this is not good and I had family there the past week but they came back yesterday thank god, but seriously its hard to tell if this is a terrorist terrorist or anti-cop terrorists, and people wonder why some cops go a little gun crazy, things lately have been getting bad and it might end up either being a war between people like this and the cops or cops quitting their jobs and then where will this country be? martial law?
Man, this is awful. My condolences to the police and their families.
As a black man in America, I empathize with the growing concern over police brutality and I support the need for a public discussion over what law enforcement means and how it should be varied out, but holy gak dude, violence doesn't solve anything. I wonder if the people responsible for this know or even care about how much incidents like this set-back progress in making positive changes. It's completely senseless.
He gets out of cover, fires some distraction shoots to the left side of the pillar and then engages the officer from the right side. I a situation like this, pumped with adrenalin you don't do a textbook assault without proper training.
BlaxicanX wrote: I wonder if the people responsible for this know or even care about how much incidents like this set-back progress in making positive changes.
Ultimately, the people who do these kinds of things only care about themselves, no matter what they might proclaim to the contrary.
I'm glad I live on the Fort Worth side of the D/FW metroplex.
Did they actually have "sniper rifles", or was is like "assault rifles"? Just wondering if they had your standard rifle with a scope you can buy from anywhere.
If you go down you can read tweets from officals and people at the event.
Local NBC has a national alert on right now.
There's very little difference between a "sniper rifle" and a typical hunting rifle, rifles that are readily available in states like Texas where hunting is prevalent. I don't think it's wise to start theorizing about the murderers having military training until a lot more information is released to the public.
d-usa wrote: Did they actually have "sniper rifles", or was is like "assault rifles"? Just wondering if they had your standard rifle with a scope you can buy from anywhere.
depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting, but like I said it also depends on distance but the reports say there were 2 snipers in different locations at a raised height catching the police in a classic ambush situation.
so i'm gonna say some military training, whether these snipers were part of the BLM or if they were terrorists taking advantage of a situation is another thing.
but either way they are terrorists inciting terror the way they did.
also news is saying they are unsure if the 2 suspects in custody are the snipers or not, one of them the brother claims is not a shooter.
Live right now, the police are negotiating with one of the snipers in a second floor garage. furthermore he has exchanged gunfire with the police, stating the end is coming and that there are bombs all over the place and city.
Asterios wrote: depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting.
While the AR15 isn't accurate or punchy enough enough for the Wimbledon Cup, it's more than adequate for 100 yards or so even with a relatively untrained shooter, and comes with the benefit of greater magazine capacity and faster rate of fire.
I wonder if this is going to turn out to be ISIL, or just a crazyperson, or what. The coordination that seems to be involved would lean towards the former.
Asterios wrote: depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting.
While the AR15 isn't accurate or punchy enough enough for the Wimbledon Cup, it's more than adequate for 100 yards or so even with a relatively untrained shooter, and comes with the benefit of greater magazine capacity and faster rate of fire.
I wonder if this is going to turn out to be ISIL, or just a crazyperson, or what. The coordination that seems to be involved would lean towards the former.
not crazy person, it was someone who knew the route of the march so they had inside knowledge, but evidently there may have been more then 2 snipers since the police chief was talking about triangulation of fire on the police, also he stated that the snipers had inside knowledge of the march route and where it would go.
d-usa wrote: Did they actually have "sniper rifles", or was is like "assault rifles"? Just wondering if they had your standard rifle with a scope you can buy from anywhere.
depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting, but like I said it also depends on distance but the reports say there were 2 snipers in different locations at a raised height catching the police in a classic ambush situation.
so i'm gonna say some military training, whether these snipers were part of the BLM or if they were terrorists taking advantage of a situation is another thing.
but either way they are terrorists inciting terror the way they did.
also news is saying they are unsure if the 2 suspects in custody are the snipers or not, one of them the brother claims is not a shooter.
Our military issues semiauto rifles to snipers and DMs so I'm not sure why you think they're unreliable for precision shooting.
You can draw your own conclusions but the information released to the public so far details a level of marksmanship and proficiency that most of the people I meet and shoot with at my club's private gun range and most of those people have no military training at all. Any modern rifle you pick up in a decent caliber is going to essentially shoot on a flat trajectory for at least the first few hundred yards. Decent optics and a few hours of practice will have you consistently making scoring hits on your target within a few hundred yards. Hitting a stationary target the size of a person isn't that difficult and since Dallas PD wasn't expecting anything like this the officers were probably standing still at strategic locations scanning the crowd. The willingness of the murderers to target cops and do so on such a large scale is disturbing, frightening and thankfully rare. The level of skill involved in carrying out the murders isn't.
I wonder if this is going to turn out to be ISIL, or just a crazyperson, or what. The coordination that seems to be involved would lean towards the former.
I worry that in the end, it really won't matter all that much.
The Orlando shooter was, for all practical purposes, just our "average" spree shooter who acted out for personal reasons and tried to come up with some justification for his decision to be an idiot. But yet, he is still referred to as an ISIS terrorist.
For Dallas, I don't really have much to go by, but I'm not really getting any Islamist Terrorist feelings so far. If they wanted to, they had the perfect opportunity to take out a very large number of people, but they chose instead to focus on police officers. There were no bombs. Ramadan is over. So far this feels more like domestic anti-government/anti-authority terror, rather than Islamic extremist terror.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: . Any modern rifle you pick up in a decent caliber is going to essentially shoot on a flat trajectory for at least the first few hundred yards. Decent optics and a few hours of practice will have you consistently making scoring hits on your target within a few hundred yards.
That's what I was thinking about when I was wondering about "sniper rifles" as compared to "assault rifles". Anything we can pick off the rack could be called either by the usual folks, even though it's the same semi-automatic rifle with a scope.
d-usa wrote: Did they actually have "sniper rifles", or was is like "assault rifles"? Just wondering if they had your standard rifle with a scope you can buy from anywhere.
depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting, but like I said it also depends on distance but the reports say there were 2 snipers in different locations at a raised height catching the police in a classic ambush situation.
so i'm gonna say some military training, whether these snipers were part of the BLM or if they were terrorists taking advantage of a situation is another thing.
but either way they are terrorists inciting terror the way they did.
also news is saying they are unsure if the 2 suspects in custody are the snipers or not, one of them the brother claims is not a shooter.
Our military issues semiauto rifles to snipers and DMs so I'm not sure why you think they're unreliable for precision shooting.
You can draw your own conclusions but the information released to the public so far details a level of marksmanship and proficiency that most of the people I meet and shoot with at my club's private gun range and most of those people have no military training at all. Any modern rifle you pick up in a decent caliber is going to essentially shoot on a flat trajectory for at least the first few hundred yards. Decent optics and a few hours of practice will have you consistently making scoring hits on your target within a few hundred yards. Hitting a stationary target the size of a person isn't that difficult and since Dallas PD wasn't expecting anything like this the officers were probably standing still at strategic locations scanning the crowd. The willingness of the murderers to target cops and do so on such a large scale is disturbing, frightening and thankfully rare. The level of skill involved in carrying out the murders isn't.
wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel, as to planning this, they knew where the route would go, they used a triangle configuration to take out targets in an ambush style attack, these are not typical shooter behavior, thats trained behavior, plus it was dark when it happened, or dusk which is not as easy on targetting from a distance, furthermore having to wing it without wind directionals is not easy either unless you knew the route and had them in place, or someone in the crowd with a flag or something to give wind direction and speed.
Asterios wrote: wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.
I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?
An organised ISIL attack would have indiscriminately sprayed the crowd of protestors, aiming to cause maximum loss of life, and it is unlikely the shooters would have let themselves be captured.
At this early stage I would guess it could be black guerillas taking revenge for the shooting of black people, or white supremacists angry at the police abetting a black protest march.
Asterios wrote: wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.
I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?
RAI model 500 its like a messenger from God in my books.
Asterios wrote: wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.
I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?
Asterios wrote: wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.
I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?
An organised ISIL attack would have indiscriminately sprayed the crowd of protestors, aiming to cause maximum loss of life, and it is unlikely the shooters would have let themselves be captured.
At this early stage I would guess it could be black guerillas taking revenge for the shooting of black people, or white supremacists angry at the police abetting a black protest march.
Either way it is very bad news indeed.
I agree if it was ISIL they would have been more indiscriminate, but on the other hand if it was part of the BLM group, that is not good either and will do more harm to their cause then anything.
but i'm part of the all lives matter not just one color.
Having had friends and been around the communities that call for this....
They want violence because they see it as a war. a War of police that are being waged against black america.
Its kinda disturbing to be honest.
I don't think so. I don't think terrorizing society or even terrorizing the police is their goal. I believe they are trying to wage war against the police and "make them pay" for perceived injustices.
A few years back we had an "angry black male" kill four police officers in Lakewood, WA. so I sympathize greatly with those living in the Dallas area.
I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.
I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.
Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.
Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.
I always knew something like this was going to happen eventually. The nightmare scenario is if this inspires similar attacks across the country. You'll have open warfare on the streets.
I don't think so. I don't think terrorizing society or even terrorizing the police is their goal. I believe they are trying to wage war against the police and "make them pay" for perceived injustices.
A few years back we had an "angry black male" kill four police officers in Lakewood, WA. so I sympathize greatly with those living in the Dallas area.
I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.
Who are you to define civil rights groups?
It seems a bit unlikely that BLM radicalised these snipers considering that one of BLM's core principles is "Loving engagement" meaning non-violence.
Future War Cultist wrote: I always knew something like this was going to happen eventually. The nightmare scenario is if this inspires similar attacks across the country. You'll have open warfare on the streets.
if that happens nobody wins
hotsauceman1 wrote: Having had friends and been around the communities that call for this....
They want violence because they see it as a war. a War of police that are being waged against black america.
Its kinda disturbing to be honest.
it is a war where everyone will lose:
yellowfever wrote: I was a sniper also. We used the M40. And we had semi auto sniper rifles. Hell the .50 cal was a semi auto.
my 50 cal was not a semi-auto and then there was that damn tank gun which was a breech loader, Marines I take it?
d-usa wrote: Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.
Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.
Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.
I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.
d-usa wrote: Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.
Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.
Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.
I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.
thats why I said if they were with the BLM crowd they did not help their cause any. every group out there whether religious, or whatever always have its extreme members who feel violence is their only course, even peace groups had such extreme members.
motyak wrote: Let's make sure we stay on topic. Multiple posts on which rifle you used in the armed forces is much better suited to PMs than to the thread. Thanks
d-usa wrote: Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.
Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.
Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.
I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.
I agree with that.
I just wanted to make sure everyone realizes that there is a difference between an argument like "BLM needs to make sure they distance themselves from violent rhetoric and actios like this" or "some folks in the BLM movement are extremists" and "this is the fault of BLM" and "this is what BLM really believes".
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems a bit unlikely that BLM radicalised these snipers considering that one of BLM's core principles is "Loving engagement" meaning non-violence.
That loving engagement also calls for, "No justice, no peace." at their protests, protests which have a history of violence. I never said that BLM put the rifles in the hands of these snipers, but BLM does bear at least some level of responsibility for helping to radicalize them to the point they felt confident enough to proceed.
A fifth officer was confirmed killed, six wounded. Four suspects were involved, with three in custody. The fourth is currently in a shootout in the parking garage.
It's strange to think this went down within three blocks of where Kennedy was assassinated.
Gordon Shumway wrote: A fifth officer was confirmed killed, six wounded. Four suspects were involved, with three in custody. The fourth is currently in a shootout in the parking garage.
Thank God these guys weren't able to disappear into the burbs. Tears and prayers for the families of these officers. Hopefully the last guy can be taken without more officers losing their lives.
That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.
That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.
It's an amazing testament to your critical thinking skills that you'd deride an article for being "an opinion piece" and in the very next breath voice a personal interpretation of your own, "a call to arms" as the gospel.
"Violence" is not the only anti-thesis of "peace". "Unrest" is also. Absolutely nothing about the statement "no justice- no peace" is an explicit call for violence.
EDIT- Didn't see this post.
motyak wrote: Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.
I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.
motyak wrote: Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.
I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.
Basically, whenever gun control is mentioned in Dakka OT, there is a high probability that the corresponding thread will end up getting locked because of heated debate.
motyak wrote: Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.
I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.
Nah, he is talking about the gun control debate I think.
This event is really shocking. I hope it does not lead to further escalation. Civil war is something that is a whole lot closer than people often like to think. Snipers targeting police officers was the beginning of the end in Ukraine too.
motyak wrote: Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.
I take it you deleted my post? Should I have rather offered some thoughts and prayers? What page would you think appropriate to bring it up?
