:( :mad:
Fahdiz, your kids okay?
QuoteAuthorities said Tuesday a suspect in a high school shooting near Portland dead and the situation is stabilized.
The Multnomah County sheriff's office said there were reports of shots fired about 8 a.m. at Reynolds High School in Troutdale.
Students say they were told over the intercom there was a lockdown and to quietly go to their classrooms.
Students were evacuated from the school, hands on their heads, to be reunited with their parents in a supermarket parking lot.
Freshman Daniel DeLong, 15, said while waiting after the shooting that he saw a physical education teacher at the school with a bloodied shirt.
"I'm a little shaken up," DeLong said. "I'm just worried."
He said he was texting friends to make sure they were all OK.
"It just, like, happened so fast, you know?" he said.
Freshman Morgan Rose, 15, said she was hunkered down in a locker room with another student and two teachers.
"It was scary in the moment now knowing everything's OK I'm better," she said.
SWAT teams were going through the school room by room, KGW-TV reported.
Police set up tape around the area and were not allowing people to pass through. Fire trucks were on the scene.
The shooting follows a spate of recent attacks at or near school campuses.
On June 5, a 19-year-old man was killed and two other people wounded when a gunman opened fire in a building at Seattle Pacific University.
One victim dead. Shooter dead.
QuoteA student was killed by a shooter at an Oregon school late Tuesday morning, after police responded to shots fired and hurried to lock down the facility. The shooter was killed.
Fox News announced the development — the shooter being killed — shortly after noon. It's not clear if the gunman took his own life, or was fatally shot by police.
Details are still emerging, but so far, nobody else at the Reynolds High School in Troutdale was reported as injured.
Fox News showed uniformed law enforcement congregating around an armored police vehicle outside the school shortly before noon eastern time. The officers were dressed in body armor and holding rifles.
KPTV Fox 12 reported that authorities have asked people to stay away from the property.
The wife of the vice principal at the school said she was tipped off to the incident when she received a text message from her husband, saying a shooter was roaming the school hallways. The school is located in a suburb of Portland.
I heard something about a shooting in Nevada. Is that true? Man so many of these now.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
I heard something about a shooting in Nevada. Is that true? Man so many of these now.
There was one back in October. Is that what you mean?
QuoteSPARKS, Nev. (AP) — A Nevada seventh-grader who went on a deadly schoolyard shooting rampage had images of the Columbine gunmen on his cellphone and told a therapist three days before the October attack that classmates were teasing him, authorities said Tuesday.
But Jose Reyes, 12, gave contradictory accounts in two suicide notes about whether he was acting out of revenge when he opened fire at Sparks Middle School, killing a teacher and wounding two boys before turning the gun on himself, Sparks Police Chief Brian Allen said.
Allen released a 1,300-page report detailing the investigation into the shooting. He also announced at a news conference that no charges will be brought against the parents of the boy, who brought the semi-automatic handgun from home.
While detectives found instances where Reyes might have been teased or mistreated by other students, there wasn't enough evidence to merit bullying charges, Allen said.
Reyes wrestled with speech problems since kindergarten and felt inadequate with his family, police said. He also recently had been prescribed an antidepressant and had shown some signs of autism.
The youth offered conflicting motives in two handwritten suicide notes.
In one to teachers and students, Reyes "clearly expressed anger" over his belief that he was embarrassed and mistreated at school, and he "indicated he would get revenge," Allen said of the boy who was a voracious player of violent video games.
In a second note specifically to his parents, Reyes suggested the rampage "was not a result of shooting games or bullying," the police chief said.
Both notes alluded to the fact that "his life would end in the process."
Police learned one of the students Reyes shot had teased him about not having muscles during a physical education class. Other students called Reyes names and accused him of wetting his pants after they poured water on him.
Allen included a message to students during the news conference: "Be nice. Be kind. Treat your fellow students with respect. We're all a little different. It matters."
According to the report, three days before the shooting, Reyes' father took him to a psychotherapist, who said the boy showed signs of a depressive disorder. Reyes had a generic form of the antidepressant Prozac in his system at the time of his death, police said.
The boy told the doctor he was being harassed and called names at school.
Quote from: merithyn on June 10, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
I heard something about a shooting in Nevada. Is that true? Man so many of these now.
There was one back in October. Is that what you mean?
Nah - some right-wing nutjobs shot up a couple of cops and a Walmart. Not a school shooting. Happened just a day or two ago.
Only recent Nevada thing I know of was those cops.
No there was something about a survivalist in Nevada on the news this morning it sounded like a shooting situation. But maybe not.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 12:33:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 10, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
I heard something about a shooting in Nevada. Is that true? Man so many of these now.
There was one back in October. Is that what you mean?
Nah - some right-wing nutjobs shot up a couple of cops and a Walmart. Not a school shooting. Happened just a day or two ago.
Ah yes that was the one. Sorry I did not mean to imply it was a school shooting.
It's so sad that this is how the conversation goes now. Not, "Wow, that's shocking!" Instead, it's, "Wait, is this a different one, or the same one that I heard about earlier?"
:(
This is the 74th school shooting since Sandy hook 18 months ago.
Thank god for out freedom.
This seems to be getting out of hand
Quote'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. "This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them," said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world's deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. "It's a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn't anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that's what he really wanted." At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as "helpless."
The Daily Show did a segment a couple of days ago on how often these tragic events occur and how predictable the media coverage has become. It was dark humour at its best.
Ironically (given sbr's post) they were particularly picking up on the "there is nothing that can be done" meme.
Want to know what you can do? Maybe look at the gun laws every other civilized society has.
There might be something we can do but we are never going to have gun laws like that. We have a Supreme Court precedent.
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
Yep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=kp
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
I disagree: what they need to do is put the crime scene photos on the front page and on television. Outside of what First Reponders see, the concept of "20 dead children" is just that: a concept. People need to see what a .223 Remington round will do to a 6 year old's skull. Then maybe with some context, people will see that mass shooting victims are more than just a line of text.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2014, 01:09:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
Yep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=kp
Known to the ancients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus
Attempts to avoid media coverage didn't work then, either.
QuoteFar from attempting to evade responsibility for his act of arson, Herostratus proudly claimed credit in an attempt to immortalise his name. To dissuade those of a similar mind, the Ephesian authorities not only executed him, but attempted to condemn him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name under penalty of death. However, this did not stop Herostratus from achieving his goal because the ancient historian Theopompus recorded the event and its perpetrator in his Hellenics.
Herostratus' name lived on in classical literature and has passed into modern languages as a term for someone who commits a criminal act in order to bask in the resultant notoriety.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
I disagree: what they need to do is put the crime scene photos on the front page and on television. Outside of what First Reponders see, the concept of "20 dead children" is just that: a concept. People need to see what a .223 Remington round will do to a 6 year old's skull. Then maybe with some context, people will see that mass shooting victims are more than just a line of text.
People will just look away.
Can we have all of these school shooting threads consolidated into one, as they clutter up the forum.
More than threads you start? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 01:15:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
There is one thing society and the media could do straight away to dramatically improve the situation: never make the identity of the shooters public
I disagree: what they need to do is put the crime scene photos on the front page and on television. Outside of what First Reponders see, the concept of "20 dead children" is just that: a concept. People need to see what a .223 Remington round will do to a 6 year old's skull. Then maybe with some context, people will see that mass shooting victims are more than just a line of text.
Identity of the
shooter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2014, 12:55:59 PM
The Daily Show did a segment a couple of days ago on how often these tragic events occur and how predictable the media coverage has become. It was dark humour at its best.
Ironically (given sbr's post) they were particularly picking up on the "there is nothing that can be done" meme.
