Police shot in Dallas

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by CrowZer0, Jul 8, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    I agree.

    However, you've touched on a point I think the vast majority of people miss.

    Whether or not you judge an ideology by the intentions of the silent majority or by the documented actions associated with that ideology and their consequences. Because, let's face it, the two are often at odds with each other.

    There's pros and cons to both but really it depends on your PoV.

    But my concern is that more people will do what Breitbart has done and associated the act of a single lunatic with the ideology rather than the actions of the majority who turned up and took part in peaceful political discourse.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  2. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Just listen to Mark and his brother. From "most wanted man in America" to "not involved" in the span of minutes!!!!!! :D

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zok9rk9x_s"]Interview with MARK HUGHES - MISTAKEN Dallas Sniper - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  3. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    The 2nd amendment is about personal freedom. It's in a document called the "Bill of Rights". In the earliest form of our government, everybody had these 10 basic rights.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    well...not everybody.
     
  5. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    touche. Look at Mark and his brother. Here it is, right? A black man can walk down the street with a gun in Dallas, Texas, America and not be murdered as a presumed criminal. Still, his survival depends on his better judgement, and a cool head, in the face of panic and chaos and presumption of guilt.

    One of the best exercises of the 2nd Amendment I have ever seen in America. God bless us, ever one. The problem isn't the guns, it's the bad people with them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  6. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    He had to give up his 2nd Amendment right in order to keep himself safe.

    Interesting, that.

    Mitch
     
  7. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    I get your point, but given the circumstances, can anyone blame him?
     
  8. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    No, I think more should follow his example.

    Fraught with nuances though this example may be. Perhaps because of them.

    Mitch
     
  9. Count Duckula

    Count Duckula Valued Member

    What he said.
     
  10. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Wow. It's unbelievable how quickly some people will stoop to using other peoples' spilt blood to further their own agenda.

    Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has blamed "big mouthed" black people for the shootings, and called the BLM protesters "hypocrites" for fleeing the gunfire. How does someone keep their job in public office after making comments like that?

    He seems to be voicing a common underlying theme that it is not the unaccountability of police that is the problem, it is the blabbermouths who dare to question public officials that are the problem.

    Then we have Ex-congressman Joe Walsh's tweet: "This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you."

    If there is any interpretation of that tweet that doesn't involve "Real America", meaning white people, are going to start murdering black people, I'd love to hear it.

    And now we know that the shooter was trained by Uncle Sam, served his country in foreign lands, had no criminal record and no political ties, and the weapons he murdered people with were legally obtained. So, until he started murdering people, he was, on paper, a "good guy with a gun", no?

    Absolute insanity.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  11. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    You seem to be saying that his AR-15 was on his shoulder purely as a symbol of his constitutional rights. When an event happened whereby he could use his rifle for its intended purpose, he decided to hand it over to the authorities.

    If the carrying of weapons in urban centres is purely symbolic, why not replace deadly weapons with symbolic representations of them? Not toy guns, as that could still end badly for people, but something innocuous... pink rain hat? inflatable banana?
     
  12. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    If he'd tried to use it for its intended purpose, he'd have been shot by all those good (white) guys with guns.

    Also - I read somewhere that his rifle wasn't loaded.
     
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Someone shot for exercising their constitutional right to legally return fire in self defence? In the land of the free and the home of the brave?

    Impossible.
     
  14. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Just for balance though: I do not believe it is correct to say that all the police officers on the scene in Dallas were white.

    If the problem with ethnic prejudice in the US were as simple racist white officers targeting black people, it could be solved far more easily. The sad fact is, black officers are also more likely to show prejudice against black people because of endemic cultural bias.

    "In this study, the researchers use a videogame to test the affect race has on shoot/don’t shoot decisions when there are African American and White targets holding guns or holding various non-threatening objects. Participants were told to “shoot” the armed targets and “not shoot” unarmed targets. In terms of response time, participants were quicker to shoot the armed African American than the armed White. Conversely the participants were quicker to “not shoot” the unarmed White. The most common errors were shooting the unarmed African American and not-shooting the armed White. All of these results are consistent with a Black-crime implicit bias and this bias was found in both African American and White participants."

    - http://www.fairimpartialpolicing.com/bias/
     
  15. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I wasn't referring just to police officers, but I am saying that when the NRA talk about 'good' guys with guns, they are talking about white guys with guns.

    Obviously, all police officers are blue guys with guns.
     
  16. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    I'm currently watching a very good documentary on Sky News about American police chiefs who travel to Scotland to learn new techniques in how to avoid shooting violent suspects.

