Police unnecessarily kill a third black man this week, threaten to kill more

Good opinion piece, with ideas that deserve exploration.

Actually, the exploding of the device to kill the suspect was, technically, homicide, since homicide is any killing of a human by another human, whether intentional or not. The more critical question was, Was it justified or not - murder, manslaughter or self-defense? I think your discussion also caught the tenor of that argument well.

We REALLY, SERIOUSLY need a different paradigm of law enforcement in this country. A person is still innocent until proven guilty in court, and extreme and sensational methods of subduing a suspect might work well and be satisfying in cinema, but in real life, that ain't the way it's supposed to work. We're a nation of laws, not snuff theatre.

My mind cannot take it all in; I couldn't read all of your blog entry. It's just too fucking much to absorb. I am fully saturated with dismay and horror.

"The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."

The NY Times article on this
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/science/dallas-bomb-robot.html

The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/08/dallas-pol…

The NYT article is not open to comments. The WaPo one is... currently the highest rated comment holds that this is a "frightening development". The second highest is "good for them".

Killing this suspect also precluded questioning him about accomplices.

It seems like they didn't want to know what he knew and what his motivations were and what caused him to do what he did.

I suspect that the deciding factor in using a explosive device was the perceived need to end the standoff quickly.

The logic goes something like this:
- A shooter, or shooters targeted police specifically. The intention was to harm as many police as possible.

- The numbers of attackers is unknown. It could be one man working alone, or it could be that the one known shooter is part of a team.

- The one observed attacker clearly has military training and is using advanced tactical techniques.

- The attacker was well equipped.

- The attack was premeditated and planned.

- One shooter backs himself into a blind corner which gives him a significant tactical advantage while forcing the police to congregate in a location surrounded by high buildings perfect for a staging a follow-on attack by other attackers.

- It is unknown what the intention is. Military training and prior planning suggest that this may be part of a larger plan.

(A well established trend in terrorist attacks is to cause an incident to bait emergency workers into an ambush to multiply the social damage and casualties. It also serves a propaganda purpose. If the police can't protect themselves they can't protect the citizenry. )

Was the location selected ahead of time?
Why there?
Was it selected because there is a second sniper, or a team of snipers, or explosive device, waiting to slaughter the massed officers?

Ending the situation quickly lowers the risk to both civilians and police.

It also needs to be note that police tactical units commonly use explosives. They blow doors, windows, wall (as in Orlando) and extensively use explosive devices, such as flash-bangs, to debilitate barricaded suspects.

In this case, the fact that the backing into a corner might be a tactic intended to get as many police as close as possible to a previously planted bomb which would be triggered by the gunman suggests that simply disorienting the suspect could get police maimed. They needed a swift, profound, and complete incapacitation. If a police sniper could get a shot a bullet to the brain stem would produce complete incapacity instantaneously. As it was the location was so tight that normal sniping tactic couldn't work. A concussion bomb, likely cobbled together on the spot fro materials on hand, was the field-expedient solution. And yes, this has been a tool in their tool box for some time.

In this case, a well localized suspect that was clearly observed and recorded shooting police, no hostages or vulnerable civilians present, little chance of excessive damage (like burning down an entire block), it may have been their best option.

As it turned out it looks like backing into a corner was not part of a wider plan to maximize casualties. Or if it was the second part failed to materialize.

Did a second shooter get cold feet? Did a planted bomb fail to go off? Did the gunman have an explosive device, an explosive belt, that he was planning to detonate if the police tried to swarm him?

The reports are typically lousy and inaccurate immediately after these sorts of incidents. A clearer understanding of what happened and why (what was the gunman's intention, what where the police thinking) is going to take a week or more to emerge.

There are too many factors to the equation to suggest an answer to the violence against blacks and police in America . No one ever suggested that the stirring up of race relations by numerous factions along with the over regulation of police along with the radicalization from within our on government had anything to do with it. Couple all these problems together with advancement in technology and you provide a recipe for disaster...

Art, many of the reasons you give are reasons to have kept him alive.

Greg,

The more things change...

Philadelphia, 1985, the MOVE standoff (courtesy Wikipedia):

"Commissioner Sambor then ordered that the compound be bombed.[18] From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[16]) made of FBI-supplied water gel explosive, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[19]

The resulting explosions ignited a fire that eventually destroyed approximately 65 nearby houses. The firefighters, who had earlier deluge-hosed the MOVE members in a failed attempt to evict them from the building, stood by as the fire caused by the bomb engulfed the first house and spread to others, having been given orders to let the fire burn. Despite the earlier drenching of the building by firefighters, officials said that they feared that MOVE would shoot at the firefighters.[6][18][19][20] Eleven people (John Africa, five other adults and five children aged 7 to 13) died in the resulting fire and more than 250 people were left homeless.[21] Ramona Africa, one of the two survivors, stated that police fired at those trying to escape.[22]"

We need to face the fact that in the USA in particular, Black Males make (many) White Males crazy. We all know why.

I thought Delrawn Small was #3, making this #4

What the police did in Dallas has little to nothing in common with what the police did in Philly 30 years ago.

Things changed. Significantly, in this case.

(We need to face the fact that in the USA in particular, White Males make (many) White Males --themselves-- crazy.)

When US citizens have been killed by drone strikes overseas #tcot has itched a fit about "due process" this time not so much!

US the United States of Justice for all.

Due to the state of the world one can expect uprisings and revolts in all States, inclusive the US, of the public against governments a.o., which are not able and or not willing to create a good life for all citizens without discrimination of whatever kind. The US which is capable of spending and sending billions of dollars into space or into wars, has the intelligence and means of offering a good life for all, and not only for the happy few and the higher middleclass.
However, for all kinds of egotistic reasons the making of conditions to get a good life for all, is not the case in the US.
It looks like the US wishes to continue possessing a big under educated and or underpaid underclass to provide the higher and highest classes cheap labor.
With my European eyes, skilled in the social economic history of Western Europe (more specific of the Netherland in the 19th. and 20th. century, I see the US still muddling with old and deep rooted concepts of modern types of discrimination and or slavery, inclusive reasoning an treatment based on color and ethnic lines.
People are equal in the eye of the US constitution and international treaties, but are not treated and loved as equals. On the contrary according to the treatment in daily practice the US, its institutions, organizations, firms, and citizens given to the under privileged, discriminated, not accepted and not loved peoples, the shamefully titled so called minorities.
In the Netherlands my friends and I started the first Dutch movement against racial discrimination in 1976, and as of that year I followed and still follow this topic with great interest. My wife and I form willfully a mixed colored, couple for 42 years now, of which 30 years in a good marriage. I´m white, my wife is brown. I’m a solicitor with my own well operating practice. My Caribbean wife (St. Eustatius, Aruba, Netherlands) writes novels and short stories about the breach of emigrated family’s. We can feel the pain of people being discriminated or even being excommunicated because of their background and or color.
We call this the sickness of discrimination. I´m glad I can say this, thanks to the allied black and white forces from the US, Canada, Great Britain, Western States and their than existing colonies in several continents, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the USSR who liberated Western Europe from institutionalized forms of State terror, ethnic and political genocide by Nazi´s and Nazi led States 72-71 years ago.
Back to the US. You and we are on cross roads. Roughly the US have a choice between choosing for the best and that is treating everybody by everyone as brothers and sisters without discrimination as specified in the International Declaration of Human Rights (UN 10 December 1948) and international treaties, and create a firm base for a good life for everyone, or the US chooses to enter deeper and deeper the danger zone of getting more trouble including increasing tensions, protests and violence and or a 21 century civil war. Much worse and more devastating than the (Civil) War for the Abolition of Slavery under Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865.
In my opinion the best and logical choice would be an impressive step forward to the brother- and sisterhood of man.
As far as I see and experience it, practically all colored people in the west wish to live in peace and to treat all people as brothers and sisters, and being treated themselves by all people as brothers and sisters. This is the way of mutual respect and mutual safety of all by all and vice versa.
This brings me to the state’s violence of the US. What is more simple than to avoid killings of people under arrest by using only non destructive means. When people can put elephants to sleep with the help of an effective as well as efficient tranquilizer, police agents can be trained to put arrested people if necessary into an immediate, not harmful sleep and into a situation by which arrested people can be interrogated later under human conditions in a non violent atmosphere and surrounding.
The US should annul the right for civilians to carry guns and weaponry.
All forms of institutionalized and non institutionalized discrimination without legitimation in the eyes of human rights, by whoever against whomever should be prohibited and must be properly and immediately responded, beginning at the roots of such systems and patterns.
Is this Utopia or Communism ?
It is a necessity for a long lasting peaceful life in harmony by all.
If the US etc. cannot make that choice, the choice will be made by nature, at the cost perhaps of suffering of many. Is the US willing to have more violence to whatever degree or will the US proof to be the State of all happy people, as wanted and foreseen by its founding fathers and mothers.
Enough work to reach enduring peace and social justice.
Gerrit Bogaers
Laren NH, Netherlands, Saturday 10th. July 2016, 00.18 h. AM Dutch time.

