on a daily basis. Go, read, try to educate yourself. Those shooters didn't spring out of some other dimension. They were born into this world, and nurtured by this world. They took their ideas from real life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:24AM
I am the GP.
You are the one who made it about racism.
And now your argument is just pedantics? That not 100% of spree killers have serious mental problems because I didn't interview them all?
BFG you idiot. You are one of the least self-aware people on this site. Half your posts are so unintentionally revealing that I've actually laughed outloud out how transparent they were.
Hell your reason for bringing all this up is so fucking transparent. If the murderers in the out-groups you hate are murderers because of their surface thoughts then your hate for them is justified. If they are just nutjobs like all the nutjobs from your favored in-groups then you might start doubting your entire hate-based worldview start thinking of them as people instead of enemies.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:11AM
Different AC here, and from my view of the GP's post...
... it seems that Runaway has made some good points, referencing written works by advocates of mass murder, and instead of trying to defend the original point, the grandparent poster resorts to throwing around buzzwords at Runaway's references. Sorry, there are no "magic words" (e.g. racist, bigot, intolerant, nutjob, crazy, hate) that automatically and by themselves invalidate reasoning, no matter how dispicable the reasoner may or may not be.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday July 08 2016, @08:20PM
I am however saddened by the choice to say they were out to kill white people, rather than placing their hatred on the political, judicial, and enforcement arms, and secondarily on the complacent citizenry, of which we are all a part.
If one reaches the point that they are going to indiscriminately target any group, however large or however exclusive, they have reached a point without any real rationality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @09:37PM
And do you really believe what the police say? Or just say that to make them to look better as our saviors?
We need proof that he really said what the police say he said.
For sure that these conversations with the negotiator are recorded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:41AM
I tend not to believe murderers over cops, but hey, I'm must just be racist that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:06AM
More often than not, they're the same. Or are you saying that you tend to believe murders with badges over those without?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:15PM
I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 08 2016, @11:19PM
I am very interested in how a suspect with a gun that is cornered and, presumably only accessible by robot (not snipers), is considered an imminent threat that needs to be executed.
For starters, he just killed five people and hadn't surrendered to police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @03:54AM
No shit. Of course he was a threat, we all know how to read.
The main point is how to define what an imminent threat is and how much force is necessary to subdue the suspect. It is important to discuss these things and figure out how and what should be done. The label, "imminent threat", is used to justify drone strikes (including at least one targeting a US citizen) and now for using a bomb robot to kill a citizen on US soil without a trial.
I'm no arm-chair quarterback and will not say that the wrong decision was made, but the public should be vigilant and ensure that its law enforcers are acting in its interests within an acceptable range.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:28AM
I saw this all coming years ago. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d search through all my posts and find the ones about Obamas drone executions and his sponsoring of BLM terrorist. Two creations used against eachother.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:51AM
Same here. In fact, I've openly stated that if I were a young black man in New York City, subjected to that moronic 'Stop and Frisk' bullshit, I would be organizing an insurrection. Entire neighborhoods where you, your mama, your little brothers and sisters, your wife/girlfreind are accosted, thrown up against a wall, and frisked. Maybe only once a week, maybe six times in the same day. Yeah, I'd be pretty damned interested in organizing something like this.
In view of the fact that the military is largely composed of minorities, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to put together an entire squad of people who know how to use weapons. A full squad of combat veterans, reinforced with a couple dozen outraged citizens could create some major havoc. The governor would have no choice but to call in his National Guard, but there would be a lot of dead cops before the Guard arrived on scene.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:10AM
Armed insurrection is what this was. It was one vet. Imagine more vets following suit. Sometimes these incidents remain isolated. Other times, when conditions are right, they spread like wildfire. One more big economic shock while the middle class are still on their backs from. The last one, and that's all you need.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:19AM
Ok. We'll send you in first with the armed suspect. You can cuddle him out of his killing nest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @08:45PM
I'm sure that is exactly what the cops would do if they didn't have access to a bomb-delivery robot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:42PM
There was no explosion. That report was retracted. The gunman was just firing some rounds, and killed himself.
https://twitter.com/regated/status/751303777341218816 [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 08 2016, @07:58PM
They blew up the shooter with a bomb attached to the arm of a bomb-disposal robot. Right after 3 minute mark i think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLYk-2d3NMs [youtube.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @08:25PM
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/08/dallas-shooting-suspect-killed-by-bomb-robot/ [snopes.com]
http://www.popsci.com/police-used-bomb-disposal-robot-to-kill-dallas-shooting-suspect [popsci.com]
Dallas police may be first U.S. law enforcement agency to use a robot to kill a suspect [dallasnews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @11:42PM
A bomb was the best option? If the Dallas PD wants an LRAD or ADS they've got the justification for it now...although it sounds like they're having too much fun blowing people up.
The robot should be called Rubybot...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:20AM
It's a nice story about them taking the option best suited for keeping officers safe, even if that option was a first-of-its-kind robo bombing.
Believe me, it had nothing to do with the fact that 5 officers were killed. No revenge plot here. It was simple professionalism and the best course of action.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:42AM
What troubles me about this is that the bomb was premeditated. Where did the bomb come from if not from the suspect? THE POLICE BROUGHT A BOMB TO THE SCENE? THAT'S PART OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? HOLY SHIT!
Or worse: it's not standard operating procedure, but there was enough time for an IED to be created expressly for the purpose of murdering a suspect? And everyone thought that was a good idea????
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:57AM
Apparently the bomb was C4 that they were able to detonate remotely. Not sure if that's "standard issue" but there you go.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:25PM
I heard that there was just one sniper.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:26PM
#grassyknoll
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 08 2016, @03:27PM
No one knows for certain. The shooter they killed claimed to be acting alone. However, a woman was involved in a shootout with police, around the same time. They arrested another person for having a weapon. Lotsa crap seems to have happened, in proximity to this one shooter. Maybe some of it was connected, maybe not.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 08 2016, @03:44PM
Hillary needed a public distraction from the fact that SAP/ORCON [c-span.org] information was on some of her e-mails, and some or all of those e-mails were pilfered by foreign governments.
As a windfall, emperor Baraq Hussein Soetoro can further push his gun-grabbing agenda.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:48PM
The guy open carrying at the rally was the one without bullets or the intent to kill. His performance should help stall any efforts to repeal open carry in Texas.
If Obama/successor's agenda involves banning AR-15s, it won't be very effective since they can be milled from 80% lowers and Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed released a product to make that dead simple.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:17PM
Hahahahahaha! That's funny, that is. Austin doesn't have near the population to pass laws by itself and the rest of Texas would riot even if they did.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:04PM
Conspiracy theories abound...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 08 2016, @04:10PM
You're gonna have to try harder than that, buddy. Might as well shout, "Sexist!"
Watch the video. Look how much those uncomfortable bastards are squirming.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:38PM
> As a windfall, emperor Baraq Hussein Soetoro can further push his gun-grabbing agenda.
Ah, Americans and their gun-humping...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 08 2016, @05:38PM
"If the victims had been armed, because the cops are always so slow to react, this tragedy wouldn't have happened, once again emphasizing the need of all Americans to carry weapons at all times"
... hmmm, the usual copy/paste NRA press release might not quite work
I'm waiting to see how the pro-gun are gonna spin this one...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:21PM
There's no need to spin anything. Even in Texas, most people do not carry a firearm. There's little need. Crazy people shooting up the place aren't common enough.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:03PM
But the sniper just wanted to be on equal footing with the cops.
That just begs the question though, how did he go 11 v 1, starting from equal footing and all.
Maybe also, now everyone in America now needs permission to carry a robo-bomb, to regain their equal footing. I sense a new amendment coming.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:39AM
Yes, the ancient art of the sucker punch had nothing to do with it. His gun must have been much more lethal than theirs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:33AM
It's good to see you finally waking up to the fact that your gun doesn't give you equal footing with anyone who has intent.
That wasn't so hard, was it?? Maybe you are just a little slow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @12:22PM
You're really dense, you know? Equal footing never meant the same exact circumstances in every situation. Pedantic, much?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2016, @09:54AM
Trying to weasel your way out of your own silly arguments much?
Your gun isn't for defense. It's for equal footing.
And when it's pointed out that it doesn't even give you equal footing, any time you would actually need that equal footing, what's your response? To claim you never wanted equal footing in the first place. You just like gun humping or something.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 13 2016, @08:21PM
My guns aren't for equal footing. That's just a perk they provide. They're for overthrowing tyrannical a government, as they were meant to be.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @11:44PM
LOL. Your excuses are getting less and less plausible.
And you seem to have forgotten the part where you dont have equal footing anyway.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 15 2016, @09:36AM
Your trolls are weak. Equal footing never meant everything under the sun is equal. It meant we both have the same ability to kill each other by dint of having the same access to the same weapons. Go play in the yard now. It's good for you. Generates vitamin D.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 08 2016, @08:40PM
I don't think there is any argument here. The shooter was killed by other people (cops) with guns.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @11:49PM
Note, however, that they didn't use their guns to kill him: they used a bomb.
A society in which everyone has guns and remote-controlled bombs is a polite society.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:11AM
Dumbass sniper. Brought a gun to a bomb fight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:37PM
So many hours of my life lost to bomb fights [wikipedia.org]. Makes me want to plug in the Wii again.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:57AM
He was targeting armed cops. He got 11 people, and was cornered, then killed. Sounds to me like the NRA's position is the correct position. Armed people took the shooter out.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:26AM
I understood that a robot took him out.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:20AM
Uh, "arms" includes bombs. It also includes knives, missiles, artillery, rockets, lasers, sticks, large rocks, and as thr Founders put it:
Every other terrible implement of the soldier. Put that in your law books and smoke it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:26PM
Not saying you're wrong, but it would certainly be an interesting world if every other house on the block had a tactical nuke :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:07PM
Why need strategic weapons to defend ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:08AM
Agreed, it would be. However, there are many limiting factors that render such a concern to near-zero levels even in a theoretical society where the rule of law was truly respected. Nukes are expensive to build and maintain, and if they're not kept shielded, can cause the owner to be guilty of tresspass via emission of radiation in the same way that the owner of a sewage plant would be if he pointed the end of a discharge pipe at your lawn.
I'd be more concerned about someone's closet full of RP7 grenades, and is why I am ever-more interested in living outside cities on my own plot of land with some "elbow room". Once I figure out how to actually own land in the USA (since "property tax" is just perpetual illegal rent charged by government), I'll get to it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:37PM
The point was that it was the Police, a para-military organization run by the government who directed the robot to summarily blow up the suspect, not the militia or as the NRA goes on about, armed citizens acting as militia.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:37PM
Someone shoots cops at a protest against cop violence but they can't figure out a motive.
This is just like "Why Do They Hate Us?" after 9/11. Are journalists really that stupid?
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, report.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:39PM
There are facts, and there are assumptions and guesses. Which would you rather see reported?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:22PM
If you hear thunder and your dog comes through the pet door dripping all over the floor, it's foolish to not go roll up your car windows.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @08:29PM
The news media is not your family, your buddy, or your gun dealer, or the contractor fortifying your bunker, whatever. You can decide for yourself what the implications of the known facts are and take action accordingly.
If you want rumors and armchair analysis, there will always be plenty of it on social media.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Friday July 08 2016, @03:47PM
No, it would not be responsible of the police department or the media to make assumptions about what the motive is until after they've dug into it. Frankly, it'd be dumb for you to make any assumptions right now either, even if they did turn out correct. They don't know, so you don't know.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:18PM
You're right, I'm wrong, its just like the talking heads that started going off about Islamic Terrorism immediately after the OKC bombing in the 90's.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:24PM
They didn't. I was in OK during the bombing. Nobody mentioned Islam that I remember.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @09:06PM
They did. [fair.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:06AM
"That I remember" is key.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:53AM
He opened with
They didn't.
so your point is moot. It's okay for him to be wrong, we're all wrong sometimes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:59AM
I clearly remember the OKC bombing. No, I don't remember any Islamic Terrorism talk. Maybe, just maybe, in the first couple hours, people were QUESTIONING whether Muslims might have done it. But, this was prior to 9/11/01, and Jihad wasn't even in most people's minds.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:58AM
Conclusions were drawn from speculation with breathtaking speed. “Knowing that the car bomb indicates Middle Eastern terrorists at work, it’s safe to assume that their goal is to promote free-floating fear and a measure of anarchy, thereby disrupting American life,” the New York Post editorialized (4/20/95). “In due course, we’ll learn which particular faction the terrorists identified with—Hamas? Hezbollah? the Islamic Jihad?—and whether or not the perpetrators leveled specific demands.”