No, that was likely to be another mod, but I was pretty close to doing it. If you want to discuss this PM me, don't continue posting off topic in a thread.
That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.
That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.
It's an amazing testament to your critical thinking skills that you'd deride an article for being "an opinion piece" and in the very next breath voice a personal interpretation of your own, "a call to arms" as the gospel.
"Violence" is not the only anti-thesis of "peace". "Unrest" is also. Absolutely nothing about the statement "no justice- no peace" is an explicit call for violence.
Little sad to jump to Ad hom so fast. Opposite of peace is...... I think we all know.(Yeah, you say peace. I kinda think you mean the other thing.) . The point is that yes you can spin it to mean a non violent thing but many people are going to interpret it differently. And unrest is often accompanied with violence.
Asterios wrote: thats why I said if they were with the BLM crowd they did not help their cause any. every group out there whether religious, or whatever always have its extreme members who feel violence is their only course, even peace groups had such extreme members.
Well yeah, murdering police rarely works out well for anyone trying to convince others of their POV.
I just wanted to make sure everyone realizes that there is a difference between an argument like "BLM needs to make sure they distance themselves from violent rhetoric and actios like this" or "some folks in the BLM movement are extremists" and "this is the fault of BLM" and "this is what BLM really believes".
Definitely agreed. I just wanted to point out that while protest movements aren't de-legitimised by the actions of extremist nuts, that doesn't give a free pass for protest movements to act as if their words and arguments can never have consequences.
Breotan wrote: I never said that BLM put the rifles in the hands of these snipers, but BLM does bear at least some level of responsibility for helping to radicalize them to the point they felt confident enough to proceed.
And I only hope you and everyone who feels this way about this incident feels the same about every group that incites people over anti-fed conspiracy nonsense, or extremist anti-abortion rhetoric, or any other case that risks and sometimes plays a part in domestic terrorist events.
Maybe then we'll see a de-escalation of extreme rhetoric across the political spectrum.
jhe90 wrote: Problem being Police will rapidly solidify position over this potentially. Would you negotiate with a group that killed your people in the same way.
Fortunately in the US the police serve the government, rather than the other way around. If anti-police protests get enough sympathy to vote in anti-police politicians and pass laws that disarm the police, scale back their powers, punish the murderous thugs who think they can execute anyone who might somehow in theory one day become a threat, etc, then the police can only say "yes sir" and hand over their weapons. That's why, for example, the BLM protest over the pride parade didn't bother targeting or negotiating with the police, they went straight for the people who control the police.
Do we have a motive for this yet? I mean not hearsay, but an actual motive? Confirmation of who the shooters were?
Asterios wrote: but i'm part of the all lives matter not just one color.
Careful Asterios, believing that people should be treated not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their soul is likely to get you labelled a racist. Yes, that's ass backwards I know, but *shrugs* it's the current year!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do we have a motive for this yet? I mean not hearsay, but an actual motive? Confirmation of who the shooters were?
Police have either two or three people in custody (I've seen both numbers) and one shooter took the coward's way out. The police haven't released any statement on those arrested other than to say they aren't cooperating.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do we have a motive for this yet? I mean not hearsay, but an actual motive? Confirmation of who the shooters were?
Asterios wrote: but i'm part of the all lives matter not just one color.
Careful Asterios, believing that people should be treated not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their soul is likely to get you labelled a racist. Yes, that's ass backwards I know, but *shrugs* it's the current year!
Skin colour is a genetic mutation.
Good people are good regardless
Breotan wrote: I never said that BLM put the rifles in the hands of these snipers, but BLM does bear at least some level of responsibility for helping to radicalize them to the point they felt confident enough to proceed.
And I only hope you and everyone who feels this way about this incident feels the same about every group that incites people over anti-fed conspiracy nonsense, or extremist anti-abortion rhetoric, or any other case that risks and sometimes plays a part in domestic terrorist events.
In a broad sense, I do feel the same way. The sovereign citizen movement shoulders a great deal of responsibility for the idiocy their adherents engage in. The NRA is certainly responsible for their rhetoric that fed into the flawed reasoning of those ranchers in the Oregon Standoff.
But if BLM doesn't take responsibility and reform their movement, we are likely to see more incidents like this and far less reform on the part of cities and police practices and conduct.
In a distantly related story, I would certainly like to see that cop in the Minnesota shooting be held accountable for his actions instead of the usual trope of being cleared by the department.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Careful Asterios, believing that people should be treated not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their soul is likely to get you labelled a racist. Yes, that's ass backwards I know, but *shrugs* it's the current year!
No, it isn't racism to claim that all live matter. But it is deliberately ignorant to continue to believe that 'black lives matter' means that only black lives matter, or that they matter more than other lives. The group is saying society acts as if black lives matter less, and they are looking to address that. The response that 'all lives matter' is walking right past the point, and doing so with the calculated intent of ignoring the grievances that are specific to black people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: In a broad sense, I do feel the same way. The sovereign citizen movement shoulders a great deal of responsibility for the idiocy their adherents engage in. The NRA is certainly responsible for their rhetoric that fed into the flawed reasoning of those ranchers in the Oregon Standoff.
But if BLM doesn't take responsibility and reform their movement, we are likely to see more incidents like this and far less reform on the part of cities and police practices and conduct.
Earlier the police were showing a photo of a person of interest. Local NBC news had this update.
Dallas police released a photo of a man whom they considered a "person of interest" in the shootings. The man, whose identity has not been released, surrendered to police for questioning and was later released.
So it appears that the man in the picture was not involved. I just thought I'd share in case there were still rumors about him and his involvement.
Little sad to jump to Ad hom so fast. Opposite of peace is...... I think we all know.(Yeah, you say peace. I kinda think you mean the other thing.) . The point is that yes you can spin it to mean a non violent thing but many people are going to interpret it differently. And unrest is often accompanied with violence.
None of which contradicts anything I said. No, the opposite of peace is not violence, and assuming such is an interpretation of the statement. I'm well aware that reading "no justice- no peace" as a call for unrest and activation rather than violence is also an interpretation, but I'm not the one making the assertion that the intent behind the statement is explicit- he is, and thus he's wrong.
To my mind, this is exactly what "freedom fighting" looks like, these people were being killed and persecuted by police, and they fought back against a tyranny. This is exactly the kind of action the 2nd amendment encourages. If you find yourself disagreeing and saying "these guys are terrorists", then maybe you aught to have a long hard think about what a paramilitary militia actually is, and how likely one would be to represent your personal interests (or anything close to the will of the people), before you drivel on about "defending freedom" again.
Smacks wrote: To my mind, this is exactly what "freedom fighting" looks like, these people were being killed and persecuted by police, and they fought back against a tyranny. This is exactly the kind of action the 2nd amendment encourages. If you find yourself disagreeing and saying "these guys are terrorists", then maybe you aught to have a long hard think about what a paramilitary militia actually is, and how likely one would be to represent your personal interests (or anything close to the will of the people), before you drivel on about "defending freedom" again.
d-usa wrote: Did they actually have "sniper rifles", or was is like "assault rifles"? Just wondering if they had your standard rifle with a scope you can buy from anywhere.
depending on location and the fact 11 officers were shot indicates some form of rifle training, if so they would not use an Assault rifle since they are not reliable for sniper shooting, but like I said it also depends on distance but the reports say there were 2 snipers in different locations at a raised height catching the police in a classic ambush situation.
so i'm gonna say some military training, whether these snipers were part of the BLM or if they were terrorists taking advantage of a situation is another thing.
but either way they are terrorists inciting terror the way they did.
also news is saying they are unsure if the 2 suspects in custody are the snipers or not, one of them the brother claims is not a shooter.
Our military issues semiauto rifles to snipers and DMs so I'm not sure why you think they're unreliable for precision shooting.
You can draw your own conclusions but the information released to the public so far details a level of marksmanship and proficiency that most of the people I meet and shoot with at my club's private gun range and most of those people have no military training at all. Any modern rifle you pick up in a decent caliber is going to essentially shoot on a flat trajectory for at least the first few hundred yards. Decent optics and a few hours of practice will have you consistently making scoring hits on your target within a few hundred yards. Hitting a stationary target the size of a person isn't that difficult and since Dallas PD wasn't expecting anything like this the officers were probably standing still at strategic locations scanning the crowd. The willingness of the murderers to target cops and do so on such a large scale is disturbing, frightening and thankfully rare. The level of skill involved in carrying out the murders isn't.
wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel, as to planning this, they knew where the route would go, they used a triangle configuration to take out targets in an ambush style attack, these are not typical shooter behavior, thats trained behavior, plus it was dark when it happened, or dusk which is not as easy on targetting from a distance, furthermore having to wing it without wind directionals is not easy either unless you knew the route and had them in place, or someone in the crowd with a flag or something to give wind direction and speed.
I don't want to derail this thread with technical arguments but the USMC still issues semiauto Mk14s to their DMs and the M21 semi auto rifle is still used by snipers in multiple service branches. We'll probably keep using the M14 platform for the foreseeable future although there has been some movement away from 7.62.
I'm not privy to any more information than the news reports we're all reading I just wanted to caution against jumping to conclusions that the murderers were veterans because I don't see any conclusive evidence that they were. When more information is made public we'll hopefully learn a lot more about the murderers and their motivations.
As far as I know there hasn't been any real information released about the suspects, the only "person of interest" I saw was apparently questioned and released judging from a response earlier in the thread. Lots of people are just assuming they were black or part of the BLM movement without any proof.
This is horrible..... I blame media including social media and those who preech hate. When all you see on the news 24/7 is about dead black people you can see things that may or may not be there.
Every race gets ram rodded by those in power here and there but trying to make good news by only showing the bad breeds hate and this crap. CNn is as much to blame as fox and those who spread hate in the blm movement.
Is Smacks really that wrong, though? I mean, all those idioms being passed around about watering the tree of liberty, and being one of the 3% and all - there definitely is some socially acceptable rhetoric from the patriot movement, for example, that certainly seems to allude to this.
So we are at 5 dead, 12 injured with 6 of them still in surgery.
-Two of the suspects were seen throwing a dufflebag into a Mercedes and speeding off. They were caught shortly after.
-A female was captured as well. No indication yet on how they got her.
-All three are being uncooperative.
-Currently I have not heard the race of the shooters. We are talking Texas, could easily have been Cartel trying to start a race war to make their lives a little easier. No indication that these were BLM people at this point.
-They knew what they were doing. This was well planned and likely rehearsed. They had an escape plan, they knew to confused first responders by talking about numerous bombs, if they were really smart they would have had others "witnessing" gas or mentioning a dirty bomb to further confuse things so these guys plan wasn't perfect. The video I saw had one shooter with a semi-auto rifle moving from cover to cover firing on police so ranges seem to be less than 200m. No injuries from gunfire so far from non-police.
MrDwhitey wrote: From what I heard, the guy people saw in pictures and was initially reported as a gunman was an innocent bystander.
He did the most sensible thing he could and immediately gave his gun to police and turned himself in.
It says he was released in the daily mail article, which is good.
But in Texas, where white people carry assault rifles to mcdonalds 24/7 by the dozens, the second something happens, the police's reaction is " black men with open carry are suspects" smacks back to previous civil rights violations in the US. I am just glad they didn't murder Mark Hughes, or instigate civilians to murder him for legally exercising his 2nd amendment right.
Edit: press conference: Police saying he was intentionally targeting white cops, but not affiliated with BLM or any other organization. These are from statements made by the shooter to police.
"PRESS CONFERENCE ON DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: GUNMAN TOLD POLICE HE 'WANTED TO KILL WHITE OFFICERS' AND THAT 'HE DID THIS ALONE'; POLICE SAY THE GUNMAN DIED WHEN POLICE DETONATED A BOMB HE WAS CARRYING"
Smacks wrote: To my mind, this is exactly what "freedom fighting" looks like, these people were being killed and persecuted by police, and they fought back against a tyranny. This is exactly the kind of action the 2nd amendment encourages. If you find yourself disagreeing and saying "these guys are terrorists", then maybe you aught to have a long hard think about what a paramilitary militia actually is, and how likely one would be to represent your personal interests (or anything close to the will of the people), before you drivel on about "defending freedom" again.
Was Dallas known as having a lot of police shootings?
I would have thought one of the more recent locations of the incidents would have had to be chosen for it to be a viable target. If you really must fight the police, then you should be targeting the ones that are the threat. Go after a department that clears its officers of wrongful shootings and suspicious deaths- otherwise this is just terrorism, not patriotism.
And that's making a lot of assumptions and allowances for this being a logical or necessary course of action.