There is now in "social media" a graphic that states one need merely obey police officers to avoid being gunned down. Specifically: when a police officer orders "you" to stop, "you" stop and then get arrested or "you" run and "you" get shot to death. This graphic has been shared and "liked" by tens of thousands of people.

Tens of thousands of people APPROVE of police officers killing citizens who do not obey, sans being indited for a crime, sans being convicted of a crime, sans being sentenced for a conviction.

I am utterly horrified there is even one person who approves, let alone the (checking) 36,000+ who approve.

Meanwhile, this article: "No, America, Bombing A Suspect Is Not Fucking ‘Okay’"

http://winningdemocrats.com/no-america-bombing-a-suspect-is-not-fcking-…

shows at least 10,000 approvals--- so not everyone in the USA is a homicidal sociopath.

Note that using robotic bombs to kill people was tried and perfected in Iraq by the USA Army; it's now come home to Dallas streets.

Did anyone consider a solution to these mass killings could be to get rid of guns in your country? I know, I know.....God forbid you should in any way, fool around with that article in your Constitution cuz that would be so un-American. Is it really workin' for ya?

"In a vacuum, it isn’t natural to pre-emptively shoot people to death, just as, in a vacuum, it isn’t natural to keep your gun trained on a person who has been rendered incapacitated and is bleeding out before you. This is specialized behavior, the sort expected from military forces entering unfamiliar war zones. Soldiers are trained to consider everyone and everything a potential threat, to neutralize any man, woman or child who could potentially cause them harm. The highest priorities are to protect themselves and to accomplish their mission, and that requires the trained dehumanization of the local population. In such an environment, the burden of not killing is lifted from the soldiers, and local people are tasked with the burden of not provoking death.

"In a vacuum, the United States of America is not a war zone. Falcon Heights, Minn., is not a war zone. Dallas is not a war zone. The nation’s thruways are not war zones. In a vacuum, police officers shouldn’t kill the very citizens they swear to protect. But the police, especially officers who commute to patrol communities not their own, are — or can act very much like — an occupying force. You can see their training at work when an officer fires into a car with a 4-year-old child in it. You can see it when Reynolds is directed to get out of the car, lift her hands over her head and walk backward toward a group of officers: Her camera glimpses several guns aimed squarely at her back."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/magazine/how-police-see-us-and-how-th…

"...it's gone from beat cop to Robocop..."

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/19/341542537/police-militarization-becomes-a…

Slowing situations down:
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351373721/police-mental-stamina-metrics-s…

@13: No, Desertphile, not everyone is a moron, but we do have them here in Michigan, and somehow they get elected to our state government.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/michigan_senator_to_introdu…

If hey had a bomb technology available to them then they could just as easily delivered a knock out gas or some other disabling technology by the same method . Hell for that matter they could have mounted a spray can of paint on the robot run it right up to him and totally blinded him with it. Or they could have use it to toss in a doze or so flash bangs which would have disabled him.

You really do not like the police, do you? Perhaps you should go out on a patrol with them sometime, and tell them how to do their job. And why the racist headline?

@ Harry Twinotter #20

I could certainly tell them "how to do their job" in many of the recent cases where someone was shot. They demonstrated poor tactical skills as well as psychological and physical deficiencies.

I would also tell them what their job is, which is to protect the public, including "suspects". It is extremely rare that they encounter someone who is a threat to the public even if they were to escape custody. Lethal force is a legitimate option in very few cases.

Police who are well educated and well trained rarely do this kind of crap. It is unfortunate, but these small-town forces collect the dregs-- some guy who was a failure in a large city gets to be "chief" and it goes downhill from there.

@ Desertphile 18,

I tried to have a rational conversation about this with RickA, but we never got to the 2nd Amendment issue.

The problem with your approach is that you are correct-- the 2nd is not about guns but about about militias. ["Bearing Arms" does not mean individuals going armed to the mall, it means military training.] But that is a State function, not Federal, so they can make rules as lax as they like.

But this implies a kind of pass-through "right" for the individual, which I think is tough to eliminate, certainly in the current political situation. I don't think, at the time of the framing, anyone would even have considered taking away firearms from farmers, a large part of the population. Similar arguments will be made now, and it's hard to say some guy in Montana can't drive around with a rack in his pickup truck, or you have your little arsenal in the desert.

So we need to address regulation that the Feds can do as well as what the (sane) States can do. Registration, for example, is a valid Federal interest to decrease trafficking.

Greg,
Agree and disagree:
-My first thought upon hearing of the explosive device was: Couldn't they have used something less lethal? Gas robot...something else...
- Re: "If you see a cop, avoid them. If yo are not white and you see a cop, really really avoid them. If you have a reason to call 911 other than a dire medical emergency, do not call. You may end up being responsible for someone getting killed, because when the cops show up, anyone around who is not white is at serious risk, and actually, everybody is at risk."

Sorry, but I see that as a melodramatic, inflammatory, and dangerous statement. What good could really come of following that advice. Statistically, you may have a better chance of winning the lottery than being the victim of police violence (billions of encounters are resolved correctly)--if you are not doing something that causes a police officer, a person who risks his/her life on a daily basis, a person who lives a life of confrontation and danger, to perceive there to be a threat. I can't imagine being a police officer in these disturbed times.
I would imagine the police, as a national entity, are going to get very serious about "policing" their own at this point. Surely it's necessary, but to disregard millions of heroes across the nation as too dangerous to even call in a time of need is irresponsible.
Respectfully,
Lee Grove

Zebra.

"Police who are well educated and well trained rarely do this kind of crap. It is unfortunate, but these small-town forces collect the dregs– some guy who was a failure in a large city gets to be “chief” and it goes downhill from there."

You are showing your prejudice right there.

@ HT 24,

Nailed it. I am prejudiced against incompetence, especially when it causes easily avoidable harm.

Got any other brilliant observations?

Harry Twinotter, Lee Grove;

I hear you. Still the problem is real and systemic.

FWIW, here's an amusing take on a ride-along. It's a little more nuanced than the title suggests (gotta love NPR).

This American Life 
362: Got You Pegged
[expand]
Act One. The Fat Blue Line.
http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/362/transcript

Lee Grove #23,

Statistically, most encounters are for traffic stops. While a white person in a "good" neighborhood is not likely endangered, there are other situations that this advice is VERY well taken.

A few years back, a local family called the police to help them manage a distraght family member with a mental illness. The man was young, strong, and beligerent. He was having a full blown psychotic break. He was unarmed. His parents were older, not so strong, and unable to physically deal with the situation. The two young, poorly trained small town police came in with drawn guns, hearing a man yelling threats and obscenities at two older people and shot the man dead. No questions, no stopping to assess the situation. No idea that the two older folk were the ones trying to get close to the young man to calm him down.. and were in no real danger. The 911 call should have alerted mental health authorities. Two burly orderlies (like in the grade B movies) would have handled the situation... but no... cops aren't there to protect the mentally ill... they are armed military style forces trained to use lethal force when threatened.

We may need this style of cop for some situations... but this one size fits all is NOT the answer. We need community stewards, who should be unarmed, thank you, to do traffic stops, mental illness assistance, community policing etc. We don't need every beat cop to be thinking like a SWAT member... or an occupying army.

(Oh... and we don't need them to be the morality police either.)

@ Lee Grove 23,

Sure Greg is exaggerating. But the "heroes" language is just as much over the top. They are doing their job.

A "hero cop" to me would be someone who stands up and demands that the racist cops, the psychologically unfit cops, the purely incompetent cops-- and there are more than a few-- get fired, and, if they hurt someone, testify in court so they will be punished.

The military does that perhaps a bit better, except of course when there is demand for cannon fodder, and then the standards go out the window.

Someone (GL knows who) shared this on facebook which sums things up so well :

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/9/1546802/-Less-Than-24-Hours-Afte…

Especially this :

We know there is something wrong with our country. There is too much violence. Too much hate. Too much senseless killing. And too many people who are dead who shouldn't be."

Quoted for truth.

I think it also applies far beyond the United States to, well, my nation of Australia and so very much of the world right now.

I really hope this is the nadir of the current trend in this issue - among others - and that things turn around and get better soon for all our sakes.