[...]
Syndicated columnist Mike Royko wrote (Chicago Tribune, 4/21/95):
I would have no objection if we picked out a country that is a likely suspect and bombed some oil fields, refineries, bridges, highways, industrial complexes. . . . If it happens to be the wrong country, well, too bad, but it’s likely it did something to deserve it anyway.
A few days later (4/24/95), after the identities of the FBI’s suspects were announced, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper retorted: “Does that mean we conduct overnight bombings of Arizona and Kansas and Michigan now?”
Many more quotes here. [fair.org] This is clearly more than "QUESTIONING." The '93 trade center bombing was still a relatively recent news topic. You not remembering something is an unconvincing line of evidence. Our memories are stored in a watery mess, you see.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:05AM
I was in Japan at the time. It was all about islamic terrorism. I remember the profound loss for words from the militia movement when it turned out to be one of their own, after having pushed the muslim terrorist angle so hard ("that's why we need militias, because the librul gubmint won't protect us...")
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday July 08 2016, @04:30PM
Indeed, those that are jumping to conclusions about the motives of the shooters are telling us much more about themselves than they are about the shooters.
Presumably we'll learn their story after the police have investigated, especially among the shooters that are still alive.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday July 08 2016, @09:01PM
Exactly. I immediately took it at face value that he was just declaring war on cops. Afterwards, it seems like he was declaring war on "White" cops, and then all "Whiteys".
You're right that we don't know yet, and it does say something about me. Specifically that I'm convinced now that officers are out-of-control scared thugs that are unable to see a black man as anything other than a "Super Predator". Additionally, I don't feel safe even being white, as I fully well know it is not just black men being shot and killed. If you are poor, or homeless, then while you might not be black specifically, you are still less than human.
I took the motive at face value from the media, because it was a reasonable assumption. I have empathy for the shooter, because if we place ourselves in his shoes, his entire life was plagued with racism and fear because of the consistent injustices and brutalities performed by officers combined with the shield of the Thin Blue Line. Rodney King happened in 92', which means there has been over 20 years of the proof of these injustices being shown to us. As technology evolves, it makes it seem like murdering black people has been a hobby of cops since the founding of this country, which is catastrophic if we want peace. While I condemn the man for what he did, I would be deliberately putting my head in the sand to say that I didn't understand why. What he did was horrific, but his reasoning was understandable and lamentable.
I ask myself if zero black men were killed in the last 5 years under suspicious circumstances by cops, would this man still have lost all hope and turned to violence? Yeah, I did assume a few things about his motives initially. Specifically, the same motives I would feel if my "people" were constantly under attack, getting killed, and wholly deprived of dignity by those in authority.
I was actually afraid of this. Back-to-back murders of black men by cops in two days? Yeah, I expected a backlash again. This isn't the first time that a black man has ambushed officers after an incident. This ever worsening Us vs Them is escalating into a all out war with black men now picking targets. Yeah, that is an assumption about their motives, but its closer to an educated guess than bigotry and character assassination. That fact scares me more than anything.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:11PM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:48PM
I suspect everyone pretty much can guess the motive. But we are in such a politically correct environment that anyone who states it without evidence will be labeled some sort of hateful bigoted fear-monger.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday July 08 2016, @05:13PM
It's not political correctness. Sure, we can *assume* what the motive is, and maybe our assumptions are tinged with our own opinions and motives. But our assumption might not be true, and claiming that it is has real consequences. It's not PC to look for the truth before making claims. It's just plain responsibility.
That said, there is an elephant in the room and we can and should talk about it. Let's just make sure that we all agree it's our assumption of the motive, not necessarily what really happened.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:01AM
Isn't just a case of someone exercising their right to (attempt to) overthrow their tyrannical government? I always hear that that is the reason for the 2nd amendment.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:13AM
Those who can't report, comment.
(No, I do not overlook the irony that I comment on a comment here.) As others pointed out, the art of reporting is to distinguish between known facts and assumptions. BTW: Interesting that those who teach often earn more than those who do (professional trainings in different IT areas are usually quite expensive). Also interesting the three stages of knowledge: 1. Listen and being able to repeat, 2. Being able to apply, and 3. Being able to teach.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:41PM
Sorry, when you say "Black Lives Matter" we don't think you mean "all lives" any more than we think "all lives" when someone says "Aryan Lives Matter." Why can't you say "All Lives Matter?" Nobody should have to suffer at the hands of police.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:45PM
The whole point of the slogan is to counter a perception/situation in which black lives don't matter. It assumes that the white/etc. lives already matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:25PM
I thought it was clear there's an implied "also" in there. "Black Lives Also Matter". However, while stating it clearly would make it a bit more difficult for racists to twist it around, I can see why it would be a very, very bad slogan for a movement like that.
It acronyms to BLAM :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:54PM
BLAM now or we will blam! later.
#dallassnippers
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 08 2016, @04:27PM
Yes. Perhaps a better (but slightly less catchy) slogan would be "black lives also matter"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:55AM
dark matter lives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:03PM
Gee, as if the problems of police corruption only affects blacks.
Miss the mark by a mile.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:25PM
Except to the people saying it and everyone hearing it, you are correct.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday July 08 2016, @03:49PM
Diamond Reynolds after being released for being a witness specifically stated "all lives matter". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgxWzPVXSoc [youtube.com]
The point with Black Lives Matter is that blacks and whites are treated very differently by cops. Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daVhasi95c4 [youtube.com] The epidemic we have right now isn't cops killing white folk, it's cops killing black people. And while it is true that all lives matter, it is completely understandable why BLM exists and it is perfectly valid it focus on a particular issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:58PM
Sorry, it's just racism. The police need to be reigned in for everyone. Fight for accountability and justice for all instead of perpetuating racism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @04:19PM
It is not racism because they aren't saying any other lives don't matter. The gp's point is quite valid, and when it comes to mobilizing people it is sometimes necessary to be a bit myopic. All that said, there are undoubtedly some people who join BLM and are racist, wanting to kill white people. There was some disturbing video I saw of a "professor" claiming that the only way forward was to kill all white people. It shows that there are extremes on both sides, but don't fall into the trap of making overly broad assumptions.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Troll) by edIII on Friday July 08 2016, @09:30PM
While not explicitly racist, it is stupid and divisive. Cops are killing innocent people regardless of race. The original civil rights movement was inclusive with people of all races marching. Why should I feel included to join their movement? Why should I feel that they would even accept a non-black person in their movement? Do they think I feel safe being white any more than they do being black WRT officers conduct? I don't feel safe and I don't feel that I have a movement to join either as I'm not black, therefore my life isn't being fought for. That pisses me off because Kelly Thomas was brutally murdered and deserves their support.
This guy said he was upset about Black Lives Matters, and then said he specifically wanted to kill white people. While I know the BLM movement doesn't stand for that, I'm still forced to wonder if the movement was called 'All Lives Matters' or 'Cops Are Murdering Us' would this guy have specifically gone after white cops?
The name and the movement itself is divisive. While the causes of their movement are laudable, and their genesis understandable, their divisiveness is not.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @11:59PM
Totally agree, definitely a double edged sword. I would like the name to be All Lives Matter, and at this point it probably would be better for their cause, but they would also probably have lost / never gained a lot of their user base with All Lives Matter. Wouldn't have much changed the more extreme members in any case. Perhaps now would be a GREAT time for them to make the change :)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:33AM
But that would put BLM in uncomfortable company of people who were disgusted by Ruby Ridge or Waco.
Can't cross the streams.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:26PM
Is it racist to point out that blacks commit crimes several times more often than any other ethnic group in the US? Damn you, you racist facts!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 08 2016, @10:02PM
Is it foolish to conflate socio-economic status with a racial propensity for violence? Of course it is.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:23AM
Did I say it was racial? It's not. It's cultural. Black culture in the US is as self-destructive as it is possible for a culture to be without outright passing everyone poisoned kool-aid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:14PM
I wonder if there might be any reason for their culture to be different. Something in their past? Maybe something in the present where they are treated differently by society. No, being targeted by the cops and killed on a daily basis isn't it, thats just a symptom.
Why do poor repressed people have a different culture to the privileged elite? I guess we will never know.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:36AM
It most definitely is a symptom. It didn't exist during the entire latter half of the last century until we started approaching 2k. Similarly that is precisely when black culture decided that black fathers should abandon their children, drug dealing was a glamorous occupation to be sought after, and that the world owed them something.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:35AM
LOLOL Try just a little further back in history... :)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @12:19PM
Irrelevant. The cause of "further back in history" is gone. Today black people are treated like criminals because so many of them are criminals.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2016, @12:11AM
Because as we all know, anything that is further back in history than your own birth cannot have any affect on you.
You sound like one of those people who claims they never benefited at all from society, did everything on their own.
People born into poor families must just be what God wanted for them. Lucky he had better things planned for you...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @10:31AM
Nothing that happened before you were born does have any bearing on your life except in the "well, isn't that interesting" sense. And, sweety, I was born into a poor family. Then I watched my father take us from foodstamps to comfortably middle-class and back down to the upper end of poor and back up to quite well off. And I learned from that that your position in society is really entirely up to you. If you have valuable skills and market yourself well, you will not be poor for long except by choice. If you don't, well, that's a choice as well.
Let's put it in a simpler way though. If you think your car should be nicer than your house, your stupid ass is always going to be poor. And you deserve to be.
Not being poor is as simple as looking around, seeing what well off people do for a living, learning that skill, and getting that job. It's not instant but it is all but guaranteed to work.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:23PM
Is it racist to point out that blacks commit crimes several times more often than any other ethnic group in the US?
Yes, it is, because it is always done without understanding and with racist intent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:28AM
Interesting that you can read minds from so far away. You must teach the rest of us this power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:47AM
First, you must live through more than two millennia, then it becomes rather easy to spot the racist intents, whether from Greeks thinking they are better than Barbarians, Romans thinking they were better than Greeks, Jews thinking they are better than everyone, Egyptians thinking they are gods, Bush family members and the Clintons, Chotaws thinking they are better than Creeks and Cherokee. It never ends, really, and is rather tiring. I am sorry, Mighty Buzzard, you are too young to be able to learn this. Come back in a thousand years, or after several reincarnations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:18PM
3/4 of people killed by police are white. If there's an epidemic, it's black people killing black people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:22PM
3/4 of people killed by police are white
Reference?
black people killing black people
True, but why would people protest against the police for that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @04:24PM
"Butbutbut MUH BLACK ON BLACK CRIME!!!!!!111eleventyone" is the standard racist rebuttal. It's a bait and switch. Don't fall for it; keep the light shining on what's being discussed here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday July 08 2016, @04:33PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:30PM
You know, there's a direct correlation between being a criminal and getting shot by the police. No, it's not 1:1 but it is extremely strong nonetheless. Might this go some way to explain why blacks are shot by police more than any other racial group?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by https on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:35AM
Nope. I was going to say that you cannot possibly be that stupid, but then I realized you can if you want to be. Stick to coding, where you have skill.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:16AM
Jesus Christ, Uzzard, I actually felt several dozen neurons commit suicide after reading that. You cannot be that stupid. Your other discourse, while vile, does not admit of enough lack of knowledge and logic to commit a fallacy like that by accident. I can therefore only conclude you know fucking well what you did there and went and did it anyway. May your blood be on your own head.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 09 2016, @09:05AM
Point out the fallacy then. All I did was state related facts in a sarcastic manner.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:29AM
The fallacy, you dogwhistling bootlicking cryptofascist fuckstain, is that being shot by the police == criminality. You don't stop and think "gee, are there any confounders here?" No, fuck that, to hell with actual thought; shut off your brain and go right to "Hurr hurr well Dundu Nuffin' over here musta deserved it, 'cause ain't never been a guy what got shot by the cops what didn't deserve it."
Again: you know goddamned well the above is true, and you decided to drop trou and lay that stinking road apple on us anyway. There is blood on your heads, if only at two degrees' remove. They'll be waiting for you in hell...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:27AM
Silly rabbit, can you not read? I said there was a correlation and not a 1:1 one at that. Back to grade school with you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @08:01PM
It's what you didn't say but intended to make people think that I'm pointing out, and no one says it needs to be 1:1 either.
