Two policemen executed for Brown/Garner

[dude1394]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-...e-in-brooklyn/

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s *assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

[EricaLubarsky]

Is this supposed to be political? Otherwise it's just sad.

[SeanL]

If only they had guns to defend themselves. Oh wait...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

If only they had guns to defend themselves. Oh wait...

I don't get the point of your statement...

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by SeanL

If only they had guns to defend themselves. Oh wait...

SMH.

[spreedom]

Forum: Political Arena

Originally Posted by dude1394

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-...e-in-brooklyn/

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s *assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Forum: Political Arena

Originally Posted by dude1394

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-...e-in-brooklyn/

Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s *assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Forum: Political Arena

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't get the point of your statement...

It is constantly argued by the pro-gun crowd that people will really be safer with loose gun laws because you'll be better able to defend yourself since you will also have easier access to guns. Hence the constant refrain from the pro-gun people, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

In this instance you had two well armed and well trained police officers unable to defend themselves against some random crazy guy with a gun who got the jump on them. Clearly a better solution would be to put severe restrictions on gun ownership and what kind of guns should be available (if I had my druthers we would ban all guns).

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is constantly argued by the pro-gun crowd that people will really be safer with loose gun laws because you'll be better able to defend yourself since you will also have easier access to guns. Hence the constant refrain from the pro-gun people, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

In this instance you had two well armed and well trained police officers unable to defend themselves against some random crazy guy with a gun who got the jump on them. Clearly a better solution would be to put severe restrictions on gun ownership and what kind of guns should be available (if I had my druthers we would ban all guns).

Was the gun that shot those cops obtained legally? If not, then I still don't get your point...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Was the gun that shot those cops obtained legally? If not, then I still don't get your point...

Personally I think all guns should be banned. Which would make it astronomically harder to obtain a gun whether legally or illegally.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Personally I think all guns should be banned. Which would make it astronomically harder to obtain a gun whether legally or illegally.

I applaud your idealism, but that's a ridiculously naive notion... Banning something doesn't make it go away -- or even minimize its presence (hello, drugs!)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I applaud your idealism, but that's a ridiculously naive notion... Banning something doesn't make it go away -- or even reduce its numbers (hello, drugs!)

No, it won't go away completely, but if you look at the rest of the developed world even severe restrictions (not even out right banning) dramatically decreases the ease of access to firearms by all people.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

No, it won't go away completely, but if you look at the rest of the developed world even severe restrictions (not even out right banning) dramatically decreases the ease of access to firearms by all people.

And you're picking this thread to make your anti-gun stance? A thread about two human beings that were murdered in retaliation for two other human beings that were murdered? You think this is a gun issue and not a classic "us vs. them" issue?

You gotta look past your talking points and see the bigger picture here...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

And you're picking this thread to make your anti-gun stance? A thread about two human beings that were murdered in retaliation for two other human beings that were murdered? You think this is a gun issue and not a classic "us vs. them" issue?

You gotta look past your talking points and see the bigger picture here...

Is this not a political forum?

Anyhow, I think this is exactly the time to make this point. You can't wait until everyone stops caring about a problem to propose a solution that would probably prevent future police deaths.

[spreedom]

FWIW, the gunman was also a suspected gang member and allegedly murdered his girlfriend earlier in the morning.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Is this not a political forum?

Anyhow, I think this is exactly the time to make this point. You can't wait until everyone stops caring about a problem to propose a solution that would probably prevent future police deaths.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

To simplify it for you: guns = branches, motivation to kill = roots.

[Dirkadirkastan]

I agree with SeanL. Governments are the biggest murderers of all, and it's not even close. Therefore, government should ideally own all the guns, or at least keep track of them all.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I agree with SeanL. Governments are the biggest murderers of all, and it's not even close. Therefore, government should ideally own all the guns, or at least keep track of them all.

