It also says something about some people’s priorities when they use an episode like this one to elaborate on city/rural divides, what’s going to happen when society falls apart, where they’re gonna go and how they’ll survive, and so on. I mean come on dudes, this is about police violence against black people, not the damn zombie apockylips.
6 Likes
What the fuck? You have a suspect contained, he’s going no where, and I am sure every window and door is covered so he can’t hurt anyone and escape. So you just circumvent due process and destroy evidence WITH A BOMB?? This is like the heavy handed attack on Waco. Wait him out a week. He might suicide, but he might give up too. Or go in when sleeping. But a BOMB? Where the fuck to police even get bombs? I guess the Bomb Squad - but I thought they were for removing bombs, not making them.
23 Likes
I know, right?
On my way to Costco to stock up on tinfoil.
1 Like
Due Process Shmocess
When officer’s have been killed, the remaining respondents are filled with blood lust.
They had the guys they cornered, and they learned from the 4 killings in Oakland That you don’t just run in guns first against an armed person in wait.
They could have easily waited him out, and most likely he would have killed himself or given up, but that blood lust and adrenaline drives them to action.
4 Likes
I’m speaking without any knowledge other than limited explosive knowledge; it’s probably extremely directional meaning it is only deadly for a few meters and has a massive area it effects versus a remote gun - I’m sure you know how much the spread patterns of shotguns are overblown. I feel like there should be just as effective less lethal remote actions, but in terms of cheap effective and causing the least damage a remote control bomb makes a lot of sense. Again, I’m just saying it could work very well for the purpose of driving in very close and eliminating a target within a few yards of the device.
As far as due process… That’s a tough call with an active shooter that is combat trained with some volume of weaponry that is unknown and is threatening to use IEDs. He’s probably a lot more capable than the police in this situation.
What did Zizek say about our current society and our apocalypse obsession (especially in pop culture)? That we can’t imagine an alternative or a progressive path forward, so instead, we dream of ending it all and rebuilding?
Because revenge?
8 Likes
Oh I am not saying that the bomb was reckless and endangering the public or anything. Just that it wasn’t needed. Maybe. Maybe you’re right he threatened to blow shit up with a bomb, but if he had one, I would have thought he would have already used it.
I realize I am armchair quarterbacking, but this doesn’t sound like prudent action to me. But the government isn’t often subtle.
1 Like
When in doubt - BURN THEM OUT
Why not? They’ve done it before. In 1985 the Philadelphia police dropped a bomb on a fortified row house in a black neighborhood, killing 11 people (five of them children) and injuring dozens more. 60+ homes were destroyed. The fire chief made a conscious decision to let the entire block burn. Fallout? Not much. The police chief who authorized it had to resign, and the city paid off the relatives of some of the victims, but no cops were ever charged, let alone convicted.
More info here.
Nothing changes.
16 Likes
What I feared, and what was so obvious would happen someday if business as usual continued, just came to pass. It played in the back of my mind as a sick fantasy, just I didn’t dare to say it. That somebody would be angry, or opportunistic, or suicidal enough to turn fantasy to reality. That somebody with the means, the ability, the motivation (hate) and opportunity would do it.
Guess what? Black Lives Matter with their peaceful, polite demeanor, with their call for lawful, peaceful reform of police forces, they were working as hard as they could to prevent THIS! Besides saving other African Americans and preventing riots, they were trying to forestall the day when somebody would raise a weapon to kill a policeman, any policeman, an innocent, a good person, it just mattered that they were “white” for no reason but that another policeman somewhere else had killed another black person for no reason.
Now, PRAY! that it’s only an isolated tragedy, an isolated group of hateful individuals, that no terrorist organization will be opportunistic to take this up, and that everybody in the African American community will turn their backs to such an ugly vendetta.
1 Like
If I could bring back two people from the dead to serve as outspoken observers of the 2016 Fustercluck To The White House, they would be Bill Hicks and John McLaughlin.
1 Like
Let’s take these one by one.
No-knock raids. The FBI punches down your door, guns drawn. You, responsible gun owner, keep your weapon unloaded in the gun safe. It is useless against this.
Randy Weaver. Fired at the FBI first. The FBI has since changed their ROE as a direct result of their actions during Ruby Ridge (see, the recent events with ranchers).