Thoughts and prayers with the victims and their families, and let's hope the wounded police officers pull through.
What a tragedy
Sadly, though, I think something like this was inevitable, and I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. This level of tension between some members of the African-American community and the police has been simmering away for a long time. Some of the incidents I've been reading about for the past two years (some of which were posted on dakka) have not helped things. Rightly or wrongly, people are seeing police as the 'enemy.'
Culturally, historically, and socially, there are problems between Black America and White America...
What to do, though?
We had a similar problem in the UK with racism in the police, and Parliament acted to do something about it nationwide. I think the US federal system will hinder things. That's not to say that they're not doing something about this, ironically, Dallas seems to be a pro-active city, but it will be hard to co-ordinate a national strategy.
A year or two ago, the Washington post posted a seminar from the White House that discussed US police adopting some of the systems and methods from the UK: establishing an IPCC, better training, using police as a last resort etc etc
There was a criminologist on the news saying a cultural shift is needed, but this won't happen overnight, nor will increasing the number of African-America police officers to better reflect communities happen overnight either.
This is obviously a tragedy, but there's no easy solutions to preventing future incidents of this nature.
I love it when the scumbag carrying explosives blows himself up.
On that note, I read this thread entirely, and this was my first hearing about it, as I went to bed early and went to work even earlier than normal. Truly feel for the LEOs that lost their lives, were injured, and their families.
as far as this being acceptable use of force against a government that is oppressive, I would absolutely say this is what the 2nd amendment was meant for, however this particular situation is definitely not a proper insurgency, nor is shooting police how you conduct this. There is no endgame. I was truly outraged when I read it, then I had to stop and put some thought into it. I am nothing if not open to opinions. However if it was truly just these 4 and not part of a bigger organization, then it is simply a domestic terror issue.
I hope this get resolved, facts found out, and hopefully some talk can be generated after everyone has cooled off so we can actually start moving forward in America, and not backward, which is where this situation puts us.
Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
Spetulhu wrote: Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
IMO they were targeted for being Police, not because they were Dallas police. This could have happened in Alaska, Rhode Island, anywhere...
As I said, rightly or wrongly, there are sections of American society who see police as the 'enemy' and America has to come together and address this issue. It won't go away...
Spetulhu wrote: Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
Exactly. This will escalate the problem.
A long time buddy of mine was a childhood friend of one of the officers. Brent Thompson.
I mean, all those idioms being passed around about watering the tree of liberty, and being one of the 3% and all - there definitely is some socially acceptable rhetoric from the patriot movement, for example, that certainly seems to allude to this.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Just to be 100% clear, though - I support neither the patriot movement guys nor the shooters in this situation. In this country, voting still works, and the answer to injustice is political pressure and organization.
Our system has problems but on the whole it's functional, and a lot of it's problems are due, or at least are allowed to persist, solely due to the apathy of the populace.
Spetulhu wrote: Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
IMO they were targeted for being Police, not because they were Dallas police. This could have happened in Alaska, Rhode Island, anywhere...
As I said, rightly or wrongly, there are sections of American society who see police as the 'enemy' and America has to come together and address this issue. It won't go away...
They were not targeted for just for being police according to the perp. He targeted them first for being white. He said he wanted to kill whites, especially white cops.
At least that is what came out of the press conference.
Gitzbitah wrote: I would have thought one of the more recent locations of the incidents would have had to be chosen for it to be a viable target. If you really must fight the police, then you should be targeting the ones that are the threat. Go after a department that clears its officers of wrongful shootings and suspicious deaths- otherwise this is just terrorism, not patriotism.
And that's making a lot of assumptions and allowances for this being a logical or necessary course of action.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem with what you are saying (and the point I was trying to make) is that "you" don't actually get to decide what paramilitaries do. It doesn't matter what you believe a legitimate target is, deem logical, necessary, or where you draw the line between terrorism and patriotism... when you advocate arming people, and "spilling the blood of tyrants", you don't get to decide how those people will go about it. You shouldn't be surprised when they do things that are atrocious and reprehensible to you. If you want to open that box, you should be accountable for what you let out. Saying "this isn't what I actually wanted" when things blow up in your face, isn't good enough. This is what you asked for if you advocate arming people, take responsibility for it.
Gitzbitah wrote: I would have thought one of the more recent locations of the incidents would have had to be chosen for it to be a viable target. If you really must fight the police, then you should be targeting the ones that are the threat. Go after a department that clears its officers of wrongful shootings and suspicious deaths- otherwise this is just terrorism, not patriotism.
And that's making a lot of assumptions and allowances for this being a logical or necessary course of action.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem with what you are saying (and the point I was trying to make) is that "you" don't actually get to decide what paramilitaries do. It doesn't matter what you believe a legitimate target is, deem logical, necessary, or where you draw the line between terrorism and patriotism... when you advocate arming people, and "spilling the blood of tyrants", you don't get to decide how those people will go about it. You shouldn't be surprised when they do things that are atrocious and reprehensible to you. If you want to open that box, you should be accountable for what you let out. Saying "this isn't what I actually wanted" when things blow up in your face, isn't good enough. This is what you asked for if you advocate arming people, take responsibility for it.
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.
Gitzbitah wrote: I would have thought one of the more recent locations of the incidents would have had to be chosen for it to be a viable target. If you really must fight the police, then you should be targeting the ones that are the threat. Go after a department that clears its officers of wrongful shootings and suspicious deaths- otherwise this is just terrorism, not patriotism.
And that's making a lot of assumptions and allowances for this being a logical or necessary course of action.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem with what you are saying (and the point I was trying to make) is that "you" don't actually get to decide what paramilitaries do. It doesn't matter what you believe a legitimate target is, deem logical, necessary, or where you draw the line between terrorism and patriotism... when you advocate arming people, and "spilling the blood of tyrants", you don't get to decide how those people will go about it. You shouldn't be surprised when they do things that are atrocious and reprehensible to you. If you want to open that box, you should be accountable for what you let out. Saying "this isn't what I actually wanted" when things blow up in your face, isn't good enough. This is what you asked for if you advocate arming people, take responsibility for it.
You are correct in that one of the reasons for the second amendment was so that we could stand up to a tyrannical government. And your right, we can't decide on what logical targets are in the case of paramilitary. However most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting. As a Texan I often told my wife, if Texas leaves the union, I am going AWOL, reporting to the Texas National Guard and we are saying FU to the rest of the country. I was only half kidding, I would never go AWOL. The problem is, this can not be lumped in with freedom fighting, when they were not defending a freedom. There were no political statements, no requests for secession or military type targets selected.
Also smacks, very few of the people on this forum, and in America recommend spilling the blood of tyrants on American soil. We simply want to be allowed to follow the law, and not have our rights infringed upon. For every person who breaks a gun law, or commits a murder, there are a huge number of lawful citizens not doing those things. This is the one bad apple philosophy and it doesn't play well with most Americans. This tragedy is just that, tragedy, and it is pretty big stretch to begin claiming this was the work of freedom fighters.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.
redleger wrote: Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.
There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.
There were no political statements
I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.
If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.
redleger wrote: Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.
There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.
There were no political statements
I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.
If I ddin't know any better Smacks, I would say you advocate these actions.
redleger wrote: Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.
There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.
There were no political statements
I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged, to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not embrace it.
Arming yourself for protection is a nonviolent action, it's not aggressive at all. It's a passive preparation for the contingency that violence might be brought to you, it has nothing to do with seeking out to do violence to others. Violence should always be viewed as a last resort and political statments shouldn't be made by violent assaults or murders.
redleger wrote: Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.
There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.
There were no political statements
I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.
So, IRA in Northern Ireland, freedom loving patriots or terrorists?
redleger wrote: Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.
There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.
There were no political statements
I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.
So, IRA in Northern Ireland, freedom loving patriots or terrorists?
depends on what side you are on honestly, but the IRA has a plan, is organized, even though they are decentralized they have a structure. They also classify as terrorists IMO because they hit civilian targets for political gain, vs military targets.
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.
If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.
I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.
If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.
I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.
I understand what you are saying, Im simply saying if we use ASCOPE and dig a little deeper, figure out the whys behind the action, and work socially, we could do more than kinetic operations would yield in the long run. But yes, I concede this is not yet part of a bigger group, unless the Black Panther party really was involved as they claim.
redleger wrote: If I ddin't know any better Smacks, I would say you advocate these actions.
I categorically do not advocate these actions, or endorse any other violence. In fact, I have always argued that more should be done to prevent this kind of thing, and have had to argue with people, who I believe have repeatedly encouraged these kind of actions with their politics (albeit inadvertently).
Prestor Jon wrote: Arming yourself for protection is a nonviolent action, it's not aggressive at all. It's a passive preparation for the contingency that violence might be brought to you, it has nothing to do with seeking out to do violence to others. Violence should always be viewed as a last resort and political statments shouldn't be made by violent assaults or murders.
Preparing for violence with a weapon in your home is not just "a contingency", it's a reflection of social attitudes.
redleger wrote: If I ddin't know any better Smacks, I would say you advocate these actions.
I categorically do not advocate these actions, or endorse any other violence. In fact, I have always argued that more should be done to prevent this kind of thing, and have had to argue with people, who I believe have repeatedly encouraged these kind of actions with their politics (albeit inadvertently).
Prestor Jon wrote: Arming yourself for protection is a nonviolent action, it's not aggressive at all. It's a passive preparation for the contingency that violence might be brought to you, it has nothing to do with seeking out to do violence to others. Violence should always be viewed as a last resort and political statments shouldn't be made by violent assaults or murders.
Preparing for violence with a weapon in your home is not just "a contingency", it's a reflection of social attitudes.
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm. I have never wanted to die being right, I am however ok with making someone else die for their cause, if they attempt to use force on me. However being prepared and advocating active violence are not even remotely the same thing.
When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.
Jihadin wrote: When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.
well lets hope we don't start seeing any more IEDs in America. Those things scare me.
Jihadin wrote: When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.
The Tsarnaev brothers used IEDs, and the crap bags in San Bernardino tried to.
Obviously completely unrelated the the guys who did this, but their use has happened.
I think more than a weapon is going to define an insurgency.
This is sad. All it will serve to do is further divide the country. While I'm not particularly fond of certain activist groups I hope most keep in mind these individuals don't represent the whole.
Frazzled wrote: If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.
Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.
Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula
Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.
If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.
I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.
I understand what you are saying, Im simply saying if we use ASCOPE and dig a little deeper, figure out the whys behind the action, and work socially, we could do more than kinetic operations would yield in the long run. But yes, I concede this is not yet part of a bigger group, unless the Black Panther party really was involved as they claim.
Ok, I see your point now, your brevity was hard to get a read on before. I think we're mostly in agreement. The real solution to the social tensions and problems at the root of the violence we're seeing need to be solved with political and social work and changes to policies and methods, more so than just further militarization of the police and a tougher crack down with enforcement. It's gotten to be far too much of an Us vs Them mentality with people and cops and taking sides on that basis instead of stepping back and taking a holistic approach to dealing with our society.
Our political system needs to stop being beholden to an entrenched status quo and allowing problems to persist as campaign issues instead of working towards effective data based solutions. Our system is geared to make govt work slowly to help ensure we get things right so change won't happen overnight but by putting off change we are left with antiquated systems and persistent problems that only worsen over time.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers. I believe it is also pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.
Jihadin wrote: When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.
The Tsarnaev brothers used IEDs, and the crap bags in San Bernardino tried to.
Obviously completely unrelated the the guys who did this, but their use has happened.
I think more than a weapon is going to define an insurgency.
Don't forget those Hutaree fethwits who wanted to use IEDs to take out cops. They wanted to murder a cop to cause a funeral procession and then hit the procession with IEDs.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers. I believe it is also pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.
The police are not here to protect you. If they were you would be 100% correct. They can not be every where at once. It is impossible to think they can. Keeping a weapon in my house does absolutely nothing to degrade our society assuming I keep it in a safe place away from my children, and everyone knows it is not a toy. The majority of police men and women will tell you they can not protect you in a break in, a car jacking, or most situations that happen randomly. It is not a rhetoric, it is a truth.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Eh, don't worry. Even I, as a Frenchman, am exposed to this rhetoric on a daily basis and starting to look for weapons to protect myself. It's not just an American thing.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Eh, don't worry. Even I, as a Frenchman, am exposed to this rhetoric on a daily basis and starting to look for weapons to protect myself. It's not just an American thing.
Once again I allowed myself to steer off course. Lets discuss the events at hand. Mods tend to lock all threads im interested in and I just realized the direction we are headed.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers, and might generally be pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.