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by spreedom

You're such a fucking troll. Please tell us where else on this forum we can discuss this kind of issue. Go ahead, we're waiting.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by LSMF

You're such a fucking troll. Please tell us where else on this forum we can discuss this kind of issue. Go ahead, we're waiting.

Seriously, explain to me how this is a political issue in any way.

If it doesn't fit into a particular board's description, it goes in The Lounge. Derp.

[dude1394]

Sons goodbye to executed father.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/media...6/original.jpg

[spreedom]

Unbelievably sad.

[bilease]

First of all I have to say that my thoughts are with the family of the police officers, it's horrible to hear such news. But as sad as these momentes are they should also be used to see how the situation can be improved.

Originally Posted by Underdog

Was the gun that shot those cops obtained legally? If not, then I still don't get your point...

Well, those criminals dont build guns themselves, even illegal guns were legally purchased at one point. And then either stolen or resold. Reducing the amount of legal guns available would automatically reduce the amount of illegal guns as well, and don't forget that many crimes are commited in some sort of "overreaction", and making it more difficult (not impossible) for people to get access to guns in such situations would already solve a lot of problems.

I'm not going to say that making all guns illegal is a good idea (or even possible), but it should definitely be more difficult to buy a gun than it is right now. As it was said by SeanL before, the US do have the highest homicide and gun crime rate in the western world, and it's not even close. Don't you think that making it more difficult to get a gun would slightly reduce those numbers? Just to mention it, the death rate per 100,000 population per year due to gun crime is over 10 in the US, it's about 1 in almost every western European country and 0.25 in the UK. And social problems can't be the only reason to have a 10-40 times higher gun crime rate, having such easy access to guns definitely has something to do with it.

If you look at Germany for example, it is legal to purchase a gun there. It's just not as easy as in the US. The requirements are more difficult and you need to wait a certain amount of time before you get the gun license, you also have to pass a psychological test and can't have any kind of criminal record. That system works much much better and makes a lot of sense to me, anyone who wants to be able to defend his house/life can still legally do so but a huge amount of people who want to commit a crime with a gun will be detected earlier.

Although it's obviously difficult to start such a system now as there are already a lot of guns around and in the hands of criminals, the law should have been changed decades ago. As much sense the 2nd amendment made when it was written it is just as obsolete today (or 100 years ago). It took 30 seconds to reload a gun for 1 more bullet back then, now it takes a trained person around 1 second to possibly reload more than 30 bullets. I dont think anyone thought about this when it was written. About 90 people out of 100 own a gun, that is the highest amount worlwide and almost as much as number 2 and 3 combined, there are almost more guns than people in the US. And as every statistical evidence can prove this does more harm than good.

As I said before, it would be ideal if it would simply be more difficult and ensured that responsible people own guns, and not available for every random crazy person. Other countries can make it work too, it obviously reduces the amount of homicides and non lethal gun crime. There really are no actual reasons to be against a change. It shouldnt and wouldnt be impossible to defend your life with a gun, it should just be made more difficult for others who dont just want to defend themselves to get a gun.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

To simplify it for you: guns = branches, motivation to kill = roots.

To use a hyperbole: atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Let's give every law abiding citizen an atomic bomb.

Now clearly guns are not as destructive as atomic bomb. But they are destructive nonetheless. Nobody is a criminal until they decide to be one. There is no way of telling who will become a criminal. Precogs (from the Minority Report) have not been invented yet.

[dude1394]

Bambi weighs in. Expected tripe from "our" president.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy
"‘Patient Dialogue’?

Well, at least he didn’t say police “acted stupidly.” But President Obama’s call for “patient dialogue” in the aftermath of the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of NYPD Officers Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos is maddening.

Dialogue is an exchange that takes place when there are competing points of view and it is reasonable to believe that both of them may have a point.

Does the president really think there are two sides to this story?