I don't know what else to say except so many condolences to those who have been wrongly killed for no good reason.

Please lets not forget them.

Any of them.

Let's not make their deaths in vain. Let's act and stop things staying this way and getting ever worse.

Also let's not forget these :

https://mic.com/articles/123973/15-drawings-capture-the-last-words-spok…

and more and more ..and more.. every flippin' day.

Enough killing. Enough hate. Time to change whatever needs to be changed. To make this stop.

@19. Douglas C Alder :

If hey had a bomb technology available to them then they could just as easily delivered a knock out gas or some other disabling technology by the same method . Hell for that matter they could have mounted a spray can of paint on the robot run it right up to him and totally blinded him with it. Or they could have use it to toss in a doze or so flash bangs which would have disabled him.

That. So much.

Tranquilliser darts or even just a huge packet of burning, smoking, weed or something.

Or they could have simply kept him isolated and besieged and waited him out. He didn't have hostages after all.

Don't know how much food or water he had or how long he could stay awake for - but no. They had to blow him up and miss the opportunity to learn and take him him alive and even, if that way inclined, make him really suffer by showing he was wrong and they were better than him and confronting him for years with the consequences of the murders he'd just committed.

Talk about a lack of imagination.

By killing him, I think, they gave him what he not only expected -but wanted.

@27. Kay Brown :

The two young, poorly trained small town police came in with drawn guns, hearing a man yelling threats and obscenities at two older people and shot the man dead. No questions, no stopping to assess the situation. No idea that the two older folk were the ones trying to get close to the young man to calm him down.. and were in no real danger.

Yup. Then there was Tamir Rice. Twelve years old playing with a toy gun. Shot dead in mere seconds of arrival.

And others. Too many. Way too many others. Whatever did happen to Sandra Bland and Freddie Grey? Plus Walter Scott and ...

@23. Lee Grove :

Statistically, you may have a better chance of winning the lottery than being the victim of police violence (billions of encounters are resolved correctly)

Citation for that statistic badly ended along with definition of what is considered "correctly" here by you.

Meanwhile statistically speaking :

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-a…

black men were 3.5 times more likely to be killed by cops than white men. (..Snip..) black males aged 15 to 19 were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white males in that age group. And The Washington Post reports that unarmed black men were seven times more likely to be killed by police this year than unarmed white men.

I'm an Aussie & it took me all of half a minute to google those stats.

Don't you think that the evidence here and the stats like those are telling us all something important about US police behaviour and prejudices and their deadly, needless, socially and culturally horrific consequences?

Seriously. Not even rhetorically. What else do you grok from those figures?

Thank you Lee Grove for your comments well put. The vast majority of interactions with police do not end in violence. To the people who see things in black and white, I question do you know what it feels like to get shot at or attacked by someone that is armed? To try to arrest or detain someone who's intent is to kill or harm you or someone else. Taking life should always be a last resort Life is precious "All life civilian and our police". The use of a robot and bomb to kill an armed subject in Dallas was a good call, would the suspects death have been more righteous if he was killed by sniper fire? Why risk more lives by trying to apprehend the suspect who intentions were to kill as many as possible. Do police have problems? Absolutely, If I was a father of a non white child I would be very concerned for their welfare around police and would have to have a long talk with them about interacting with them. Does racial profiling happen? Yes all to often. Do officers beat, harass, and kill unwarranted sometimes yes. Unfortunately like all large organizations their will be a few bad eggs and those individuals should be severely prosecuted. Additionally some police killings are an accident and the intent was not to harm. Bottom line can they do better, should we expect better, should we demand better train police force yes! yes! yes!!!! But stop making it seem we should fear and not trust any police or first responders.

https://miriammjoy.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/albany-cops-sound-like-abus…

Truly frightening. What is to prevent the police from using drones and dropping bombs on suspects, like the army does in the middle east?

What does piss me off about this, with respect to the shooting dead of innocent police officers, is that the president STILL blathers on about how "this sort of thing has no justification" when there's no frigging justification for the police shooting dead any unarmed man, a fact COMPLETELY IGNORED.

The problem is that with this huge massive two-faced ignorance of reality, there is no way to get people who are already so pissed off at police murdering innocents to stop being pissed off at them. When the police get such kid glove treatment FOR A JOB THEY CHOSE and one that pays extremely well BECAUSE of the danger (though less danger than a half dozen other jobs, none of which come with the perks of a police officer) and all the people at risk WITHOUT the weight of law on their side just get the "us and them" dichotomy reinforced.

If this sort of thing is to stop, shooting dead an unarmed man or one that has surrendered should be treated as murder, just as if it were any other random citizen (which, indeed, the police are: citizens).

"I question do you know what it feels like to get shot at or attacked by someone that is armed?"

Ask a poor black man.

"To try to arrest or detain someone who’s intent is to kill or harm you or someone else."

See the unreasoning terror here. YOU PRESUPPOSE YOUR DEATH IS DESIRED. Therefore you shoot first.

Tell me, when a black man sees a police officer coming toward them, whose intent is to kill you or harm you or someone else, what else do you think that black man is going to do?

And, surely, the second amendment is entirely so that the government ( in the guise of a police officer) can be fought when it tries to oppress the people.

So why the hell is this not allowed if it's a group you don't identify with?

"A “hero cop” to me would be someone who stands up and demands that the racist cops, the psychologically unfit cops, the purely incompetent cops– and there are more than a few– get fired, and, if they hurt someone, testify in court so they will be punished."

And such heroes are hounded out and made to hide.

OK, so where's the prez saying "Hey, this killing of unarmed people because 'i thought they was armed" is completely unjustified"?

"I have been shot in the back once; I have been shot at three times, several projectiles each. Why ask a “poor black man” and not ask a “person?”"

A poor black man IS a person, desertphile.

One much more likely to be shot in the back. Multiple times.

Well, they're "different", which means all you see are the ways they're all different via the same method.

Hell, it's not really, I suspect, racism. Police in the USA are trained to be TERRIFIED in every encounter. See Brian's "scenario". The only option is where the arrest is with someone wanting to kill the officer.

SHOOT! HE'S GOT A GUN!!!

Where it can act like racism is that being "other", you see only confirming cases of criminality. The average white police officer won't mingle with many poor black boys who aren't being questioned for possible larcenous activities.

But it doesn't HAVE to be black people, just powerless ones (where it's safe to overreact) that you have been advised already are criminals.

Redneck trailer trash get shot too.

But orders of magnitude worse if you're black. The story doesn't "work" when the bad guy is white as well as if it's black. Strange but true.

"“A poor black man IS a person, desertphile.”

Idiot."

No, the poor black man REALLY IS a person.

Next time, say, not insinuate, or I'll keep doing it too.

The vast majority of interactions with police do not end in violence.

This is true, but all it takes is one violent encounter with the police.

It's also true that many cops are well-trained non-racists. But it is an observational fact that many cops are poorly trained, racist, or both. Driving While Black is a thing in many parts of the country. And as mentioned upthread, it is all too common for someone who was encouraged to leave one police department for being an Internal Affairs nightmare to be hired by another police department. So it is rational for ordinary citizens, especially minorities, to minimize their interactions with the police.

I’m also a little concerned that during the same incident, the sniper shooting of several police officers in Dallas, that at least one, possibly two, other people were arrested or detained but released because they were found not involved.

While I agree with most of what Greg wrote, I will dissent on this point. In any incident of this kind, initial reports are going to be confused. In particular, the idiot who was openly carrying a rifle (which is legal in Texas) was lucky not to have died himself--and if they had, it would have been easier to justify than the killings of Mr. Castle or Mr. Sterling. (Not saying that it would be justified, just that it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unjustified.) But this idiot didn't die, he was merely arrested. Given that he was carrying a rifle in a place where person or persons unknown were shooting at cops with a rifle, I'd say the cops had reasonable suspicion to detain the guy. I don't know about the other arrestees, but I'd want some evidence that the cops didn't have reasonable suspicion at the time of the arrest. Note that all were released once it was established that they were, in fact, not involved.

Just out of curiosity, I tried to check out who kills police and how many, etc. There seems to be a presumption that African Americans are very dangerous and shoot first is the way to deal with them. According to the FBI, for 2013, 28 police officers were feloniously killed. That is down from previous years. All in all, 58% of these cop-killers were white males. But non-whites, though a minority in the cop-killing population, are in the majority in the killed-by-cop population. Go figure.

"While I agree with most of what Greg wrote, I will dissent on this point. In any incident of this kind, initial reports are going to be confused."