    I'll not embed the video as it's full of bad language and some distressing scenes.

    It's well worth a look though and highlights the different approaches between our countries and why our approach would be so difficult to implement in the States.

    The 21 foot rule is also discussed and demonstrated.

    For a quick idea of the differences take a look from 28:00.

    Note. Very strong language.

    Hardwire - Law of the Gun.

    https://youtu.be/66pr23xUKZc
     
  17. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

    made me feel lucky to be born here and not in the US.
     
  18. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Most people in the US will never experience that level of police aggression, because for the most part, law and order are relatively stable in our country, most people follow the law and are respectful to police, our court system while overloaded is relatively orderly, and most of all the US police response to terrorist attacks is remarkable, which you can see in the Dallas PD response, or Boston, or New York. I hope everyone in the world watching Dallas can see the professionalism and training of US police shine through, it being their darkest hour and all. They were there that day to help keep the peace, talk with the community, shake hands and hugs, but they were trained to deal with an active shooter situation with high powered military weaponry firing at a crowd. How many more would have died had they not been?

    That's America, folks, we do come together, police and civilians, in a crisis.

    In the video it's stated that there is more potential for violence against police in the US than the UK, and that's true because US citizens have certain freedoms UK citizens do not (not to mention, the UK has a much more sophisticated surveillance of their citizenry). With more relaxed restrictions on weapons, and an easier time moving around the country with them, US police just face more risk on average on this two simple points, and so they train this way.

    Even a basic traffic stop almost anywhere in the US has the potential for exposing an officer to an armed driver (something I don't think UK police would be well equipped to deal with, honestly, they can try to keep distance all they want and are going to get shot anyway if the guy with the gun wants that). I've seen videos of cops dealing with lawfully armed drivers with total respect, and also now this video of a man trying to be respectful and follow the rules, and ends up in a bloody heap anyway. The difference is always the TYPE and temperament of cop. This is just one of those high stress jobs that drives certain people nuts, and they should be identified sooner. It's a mental health issue. The cop was clearly panicking in that video, and probably before the shooting was just as anxious. He was not really in control of the situation at all (even as he had his gunned trained on a dying man with a little girl a foot or two away watching). In the other video, two cops on top of a guy should be the end of things, but itchy trigger finger results in point-blank execution of a subdued suspect. I think the common denominator is fear, primal fear is what makes these panicking cops shoot, not their racial attitude.

    The panicking cop is the problem, not the gun, or how police deal with US citizens in general. The person. Cops need to have nerves of steel, or find a new career, in my opinion.

    I think the UK has a more efficient policing system for day to day crimes because it's smaller, fewer people, and there is less risk, and less to worry about (e.g. that everyone has an assault rifle in their car or closet, or 50). I don't think they do a better job of policing in general, and I'm positive there are plenty of UK police who beat the crap out of innocent civilians or do other thuggish authoritative activities to who don't deserve it.

    They just don't arm those same police with the same gear as US police, which is why when a US police officer looses his stuff, bullets can fly. In the UK, maybe you get tazed, or beat up, trumped up charges. At least they don't lock people up on the Tower anymore. :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
  19. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

  20. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Sadly, this happens all the time. People do shoot at each other, AND police every day in America, these only make national/world news because of Dallas. This is usually local news stuff in the US. It makes the Associated Press and beyond when it becomes a shooting massacre, or it follows one (And sadly it seems the shooting massacres are a weekly thing at the moment. It's hard to think it will get worse, but I'm trying to be optimistic).

    It's a problem. For one, there are just way to many guns lying around, and ways to get them. Here's what I'll say about that, if there's one place law and order are threatened in the US, it's by the gun lobby. They are the reason there are more guns in America than people. I'm definitely pro-2nd Amendment but believe there needs to be a cleanup of the guns and more barriers to get them for criminals and the mentally unstable. The US is #1 on the list of guns per capita, right in front of Serbia and Yemen. 112 guns per 100 people is just too much.

    Cleaning up the guns doesn't prevent Dallas of course, because the man was an Army veteran with legally purchased weapons. It's hard to believe that without some kind of tipoff, this kind of attack can be prevented any more than when Oswald shot JKF in Dallas 50 years ago. There's a different solution for that, but I certainly don't know what it is. World peace? Maybe there's need for a few new risk types, such as people who are openly militant online. Maybe what you say online SHOULD be taken into consideration before you're handed a firearm ID card. It seems a lot of these folks put plenty out on the Web before they go on their killing sprees, that might have been a perfectly valid reason to deny them a weapon purchase. But how could you make it work? I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but I know something needs to change.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page