Want to know what you can do? Maybe look at the gun laws every other civilized society has.
If you want to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvA4jH8MoxM
I think that's what happens with most things you post. :P
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
You take the guns away. Using Force.
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
One step at a time.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 02:01:28 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
One step at a time.
Start with 11B4V. Apparently, he owns most of 'em. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.
If the US wanted to drastically change its gun laws to could be done - it'll just take a long time. For example - ban a huge number of rifles / ammo types, but grandfather in existing owners. Prohibit the sale or transfer of such guns - except to immediate family. Ban where and how they can be carried (e.g. in Canada must be securely locked unless in use while hunting or at a shooting range). Offer buy-backs. Introduce mandatory gun owner licensing.
You're not "taking away anyones guns" (which is the NRAs biggest line in the sand) but still seriously restricting their availability and use.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
For what purpose? It seems the gun rights people would be against that for background checks. Are we talking about profiling? That was my prediction but we seem slow on the uptake.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 02:09:26 PM
Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.
Why not?
Unless I'm mistaken we already have laws on the books prohibiting sales to people with certain mental illness diagnoses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:13:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 02:09:26 PM
Statistical risk assessment is a lot better than the usual technique of "wild ass guesses", but I really don't think you can take away people's guns because a statistical analysis suggests the person has a higher than normal propensity or likelihood to go on a shooting spree.
Why not?
Unless I'm mistaken we already have laws on the books prohibiting sales to people with certain mental illness diagnoses.
4th Amendment.
Unfortunately the biggest predictor we have for future actions is past actions. So we can have great confidence that someone who has been convicted of multiple gun crimes in the past will be engaged in future gun crimes.
But these "spree shooters" have never engaged in that kind of behaviour before (how can they - it invariably ends in the shooters death or life imprisonment). So if you attempt to determine a statistical risk assessment model for people likely to be involved in a spree shooting it will not be terribly accurate. So it'll either identify grotesquely large number of false positives, or else will be of little actual assistance.
Plus - when do people have to go through this kind of statistical risk analysis?
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 01:29:36 PM
Identity of the shooter.
Fuck the shooters, they're all interchangeable after a while anyway, one's no different than the next.
Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.
It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.
As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past. So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:27:11 PM
Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.
It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.
As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past. So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.
I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted? More background checks? I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile. Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:27:11 PM
Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.
It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.
As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past. So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.
At what stage are you doing this risk analysis?
It seems to me you'd be getting 1000 or even 10000 false positives or more before you stop a spree shooter. There doesn't seem to be any good means to detect such people and you'd have to cast an exceedingly wide net in order to make any difference. There are practically no common threads behind all of these recent spree shooters.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 02:28:06 PM
MOLON LABIA
A "molon labia" is:
1) A West African dictator
2) A crater site on the Moon
3) Mrs. Anger's private parts
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 10, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
You take the guns away. Using Force.
MOLON LABIA
You'd get in a shootout with the Feds if they did come to take them? I'd figure you'd either just give them up or try and hide them.
Spicey longs to kill cops FOR FREEDOM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted? More background checks? I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile. Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.
Not really. My understanding is he wanted to close the gun show loophole. I'm talking more about reexamining the criteria that go into the national no-gun database.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 02:33:28 PM
At what stage are you doing this risk analysis?
Dunno.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:27:11 PM
Just because the best predictor is moot doesn't render the other predictors useless.
It's a cost benefit: we can prevent X school shootings a year if we deny people with traits A, B, & C guns and we'll get Z% false positives.
As I mentioned, we already use diagnosed mental illness and certainly 100% of people with mental illness have not committed gun violence in the past. So presumably we're already willing to accept some level of false positives.
I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted? More background checks? I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile. Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.
Ruh-roh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted? More background checks? I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile. Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.
Not really. My understanding is he wanted to close the gun show loophole. I'm talking more about reexamining the criteria that go into the national no-gun database.
Well if the tools are already there I hope they are being used. But couldn't said socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude just get his gun at a gun show if that is a loophole?
I was thinking Lady Marmalade, actually.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 10, 2014, 02:47:03 PM
Ruh-roh.
Sometimes Ide feels like somebody's watching...erm....him
Quote from: PRC on June 10, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 10, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
You take the guns away. Using Force.
MOLON LABIA
You'd get in a shootout with the Feds if they did come to take them? I'd figure you'd either just give them up or try and hide them.
I'd get in a shootout if Grey Fox came & tried to take them.
Also I just wanted to post that play on words :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
I like the way you are thinking Yi, but wasn't this sort of what Obama wanted? More background checks? I have already said I hope we are starting to closely monitor the guys who fit the profile. Socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude.
Not really. My understanding is he wanted to close the gun show loophole. I'm talking more about reexamining the criteria that go into the national no-gun database.
Well if the tools are already there I hope they are being used. But couldn't said socially isolated angry mentally unstable white dude just get his gun at a gun show if that is a loophole?
Is there a "national no-gun databse"?
In what way is that different from a gun licence?
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 03:06:50 PM
Is there a "national no-gun databse"?
In what way is that different from a gun licence?
I don't understand the question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
But how could you do that? IIRC, you can't force people to see a shrink, you can't force them to seek out medical evaluation&treatment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 03:06:50 PM
Is there a "national no-gun databse"?
In what way is that different from a gun licence?
I don't understand the question.
In both ways the government gets to decide who does and does not get a gun.
Quote from: viper37 on June 10, 2014, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
But how could you do that? IIRC, you can't force people to see a shrink, you can't force them to seek out medical evaluation&treatment.
Just assume everyone who wants to keep guns is mentally unbalanced, then it's up to them to show they're of sound mind and adult enough to have them. :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 03:20:43 PM
In both ways the government gets to decide who does and does not get a gun.
We already do that.
Quote from: viper37 on June 10, 2014, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2014, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2014, 01:54:45 PM
The problem with guns is that in America the cat is already out of the bag. How do you stuff it back in?
i think some form of mental health assessment/risk modeling is the only feasible solution.
But how could you do that? IIRC, you can't force people to see a shrink, you can't force them to seek out medical evaluation&treatment.
People found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect are not allowed to have fire arms in some states. Of course that's extremely rare and those people tend to be spending their entire lives in hospitals.
That last big gun bill in Florida they made it possible for people convicted of gun felonies to carry concealed weapons so I am not really sure what legal avenues they can go through even with past convicts.
Nanobots that target firearms. Can be spread through the water supply.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
That last big gun bill in Florida they made it possible for people convicted of gun felonies to carry concealed weapons so I am not really sure what legal avenues they can go through even with past convicts.
Canada is beckoning Valmy
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 10, 2014, 02:47:03 PM
Ruh-roh.
Sometimes Ide feels like somebody's watching...erm....him
I'm probably out of the age demographic for spree killer though.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
That last big gun bill in Florida they made it possible for people convicted of gun felonies to carry concealed weapons so I am not really sure what legal avenues they can go through even with past convicts.
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
That last big gun bill in Florida they made it possible for people convicted of gun felonies to carry concealed weapons so I am not really sure what legal avenues they can go through even with past convicts.
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
It is now the Cop Killer Law. I am no big fan of the cops but this is getting ridiculous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
I'm not sure shooting the police is the best way to deescalate the situation.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoCOXYiYM8g
The suspect is hatless, repeat, hatless
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
shooting at the cops won't make it better. Before you had a pissed off guy with a broken door and a lawsuit, now you have a dead guy.
Quote from: HVC on June 10, 2014, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
shooting at the cops won't make it better. Before you had a pissed off guy with a broken door and a lawsuit, now you have a dead guy.