Peddling fear is definitely a problem for society. It's counterproductive and immoral no matter who does it, politicians, media companies, the NRA, it doesn't matter who the guilty party is, it's all equally damaging.
There are plenty of problems facing society today, plenty of people that are hard done by and struggling but things are still better than ever. We have a larger knowledge base than ever, greater technological and medical advancements than ever, more connectivity, education, awareness and tolerance than ever. Crime is low, lifespans are long, progress is constant, the vast majority of people are good honest people. Yet we are constantly bombarded with the message that things are bad, that we should be worried and scared, fearful of other people, and that the important decisions that we make should be motivated by fear that a wrong choice will be catastrophic. Society needs to take a collective breath, realize that the world isn't out to get us, that things are going to be ok and demand sound leadership from our government, ethical behavior from our businesses and pragmatic solutions to our problems.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.
Spetulhu wrote: Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
IMO they were targeted for being Police, not because they were Dallas police. This could have happened in Alaska, Rhode Island, anywhere...
As I said, rightly or wrongly, there are sections of American society who see police as the 'enemy' and America has to come together and address this issue. It won't go away...
They were not targeted for just for being police according to the perp. He targeted them first for being white. He said he wanted to kill whites, especially white cops.
At least that is what came out of the press conference.
I'm not doubting what you heard, but given that there were white people marching with the original demonstration, perhaps the motivations for this are still unclear.
None the less, and working under the assumption that the police were deliberately targeted, it is still a major issue that American society needs to solve.
The solutions for dealing with this, and making your police 'better' are out there. In America, or in friendly nations like my country, there is plenty of material out there for American law enforcement to use.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.
I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.
I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.
It doesn't seem to stop the sovereign citizen crazies from targeting cops.
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.
I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.
Prestor, this is not the movies, and we are not robots. The military is made up of America's sons and daughters, and we are as flawed as the rest of Americans can be. You see this less with the long term Soldiers and Marines, but more with the single term enlistees who come in, get trained, and come out to use their new skills for nefarious purposes. I learned in EO school it is a an actual thing that gangs send in recruits to get trained, then get out, come home and train up the gangs. So that kind of statement is misleading and inflamatory. I am not sure you meant it that way, but please understand we have a hard enough time integrating ourselves into society once we are done with our service.
Also most veterans care little for politics, with the exception of so many on this forum for some reason.
Spetulhu wrote: Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?
IMO they were targeted for being Police, not because they were Dallas police. This could have happened in Alaska, Rhode Island, anywhere...
As I said, rightly or wrongly, there are sections of American society who see police as the 'enemy' and America has to come together and address this issue. It won't go away...
They were not targeted for just for being police according to the perp. He targeted them first for being white. He said he wanted to kill whites, especially white cops.
At least that is what came out of the press conference.
I'm not doubting what you heard, but given that there were white people marching with the original demonstration, perhaps the motivations for this are still unclear.
None the less, and working under the assumption that the police were deliberately targeted, it is still a major issue that American society needs to solve.
The solutions for dealing with this, and making your police 'better' are out there. In America, or in friendly nations like my country, there is plenty of material out there for American law enforcement to use.
I do not think it is unclear at all, unless the perp lied about his motivation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
Sure, and next you'll tell us that soldiers are people too and not some living avatars of righteousness and purity.
Anyway...to steal a tweet from someone else: "I don't want black men shot at traffic stops. I don't want cops shot by snipers. I don't want kids shot at school. I don't want any of this."
Jihadin wrote: I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.
They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.
The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.
It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.
it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.
I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.
Prestor, this is not the movies, and we are not robots. The military is made up of America's sons and daughters, and we are as flawed as the rest of Americans can be. You see this less with the long term Soldiers and Marines, but more with the single term enlistees who come in, get trained, and come out to use their new skills for nefarious purposes. I learned in EO school it is a an actual thing that gangs send in recruits to get trained, then get out, come home and train up the gangs. So that kind of statement is misleading and inflamatory. I am not sure you meant it that way, but please understand we have a hard enough time integrating ourselves into society once we are done with our service.
Also most veterans care little for politics, with the exception of so many on this forum for some reason.
I know, it's just me having preconceptions based on my own anecdotal experience with veterans.
I'm also surprised that this incident happened almost exactly 1 year after a white guy shot up the Dallas PD station and tried to kill a bunch of cops. It seems to be completely unrelated but it's certainly an eerie coincidence.
Earlier, I mentioned that US police could learn from other countries, and here's a link to an article where an expert appeared before a White House committee and called for the US law enforcement agencies to adopt the British model.
The British system is obviously not perfect, but it could help reduce tension, and ensure better relations between police and ethnic minorities in the USA, which will hopefully prevent tragedies like this from happening again...
The main points if you don't want to click on the link:
1) A Chief inspector of constabulary for every state/agency. These guys or gals are tasked with raising standards, improving training, etc etc
2) Each state to have its own IPCC (Independent police complaints commission) with beefed up powers. It would be answerable to the state governor/legislator for accountability issues.
3) Body cameras for individual police officers. The benefits of this speak for themselves.
4) Larger minimum staff sizes. Might not be easy with fiscal constraints.
5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
Talk is cheap.
Will these methods be adopted or even work in the USA? It's hard to tell, because obviously gun levels in the USA are far different from the UK, but I think it's worth a try to change things and prevent more tragedies such as this.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Careful Asterios, believing that people should be treated not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their soul is likely to get you labelled a racist. Yes, that's ass backwards I know, but *shrugs* it's the current year!
No, it isn't racism to claim that all live matter. But it is deliberately ignorant to continue to believe that 'black lives matter' means that only black lives matter, or that they matter more than other lives. The group is saying society acts as if black lives matter less, and they are looking to address that. The response that 'all lives matter' is walking right past the point, and doing so with the calculated intent of ignoring the grievances that are specific to black people.
I beg to differ when I don't see that group protesting when White people are killed by Cops, or even Hispanic or Asian people killed by cops, only when Black people are killed by cops, more white people are killed by cops every year then black people are, those are statistical facts, so I repeat I believe all lives matter and while all cop shootings (of suspects of any race)are not legitimate some are. you claim the BLM matters to everyone and yet they only protest when one color, one race is killed by cops, not all races or all colors, but one race one color, which makes them racist in my book putting one race above all others.
we had a white male near here who was mentally challenged and homeless, did nothing and the cops killed him, where was the BLM then?
Prestor Jon wrote: [spoiler]
I'm not privy to any more information than the news reports we're all reading I just wanted to caution against jumping to conclusions that the murderers were veterans because I don't see any conclusive evidence that they were. When more information is made public we'll hopefully learn a lot more about the murderers and their motivations.
not saying veterans, just saying they received training, military training, not all military training is in our armed services.
Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.
tell it to those innocent victims who are killed by intruders because they didn't have a gun, or that family who was killed because they did not have a gun to protect themselves, I advocate the proper use of firearms for self defense to protect you and your family, what those shooters did was not that, what they did was a racist attack plain and simple, a racist attack on individuals who were innocent and had done nothing to deserve what happened to them and for you to even suggest what you do shows your disrespect for this country and its Constitution.
redleger wrote: It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.
And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".
Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers. I believe it is also pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.
waiting for the police to show up? tell that to the people of my town where the Police Chief went on the news and said they will not respond to home alarms unless the know someone is in danger(which makes me laugh whenever a security company tries to sell their security alarms) furthermore you think the criminal or murdered or rapist breaking into your house is going to wait for the cops to show up? (oh excuse me Mr. Criminal but could you please wait for the police to show up and deal with you?), we do need guns because on a whole Police cannot protect us, and if random killings like these happen more on innocent cops, we might not have cops to do anything. and how is investing in society going to get rid of crime? how will it make crime disappear?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Earlier, I mentioned that US police could learn from other countries, and here's a link to an article where an expert appeared before a White House committee and called for the US law enforcement agencies to adopt the British model.
The British system is obviously not perfect, but it could help reduce tension, and ensure better relations between police and ethnic minorities in the USA, which will hopefully prevent tragedies like this from happening again...
The main points if you don't want to click on the link:
1) A Chief inspector of constabulary for every state/agency. These guys or gals are tasked with raising standards, improving training, etc etc
2) Each state to have its own IPCC (Independent police complaints commission) with beefed up powers. It would be answerable to the state governor/legislator for accountability issues.
3) Body cameras for individual police officers. The benefits of this speak for themselves.
4) Larger minimum staff sizes. Might not be easy with fiscal constraints.
5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
Talk is cheap.
Will these methods be adopted or even work in the USA? It's hard to tell, because obviously gun levels in the USA are far different from the UK, but I think it's worth a try to change things and prevent more tragedies such as this.
actually a lot of those policies are in effect in this country in various places (not all, but many)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted.
I don't see how this can happen in the US. If you're a cop and someone reaches for their belt, what are you going to do? I think there would need to be quite a long process of de-escalation and disarmament of the public, before police in the US would feel as safe as their counterparts in the UK. That doesn't seem very likely IMO.
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
Sure, and next you'll tell us that soldiers are people too and not some living avatars of righteousness and purity.
Anyway...to steal a tweet from someone else: "I don't want black men shot at traffic stops. I don't want cops shot by snipers. I don't want kids shot at school. I don't want any of this."
Depends on the situation.
As for the possible shooters being Combat Vet's, not. If so their some REMF's. If they were 11B's it would have been worse. Is "Triangulation" the new word for "crossfire?"
A Dallas police source estimated to Fox News that at least 60 rounds were fired over a "large kill zone." The source added that the shooting would have required considerable planning
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted.
I don't see how this can happen in the US. If you're a cop and someone reaches for their belt, what are you going to do? I think there would need to be quite a long process of de-escalation and disarmament of the public, before police in the US would feel as safe as their counterparts in the UK. That doesn't seem very likely IMO.
In some situations, police will have no choice but to shoot. That's human nature and reality, and I understand that. But creating a 'last resort' culture, and recognising that talk is cheap, and that some situations can be de-escalated peacefully, should be a long-term goal for American police IMO.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted.
I don't see how this can happen in the US. If you're a cop and someone reaches for their belt, what are you going to do? I think there would need to be quite a long process of de-escalation and disarmament of the public, before police in the US would feel as safe as their counterparts in the UK. That doesn't seem very likely IMO.
Escalaltion of force is already written into most states' self defense and carry laws and is established protocol for police. Police just get a lot more leeway on it from the courts than an armed citizen would.
The terrible idea that cops have to adopt the attitude that they have to treat everyone like they're a threat in order to protect themselves is just another instance of bad training and practices that afflict a lot of police departments.
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
Sure, and next you'll tell us that soldiers are people too and not some living avatars of righteousness and purity.
Anyway...to steal a tweet from someone else: "I don't want black men shot at traffic stops. I don't want cops shot by snipers. I don't want kids shot at school. I don't want any of this."
Depends on the situation.
As for the possible shooters being Combat Vet's, not. If so their some REMF's. If they were 11B's it would have been worse. Is "Triangulation" the new word for "crossfire?"
A Dallas police source estimated to Fox News that at least 60 rounds were fired over a "large kill zone." The source added that the shooting would have required considerable planning
.........brb to finish this
they got the police in a classic ambush with the police in a kill box.
problem is we are getting conflicting reports on how many shooters there were.
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
Sure, and next you'll tell us that soldiers are people too and not some living avatars of righteousness and purity.
Anyway...to steal a tweet from someone else: "I don't want black men shot at traffic stops. I don't want cops shot by snipers. I don't want kids shot at school. I don't want any of this."
Depends on the situation.
As for the possible shooters being Combat Vet's, not. If so their some REMF's. If they were 11B's it would have been worse. Is "Triangulation" the new word for "crossfire?"
A Dallas police source estimated to Fox News that at least 60 rounds were fired over a "large kill zone." The source added that the shooting would have required considerable planning
.........brb to finish this
In the pic with the guy in uniform he does not have a blue fourragere so likely not 11 series.
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because someone is a veteran doesn't mean they can't be a hateful murderer.
Sure, and next you'll tell us that soldiers are people too and not some living avatars of righteousness and purity.
Anyway...to steal a tweet from someone else: "I don't want black men shot at traffic stops. I don't want cops shot by snipers. I don't want kids shot at school. I don't want any of this."
Depends on the situation.
As for the possible shooters being Combat Vet's, not. If so their some REMF's. If they were 11B's it would have been worse. Is "Triangulation" the new word for "crossfire?"
A Dallas police source estimated to Fox News that at least 60 rounds were fired over a "large kill zone." The source added that the shooting would have required considerable planning
.........brb to finish this
they got the police in a classic ambush with the police in a kill box.
