Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday July 08 2016, @03:22PM   Printer-friendly
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."


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @09:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @09:28AM (#372628)

    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.

    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]:

    I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

    In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

    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

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday July 10 2016, @10:16AM (#372640) Journal

    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

      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Sunday July 10 2016, @01:15PM (#372677) Journal

      Not sure how reliable this is, but since I found it in a 20 second internet search, you can probably do better

      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:

      Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2016, @01:30PM (#372684)

      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].)