Worked out for Randy Weaver. How else is a Aryan Nation guy going to be a national hero.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 01:29:36 PM
Identity of the shooter.
Fuck the shooters, they're all interchangeable after a while anyway, one's no different than the next.
You don't get it do you? If no national fapping over the name, photo, and family history of the shooter, then they cannot gain fame and "immortality" by doing it
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 01:29:36 PM
Identity of the shooter.
Fuck the shooters, they're all interchangeable after a while anyway, one's no different than the next.
You don't get it do you? If no national fapping over the name, photo, and family history of the shooter, then they cannot gain fame and "immortality" by doing it
I don't think that's why they all do it. Most of them seem to be suicides where they want to take out a few people with them. Thirty years ago, most of them would have just hung themselves or something.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2014, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 01:29:36 PM
Identity of the shooter.
Fuck the shooters, they're all interchangeable after a while anyway, one's no different than the next.
You don't get it do you? If no national fapping over the name, photo, and family history of the shooter, then they cannot gain fame and "immortality" by doing it
People remember serial killers more than mass shooters. Everybody remembers Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Bianchi and Buono, what they did and why. Virginia Tech? That Asian guy.
And why? Because serial killers do it with panache.
Quote from: HVC on June 10, 2014, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
shooting at the cops won't make it better. Before you had a pissed off guy with a broken door and a lawsuit, now you have a dead guy.
And a much twitchier police force. But hey, you want to be able to legally shoot cops? Don't be surprised when that 63-in-a-55-mph warning turns into a felony car stop, and everybody's eating pavement at the end of a shotgun.
Funny how this shit is always the same with these racist gunnutter assfucks. White people want to be able to shoot the police, the NRA's all for it. The Black Panther Party wants to protect themselves against targeted and specific harassment? Oh, no, no, no, we can't have damn dirty nee-groes running around with loaded guns, the NRA's more than happy to pitch in for gun control then.
Cops never raid the wrong house...fuck you. Maybe when your house is broken into while you're on vacation, they'll respond to the wrong house then, too. Asshole.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 06:56:12 PM
Cops never raid the wrong house...fuck you.
Oh no, sir. Fuck
youQuoteMaybe when your house is broken into while you're on vacation, they'll respond to the wrong house then, too. Asshole.
Yeah, probably. If they can pull themselves away from their donuts to respond at all.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
Man make a joke about Spicey being a wannabe cop killer and he really runs with it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
By God, in America you have the right to start shooting before you know what's happening. Make them take that right from your (and your victim's) cold dead hands.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
Ok you are taking this too far. You seriously would start shooting if a whole squad of dudes burst into your house with their guns out? Are you that eager to orphan your children? I mean there is self defense and there is suicide.
Fwiw, the Illinois law, as I understand it, doesn't make it lawful to deliberately shoot cops performing their duties. It makes it lawful to accidentally shoot cops performing their duties.
That said, I don't know how big an issue this ever was, but if a cop breaks into the wrong house and gets his head blown off, do we actually want to send that person to gaol for murder? If so, why? Because a life must be paid with life? That's idiotic.
I'm also not a huge fan of civil servants who volunteer and get paid to do a job being elevated beyond ordinary citizens. If what turns out to be a harmless drunk breaks into my house and I, reasonably apprehensive of my personal safety, kill him, that's a-ok; I get to feel bad (I probably would not, beyond a vague, shrugging regret--but you never know). If a cop breaks down my door without a proper warrant, and I kill him, that's suddenly much, much worse? There are some state-centric arguments that I am sympathetic to on this one, though.
I do have some misgivings about the potential practical outcome, since the practical outcome of Castle Doctrine laws could easily be a lot of legally-sanctioned first degree murders. But is there a lot of indication that this is the case? Are there enough people using the laws to thrill-kill that the benefits of the laws are outweighed?
All that said, I don't know why we just don't legalize spring traps if we're going to legalize shooting anybody that enters a home without an invitation.
You know, at say 3:30 in the morning I'm not sure what the hell would happen. My motivation would be to protect my wife & children.
Thankfully I live in a decent enough neighborhood to where a police raid would be an extremely unlikely on my street. So then a botched raid would hopefully be near impossible. So it's kind of a moot point for me personally. Glad you're so fascinated by it, though.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:44:33 PM
Thankfully I live in a decent enough neighborhood to where a police raid would be an extremely unlikely on my street. So then a botched raid would hopefully be near impossible. So it's kind of a moot point for me personally. Glad you're so fascinated by it, though.
To be fair it is no more unlikely than criminals breaking into your house while you are there.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:51:10 PM
To be fair it is no more unlikely than criminals breaking into your house while you are there.
I doubt that.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:51:10 PM
To be fair it is no more unlikely than criminals breaking into your house while you are there.
I doubt that.
You just said your house is in a decent area with practically no crime.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:58:55 PM
You just said your house is in a decent area with practically no crime.
I didn't say anything about the crime, but yeah it's a pretty safe street. Still, a home invasion is more likely than a botched police raid.
Not that I have to prove to you why I keep firearms for self defense.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 03:02:05 PM
Quote from: PRC on June 10, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 02:28:06 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 10, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
You take the guns away. Using Force.
MOLON LABIA
You'd get in a shootout with the Feds if they did come to take them? I'd figure you'd either just give them up or try and hide them.
I'd get in a shootout if Grey Fox came & tried to take them.
Also I just wanted to post that play on words :rolleyes:
I'm curious what your average American citizen would do if it came about that some guns were going to be seized. Not all of them, but for example just say your AR-15 style weapons. I imagine most people would turn them in (probably in exchange for cash value or some kind of compensation) but I'm sure you would have the militia types refusing to give them up leading to arrests and shootouts but I'd guess that would be the extreme minority. You'd have the outcry and the complaints but overall I think it would go smoothly.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 10, 2014, 10:43:16 PM
Fwiw, the Illinois law, as I understand it, doesn't make it lawful to deliberately shoot cops performing their duties. It makes it lawful to accidentally shoot cops performing their duties.
If you believe you're subject to an "unlawful intrusion", then you're provided a legally sanctioned course of action. Unfortunately, that leaves the yahoo-in-question to determine at that moment what is an "unlawful intrusion"; now, whether or not ZOMG THIS PIG IS UNLAWFULLY INTRUDING UPON MAH STATION WAGON is determined to be a valid defense later is kinda useless if the yahoo-in-question believes that shooting first is OK in the first place. So much for that whole courts thing.
They later amended "law enforcement official" in the law to the more loosely defined "public servant" instead, so it's open season on the local zoning assessor knocking on your front door as well.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:39:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
Ok you are taking this too far. You seriously would start shooting if a whole squad of dudes burst into your house with their guns out? Are you that eager to orphan your children? I mean there is self defense and there is suicide.
derfetus is hardcore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:07:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:39:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
derfetus is hardcore.
Ok you are taking this too far. You seriously would start shooting if a whole squad of dudes burst into your house with their guns out? Are you that eager to orphan your children? I mean there is self defense and there is suicide.
Quote from: PRC on June 10, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
I'm curious what your average American citizen would do if it came about that some guns were going to be seized. Not all of them, but for example just say your AR-15 style weapons. I imagine most people would turn them in (probably in exchange for cash value or some kind of compensation) but I'm sure you would have the militia types refusing to give them up leading to arrests and shootouts but I'd guess that would be the extreme minority. You'd have the outcry and the complaints but overall I think it would go smoothly.
It'd be a pretty fucked up situation for that to happen. Hard to think of the 2nd Amendment getting overturned in the first place.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:09:55 PM
Hard to think of the 2nd Amendment getting overturned in the first place.
