Quote:For what it's worth:
According to ABC News,,
"Police said Johnson told hostage negotiators that he was angry about recent fatal shootings of black men by police elsewhere in the United States and that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers."
abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-ambush-shooting-planned-thought-suspects-police-learned/story?id=40422456
-angry about fatal shootings of black men
-wanted to kill white people
-especially police officers
Take that how you will. I understand it to be:
1)Vengeful
2)Racial
3)Authority-Targeting (police)
in that order.
Side note- I also read there was an officer shot in Missouri today, which was thought to be motivated by Dallas/Minn/Louisiana. And also a shooting incident in Tenn motivated by the same. (ABC News articles linked to the above story)
This is a terrible situation getting even worse.
The shooting in TN was a mile from my house and we didn't even know that was his motive until today.
My father-in-law is a deputy and we watched the two videos. In the Castile case, he says that without video of what happened before the shooting, it's hard to say. The officer clearly says he asked him not to reach and he proceeded to anyway. Without a beginning video it's a he said/she said thing and most likely just an unfortunate accident.
In the Sterling video, he doesn't know how the officers are going to get away with that one. With the man flat on his back, unarmed, and two of them on top of him, shooting him was unnecessary and they'll more than likely be convicted of something.
I have a weird view, since I have family in law enforcement yet have some very liberal views. I can see these from a lot of angles. If there's one thing I take from these to prevent future problems, it's mandatory implementation of body cameras that don't "accidentally" stop working. In my father in law's County they don't use cameras at all because they're expensive. They don't even have dash cams.
Quote:Is that not what the hell I said?
Anchorman is saying that this wasn't a race issue.
I'm saying that race was certainly a factor.
It sounded like you were defending Anchorman's stance.
Quote:This is a terrible situation getting even worse.
This is the march towards martial law. Confiscation of firearms, warrantless searches and seizures, suspension of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, restriction of movement and government intrusion and forced control into every aspect of our lives. Obama, Clinton and Trump must be pitching tents right now.
Quote:The shooting in TN was a mile from my house and we didn't even know that was his motive until today.
My father-in-law is a deputy and we watched the two videos. In the Castile case, he says that without video of what happened before the shooting, it's hard to say. The officer clearly says he asked him not to reach and he proceeded to anyway. Without a beginning video it's a he said/she said thing and most likely just an unfortunate accident.
In the Sterling video, he doesn't know how the officers are going to get away with that one. With the man flat on his back, unarmed,
and two of them on top of him, shooting him was unnecessary and they'll more than likely be convicted of something.
I have a weird view, since I have family in law enforcement yet have some very liberal views. I can see these from a lot of angles. If there's one thing I take from these to prevent future problems, it's mandatory implementation of body cameras that don't "accidentally" stop working. In my father in law's County they don't use cameras at all because they're expensive. They don't even have dash cams.
Having lived in Kingsport as recently as May for a assignment I was shocked to see that there was a shooting in Bristol. I mean of all the places. The Tri-cities isn't exactly big.
Edit: Sterling was armed. He had a gun, and it was on the side of the arm you can't see in the video. FYI
Quote:The interesting thing about this debate is that if you look at the actual statistics, I suppose white people should be out there protesting that white lives matter.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler'>The Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism, is tracking police related killings. Numbers don't lie.</a>
Im curious in her data why didnt she give any examples of the whites that were killed by police. How credible is she and this website.. I can come up with a article days after killings and makeup whatever, doesnt mean its true.
Quote:For what it's worth:
According to ABC News,,
"Police said Johnson told hostage negotiators that he was angry about recent fatal shootings of black men by police elsewhere in the United States and that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers."
abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-ambush-shooting-planned-thought-suspects-police-learned/story?id=40422456
-angry about fatal shootings of black men
-wanted to kill white people
-especially police officers
Take that how you will. I understand it to be:
1)Vengeful
2)Racial
3)Authority-Targeting (police)
in that order.
Side note- I also read there was an officer shot in Missouri today, which was thought to be motivated by Dallas/Minn/Louisiana. And also a shooting incident in Tenn motivated by the same. (ABC News articles linked to the above story)
This is a terrible situation getting even worse.
When did police have time to have a conversation with the shooters? Was it when the bullets stop? Or after they blew him up? Dont believe everything the media and these lying cops say.. And how could they identify a man that had just been killed by a bomb in less then 24 hrs anyway, was he carrying id? All of this seems staged and fishy..
Quote:I didn't think I even had to weigh in on this one. If someone says that he wants to kill white cops, clearly race is a factor. Not the only factor, but a big one.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear? He said he hated whites and he hated cops but he focused on cops. So yes, as I think I've stated before, the guy (a very disturbed vet who more than likely has some PTSD ailments of one kind or another) had a racial bias.
I don't think I'm insane for thinking the main issue here was a hatred of the cops, and not his hatred for whites. The thing that caused him to go out and kill (whites)/cops is the police brutality over the previous 2 days. If it was a solely racial thing for him, he could have done his attacks targeting any random whites he saw at any time prior to this event.
I mean, am I losing my mind? Yes, he hates whites too. But he targeted cops. To me, that means the main issue here isn't race, it's the police.
LOL, I guess I'm the only one on this one. I think I'm just doing a poor job of trying to explain what I'm thinking on this topic.
It's really simple. He said WHITE people, not just people. He said WHITE cops, not just cops. Dude was clearly a bigot. Another thing, Every prior service member that saw combat does not suffer from PTSD. So please quit throwing that out there. This dude was a black power nut bag, plain and simple. That day he decided to let his anger towards whites result in their deaths and at the same time facilitated his own suicide by cops. Pure coward.