In the absence of any proof of racial animus on the part of police – in fact, in the face of overwhelming proof that police take great personal risks to protect minority communities – Obama and his attorney general have joined the administration at the hip with notorious demagogue Al Sharpton. Together with like-minded radicals like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, they promote a lethally dangerous smear that police lack human regard for the lives of black Americans.

This has not only divided our society – and Obama, like Sharpton, divides us out of the most shameful of political calculations. It has further signaled to a violent fringe Obama well knows is out there that savage acts against police and others are likely to be rationalized and tolerated – and, indeed, that violent acts short of murder will be ignored or sugar-coated as “peaceful protest.”

And now, two police officers have been murdered because they were sitting in their squad car wearing their uniforms – by a violent criminal who was clearly animated by the racially-charged, rabidly anti-police atmosphere Obama, Sharpton & Co. have promoted.

Before the murders happened, police were being assaulted on the streets of New York City, where the rabble felt free to chant, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” When the murders happened, some among the rabble engaged in the same kind of celebration that Islamists do when terrorists kill Americans or Israelis. And after the murders happened, others brayed that the killing of police would continue.

What it there to have “dialogue” about? What is the other side of this story that the president would have the widows and children of these two murdered officers hear? Or that he would have the police, who are now targets of the mob, understand?

[EricaLubarsky]

Honest question: can I feel life-wrenching horror at yesterday's shooting AND think that we have a police brutality problem?

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Bambi weighs in. Expected tripe from "our" president.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy
"‘Patient Dialogue’?

Well, at least he didn’t say police “acted stupidly.” But President Obama’s call for “patient dialogue” in the aftermath of the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of NYPD Officers Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos is maddening.

Dialogue is an exchange that takes place when there are competing points of view and it is reasonable to believe that both of them may have a point.

Does the president really think there are two sides to this story?

In the absence of any proof of racial animus on the part of police – in fact, in the face of overwhelming proof that police take great personal risks to protect minority communities – Obama and his attorney general have joined the administration at the hip with notorious demagogue Al Sharpton. Together with like-minded radicals like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, they promote a lethally dangerous smear that police lack human regard for the lives of black Americans.

This has not only divided our society – and Obama, like Sharpton, divides us out of the most shameful of political calculations. It has further signaled to a violent fringe Obama well knows is out there that savage acts against police and others are likely to be rationalized and tolerated – and, indeed, that violent acts short of murder will be ignored or sugar-coated as “peaceful protest.”

And now, two police officers have been murdered because they were sitting in their squad car wearing their uniforms – by a violent criminal who was clearly animated by the racially-charged, rabidly anti-police atmosphere Obama, Sharpton & Co. have promoted.

Before the murders happened, police were being assaulted on the streets of New York City, where the rabble felt free to chant, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” When the murders happened, some among the rabble engaged in the same kind of celebration that Islamists do when terrorists kill Americans or Israelis. And after the murders happened, others brayed that the killing of police would continue.

What it there to have “dialogue” about? What is the other side of this story that the president would have the widows and children of these two murdered officers hear? Or that he would have the police, who are now targets of the mob, understand?

Obama asking people to stay calm... you mean, exactly what he said about Ferguson? Yeah what an asshole. Clearly he supports killing cops.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Honest question: can I feel life-wrenching horror at yesterday's shooting AND think that we have a police brutality problem?

Yes you can. I do.

[spreedom]

http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny...icle-1.2052611

Yankees paying for the education of Officer Ramos' children. Classy.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Honest question: can I feel life-wrenching horror at yesterday's shooting AND think that we have a police brutality problem?

Sure. Can i feel bad about brown being killed and still say it was his own actions that caused it? And that an innocent policeman shouldnt have his life threatened and reputation ruined by politicians and media who want to inflame racial anomosities for their own political gain?

[spreedom]

Everything is a stupid political angle for some people. Totally sickening to me.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by spreedom

Everything is a stupid political angle for some people. Totally sickening to me.

I agree obama and holder really make me sick.

