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

[QUOTE=Everstvetita;50679001][url]http://i.imgur.com/ytr6yTk.gifv[/url] Recent BLM protest at a highway, not dangerous at all.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't weep a single bit if they got mowed down. I would only feel bad for the motorists.

You don't even need to talk about emergency services, what about average commuters? About the time I lost faith with the BLM movement was when I saw a black dude yelling at the protesters because they blocked the bridge he used to get to work. How do you expect to get people to support your social justice movement if the very demographic you are trying to advocate for is directly harmed by your demonstrations?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50680112]You don't even need to talk about emergency services, what about average commuters? About the time I lost faith with the BLM movement was when I saw a black dude yelling at the protesters because they blocked the bridge he used to get to work. How do you expect to get people to support your social justice movement if the very demographic you are trying to advocate for is directly harmed by your demonstrations?[/QUOTE] He just suffered from internalized racism and needed to be shown the way! /s

I can agree with blocking roads so long as they are just marching and not damaging the surrounding area like some of the anarchists do during May Day here in Seattle. But getting up on a highway is just plain stupid and dangerous. Cars are going 60+ and if they have to slam on their brakes or swerve then it could end with people getting hurt.

When I went out for lunch today I saw the funeral procession for one of the officers. One of the longest I've ever seen and apart from the hearse was all police vehicles

So, when can we expect the captured trio to be questioned and police releasing info about their motives and stuff ?

The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer. There should've been clear attempts to arrest him alive. It's gross to me that police are able to premeditate how to kill a suspect. I understand deaths as self-defense, in the heat of the moment, but this was planned. It just doesn't sit right with me, no matter how blatantly guilty the guy was - he deserves a hearing in front of a judge, particularly when he wasn't clearly an immediate threat and didn't have hostages or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think there was going to be any safe way to arrest that guy - not without more deaths and possibly failure if he's going to commit suicide with a bomb anyway.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50680250]So, when can we expect the captured trio to be questioned and police releasing info about their motives and stuff ?[/QUOTE] There may not have been any accomplices. [QUOTE]Rawlings said individuals initially detained after the shooting — who police first characterized as possible suspects — were later determined to be fleeing protesters who were either armed or carrying ammunition gear.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/08/multiple-snipers-dallas/86839430/[/url]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680254]The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer. There should've been clear attempts to arrest him alive. It's gross to me that police are able to premeditate how to kill a suspect. I understand deaths as self-defense, in the heat of the moment, but this was planned. It just doesn't sit right with me, no matter how blatantly guilty the guy was - he deserves a hearing in front of a judge, particularly when he wasn't clearly an immediate threat and didn't have hostages or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] So, you wanted them to try to arrest someone thats an active shooter?

Yea we should totally risk the lives of officers so some piece of shit can stand trial. Don't worry about all those he's already killed, don't worry about the threat of IEDs, don't worry about his refusal to negotiate, we need to worry about this trash's rights. That's what [I]really[/I] matters.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680254]The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer. There should've been clear attempts to arrest him alive. It's gross to me that police are able to premeditate how to kill a suspect. I understand deaths as self-defense, in the heat of the moment, but this was planned. It just doesn't sit right with me, no matter how blatantly guilty the guy was - he deserves a hearing in front of a judge, particularly when he wasn't clearly an immediate threat and didn't have hostages or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] An attempt to arrest him would have likely resulted in needless deaths. He had a weapon, the training to use it in combat, and a fanatical mindset. He also made IED threats. I do not blame the police at all for killing him with an explosive. You might worry about the nature of the killing and the rights of the offender. Here is what I say - practicality supersedes regulation.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50680301]Yea we should totally risk the lives of officers so some piece of shit can stand trial. Don't worry about all those he's already killed, don't worry about the threat of IEDs, don't worry about his refusal to negotiate, we need to worry about this trash's rights. That's what [I]really[/I] matters.[/QUOTE] The point of rights is that everyone has them. Even trash. He's fucking human garbage, I agree, but that doesn't give the police the right to invalidate his rights. That's for a judge to decide, not the police. I get why they did it. It just doesn't sit right. Like it or not, murderers have rights, and denying his right to due process through a premeditated and planned tactic to kill him just doesn't feel right. If it was in self-defense, or if it was a hostage situation, or if he was in an explicit position to harm others, I'd be 100% fine with it, believe me.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680254]The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer. There should've been clear attempts to arrest him alive. It's gross to me that police are able to premeditate how to kill a suspect. I understand deaths as self-defense, in the heat of the moment, but this was planned. It just doesn't sit right with me, no matter how blatantly guilty the guy was - he deserves a hearing in front of a judge, particularly when he wasn't clearly an immediate threat and didn't have hostages or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] So basically the fact he spent 8 hours sniping police officers and the fact he was effectively an active one-man terrorist attack isn't enough to justify his death? Let alone the fact they only made the decision to jihad him after getting confirmation of the deaths of 5 officers? He clearly would've been sentenced to death if he was captured.