Nothing wrong with detaining various extra people in this sort of circumstance. That was not my point thought. My point is in the second half of the paragraph: "there was a maximum of a 3 in 5 chance that the police correctly identified suspects in this incident. Are we pretty sure the suspect that was assassinated by the Dallas Police Department, using the bomb, was not just some wigged out dude that wanted to be thought of as a suspect? I doubt that is the case, but one normally determines these things by some sort of due process. This was not that."

It's OK if the police occasionally detain someone they ultimately should not arrest or detain for long, as long as they don't torture, maim, or kill them before release!

Regarding statistics: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf

The DOJ reports 40 million annual encounters between police and the public for 2008. Maybe the rules have changed--but probably not--since I was a kid doing ride alongs with my stepdad (San Bernardino County Sheriff), but there are many more unreported encounters of all types, from helping a woman load her groceries in a car to admonishing kids for riding skateboards in the street, etc. So being the victim of police violence is not much different from "winning" the lottery; though I'm sure one could improve one's odds if stupidity or disrespect were somehow a characteristic.

My stepdad was shot three times during duty.

@ Lee Grove 52,

"stupidity or disrespect"

It is the duty of police to serve and protect stupid and disrespectful people. When they fail to do that, they should at least be fired.

As for statistics: What question are you answering? The probability of being shot is irrelevant unless you can compare it to a control of some kind.

In the UK or Germany, the probability of being shot when encountering police (however you calculate it) is much much less, even though these are large, diverse countries.

Wouldn't that comparison be the correct way to evaluate the performance of the police?

Every time I've found myself in any Kind of supervisory role, I always operated with the principal of not asking anyone to do something that I would not do myself.

This fellow they had holed up in a parking garage in Dallas, was armed with a semi-automatic rifle (next best thing to a full automatic). He had stated quite clearly that he wanted to kill cops.

I would not have risked my life to assure the safety of someone who had the means and the intent to kill me, and the longer the siege went on, the greater the likelihood that he'd have gotten off a lucky shot, or charged out gun blazing, and killed someone. He had 2 hours. It was a risk to give him 2 hours. I find no fault in the police ending the standoff in the safest way possible.

I worked on the McGovern campaign. Joined the Rainbow Coalition. Marched for gay rights. Escort at Planned Parenthood. All these years I thought I was a liberal.

But if this is the new orthodoxy, that we should demand that police risk their lives to protect someone who is actively trying to kill them, then count me out. Crikey, I'm starting to feel like those Rockefeller Republicans who say, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me".

@Zebra

"It is the duty of police to serve and protect stupid and disrespectful people."

And, amazingly, only in some infinitesimal fraction of the encounters, do the Officers, who are very conscious, frighteningly so, of the very real possibility that "this encounter could be the one," not manage to overcome their own fight or flight (innate human) response, and do just that: protect those who are a danger to themselves.

One word: Heroes!

@ David 54,

I understand your argument, but negotiation with barricaded suspects (no hostages) go on all the time for appreciably longer than a couple of hours.

Here's a technologically feasible suggestion: Set up cameras to observe the suspect. That's something that's easy to do at zero risk to any officer.

With that kind of warning that he's "coming out shooting", if he so decides, he will be shot dead before he clears the door.

But it gives us a chance to figure out what is going on-- like if he's had some kind of psychological issue, which some of the evidence points to. It's about treating people equally, again, in the public perception.

"And, amazingly, only in some infinitesimal fraction of the encounters, do the Officers, who are very conscious, frighteningly so..."

Lee, your incapability to get to the point merely hides anything you attempt to say. It's like you're using word count instead of coherent argument to carry your way.

Please note that all those "good cops" will lie cheat or frame the innocent to get a fellow "good cop" (who, even if the minority, is actually a bad cop) off.

Hell, that case recently where someone in the bushes recorded a cop shooting a man running away AND THEN THREW A GUN DOWN BY THE CORPSE to pretend it was legit, was seen by at least three other cops, none of whom arrested the illegal act. Even a terse disapproval was not forthcoming from any of them.

So how good *are* "good cops", when they defend by bad actions, or even just no action at all, *bad* cops in committing crimes against those they re meant to protect and serve?

"" The vast majority of interactions with police do not end in violence."

This is true, but all it takes is one violent encounter with the police."

Moreover, the police should be cogent of this pronouncement, that most of their interactions will be benign. Yet they are trained, and indoctrinated into the idea that there is ALWAYS death on the line for them, so they must shoot first if there's ANY risk whatsoever.

"My stepdad was shot three times during duty."

Why?

Have you merely assumed this was because people were bad to your stepdad, or that your stepdad didn't know how to de-escalate a situation, and blew it up into a shooting match?

Plus if your stepdad was a New York cabbie, they'd be far more shot at, without either bullet proof vest or first shoot rights (hell, usually without a right to arms in their possession in the cab: how much less likely would you be getting into a cab where the driver was visibly and readily armed?)

"But if this is the new orthodoxy, that we should demand that police risk their lives to protect someone who is actively trying to kill them,"

Tell me, Dave, when they kill an unarmed child, IN WHAT DAMN UNIVERSE IS THAT KID TRYING TO KILL THEM??????

OT, but sort of sums up a part of the problem, is this business of saying that "black lives matter" is itself being somehow racist. I heard Giuliani say it the other day on TV, and today more "conservatives" mouthing it on the radio-- all without being called out. I mean how mean and small minded can you be? Or is it just stupidity?

I mean how mean and small minded can you be? Or is it just stupidity?

No, it's being mean & small-minded -- from the group who brought the world meanness & small-mindedness. Just another one of their dog whistles...

At Wow #60

I made it clear in my post that I was addressing ONLY the standoff in the garage in Dallas. But just for the point of discussion, have you ever had a stranger point a gun at you? Can you recall how that made you feel?

Dave, #63, at what point was it prudent and acceptable to nullify the Constitutional right to due process for American citizens and replace those rights with policies that allow municipal police departments to sidestep arrest, arraignment, and courts and instead use the convenience of military weapons and tactics to corner and execute suspects?

If blowing up suspects involves collapsing buildings and causing "collateral damage" (to use the military term) that also kills hostages and innocent bystanders, how do we deal with that, from a legal standpoint?

Can we even have habeus corpus if law enforcement is allowed to blow up the bodies in lieu of making the effort to arrest them?

Will we be retiring our judges and closing most of our courthouses (saving tax dollars!) now that it's acceptable to simply train, equip, and let loose "Judge Dredd" squads?

Which departments (and/or their insurance companies) will be legally liable for cleaning up the body parts? Repairing the infrastructure damage? Purchasing the C4?

What other military weaponry do we allow for these "search and destroy" criminal justice system exercises? Fragmentation bombs? Grenades? Drone-dropped cluster bombs? How about barrel bombs? Napalm? (If you think we should draw a line, please provide the reasoning & motivation.)

Of course, we have had larger-scale situations that needed to be dealt with. Take David Koresh and the situation in Waco... Would it have been just and appealing for its efficiency to have used howitzers to put a swift and sure end to the standoff? Any limits on shell size? Explosive type or yield? Number of field guns that can be used per suspect? (Might get touchy if the total number of perps isn't quite known a priori.)

How about putting some of our AF Reserves to use and allowing them to firebomb occupied compounds? Might be a good use of those aging A-10 Warthogs. Certainly would protect and save a number of law enforcement officers!

Think of the press releases... I think it would have "a profound impact" on how the good ol' U.S. of A. is thought of in the (rest of) the civilized world...

The militarisation of American policing has been going on for years.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-ha…

#16 Brainstorms raised this already, but it's probably worth saying it again.

Brainstorms #64:

The use of the robot bomb is new.

But my understanding is the only reason they used it was that a sniper couldn't get a shot at the gunman.

Is killing the gunman with a robot mounted bomb any different than killing the gunman with a swat sniper?

Police do that occasionally.

What are your thoughts on the difference between a SWAT sniper killing a gunman and a SWAT robot killing a gunman?

Actually, BBD, it was Obstreperous Applesauce, but I'll take it as a compliment that you confused me for him!

(Does it ever occur to anyone that we've "had to" over-militarize our law enforcement agencies because we've over-stepped the Constitution and allowed the uncontrolled over-militarization of our citizenry?)

Oops, sorry. My only excuse is that I am on holiday :-)

What are your thoughts on the difference between a SWAT sniper killing a gunman and a SWAT robot killing a gunman?

The militarisation of US policing facilitates killing people.

#67 Brainstorms

(Does it ever occur to anyone that we’ve “had to” over-militarize our law enforcement agencies because we’ve over-stepped the Constitution and allowed the uncontrolled over-militarization of our citizenry?)