And yet, there's been a run on ammo and firearms ever since Obama took office and after Sandy Hook. Because gun nutters are so rational.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:07:38 PM
If you believe you're subject to an "unlawful intrusion", then you're provided a legally sanctioned course of action. Unfortunately, that leaves the yahoo-in-question to determine at that moment what is an "unlawful intrusion"; now, whether or not ZOMG THIS PIG IS UNLAWFULLY INTRUDING UPON MAH STATION WAGON is determined to be a valid defense later is kinda useless if the yahoo-in-question believes that shooting first is OK in the first place. So much for that whole courts thing.
They later amended "law enforcement official" in the law to the more loosely defined "public servant" instead, so it's open season on the local zoning assessor knocking on your front door as well.
You'd have been a great asset to the country in 1776. OMG LETS TAKE KING GEORGE TO COURT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:12:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:09:55 PM
Hard to think of the 2nd Amendment getting overturned in the first place.
And yet, there's been a run on ammo and firearms ever since Obama took office and after Sandy Hook. Because gun nutters are so rational.
Well, yeah. I have profited from the panic.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:12:20 PMYou'd have been a great asset to the country in 1776. OMG LETS TAKE KING GEORGE TO COURT
I would've edited the shit out of a certain grammatically incorrect comma splice in 1791, that's for sure.
Yeah, but apparently you'd have been in Ireland or Germany.
Great, now you're going all retroactive anti-immigration reform on us. You're in a Teabagger time-space continuum. :lol:
I believe I've made my opinions known on The Irish.
You leave Lou Holtz out of this.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
I repeat: when cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?!?
Police make even 'energetic' entrances wearing very clear "POLICE" markings, and very loudly announce themselves. Even if you think they have no right to enter into your house, and even if a court subsequently decides that you're right, YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING SHOOT AT COPS.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
I repeat: when cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?!?
Police make even 'energetic' entrances wearing very clear "POLICE" markings, and very loudly announce themselves. Even if you think they have no right to enter into your house, and even if a court subsequently decides that you're right, YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING SHOOT AT COPS.
Generally not thought of as a healthy course of action.
I am approaching a point where my reaction to these shootings is just "oh, another one?" It is quite clear that unless sane gun control laws are enacted, these are bound to happen continuously. I can only hope that enough people will change their minds to make it happen.
I believe that there's a middle ground between "I have the right to carry a gun anytime, anywhere, and to use deadly force if I feel threatened in any way" and "no one should own a gun, ever."
(Actually, didn't post-colonial and wild west towns have much stricter rules about guns? E.g. having to keep your weapon in an arsenal or turning in your guns when you enter town?)
A lot of people seem to think that they need the protection, because they don't trust the state to protect them if need be (and I'm not talking about fringe nutjobs who arm themselves to ward off a Bushitler or Obamadolf rising and proclaiming the American Commie-Nazi Dictatorship).
Is there anything that can be done so that the average guy doesn't feel the need to have a gun and thus paving the way to sensible gun control?
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
I repeat: when cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?!?
Police make even 'energetic' entrances wearing very clear "POLICE" markings, and very loudly announce themselves. Even if you think they have no right to enter into your house, and even if a court subsequently decides that you're right, YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING SHOOT AT COPS.
The question isn't whether someone deserves to die (even ordinary applications of the Castle Doctrine do not seek to value or devalue human life) but whether someone deserves to be punishment when and if someone does die.
SC's law provides a presumption of an apprehension of immediate grave bodily harm in the case of a home intrusion. Is that really so ridiculous? And is it impossible to imagine a situation where this apprehension would accrue to a botched police breach?
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2014, 01:21:23 AM
I believe that there's a middle ground between "I have the right to carry a gun anytime, anywhere, and to use deadly force if I feel threatened in any way" and "no one should own a gun, ever."
(Actually, didn't post-colonial and wild west towns have much stricter rules about guns? E.g. having to keep your weapon in an arsenal or turning in your guns when you enter town?)
A lot of people seem to think that they need the protection, because they don't trust the state to protect them if need be (and I'm not talking about fringe nutjobs who arm themselves to ward off a Bushitler or Obamadolf rising and proclaiming the American Commie-Nazi Dictatorship).
Is there anything that can be done so that the average guy doesn't feel the need to have a gun and thus paving the way to sensible gun control?
IDK, basically, without a gun, you are pretty much at the mercy of criminals, because unless you are really highly trained, the odds of effectively protecting yourself are quite low. Now, in a lucky country the rule of law can really minimise the chance of you ever being attacked, but regardless, if it happens, you are fucked, and that's it.
And yeah I guess, if the criminals know they may come up against a gun they will just start carrying themselves, but that still means that he is risking (and you are getting) even odds, compared to the guaranteed success rate of him pulling a knife on unarmed you.
But anyways, I think this depends on what a given society is accustomed to. Take a country like UK or Hungary, liberalise gun laws overnight and you would probably have mayhem. Take the US, make gun laws more strict overnight, and what you are doing is pushing an arsenal worth of firearms into illegality, making law-abiding citizens into much more victims than they are in European states.
That's the most reasoned post Tamas has ever made, and I only kind of mean that as a backhanded compliment. :P
Anyway, the state obviously can't protect people (partly because of the stupid 4th amendment). Remember that statistic about 1/5 women being sexually assaulted? It's not because sexual assault is legal.
One of the big issues with the poverty-stricken rural regions of Eastern Hungary is the growing pressure of petty crimes, where people doing subsistence farming (well, to supplement their wages/welfare/pension) are being basically terrorised by those scavenging on their stuff and property. These people are utterly defenceless and live in fear because they cannot have guns, and cannot really defend their property with legal means.
I cannot imagine laws allowing the defense of your property with even lethal weapons not helping with situations like that.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 04:18:04 AM
I cannot imagine laws allowing the defense of your property with even lethal weapons not helping with situations like that.
But UK and the US have always had a right to self-defence and defence of property.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 04:26:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 04:18:04 AM
I cannot imagine laws allowing the defense of your property with even lethal weapons not helping with situations like that.
But UK and the US have always had a right to self-defence and defence of property.
I just wanted that as an example that it is pretty easy to go too much the other way. And that there is/can be value in letting citizens have self-defense firearms
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 04:33:21 AM
I just wanted that as an example that it is pretty easy to go too much the other way. And that there is/can be value in letting citizens have self-defense firearms
Okay, yeah. I mean there's lots of reasons that some people should be able to have guns. In the UK farmers generally have guns for pest control - despite gun control I think there's still around 1.4 million weapons out there legally.
Though I'm not sure that in a situation like you describe in Hungary the best response would be to introduce guns.
You can't fight mounted archers without 'em.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2014, 02:56:36 AM(even ordinary applications of the Castle Doctrine do not seek to value or devalue human life)
Sure they do.
Speaking of Cops, my bro's department is issuing AR-15's to all the officers. :menace:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 06:06:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2014, 02:56:36 AM(even ordinary applications of the Castle Doctrine do not seek to value or devalue human life)
Sure they do.
Guns don't devalue human life. America does.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2014, 04:33:21 AM
I just wanted that as an example that it is pretty easy to go too much the other way. And that there is/can be value in letting citizens have self-defense firearms
One of the problems is, of course, that these people who buy firearms for self-defense are kinda dumb. They don't look at the total cost of ownership of a firearm. I don't remember the exact stats, but they are something along the lines of
(1) you are three times more likely to get shot if you own a gun than if you do not
(2) your children are four times as likely to die of gun violence (including accidents) if you own a gun than if you do not
(3) you are twice as likely to be shot by your own firearm than to shoot a home invader.