Do you think we're all that stupid? You do, don't you? You really think everyone else here is dumber than you and no one will ever cotton on to what it is you're trying to do with the specific wording you choose to use. I would be offended, but at this point it's down to you having a terminal case of Stage 4 Dunning-Krugeitis.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @09:31PM
No, only the ones who think they can win an argument by making it about me rather than refuting presented facts.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:59PM
And the FACT is, you're attempting to preload certain ideas into the readers' minds with what you post, and the lack of context around what you post. What you don't say is as important as what you do say.
Don't try this game with me, Uzzard. I won't let you do this to the others without pointing it out so they can see what you're doing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:24PM
Pfft, as one of we others, I don't need you to be my crusader in shining armor; we're presumed to be adults with minds of our own, thankyouverymuch. The only pointing in your posts as of late pertain to fingers and the postpubescent equivalent of calling someone a big, smelly poo-poo head. [soylentnews.org]
If you want your ideas to compete in the marketplace of the mind, your stated goal of "not letting Uzzard do this to the others" would have a better chance of succeeding if you would describe why you think his ideas are crap, rather than just slinging crap and building/reinforcing a reputation for yourself as a fact-free crapslinger. You've got facts which back up your opinions? Great! Post those and let the reader make up their own mind.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @11:38PM
I already did. Pay attention. The problem in this case is his post which equates being shot by the police with criminality. When called out on this, he disingenuously slimes "ohhhh but I didn't say it's a 1:1 correlation!"
Yet, with no context, and given some of this site's audience, that was a pure dogwhistle and nothing more. Maybe you didn't notice, Mr. Adult With a Mind of Your Own, but this place is swimming in self-proclaimed "neo-reactionaries." You may be powerful enough not to be swayed, but the unwary are vulnerable to having their subconscious manipulated; most people do not have what I am assuming is your well-maintained mental firewall. For those people, it is helpful to have a loudly opposing viewpoint which specifically points out the sneaky psy-ops being engaged in here. Congratulations on being a paragon of mental and ideological integrity; most people are not, and they outnumber you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2016, @02:58AM
Go back and read again the post you're complaining about [soylentnews.org]. What your quote above claims is false. Buzzard drew a correlation between criminality and being shot by police, and in the next phrase of the same post noted that there are exceptions. I'm likely more in agreement with you than Buzzard on the matter of abhorrent police conduct (tho for me, it's largely due to the understanding that the overwhelmingly vast majority of laws being enforced by police are illegal laws). Yet by making false claims and slinging copious insults, you come across as a hysterical screaming harpy and are not likely to be nearly as effective as you apparently think you are.
The patronizing tone you take in regards to other SN readers in defense of your crap-slinging ad hominem attacks is also tremendously off-putting.
Words to live by. Have you tried it yourself?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 11 2016, @03:13AM
Normally I'd say I don't need white knighted either but that was just funny.
I wouldn't put money on it. I'm no more a fan of bullshit laws or police acting illegally than I am an actual avian. I'm not going to blame everything on the cops when a specific culture is hell bent on destroying itself either though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2016, @02:58PM
You were only incidental, and my goal was not to defend you. My goal was to prompt Azuma to be accurate with the facts (e.g. the timing of your 1:1 comment) and to use reason instead of invective so that I as an otherwise disinterested SN reader (presumably along with others) could follow the thread of ideas and decide who was presenting the better ones. I assume Asuma has a reason for flinging so many insults, and would prefer to read about that instead of just the insults themselves, as most posts containing just insults belong at -1. Even the guy who seems to be MikeeUSA posts his reasons - I've been able to think about his reasoning, identify specific aspects of it which are fatally flawed, and reject his arguments as inferior... all because reason was used to at least some degree. There are still other viewpoints that deserve to be considered, even if the majority doesn't think they are the best ones: "individual greater than society" and vice versa are a key examples, and proponents of both would do well to understand the opponents' reasoning.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 11 2016, @04:08PM
My reasons are very simple: I have seen, many many times, and I suspect in other bodies (yes, I believe in reincarnation--wish I didn't but I have memories that don't belong to me...) what happens when that kind of ignorance and hate reaches a certain saturation threshold.
As a country, not to say as a planet, we are on the brink of a major disaster. Every time this cycle loops around we have more and more powerful force multipliers (world travel, worldwide communication, new weapon types and delivery methods etc) and fewer and fewer stopgaps in place. And we have less and less in our natural resource base to rebuild from should we well and truly fuck up and blow ourselves back to the Bronze Age; the easy petroleum is already used up, our aquifers are mostly drained, we've degraded our topsoil and acidified our oceans and mulched our tropical forests beyond repair, and so forth. If we lose our current high technological civilization, we aren't ever going to get another one.
When the avalanche is in motion, the pebbles don't get to point fingers. I am trying my absolute damndest to secure that slope in my own little way, and the reason I'm being deliberately inflammatory and insulting is that ridicule produces a subconscious bias against the ideas that are being ridiculed. No, it's not fair, but the majority of people operate mainly on their emotions rather than their reasons, and if I am to be effective I have to tailor my approach to my audience.
In the grand scheme of things, people like JMorris are small potatoes. But, again, small things add up over time. It only takes a little lowering of consciousness here, a patter of small injustices there, and before you know it, people are tearing each others' throats out.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @03:29AM
Nothing in your post indicates that we are unable to communicate with each other using reason, even though I may not (and do not) hold all the same viewpoints as you. I agree with you that ignorance is a severe problem in USian society, and rather than outright "hate", I see the initiation of violence as a terrible crime that is widespread and near the root of most causes of conflict between private people and government agents (and indeed among many private people themselves).
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase your views on the use of insults: it seems to me that, even if your goals appear noble, you are attempting to use deceit in the form of attempting to manipulate the subconcious thoughts of readers through use of wanton invective. The only use for myself that I can currently find for deceit is in all-out war. (While it does appear that armies are gathering for war, I do not yet believe that I am a specific war target, or at least, not currently targetted by an enemy with capabilities that possess a threat greater than I can reasonably counter without resorting to deceit.) Free civilization is built on trust. Absent trust, society quickly (from a historical perspective, at least) falls apart. If you and I both own shoe stores, and I steal my inventory instead of paying for it like you do, you will soon be put out of business as you cannot afford to match the prices I can set on my stolen inventory. On a societal scale, this translates to unpunished fraud and theft quickly destroying the foundations of said society (fellow USians, does this not sound familiar?). Thus, I prefer to use honest reason whenever possible. I propose it is the best approach for everyone interested in a strong, peaceful, stable society.
If you and I don't view dishonesty similarly, then perhaps I can dissuade you from voluminous insults by appealing to your stated dislike of hatred? What is the expected result of being exposed to a constant barrage of insults from another person if not dislike, annoyance, and certainly in some cases, hatred of the insult-slinger? If there are only insults, no reason is apparent, no ideas are being exchanged, no actual communication is occurring, and thus no improvement in relations can be expected. Ultimately, the product of a constant stream of insults is likely to be hatred, one of the two things you've stated as wanting to avoid, at least to saturation.
As anecdotal evidence to support my assertion, may I ask you what you believe your response to me as a faceless AC would have been should my first reply to you have been filled with angry insults and nothing else? We've currently arrived at the point where we are sharing overviews of core viewpoints with each other - could that have been an expected result if I were merely trying to negatively influence your readers' subconcious while you were trying to do the same to mine?
Ignorance is curable, within a human being's finite limitations in a near-infinite universe, and this is where I see as the most valuable use of my time: educating others and being educated by others. I find that I can only tenuously grasp the basics of most subjects and am therefore not well suited to educating others in such regards. The few areas where I do believe I can be useful as an educational source are those which I can distill the essence into a clear and concise message fpr the listener, even if it results in the listener rejecting my information. If I cannot easily explain the subject because it is "too complicated", I usually find that it is my own lack of sufficient understanding of the subject that is the barrier, rather than a fault with my audience. The downside to this viewpoint is that I am limited in the subjects I can seriously engage in because I am ignorant about a great many subjects and am not fond of wildly airing assertions to all corners of the Internet which I cannot soundly back up.
In closing, I hope that you will decide that the best approach for dealing with someone who seems to claim that all people shot by cops are crooks would be something along the lines of attacking the flawed premise with counter-examples or even rhetoric:
It takes more time, but the effect can still be abrasive, yet reasoned and persuasive to those interested in learning about the topic without needlessly generating more hate.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 12 2016, @05:14AM
Uh...who are you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @06:01AM
No one of consequence.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 12 2016, @06:09AM
You're making some good points, but I'm out of patience with these particular people. There is such a thing as wearing out another person's good will. More to the point, when I tried this approach, nothing changed...so why bother? It's like giving medicine to a corpse.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2016, @08:49AM
I deeply empathize with your frustration, as should most people who have interacted with other humans on teh internets. It can be helpful to keep in mind that ideas, like seeds, sometimes take time to show signs of growth. (I'm a living example of someone who had an idea planted in mind a decade before it actually sprouted to the point of changing my worldview.)
Who is your audience; more to the point: who do you want your audience to be? I'll assume for the moment that your primary audience when dealing with posters you find frustrating are bystanding readers and not particularly the parent poster themselves. (If your audience is the poster, the "corpse", then why bother responding to them at all if they're "dead" unless it's to blow off steam at the expense of bystanders' eyeballs, eyeballs which may have mod points?) We as the bystanders are only likely to have the immediate thread in front of us as context for the entire argument, and if Poster A is calmly and cooly posting assertions that seem reasonable, and Poster B is raging at Poster A by calling them every name in the book without apparent cause and using nothing but insults as a counter to Poster A's assertions, I strongly suspect that most readers not already in solid opposition to Poster A's views will view Poster B as the "bad guy".
If you can present a clear, concise example of a fatal flaw in the other's post, you not only have a chance of swaying the audience to your view, but for authors who value fact and reason, you also have a chance at changing their viewpoint as well, as in my own example above. (Posters that are blatant trolls or liars I do tend to directly label as such, preferably with one or two links to examples from their own posting history.) Even if you both don't come to an agreement, you at least have a much better shot at coming to an understanding of each other's viewpont, along with a historical thread to reference in the future, where future disagreements on worldviews can be summed up with, for example, "that guy just thinks drug users should be dragged into the street and shot", with a link to the relevant thread containing the poster's own words.
It also seems critically important to at least consider the possibility that one or more of your positions may be erroneous. If my mace has a big 'ol crack in the handle, I'd prefer to find out about it quickly and get it fixed before I find out in the middle of a fight and am forced to fall back on something like the Private Frost method [youtube.com]. Testing one's ideas in the open marketplace tends to shape them and make them stronger (assuming they don't get killed outright).
Is it even ultimately desirable to have an audience whose favor was only gained by calling someone else the rough equivalent of a "stinky-face"...?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 13 2016, @08:28PM
When you tried a semi-rational approach in IRC we had a reasonably interesting discussion. Here your words are the verbal equivalent of a monkey flinging its own shit. If you really think anyone is dissuaded by unbacked insults here, you have vastly underestimated this community. We're the pros from Dover when it comes to arguments and know weakass ones when we see them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 13 2016, @08:36PM
Except that the insults, dear Uzzard, are dessert after the meal of the main argument. I know your patterns here: I watch what parts of my posts get quoted and replied to. Lies of omission combined with strawmen and misdirection.
Sorry, but you're not going to mess with my head so easily. I've spent an unfortunate amount of time dealing with actual psychopaths; someone like you, who is merely evil and willfully uninformed, is small potatoes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @10:12AM
Exactly, twit. Except you're all dessert and no argument. You're Soylent's Trump.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 14 2016, @04:19PM
Wow. I'm actually impressed with the sheer amount of gall it must have taken to type that. Anyone who decides to research both our post histories will see 1) that isn't even close to true and 2) it would be far better said of you, if Ethanol-Fueled weren't a better candidate for the position on account of actually being funny sometimes.
No, I'm a bit more like the lovechild of H. L. Mencken and George Carlin with two X chromosomes. As to you...no one comes to mind immediately, but I've got an image of someone with a confederate flag and more toes than teeth.
You've just insulted every single reader of this site who's smart enough to make even a cursory effort to browse peoples' post histories. Keep digging that hole, Uzzard; the more you run your idiot trap, the worse you make yourself look.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:29PM
Thank you for making my point for me. If you're just gonna troll, we demand better round these parts. You should take lessons or something.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @02:28AM
I am not getting through to you, am I?