Certainly to me. It is the most vicious circle.

Sometimes sci-fi tells you things you should have learned in civics class (or figured out on your own):

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

~ Battlestar Galactica (Commander William Adama)

The militarization of the police may have it's roots in SWAT, but it got a big boost from Iraq war surplus.

"Federal cash—first to wage war on drugs, then on terror—has paid for much of the heavy weaponry used by SWAT teams. Between 2002 and 2011 the Department of Homeland Security disbursed $35 billion in grants to state and local police. Also, the Pentagon offers surplus military kit to police departments. According to Mr Balko, by 2005 it had provided such gear to more than 17,000 law-enforcement agencies."

~ From The Economist; article that BBD linked. Worth a read.

What are your thoughts on the difference between a SWAT sniper killing a gunman and a SWAT robot killing a gunman?

1. The SWAT snipers could place shots close enough to the suspect to "encourage" him to give up -- without killing him. The robot was used with the intention of hiding the fact that the police wanted to kill him unconditionally.

2. The SWAT snipers could use non-lethal projectiles -- rubber/wax bullets, sedatives, etc. to distract/disable the suspect. The robot could have carried tear gas, flash grenade, etc., to stun/distract/force surrender, but was carrying C4 -- with the only intention being to kill.

3. The SWAT sniper(s) who succeeds in shooting the suspect can be known -- determined independently (and this is in fact, done by law enforcement agencies in cases like these). Ergo, a shooter can be investigated & potentially cross-examined. He is accountable. Who presses the button to kill with the robot? How can anyone be sure? Even you, RickA, would hesitate to put the robot "on the stand" in court.

4. The use of a sniper rifle does not destroy equipment paid for by tax-payers; the tactic used destroyed a(n expensive) robot. It also cause damage to the surrounding infrastructure. If killing a suspect without due process isn't enough, do we need to compound it by destroying tax payer-funded and private property, too?

5. Explosives are indiscriminate -- more than just the suspect could be killed. Structural damage is hard to prevent/contain (i.e., the building isn't threatening the police). More tax dollars to compensate the property owners -- after the suspect's loved ones have successfully sued the police department for orders of magnitude more tax dollars. Yet another compounding of the problems with this tactic...

6. Explosives aren't certain to function the way the users plan -- or even produce any useful results. Would we want to risk the suspect escaping in the ensuing confusion, fire/smoke, newly-formed escape routes, etc.?

U.S. law enforcement has a long history of employing methods, tactics, and various means to get suspects in very similar situations to surrender or, for attempts to apprehend; there is no precedent, and little justification for half-hearted or non-use of such in this case. It reeks of revenge killing. Vengeance has no place in our law enforcement.

SWAT snipers do not kill people who are alone and surrounded and contained, normally or at least, are not supposed to. So there is no real need for comparison.

In our society, we don't do this. Or at least, we believe it is wrong to do this though it may be done on occasion.

It is, however, well known that cop killers are normally executed on the spot they are found. That is wrong, but it is what is done.

I googled for guidelines for SWAT snipers and found the following article:

https://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/6110125-Use-of-force-considerat…

An excerpt:

A federal appeals court held that a police SWAT team sniper acted in an “objectively reasonable” manner in shooting when the police sniper killed an armed suspect. (Long v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 05-16567, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29530 (9th Cir. 2007)). Neither the officer nor the city was liable for the death.

The officer, according to the court, heard the suspect threaten to shoot officers, observed him carrying a rifle, and had knowledge that he had previously shot at a car full of people, wounding two of them. Additionally, fellow officers had radioed that the suspect was shooting at them and yelling threats.

Under these circumstances, the police sniper reasonably believed that the suspect posed an immediate danger, justifying the use of deadly force.

The court further ruled that a decision that was made to wait for a light armored vehicle for safety reasons before entering the property where the suspect was located did not constitute “deliberate indifference.”

**End of Excerpt**

Sounds quite similar to the Texas situation.

Neither sniper had hostages, the sniper had already killed officers, was resisting arrest, yelling threats of killing more police and continuing to shoot occasionally. I can certainly see how this use of force could be considered proper - compared to the 2007 case.

But I can also see how some people might find the killing premature and unnecessary. I am glad I didn't have to make the call.

I suppose mentioning a robot qualifies this as a suitable piece for "ScienceBlogs.com"

“fair exchange of gunfire"

What a silly idea. One side or the other intends to win.

"But the police had a new tool they could use to shorten the time span for such standoffs."

Yes; either the police or the suspect will have a new tool.

"I would like to see copies of the protocols for using bombs to kill suspects"

You won't find them here on a science blog.

"As far as I can tell, this is homicide."

Of course. Any killing of humans, even by self, or by any method, is homicide.

"There were other ways to do this."

Yes. One could always try asking nicely. One of my favorite movies relevant to the concept is "Demolition Man".

"With a firm tone of voice demand maniac lie down with hands behind back." [http]://www.subzin.com/quotes/M11953ba7f/Demolition+Man/With+a+firm+tone+of+voi…...

"...is to stop protecting people from such violence, and increase the amount of such violence that they themselves carry out."

Police do not protect. Their job is, in part, to shoot back at whoever just shot you. They are not supposed to shoot first. So whoever is shooting first has the advantage.

"If you see a cop, avoid them."

That is your choice, it is not my choice. My choice is to treat them as fellow citizens of my town. I see them at Boy Scout events and in the stores. I know a couple of them by name.

"If yo are not white and you see a cop, really really avoid them"

I'm sort of a light brown, albedo probably around 0.8. I neither seek nor avoid police. I do watch for potentially dangerous situations where the police might need a witness; not that I want such civic duty but there it is.

"If you have a reason to call 911 other than a dire medical emergency, do not call."

Generally bad advice and also poor citizenship. I call 911 about once a year to report an urgency; disabled motorists, vandals, or sometimes I hear gunshots and a few people calling can help triangulate where it is coming from. I've never called 911 for my own urgency.

My most recent 911 call was to report someone laying on the railroad tracks seemingly disabled. Had I failed, then the consequence becomes in part my responsibility. Your citizenship skills seem unlike mine.

"You may end up being responsible for someone getting killed"

That is true every day I step out of my house and operate a motor vehicle. It is even true if I fail to leave my house and, by not being somewhere, failed to stop someone getting killed.

"because when the cops show up, anyone around who is not white is at serious risk"

Unless of course you happen to be in Milwaukee, Detroit or southeast Washington DC where it's the other way round.

"The most recent escalation was the killing by the police of a suspect that they had cornered, using a robot and a bomb."

As you have sensed, there is a slight possibility of a false flag operation, provocateur kind of thing. But I don't get too deeply into conspiracy ideation.

"Expect worse."

Oh, I do!

Now then, with this and your other recent post clearly in mind, are you still of the opinion that only the police should have guns?

Correction: I have called 911 a couple of times for my own urgency in advance of urgency I suppose. One was my neighbor that went berserk with a big kitchen knife threatening my wife and I but took it out on a baby crib instead. When the police arrived she stashed the bits and pieces in the garbage to hid the evidence. Curiously, we had been taking care of her animals while she had been in jail so we never found out what that was all about.

the other time was when our other neighbor had let his dog loose; it's mentally unstable, big and dangerous and if we (wife and I) had to kill it we knew there would be trouble. So the police came and took my report and my neighbor's report and nothing came of it other than having a document on record in case it happens again.

Lying is common; truth is rare, documentation is vital.

Obstreperous Applesauce says "...is this business of saying that black lives matter is itself being somehow racist."

Obviously so. If you identify a race for special consideration, that is by definition racism.

In this particular situation, identifying a single race as mattering implies that all the rest do not matter. Obviously someone took that to heart.

When the Constitution of the United States was drafted, the original Bill of Rights was debated; by defining certain rights it implied that others do not exist. Any time you start enumerating something you imply a difference with things not enumerated.

StevoR writes some things. Thanks for explaining you are Australian. That helps quite a bit.

"black men were 3.5 times more likely to be killed by cops than white men"

But up to 22 times more likely to be killed my other black men depending on city (see citations over on the gun control blog page).

Police go where crime is abundant (duh). It is what they do.

"black males aged 15 to 19 were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white males in that age group."

I wonder where the police found any white males to shoot in your statistical hot zones (Detroit, Chicago, southeast Washington DC).

I wonder what is the ratio in Uganda?

"I’m an Aussie & it took me all of half a minute to google those stats."

I'm looking forward to you eventually putting them in some sort of perspective and global understanding.

In Arizona it's Hispanics.