The problem is that average people are not properly terrified of owning guns, because they don't know just how dumb it is without the proper training, maintenance, and storage. That's not to say that guns don't defend some people some times, but mostly what "self-defense" does is give your kids the tools to accidentally off themselves (or your wife the tool to not-so-accidentally off you).
None of my points really addresses the kind of violence discussed in the OP, though, except in that firearms are romanticized in the US.
Quote from: grumbler on June 11, 2014, 06:42:42 AM
The problem is that average people are not properly terrified of owning guns, because they don't know just how dumb it is without the proper training, maintenance, and storage. That's not to say that guns don't defend some people some times, but mostly what "self-defense" does is give your kids the tools to accidentally off themselves (or your wife the tool to not-so-accidentally off you).
It's easier to rationalize fear of The Government or The Black Man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 06:09:08 AM
Speaking of Cops, my bro's department is issuing AR-15's to all the officers. :menace:
Hope they do it the right way and issue one to each officer. I heard of one county or department issuing one per car, so two partners have to share one. Must be fun trying to aim a rifle zeroed for someone else.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 04:13:53 PM
That's OK, Indiana did one better in 2012: Mitch Daniels allowed an amendment to the Castle Doctrine law, so residents are now permitted to use deadly force against police officers if they feel they are subject to an "unlawful intrusion." Supported by the NRA, of course.
Unnecessary-- cops never raid the wrong house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoCOXYiYM8g
The suspect is hatless, repeat, hatless
Officer McBain seems to have things under control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyANa71gvU
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 08:39:05 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 06:09:08 AM
Speaking of Cops, my bro's department is issuing AR-15's to all the officers. :menace:
Hope they do it the right way and issue one to each officer. I heard of one county or department issuing one per car, so two partners have to share one. Must be fun trying to aim a rifle zeroed for someone else.
One officer to a car/SUV. So everybody gets a rifle. :w00t:
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 08:39:05 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 06:09:08 AM
Speaking of Cops, my bro's department is issuing AR-15's to all the officers. :menace:
Hope they do it the right way and issue one to each officer. I heard of one county or department issuing one per car, so two partners have to share one. Must be fun trying to aim a rifle zeroed for someone else.
Only the sector's duty sergeant had the shotgun in his car. Not so much a need to zero out a Remington 870.
The SUV's the cops use now are bitchin'. A mobile war wagon. :)
I'm sure they come in handy in Ohio, the front line in Homeland Security.
We don't coddle our minorities.
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
While bleating out inspirational speeches out the speakers of Woody, Tressel and Urban. Eat that, Notre Dame boy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army.
"And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
Landmines will no longer be sufficient to keep the po-po from your home. :(
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army. "And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
I think the militarization of the police is ridiculous. We should be freaking out.
What is bizarre is that over the last 30 years, violent crime has dropped considerably, but we keep arming our cops with heavier and heavier weapons, putting them in body armor, using SWAT teams for routine search warrants, and creating this culture where the police see themselves as practically at war with the citizens. It is Orwellian.
And for what? What problem is being solved by all this? It is done under the auspices of "Homeland Security", but the local university getting a SWAT team isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack. Turning the police into a para-military organization doesn't serve any purpose I can think of, other than selling more toys, weapons, and bullshit military gear.
Are you serious or is that a troll?
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
I think the militarization of the police is ridiculous. We should be freaking out.
What is bizarre is that over the last 30 years, violent crime has dropped considerably, but we keep arming our cops with heavier and heavier weapons, putting them in body armor, using SWAT teams for routine search warrants, and creating this culture where the police see themselves as practically at war with the citizens. It is Orwellian.
And for what? What problem is being solved by all this? It is done under the auspices of "Homeland Security", but the local university getting a SWAT team isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack. Turning the police into a para-military organization doesn't serve any purpose I can think of, other than selling more toys, weapons, and bullshit military gear.
Lets not forget giving them all black uniforms. It is all the War on Drugs, and the money associate with it, driving this.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army. "And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
That's because it's silly and unnecessary.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army. "And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
I think the militarization of the police is ridiculous. We should be freaking out.
What is bizarre is that over the last 30 years, violent crime has dropped considerably, but we keep arming our cops with heavier and heavier weapons, putting them in body armor, using SWAT teams for routine search warrants, and creating this culture where the police see themselves as practically at war with the citizens. It is Orwellian.
And for what? What problem is being solved by all this? It is done under the auspices of "Homeland Security", but the local university getting a SWAT team isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack. Turning the police into a para-military organization doesn't serve any purpose I can think of, other than selling more toys, weapons, and bullshit military gear.
In the US, this seems counter-balanced by an increase in deep distrust aimed at the cops, and bizzare legislation like the one where you can shoot cops wrongfully entering your house without being punished.
It is all very odd and bizzare to an outsider.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army. "And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
That's because it's silly and unnecessary.
So you're one of *them* :hmm:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 10:07:21 AM
Are you serious or is that a troll?
Completely serious.
What I don't like is that there is zero public discourse on this. The police get more and more militarized gear, and nobody ever, at any point, asks anyone what it is for, why it is needed, or what justification there is for it.
Who gets to decide if the local police need assault rifles, and night vision gear and maybe an APC? Nobody asked me. Nobody asks anybody - it is just done, the police are all proud of their new para-military toys, and everyone is all "Man, that is so cool, the cops get AR-15s! And flash bangs!". But why?
Why do they need an AR-15 in every car? Is that the right way to spend our resources? Do we really need some more snipers on the police force? Is THAT the right way to spend those funds?
When you give someone a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. So you get these situations where someone says "Hey, if there is another Columbine around here, would we have a SWAT team capable of handling it? No? OK, lets get one!" So they do that, and they get a SWAT team at a more local level.
So now you have this SWAT team trained to handle a radical situation. Wonderful.
And they sit around and train and be all bad ass and we all feel "safer".
But hell, you've spent all this money on them and their armor and training and sub-machine guns. Seems a shame not to find some utility for them when they aren't stopping Eric Klebolds, right? So that warrant we would normally serve with regular cops? Why not use the SWAT team? It would be safer, right? Better armed, better trained, for those .01% of the situations where a search warrant goes bad? So lets use them!
So now we have an excessive amount of militarization being used in 100% of the time, to handle a case that might happen 0.01% of the time. And if we have a SWAT team, and the feds are offering to pay for training one or two of them as snipers, WTH? Why not, lets have a sniper element on our SWAT team! How cool is that!
"Land of the free, home of the brave". If we want liberty, at some point the "home of the brave" has to apply to people other than the military - it has to apply to just the regular citizens and even the regular police. At some point, we have to be willing to NOT trade some marginal, and often imaginary, increase in security for our free society. The police are the most immediate and closest link between citizens and the state - the lowest level where the states supposed monopoly on violence intersects with those that monopoly serves. Militarizing them is a bad, bad idea, IMO, and doing so ought to be justified with a clear need and an open dialogue, neither of which exists now.
No matter how cool the toys and gear might be...
Quote from: Malthus on June 11, 2014, 10:15:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 09:18:39 AM
I'd like to run over Seedy's jeep with Ohio State's MRAP.
I get a kick out of the freakouts on Facebook whenever one of my friends posts that their local PD got one of those as a hand me down from the Army. "And what exactly do they think they need *these* for???"
I think the militarization of the police is ridiculous. We should be freaking out.
What is bizarre is that over the last 30 years, violent crime has dropped considerably, but we keep arming our cops with heavier and heavier weapons, putting them in body armor, using SWAT teams for routine search warrants, and creating this culture where the police see themselves as practically at war with the citizens. It is Orwellian.