What angle do I need to turn this at to get it through your head, Uzzard? You are fooling no one, except possibly yourself. And you're not being clever by responding to everything with "hurr durr that's a troll." Keep digging...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 15 2016, @09:38AM
You're not arguing, sweety. You're just flinging shit. Not even skillfully. My 12 year old nephew trolls better and he thinks copy pastaing "kill yourself" thirty times is witty.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2016, @04:54PM
You can say this as much as you want, but you may as well try and put out the sun by drawing the shades and scribbling "night" on the walls in your own feces. The record speaks for itself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:21AM
Of course when everyone is a criminal, there is a direct 1:1 correlation with cops killing criminals. The question is why are certain criminals killed more then other criminals? I've had a broken tail light before, which makes me a criminal, but never even worried about the police shooting me for it. I'm pretty sure that you're a criminal as well, as it is close to impossible to not be a criminal but you haven't been shot either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Saturday July 09 2016, @09:12AM
there's a direct correlation between being a criminal and getting shot by the police. No, it's not 1:1
Actually, I think it is quite close to 1:1 (exact 1:1 if you exclude potential cases of baby-murder or killing people certifiably insane or others that by definition can't be criminal). Everyone [telegraph.co.uk] (else) is [kottke.org] a [cnn.com] criminal [cato.org]. This is not by mistake.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:21AM
Agreed, it was not a mistake. The question we commoners would do well to ask ourselves is: "are all laws in the law books valid?" If they are, then we're no better off than under feudalism, since the law-makers can in effect declare that 2+2=5 and demand obedience at gunpoint. However, if there is indeed such a concept as an invalid law within the USA, the question is begged: "how do we determine which laws are valid?" No, the answer is not with the US' Supreme Court, even though said court attempted to usurp that power for itself in 1803. A law is only valid if it reflects something that a single person has the authority to do, such as apprehend a burglar, stop a rapist, kill in self-defense a would-be murderer, etc. If a single person doesn't have authority to do a given thing, neither can it be delegated... such as to a government.
If this is of further interest, I've written two short [soylentnews.org] journals [soylentnews.org] on the topic I am still waiting for someone to find a fatal flaw in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:20PM
Thats the entire point you simpleton... Innocent Blacks are being indiscriminately killed much more often, because other black people may have committed more crimes. White people sitting in their car are given the benefit of the doubt, Blacks are just executed.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:30AM
Good, glad to hear we agree.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday July 08 2016, @07:41PM
Statistics about how many people are shot and/or killed by police are notoriously hard to come by. Many police departments do not release such information. And even though the Justice Department was tasked with collecting the numbers back in 1994, they have never actually done so, either because they don't wan the information known, or because there is no reporting requirement placed on law enforcement agencies (although there are many other types of reporting required). It's easy to find out how many police are injured or killed, however.
On study done by the CDC on data in 2008 from 16 states (not comprehensive, but based on available data) does indeed show that just 29 percent of those shot were black [cdc.gov], but they only make up about 13% of the total population. There could be a number of reasons for that, but based on lots of other studies it's safe to say that blacks generally get harsher treatment by the justice system as a whole.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday July 08 2016, @04:42PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 08 2016, @08:34PM
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/brucewestern/files/western_asr.pdf [harvard.edu]
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday July 08 2016, @08:17PM
I confess that I made it this far down the comments before I connected "BLM" with Black Lives Matter. I seriously thought the previous references were referring to the Bureau of Land Management, who had a couple of armed standoffs with the Bundy clan. I was confused as to how the Dallas event related to the previous land use disagreements.
I suppose that makes me an idiot...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 08 2016, @10:11PM
There's a quadrangle. Two points with the Federal BLM in Oregon and Nevada, a largely white group of people toting guns was left largely unmolested for weeks at a time (although there was the one guy who blew through a roadblock with a deadly weapon (full size pickup at speed) and ended up shot, though I'm not totally clear on whether he reached for a gun or not). Then you have another corner in Baton Rouge where a guy on his back with two cops sitting on him gets shot. Then you have the Minnesota case where you can't even bring up an at-the-time-unknown criminal history -- they guy had a concealed carry license which means he had the whole background check thing done.
So when cops are dealing with Federal BLM stuff, people with weapons face no consequences for long time periods, but the BLM-protest movement shows cops exercising instantaneous kill instincts in any circumstance if the victim is black.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:05PM
"Black Lives Matter" is the rare double dog whistle slogan.
If you are not racist you hear "Black Lives Matter Too."
If you are racist you hear "Only Black Lives Matter."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:00PM
Or you see how the activist conduct themselves and write off the whole thing as race-baiting.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Friday July 08 2016, @07:46PM
It's worse than that. You check out where the funding is coming from and you realize it's just another tentacle in the George Soros web of political activism.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:26PM
You know? I'm okay with Soros spending his money to promote a point of view and won't cast him as a puppet-master like the left does with the Koch brothers. Change the channel if you don't like the message.
What is beyond pale is that you have corruption at all levels of law enforcement, from parallel construction to questionable search justifications (and the treatment of blacks by police is also a facet), and you have some useful idiot pegs you as racist because your view of problems with police is a bit more all-encompassing.
Sensitivity training for police doesn't end these issues as much as put a happy-face on mass incarceration. Your life is just as much over. A bullet is just much quicker.
But ending police corruption is something most people can get behind. Instead we get glib reading of how deep the rot goes.
Keep telling yourself it's just racism and not that police powers have increased 10 fold.
What a self-serving bunch of asses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:28PM
Who modded that informative?
What would be informative is a citation to back it up.
Well, a citation from a source that's not on a website with articles about how Obummer was born in Kenya.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @10:36PM
Here, I duckduckgoed it (duckducked?). The first few results were funny. TheConservativeTreeHouse.com: Yes it is! The Daily Beast: No it's isn't! The Daily Fail: Yes it is! Personally, I think it would be morbidly hilarious if it were true at face value because it'd fit right into my lizard person conspiracy theory.
Here's Snopes [snopes.com]:
TRUE: A grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities.
FALSE: George Soros gave money to various groups for the express purpose of promoting Ferguson-related protests and riots.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Sunday July 10 2016, @04:37PM
Snopes is not a credible source, not any more. They may have had a good track record in the past, but they have revealed themselves to have a political agenda, and provide cover for the far left. As another example, they said that Obama's comment that "You can buy a gun online without a background check" as "mostly true" based purely on the fact that he did NOT say you could do that legally. In other words, you can go online and find an illegal way to buy a gun without a background check. The statement was something Obama said during a press conference in which he was proposing more laws to fix loopholes. So Snopes was completely disingenuous to insert "illegally" into his statement in order to claim it was "mostly true". So they have NO credibility.
Soros funds LOTS of groups, that in turn fund other groups, and they all have other sources of funding as well, but it's all based on a Soros (and similar elitists') agenda. So it's difficult to draw all the lines that show the funding coming from that web of groups. I've seen them through various sources (not the ones you found, though), and I'm not inclined to draw them all out for your edification, but I did find that the Washington Times [washingtontimes.com] drew some of the connections to Ferguson protests. They sourced OpenSecrets and other political funding tracking sites. So Snopes in this case simply started with an agenda (to claim Soros money was not involved in BLM and other protest organizations), and then simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary to support their preconceived conclusion.
What we do know:
The ladies that started #BlackLivesMatter have been involved in community organizing for a long time: Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. Organizations they have been involved with have also been funded by Soros' organizations.
I am a crackpot
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:15PM
Stop sympathizing with the terrorist NIGGER lives matter people.
These Niggers want whites dead.
These niggers want cops to die instead of stopping nigger crime.
These niggers want to live in a lawless hellhole.
These niggers need to dealt with.
FUCK NIGGERS!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Friday July 08 2016, @07:43PM
The name, I think, is intended to convey the idea that there's racial disparity in the way police violence is deal outt: that black people are more likely to become victims of it.
White people are free to object to police violence, and can name their groups whatever they please. Why bother objecting to the name of someone else's group, particularly when your exact recommendation has been made ad nauseum?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:46PM
They brought it on themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:00PM
-1?
Not if you've been paying attention for any significant length of time. Cops have been poking and poking and poking trying so hard to incite shit like this for years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:28PM
What? Cops are trying to make a paycheck and go home to their family in one piece at the end of the day, not start a fucking race war. It's like you forget cops are humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:36AM
There are other ways to make a paycheck than shooting some kid because his taillight is busted out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:13AM
Members of the KKK (or fill in any other group, Nazi Party, Gestapo, whatever) are trying to make a paycheck, and go home to their families.
Cops? Let us presume that 85 out of 100 cops really are good guys, who care about all people, regardless of color, class, education, gender, whatever. Of the remainder, 13 are just OK guys. The remaining two guys stir up trouble.
Alright - one bad cop causes some shit. What do the other 99 cops do? They close ranks and protect their brother, as if he could do no wrong! Just like any other gang, they protect their own, at the expense of the entire community.
Break the gang mentality.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:02AM
"Gang mentality." That is a perfect description.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:57PM
I do wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of a mini-revolution, not unlike the French revolution where the dis-satisfied underclass rose up and beheaded the rich and those in power. Only this time it'll be with guns because America. Clearly those currently in power are not doing enough (or anything at all?) to address the underlying issues.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @04:03PM
The problem with that notion is that liberals and conservatives (I'm using those terms broadly) are still being pitted against each other, and are not unified as an underclass. Those who hate BLM won't join them or identify it as a revolution.
The United States is a big country with too many differences from region to region, city to city. Much crazier and blatant events have to happen before a revolution (even a mini one?) can follow. The middle class has to erode much more, into nothingness.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:03PM
Is people acting like the whole country has to rise up as one. All that really needs to happen is for enough people to rise up in one city or region. When the police/military crackdown happens and media gets leaked showing how they 'handled the situation' you will see all the other flickers of revolution turn into flames once they realize what the intelligent amongst us have known for years: The system will do whatever it takes to remain in place, and under no circumstances will revolution be permitted.
At that point the majority of the populace will either return to their lives, or join arms with the revolutionaries and bring about the next government(s) of the former USA. Either option will likely end badly for us, since we will either be repressed by our incumbent government, or in the case of revolution, divided and conquered by Russia, Chinese, Mexican, South American and possibly North Korean interests.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday July 08 2016, @06:08PM
At that point the majority of the populace will either return to their lives, or join arms with the revolutionaries and bring about the next government(s) of the former USA. Either option will likely end badly for us,
An interesting thought. cf. Revolt In 2100 [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 08 2016, @06:29PM
There is a tremendous amount of tension in the United States (and elsewhere, but that's not germane to this discussion here) and all it takes is for the ice to be broken. Stability is an illusion that can quickly be dispelled.
If this was a group of militant blacks finally fighting back after a long string of murders committed by cops who were not punished, then it's not hard to imagine Aryan Nations nuts taking that as a green light for the all-out race war they've always fantasized about. Purely along racial lines there's a lot of violence than can erupt from this. But there are so many other legitimate and deep grievances in the citizenry that if the government does not take clear and determined steps to walk a different path from the openly sanctioning the murder of Americans, then those fault lines could be exposed too.
Enjoy your summer & hug your loved ones while you can, ladies and gentlemen, because these tensions could well continue to erupt.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @08:39AM
Was discussing this with a gent and from his survey (he made mention of looking at a few successful revolutions) the tipping point seems to be about 30%.
Not necessarily armed revolutions, mind, but if 30% of the population is ready to call it quits, there is too much of a disruption for the state to continue.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday July 08 2016, @11:07PM
Ahhh, so how many more months is that again? I'd like to plan my trips out of the country.... :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday July 09 2016, @09:44AM
The problem with that notion is that liberals and conservatives (I'm using those terms broadly) are still being pitted against each other, and are not unified as an underclass. Those who hate BLM won't join them or identify it as a revolution.
Should anyone appear seriously capable of uniting poor people of all stripes, they stand a good chance of ending up dead, like Martin Luther King.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday July 08 2016, @05:15PM
But as we all know from the shooting in Minnesota, only white people have Constitutionally-protected gun rights. Black people get shot and killed for pretending they have those same rights.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Friday July 08 2016, @07:57PM
Why do you think Trump got the GOP nomination? Why was Bernie so popular (even though the media and the DNC refused to acknowledge him). Why do you think the UK voted to leave the EU.