[spreedom]

Yeah that's totally what I said, especially considering how moderate Obama was through the whole Ferguson thing and now this shooting.

[Dirkadirkastan]

This is all an unfortunate but natural consequence of the superstition that protection services must be provided by government.

The superstition essentially goes like this: "People are dangerous and I do not trust them, therefore we need some kind of authority to keep such dangerous people in check." The obvious flaw in this sentiment is that this supposed "authority" is nothing more than other mere people, and so does not address the core issue. I refer to it as a superstition because of the emphasis on badges: when someone puts on a badge, suddenly they have extra rights no one else has and are deserving of reverence and praise, and once they take the badge off again, they're just ordinary, dangerous, unwashed mere people once again. (The only thing that makes this superstition hard to see is that it manifests itself in both the liberal and conservative ideologies in different ways.)

The key to understanding social issues is to stop viewing "government" or any "authority" as operating on a separate moral plane or having a different human nature than anyone else, and instead to simply look at the incentive structure of the proposed system. As government institutions consist of mere people, one should expect they are in fact as self-interested as anyone else.

It should be no surprise then that government courts have ruled that police officers have no legal obligation to protect anyone from anyone else, regardless of whatever hallowing mythology people like to conjure up about the nobility of police. Oh, but you do have the legal obligation to fund them. So there's that.

We've known for decades what the effect of authority has on people; the Stanford Prison Experiment was carried out in 1971. I'm not going to repeat the details here; suffice it to say that the results of an authoritarian paradigm are unproductive at best.

And why should one expect anything else? There's nothing about the aura of "authority" that prevents any crime. Gun advocates are aware of the argument: only good people will follow gun restrictions and bad people will disregard them. But that's true in any sphere. The fact that theft is "illegal" is only going to matter to people that don't have the inclination to steal in the first place, same with murder, fraud, etc. You're not exactly enhancing anyone's moral character this way.

Once you free yourself from the myth of authority, you can begin to analyze these police confrontations on an equal playing field; that is, you judge both the officer and the civilian according to the same standard. For example, it is my opinion that Michael Brown was likely the aggressor but Eric Garner was definitely a victim. Liu and Ramos were certainly victims, but I will not concede that the story is somehow more sad or the crime more serious simply because they were wearing badges. That idea is just propaganda perpetuated by a self-interested government. To quote Murray Rothbard:

We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely — those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State's openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d'etre.

Someone who attacks random cops is certainly not working toward a solution, and I condemn all acts of aggression. Members of a group are not responsible for the actions of others in the same group, and that applies to cops as well as anyone else. Yet it would still be imprudent to dismiss the problems endemic to the current system as merely a case of bad apples, or of people blaspheming the police for no good reason.

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by spreedom

Seriously, explain to me how this is a political issue in any way.

If it doesn't fit into a particular board's description, it goes in The Lounge. Derp.

How about you click on The Lounge and see what kinds of threads are posted there? Nothing of this level of seriousness is posted there, most of the threads there are threads that are lighthearted or meant for laughs. It's amazing how your first comment in this thread was about how it was posted in the Political Forum instead of actually speaking about the tragedy that took place. You proved you are a Troll.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by LSMF

How about you click on The Lounge and see what kinds of threads are posted there? Nothing of this level of seriousness is posted there, most of the threads there are threads that are lighthearted or meant for laughs. It's amazing how your first comment in this thread was about how it was posted in the Political Forum instead of actually speaking about the tragedy that took place. You proved you are a Troll.

Seriously...? Let's review:

Originally Posted by LSMF

SMH.

Your first pointless reply offered absolutely ZERO perspective or remorse for this tragedy that you say you care about. It was 100% to comment on someone's political view of the topic, and not the topic itself. Almost by definition "trolling," which you are accusing me of! Keeping up?

Originally Posted by LSMF

You're such a fucking troll. Please tell us where else on this forum we can discuss this kind of issue. Go ahead, we're waiting.