The dead perp claimed to be a loner, but the Dallas cops have (I think) 4 suspects in custody we don't know much about. I read one report (sorry, no link handy) that those 4 are not cooperating.
Going to take time to get past 'initial reports' and start getting accurate info.
The dead perp claimed to be a loner, but the Dallas cops have (I think) 4 suspects in custody we don't know much about. I read one report (sorry, no link handy) that those 4 are not cooperating.
Going to take time to get past 'initial reports' and start getting accurate info.
Thanks - that was my read on it so far. Any insight into this guy's background at all based on his uniformed photos? They seem a little ambiguous.
Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
and yet it did not work out to well for officers in Dallas.
meanwhile our president is overseas speaking about unity in Europe while our own country is fracturing, and you would think he would be coming home, but he is not:
Yes, because it's hard to deescalate when someone is sniping at you, rather than the much more common interactions with people the Dallas police force seem to be doing well in.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted.
I don't see how this can happen in the US. If you're a cop and someone reaches for their belt, what are you going to do? I think there would need to be quite a long process of de-escalation and disarmament of the public, before police in the US would feel as safe as their counterparts in the UK. That doesn't seem very likely IMO.
Escalaltion of force is already written into most states' self defense and carry laws and is established protocol for police. Police just get a lot more leeway on it from the courts than an armed citizen would.
The terrible idea that cops have to adopt the attitude that they have to treat everyone like they're a threat in order to protect themselves is just another instance of bad training and practices that afflict a lot of police departments.
May I say Prestor Jon, you have made some excellent posts in this topic, and you get an exalt from me. I feel like there is something fundamental which we both agree on here, despite often manifesting it in different ways. I have found a whole new respect you.
Asterios wrote: for you to even suggest what you do shows your disrespect for this country and its Constitution.
Is this the part where you call me a communist and stick you fingers in your ears? Please spare me the wanton outrage, it honestly doesn't help the discussion, and wasn't provoked.
tell it to those innocent victims who are killed by intruders because they didn't have a gun
Were they really killed for no other reason than because they didn't have a gun? Or were there about a billion other factors at play too. What about the people who did have gun, and still got killed? Or the people who were killed because of their gun? What about the guy earlier this week who accidentally shot his 14 year old son in the head? How did "protect your family" work out for that guy?
Your appeal to fear and emotion is not rational, owning a gun might make you safer, but it does not necessarily make you safer. The real crux of my argument (which you seem to have missed), is not that owning a gun is "bad", my argument was that owning a gun is not a substitute for making society safer. Perhaps the family you mentioned would also have survived had they lived in a less violent society. Perhaps if people had focused on reducing crime rather than scaremongering about it, a lot more people might have survived, and a lot fewer turned to crime.
I don't see why my "perhaps" is any less good than yours.
waiting for the police to show up? tell that to the people of my town where the Police Chief went on the news and said they will not respond to home alarms unless the know someone is in danger
It's almost like you are making my points for me. Who needs cops at all when you've got your trusty six shooter, amiright?
MrDwhitey wrote: Yes, because it's hard to deescalate when someone is sniping at you, rather than the much more common interactions with people the Dallas police force seem to be doing well in.
yes but my point is the dallas police were doing things right and this is what happened.
meanwhile one of the persons of interest is related here on what happened:
The dead perp claimed to be a loner, but the Dallas cops have (I think) 4 suspects in custody we don't know much about. I read one report (sorry, no link handy) that those 4 are not cooperating.
Going to take time to get past 'initial reports' and start getting accurate info.
Thanks - that was my read on it so far. Any insight into this guy's background at all based on his uniformed photos? They seem a little ambiguous.
Army Reservist so far that I gleaned. Also he was in the Reserves prior to 2010. Being he is wearing the black beret in duty uniform. We changed to "soft" caps beginning of 2011. Did not deployed. Can tell by his ribbons. National Defense ribbons and AIT ribbon
Asterios wrote: for you to even suggest what you do shows your disrespect for this country and its Constitution.
Is this the part where you call me a communist and stick you fingers in your ears? Please spare me the wanton outrage, it honestly doesn't help the discussion, and wasn't provoked.
tell it to those innocent victims who are killed by intruders because they didn't have a gun
Were they really killed for no other reason than because they didn't have a gun? Or were there about a billion other factors at play too. What about the people who did have gun, and still got killed? Or the people who were killed because of their gun? What about the guy earlier this week who accidentally shot his 14 year old son in the head? How did "protect your family" work out for that guy?
Your appeal to fear and emotion is not rational, owning a gun might make you safer, but it does not necessarily make you safer. The real crux of my argument (which you seem to have missed), is not that owning a gun is "bad", my argument was that owning a gun is not a substitute for making society safer. Perhaps the family you mentioned would also have survived had they lived in a less violent society. Perhaps if people had focused on reducing crime rather than scaremongering about it, a lot more people might have survived, and a lot fewer turned to crime.
I don't see why my "perhaps" is as good as yours.
Smacks wrote: waiting for the police to show up? tell that to the people of my town where the Police Chief went on the news and said they will not respond to home alarms unless the know someone is in danger
It's almost like you are making my points for me. Who needs cops at all when you've got your trusty six shooter, amiright?
then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
Johnson is not Caucasian Kil
Edit
Though I did hear this morning on the rumor vine that it might be a possible KKK individual pinning it on BLM. Before Johnson was Opted
Prestor Jon wrote: The terrible idea that cops have to adopt the attitude that they have to treat everyone like they're a threat in order to protect themselves is just another instance of bad training and practices that afflict a lot of police departments.
Though it is also somewhat understandable - when and if a police officer gets shot on duty it's often a total surprise where he didn't even have time to draw his own gun and shoot back (or shout for people to freeze).
In a peaceful place like this it's really odd that police have to shoot someone or get shot at (though we had a very recent incident where a crazy with an assault rifle killed a policeman and then killed himself for mostly no reason at all, except he probably wanted to keep the rifle which he could by no means have bought legally). Mostly our police don't even draw a gun unless someone is already aiming at them or a bystander. Special Tactics is a different matter, but then there's usually already been shots fired and someone injured.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
Even so it is a huge leap to go from that to accuse BLM of being a crime group.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
They killed one shooter so far who is a black man who hates whites.
the very name of that group makes it a racist hate group in my opinion.
why isn't it all lives matter?
its ok as long as the slogan isn't white lives matter I guess.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
well lets look at last years statistics, of blacks killed by cops just over 100, of officers killed in the line of duty about 130 so while being a police officer is not the most dangerous job it is very stressful
Asterios wrote: then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but things like reducing poverty, reducing the rich/poor divide, increasing social mobility, investing in infrastructure and public services, policing, public health, mental health etc.. etc... And of course, not encouraging, glamorising, and endorsing violence.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
Even so it is a huge leap to go from that to accuse BLM of being a crime group.
I don't think the BLM is behind this, but believe the shooters were members in the group, they knew where the route would go, they knew where to set up, there was a lot of planning involved in this and they needed inside info to set it up with.
Asterios wrote: then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but things like reducing poverty, reducing to rich/poor divide, increasing social mobility, investing in infrastructure and public services, policing, public health, mental health etc.. etc... And of course, not encouraging, glamorising, and endorsing violence.
and that would be the case if only poor people commited crimes, but that is not the case, even the rich commit crimes and even murder, as to policing, the current feel in this country is the police have too much power and you want to increase it? so far your suggestions are a pipe dream and would not resolve anything.
Anybody can be in BLM its not an organization, there are no membership fees or registration, vetting process or roll call. Its a social media hashtag that grew into a movement of various people for a fairly specific cause (end institutional violence against people of African decent in the United States). BLM can't be behind this because they don't have a hierarchy to plan anything with, just local politically motivated individuals who can rally communities.
I go as far as they took advantage of BLM intel on the parade route or something. I go as far as they faked the funk pretending to be BLM. Its way to early to declare who, what, when, and why yet
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
Even so it is a huge leap to go from that to accuse BLM of being a crime group.
Much bigger leap to go the white supremacist route at this point, and yet you did.
I personally have not brought up BLM as responsible. Having said that, the pictures of Johnson kind of indicate he was at least sympathetic with the movement, and his statements indicate race was his motivating factor.
MrDwhitey wrote: Apparently he was upset with BLM also, CptJake.
Speculation is that he may have felt it didn't go far enough.
I read that too. Personally I'll wait until after the investigation, but will continue to comment/post stuff that comes up (like the article I linked to or the picture).
Real early, and initial reporting is never correct.
BrotherGecko wrote: Anybody can be in BLM its not an organization, there are no membership fees or registration, vetting process or roll call. Its a social media hashtag that grew into a movement of various people for a fairly specific cause (end institutional violence against people of African decent in the United States). BLM can't be behind this because they don't have a hierarchy to plan anything with, just local politically motivated individuals who can rally communities.
thats why I said I don't think the BLM was behind this, but a fringe element that was part of the group, you know radicals, every group has them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
well lets look at last years statistics, of blacks killed by cops just over 100, of officers killed in the line of duty about 130 so while being a police officer is not the most dangerous job it is very stressful
There are over 1 million LEOs in the US so yeah, 130 is a tiny tiny fraction of the workforce. Being a cop isn't nearly dangerous enough to warrant the fearful confrontational attitude that gets taught to cops and condoned by departments. Likewise there are 40-45 million black people in the US so the fact that only 100 die in police encounters shows that such vents are extremely rare and don't support the hyperbolic claims that LEOs are determined to go out and murder black people.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
actually atleast one of the shooters is a black former Army Soldier seen shaking hands with personnel from a black extremest organizatinon.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
well lets look at last years statistics, of blacks killed by cops just over 100, of officers killed in the line of duty about 130 so while being a police officer is not the most dangerous job it is very stressful
There are over 1 million LEOs in the US so yeah, 130 is a tiny tiny fraction of the workforce. Being a cop isn't nearly dangerous enough to warrant the fearful confrontational attitude that gets taught to cops and condoned by departments. Likewise there are 40-45 million black people in the US so the fact that only 100 die in police encounters shows that such vents are extremely rare and don't support the hyperbolic claims that LEOs are determined to go out and murder black people.
That number also includes car crashes, accidental drownings, etc. The amount of police officers murdered on the job was ~50 in 2015.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
well lets look at last years statistics, of blacks killed by cops just over 100, of officers killed in the line of duty about 130 so while being a police officer is not the most dangerous job it is very stressful
There are over 1 million LEOs in the US so yeah, 130 is a tiny tiny fraction of the workforce. Being a cop isn't nearly dangerous enough to warrant the fearful confrontational attitude that gets taught to cops and condoned by departments. Likewise there are 40-45 million black people in the US so the fact that only 100 die in police encounters shows that such vents are extremely rare and don't support the hyperbolic claims that LEOs are determined to go out and murder black people.
I've always said every group has its A-Holes no matter what, and the use blanket accusations on the whole group because of a few is just wrong, just like you don't blame all blacks because you got mugged by a black person, but then the BLM is blaming all cops because some people got killed by a few cops, also the statistics I went by are a little scued where you look, according some sites as many as 1800 plus people were killed by cops, but those numbers also accounted for those in police custody and so forth including death by tasers and suicides and such. the number I showed I think is the most accurate of deaths by shooting of unarmed individuals and such.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
Violent crime has been decreasing for years now. The tragedy in Dallas not withstanding, it is still extremely rare for police officers to get shot at or to need to shoot anyone. The number of LEOs that die in the line of duty is extremely small given all the thousands of LEOs we have on the local, state and federal level. There is no data to support the practice of teaching cops to treat everyone they meet as a dangerous armed suspect plotting to kill them. That level of fear isn't a good motivator and greatly increases the likelihood of confrontations going wrong.
well lets look at last years statistics, of blacks killed by cops just over 100, of officers killed in the line of duty about 130 so while being a police officer is not the most dangerous job it is very stressful
There are over 1 million LEOs in the US so yeah, 130 is a tiny tiny fraction of the workforce. Being a cop isn't nearly dangerous enough to warrant the fearful confrontational attitude that gets taught to cops and condoned by departments. Likewise there are 40-45 million black people in the US so the fact that only 100 die in police encounters shows that such vents are extremely rare and don't support the hyperbolic claims that LEOs are determined to go out and murder black people.
That number also includes car crashes, accidental drownings, etc. The amount of police officers murdered on the job was ~50 in 2015.
Exactly, 99.9% of cops are going to get through a day on the job just fine. It's a stressful job, it has its dangers but there is no data that justifies an adversarial attitude from cops that looks at the populace as a threat.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
Even so it is a huge leap to go from that to accuse BLM of being a crime group.