You know what's more gross? The premeditated planning of sniping policemen who were protecting protesters simply on the basis of their uniform and skin color.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680254]The entire robot bomb leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The police don't have the right to make a premeditated decision to take someone's life. Any deaths in the line of police work should be the result of self defense or the defense of civilians. This guy wasn't in a position to shoot anybody, and planning out "let's blow him up with an EOD robot" is literally premeditated murder. Police don't get the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner, even when it's blatantly clear the guy was a murderer. There should've been clear attempts to arrest him alive. It's gross to me that police are able to premeditate how to kill a suspect. I understand deaths as self-defense, in the heat of the moment, but this was planned. It just doesn't sit right with me, no matter how blatantly guilty the guy was - he deserves a hearing in front of a judge, particularly when he wasn't clearly an immediate threat and didn't have hostages or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Walking up and trying to arrest someone who has a gun, has said he has planted bombs, and who has also already killed 6 people, is not in a police officer's job description. How is this any different than having sharpshooters?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50680362]So basically the fact he spent 8 hours sniping police officers and the fact he was effectively an active one-man terrorist attack isn't enough to justify his death? Let alone the fact they only made the decision to jihad him after getting confirmation of the deaths of 5 officers? He clearly would've been sentenced to death if he was captured.[/QUOTE] The difference is a judge would sentence him to death. There's a process. A judge sentencing someone to death and the police planning out how to kill someone are very different - one is judicial, one is extrajudicial.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680377]The difference is a judge would sentence him to death. There's a process. A judge sentencing someone to death and the police planning out how to kill someone are very different - one is judicial, one is extrajudicial.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see you go up to a mass shooter and try to arrest him.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680377]The difference is a judge would sentence him to death. There's a process. A judge sentencing someone to death and the police planning out how to kill someone are very different - one is judicial, one is extrajudicial.[/QUOTE] Practicality supersedes regulation.

For fuck's sake, I'm not defending the guy. I'm against the death penalty and I'd still be completely willing to make an exception for this fuck. I'm saying that I don't understand why the police have the right to kill him when he wasn't in an explicit position to harm others. Unless we should send robot bombs to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, so that we can be sure they can't harm anyone else, I don't get why they can do that. A judge, sentencing him to death? Perfectly fine - that's judicial - the police aren't the judicial branch and I don't see why they get to choose for someone to die when he's cornered and not in a position to kill any innocents.

Oh yeah, that is surrounded by his own IEDs, too.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680396]For fuck's sake, I'm not defending the guy. I'm against the death penalty and I'd still be completely willing to make an exception for this fuck. I'm saying that I don't understand why the police have the right to kill him when he wasn't in an explicit position to harm others. Unless we should send robot bombs to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, so that we can be sure they can't harm anyone else, I don't get why they can do that. A judge, sentencing him to death? Perfectly fine - that's judicial - the police aren't the judicial branch and I don't see why they get to choose for someone to die when he's cornered and [B]not in a position to kill any innocents[/B].[/QUOTE] They had reason to believe he was, what with the IED threats.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680396]For fuck's sake, I'm not defending the guy. I'm against the death penalty and I'd still be completely willing to make an exception for this fuck. I'm saying that I don't understand why the police have the right to kill him when he wasn't in an explicit position to harm others. Unless we should send robot bombs to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, so that we can be sure they can't harm anyone else, I don't get why they can do that. A judge, sentencing him to death? Perfectly fine - that's judicial - the police aren't the judicial branch and I don't see why they get to choose for someone to die when he's cornered and not in a position to kill any innocents.[/QUOTE] He was in an "explicit position to harm others" for the better part of the day.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680396]For fuck's sake, I'm not defending the guy. I'm against the death penalty and I'd still be completely willing to make an exception for this fuck. I'm saying that I don't understand why the police have the right to kill him when he wasn't in an explicit position to harm others. Unless we should send robot bombs to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, so that we can be sure they can't harm anyone else, I don't get why they can do that. A judge, sentencing him to death? Perfectly fine - that's judicial - the police aren't the judicial branch and I don't see why they get to choose for someone to die when he's cornered and not in a position to kill any innocents.[/QUOTE] What were they going to do? Bring him flowers, hope he calms down? Wait for him to die of old age??? The situation needed to be resolved. There was no other solution.

