BREAKING: Shooting at Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, TX - Please SOURCE your updates. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50675514]obligatory that website is unofficial and does not represent the views of people who support the black lives matter movement[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][IMG]http://puu.sh/pUOJT/e1bca58c9b.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://puu.sh/pUOOn/7642b5ec3a.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] It says this is the official organization...?

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;50676541]It says this is the official organization...?[/QUOTE] And I'm the official king of facepunch. They're as official as those guys who make YouTube videos for anonymous.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50676538]You do know that was a single guy and not an organized event?[/QUOTE] You mean like the organized blockade of a pride parade?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50676553]And I'm the official king of facepunch. They're as official as those guys who make YouTube videos for anonymous.[/QUOTE] Except that these women speak on behalf of the entire movement officially. [url]http://www.essence.com/2016/07/08/black-lives-matter-co-founder-alicia-garza-philando-castile-alton-sterling[/url] And they actually founded the organization. People who make videos on behalf of Anonymous did not found the organization.

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;50676541]It says this is the official organization...?[/QUOTE] It is the official organization. Now tell me, do they have the ability to tell Twitter and Facebook who can post what on the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag? They don't. BLM extends [I]far[/I] beyond the official organization - their views are not representative of the views of everyone who supports BLM. The majority of BLM protests aren't even organized by BLM chapters (who are effectively independent of the main organization other than branding), because BLM chapters don't even exist in the many of the cities where protests take place. [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mooman1080;50676556]You mean like the organized blockade of a pride parade?[/QUOTE] Which I've openly criticized in the past - BLM Toronto has some absolute nutcases leading it, and should be ashamed for diluting the message of BLM.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50676574]It is the official organization. Now tell me, do they have the ability to tell Twitter and Facebook who can post what on the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag? They don't. BLM extends [I]far[/I] beyond the official organization - their views are not representative of the views of everyone who supports BLM. The majority of BLM protests aren't even organized by BLM chapters (who are effectively independent of the main organization other than branding), because BLM chapters don't even exist in the many of the cities where protests take place. [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] Which I've openly criticized in the past - BLM Toronto has some absolute nutcases leading it, and should be ashamed for diluting the message of BLM.[/QUOTE] I never said it represented the views of everyone who supports the idea of Black Lives Matter, however, having untruthful, official statements from an organization that appears to represent the movement most certainly skews any sort of rationality from its premise.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50676527][url]http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/08/dallas-police-protest-shooting/[/url] Shooter was using an SKS along with a yet to be identified handgun. For those who don't know US gunlaws an SKS doesn't qualify an assault weapon across all states. It has a fixed 10 round magazine, however it can be modified to use higher capacity magazines that are iffy on reliability and can't really be changed quickly.[/QUOTE] SKSs are quiet an easy firearm to come across also. They can be pretty much bought at any gunshop in the country because of how plentiful they were after trade relations warmed up between China and the United States.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50676527][url]http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/08/dallas-police-protest-shooting/[/url] Shooter was using an SKS along with a yet to be identified handgun. For those who don't know US gunlaws an SKS doesn't qualify an assault weapon across all states. It has a fixed 10 round magazine, however it can be modified to use higher capacity magazines that are iffy on reliability and can't really be changed quickly.[/QUOTE] Oh come on, the SKS is one of my favourites. Go figure he had to use something I actually liked.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50676627]SKSs are quiet an easy firearm to come across also. They can be pretty much bought at any gunshop in the country because of how plentiful they were after trade relations warmed up between China and the United States.[/QUOTE] There's a small trend right now to purchase one.

CNN will prolly report it as an AK47 style rifle to push their agenda

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50676746]CNN will prolly report it as an AK47 style rifle to push their agenda[/QUOTE] Or just call it an assault style rifle because it's the catch all buzzword

[QUOTE=Quark:;50677101]Or just call it an assault style rifle because it's the catch all buzzword[/QUOTE] cnn assault weapon checklist: - shoots bullets

someone keeps telling me that if it continues to get worse, the us will enter martial law someone reassure me that he's an idiot

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50677105]cnn assault weapon checklist: - shoots bullets[/QUOTE] every gun with black plastic parts is an "assault rifle 15" and every pistol is a glock