There's always going to be a hot zone (ghetto, barrio), and that's where the police are going to be called to fight, and the losers in those fights are going to be (drum roll) a minority in the nation but not in that particular hot zone.

I see a LOT of complaining but not much solutioning.

Jan from Canada suggests, as if no one else has ever suggested it: "Did anyone consider a solution to these mass killings could be to get rid of guns in your country?"

Yes. It is a recurring theme. The stupidity of the idea is being discussed right here on this page today but y'all don't see it as such.

WHO is going to take all those guns? The police. What then? Well, see if you can figure it out. The United States escaped from the Crown. Too bad for you.

@ WOW #59:

Sorry if I confused you by using words that you can't comprehend. Normally, there is a very well educated crowd here.
Re:

" 'My stepdad was shot three times during duty.'
Why?
Have you merely assumed this was because people were bad to your stepdad, or that your stepdad didn’t know how to de-escalate a situation, and blew it up into a shooting match?"

As a scientist, I methodically don't base my opinions on assumptions. And I have first hand knowledge of exactly what happened in those instances. But it is not something you could appreciate, as you seem to appreciate nothing but confrontation and argument. And there can be no doubt, judging strictly by your words, that you would never believe a Officer of the Law would risk his life for someone else...
If I WERE to make assumptions, I would have to guess, when considering your melodramatic self-indulgence, that either you are very young or you have been abused in some horrific manner by authority figures in your life. Not all parents are worthy of those colloquial honorifics, Mom and Dad.
Don't bother responding, as I'll be busy building a house, with some ex-police officers, for a family in Tijuana, and thus won't have time to get back here and endure you petulance.

WTF!? These degenerate bolsheviks are complaining that the police "unesesarily" killed one of their precious black men who was merely exercising his right to murder white police officers!? I only wish I had a robot capable of blowing the f up all the backstabbing white race traitors here!

"your comment is awaiting moderation,"

OK now I get it. Now I know why I am seeing what I see here, namely the backstabbing scum of the earth.

Yeah, right, the answer MUST be those people you thought are bad people are doing bad things, therefore proving they're bad people...

Circular logic.

Almost always wrong.

PS Isn't it the right wing who keep calling on killing the poloce? The dudes who took over a government building recently were insisting that any government employee coming to that facility would be shot dead.

Are the friends of Bundy Bolcheviks????

"Sorry if I confused you by using words that you can’t comprehend."

I'm sorry if your ability to read english is so poor you came to that conclusion reading my response. Especially worrying is that the word "Why?" eeems to have been completely beyond your previous experience in this language.

If your stepdad keeps drawing guns on people, more people will be shot, even himself.

Sorry, this is a fact of probability statistics and numbers. Not comprehending this isn't a failure of the universe to be nice to your stepdad, but a failure of your stepdad to consider actions and reactions to them.

If your dad were a cabbie, he'd have little cause to think himself responsible for it, though some cabbies DO induce road rage in their driving jobs, so it's not entirely without blame.

"Yes. It is a recurring theme. The stupidity of the idea is being discussed right here on this page today but y’all don’t see it as such."

Yeah, we don't come to it insisting that it MUST be a stupid idea and therefore only accept it as a stupid idea.

Our opinion is open on the subject.

So far the only "argument" against it has been:

I Don't WANNA!
I Scared!
It STUPID!
SECOND AMENDMENT!!!! NEVER CHANGED!

All of which have been shown multiple times to be insufficient reasoning in the face of the death toll.

"What are your thoughts on the difference between a SWAT sniper killing a gunman and a SWAT robot killing a gunman?"

"SWAT snipers do not kill people who are alone and surrounded and contained, normally or at least, are not supposed to. So there is no real need for comparison."

Uhm, isn't the case here recently that some gunman TOTALLY ALONE was blown up by bomb, therefore your point, Greg, not relevant?

Leave the gunman there. He'll run out of underpants before they run out of patience. That was what was done to the white gunmen who occupied that federal building. No robot suicide bomber there.

One has to ask, though, what was the difference between the two situations?

"If blowing up suspects involves collapsing buildings and causing “collateral damage” (to use the military term) that also kills hostages and innocent bystanders, how do we deal with that, from a legal standpoint?"

And by blowing up "bad people because they're bad and it's safer that way for the population" aren't we telling ISIS et al that this is acceptable to us as well, and any whinging we have about them doing it is merely propaganda and "proof" that we westerners are evil spawn of satan's love-spuds?

Michael2:
Obstreperous Applesauce says “…is this business of saying that black lives matter is itself being somehow racist.”

Obviously so. If you identify a race for special consideration, that is by definition racism.

In this particular situation, identifying a single race as mattering implies that all the rest do not matter.

No it doesn't, and that kind of (imho) lazy thinking helps aggravate the issue, rather than help defusing it.

Unless you think human empathy is somehow a zero sum game, me saying "I matter" does not in any way imply that other people wouldn't matter also, just as if I type "I comment here" does not in any way imply other people don't also comment here, even if I especially excluded them from my statement with the word "I".

Invoking a legal idiom?

My linguistics are not impressed, as they're not affected by legal rulings. More suitable foundation, in my opinion, would be actual linguists or common sense.

So according to you, saying "“You look nice" would be to mean everybody else doesn't, which is obviously untrue. B does not follow from A.

I remember similar cries of "racists!" with the slogan "Black is beautiful", which - like "you look nice" - does in no way imply or state that non-black isn't beautiful too. That some people infer such an implication is not based on the language itself.

Gaist's two references pretty much clarify the linguistic point about BLM but let's deal with the real problem which is the term "racist".

What we call "Blacks" in the US are not a "race", because there is no such thing as "race". Likewise of course for "Whites".

To be racist is to hold the belief that there are genetic factors being expressed in behavior, and that there is a correlation of those genetic factors with (relatively superficial, easily discernible) expressions of other genetic factors.

So, disagreeing with the second reference to some degree, "Black on Black" carries far more racist implication.

Police are more likely to shoot an unarmed Black person because of (perhaps unconscious) racism. That is, they attribute some characteristic like physical prowess or uncontrolled aggression based on appearance.

Black gangbangers who shoot other Black gangbangers are acting rationally and are not being racist.

Your linguistics is not my linquistics.

You cannot keep asserting your own exceptionalism in this way, M2. It's an admission of defeat, not an argument.

Your linguistics is not my linquistics.

You cannot keep asserting your own exceptionalism in this way, M2. It’s an admission of defeat, not an argument.

He has already shown himself to be a particularly fierce cafeteria bible consumer: he's simply consistent here, being a cafeteria consumer of linguistics. More a lack of integrity than anything else.

You are libertarian in the sense that words mean to you what you want them to mean. Sentence structure is what you wish it to be. What others have to say on it is irrelevant to you.

Nice try at projection, mr " But since my words are for me, and your words are for you, it isn’t necessary right now to explain what the word means to me, or in what contexts it might actually have many meanings, and whether any of those meanings are “good” or “bad”. but no. If words mean what everybody wants them to mean, then there is no language. It's called gibberish. You seem able to parse the results of me banging away at my keyboard, so statement demonstrated untrue. Q.E.D.

And if my sentence structure seems odd, my apologies - English is my third language and sometimes the other two (three, four(ish)...) shine through.

What you've still failed to demonstrate, is why, with "black lives matter", there would be an universal and implicit "Only" or "more than others", rather than "too", or "as well" or "equally".

You can whine about legal concepts and rulings on parsing legalese - what this has to do with linguistics for a living language is coincidental at best. Especially, as you yourself demonstrate with the "you look nice", you apply your rules arbitrarily.

Why the multiple ways to emphasize and therefore offer for interpretation "you look nice", but not "black lives matter" or "black is beautiful"?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that how you parse language is the correct or universal way, rather than merely your subjective interpretation. And by this I don't mean words lose all meaning - rather, you understand the words the same as anybody else able to understand English, but you add your subjective read (seemingly "only" with black lives matter) into it. This read is not universal and pretending it is won't change that.

However, such constructions are found in vastly different languages suggesting that these peculiar linguistics predate language itself.

No doubt racism reared it's ugly head before language - and that is what you are doing when you decide someone uttering "black lives matter" means "only", rather than "too"

The fact that it's an ancient knee jerk reaction doesn't change the fact, that it is a knee jerk reaction, showing lazy thinking, and/or racist premises.

I am open to suggestions on new ways to express my exceptionalism.

Self-improvement comes to mind.

My point exactly. You are libertarian in the sense that words mean to you what you want them to mean. Sentence structure is what you wish it to be. What others have to say on it is *irrelevant* to you.