Much bigger leap to go the white supremacist route at this point, and yet you did.
I personally have not brought up BLM as responsible. Having said that, the pictures of Johnson kind of indicate he was at least sympathetic with the movement, and his statements indicate race was his motivating factor.
I did not.
As I did not know the one captured perpetrator was black, he could have been white. There was no.
Exactly, 99.9% of cops are going to get through a day on the job just fine. It's a stressful job, it has its dangers but there is no data that justifies an adversarial attitude from cops that looks at the populace as a threat.
then you have the situation which happened in Dallas which i'm sure calmed no officers nerves to say the least.
Asterios wrote: then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but things like reducing poverty, reducing the rich/poor divide, increasing social mobility, investing in infrastructure and public services, policing, public health, mental health etc.. etc... And of course, not encouraging, glamorising, and endorsing violence.
all of those are fine aspirations, you will hear no argument from most that those are all things that need to happen. You are skirting away from the main question asked though. Since you seem to continue to want to go in this direction, I will ask the direct question, please give a direct answer. How do you recommend people protect themselves from those with no regard for the law, societal customs, regulations, and are ok with doing violence on soft and easy targets? Once again righteousness will not keep those people safe from the people who intend harm. Police can not keep you safe in your house in the middle of the night or even in the middle of the day. What is your solve all solution to protecting ones family. I know that you are not American and deal with different situations, and probably don't have to worry about the sex offender living down the road, but here it is a reality.
OgreChubbs wrote: Anyone else getting sick of it was a peacful movement until 11 people got shot? Then closely followed by there is so much hate so I can understand, this is going to turn into a race war......
You're jumping the gun.
There isn't any proven link with BLM. At the moment for all we know the shooters are white supremacists angry with the police for protecting black people.
No, we know at least one was a black guy who stated he wanted to kill white guys, especially but not only white cops.
Even so it is a huge leap to go from that to accuse BLM of being a crime group.
Much bigger leap to go the white supremacist route at this point, and yet you did.
I personally have not brought up BLM as responsible. Having said that, the pictures of Johnson kind of indicate he was at least sympathetic with the movement, and his statements indicate race was his motivating factor.
I did not.
As I did not know the one captured perpetrator was black, he could have been white. There was no.
Anyway, I replied to OgreChubbs not you.
The perp was IDed in the topic well before your post. Maybe you ought to read the topic before jumping the gun like that. Not sure the 'who you replied to' matters, you were off base.
Asterios wrote: then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but things like reducing poverty, reducing the rich/poor divide, increasing social mobility, investing in infrastructure and public services, policing, public health, mental health etc.. etc... And of course, not encouraging, glamorising, and endorsing violence.
all of those are fine aspirations, you will hear no argument from most that those are all things that need to happen. You are skirting away from the main question asked though. Since you seem to continue to want to go in this direction, I will ask the direct question, please give a direct answer. How do you recommend people protect themselves from those with no regard for the law, societal customs, regulations, and are ok with doing violence on soft and easy targets? Once again righteousness will not keep those people safe from the people who intend harm. Police can not keep you safe in your house in the middle of the night or even in the middle of the day. What is your solve all solution to protecting ones family. I know that you are not American and deal with different situations, and probably don't have to worry about the sex offender living down the road, but here it is a reality.
djones520 wrote: Also reported he was an Army Reservist, for those postulating on if he had military training.
Saw one claim he was in 6 years and did one tour to Afghanistan, have not seen that confirmed and clearly the pictures were taken before a tour (as I think Jihadin mentioned).
djones520 wrote: Also reported he was an Army Reservist, for those postulating on if he had military training.
So he had an idea how to go about it but not the full knowledge to maximize the damage. Still though its another hit to the US Military. Someone on here going to go with "PTSD Vet gone nuts" line
army reservists are the soft skills of the military, there are no combat arms units in the reserves, but that doesn't mean he hasnt had the normal deployment training. Hell I knew a medic that was a better shot than me, and Im pretty darn good.
djones520 wrote: Also reported he was an Army Reservist, for those postulating on if he had military training.
So he had an idea how to go about it but not the full knowledge to maximize the damage. Still though its another hit to the US Military. Someone on here going to go with "PTSD Vet gone nuts" line
Oh, I hope that is not where this goes. PTSD as reported by mainstream media is such a horrible sham. It gives us all a bad name.
redleger wrote: army reservists are the soft skills of the military, there are no combat arms units in the reserves, but that doesn't mean he hasnt had the normal deployment training. Hell I knew a medic that was a better shot than me, and Im pretty darn good.
Trigger squeeze and breathing. Trigger squeeze and breathing. Though Johnson has a scope rifle I heard mention.
Watching him move in the one video suggests combat experience - upon being flanked, he suppresses the cop, moves toward contact and bunkers him around the pillar. I'd be very surprised to hear that this guy spent his entire service picking up cigarette butts.
redleger wrote: army reservists are the soft skills of the military, there are no combat arms units in the reserves, but that doesn't mean he hasnt had the normal deployment training. Hell I knew a medic that was a better shot than me, and Im pretty darn good.
Reservists are some of the first ones called up for active duty in many circumstances starting with the Korean War.
redleger wrote: army reservists are the soft skills of the military, there are no combat arms units in the reserves, but that doesn't mean he hasnt had the normal deployment training. Hell I knew a medic that was a better shot than me, and Im pretty darn good.
Reservists are some of the first ones called up for active duty in many circumstances starting with the Korean War.
I doubt a real link, suspect 'copy cat' syndrome. Could be COMPLETELY unrelated though. Again, we'll see what the investigations turn up.
My major concern is if some other radicals see this and think, hey we can do that or better.
That's nice. They still don't fill a combat role. That being said, every Soldier receives combat training. Your typical reservist won't hold a candle to an Infantry man from 3/101, but they are still taught how to move, shoot, and communicate.
MrDwhitey wrote: Apparently he was upset with BLM also, CptJake.
Speculation is that he may have felt it didn't go far enough.
That was a cryptic: Was he upset with the police violence that BLM is protesting or was he upset with the group itself? Or, something else altogether...
djones520 wrote: That being said, every Soldier receives combat training. Your typical reservist won't hold a candle to an Infantry man from 3/101, but they are still taught how to move, shoot, and communicate.
Plenty of ways to augment Army training too. Honestly even games like 'Call of Duty' or playing paintball would have benefits. Both of those have many similarities to things the Army uses for training.
And honestly, you don't need too much training to do what this guy (or guys) did. Being aggressive and well armed goes a long way against city cops.
Everyone learns that in Basic. Buddy Rush. Shoot, Move. Taking the objective. Its "Basic"
One goes 11B route one gets more indepth training on Movement and Contact.
Jake mention no Infantry Cord. So if he gone out the "Wire" it would have been convoy's
According to a senior U.S. defense official, Johnson enlisted in the U.S. Army reserves in 2009 and rose to the rank of private first class. He had one deployment to Afghanistan from November, 2013 to July of 2014. Upon returning, he remained an inactive reserve until May, 2015, when he was honorably discharged.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, Johnson enlisted in the U.S. Army reserves in 2009 and rose to the rank of private first class. He had one deployment to Afghanistan from November, 2013 to July of 2014. Upon returning, he remained an inactive reserve until May, 2015, when he was honorably discharged.
"Raise eyebrow"
About what? Some units promotion is much slower then others, especially in the Reserves.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, Johnson enlisted in the U.S. Army reserves in 2009 and rose to the rank of private first class. He had one deployment to Afghanistan from November, 2013 to July of 2014. Upon returning, he remained an inactive reserve until May, 2015, when he was honorably discharged.
"Raise eyebrow"
About what? Some units promotion is much slower then others, especially in the Reserves.
Sheesh...your Air Force
Its Auto Promote
to PFC/E3
TIS is 12 months
TIG is 4 months
to SPC/E4
TIS is 24 months
TIG is 4 months
Also applies to the Reserve and Guard. Active and Reserve is DFAS. Not sure who pays Guards (I believe DFAS to)
If the Commander does not promote him to SPC/E4 then he/she has to state every month the valid reason he is not to be promoted. Think though its his NCOIC with documents from the Commander.
so his promotion to E4 was delayed by at least four years? Not buying it.
Asterios wrote: then tell me how would you make society better? you never answered that question? man is warlike by nature, we are not peaceful people and will fight one way or the other. so how do you stop our own nature?
Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but things like reducing poverty, reducing the rich/poor divide, increasing social mobility, investing in infrastructure and public services, policing, public health, mental health etc.. etc... And of course, not encouraging, glamorising, and endorsing violence.
all of those are fine aspirations, you will hear no argument from most that those are all things that need to happen. You are skirting away from the main question asked though. Since you seem to continue to want to go in this direction, I will ask the direct question, please give a direct answer. How do you recommend people protect themselves from those with no regard for the law, societal customs, regulations, and are ok with doing violence on soft and easy targets? Once again righteousness will not keep those people safe from the people who intend harm. Police can not keep you safe in your house in the middle of the night or even in the middle of the day. What is your solve all solution to protecting ones family. I know that you are not American and deal with different situations, and probably don't have to worry about the sex offender living down the road, but here it is a reality.
So whats the answer?
This is just my opinion and I'm not going to pretend I'm well researched on the matter (granted I don't think most people who state their opinions are much more qualified ).
Working harder to get people out of poverty, good education, encouraging them that even if their parents made nothing of their lives the kids still can, support for people with mental health issues and encouraging people to talk about mental health issues (of course we can go off on a whole tangent about how the mental health system is crap as well).
Doing those things will reduce your chances of getting hurt by someone intending to do harm more than owning a gun will because you reduce the number of people intending to do harm.
The US has an extremely high homicide rate. I think it's the highest of any developed country? It's 4 times higher than Australia, UK, NZ, Germany, twice as high as Canada.
You can arm yourself to protect yourself and maybe give yourself a 50% chance of killing the person who's trying to kill you, or maybe you could try and improve society so you have 50% less people trying to kill you
If the Commander does not promote him to SPC/E4 then he/she has to state every month the valid reason he is not to be promoted. Think though its his NCOIC with documents from the Commander.
so his promotion to E4 was delayed by at least four years? Not buying it.
I think my little brother made E4 twice.
He's a cop now in a big city in TX. Says they're all 'heads on swivels' today.
Once again skirting the question. I agree on all points, and future development and everything you stated is correct. How do you stop immediate threats, not future threats?
Multiple news outlets have reported that a shooter in the attack that killed five police officers during a protest in downtown Dallas on Thursday has been identified by law enforcement sources as Micah Xavier Johnson. That shooter was killed in a standoff with police when negotiations failed and a robot-placed explosive device was detonated near him. At least seven other officers and two civilians were injured in the attack.
Here is what we know about Johnson so far:
According a law enforcement source to the Los Angeles Times, he is a 25-year-old Dallas resident.
The Times also reported that Johnson had no known criminal record or ties to terror.
Police Chief David Brown said that during the standoff in which he was killed, the “[t]he suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” He also said the police would find planted explosive devices, and he “expressed anger about Black Lives Matter” during the standoff, though it was unclear what was meant by that last statement.
The Times reported that Johnson has relatives in Mesquite, Texas, and that “[a]uthorities believe Johnson belonged to an informal gun club and took copious amounts of target practice, according to a law enforcement official.”
CNN and the Daily Beast reported that Johnson was a military veteran. The Daily Beast also reported that he attended a gym that offered martial arts and weapons classes:
A U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast that Johnson served as a corporal in the Army Reserve as part of the 284th Engineering Company out of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He previously deployed to Afghanistan.
Johnson formerly attended the “self-defense and personal protection” gym Academy of Combat Warrior Arts in Richardson and Fort Worth, Texas, gym owner and CEO Justin Everman told The Daily Beast. The gym’s Twitter account says it provides “reality based training for today’s Urban environment.”
Along with more traditional martial arts classes, the gym also teaches seminars in “Urban Everyday Carry and Improvised Weapons” and “Weapons Defense.” Everman said many of the gym’s members are police officers and stressed that “we have completely no affiliation with him whatsoever.”
This post is being updated with additional details as more information becomes available.
Negative. If he was discharge under UCMJ action then it was not under Honorable Conditions. That's a Court Martial. He can be discharge with "Under Honorable Conditions" but lets not go there. Seems he might have done two enlistments. He had some bad years of not showing up for recommended amount of Drills per year. Total guess there. Though the more I think on it the more it seems to be that.
Easy E wrote: Here is what is known about the shooter....