That's your mini-revolutionary stirrings right there. The people are using the peaceful tools they have to send the message. If it's ignored long enough, it will get more violent.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:18AM
This, exactly. Both parties have seen a revolution at the polls. Democrats already had the tools in place to quell their revolution - so-called "Super Delegates" bought and paid for in advance. Republicans had no such arrangement in place, so the republican revolution was successful.
We shall see how things play out. The Dems may have destroyed themselves as a party with their obvious play for power. The republicans may - just may - repair the damage they have done to their party over the past 30+ years. Or not.
But something happens soon - possibly violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:33AM
Lol. Clinton got the majority of the pledged delegates. Throw out the entire group of super-delegates and she still won.
Unlike Trump, Sanders brought fresh blood to the party - Trump only brought general election voters into the primaries.
Those kids might have grown up to be democrats anyway, or they might have become greens or just stayed apathetic.
But when Sanders endorses Clinton, and there is no doubt he will because he's been horse-trading his endorsement for changes to the party platform, changes which he's recently achieved, most of that fresh blood will vote Clinton.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:33PM
LOL, Bernie got the popular vote. Throw out the bought and paid for delegates and super delegates, and you're left with Bernie.
Where was it, Iowa, I think? Multiple precincts came down to ties, and Hillary won those precincts with coin tosses? She won ALL the coin tosses? Fek, man, give that one a break.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:01AM
We touch on this trend line all the time on Soylent, but it's being remarked upon by people across the ideological spectrum. Even the eilites know it, having discussed it at length at Davos and Bilderberg the last 3-4 years running. So why don't they refrain from antagonizing the public? If you see an obstacle in the road, you swerve to avoid it. If the road you're on ends in an abyss, you don't keep going down it. But a fiery chasm ahead in society? Nah, let's keep heading straight for it; in fact, why not press down harder on the throttle?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:28PM
I'm guessing you were of age when there was a tv special about Soviets infiltrating the US and taking it over. Can't think of the name.
Anyway, there was a scene of people demonstrating/rioting with an American who was tipped-off to what was going on commenting to a Soviet "You see this? The people may not know why things are going so badly, but they are aware something is wrong. And eventually that anger will turn against you and they will defeat you."
And the Soviet smiles weakly and says: "This? This is a protest we sponsored. It allows us to identify the dangerous among you, and channel that anger towards targets we pick. And after tonight, these same people feel better that they've let some anger out. And they will wake up and go to work, and nothing will change.'
Something like that. Chilled me to the bone.
Just because there is unrest doesn't mean it's directed towards anything meaningful. And don't doubt they elites are actually behind some of it, keeping the focus away from themselves.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:23AM
It goes back farther. We had the "Silent Majority" that eventually elected Reagan. They were universally reviled by all 'right thinking people' as horrible ignorant racists. They won an election but all that was wiped out by Bush/Clinton/Bush and had little longterm impact. Next we had the Tea Party, protesters so genteel and polite they universally left the protest grounds cleaner than they found them because they were compulsively civilized. Yup, ignorant racists and the nice facade obviously concealed violent revolutionaries just waiting to strike unless the FBI started counter intel ops. They too had a brief electorial impact that came to naught.
So now we get the Trumpening. The lessons have been learned. We don't give a goddamn anymore about being called racist by the usual suspects. Hell, a lot of the Trumpers ARE racists. But most of us are now like myself, no enemies on the Right and don't really care. If we are all going to declared racists anyway, why chase off the actual racists? Let em play too. We ain't feeling polite either, leave that to (((Bill Kristol))) and Glenn Beck's #NeverTrump cucks, it is time for #War now.
And if this too fails? If this attempt to tell our rulers NO! To tell them the governed do NOT consent? Projecting the trend line out leads to really dark places. The mood out in flyover country is almost pre-revolutionary and the divisions haven't been this stark since the 1850s.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:02AM
Nigga you bat-shit crazy fool.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:39AM
Every goddamn time you post you somehow manage to disappoint me further, and I'd already given up hope on you ever being able to hold a rational conversation. You too with the fucking "coincidence detector" triple-brackets now?! How low can you sink?! Am I watching you in the early stages of insanity or what? You're getting to the point where I'd legitimately pity you if it weren't for how incredibly self-destructive and foolish you're being; don't you see you're playing right into the hands of the very elite you claim to rail against and hate?! You're doing exactly what they want, going along with the divide and conquer mentality perfectly.
Something has broken somewhere inside your skull, Mr. Morris. Tonight, here, with this post, you've officially left the reservation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday July 10 2016, @06:28PM
The funny thing there is the butthurt over it, Google censoring the app, etc. Kristol is pretty much defining the schemijg neocon jew stereotype, long pretending to be of the right while being so obviously not he couldn't really be called a trojan horse. So I f*cked with him.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @07:59PM
0) Kristol does not know you exist
1) He can't see your post
2) He wouldn't give a fuck what some neo-Nazi moron who's been played for a fool by the Republican party all his adult life (the word your kind uses is "cuck" I believe...such projection!) thinks about him
3) You keep digging that hole and you're gonna pop out in China. I'm just going to sit back and watch in a mixture of horror and fascination, occasionally pointing out your idiocy for the benefit of others watching, lest they think of imitating you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @03:57PM
If a group of people is oppressed and denigrated long enough, eventually they will fight back. I have always taken the position that, eventually, somebody is going to start popping police officers as the reality of the complete lack of accountability becomes very public. When we see officers murdering suspects without consequence or being treated with deference by the system when they are finally called to account, we see the world for what it is. These shootings may not be right and may not be justice but it certainly is not surprising. I am not advocating or justifying what happened to the officers in Dallas but I am saying that the only surprising thing about this event, is that it took this long to happen.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:02PM
Flash bombing an infant in its crib didn't matter. The Hammonds and Bundies didn't matter. Orlando didn't matter -- BLM tried multiple times in multiple places to grab attention from mourners. All they care about is power, not lives.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @04:24PM
Or, like any organization with a cause, they must use every opportunity they can to address the larger picture. Power is a vague term, we all use it in our daily lives. The important part is to find out why any group wants power. Is it for the sake of power alone? Or to make change in the world, either positive or negative?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday July 08 2016, @08:12PM
Didn't something happen in New York after one of the previous shootings?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:33AM
Two police were ambushed and killed in New York City in 2014 [usatoday.com] - perhaps that is what you referred to?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:58PM
Is there any better (and more dangerous) time to video record or open carry near police departments? Probably not. Expect some weird laws to be passed due to this incident... if they can't touch open carry, they will probably change the stop and ID law or require more distance from police conducting an investigation.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday July 08 2016, @06:37PM
Maybe, but they removed that language from the bill before it passed [state.tx.us]: (emphasis mine)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @08:13PM
I'm referring to the requirement to ID yourself only upon arrest in Texas. They could expand it to include "lawful" detention or simply the whim of the law enforcement officer.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday July 08 2016, @08:57PM
Right, what I'm saying is it's unlikely since the lawmakers already considered it. The Texas legislature meets only once every 2 years, and they're not scheduled to meet again until January 2017. Although I suppose they could call a special session...
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:09PM
The Guardian has been keeping count
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database# [theguardian.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:20PM
Sad night in Texas. The lefties will again be yelling for more gun control. What we need is more Obama control. That idiot's been trying to foment a race war against cops since his days as a community agitator.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Tork on Friday July 08 2016, @04:44PM
Sad night in Texas. The lefties will again be yelling for more gun control. What we need is more Obama control. That idiot's been trying to foment a race war against cops since his days as a community agitator.
It's dumb AC comments like these that make me wonder if the form to register an account with Soylent doubles as an IQ test.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday July 08 2016, @06:04PM
If it is an IQ test, the result is a one bit binary number: $HAS_IQ.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:59PM
The exception always proves the rule.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @04:23PM
Call me paranoid, but this smells like agents provocateurs to me. Gangbangers are not known for sniping, or, for that matter, being able to hit jack shit with any accuracy to speak of. The "suspect" saying "I wanna kill white people and especially cops" sounds phony as fuck. And why is no one mentioning the robot thing? Yeah, this smells like another good crisis not allowed to go to waste, if you take my meaning...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @04:31PM
Well, if there were other snipers, and they were taken alive, maybe there will be an alternate narrative that isn't under police control that comes out.
Or, the police could release recordings of the negotiation process with the guy from before when they killed him with a robot.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @05:29PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday July 08 2016, @05:47PM
OK. You're paranoid. Anyone who starts talking about false flags without some darn good direct evidence of such is already going down the path of crackpot conspiracy theorist. That way lies madness and a complete disconnection from reality if you're not careful.
You're also racist. Maybe they released that info by now, but last I heard we have no idea of who the shooter is, much less whether he's black. But even though it's a fairly obvious assumption, jumping from "black man" to "gangbanger" is quite racially biased. Who knows, he might be a college professor, or maybe a trained former Marine sharpshooter, just like good old Lee Harvey Oswald. He can't be a complete amateur, he somehow managed to get 5 kills out of 11 targets hit in what must have been a chaotic situation.
I also have no problem believing that a single black person out of several million finally got pushed over the edge after living in a country plagued with systemic racism his whole life. Do you really have trouble believing that? And since we have police robots now, how does it not make sense that they used one to end the armed standoff with the shooter, rather than risking any other officers' lives? How does wisely using a robot translate to conspiracy?
Yeah, in short, nothing you said really made any sense to me. But that's just me.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @07:29PM
I totally agree that some of OP's statements were racist, but the rest of my comment will ignore this. I'm more interested in the paranoia angle.
The US government has a history of false flags. One great example is Operation Northwoods [wikipedia.org], which proposed various plans to start a war with Cuba. The documents that have been released only mention an attack on Washington, DC, in passing. They spend much more time going over the details of how to make it appear that the Cuban government had attacked a civilian aircraft, when in fact the aircraft would have been replaced with a self-destructing drone mid-flight and the "civilians" would have been CIA agents using fake identities. JFK vetoed Northwoods. We (The People) didn't discover any of this during the first investigation of the Kennedy assassination, it didn't become public knowledge until 1997 (through another investigation of the assassination). So if the government is currently planning false flags, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to assume an ~35-year-if-ever delay betweening planning and disclosure. Nobody plans on disclosing a false flag attack.
Given that our government has a track record of planning false flags, just like other governments do, it seems reasonable to question whether or not politically advantageous violence is a false flag. We've established that our government is willing to make up civilian deaths. Of course, it also appears that real attacks are happening. The question is how likely a given attack is to be government planned. Even if you think it ridiculously unlikely, it's almost bound to happen sometimes. With Northwoods, we should be able to agree that at least once the US government planned a false flag attack. It's an example that never came to fruition, but that may be why they were willing to eventually tell us about it decades later. The second Gulf of Tonkin incidnt is another great example of a faked attack, albeit one in which no casualties were claimed. We have greater evidence for these being government lies than we do the infamous example of the Reichstag fire, which we only have the usefullness and one Nuremberg testimony to go on (the propagandist accused of setting the fire denied the claim until the end, and was apparently forthcoming on other matters).
I don't model this attack as being >50% likely of being a false flag. I'd probably put it somewhere <5%, and <0.5% doesn't seem unreasonable. But it is a divisive attack in an election year, and I think it is reasonable to question who benefits even though we have no evidence of it being false flag (there shouldn't be easy evidence, if the supposed conspirators did their jobs correctly). I'm not even sure who benefits. Does the CIA have an interest in who wins this election cycle? Could this be an attempt to use racial violence to get conservatives on the same page as liberals with regards to rolling back the 2nd amendment? I don't have answers, only questions. Probably, this was a lone wolf. Maybe, the government is lying again. I've noticed they have a habit of that, and it makes it very difficult for me to determine which parts of their naratives are real. I feel no obligation to take their press releases at face value. If they wanted trust, they should never have planned false flags. It's too late to go back now, even decades later. State level actors are hard to model, and damn tricky. I feel like we should have the false flag conversation every time something potentially useful to government interests happens, even if we generally conclude "probably wasn't."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:42AM
> The US government has a history of false flags,
Any organization big enough will eventually have members who do stupid, nefarious shit.
The question is not whether or not some of them have tried it. What matters is how common is it for them to try it.