And for what? What problem is being solved by all this? It is done under the auspices of "Homeland Security", but the local university getting a SWAT team isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack. Turning the police into a para-military organization doesn't serve any purpose I can think of, other than selling more toys, weapons, and bullshit military gear.
In the US, this seems counter-balanced by an increase in deep distrust aimed at the cops, and bizzare legislation like the one where you can shoot cops wrongfully entering your house without being punished.
It is all very odd and bizzare to an outsider.
It is odd and bizarre behavior to insiders as well, at least to those who think beyond "Hey, the cops are getting new sniper rifles! How fucking cool is that? I wonder how they chamber those rounds?"
And what's the deal with those FEMA camps?
Quote
Why do they need an AR-15 in every car? Is that the right way to spend our resources? Do we really need some more snipers on the police force? Is THAT the right way to spend those funds?
When you give someone a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. So you get these situations where someone says "Hey, if there is another Columbine around here, would we have a SWAT team capable of handling it? No? OK, lets get one!" So they do that, and they get a SWAT team at a more local level.
So now you have this SWAT team trained to handle a radical situation. Wonderful.
Well your kind of all over the map, but I'll address the above.
Reason for carrying a Patrol Rifle:
1.
There's nothing like showing up to an active shooter scene and discovering all you have is your sidearm and maybe a shotgun. Remember #1.
2. The local agency's (remember I'm federal, we have heavier hardware) Mason Kitsap counties, Bremerton PD, Tacoma PD, etc, all carry patrol rifles. Semi auto versions of the M-4's.
3. You cant wait on SWAT to assemble in an active shooter situation.What you will have is a disaster and a bunch of dead people for sure. Most if not all departments, their patrol officers will arrive on scene and go immediately towards the shooter to neutralize him. Whether you have back up or not. This very important, because if the shooter is shooting at you, he's not actively shooting at the populace.
4. SWAT is mainly used now for barricaded suspects, hostage situations, high risk warrant arrests and the like. Wouldnt you like a few trained snipers in overwatch. I would.
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is. Police don't match force for force. i.e. If the suspect has a knife you dont confront him with an ASP and pepper spray. They exceed it and the top of the force continuum is firearms (deadly force). You get a shots fired call, you have no idea if the suspect has a pistol, .22, assault rifle, hunting rifle (which are more scary IMO), Barret .50, body armor, etc , you get the point.
6. We dont just train and prepare for what happens 97% of the time, It's that 3% of the time that if you dont plan for, that gets cops killed.
Apologies if anything sounded smarmy, not meant to be.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
6. We dont just train and prepare for what happens 97% of the time, It's that 3% of the time that if you dont plan for, that gets cops killed.
Of course on the flip-side when we set up dynamic of all citizens ("civilians"?) as potential enemy combatants, that's what gets ordinary folk killed unnecessarily.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
Are you saying that most of us don't keep rocket launchers under our beds? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2014, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
6. We dont just train and prepare for what happens 97% of the time, It's that 3% of the time that if you dont plan for, that gets cops killed.
Of course on the flip-side when we set up dynamic of all citizens ("civilians"?) as potential enemy combatants, that's what gets ordinary folk killed unnecessarily.
That's a horse shit statement.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
That is the problem with American gun laws. They allow people to have guns who are prepared to shoot first and ask questions later.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
You all are hopeless.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:08:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
You all are hopeless.
I am pretty sure Berkut hasnt lost hope that sanity will prevail.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
It's all bravado, until your either full of holes bleeding on the the floor or peeing yourself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
That is the problem with American gun laws. They allow people to have guns who are prepared to shoot first and ask questions later.
... and so, it is not surprising that the average cops have powerful rifles. They may be faced at any moment with derspiess, armed and ready to 'protect his property'.
It seems a bit of a vicious circle.
Quote from: Malthus on June 11, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:29:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 10:13:19 PM
If you or I make a mistake on the job we get a stern talking to.
When cops make a mistake - they deserve to die?!?
That's why you double-check the address. You bust into my house with guns drawn, I may not have enough time to figure out what is going on before I start shooting. Particularly if you do a shitty job announcing yourself.
That is the problem with American gun laws. They allow people to have guns who are prepared to shoot first and ask questions later.
... and so, it is not surprising that the average cops have powerful rifles. They may be faced at any moment with derspiess, armed and ready to 'protect his property'.
It seems a bit of a vicious circle.
Agreed. The US appears to be losing an internal war of mutual assured destruction.
Of course it is the 3% (or even sub 1%) that is the issue, and of course you have to train for that.
The problem is that we are not talking about 3% or 1%, we are talking about 0.01%. The odds of an "active shooter situation" where the need for snipers and machine guns is necessary are ridiculously remote. But we arm the cops as if it is likely, and they are so armed and so trained 100% of the time. So we create a culture of the police being this para-military organization, and we justify it by the need to be able to handle extreme situations that are simply not at all likely to actually occur.
Do they actually happen? Sure. We are a country of 300 million people, lots of bizarre shit is going to happen.
Who gets to decide what the right level of preparation for outlier situations ought to be, understanding that those decisions impact ALL situations? That those decisions impact the very culture that the police are there to protect to begin with?
If a police officer responding to some situation is not adequately trained, armed, or supported, it is the case that they may very well be killed as a result. Or they may allow others to be killed because of their inability to handle the circumstances.
But that is a trade off we have to make at times - that is what I mean by "land of the free, home of the brave". We as citizens have to, at some point, accept that in fact the police will NOT be able to protect us from every extreme corner case because we choose to live in a society where security is not the sole driving force behind our choices, that freedom and liberty are critical decisions as well, and a culture where our police are seen as partners and fellow citizens rather than healvily armed and armored para-military forces are part and parcel to that free society.
This goes beyond choices like how to arm the police - it also goes to choices about how we let the police protect us versus our own rights to privacy and freedom from undue process. We could all be more secure if we are willing to be less free.
My problem with the militarization of the police in the post-9/11 world is that it doesn't seem like that choice is being made by Americans in general, it is being made behind closed doors under the veil of "security", without input from those who are being told they must sacrifice their liberty to do so, and deal with a police force that seems less and less connected to the people it is serving.
To put it bluntly, I am willing to trade the lives of citizens and even police officers for maintaining the free and open society that I think defines America. We seem perfectly happy, we even celebrate, the "price of freedom" when it means dead soldiers in Afghanistan, but that price must be paid by not just soldiers, but by everyone in our society.
QuoteTo put it bluntly, I am willing to trade the lives of citizens and even police officers for maintaining the free and open society that I think defines America. We seem perfectly happy, we even celebrate, the "price of freedom" when it means dead soldiers in Afghanistan, but that price must be paid by not just soldiers, but by everyone in our society.
As long as your willing to trade yours too.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:24:38 AM
QuoteTo put it bluntly, I am willing to trade the lives of citizens and even police officers for maintaining the free and open society that I think defines America. We seem perfectly happy, we even celebrate, the "price of freedom" when it means dead soldiers in Afghanistan, but that price must be paid by not just soldiers, but by everyone in our society.
As long as your willing to trade yours too.
Absolutely. I am perfectly willing to accept that there may be a situation where the police were not able to stop something that results in a crime affecting me because we make a conscious choice to NOT have our police be a para-military force.
For that matter, that is a choice that effects me all the time - I've been the victim of crimes in the past, crimes that may very well have been prevented had I been willing to live in some Orwellian police state where the police are allowed to do things we don't allow them to do now or ever.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 10:15:46 AM
So you're one of *them* :hmm:
A community-based police officer? Not anymore, thankfully. Wouldn't want to take some rounds through the front door returning your lost dog to you. MAH PRIVATE PROPPURTY
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
I don't think that's why they all do it. Most of them seem to be suicides where they want to take out a few people with them. Thirty years ago, most of them would have just hung themselves or something.