Multiple news outlets have reported that a shooter in the attack that killed five police officers during a protest in downtown Dallas on Thursday has been identified by law enforcement sources as Micah Xavier Johnson. That shooter was killed in a standoff with police when negotiations failed and a robot-placed explosive device was detonated near him. At least seven other officers and two civilians were injured in the attack.
Here is what we know about Johnson so far:
According a law enforcement source to the Los Angeles Times, he is a 25-year-old Dallas resident.
The Times also reported that Johnson had no known criminal record or ties to terror.
Police Chief David Brown said that during the standoff in which he was killed, the “[t]he suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” He also said the police would find planted explosive devices, and he “expressed anger about Black Lives Matter” during the standoff, though it was unclear what was meant by that last statement.
The Times reported that Johnson has relatives in Mesquite, Texas, and that “[a]uthorities believe Johnson belonged to an informal gun club and took copious amounts of target practice, according to a law enforcement official.”
CNN and the Daily Beast reported that Johnson was a military veteran. The Daily Beast also reported that he attended a gym that offered martial arts and weapons classes:
A U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast that Johnson served as a corporal in the Army Reserve as part of the 284th Engineering Company out of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He previously deployed to Afghanistan.
Johnson formerly attended the “self-defense and personal protection” gym Academy of Combat Warrior Arts in Richardson and Fort Worth, Texas, gym owner and CEO Justin Everman told The Daily Beast. The gym’s Twitter account says it provides “reality based training for today’s Urban environment.”
Along with more traditional martial arts classes, the gym also teaches seminars in “Urban Everyday Carry and Improvised Weapons” and “Weapons Defense.” Everman said many of the gym’s members are police officers and stressed that “we have completely no affiliation with him whatsoever.”
This post is being updated with additional details as more information becomes available.
What about the other three in custody? Were they actual snipers? False alarms?
redleger wrote: Once again skirting the question. I agree on all points, and future development and everything you stated is correct. How do you stop immediate threats, not future threats?
You don't. Well, you can try, you can own a gun and maybe you get lucky and are able to use it to good effect to stop an immediate threat, but I think most people over estimate how much safer their guns make them. Unless you plan to sit on your porch like this all the time...
redleger wrote: Once again skirting the question. I agree on all points, and future development and everything you stated is correct. How do you stop immediate threats, not future threats?
You don't. Well, you can try, you can own a gun and maybe you get lucky and are able to use it to good effect to stop an immediate threat, but I think most people over estimate how much safer their guns make them. Unless you plan to sit on your porch like this all the time...
Please take this to a new anti-US 2nd amendment topic if you want. Lets not let this one get locked over turing into a 'You 'Mericans are doing it wrong' 'No We're NOT' debate.
SickSix wrote: Reserves do have MPs and Combat Engineers. They have more than enough training to do something like this.
I guess your MPs are more about keeping order. Ours are supposedly often the first to respond to some sort of urban attack and have the gear/training to do some severe damage to the enemy before Jaegers can arrive. They're supposed to have one DM (designated marksman) per six guys.
Then again, we're reserves all around, only the officers and some specialists are career military. I don't even think I know any man (friends, workmates, aquaintances) who doesn't know at least how to operate an assault rifle and throw some shots down range.
Maybe you, as a non American who has never touched a weapon gets lucky. Most owners of home defense weapons understand how to use them. But I see you would rather roll over, and have others roll over than be able to defend themselves, so this conversation is pointless. I'll not be the sheep, the shepard, or the wolf. I'll the the one the wolf fears to approach.
Negative. If he was discharge under UCMJ action then it was not under Honorable Conditions. That's a Court Martial. He can be discharge with "Under Honorable Conditions" but lets not go there. Seems he might have done two enlistments. He had some bad years of not showing up for recommended amount of Drills per year. Total guess there. Though the more I think on it the more it seems to be that.
usual reservist recruitment time is about 6 years which seems right in this situation, as to the person rising only to private first class in 6 years that is very slow even for the reservists, many people are already PFC's right out of boot, and to be only a PFC even with a normal deployment rotation is a bit odd, as to the honorable discharge if you complete your service with no major marks on your record or charges it is automatically granted after 6 months if not upon discharge.
Getting specialist is a time thing, units have unlimited e4 slots so its no extra cost to them to promote someone to that rank. For him not to have gotten promoted to e4 means he was doing something that his superiors specifically didn't want him promoted for and held him back.
As for stats on this subject:
Roughly 62% of the country is white, 15% is black.
50% of fatal police shootings were white victims, 26% were black.
Blacks were charged with 62% of robberies, 57% of murders, 45% of assaults.
This disproportionate number of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities. Even in New York City, blacks commit roughly 75% of all shootings, 70% of all robberies, even though they comprise only 23% of the city's pop.
More whites and Hispanics are killed by police than blacks even in proportion to the population. 12% of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police while only 4% of black homicide were the result of police.
Black officers were more 3.3 times more likely in 2015 to fire a gun at blacks than other cops at a crime scene.
Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. 40% of cop killers are black even though again they only comprise 15% of the population.
Basically BLM is full of crap and with their rhetoric against cops should be held at least partially accountable.
Please take this to a new anti-US 2nd amendment topic if you want. Lets not let this one get locked over turing into a 'You 'Mericans are doing it wrong' 'No We're NOT' debate.
Quite
This includes cracks about other nations and their policies too of course.
If you cannot debate the issue without insulting people then don't post.
Negative. If he was discharge under UCMJ action then it was not under Honorable Conditions. That's a Court Martial. He can be discharge with "Under Honorable Conditions" but lets not go there. Seems he might have done two enlistments. He had some bad years of not showing up for recommended amount of Drills per year. Total guess there. Though the more I think on it the more it seems to be that.
Edit
Corporal is a lateral promotion of a SPC.
Um, most Article 15s do not result in Discharge and would not effect your discharge status. An Art. 15 usually is loss of pay and/or rank and can be recovered from.
Being discharged as a PFC after six years means he was probably AWOL but they just let him ETS instead of going through an AWOL discharge process.
We have had Soldiers in my unit follow that exact scenario. It is such a nut roll to process an Unsatisfactory Performance Discharge that the Soldier just ETS out.
Negative. If he was discharge under UCMJ action then it was not under Honorable Conditions. That's a Court Martial. He can be discharge with "Under Honorable Conditions" but lets not go there. Seems he might have done two enlistments. He had some bad years of not showing up for recommended amount of Drills per year. Total guess there. Though the more I think on it the more it seems to be that.
Edit
Corporal is a lateral promotion of a SPC.
Um, most Article 15s do not result in Discharge and would not effect your discharge status. An Art. 15 usually is loss of pay and/or rank and can be recovered from.
Being discharged as a PFC after six years means he was probably AWOL but they just let him ETS instead of going through an AWOL discharge process.
We have had Soldiers in my unit follow that exact scenario. It is such a nut roll to process an Unsatisfactory Performance Discharge that the Soldier just ETS out.
Aye. I caught on to what Red Leg was saying. I misread a earlier post. Hence I bolo'ed big time on Article 15's.
12W was his MOS. I doubt he was a six year commit though. That's only for Aviation and Medical MOS's. Guards though are auto 6 for 8 years. I feel strongly he was on his 2nd enlistment with the Reserves. His deployment sounds like he stepped forward to volunteer to fill a slot for a deploying unit in the Brigade.
On a side note my wife noticed Kickstarter is running a BLM hashtag at the top of their page. Interesting they would do that on a day where 5 white policemen were killed and 11 wounded because of their color by a black supremacist.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find a contact email address to voice my opinion to them.
Nostromodamus wrote: On a side note my wife noticed Kickstarter is running a BLM hashtag at the top of their page. Interesting they would do that on a day where 5 white policemen were killed and 11 wounded because of their color by a black supremacist.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find a contact email address to voice my opinion to them.
If it said #SupportPolice or #IStandWithPolice yesterday, would you have emailed them as well?
Nostromodamus wrote: On a side note my wife noticed Kickstarter is running a BLM hashtag at the top of their page. Interesting they would do that on a day where 5 white policemen were killed and 11 wounded because of their color by a black supremacist.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find a contact email address to voice my opinion to them.
Nostromodamus wrote: On a side note my wife noticed Kickstarter is running a BLM hashtag at the top of their page. Interesting they would do that on a day where 5 white policemen were killed and 11 wounded because of their color by a black supremacist.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find a contact email address to voice my opinion to them.
their press e-mail is here, have to admit their timing is not so great:
This is allegedly the perp's 'like' or group memberships on facebook. If accurate it may give an indication as to what he considered his motivating factors.
no but he identifies with them to a point, and he knew about their march and such, but like I have always said any group or movement will have its radicals.
no but he identifies with them to a point, and he knew about their march and such, but like I have always said any group or movement will have its radicals.
Finding out about the march and the planned route would not have been difficult. It will be freely available somewhere.
no but he identifies with them to a point, and he knew about their march and such, but like I have always said any group or movement will have its radicals.
Finding out about the march and the planned route would not have been difficult. It will be freely available somewhere.
Maybe from one of the several BLM groups he belonged to on facebook.
Was watching CNN and that is how they are reporting it. Also saw some good interviews, and sounds like this may stir some dialogue between police and communities.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 5) Police to adopt a proportional force directive. i.e. lethal force is only used after all other methods are exhausted. Obviously, If somebody starts shotting at a police officer, they have every right to shoot back, but pulling a gun should be a last resort.
This is nice, in theory. I abhor the militarization of the police. However, we do not live in a world where Andy Griffith type policing will work. The criminals here are often way too violent for that. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing why police in the USA go for an approach of complete control over any situation. Anything less can often quickly result in the cop being killed. Then, on the other side, are the videos of police overreacting and causing harm and/or death to otherwise innocent people and not being held to account by the courts. This deepens the divide between the police and community and poisons a cooperative relationship leaving an adversarial one.
I was watching the news and a spokesperson for the Dallas police mentioned that their officers were trained in deescalation and that the Dallas department had the least number of shootings of any large city in America. Perhaps if that model spreads to other cities, we'll see less loss of innocent life, fewer riots, and a lessening of the hate that makes people act like assassins.
I'm comparing the USA to the UK again, and I'll say from the start that our police are far from perfect - they have their own problems, and I don't want to get into a rant about the failings of British police, but I think the cultural attitude between our nations is a big.
IMO, violent criminals in the USA know the police will be armed, know the police will come in all guns blazing most of the time, and they know that if they get caught, they're likely to get the death penalty or 200 years in prison or something like that.
I believe that this breeds a nothing to lose mentality. If you're looking at the death penalty or a 100 year prison sentence, you may as well go down fighting and try and shoot your way out.
In comparison, UK police are rarely armed, and a life sentence tends to be 30 years if you get caught.
In no way am I saying that the USA should be soft on crime, but I think there is cultural factors, issues with the justice system etc etc that contributes to the problem of violent crime in the USA.
Obviously, if you're being shot at by a sniper, talking goes out of the window, but in general, I think the US police needs a cultural shift to better tackle crime. Most civilians are law abiding. Treating everybody as a potential criminal is counter-productive.
Ok, dunno what else has been posted (just got home) but here's what is believed factual about our shooter:
1) Joined the Reserves right out of high school in 2009.
2) Deployed with the 420th Engineer Brigade to Bagram in 2013 where in his spare time he attended the gym and weapons training, while working as an Engineer and doing guard duty. Returned to US sometime in 2014.
Made PFC, and received the following: National Defense Service Medal, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an Army Service Ribbon, an Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and a NATO Medal. Your basic prizes at the bottom of the crackerjack box.
3)Transferred to Individual Ready Reserve in 2015.
4)Now for the piece that does not fit: went to work for a company called Touch of Kindness that drives the mentally handicapped around to appointments and grocery shopping. He apparently worked there until, well, this.
Let me say this right off the bat: I don't at all condone any shooting of police officers or attacking them in any way. I hope that the people responsible are caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law - which, given that the attacks appear to have been premeditated and directed at law enforcement, means the death penalty. I assume, given that these idiots chose to perpetrate their crime in Texas, that this is exactly what will happen.
Fine. Good, even.
Now let's take a step back and look at the forces that would drive someone to do something like this yesterday. Here's the reality that we don't often talk about - that societies are held together less by laws and force and threats of force than we are by ethereal and fragile concepts like mutual respect and belief in the justness of the system itself.