[QUOTE=Fort83;50680383]He just killed 5 officers and injured others and still has his firearm. Yes he was still in an explicit position to harm others.[/QUOTE] So throw some tear gas canisters around the corner and incapacitate him. There were plenty of ways to do this that didn't result in extrajudicial death. My point is that he didn't have any hostages and wasn't in a position to shoot anyone at the point where he was cornered. Yes, he was armed - I'm not saying they should've pulled a 300 and charged him down like action heroes. I'm just saying that maybe they should've tried some alternatives that didn't involve extrajudicial death when incapacitation was still a possible option without risking anyone's lives.

Honestly it's good that the piece of shit got blown up. Hope whatever was left of him was mangled beyond recognition.

[QUOTE=Fort83;50680430]So you do not even consider the police lives that would be risked? Or do you think police should be sacrificing themselves in droves?[/QUOTE] I am considering that. But considering that they were able to talk to him for several minutes without losing a single life (remotely), he clearly wasn't in a position to take any lives at that point. Physically he didn't have anyone to shoot. I'm fine with the guy dying. I would've just preferred that a judge decide that and not a cop. If he was raising his weapon at a police officer and they opened fire and he died - I'd be totally okay with it. It's the fact that police planned out a way to kill him that doesn't sit right with me - police don't have the authority to plan out someone's death. That's the judge's job. Incapacitation should be the first option. Slap a Christmas tree of flashbangs and tear gas canisters on the robot and you have a blind, deaf, largely incapacitated target that can be shot from a distance if he resists. It doesn't sit right that the police, not a judge, decided that the guy should be put to death, even if I agree that he should be.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50680396]For fuck's sake, I'm not defending the guy. I'm against the death penalty and I'd still be completely willing to make an exception for this fuck.[/QUOTE] Firstly, this is an odd statement to make. It sounds like your opposition to the death penalty isn't very well founded if you would be willing to go against it for this guy. [QUOTE]I'm saying that I don't understand why the police have the right to kill him when he wasn't in an explicit position to harm others. Unless we should send robot bombs to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, so that we can be sure they can't harm anyone else, I don't get why they can do that. A judge, sentencing him to death? Perfectly fine - that's judicial - the police aren't the judicial branch and I don't see why they get to choose for someone to die when he's cornered and not in a position to kill any innocents.[/QUOTE] Secondly, it's so easy to tell someone else to put their life on the line in order to sustain a vague sense of justice. They get to choose for him to die because the only alternative is to give him a chance to kill more people.

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50680420]Honestly it's good that the piece of shit got blown up. Hope whatever was left of him was mangled beyond recognition.[/QUOTE] They reported this morning that there are no remains. They used enough explosives to remove him from existence.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50680468]Firstly, this is an odd statement to make. It sounds like your opposition to the death penalty isn't very well founded if you would be willing to go against it for this guy. Secondly, it's so easy to tell someone else to put their life on the line in order to sustain a vague sense of justice. They get to choose for him to die because the only alternative is to give him a chance to kill more people.[/QUOTE] He wasn't in a position to kill anyone, clearly, because he was cornered with nobody to shoot. Unless we should also send bomb drones to anyone who calls in a bomb threat, I don't see how it can be excused. A judge makes a legal decision on the death penalty - if it isn't a judicial decision, or self-defense, or in the defense of others in explicit danger, it's an extrajudicial killing. If someone says "I have a bomb that's going to blow up a school," that doesn't give the police the right to immediately plug him full of bullets - how is this different? There was no immediate threat to anyone's lives, and the threat of violence elsewhere isn't a legal excuse to kill the man.