Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: At least three police officers killed by snipers during Dallas protest, chief says
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Quote: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.
Got to give him credit though...He does provide some well thought out spin, unlike the message board ankle biter Adam2012.
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. 
Humans aren't like this. We've been turned into this, slowly conditioned over the course of decades to go from a people capable of intelligent discourse to one that believes violence is the only way to deal with an uncomfortable situation, resolve your concerns or get your point across. It's going to take a long time to fix this, but the first step is to chase the demagogues who've been taking us down this path, and the ones who currently fan the flames for personal gain, away from positions of power. The oligarchy of fear created by political dynasties like the Clinton and Bush families and perpetuated by reality TV stars like Trump and agenda-driven manipulators in disguise like Obama is what has you thinking that the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments can't coexist, and there's where your logic is flawed deeply: they coexisted for centuries. Everything over the last 50 years, from the Cold War to the Civil Rights movement, the war on drugs, the war on terror, 9/11, Boston, Paris, Dallas, even Supreme Court decisions on abortion, gay marriage, they're all somewhere between false flags designed to drive us apart and convenient coincidences capitalized upon by those perpetuating their power.

 

How? Because the "news" media is complicit. They're accessories to it, knowingly or not, when they inject political commentary into the reporting that should just be presentation of the facts. You could go back to the days of William Randolph Hearst for that. Yellow journalism of the type we see today directly manipulated the US into the Spanish-American War. "Safety" videos in the 1950's about how to protect yourself from an atomic bomb detonation were thinly-veiled propaganda designed to promote xenophobia. The war on drugs involved the creation and distribution of crack throughout African-American communities to increase crime in those areas and drive a wedge between "them" and "us". The carefully crafted reaction to, possibly the carrying out of, the 9/11 attacks just to make sure Americans remembered that Islam is a "religion of war and hate". All the politicians of today are doing is capitalizing on the fever pitch and bringing things to a head so that the very few at the very top can get what they've been after for decades: martial law, suspension of the Constitution in the interest of "national security", a police state and, most importantly, total and unchallenged control.

 

It's on us to stop them. That's what the right to vote is all about. How do you influence people to vote these monsters out of office? The First Amendment. What protects those utilizing the First Amendment from being harassed out of existence? The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth. What recourse do we have if a tyrant strips us of those rights? The Second Amendment. It all goes together. By driving us apart, they take away our willingness to work together and keep them from gaining total control in a democratic fashion. By teaching us to fear one another, they increase our willingness to surrender the Fourth Amendment and prompt people to feel the need to be armed to protect themselves from each other. By taking away the Fourth Amendment, they're free to search anyone, anytime, any place, for any reason. If they get their hands on the Second Amendment, they'll be able to systematically disarm us by forced searches on the street and forced entry into our homes. Without arms, instituting martial law by force would be as easy as child's play.

 

We can't lose guns. The First Amendment isn't what holds the Constitution together. It's the Second. I see that now; I finally get it. Everything else in the Constitution is a bunch of words, written under the assumption that we'd all have enough sense to remember what they mean. We don't. The Second Amendment is the only true balance that the Constitution gives us to protect ourselves from tyranny. I'm not advocating violence against police, government, fellow humans, any of that. I think guns are a terrible necessity, but they are a necessity. If the Second Amendment is taken away, what's to stop a true dictator from seizing power and taking everything else?
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. 
 

What makes you think we'll "deal with this"?

 

We as a society have decided - we're not going to do anything. We're willing to put up with the periodic bloodshed and just hope it's not our time. We're not demanding our politicians do anything. Yes, you have the hyperbole on one side (see TJ's comments about tyranny, etc.; see all the police apologists; see all the yahoos like Sarah Palin blame the victims.

 

The people who are being abused can't do anything about it. The rest us us hide behind our gates and bemoan the drift of society and don't demand any action.

 

Seems to me we'll just continue to drift.

 

Quote:Got to give him credit though...He does provide some well thought out spin, unlike the message board ankle biter Adam2012.
 

You, on the other hand are clearly a Mensa member who hasn't quite lived up to the code. Have you always been this insecure? Probably.
Quote: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.
I think it's time for folks to just agree to disagree and let it go. He's not going to change his mind and neither are the rest of us.
Quote:Yeah, but this guy was scum even while in the service.
True, but it's not truth that just because a guy was Over There he's got PTSD. It's a broad statement that is unfair. My now ex-husband went to Iraq and though he has some difficulties readjusting stateside initially, he has no lingering effects and he was an MP who was involved in many missions. That's all I'm saying. 
Quote:What makes you think we'll "deal with this"?