This is almost as astonishing as the one about how you regard the bible:

However, I am bound by the New Testament only to the extent I believe any particular commandment is indeed from God and not inserted along the way by a committee.

Truly, M2, you are on a roll.

Thinking of Dallas, Baton Rouge and others. You Americans must have a big problem that you lead yourselves so easily into treacherous semantic discussions as for instance the meaning of ‘a-contrario’ reasoning. A side path that has nothing to do with the real issues in the USA. Fact is that the US has a policy of exploitation of the many by the few. How to explain that very many Americans need two or three jobs, need to work their guts out, and still live a life of the (very) poor ? The subject of institutionalized discrimination of the non haves by the haves. A 21st century form of slavery. Officially everybody is free in the USA, but in practice very many Americans and immigrants have been and still are branded for life to form the big underclass, that has to serve higher and highest classed people. See racial discrimination in this light, and you will be enlightened. Step out of the supremacy comfort zone and become realistic. The United States of America form together an utterly divided society, that provokes and fuels riots and civil uprisings. What you US Amercans should do is come back to your senses, pull yourself together and start really working for social justice and a safe country to live in. Why do you avoid to even think about this topic in a time where everybody can see the start of worsening trouble. Do yourself and all your fellow countrymen a favor, sober up and end poverty in the USA. Stop the nonsense of bitterly divided political party´s and of demonization of each other. You have to work together. End all violence, become each other´s brother and come to a better level of welfare and happiness of all. Enforce the end of racial discrimination and make the conditions under which everybody can have a decent and happy live, without harming others. What are you afraid of, what are you waiting for ? The other side of the medal as far as one can predict is a threatening downfall of civilization you probably will not like. You have a choice. What will it be ? The end of the USA, or a good America ? Laren NH, Sunday 17 July 2016.

What you’ve still failed to demonstrate, is why, with “black lives matter”, there would be an universal and implicit “Only” or “more than others”, rather than “too”, or “as well” or “equally”.

I should add, obviously... or there might be no implication whatsoever (at least from that statement singled out - context matters here), other than the stated. "Black lives are not worthless."

You can spend endless hours with your albedo range, excluding or including individuals from what you acknowledge as "black" (and I'm not sure hue or amount of melanin is really the only criteria, so your "clarification for the sake of accuracy" also misses the mark - on more than one level.

Most people, actually everybody making even a modicum of effort can manage to preserve and operate many many many subjective values all at once - and expect others to be equally able - so there is no need to individually include or exclude each and every instance with each statement.

M2 at 99, you haven't demonstrated that you know (as in understand) anything. You have demonstrated the ability to scan multiple sources and pick phrases you think sound good and support your point. Fitting those randomly selected choices together and spouting off on them thinking you are making an argument doesn't work: it just makes you seem as deep as a puddle of dog piss.

@Gerrit #102
You make the so many good points about the real nature and origin of this dilemma..
Re: " How to explain that very many Americans need two or three jobs, need to work their guts out, and still live a life of the (very) poor ? The subject of institutionalized discrimination of the non haves by the haves. A 21st century form of slavery. Officially everybody is free in the USA, but in practice very many Americans and immigrants have been and still are branded for life to form the big underclass, that has to serve higher and highest classed people."

What we have, as I've called it since I first heard the phrase "Free Range," is Free Range Slavery; i.e., slaves that don't know they're slaves because they're not chained to a single place.

Egging on, with irresponsible rhetoric, those who have legitimate complaints and have been most damaged by this system of modern slavery (that Gerrit notes) is not helping. In fact, if you are really concerned about black lives, raise the roof with your rhetoric about the fact that far more people are killed by poverty and lack of health care--and, in fact, DOCTORS.
Who has blood on their hands now...

My objection is, as it has been from the get go, that this...

“…is this business of saying that black lives matter is itself being somehow racist.”

Obviously so. If you identify a race for special consideration, that is by definition racism.

In this particular situation, identifying a single race as mattering implies that all the rest do not matter.

...lacks both the signs and trappings of subjective opinioning (which it tries it's hardest not to seem, what with using the conventions of English to actively avoid such interpretation), or any regard for context, as it describes an absolute rule.

You can claim that it's because language somehow works differently for everybody, everybody reading that into your comment would be at fault, or equally prejudiced but there is suitable context on this thread to see that's not the case, and you have done little to convince anyone of your point - apart from citing a legal idiom and resulting court ruling.

I have argued that there is no universal anything in English. A duty (in my opinion) exists on writers to be aware of the possibilities. It is probably impossible to be aware of all of those possibilities.

Then why make write how making statement A is by definition B?

It's obvious "Black lives matter" and "Only Black lives matter" are two different statements. Insisting one is the other won't change that.

I'll try again with html and a few typos fixed...

My objection is, as it has been from the get go, that this…

“…is this business of saying that black lives matter is itself being somehow racist.”

Obviously so. If you identify a race for special consideration, that is by definition racism.

In this particular situation, identifying a single race as mattering implies that all the rest do not matter.

…lacks both the signs and trappings of subjective opinioning (which it tries it’s hardest not to seem, what with using the conventions of English to actively avoid such interpretation), or any regard for context, as it describes an absolute rule.

You can claim that it’s because language somehow works differently for everybody, everybody reading that into your comment would be at fault, or equally prejudiced but there is suitable context on this thread to see that’s not the case, and you have done little to convince anyone of your point – apart from citing a legal idiom and resulting court ruling.

I have argued that there is no universal anything in English. A duty (in my opinion) exists on writers to be aware of the possibilities. It is probably impossible to be aware of all of those possibilities.

Then why write how making statement A is by definition B?

It’s obvious “Black lives matter” and “Only Black lives matter” are two different statements. Insisting one is the other won’t change that.

I think this is for Gaist but reading through every bit of this redundant gibberish is not that interesting-- maybe someone else said it first; it's still wrong:

"No doubt racism reared it’s ugly head before language."

No, that is absurd. How would it work?

That you even continue to use the term race in this discussion makes you as much of a racist as M2. Same for everyone else
who goes along to get along-- you are being as unscientific as any Creationist.

“No doubt racism reared it’s ugly head before language.”

No, that is absurd. How would it work?

One tribe of primates mistrusting another tribe that looks different.

Even social animals like birds and some mammals (at least rats and mice, and if I remember correctly cats) can display this behavior*.

Now, one could argue that those animals have language - and if you can convince me of the fact, I'll admit my statement was in all likelihood wrong - but I would argue (and I'm not the only one) that most animals have means of communication - rather than language.

That you even continue to use the term race in this discussion makes you as much of a racist as M2. Same for everyone else who goes along to get along– you are being as unscientific as any Creationist.

How so? Please clarify.

And what's the acceptable term not invoking race to describe someone who categorizes people based on what they view as race?

Bigot? Prejudiced? I think using the term "racist" or the concept "racism" (which is not the same as "race", you do see the distinction?) when it's apt conveys more information than some broader category definition like prejudiced (one can be prejudiced against a lot of other things besides differently colored).

Or is everybody just supposed to stop talking about social issues that involve (mostly) social constructs or labels? How would that work in real life?

* Not my area of expertise so not up to date on the research.

And to clarify, at least with rats and mice and birds (ravens or magpies, I think) were introduced to a group of similar-looking but diverse group of subjects, then let to get accustomed to that group and then introduced more of the same species, but looking different. The animals were slower (and sometimes less likely to altogether) to interact with those that didn't look like the original group, while quickly interacting with those that looked more familiar - even if they themselves looked more alike with the "shunned" newcomer than the original group (so, for example, a brown rat accustomed to white rats would shun a new brown rat while freely interacting with new white rats).

I read a few articles about this, examining and detailing multiple studies, rather than the studies themselves. So I might be wrong.

That you even continue to use the term race in this discussion makes you as much of a racist as M2.

What makes this accusation seem even more peculiar, is that not once, on this thread, have I typed the word "race" before this - every other instance that word has appeared in my comment has been as a quote.

"racist", yes and "racism", denoting the very same social concept (or it's adherent) you yourself, zebra, defined in #93.

@ Gaist 114,

Please see my #93.

"One tribe of primates mistrusting another tribe that looks different."

I don't want to get into all this language parsing and bickering so I will accept "mistrusting" for the moment. But I'm not sure what you mean by "tribe".

If you look at the behavior of apes, individuals either belong to the troop or they don't. There is no generalized "look" involved as far as I know; when chimps commit "genocide" they are being territorial, based on the other troop consisting of individuals who have not been bonded to their own.

I'm happy to extend this further although I suspect Greg could do better discussing early and proto-humans, but given the fact that we apparently mated with Neanderthals, I doubt there is any biological imperative to "stick to your own 'kind' ". In fact, again deferring to Greg's expertise, we know that humans go to considerable effort to maintain genetic diversity.