In America, there are 376 police officers per 100,000 citizens - or one police officer per every 266 citizens. Stop and think about that. Could every police officer in America maintain order over 266 unruly people who had no respect for him him or the badge he wields? Absolutely not. The only thing that makes the situation even a little bit tenable is that the vast majority of people never think about confronting or challenging a police officer, and instead get up each day with the commitment to live their lives peacefully and lawfully, because they believe a) that they live in a society that is basically just and b) they believe that the few policemen who do exist will be there to protect them if something goes wrong and c) they have faith, by and large, that if someone commits a crime against them, they will be caught and punished.
Think, though, about what happens when these invisible bonds that are the most important part of maintaining law and order begin to dissolve - especially within a given subcommunity. Perception is, quite often, more important than reality. We are, in addition, creatures of our upbringing. The way our parents raise us to think about people and institutions shapes us to degrees that we often can't or won't acknowledge.
As the child of white parents who grew up in the rural panhandle of Texas, I was taught that police were there to help, any time I had a problem I should go to them. I should always follow their orders and show them the utmost respect. No one is more important and helpful to your community than the police.
Now imagine, for a minute, that your parents instead grew up as black people in the 50s or 60s in one of the many areas where police were often the agents of - let's call it what it was - white oppression. How might that have changed, for understandable reasons, the way not only those people but also their children and their children's children interact with the police? More importantly, how might it impact the belief that police will ever be held accountable for abuses of their power?
I think the evidence would show that the vast majority of police do their jobs with the greatest professionalism possible. I don't think that's a sufficient answer to the reality of lingering mistrust between police and minority communities, especially in certain areas of the country. And the proliferation of cell phone video recording has really confirmed (in their minds) something they have long anecdotally believed or been taught - that police often interact with minority communities in different ways than they do with the white community.
And here's the most important part: when they do so, they never or almost never face punishment.
Look, I don't know. I don't want to rush to judgment on either the Baton Rouge shooting or the Falcon Heights shooting, but based upon what we have seen, they look bad. Very bad. They look, at least at first glance, to confirm a lot of biases that people have. They look like a scenario that has played out all too often that the white community either doesn't believe ever happens (or at least believes is at most a freak occurrence) and minority communities believe is a systemic occurrence. And they look, most importantly, like many other scenarios in which officers have skated either scot free or with a slap on their wrist.
And here is the important point and the point I have been trying to make with this excessively wordy post. The most important safety valve to prevent violence like we saw in Dallas last night is the belief that when officers do go off the rails, the legal system will punish them accordingly. If minority communities (and everyone else, for that matter) believed that, resort to reprisal killings would be either non existent or far less frequent.
But they don't, and there's good reason for that. And that is because a huge, overwhelming segment of America does not really give a damn what cops do in the course of maintaining order because they assume (probably correctly) that abuse at the hands of police will never happen to them. As long as the cops keep people away from my door, they have my blessing handling "the thugs" in whatever way they see fit.
I see the attitude all the time even in the comments to the stories I write here at RedState. I'll post about some story or video where someone did something to break the law and thus found themselves in contact with the police. Fine. During the course of interaction with the police, however, the police drastically escalate the confrontation using what I think any reasonable person should consider to be wildly excessive force in bringing the situation to heel, and someone ends up either seriously injured or dead. Very often, the victim of this escalation is black.
Every time I post these stories, I get a flood of comments from people who look for even the smallest hook on which to hang an excuse for the cops. "Well, he was rude and confrontational to the cop." "Well, when the officer was trying to arrest him, he ran." "He was 'resisting arrest.'" (My personal favorite, which was used by several dozen people I talked to regarding Eric Garner, whose "resisting arrest" consisted entirely of turning his back to a cop and putting his hands in the air.)
Look, this is not how a free society works. Being rude/disrespectful to a cop, running from a cop, demanding in a hostile tone to know why a cop has pulled you over might well be contraindicated to the peaceful continuation of your day, but they are not an excuse for someone getting shot. I'm for the death penalty, but the kind that is carried out after, you know, a trial and some appeals - not the kind that is carried out on the spot by a cop who's had his authority challenged in some non life-threatening way.
These excuses, though, are indicative of an abdication of critical thinking about the legal and proper application of police force that really and truly is endemic in America. Prosecutors are often guilty of it when deciding whether to indict officers for excessive force. More often, they know that jury members will be extremely guilty of it if they decide to bring charges at all, which makes the whole exercise not worth their time.
Here's all you need to know: since 2000, NYPD officers have shot and killed about 180 people. Only 3 of those officers was even indicted for anything and only 1 was convicted, for a non-jail time offense. And these statistics are fairly typical of the nation at large.
Reasonable people can disagree about the prevalence of police brutality in America, and the extent to which race plays a factor in it. I don't think reasonable people can disagree that excessive police force is punished way less often than it actually happens. And that's the kind of problem that leads to people taking up guns and committing acts of violence - tragically (and with evil intent) against cops who as far as we know have done nothing wrong.
But people's willingness to act rationally and within the confines of the law and the political system is generally speaking directly proportional to their belief that the law and political system will ever punish wrongdoing. And right now, that belief is largely broken, especially in many minority communities.
And it's the blind, uncritical belief that the police never (or only in freak circumstances) do anything wrong that is a major contributing factor to that.
It's at least as much of a factor, if not more so, than the blind, uncritical belief that the police always do things wrong - which many conservatives today are blaming in entirety for what happened in Dallas.
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle, but acknowledging that requires looking in the mirror in a way that makes us all a little uncomfortable.
Co-signed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Has it been confirmed yet that it was just one shooter, or were there multiple shooters?
Via twittah:
NBC DFW (@NBCDFW)
1 hour ago - View on Twitter
JUST IN: Authorities believe Micah Xavier Johnson was lone gunman in Dallas shooting attack on.nbcdfw.com/QVt9AKU pic.twitter.com/mSVGIJmGs…
d-usa wrote: Would he have been due for a Good Conduct Medal after 5 years, or is the time frame different for Reserves?
No. You only get it for active duty. Time in the Reserves does not count.
He might have gotten the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, it's every 3 years, but he'd also have to be recommended by his unit commander. It's not automatic.
d-usa wrote: Would he have been due for a Good Conduct Medal after 5 years, or is the time frame different for Reserves?
No. You only get it for active duty. Time in the Reserves does not count.
You could get the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, it's every 3 years, but his time in active duty wouldn't count toward it. So.... it would depend on the specific dates if he'd have qualified.
Breotan wrote:Since when has acting alone ever been a factor in hate crimes?
Asterios wrote:what there has to be more then one to hate? seriously?/
This would be a good reminder not to draw conclusions based on a headline alone, assuming neither of you actually read the article.
Attorney General Lynch explains that there will most likely no hate crime charges because it seems, at this point in the investigation, the suspect acted alone. Since he also seems to have come down with a bad case of exploding robot, there is no one to bring hate crime charges against.
Joking obviously, but I honestly think his humor could do more to bridge the gap between Black and White than any activist group or political movement. I'm aware of why he quit, but maybe he was just getting too close to the truth and it scared him.
Another case in my mind for reforming the drug laws in America. The animosity between police and Black America need not be there, because it'll just lead to more senseless murders like this.
I'll let the chief domestic advisor to Nixon explain it best:
"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”"
Breotan wrote:Since when has acting alone ever been a factor in hate crimes?
Asterios wrote:what there has to be more then one to hate? seriously?/
This would be a good reminder not to draw conclusions based on a headline alone, assuming neither of you actually read the article.
Attorney General Lynch explains that there will most likely no hate crime charges because it seems, at this point in the investigation, the suspect acted alone. Since he also seems to have come down with a bad case of exploding robot, there is no one to bring hate crime charges against.
yes but if they said no hate crime charges against the BLM could understand that since it was a radical who did this, but why bother saying this especially with the "only" suspect being dead?
Breotan wrote:Since when has acting alone ever been a factor in hate crimes?
Asterios wrote:what there has to be more then one to hate? seriously?/
This would be a good reminder not to draw conclusions based on a headline alone, assuming neither of you actually read the article.
Attorney General Lynch explains that there will most likely no hate crime charges because it seems, at this point in the investigation, the suspect acted alone. Since he also seems to have come down with a bad case of exploding robot, there is no one to bring hate crime charges against.
yes but if they said no hate crime charges against the BLM could understand that since it was a radical who did this, but why bother saying this especially with the "only" suspect being dead?
Why on Earth would the non-organized Black Lives Matter movement even be considered for hate crime charges because of this man's murders?
They wrote their headline the way they did because clickbait draws attention.
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, we've discovered politicians can be idiots... now, about that potentially loose bomb or two?
That is definitely worrying. Hopefully still in pieces in his apartment.
Asterios wrote:yes but if they said no hate crime charges against the BLM could understand that since it was a radical who did this, but why bother saying this especially with the "only" suspect being dead?
I'm pretty sure that isn't an actual sentence so I'm not 100% exactly what you're trying to say, but Spinner pretty well explains it:
Spinner wrote:They wrote their headline the way they did because clickbait draws attention.
I had just typed up the rhetorical question "who doesn't understand that this man's crimes were motivated by racial hatred" but before I even typed the question mark I realized that there probably are people who think his crimes are down to alleged racism on the part of the police, rather than his own avowed racist motives. So I checked my Facebook feed, and sure enough ...
redleger wrote: Since you seem to continue to want to go in this direction
I was actually content to let the subject rest, as you suggested. I was dragged back in by another poster. You have been very gracious and diplomatic in your responses, and I appreciate that. I apologise for continuing the discussion.
I will ask the direct question, please give a direct answer. How do you recommend people protect themselves from those with no regard for the law, societal customs, regulations, and are ok with doing violence on soft and easy targets?
I think if someone is in immediate mortal peril, then I would recommend they defend themselves by whatever means necessary. However, that is actually not what I was talking about. It is not the gun that I object to, but the rhetoric of fear that goes along with it, and the normalisation and acceptance of violence.
d-usa wrote: Would he have been due for a Good Conduct Medal after 5 years, or is the time frame different for Reserves?
No. You only get it for active duty. Time in the Reserves does not count.
He might have gotten the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, it's every 3 years, but he'd also have to be recommended by his unit commander. It's not automatic.
Wrong. I was awarded a good Conduct medal during my time in the Marine Reserves.
(Note, for some reason is not linking correctly, but article does exist)
The Marines do have a Reserve good conduct medal, though. The Selected Marine Corps Reserve Medal.
All of the branches seem to have the same split, one for active duty and one for reserves. The time doesn't seem to stack, but the reserves one gets 'paused' rather than reset by active duty.
CptJake wrote: This is allegedly the perp's 'like' or group memberships on facebook. If accurate it may give an indication as to what he considered his motivating factors.
d-usa wrote: Would he have been due for a Good Conduct Medal after 5 years, or is the time frame different for Reserves?
No. You only get it for active duty. Time in the Reserves does not count.
He might have gotten the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, it's every 3 years, but he'd also have to be recommended by his unit commander. It's not automatic.
Wrong. I was awarded a good Conduct medal during my time in the Marine Reserves.
Maybe it's harder to find well behaved marines, so they get rewarded more?
CptJake wrote: This is allegedly the perp's 'like' or group memberships on facebook. If accurate it may give an indication as to what he considered his motivating factors.
d-usa wrote: Would he have been due for a Good Conduct Medal after 5 years, or is the time frame different for Reserves?
No. You only get it for active duty. Time in the Reserves does not count.
He might have gotten the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, it's every 3 years, but he'd also have to be recommended by his unit commander. It's not automatic.
Wrong. I was awarded a good Conduct medal during my time in the Marine Reserves.
Maybe it's harder to find well behaved marines, so they get rewarded more?
redleger wrote: Since you seem to continue to want to go in this direction
I was actually content to let the subject rest, as you suggested. I was dragged back in by another poster. You have been very gracious and diplomatic in your responses, and I appreciate that. I apologise for continuing the discussion.
I will ask the direct question, please give a direct answer. How do you recommend people protect themselves from those with no regard for the law, societal customs, regulations, and are ok with doing violence on soft and easy targets?
I think if someone is in immediate mortal peril, then I would recommend they defend themselves by whatever means necessary. However, that is actually not what I was talking about. It is not the gun that I object to, but the rhetoric of fear that goes along with it, and the normalisation and acceptance of violence.
or maybe it is better to have it and not need it then to not have it and need it?
also in:
Micah Johnson was honored with an Afghanistan Campaign Medal with a campaign star, an Army Achievement Medal, a National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an Army Service Ribbon, an Armed Forces Reserve Medal and a NATO Medal.
redleger wrote: Was watching CNN and that is how they are reporting it. Also saw some good interviews, and sounds like this may stir some dialogue between police and communities.
The sad thing is that they were already having those conversations in Dallas and making progress.
).