I think people thirty years ago had more ability to recover their lives after reaching a point of desperation for some reason. Now, it's too easy to spoil your rep on social media or render yourself un-hireable with a silly mistake that back then would have been no big deal. Everything is magnified now, and that includes the desperation factor.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 11, 2014, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
I don't think that's why they all do it. Most of them seem to be suicides where they want to take out a few people with them. Thirty years ago, most of them would have just hung themselves or something.
I think people thirty years ago had more ability to recover their lives after reaching a point of desperation for some reason. Now, it's too easy to spoil your rep on social media or render yourself un-hireable with a silly mistake that back then would have been no big deal. Everything is magnified now, and that includes the desperation factor.
Thats a very good point. While all the world is a stage (and always has been) today's stage performances are premenantly archived for critics to review at any time of their choosing.
I've long thought the worst result from 9/11 was not the event itself, but the ridiculous overreaction afterwards. The standouts for me are the massive overreach by the federal government as far as online and phone information collection, the time wasting and mostly useless airport regulations, the massive amount of money spread around cities and states for "stopping terrorism" (of which the militarization of the police is part), increased secrecy for public utilities and government which is only going to lead to more corruption. There were some reasonable changes that were probably a hundredth of the total amount spent (beefing up in aircraft security and training being the biggest) but other countries that didn't have this response aren't collapsing under a wave of terrorist attacks. Perhaps we were a little too lax before 9/11, now we have the opposite problem.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
Don't buy into the hype. I've been in the room when the command staff's discussions regarding the procurement of overwrought and unnecessary equipment was based on 3 things:
1. It's a grant, so that means it's free.
2. Chief So-and-So has one, we need one too/Chief So-and-So doesnt have one? Ha!
3. It's "neat."
The LEO decision-making process isn't very complicated.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:03:17 AM
5. The supposed miltarization :tinfoil: of local police forces is in response not so much to the threat of a terrorist attack (alquida bands running around), but what the general capability of the local populace is.
That is not factually true. There is no way the local police departments would be spending money on this stuff as a matter of necessity or policy. They are pretty much all but forced to do so as the unintended consequence of certain federal policies.
Don't buy into the hype. I've been in the room when the command staff's discussions regarding the procurement of overwrought and unnecessary equipment was based on 3 things:
1. It's a grant, so that means it's free.
2. Chief So-and-So has one, we need one too/Chief So-and-So doesnt have one? Ha!
3. It's "neat."
The LEO decision-making process isn't very complicated.
and I've seen the exact opposite.
That's because you're not busy enough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 11:55:03 AM
That's because you're not busy enough.
tell that to BPD. But hey, use Berkut as a human shield. He doesnt mind. :P
Berkut's not a sworn police officer, so he has no reason to be shot by derspiess.
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
I've long thought the worst result from 9/11 was not the event itself, but the ridiculous overreaction afterwards. The standouts for me are the massive overreach by the federal government as far as online and phone information collection, the time wasting and mostly useless airport regulations, the massive amount of money spread around cities and states for "stopping terrorism" (of which the militarization of the police is part), increased secrecy for public utilities and government which is only going to lead to more corruption. There were some reasonable changes that were probably a hundredth of the total amount spent (beefing up in aircraft security and training being the biggest) but other countries that didn't have this response aren't collapsing under a wave of terrorist attacks. Perhaps we were a little too lax before 9/11, now we have the opposite problem.
What really sucks is that our reaction can be convincingly argued to be exactly what those who perpetrated the act would consider a victory for them.
If we really do believe that America is "special" in some fashion, then surely one of the key elements that makes us special is that which differentiates us from those who would commit such acts - our free, open, and transparent society founded on the basic premise of freedom of choice and a valuing of freedom over the control of the state. These stand in rather stark contrast to the values that those who form Al Quaeda value, which is strict conformity to an over-arching authority, and a totalitarian like moral and legal code that has no tolerance for, well, tolerance.
So our response to their act of terrorism was to show the world that yes, we are most certianly terrified, enough so that we are willing to abandon some of those very values that define us as different from those willing to do things like fly planes into buildings.
The best response we could have had to deter future acts would be to not change a god damned thing, at least not visibly.
You mean we shouldn't be turning our schools into high-security prison-campuses?
If Tarkin would only tighten his grip a little more... :P
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
It's all bravado, until your either full of holes bleeding on the the floor or peeing yourself.
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
It's all bravado, until your either full of holes bleeding on the the floor or peeing yourself.
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
And they were yelling "Police!". Yep
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
If they just burst in the front door? The chances of it being somebody besides the cops is pretty remote.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 01:16:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
If they just burst in the front door? The chances of it being somebody besides the cops is pretty remote.
Nah. better to engage in a gunfight. If the wife and kids get killed in the crossfire, that's just the price of FREEDUMB!
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
I think the militarization of the police is ridiculous. We should be freaking out.
Cato, unsurprisingly, have been on it for years:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america
http://www.cato.org/events/rise-warrior-cop-militarization-americas-police-forces
I agree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
It's all bravado, until your either full of holes bleeding on the the floor or peeing yourself.
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
And they were yelling "Police!". Yep
That was not my scenario.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
It's all bravado, until your either full of holes bleeding on the the floor or peeing yourself.
So would you just surrender if you had armed people break into your house & you weren't sure who they were?
And they were yelling "Police!". Yep
That was not my scenario.
If I had armed people break into my house chances are they would be the police and so my answer is still, Yep.
Even if they were not the police chances are if I tried to resist armed men breaking into my house either I, or more importantly, a member of my family would be injured or killed, so my answer is still, yep.
If I had armed people in my house there would be LOTS of screaming. I mean hell that happens when a houseguest overstays their welcome.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
If I had armed people break into my house chances are they would be the police and so my answer is still, Yep.
Really? The police are more likely to do that than criminals?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
If I had armed people in my house there would be LOTS of screaming. I mean hell that happens when a houseguest overstays their welcome.
Oh that never happens to me. I always make it clear from before their arrival regarding the date that I will throw their ass out.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
If I had armed people break into my house chances are they would be the police and so my answer is still, Yep.
Really? The police are more likely to do that than criminals?
Criminals generally try to be quiet or target a house with nobody in it when they break into someone's house. Announcing their presence and making a lot of noise (meaning that you know they are there) isn't good criminal style. So yes, if you are aware of someone breaking into your house chances are it is the police.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
If I had armed people break into my house chances are they would be the police and so my answer is still, Yep.
Really? The police are more likely to do that than criminals?
Yeah. Do you really think criminals are likely to enter a house in the same way the police do it? I suppose if that is true in your part of the world it explains your attitude on this subject.
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2014, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
If I had armed people in my house there would be LOTS of screaming. I mean hell that happens when a houseguest overstays their welcome.
Oh that never happens to me. I always make it clear from before their arrival regarding the date that I will throw their ass out.
I just start making less and less welcoming food.
'It's Thursday. I eat lentils. Deal.' <_<
:lol:
http://http://www.krem.com/news/local/Local-deputies-detain-wrong-guy-man-wants-apology-236486981.html (http://http://www.krem.com/news/local/Local-deputies-detain-wrong-guy-man-wants-apology-236486981.html)
Quote
SPOKANE COUNTY, Wash. -- A recent college graduate is waiting to hear the words "I'm sorry" from two Spokane County Sheriff's deputies.
Conner Guerrero said the deputies were sneaking around his house, forced him on his knees on his lawn, and handcuffed him in front of his neighbors.