The answer seems to be that it is pretty damn rare.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:46AM
Or perhaps finding out they were false flags is pretty damn rare. If we agree that groups within the government sometimes perpetrate false flag attacks, and it is downright circular to say that perpetrators of false flag attacks do not want the false-flaggedness of those attacks to be known, it would seem to follow that they probably get some through on us sometimes (unless you consider the CIA to be incredibly inept). False flag attacks could seem pretty damn rare while really being a once-every-couple-decades sort of phenomenon, or even something far worse. Or maybe you're right, and they really are scant. I'm not doubting that as a serious possibility, but I don't see it as the only one.
I will say this: either the Kremlin does more sketchy shit than Washington, or Washington is better at hiding their shit.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:07PM
The Spanish American war was predicated on an attack on a United States ship that didn't happen. That may or may not qualify as a "false flag attack", because it seems the ship was blown up accidentally. Or, was it? Whatever, our government KNEW that the Spanish didn't sink our ship, but they used it as propaganda all the same.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday July 09 2016, @03:54AM
If one wants the word racist to have some actual meaning one shouldn't use it for petty stuff that could easily be imaginary offenses caused by the reader rather than the speaker. Reserve allegations of racism for use against people who kill or seriously harm people due to their skin color and racial group, or who seriously advocate the same (not satire, "trolling", or devil's advocates).
Otherwise the word racism will remain meaningless and continue to cover up and encourage actual racism.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:48AM
From OP:
Gangbangers are not known for sniping, or, for that matter, being able to hit jack shit with any accuracy to speak of.
Note the unfounded assumption that this guy was a gangbanger. Military service points to basic firearms training, as others have pointed out. She was questioning his technical skill with a firearm based on a clearly prejudiced assumption.
From you:
Reserve allegations of racism for use against people who kill or seriously harm people due to their skin color and racial group, or who seriously advocate the same (not satire, "trolling", or devil's advocates).
I'm going to disregard this advice and continue using a dictionary definition of that word. You're conflating violence with racism somehow. Prejudice based on race is enough to qualify you as racist (there are other ways of qualifying, of course).
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:14AM
Thing is though that by using the word for fairly trivial stuff like someone reaching an unfounded conclusion or two or simply venting in a politically incorrect manner one makes it at first into nothing but a petty insult without much substance, then into an annoyance, and further into a badge of pride as people get tired of all the people constantly telling everyone else that they're being racist when at least initially they weren't adherents of racial supremacy. This has already happened as far as many people are concerned and each day both the number and intensity grows, literally driving people into hatred and violence against them.
As for your quotes what's often referred to as spray & pray isn't racist and the assumption depends on your interpretation; it is you who assume. You might be correct but it's not at all as clear as you think. "Gangbangers" isn't racist either but a colloquialism for gang members (which might be of any race).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:56PM
I'm not doublespeaking around the fact that assuming a black man is a gang member without any clear evidence is racial prejudice in the context of our culture. When political shooters are white, we don't label them gangbangers. This was clear flamebaitery on the part of OP. I wasn't even trying to discuss the definition of racism, I was just trying to make it clear that I was avoiding the issue because I was more interested in another part of the discussion and that this avoidance shouldn't be taken as tacit agreement with OP on the topic. I'm going to continue using dictionary definitions of the word "racism," but I guess you can keep piling new politically-motivated definitions on top. It would be less ambiguous if you used a new variable, like $RACISM (pronounced "dollar-racism"), so as to avoid confusing it with the already overloaded term "racism," but you can do whatever. I'm definitely going to keep calling racial prejudice racism, even if there is no explicit supremacy or violence involved.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Friday July 08 2016, @07:50PM
The robot thing *IS* a huge deal. Think about it, suspect pinned down nowhere to go and nobody to hurt. Solution? Send in the JudgeJuryExecutioner bot to blow him to bits in place. Correct solution? He'll surrender once he is tired and hungry enough. Risks? He might scuff the robot.
Since when is an anti-personnel bomb a legitimate police weapon?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday July 08 2016, @08:32PM
And where did they get the bomb from? Did they have an extra bomb sitting around just in case? If so is that normal for them, or was it something that they had because of the demonstrations? Did they have to request a bomb from another agency while the guy was pinned down? Did they get it from the FBI, like that time that cops bombed the MOVE headquarters in 1985? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:59AM
Yeah, this is what worries me, too. See my comments elsewhere, which seem to echo yours. Best case scenario is that the bomb squad has extra test bomb parts lying around for training exercises. But even that raises questions, like how the kersplodey decision was made, and whether it is policy. But even that means that a bomb was brought to a college campus with the express intent to kill people, by people who already have lethal force available to them.
Seems like a thoughtful exposition of the steps leading to the kill decision, and by what means is warranted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:53PM
Ex-military.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Friday July 08 2016, @07:02PM
This guy doesn't sound at all like a gangbanger. He's former military, and has no criminal record. Being former military he probably had training with the type of weapon he used (I don't think the specific weapon has been released yet, but I'd assume an AR-15 or something like it. Most weapons in that class operate in a similar way).
I'll agree that him being dead is a problem. I don't see a reason they couldn't have just kept him cornered until he gave up or made a move that required that he be shot. Now we don't have a chance to ask him what his motivations are or if he's part of a group. That's completely setting aside the moral and legal implications of allowing a summary execution.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday July 08 2016, @08:32PM
The average hunting rifle is more accurate than an AR-15. The average hunter has a good hunting rifle.
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Saturday July 09 2016, @04:40AM
No.
Too quick (even if the event was planned post Tuesday it still too fast to put together a workable operation).
This is actual genuine unrest. The unjustified Falcon Heights shooting is particularly damning as that is a good neighborhood of historically mixed races without major incidents.
Had the shooting been in North Minneapolis it would have been just another (almost daily) incident with police.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday July 08 2016, @04:26PM
A journey consists of many steps, each nearly meaningless by itself. Help the blacks, beginning in the 1960s, with well-intentioned affirmative action programs: putting people in places where their skills are inadequate, thereby damaging employability for the entire group. Support the unemployed with generous social programs, meaning they have little need to gain an education and work skills in the first place. Then the "War on Drugs" that puts millions of young men in jail, thereby destroying the black family, and creating a culture of single moms raising young barbarians.
Having few skills, little education and no respect for authority, young blacks turn to violence and crime [youtube.com]. The police begin to regard every black as an imminent threat, and turn up the brutality. The blacks feels oppressed, because they now are oppressed, and become ever more combative, making the police ever more ready to use lethal force.
And there you go. The problems have developed over 2-3 generations, driven at each step by the best of intentions. Any possible fix would take just as long, but might be possible with a strong leader. Obama would have been ideal, because he is himself black, but he hasn't even tried. Who else is there? Hillary, who is only interested in more payola for the Clinton foundation? Trump, who plays to the (entirely justified) fears of middle class whites?
It's depressing. Many neighborhoods are already nearly ungovernable. The light you see at the end of the tunnel is the burring of American inner cities.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday July 08 2016, @05:40PM
I wouldn't say they had the best of intentions. Banking practices in the 1950s and 1960s set up the black slums based on the self-fulfilling prophecy that black people in the neighborhood drive down real estate prices. Urban renewal programs were suppose to benefit everybody, but tore down primarily black neighborhoods because they were the ones with poor land value that needed renewing. Social programs were originally incentivized to support mothers to stay at home, but were upended to get mothers in the work force for moral reasons that speak, again, to prejudices primarily about black families (if it were for economic reasons they would have put more money into government-subsidized child care). And we have high-level politicians from the Nixon era on record saying that federal drug enforcement ramped up specifically because it would give them an excuse to mess with both anti-war demonstrators and African Americans.
No, this has all played out because of the worst of intentions. These problems exist because African Americans have been systematically terrorized for decades, nay, centuries; there hasn't really been a reprieve of abuse going all the way back to when their ancestors were first brought to America. We have had these societal problems with Irish Americans, with Italian Americans, with all sorts of ethnicities in America, and they all faded over time. Why? Because when they tried to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they faded into the rest of middle class white America, and those that didn't faded similarly into working class white America. But African Americans aren't allowed to do that. They are specifically exempted from fading in, from properly assimilating.
If people in power had good intentions for multiple generations of African Americans, the problem would get better instead of worse. There may be hope if poor whites realize that they too suffer from all the stereotypes about poor people in America when some always-black caricature represents all of them. But what we really need is to focus on being good, on being nice, on loving our neighbor. The unfortunate thing is that the one group in this country that believes in those ideas, the religious, have become a force for a whole different set of backward agendas that they can't win in the long term. And not that it will make any difference to say so here, but I implore the political Christians of America to put even more effort into fighting racism as they have put into fighting abortion, and not just by government. You don't have to be a Christian to believe in love and goodness; I just happen to know that that's what Jesus cared about, and I know that means a lot to some people. Help people directly. Change perceptions in your local community. Bend our culture towards good, rather than towards tradition. Y We need more "love your neighbor" everywhere, and we need it now.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @07:35PM
I'd mod you up further if you hadn't already hit the +5 Insightful limit...you have both a way with words and a good grasp of the hidden or subtle issues that certain people, whose names rhyme with, for example, Slay Norris and The Shitey Uzzard, don't or won't consider.
(Uzzard is a word; it is a third-generation bastard, i.e., a bastard by a bastard out of a bastard.)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @11:32AM
For someone who seems likely to self-identify as a "progressive", you sure do have an obvious hangup about the question of whether or not the marriages of your detractors' parentages were legitimate.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:19AM
Given the baggage that word has acquired...no, no I do not. And I like words that do double duty; in this case, it's more about his personality than his parentage, though I wouldn't be surprised if he has absent daddy issues too given some of his previous posts...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:18PM
Careful now - your own prejudices are showing through.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:18AM
Prejudices against what, thoroughgoing assholery? Barely-contained sociopathy? Believe me, their own words damn them far more thoroughly than I ever could.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @08:57PM
If people in power had good intentions for multiple generations of African Americans, the problem would get better instead of worse.
If only people didn't have this power at all.
The unfortunate thing is that the one group in this country that believes in those ideas, the religious, have become a force for a whole different set of backward agendas that they can't win in the long term. And not that it will make any difference to say so here, but I implore the political Christians of America to put even more effort into fighting racism as they have put into fighting abortion, and not just by government. You don't have to be a Christian to believe in love and goodness; I just happen to know that that's what Jesus cared about, and I know that means a lot to some people. Help people directly. Change perceptions in your local community. Bend our culture towards good, rather than towards tradition. Y We need more "love your neighbor" everywhere, and we need it now.
I will continue to try to get religious people and nonreligious people to oppose murder, slavery, and theft, most of which is practiced by the state which then turns around and gets us to blame each other instead of itself.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @12:11AM
"Having few skills, little education and no respect for authority." Maybe, but more likely they are unemployable due to the very racist War on Some Drugs. This has led to calls to 'ban the check box' for felons on employment applications. But you can't deny their marketing & financial skills, as demonstrated by the size of that industry. If you kick someone permanently out of the 'white economy', don't be surprised if they start making a living in some 'black market'. And they aren't the only ones with 'no respect for authority.' In fact, if you support 'authority' these days you end up supporting killer cops who skate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:33PM
Without any interpretation on my part, here are the numbers for violent crimes per capita between black and white people in the US.
US Population - white alone --> 223,553,265
US Population - black alone --> 12,795,675
# of whites arrested for murder --> 3,807
# of blacks arrested for murder --> 4,224
% of whites in US arrested for murder --> 0.0017029 %
% of blacks in US arrested for murder --> 0.0330112 %
These are only arrests not convictions, but you roughly 19 times more likely to be murdered by a black person than a white person.
I could expand this out to look at all violent crimes, but just looking over the FBI's crime stats seems to suggest that this pattern holds.
Police are probably more aggressive toward black suspects as they tend to be more deadly to deal with than other races at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:59PM
Woah woah, facts like this are illegal in some countries. e.g. Sweden. Tone it down on the facts, we need to stick to a race baiting narrative. You don't want anyone calling you a bigot, DO YOU? Elections are right around the corner and we need to keep the black population stirred up so they will get out there and vote democrat to "solve" these issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:08PM
Without any interpretation on my part
The users here are smart enough to recognize the context of the numbers you post mean and you interpret anyway:
you are roughly 19 times more likely to be murdered by a black person
There is a clear race and age bias to those numbers because the vast majority of the offenders and victims are young black men. Your interpretation of those numbers is incomplete.