Quote:Having lived in Kingsport as recently as May for a assignment I was shocked to see that there was a shooting in Bristol. I mean of all the places. The Tri-cities isn't exactly big.
Edit: Sterling was armed. He had a gun, and it was on the side of the arm you can't see in the video. FYI
Yeah when I moved to Bristol I kind of expected less stuff like that.
And I had heard the 2 officers had disarmed Sterling before that point. If he did still have it, that changes things
Quote:Maybe I'm not making myself clear? He said he hated whites and he hated cops but he focused on cops. So yes, as I think I've stated before, the guy (a very disturbed vet who more than likely has some PTSD ailments of one kind or another) had a racial bias.
I don't think I'm insane for thinking the main issue here was a hatred of the cops, and not his hatred for whites. The thing that caused him to go out and kill (whites)/cops is the police brutality over the previous 2 days. If it was a solely racial thing for him, he could have done his attacks targeting any random whites he saw at any time prior to this event.
I mean, am I losing my mind? Yes, he hates whites too. But he targeted cops. To me, that means the main issue here isn't race, it's the police.
LOL, I guess I'm the only one on this one. I think I'm just doing a poor job of trying to explain what I'm thinking on this topic.
Yes you are the only one that doesn't think race was an issue.
The world is full of people with grievances. Whether it's militia in Montana, or fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, or this nut in Dallas, it seems like more and more people have powerful grievances and are willing to take out weapons and do something illegal, immoral, and stupid.
To me, the question is, if people want to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st Amendment, how do we stop this without heavy surveillance of everyone? It seems like we're going to have to make a choice between the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment. If everyone has a right to own guns, and everyone has the right to free speech, then we will have to do away with the 4th Amendment and closely watch everyone all the time. Because the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the ability to kill a lot of people before the police can react to it, and the 1st Amendment gives everyone the right to incite these crazy people.
Really, bottom line, the 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you want, the 2nd Amendment says you can own guns, and the 4th Amendment protects you from warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretapping. So the BIG question is, can the Constitution survive with all these weapons and crazy people? It seems like it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to deal with this stuff and still adhere to the Constitution.
Quote:The world is full of people with grievances. Whether it's militia in Montana, or fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, or this nut in Dallas, it seems like more and more people have powerful grievances and are willing to take out weapons and do something illegal, immoral, and stupid.
To me, the question is, if people want to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st Amendment, how do we stop this without heavy surveillance of everyone? It seems like we're going to have to make a choice between the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment. If everyone has a right to own guns, and everyone has the right to free speech, then we will have to do away with the 4th Amendment and closely watch everyone all the time. Because the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the ability to kill a lot of people before the police can react to it, and the 1st Amendment gives everyone the right to incite these crazy people.
Really, bottom line, the 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you want, the 2nd Amendment says you can own guns, and the 4th Amendment protects you from warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretapping. So the BIG question is, can the Constitution survive with all these weapons and crazy people? It seems like it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to deal with this stuff and still adhere to the Constitution.
Pretty sqewed point of view. The common denominator when talking about the Bill of Rights is people. People have the cognetive ability to calculate, process, and adjust. Whether words were written over 200 years ago or now, people will calculate, process, and adjust. You may be missing the overriding intent of the setup of a Republic under these words. Giving up the freedom to be people is never the answer. It would be interesting to hear how you believe strict surveillance will prevent crime.
Quote:I'm not playing lawyer ball here, but it's kinda important to point out that the qualifier is white, but the noun was cop. Whether he said he hated whites, or he hated cops, or he hated white cops, the action verifies that his primary targets were cops.
The fact that they were white is also important. But if this was soley a racist act, then why just go after cops??? I mean, it's common sense, right?
Am I missing something? I'm catching flack from a few other posters by pointing this fact out, and they respond with incredulity. Can you help me understand the disconnect, Americus?
He went after WHITE COPS because he was angry about the recent WHITE COPS who shot the BLACK MEN. I'm not sure how much more clearly it needs to be spelled out.
Quote:Maybe I'm not making myself clear? He said he hated whites and he hated cops but he focused on cops. So yes, as I think I've stated before, the guy (a very disturbed vet who more than likely has some PTSD ailments of one kind or another) had a racial bias.
I don't think I'm insane for thinking the main issue here was a hatred of the cops, and not his hatred for whites. The thing that caused him to go out and kill (whites)/cops is the police brutality over the previous 2 days. If it was a solely racial thing for him, he could have done his attacks targeting any random whites he saw at any time prior to this event.
I mean, am I losing my mind? Yes, he hates whites too. But he targeted cops. To me, that means the main issue here isn't race, it's the police.
LOL, I guess I'm the only one on this one. I think I'm just doing a poor job of trying to explain what I'm thinking on this topic.
I agree somewhat, cops were the primary target, if his primary target were
just whites then he'd have killed more targets of opportunity.
It will be interesting to see how this administration will twist gun control now. Turns out the weapon utilized was an antique wood stocked SKS with non-detachable mag. In other words, not a scary "assault weapon" and would be legal in New York, California, or any other "common sense gun control" state.
Quote:These cops were killed because they were cops.
If it was only a race issue, then he would not have targeted cops specifically.
All you do is spin. If something isn't 100% in line with your point of view, you try to change it to fit it.
That guy was targeting white people, specifically cops.
Quote:QFT.
Yeah, but this guy was scum even while in the service.