Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

https://twitter.com/DallasPD/status/751262719584575488
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JxkwVZnKwY

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.

Thoughts and prayers to Dallas PD and their families.

I support Law Enforcement Officers.

PS. Bravo to the DPD for blowing up the scumbag in the parking garage.

Looks like it was a plan to kill white cops according to the press conference.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2554140788001/dallas-officials-brief-the-press-on-the-latest-in-shooting-investigation/?#sp=show-clips

(stream of conference)

"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.

 Ouze wrote:
Is Smacks really that wrong, though?

Nope.

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.

At conference stated the sniper said he wanted to shoot white cops.

On the positive sounds like the DPD sent a robot in with a bomb to blow him up.

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

To be clear: the police blew up the suspect with their robot armed with their bomb.

 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.

 SickSix wrote:
To be clear: the police blew up the suspect with their robot armed with their bomb.

Yeah, they said they put a "device" in the "extension" of the bomb robot and detonated it when it got to him.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
To be clear: the police blew up the suspect with their robot armed with their bomb.

Yeah, they said they put a "device" in the "extension" of the bomb robot and detonated it when it got to him.

A lot of the bomb bots have a 12 gauge firing thing-a-ma-jig that fires a special round to detonate IEDs. Wonder if they popped him with one of those?

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

A lot of the bomb bots have a 12 gauge firing thing-a-ma-jig that fires a special round to detonate IEDs. Wonder if they popped him with one of those?

Well their report said they put a device into the extension of the robot and then detonated it so it could be that or just an explosive of some sort.

The Black Power Political Organisation wrote on its Facebook account that it was behind the attack and that 'more assassinations are coming

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dallas-police-shooting-black-power-8378177

 Smacks wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

The Black Power Political Organisation wrote on its Facebook account that it was behind the attack and that 'more assassinations are coming

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dallas-police-shooting-black-power-8378177

Makes sense, although they may just be riding the coat tails. They have never been a peaceful organization.

If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

 LethalShade wrote:
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 LethalShade wrote:
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 LethalShade wrote:
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 LethalShade wrote:
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.

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?