Here is a post with some relevant citations:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=14393&cid=371544#commentwrapoughly [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Friday July 08 2016, @05:09PM
Put another way:
% of whites in the US NOT arrested for murder: 99.998%
% of blacks in the US NOT arrested for murder: 99.967%
If you walk up to a random person on the street, they're nearly certain not to be a murderer, regardless of their race. One of the core principles in our criminal justice system is (or should be) that while absolutely, we want to lock away or execute murderers, we really want to not harm the 99.9%+ of innocent people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @05:34PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday July 08 2016, @09:40PM
Nice lefty sentiment, but it is not rational in the least if actually implemented.
If you allow someone you are 90% certain is a killer to escape justice, it is highly probable they will kill again, probability varies some with the specifics of the individual case but it is always easier to kill the second time. You should also weigh the future innocent life that will be lost into the balance. There would be a difference in not convicting a person with an otherwise clean record who you are pretty certain killed in a situation likely to be a one off, i.e. who wouldn't present much of a future risk if they escaped punishment because there was some uncertainty. Compare with a gang banger with a long list of violent felonies up on a murder charge where the evidence for this particular murder is strong but not airtight, the winning move is probably to send him to prison because the alternative is unleashing him only to wait until he kills again.
There are always going to be innocent people in prison, not just the guilty who are lying, but actual innocent people. We should always strive to minimize that number, work to free those falsely imprisoned as new evidence is developed and harshly punish those in positions of authority who withhold exculpatory evidence. But our legal system is designed and operated by mortal, fallible humans, evidence is often incomplete and we will make mistakes. If our standard of evidence requires absolute certainty of guilt instead of beyond a reasonable doubt we will have chaos.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @09:52PM
Nice lefty sentiment, but it is not rational in the least if actually implemented.
That's a bedrock principle of English common law and came from Sir William Blackstone. It was in the lawbooks Abraham Lincoln studied from. It's not leftist in the slightest. Neither am I.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @09:56PM
If you allow someone you are 90% certain is a killer to escape justice, it is highly probable they will kill again, probability varies some with the specifics of the individual case but it is always easier to kill the second time.
Which is why I support the right of people to arm themselves as well as all other rights of self-determination.
If our standard of evidence requires absolute certainty of guilt instead of beyond a reasonable doubt we will have chaos.
I'm not sure how you took my post to mean anything other than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Both that phrase and the one I posted have coexisted in the same legal system for many years.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @09:58PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @10:00PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:15PM
If you haven't noticed, we're moving to the right.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @11:18PM
Holy dig shit!
There are always going to be innocent people in prison
That's because
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
Nice lefty sentiment, but it is not rational in the least if actually implemented…. We will make mistakes. If our standard of evidence requires absolute certainty of guilt instead of beyond a reasonable doubt we will have chaos.
Let me elucidate.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
—Some guy who liked porking French chicks
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:47AM
Lefty sentiment? What the actual fuck?
So, what, you would rather round up an imprision or execute random people as a deterrent?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:47AM
I am sure he would.
Jmorris is one of those creeps who has absolutely no empathy.
He is literally unable to conceive of the possibility that he might be falsely accused one day.
Except by an SJW, those guys falsely accuse him every day.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:45AM
"Empathy" is a dirty word around these parts, it seems :(
So let's use something else: "basic fucking human decency." There is something *broken* in this man's brain. I don't know if he's a clinical sociopath or what, but just trying to imagine the state of mind someone has to be in to say the shit he does is nightmarish. It's like some kind of black hole with a viewport.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:27PM
So, it is your position that a man on trial for murder should be convicted if you are only 90% sure that he is guilty? You've heard all the evidence, you've heard the alibi, you've heard all the circumstantial nonsense, and you are only 9/10 sure of guilt. So - you vote guilty.
Then I would say that you share in the guilt when the REAL killer kills again. You "solved" this crime by locking away an innocent man, and the cops stopped looking for the real killer. Case closed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:33PM
If you allow someone you are 90% certain is a killer to escape justice, it is highly probable they will kill again
jmorris!! In da house!! Pushing the Pre-crime!! WhooHoo! Yes, we definitely should convict and incarcerate people based on crimes they might commit in the future. In fact, the stats show that certain characteristics are associated with future crime, like belonging to conservative, racist political groups; posting batshit crazy opinions to news aggregation internet sites; being opposed to gun control: do we know anyone who fits this profile?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:01PM
Comments like yours make me wish there was a special +6 insightful score.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 08 2016, @05:11PM
These are only arrests not convictions....
Exactly. It could also indicate that you are simply more likely to be arrested if you are black, regardless of whether you have committed a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:26PM
So from your numbers about 33 out of 100,000 blacks will be arrested for murder at some point in their lives. How many of those murders occur when cops are present when they may be able to do something about it? Does 1 in 10 sound reasonable? If it does then law enforcement would come across one black murder per 30,300 black people they encounter. Do we really think that those odds are enough for a cop to treat every black person hostilely during every encounter?
For similar odds... should a student at a major University feel scared that they are going to be physically assaulted by every other student on campus because there was one case during that school year?
(Score: 3, Touché) by EvilSS on Friday July 08 2016, @05:54PM
So what I think you want us to take away from this is that 0.031308% of the white population is an uncaught murderer. Kind of scary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:09PM
You'll never take me alive coppers!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:41PM
"These are only arrests not convictions, but you roughly 19 times more likely to be murdered by a black person than a white person."
No, this just means you're 19 times more likely to be arrested without proof or reason by a cop if you're black. Show us stats for actual convictions and we'll at least -start- to talk about it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 08 2016, @07:40PM
Now the $64,000 question here is, WHY is this 1900% higher rate the case? This is where the ones looking for some excuse to be racist shitstains go "because nignogs gonna nig." Those of us whose knees still bend while walking (other than to jerk, I mean), though, will start considering the confounders here, things like poverty, lack of societal enagement, lack of opportunity, etc. None of that is to excuse crime of course; murder is murder. But it's worth pointing out that a) there is no specific "murder gene" and b) it's certainly not correlated with melanin genes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday July 08 2016, @09:10PM
"there is no specific "murder gene""
Not entirely true. Sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour has been shown to have a hereditary component.
However I am not disagreeing with your overall statement and about the environmental issues. Although they also have a hereditary component in that kids of violent and poor homes/communities have a MUCH higher chance of growing up the same.
Basically what I think I am saying here is you need to break the cycle and identify those at risk early. This requires government money and thus will never happen in the US anytime soon.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:48PM
P.S.
I know you still love me!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:46PM
But there really is a murder gene. Most people count sheep to fall asleep. Or listen to soothing music. Or get laid. Unlike any of those people, I put my headphones on, and listen to the sound effects of war. I really want to mist the bedroom with the smell of napalm, but haven't found a safe way to do that. Mortars - I love the sound of mortars. ker-CHUNK - wholesale murder and mayhem.
Fact is, every time I hear IT techs talking about a "firewall" I think of this scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k26hmRbDQFw [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @05:46AM
Yeah, I knew from our first interaction that you're a sicko. You, at least, have the morals and the mental fortitude to (mostly) keep it in check. It puts me in mind of a paedophile who is very, very scrupulous not to harm a child.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 10 2016, @06:34AM
Now, THAT is amusing. :^)
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2016, @08:40AM
Keep laughing, Runaway...that kind of reaction is a transparent admission that I've hit a sore point. It fools no one who's versed in even elementary personality analysis. So long as you keep it under control and don't become like a few other people I can and constantly do name there won't be any problems.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday July 08 2016, @11:48PM
And I keep hearing stories about black people who were convicted of murder who were later exonerated by DNA evidence, usually after serving many years in prison. Most of these convictions tend to be based on eyewitness accounts of white people. And that is convictions, not just arrests. So that 19 to 1 ratio is more a symptom of the system being rigged against black people than any real difference between them and white people.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @04:52PM
The blacklivesmatter movement was planning to disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions so that martial law will be declared and the elections suspended/indefinitely postponed to keep obama in office. And that U.S. Attorney General L.L. is aware of this and may be part of it. I read this on oathkeepers.org, not sure if this is just a bunch of crap or if something big is getting under way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:40PM
It's just dumb enough for somebody to try it
except for the AG part
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 08 2016, @05:58PM
Nonono, these things take time. Clinton is elected, then TPP/TTIP/TISA begin being ratified, then riots in every major city in 2018, then BRICS moves away from the US dollar, then the Western economy completely collapses, and only then martial law, suspended elections, and FEMA concentration camps. You can't just activate martial law out of the blue! If the lizard people were going to overplay their hand like that, there might as well be flying saucers above major cities like in V [wikipedia.org] (or Childhood's End, take your pick).
While granted my theory isn't really testable until 2018 and even then kind of vague (being vague is the secret to fortune telling!), something big is underway. Clinton is very clearly being coronated by the lizard people so I don't really consider her election a good test.
(Oath Keepers points to the original source here [newswithviews.com]. Unfortunately it's just paranoid birther nonsense. It also falls prey to the peculiar line of magickal/religious thinking I've noticed is common among “patriots:” the idea that the Constitution is some holy document its acolytes can invoke to gain power and escape the moon matrix with a line of clever legal reasoning that can't possibly be refuted for the same reason a cross will keep vampires away.)
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by wonkey_monkey on Friday July 08 2016, @07:10PM
I read this on oathkeepers.org, not sure if this is just a bunch of crap
Going solely by the name of the website... yes, yes it is.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:55PM
No, Oathkeepers aren't crap. Visit them, and read a little bit, at least. The Oathkeepers are men and women who have sworn an oath, and intend to keep that oath. Oathkeepers include cops, soldiers and sailors, sheriffs, US Marshalls, and more. If one were to look hard, he might even find a politician or two. I wouldn't hold my breath while searching, but anything is possible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:54PM
No, Oathkeepers aren't crap. Visit them, and read a little bit, at least. The Oathkeepers are men and women who have sworn an oath, and intend to keep that oath.
Yeah, Runaway, like that jailbird and criminal, Johan Ritzenheimer, who recorded the "kids, your daddy swore an oath!" video that was widely (and justifiably) parodies online. They are taking an oath to attack the government of the United States? That is real close to swearing allegiance to ISIL!! An oath to subvert the Constitution, and replace it with the version in Cliven Bundy's pocket, the insane Mormon Cleon Skousen's version of the Constitution.
Sorry, Runaway, but the Oathkeepers are a joke, they are too stupid to be loyal because they have no idea what they are swearing loyalty to. The are really close to be the German followers of Hitler, the untermensch of very little brain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @09:28AM
While I'm highly certain you're just in your normal foam-at-mouth troll mode, do you have a link to the version of the US Constitution that you referred to? Sans that, it is most likely that the text of Cliven Bundy's pocket Constitution is effectively identical to the text on the Constitution on display at the National Archives.
...
On the other hand, sitting Federal judges reveal by their own hand an entirely different thing in mind when swearing their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, as evidenced by one Richard A. Posner [slate.com]:
Judges like Posner want to make crap up as they go? Fine, there's a process for that in the Constitution: the amendment process. Anything else is literally illegal.
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:16AM
Not sure how reliable this is, but since I found it in a 20 second internet search, you can probably do better, if you are so inclined.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/01/23/that-constitution-the-bundy-terrorists-tote-around-is-a-perverted-version-of-the-real-thing-video/ [addictinginfo.org]
PS, I never foam at the mouth when I troll, it's unprofessional. And all these "original intent" lawyers are seriously deranged.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday July 10 2016, @01:15PM
Eminently unreliable. That you would present it as evidence for your assertion ("subvert the Constitution, and replace it with the version in Cliven Bundy's pocket" [soylentnews.org]) does your reputation as a frothing troll no positive favor. The unreliable source you linked highly critiques the commentary allegedly enclosed alongside the Constitution's text, which is not even suggested as being different from the original's, thus this source had zero value as a support for your assertions about Cliven Bundy's copy of the Constitution. The unreliable source makes the bold claim that the Bundy family, by way of an associate, quote, "believe means that the federal government cannot own land". This is a flatly misleading claim which is directly contradicted by Ammon Bundy's own words [youtube.com] (note the important keyword "massive"; US fedgov claims ownership of more than 80% of Nevada's land, whereas the text of both Bundy's and the National Archives' Constitution limits it greatly to such things as land ownership for use in military installations, postal roads, and similar small-scale examples). Yet another misleading claim is made about the relation of "religion and morality" in regards to their societal necessity for a functional Constitutional government: John Adam's statement is hand-waved away as being taken out of its context as a letter to militia. Yet George Washington's farewell address [yale.edu] contains nearly identical sentiment:
So it seems that, based upon your assertions that do not pass scrutiny even with the "evidence" you proffer as support, the only question left at this point seems to be whether or not you are knowingly spouting ignorant bullcrap.