Aaron Swartz. Committed suicide as a result of governmental harassment. Unlikely that use of his 2nd Amendment rights would have prevented this.
Yesterday the 2nd Amendment was shown in full effect. An armed populace fighting back against a militarized governmental agency. At this point, nobody was helped. The police and citizens are both scared of each other and internally. The 2nd Amendment is not helping at this point and yesterday in Dallas is exactly what it looks like in action.
8 Likes
This is less about the 2nd amendment and whether an armed revolt is in order.
You’re missing two important factors.
- It has to be bad enough for enough people to take action.
AND
- You have to have enough of an organized force that when a catalyst tips the point of action, there is action, vs only a handful of people going “rawr!” and everyone else going “0_o?”.
OR
- A third factor would be an overwhelming catalyst that forces a group of people into action. That the actions of one group are so great that when someone goes “rawr!” the people respond with “rawr!” as well, vs the “o_0?”
Examples one might be familiar with being the American Revolution, the American Civil War, The Arab Spring, and the Syrian Civil War.
2 Likes
You are again making a weird assumption that responsible gun ownership=unloaded gun in safe. I don’t think that is true, particularly if you don’t have kids, and it is still easy enough to have a quick access safe near the bed and enough space/time between your bed and front door to be startled awake and have gun in hand.
Also, are we only talking about fedgov here?
My Aaron comment was aimed at your statement that the federal government has only made a show of force in the civil war and civil rights enforcements, it is a demonstration of government violence, not the 2A for self protection.
Sure the FBI changed their tactics after Weaver, and then they called a mass press conference and burned down Koresh & co. at Waco. Yes, I agree, recent events with nutjob rancher squatters was a much much better resolution.
There will be bad actors, that doesn’t mean we should demonize and outlaw helpful tools. Trying to limit technology that has already proliferated is a backwards approach.
1 Like
Hrm, let’s check:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
DC vs. Heller basically eliminated the part about militias.
It doesn’t say anything about how big organized forces need to be. It doesn’t say anything about how “bad enough” things need to be or how many is “enough” people. It says you can have guns and use them to secure yourself.
So, four or five people felt unsecured and took action. Like the 2nd Amendment says. Like the Bundys said they were willing to do. Or Randy Weaver did.
4 Likes
Yes, the survivalistic nattering is silly. But, this shooting highlights a couple of other factors more than institutional racism: 1) easy access to high power weaponry in the U.S., especially Texas, and 2) the impact of a huge, growing state security apparatus, deployed both here and abroad. Both the Dallas shooter and the Orlando nightclub shooter were able to kill more people, more quickly than similar men have in the recent past (except at schools). They were both very well trained in the use of the weapons they had access to, that they chose to use.
Absent the past 15 year of growth in our overseas interventions (AKA wars) and the domestic ‘security industry’, neither guy would have had this much murder-knowhow. Institutional racism didn’t just burst onto the scene over the past 15 years, but the modern contract ‘security’ business sure has. And…our eternal war ‘footing’.
So, . . . you’re saying that survivalist nattering actually isn’t silly?
I assume you are playing devils advocate here or what?
The militia clause isn’t a requirement for the right. The 2nd Amendment secures the right to be armed. Just like any thing, though, you can’t use it for illegal means. The First Amendment doesn’t mean everyone can just get on their keyboard and DOX people, harass people and say horrible things about them, or call up a school and make a bomb threat so you don’t have to take a test. Or use your printer to make fake money, etc.
Shooting people in the streets is usually just a crime. I guess if you get enough people doing it, then it becomes a revolt, leading into a revolution or a war. As I outlined above, you need at least 2 things in order for that to happen, or one really massive thing prompting action.
I for one am not happy to see this development.
Like with Flash-bang grenades and all the previous bombing/flush-em-out situations, waiting is always an option that doesnt violently escelate a situation unnecessarily. This just makes it easier to kill, which is not an option the police need.
This just adds to the obey immediately or die mentality.
6 Likes
Agree. Use of lethal force when there is not an imminent deadly threat is just summary execution.
In this case, form what I’ve read so far, the shooter seems to have been contained and there was no imminent threat. Hours had passed, LEO had time and resources on their side. There doesn’t seem to be an urgent need to kill him (other than that he just killed their brothers).
7 Likes