But deputies had the wrong house and the wrong guy.
"Just trying to enjoy my evening. All the sudden, I see a flashlight shining through my doors..." said Guerrero. "I'm thinking this could be a dangerous situation for me."
Guerrero said he assumed the two men outside his house were burglars.
"I come over to my door and I slap it to say hey someone is in this house and they're not going to let you come in here."
He said he then got the scare of his life.
"Right as soon as I opened this door, and it's dark outside - it's very dark and all I can see is a pistol."
As Conner ran for cover, he heard a man yell 'Sheriff's Office' and asking him to come out. Guerrero said he immediately complied.
"I'm wondering why the hell is a gun being pointed at me right now!"
Conner said the deputies accused him of being an intruder on his own home.
"They directed me to take a knee, well both knees," he said. "The gun [was] still drawn.
The deputies then reportedly took his ID, proving Guerrero lived there.
But he claimed when the mistake was realized, he was the one apologizing while the deputy said something that gave him chills.
"'You're lucky I didn't [expletive] shoot you,'" Conner said.
He soon learned the deputies were responding to a report of a suspicious vehicle but went to the wrong house.
The Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich admitted the mistake.
"We went to the wrong house yes...after that they handled the call for what it was advised of," Knezovich said. "They showed up, it was a dark house, fresh tire tracks, they were looking for a burglar."
The Sheriff also said the way Guerrero reacted made the situation worse.
"You don't pound on a door, open it and slam it that way. Put yourself in the deputies' position," said Knezovich.
The Sheriff added that the Spokane County Sheriff's Office issued an apology to Guerrero. Guerrero said, however, he would not be satisfied until he received a personal apology from the two deputies.
Clearly, a shootout would be preferable to demanding an apology. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 11, 2014, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
I don't think that's why they all do it. Most of them seem to be suicides where they want to take out a few people with them. Thirty years ago, most of them would have just hung themselves or something.
I think people thirty years ago had more ability to recover their lives after reaching a point of desperation for some reason. Now, it's too easy to spoil your rep on social media or render yourself un-hireable with a silly mistake that back then would have been no big deal. Everything is magnified now, and that includes the desperation factor.
I doubt that. I believe Suicide rates were higher in the early 1990's then they are now, long before Facebook. Most of these are young men without criminal records and often aren't even out of school. I think dissatisfaction of their social life is a far bigger factor. However the difference is that instead of just quietly killing themselves they decided to take out the people they blame for their predicament with them.
What's so bad about an Orwellian police state, anyway?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 02:28:57 PM
Yeah. Do you really think criminals are likely to enter a house in the same way the police do it? I suppose if that is true in your part of the world it explains your attitude on this subject.
Not a house, but yeah. (http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-Police-impersonators-using-fake-raids-to-rob-illegal-game-rooms-135144963.html)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2014, 03:11:38 PM
What's so bad about an Orwellian police state, anyway?
I'm watching you eat your pop tarts.
Quote from: Malthus on June 11, 2014, 02:55:22 PM
Clearly, a shootout would be preferable to demanding an apology. :)
QuoteBut he claimed when the mistake was realized, he was the one apologizing while the deputy said something that gave him chills.
"'You're lucky I didn't [expletive] shoot you,'" Conner said.
Context, people, context.
"No really...you're lucky I didn't fucking shoot you. I mean, what with the dark and all. That would've been awful! Whew!"
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 03:01:22 PM
I doubt that. I believe Suicide rates were higher in the early 1990's then they are now, long before Facebook. Most of these are young men without criminal records and often aren't even out of school. I think dissatisfaction of their social life is a far bigger factor. However the difference is that instead of just quietly killing themselves they decided to take out the people they blame for their predicament with them.
Slightly higher, but the rate has been relatively flat since 1960. There has been an uptick in the past few years that is barely noticeable on the chart, since the chart stops at 2011.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 02:33:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2014, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
If I had armed people in my house there would be LOTS of screaming. I mean hell that happens when a houseguest overstays their welcome.
Oh that never happens to me. I always make it clear from before their arrival regarding the date that I will throw their ass out.
I just start making less and less welcoming food.
'It's Thursday. I eat lentils. Deal.' <_<
The American approach; the British approach. :D
British approach wouldn't work on me. "Ooh free eats!".
Then I'd probably just change the locks, close the curtains and pretend I'm not in for a few days/weeks.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 03:24:54 PM
British approach wouldn't work on me. "Ooh free eats!".
Actually my youngest sister would probably continue to stay as well. I was very concerned when I learned that sometimes she just ate lentils as a meal...
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 11, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2014, 03:11:38 PM
What's so bad about an Orwellian police state, anyway?
I'm watching you eat your pop tarts.
I ran out. :(
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 11, 2014, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 02:28:57 PM
Yeah. Do you really think criminals are likely to enter a house in the same way the police do it? I suppose if that is true in your part of the world it explains your attitude on this subject.
Not a house, but yeah. (http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-Police-impersonators-using-fake-raids-to-rob-illegal-game-rooms-135144963.html)
Great, so now Americans like Spicey are going to shoot people that look like police officers on the off chance they are not actually whom they claim to be.
I'd like to hear Eric Clapton's opinion on this matter.
I thought Clapton's issue was people leaving the home, not people forcing their way into it.
I'd like to hear Ted Nugent's opinion on this matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 06:39:06 PM
I thought Clapton's issue was people leaving the home, not people forcing their way into it.
Oh man, I dont think that is something to joke about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 03:25:39 PM
Then I'd probably just change the locks, close the curtains and pretend I'm not in for a few days/weeks.
Yeah. After a month or two I'd probably get the message.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2014, 06:39:06 PM
I thought Clapton's issue was people leaving the home, not people forcing their way into it.
Oh man, I dont think that is something to joke about.
Don't gimme that, it's been 25 years. As a celebrity child, chances are he'd have OD'd by now anyway.
Or fell into Tommy Lee's pool.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 12:35:50 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
I've long thought the worst result from 9/11 was not the event itself, but the ridiculous overreaction afterwards. The standouts for me are the massive overreach by the federal government as far as online and phone information collection, the time wasting and mostly useless airport regulations, the massive amount of money spread around cities and states for "stopping terrorism" (of which the militarization of the police is part), increased secrecy for public utilities and government which is only going to lead to more corruption. There were some reasonable changes that were probably a hundredth of the total amount spent (beefing up in aircraft security and training being the biggest) but other countries that didn't have this response aren't collapsing under a wave of terrorist attacks. Perhaps we were a little too lax before 9/11, now we have the opposite problem.
What really sucks is that our reaction can be convincingly argued to be exactly what those who perpetrated the act would consider a victory for them.
If we really do believe that America is "special" in some fashion, then surely one of the key elements that makes us special is that which differentiates us from those who would commit such acts - our free, open, and transparent society founded on the basic premise of freedom of choice and a valuing of freedom over the control of the state. These stand in rather stark contrast to the values that those who form Al Quaeda value, which is strict conformity to an over-arching authority, and a totalitarian like moral and legal code that has no tolerance for, well, tolerance.
So our response to their act of terrorism was to show the world that yes, we are most certianly terrified, enough so that we are willing to abandon some of those very values that define us as different from those willing to do things like fly planes into buildings.
The best response we could have had to deter future acts would be to not change a god damned thing, at least not visibly.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2FRandom%2520forum%2520crap%2F2uf3v2b.jpg&hash=885d80984652642731c1db76adc0af20ab3634b4) (http://s195.photobucket.com/user/sbr32/media/Random%20forum%20crap/2uf3v2b.jpg.html)
They do stone gays. :P