Your second post also doesn't make a single mention of the actual tragedy, which you obviously don't care about. But if other people make mention of a tangential topic... pitchforks up!

Originally Posted by LSMF

How about you click on The Lounge and see what kinds of threads are posted there? Nothing of this level of seriousness is posted there, most of the threads there are threads that are lighthearted or meant for laughs. It's amazing how your first comment in this thread was about how it was posted in the Political Forum instead of actually speaking about the tragedy that took place. You proved you are a Troll.

Your third post. You seem to care more about whether I am giving the tragedy enough respect, yet you make three posts and 89 words before you actually address it!

And again, you are the one calling me a troll!

Maybe my initial "derp" was misdirected.

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by spreedom

Seriously...? Let's review:



Your first pointless reply offered absolutely ZERO perspective or remorse for this tragedy that you say you care about. It was 100% to comment on someone's political view of the topic, and not the topic itself. Almost by definition "trolling," which you are accusing me of! Keeping up?




Your second post also doesn't make a single mention of the actual tragedy, which you obviously don't care about. But if other people make mention of a tangential topic... pitchforks up!



Your third post. You seem to care more about whether I am giving the tragedy enough respect, yet you make three posts and 89 words before you actually address it!

And again, you are the one calling me a troll!

Maybe my initial "derp" was misdirected.

So your argument is essentially that because I didn't provide some kind of remorse on what happened I can't comment on you trolling? What a stupid argument. I didn't comment on what happened simply because there was nothing for me to say. I was shocked when I heard the reports. Does me saying something in this thread somehow change what happened? Does it help the families of the victims? This is an extremely sad and unfortunate incident that took place. I understand you hold some idiotic grudge against Dude, but couldn't you at least put that aside for this issue? Nope. You crying about this thread not being in the Lounge was more important. Damn, that's really pathetic.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by LSMF

So your argument is essentially that because I didn't provide some kind of remorse on what happened I can't comment on you trolling? What a stupid argument. I didn't comment on what happened simply because there was nothing for me to say. I was shocked when I heard the reports. Does me saying something in this thread somehow change what happened? Does it help the families of the victims? This is an extremely sad and unfortunate incident that took place. I understand you hold some idiotic grudge against Dude, but couldn't you at least put that aside for this issue? Nope. You crying about this thread not being in the Lounge was more important. Damn, that's really pathetic.

Too much hypocritical butthurt to process in one sitting. Will re-evaluate at a later date.

[dude1394]

Of course this is political. Cops are having a mini-strike against blasio because he was cozying up to the cop haters. Bambi has commented and commemted and commented about it, of course always tossing in some bambi political crap.

Damn near everything in the news except for kim kardashian is political.

Certainly ferguson is political, the entire cops are killing us meme is explicitly political.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by spreedom

Seriously, explain to me how this is a political issue in any way.

If it doesn't fit into a particular board's description, it goes in The Lounge. Derp.

Become a mod, then you can censor posts hoever you like.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Of course this is political. Cops are having a mini-strike against blasio because he was cozying up to the cop haters. Bambi has commented and commemted and commented about it, of course always tossing in some bambi political crap.

Damn near everything in the news except for kim kardashian is political.

Certainly ferguson is political, the entire cops are killing us meme is explicitly political.

I think it's being shamefully politicized, for sure, on equally despicable levels from both the pro- and anti-gun lobbies, but I don't think it's a political issue at all. It's a civil issue. Whether the police have too much power, not enough power, are unfairly targeting minorities, etc are all civil issues. Now yes, politicians have been weighing in and there has been newly-proposed legislature as a result of the Ferguson shooting in particular (i.e. policemen and women wearing cameras as standard dress), but I really don't feel this is a political issue at its core. Ferguson maybe, but not this particular tragedy.

Originally Posted by dude1394

Become a mod, then you can censor posts hoever you like.

Deal!