Ignorance is curable, and it would behoove you to watch the whole of Ammon Bundy's linked video if only to listen to a first-hand account of a newsworthy person's detailed explaination of his view of the Constution and the reasoning behind it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @01:30PM
As an additional follow-up: "the insane Mormon Cleon Skousen's version of the Constitution" revealed! [youtube.com] (Spoiler: it's not even annotated [thefreedictionary.com].)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:49PM
I read this on oathkeepers.org, not sure if this is just a bunch of crap
Oatsheepers? How could you not be sure? Don't you know who the Mouthbreathers are? Sheriff Mack! The "hide behind the women and children" guy! Lonesome Rhodes! These are all ammosexual perverts who were briefly (if at all) in Law Enforcement, and now call for mutiny and armed insurrection and constantly point out the the President is black! Neo-Nazi, Neo-confederates who hate BLM. You know, Bundys! Not the sharpest tools in the shed!
Oathkeepers/Wifebeaters are a bunch of crap. The South (States Rights!) will lose again!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:52PM
Ho-hum. This stuff is getting old. I remember hearing that Clinton was going to run for a third term in office. Then, Bush was going for a third term, and he was going to use "terrism" to justify martial law. Now, O'Bummer is going to use racism to justify martial law.
If I wanted to hear this kind of crap, I could find a bar full of ignorant rednecks who belong to the KKK.
The president who declares martial law, and suspends the elections, is the next president to be assassinated while still in office. It ain't happening.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mendax on Friday July 08 2016, @04:59PM
... but I don't. I don't like cops. I can't trust them and I can't like those I can't trust. I'm not the only ones who don't trust the police. The police have lost all credibility in my view and what happened in Dallas yesterday is not that much of a surprise given the killings of black people at the hands of the police, very public ones given the fact that cameras are everywhere. I can't advocate killing cops--no one deserves a death sentence, not even bad cops--but I find it very hard to blame someone who kills cops in retaliation for their killings of innocent people.
Perhaps this catastrophe will put the police on notice that they must change. However, I seriously doubt anything good will come of this. An opportunity lost.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday July 08 2016, @05:37PM
Oooh, something will come of this. It just probably won't be good for the little people.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @05:41PM
My neighbor is a cop. And you're right. He's an asshole to all the neighbors around him, even when they're nice to him. It's one thing to be tough on the job, but being a paranoid asshole when off duty to civilians is just wrong. I just ignore him now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:35PM
Yeah. But anom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:15PM
I know a few cops and they are OK, not likely to become good friends, but not jerks either. This could be because they are state cops, not local ones, presumably with more training? Also, this is in the 'burbs, where violent crime is rare.
On the other hand, I'm very leery of cops I don't know, do my best to avoid contact. Doubly so if I'm in the nearby city.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday July 08 2016, @08:47PM
Lawyers and doctors have "malpractice". Engineers and others have professional liability. Humans screw up. Part of the problem is, law enforcement seems to regard any suggestion that "this particular policeman screwed up in this particular incident" as an attack on all policemen all the time, and stonewall any investigation of police error. (Admittedly it often turns out that the same individuals carry the large proportion of such complaints, but that should be even MORE reason for other policemen to want them out of the force, just as talented techies tend to want incompetents out of the way.)
There is absolutely no justification for random assassination. There is equally no justification for the deaths in either of the incidents the two days preceding (at least from the information in the news). There is no justification for policemen feeling that a 5-shot burst is the FIRST action to take when the target has not already shown a weapon, or for ignoring any first aid.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:28PM
> hard to blame someone who kills cops in retaliation for their killings of innocent people.
Cop A kills an innocent person, then a vigilante kills cop B, and you find the vigilante blameless? Note that cop B is also an innocent person--or at least, innocent of killing.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday July 10 2016, @06:08AM
I didn't say that such behavior is justified or right, but I just have difficulty blaming someone for killing cops after what the cameras have revealed. I'm very angry at such police behavior, but I'm not going to go out and shoot cops. I can understand how someone, especially someone of color, getting so angry at what he has seen (and quite possibly experienced) at the hands of cops that he decides to do something as vicious and violent as what this guy did. Such anger creates a form of insane rage, and god knows I've felt that at times.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday July 08 2016, @05:22PM
I had the same thoughts as mendax expresses in the summary, after reading about this through the night. I can express condolences for the families and friends of all the victims, but what I can't rightfully express is surprise. In fact I have been surprised for many years now just how little direct retaliation there has ever been from the black community for the many horrifically unwarranted deaths caused by police shooting unarmed Americans who happen to not be white. Meanwhile I just saw a news article of a white man who was pointing a shotgun at people and then pulled a pistol on the police officer who walked up and took the shotgun away from him. The pistol went off, fortunately not injuring anyone, but strangely the white man isn't riddled with several bullet holes, he's still just fine. We all know by now, on the other hand, that any black man waving a shotgun around would have ended up looking like a photographic negative of a pile of swiss cheese. Because it happens even to black people who aren't waving anything around, and that should be beyond unacceptable to any rational person.
In an alternate world, police departments and prosecutors would react to this by doing everything in their power to ease the growing anger over police killings of black people. Instead, I'm afraid they might mostly do the exact opposite. Instead of quickly releasing bodycam and vehicle video footage after each incident, they'll probably keep stonewalling and refusing to release anything. Instead of dealing harshly with officers who "accidentally" didn't have working bodycams or vehicle cameras, they'll probably continue to treat having non-working equipment as perfectly normal and acceptable. Instead of holding officers accountable when they empty clips into unarmed Americans who have already been subdued or are offering no resistance, they'll probably continue to give each officer nothing but an administrative slap on the wrist, when any other citizen would be in a cell for a minimum of 10-15 years for an identical incident. Instead of working to collect accurate data on police killings nationwide, they'll probably keep acting like the data is impossible to collect.
No, in the current law enforcement and prosecutorial climate, I cannot express even the slightest surprise at seeing an incident like this happen. I can only express sadness at the loss of innocent American lives on both sides of the thin blue line, and the knowledge that things didn't necessarily have to be this way.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0, Troll) by fliptop on Friday July 08 2016, @06:52PM
Retaliation? They're the instigators [freebeacon.com]:
And today on Rush [rushlimbaugh.com]:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:57PM
Rush Limbaugh stopped making sense after he quit pain killers. Either that or I grew up. Probably the latter.
The comparison in that factoid makes no damned sense. Talk about apples and oranges. May I also remind you that both of the people murdered earlier this week were armed and thus wouldn't figure into whatever that cherry picked nonsense is trying to say?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @06:02PM
But at least it's a start. [mappingpoliceviolence.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Friday July 08 2016, @06:08PM
The New York Times just broke the story about the latest in the police killings of black men. It seems the tide has been turned.
Usually saying "the tide has turned" suggests things have gone from good to bad or from bad to good.
Neither of these things have happened here.
Nobody's winning.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 08 2016, @06:47PM
Using robots to blow up Americans is a very bad precedent to set, and it's exactly this type of behavior that is inciting vigilantes. I know there are a lot of young'uns here who might not remember the long-ago before times when torturing people for information was something only the very, very bad guys did and cops and FBI agents had to do quaint things like read people their rights, but once upon a time cops who had surrounded a suspect would shoot tear gas into the structure to force the suspect out. Nowadays there are other non-lethal options like flash-bangs they could introduce to the structure, and those they certainly have thanks to SWAT teams and the military dumping its surplus equipment on police departments. But, no, they killed the guy outright with a bomb.
I tell you it will take mere days or weeks before citizens, who have plenty of access to remote-control devices of all sorts, answer in kind and blow up government officials with bombs.
There are lots and lots of ways to kill people that don't even involve guns or gunpowder, and if the government insists on antagonizing the American people enough they will remember them all.
The government and the elites who control it must change course now or they will really regret the consequences (as will we all).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday July 08 2016, @07:17PM
i absolutely agree because they've switched modes from being police to be assassins. they had so many options and they chose to execute him.
interesting times, indeed.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 08 2016, @08:23PM
And isn't it interesting to consider that the absolute best thing they could have done to discourage copycats and escalation against them would have been to use one of those other options, to totally undermine the narrative that the cops are at war with the American people?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @07:03PM
The Afrocentric anti-white Nation of Islam has been organizing gangs to "kill the white devils" for decades. [houstonpress.com]
At another BLM 'Justice for Travon' protest we find the very same "peace activist" linked above who declared war on police and white people was seen: This protest [beforeitsnews.com] also had protesters blocking traffic and white drivers were harassed and assaulted.
The Nation of Islam has been seen patrolling at various BLM protests as "security". NOI has been looking for a platform to support their racist hatred of whites and police, and they have finally found it through the radical Social Justice advocates of Black Lives Matter.
Previously this year in Dallas police had to shut down a BLM protest involving another armed black power militant group. [cbslocal.com]
So, here we have radical Muslim extremists who openly hate whites, gays, and police and have openly declared war on the police and have been participating in BLM protests, and yet the media says this paramilitary ambush of police is just lone gunmen. Cue the blaming of the guns.
Would You [youtube.com]
Like To [youtube.com]
Know More? [youtube.com]
The Nation of Islam is a crazed extremist religion in which they believe that whites were created by selective breeding out the virtues of blackness, and whites are literally considered devils that need to be exterminated. This is racism folks. Time to wake up. This is the real Muslim problem America faces. Politicians who want to import more radical Muslims and members of La Raza (anti-white Mexican hate group) will only make things worse. Even if we closed our borders tomorrow we have enough terrorist organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in our nation to have massive terrorist attacks.
Just like with the Bolshevik's Communist Revolution and Mao's Communist take over, the "oppressor" vs "oppressed" dichotomy has been fostered prior to the attack. Whites are to be the oppressors to be overthrown. This is a classic well documented communist subversion method. [youtube.com] Ignore the threat at your own risk.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:58PM
Ignore the threat at your own risk.
You should be very afraid, AC! They probably have a bead on you right now. Stay away from the windows. Don your tinfoil hat. And for God sake, stop posting the SoylentNews! How do you think they identified you as a racist? They would not even know you existed, let alone that you are a "white devil", if you hadn't posted here!
Stop posting now!!! Save your self!! Please!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @07:09AM
? You sound like you forgot to take your meds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @05:40AM
NOI and KKK should have a hate-a-thon and kill each other off.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday July 08 2016, @07:17PM
After the drubbing that Bernie Sanders (and many others) have gotten for saying "all lives matter", I was a little shocked this morning by the coverage on Good Morning America. At one point the entire crew declared in unison "all lives matter". Quite emotional.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2016, @08:57PM
It's like people are trying to make The Turner Diaries into real events.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday July 08 2016, @09:38PM
I'm not a Newt Gingrich fan any more, but I found his comments today interesting:
"It is more dangerous to be black on America. It's both more dangerous because of the crime, which is the Chicago story," Gingrich said Friday in a Facebook Live event with CNN analyst Van Jones. "But it is more dangerous in that [you are] substantially more likely to be in a situation where police don't respect you and where you could easily get killed. And I think sometimes, for whites, it's difficult to appreciate how real that is. It's an everyday danger."
Gingrich added, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years to get a sense of this. If you are a normal white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America, and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/08/newt-gingrich-kind-of-sounds-like-he-agrees-with-black-lives-matter/ [washingtonpost.com]
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 08 2016, @10:04PM
Jesus, i thought i saw a pig fly past my window. Now i know why.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @02:50AM
Nah. He's just liberal baiting. He has a habit of saying completely sensible things just to get attention. I remember about 20 years ago he said pot should be legalized. But when it came time to do anything about it, he had no interest at all.
This time he's probably trying to sucker in bernie voters to vote for a Trump/Gingrich ticket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @06:53AM
Pray tell what is liberal baiting and how it relates to marijuana legalization?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Username on Friday July 08 2016, @10:10PM
It’s pretty obvious this would be the end result of the left’s constant race baiting and encouragement of the racist BLM terror cells. They should have never put them on TV, or selectively promoted it on facebook. Most of us on the right already predicted it would end this way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2016, @01:45AM
You mean most of you on the racist right. Aka the trump wing.
Real conservatives have just as much problem with police abuse of minority groups as anyone else.