[QUOTE=Solomon;50677167]someone keeps telling me that if it continues to get worse, the us will enter martial law someone reassure me that he's an idiot[/QUOTE] considering that the 60s had multiple race riots with 30-50 deaths and hundreds or even thousands of injuries per riot, and martial law was never declared, you really don't have to worry

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50677206]considering that the 60s had multiple race riots with 30-50 deaths and hundreds or even thousands of injuries per riot, and martial law was never declared, you really don't have to worry[/QUOTE] thank you

BLM members are pissed in my state because they cant get on the interstate to block it once again: [url]http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/large-protest-planned-in-downtown-atlanta/392468978[/url] They also blocked a semi truck from getting towed so they could get back to work because the police wouldn't let them on the interstate.

Regarding the shooter being ex-military: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/4rv91d/police_identify_slain_dallas_suspect_as_us_army/?st=iqemxofy&sh=21c3ce00[/url]

i still cant believe we killed the dude with a robot and a bomb.

[QUOTE=Flameon;50677501]i still cant believe we killed the dude with a robot and a bomb.[/QUOTE] Unorthodox but I won't lose sleep over it. Was clear he wanted to die anyway. No point in risking more officers lives over a terrorist.

I'm not sure what to think over the fact that a man shooting cops because of his anger over cops shooting black people was killed but not by shooting.

[QUOTE=OvB;50677532]Unorthodox but I won't lose sleep over it. Was clear he wanted to die anyway. No point in risking more officers lives over a terrorist.[/QUOTE] It's not so much the matter of how it was done, but rather the precedent it set. If this goes unchallenged it basically means it's ok to arm a robot to kill criminal american citizens. On a tinfoil level of thinking it means that you can put a missile on a drone and chuck it into their house if they're dug in. The whole point of cops having guns is to defend themselves and others, not to go on the offensive unless others are in harms way. From the looks of it when they did deploy the robot he had no hostages, so what was the point in detonating? Yeah he could have opened fire and hurt others and whatever, but is that what we've come to? If the guy is surrounded, the police have the upper hand, and he has no hostages, was there no other way to end the situation? We couldn't have barricaded him in and wait it out? Hell he might have killed himself but at that point its on him. While I'm sure someone will pip up "There were no other options, this guy was a blah blah blah blah blah" you have to remember this stuff is about a lot more than just that guy.

[QUOTE=Flameon;50677501]i still cant believe we killed the dude with a robot and a bomb.[/QUOTE] The element that's so concerning about it is that the process of affixing an explosive device to a robot via some form of modification is a slow and thought out process. Instead of the snap judgment of an officer to fire his weapon while breaching in order to incapacitate a suspect who continues to resist, while functionally the same as using the robot, has a very very different implication that basically amounts to extrajudicial killing, especially considering there was no hostage element afaik

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;50677700]The element that's so concerning about it is that the process of affixing an explosive device to a robot via some form of modification is a slow and thought out process. Instead of the snap judgment of an officer to fire his weapon while breaching in order to incapacitate a suspect who continues to resist, while functionally the same as using the robot, has a very very different implication that basically amounts to extrajudicial killing, especially considering there was no hostage element afaik[/QUOTE] Those robots are designed to carry explosives because that's their function as an EOD bot. I don't have an issue with cops using robots to kill people if the use of lethal force is justified and the robot controlled by someone. The use of explosives is a bit odd, but like I said I don't really care in this instance. He was getting killed by the law no matter what. Turn himself in? Exicution. Firefight? Shot by cop. Suicide? At the end of the day, I'm glad more officers didn't have to go into harms way to play by the murderers rules. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] Plus the robot was already in there negotiating with the suspect, and may have already been armed with EOD explosives. I doubt the cops came up with it as some inventive way to maim the bastard that killed their buddies. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] The suspect threatened the use of explosives in the building and throughout town. (Hence why the bot would be armed for EOD) cops didn't know if the whole building was booby trapped. They used the options they had available inside the building with the suspect.