We as a society have decided - we're not going to do anything. We're willing to put up with the periodic bloodshed and just hope it's not our time. We're not demanding our politicians do anything. Yes, you have the hyperbole on one side (see TJ's comments about tyranny, etc.; see all the police apologists; see all the yahoos like Sarah Palin blame the victims.


The people who are being abused can't do anything about it. The rest us us hide behind our gates and bemoan the drift of society and don't demand any action.


Seems to me we'll just continue to drift.



You, on the other hand are clearly a Mensa member who hasn't quite lived up to the code. Have you always been this insecure? Probably.

HaHa...On cue. Down little buddy, down!

Quote: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.
 

The guy was targeting cops, specially white cops. That's not spin, that's reality.  LOL, sorry, that's how I see it.   I'm in the minority on this message board, but that's my perception.

 

At the end of the day, if you want to say that this PTSD vet was racially motivated, fine.  But let's face facts here, the overall protests are peaceful, and this killer's actions does not mean there is a race war that is beginning.  The protests are not about whites versus blacks, it's about police brutality.
Quote:The guy was targeting cops, specially white cops. That's not spin, that's reality.  LOL, sorry, that's how I see it.   I'm in the minority on this message board, but that's my perception.

 

At the end of the day, if you want to say that this PTSD vet was racially motivated, fine.  But let's face facts here, the overall protests are peaceful, and this killer's actions does not mean there is a race war that is beginning.  The protests are not about whites versus blacks, it's about police brutality.
 

What do you mean "if you want to say it?" The guy said he wanted to kill white people.

 

BLM protests have been filmed saying, "WHAT DO WE WANT?! DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!" Yes, very peaceful.

Once again the event stinks to high heaven.  Initial reports from the police said multiple snipers using triangulation and military tactics.  Other reports of 2 people in a black SUV taken into custody and not cooperating with police.  We have the shooter at ground level killing a cop behind a pillar and then somehow he got more than a block away, 6 stories up in a parking garage. 

 

But within a few days we're all reduced to speculating about the ONE shooter who conveniently died in the fracas.  We're told all the things he allegedly said to negotiators and we take it as gospel.  It all conveniently fits an agenda.  The criminality of Hillary, Lynch and Comey was dominating the news cycle.  Now not a peep about it.  Oh, and guns.  We get to hear Obama scold us like naughty children again because we're too stupid to give up these dangerous killing machines.

 

Meanwhile every cop in America is isolated and trigger happy.  And everyone ever pulled over for DWB thinks now it's payback time.  Trump rallies are getting more violent and BLM has a plan to shut down the Republican Convention.  Great little summer cauldron brewing. 

BLM is nothing more than an agitating force looking for a fuse to light.  Sorry, but when peaceful protests like the rally in Phoenix where protestors threw rocks at police and said they should shoot them, they're doing themselves no favors. 

 

What will eventually happen here is that police, out of fear for being ambushed, or just because they don't want to be accused of doing something untoward, won't respond to calls in a timely manner.  They'll basically just put their hands up and say they've had enough.  They'll suddenly become afflicted with the blue flu, and they won't come in.  It's already happening in liberal utopias like Chicago where thugs run a large portion of the city, and police barely dare to enter these no go zones to do any sort of law enforcement. 

 

 

Despite the animosity directed at cops at rallies around the country, these folks are still out there trying to keep the peace and protect people from things like we saw in Dallas.  Meanwhile, they're being shouted at, spat upon, threatened, and in some cases attacked.  There are multiple reports from around the country since Dallas of police being attacked by someone who used the shootings in LA and MN as their justification. 

 

I don't know how those in law enforcement can continue to do their jobs when you've got people like some in this very discussion who are constantly calling them pigs, or worse.  They're dealing with people who would just as soon shoot them as get another mark on their record.  While there are bad apples among law enforcement, 99.99% of police are good people doing a difficult job.  They don't deserve the kind of vitriol we're seeing right now.  As a friend of mine who is a cop here in Jacksonville told me, after doing the job for 25 years, the time has come to retire because of how things have changed.  Even routine traffic stops have become high risk because they just don't know what they're likely to face when they walk up to that car.  That wasn't always the case.  So, this cop, a good cop, btw, is retiring because it's just gotten too dangerous to do the job safely. 
Quote:What do you mean "if you want to say it?" The guy said he wanted to kill white people.


BLM protests have been filmed saying, "WHAT DO WE WANT?! DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!" Yes, very peaceful.


BLM protesters are nothing but terrorists.. Nothing more, nothing less..
Quote:BLM protesters are nothing but terrorists.. Nothing more, nothing less..
 

Funded by George Soros.
Quote:BLM protesters are nothing but terrorists.. Nothing more, nothing less..
Thats exactly the picture the media wants too paint... Tell me if Blm are terrorist , what are the police?


You should study up.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/kkk-has-infiltrated-us-police-departments-decades'>http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/kkk-has-infiltrated-us-police-departments-decades</a>
Quote:I'm not sure who TA is (as I said, I haven't read every post), but when a black man says he wants to kill white people, especially white cops, how is it not both racial and anti-cop?
 

I'm just a dude from New Mexico...  I'm just trying to get down to the truth and not willing to accept the current narrative that is out there.  

 

I've been honestly answering questions thrown at me.  I've said that the guy said he hates whites and he hates cops.  But...  Based on what we are being told by the Dallas police, the shooter said his motivation was police brutality, his hatred for whites and his hatred for cops.  

 

I've been saying it's both for this entire topic.  I'm not sure how I'm being labeled as intellectually dishonest.  I am just looking at the results of his clearly unstable mind and find that the the motivations are 3.

 

The recent police brutality against blacks.

His hatred for Whites

His Hatred for Cops.

 

To me, the main motivator is authority, his secondary motivator is race.  But is it really that important, at the end of the day?  NO.  The dude was crazy.  My opinion may not be popular, but the I've never said anything that is disengenuous.  I'm just stating my point of view.

 

Quote:Yeah, that's how I see it too. The_Anchorman is TA.
 

So why are you trying to disagree with me?  I've been saying the same thing as well.  My focus is on the systemic breakdown of the institution as the authority in "peacekeeping".  But I've mentioned in every thread that the dude, who's clearly got a screw loose, also was targeting white people because of his racial motivation.

 

It's merely my position that his anger towards the cops was a higher driving factor than his hatred for whites.  Otherwise, he'd have taken shots at any white dude that walked through his cross hairs.  

 

You may disagree with me, but you cannot call my position "spin" or intellectually dishonest.  We all have different points of view, I'm just explaining mine in as honest way as I can.
@ The_Anchorman

 

Suppose I said I hate Black and I hate cops and targeted Black Cops

 

You would immediately label me a racist

 

The Shooter is Dallas was a Black Power Racist plain and simple

Quote:It's merely my position that his anger towards the cops was a higher driving factor than his hatred for whites.  Otherwise, he'd have taken shots at any white dude that walked through his cross hairs.  

 
 

You could turn that around and say that since he didn't take any shots at black cops*, that race was a higher driving factor.


 

*or did he? The story is still rather vague at this point. Are you sure he never targeted a white civilian? How many white civilians were present at the protest? I'd guess that a large majority of the protesters were black. If that's the case then maybe he just never got the opportunity to target a white civilian.

From what I understand, there were open carriers at the Dallas shooting.


How come they didn't kill the guy since there was enough good guys with guns to kill this bad guy with a gun?


Blows a hole in that theory.
Apparently Dallas PD has the area surrounding their HQ on lock down due to new threats.
Quote:Thats exactly the picture the media wants too paint... Tell me if Blm are terrorist , what are the police?


You should study up.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/kkk-has-infiltrated-us-police-departments-decades'>http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/kkk-has-infiltrated-us-police-departments-decades</a>



I don't use the media to base my opinion, I use my brain and my eyes..
Can you please stop arguing about what kind of person the shooter was based on unverified and unverifiable statements passed through 2nd and 3rd parties?  Lunging at this kind of bait is exactly what they want. 

 

Those cops that died in Dallas are just about the least celebrated heroes in history.  CBS ran a special on Friday, but barely mentioned the tragedy in Dallas before running long segments about Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.  Obama did not name any of the victims in Dallas but specifically named Sterling and Castile.  He pretended to be ignorant of facts in the Castile case, specifically so he could blame THE GUN for Castile's death: 

 

"In Minneapolis, we don't know yet what happened, but we do know that there was a gun in the car that apparently was licensed, but it caused, in some fashion, those tragic events."

 

Obama knows the gun was not licensed.  The County Sheriff has said so.  But Obama's trying to make the case that the presence of a lawful citizen with a licensed gun and permit was the CAUSE of the tragedy.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18