Oh shit the robot was what they were using to negotiate with him? [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] So was it just talking to him and one minute says, "I can't let you do that Dave" then they had it kill him?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50676527][url]http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/08/dallas-police-protest-shooting/[/url] Shooter was using an SKS along with a yet to be identified handgun. For those who don't know US gunlaws an SKS doesn't qualify an assault weapon across all states. It has a fixed 10 round magazine, however it can be modified to use higher capacity magazines that are iffy on reliability and can't really be changed quickly.[/QUOTE] remember they had some guy on cnn who recorded a video of the guy while he was shooting saying "it was obviously an ar-15" and cringed then since from his height it could've been an m4 or m16 or chinese knockoff or something, but now i realize he's just an idiot who thinks ar-15s are the only guns that can fire semi-auto.

Well it's just a fancy RC. It's as much an extension of the officer as a rifle or riot tank. The officer still has to control it. I see no good reason to send humans in to kill a guy instead of a machine. Though they should have gun attachments for these situations instead of having to use bombs. I think people get too upset when law enforcement uses robots for anything when I think they're a really great tool. Whatever keeps the officer alive is a plus. They shouldn't have to play into the suspects traps.

[QUOTE=OvB;50677730]Those robots are designed to carry explosives because that's their function as an EOD bot. I don't have an issue with cops using robots to kill people if the use of lethal force is justified and the robot controlled by someone. The use of explosives is a bit odd, but like I said I don't really care in this instance. He was getting killed by the law no matter what. Turn himself in? Exicution. Firefight? Shot by cop. Suicide? At the end of the day, I'm glad more officers didn't have to go into harms way to play by the murderers rules. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] Plus the robot was already in there negotiating with the suspect, and may have already been armed with EOD explosives. I doubt the cops came up with it as some inventive way to maim the bastard that killed their buddies. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] The suspect threatened the use of explosives in the building and throughout town. (Hence why the bot would be armed for EOD) cops didn't know if the whole building was booby trapped. They used the options they had available inside the building with the suspect.[/QUOTE] It's not so much using robots to kill suspects, but rather how it was employed. Situational speaking it's perfectly fine, such as in a hostage situation. Their employment would be in a similar fashion that police snipers are employed. You wouldn't want to use EOD explosives in a situation like that, it would not make sense to blow in place something within the confines of the building. I don't think police just leave explosives sitting on the robot when not in use, so it was a conscious decision to put them on it. In this situation what purpose does arming a robot with explosives prior to going into a hostile environment have other than to kill the suspect? It would make no sense to do such a thing if he had hostages, and if he attacks the robot who cares? Unless he's rushing for the door to go try and kill someone there would be no reason, and if he was barricaded in and surrounded by police with good cover if he did make it out that door he would have been mowed down anyway. Point being as brickinhead pointed out at that point your more or less talking about extrajudicial killing. I suppose without knowing the exact circumstance of the explosives being used it is hard to make a proper call on it. If they release the video footage, to which there should be, that should provide the final answer as to what the justification was for using such measures.

I thought the robot just detonated explosives the shooter placed I mean I don't think the police just have C4 lying around to strap to robots. I could be wrong thorugh.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50677783]It's not so much using robots to kill suspects, but rather how it was employed. Situational speaking it's perfectly fine, such as in a hostage situation. Their employment would be in a similar fashion that police snipers are employed. You wouldn't want to use EOD explosives in a situation like that, it would not make sense to blow in place something within the confines of the building. I don't think police just leave explosives sitting on the robot when not in use, so it was a conscious decision to put them on it. In this situation what purpose does arming a robot with explosives prior to going into a hostile environment have other than to kill the suspect? It would make no sense to do such a thing if he had hostages, and if he attacks the robot who cares? Unless he's rushing for the door to go try and kill someone there would be no reason, and if he was barricaded in and surrounded by police with good cover if he did make it out that door he would have been mowed down anyway. Point being as brickinhead pointed out at that point your more or less talking about extrajudicial killing. I suppose without knowing the exact circumstance of the explosives being used it is hard to make a proper call on it. If they release the video footage, to which there should be, that should provide the final answer as to what the justification was for using such measures.[/QUOTE] Because he said he had explosives, and wanted to kill as many white people, preferably cops, as possible. There's no way in hell a cop is going in that building without an EOD not clearing it first. Perhaps they were using it to destroy a suspicious package and the suspect died in the process. Either way, humans going in there would be incredibly stupid.