With respect to discussing "race" in the modern context: The issue is whether or not you are validating the racist's conception of race in the discussion. I suspect that you would agree with my characterization of racism. But you are arguing this BLM v OBLM and so on as if the term "Black" has the meaning assigned by M2. (I will stop here to see your response on having read my 93.)

I will stop here to see your response on having read my 93.)

Read on.

And while we wait with bated breath you noticing posts 115 and 116, what term would you have us use instead of "black", when discussing it's usage in modern English? Often, I might add, by [insert your word here] who self-label themselves and identify as "black".

@ Gaist 118,

Yes, your animal examples comport with my description of ape behavior-- it's certainly not "racism".

So, getting back to the human present, even if you don't initiate the use of the term, what are you replying to when you reply to M2's use of "race", if you agree with my definition of racism?

"bated breath"

Sorry, but I am doing this while taking breaks from hot and sweaty outside work. Be patient. I am trying to get that done before the heat is unbearable.

I'm curious...

...why, if the word is so obnoxious to you, did you single me out for using the word "black", when the title for this blog post already uses it with the same meaning I do - not to mention several references to it in the blog post itself?

Why me using it in the same way millions if not billions of people use and understand it is somehow as unscientific as a Creationist, or makes me a racist? Because that way of thinking isn't that divorced from Michael 2's argument I objected to in the first place.

@ Gaist 122,

I use "Black" all the time, and I didn't criticize you for using it, and I didn't "single you out". (113)

I am only interested in the term "race". It may be that billions of people think there is such a thing, but that makes it no less unscientific.

If you don't want to reply to my 120 that's OK, but I'm not interested in starting some he-said-she-said nitpicking over every word back through multiple comments. I jumped in at 93 when you gave those references and said what I meant. Likewise 113. Pretty clear to me.

Carry on with your

gaist writes: "And to clarify, at least with rats and mice and birds (ravens or magpies, I think)..."

Your understanding is my understanding. Birds learn the songs and sounds of their parents; over some generations a population of birds develops a distinctive series of sounds that distinguishes identical species of birds.

A young bird raised in isolation does not learn its family group songs and will probably fail to mate. It will make sounds, but no other bird recognizes those sounds, and he will likely be attacked as an intruder.

Seeing people standing in little groups around the soda fountain or coffee pot at work I see the same behavior. I find it interesting to identify the "alpha" by who always goes first at the coffee or soda in any of these little groups.

A human owning a dog must be the alpha (but frequently isn't). The human must enter his house first, must eat first, as otherwise the dog will instinctively assert himself as alpha.

Continuing from 125 for Gaist:

Carry on with your discussion about linguistics with the fellow who has a problem with species selection for sexual purposes.

Perhaps he can offer some insights with tales of his lonely life as a shepherd.

You: But you are arguing this BLM v OBLM and so on as if the term “Black” has the meaning assigned by M2.*

Me: if the word [black] is so obnoxious...

You: I am only interested in the term “race”.

Care to clarify the issue?

*) And no I'm not - I'm arguing it as if it has meaning assigned to it by the author of this blog, for example. Not as a scientific definition, but a social one. Never have I, or anybody else here for that matter, stated here I thought "black" was a scientific definition.

Carry on with your discussion about linguistics with the fellow who has a problem with species selection for sexual purposes.

Perhaps he can offer some insights with tales of his lonely life as a shepherd.

Why does it matter to you what I do with my spare time? And if it doesn't, what your objection (and insult) was in the first place, and why would I need your concent to continue or not?

It is indeed mate selection. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

With the rats and mice, probably for the most part, although I would assume also familiarity (in the case of same sex specimens especially).

With humans it's more complicated, because having "mastered" abstract thinking we're able to attribute all sorts of ideas or values to perceived groups, usually generalizing and miscategorizing in the process.

@ Desertphile 134,

??....How do you know it is a group??

Submitted without comment:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article89859017.html

Anyway, on the blog that cannot be mentioned, but citing Washington Post, it appears that whites are killed by police at a rate (per 10,000 arrests) approximately twice that of blacks.

Young black men are sometimes taught to NOT resist arrest where young white men tend to be rather arrogant says Willis E. citing Washington Post. But police shooting white men isn't news. There's no "White Lives Matter" protest.

So why dont we just drop the qualifier and just say lives matter, and take that to the bank.

I can't say what should or shouldn't be done to the slogan - I do feel that it's memorable and concise. Whether being twitter-friendly is a good thing, or if adding or changing something might improve it isn't for me to say really.

Obviously it is polemic, but I'm not convinced that polemic isn't the result of a knee-jerk push back to, as you put it, perceived threat to prevailing "hierarchy" (or cultural prejudices or personal past experiences) or actual, fundamental difference in understanding language.

I would hazard a guess that when someone replies to "Black lives matter" with "Cop lives matter", there isn't a great flood of "Milk mens lives matter!" or "Lawyers lives matter!" - the interpretation is different, even if the statement itself, on paper is as "limiting" as the first one.

citing Washington Post, it appears that whites are killed by police at a rate (per 10,000 arrests) approximately twice that of blacks.

Haven't been here long enough to know which blog you mean, but that is interesting, and did not know that. If I have a spare moment I might read more about this.

Media is famously (or infamously) fickle, and what the BLM movement (among others) has successfully done (for now) is get media to make every such incident headline news. The side effect of this, as the number of headline positions doesn't increase, is de-emphasizing other news, or contrary news.

"So why dont we just drop the qualifier and just say lives matter, and take that to the bank."

Why don't we ACTUALLY ACT LIKE LIVES MATTER and take THAT to the bank.

Because those who want to shoot "others" don't think THEIR lives matter, only that of themselves and those they think of as "us".

When a black man gets shot, what's WRONG with saying "Black lives matter"?

If you're unhappy about your perception that your white ass doesn't matter, how about "Black lives matter too"?

I agree with the police statement that the deliberate targeting of police officers for shooting is an anathema.

I propose instead that anyone approached by an armed police officer should do like they do: shoot first, before their lives, or the lives of other innocents and loved ones, are put in danger by these armed police officers.

This, apparently, is absolutely fine.

So fire away.

why do you wait until a black man gets shot to only then decide that black lives matter?

Or maybe it's taken such a public outcry for some folk to realize some people have been saying it all along.

Michael 2 #149:

Your right - Wow's suggestion to shoot police first is probably illegal and certainly not good advice.

It would be just as crazy to recommend that everybody go shoot and kill a criminal. Not good advice and probably illegal.

Greg's advice to avoid the police is also rash, and not good advice.

My advice is don't break the law. Lets get black on black crime under control. Black on black crime is way out of proportion to black pro rata population and it scares the police. Scared police are more dangerous than calm police. If you do encounter the police, be polite and follow their instructions. Do not resist arrest and do not run. If you have a permit to carry - keep your hands visible at all times and don't volunteer you are carrying unless your weapon will be seen by the police. The latest Minnesota police shooting was a real tragedy and scary for every permit to carry holder. Once again - a scared police officer is very dangerous. I guess the lesson learned with this tragedy is if the officer has the gun drawn - don't reach for anything - but leave your hands visible and ask the officer how you should produce your ID without getting shot.

I wish you would be as concerned about White lives. 494 white lives were killed by police last year but only 258 black lives were killed.

Michael 2 fails basic statistics; color me shocked. 26% of people killed by police in 2015 were black. Yet, according to the US Census data, only 12.6% of the population is black. Do you see the discrepancy here?

The whole "white lives matter" counter movement is absurd. White people don't experience institutionalized racism. White males are the institution.

See also: https://popehat.com/2016/02/08/marc-randazza-why-we-need-white-history-…

When the focus is on the ethnicity rather than the crimes, justice is not served. Ironic that people who push for "equality" are singularly focused on pigment.

http://tinyurl.com/j4tfnwp

Justice is blind....this concept should unify us...non-whites are moving away from the politics of fear and victim-hood towards self-defense. We should all strive to be equal under the law. Even if you find a bias due to skin color, it is not codified into law and would be nearly impossible to prove in a courtroom.

capnkrunch #151:

If you look at the 2013 FBI homicide data you will see that there were 5723 homicides.

3005 whites killed, 2491 blacks killed.

Of the 2491 blacks killed, 2245 were killed by black offenders and 189 were killed by white offenders.

So 90% were black on black crime.

For the whites, of the 3005 killed, 2509 were killed by white offenders, 409 by black offenders.

So 83.5% were white on white crime.

@RickA
Might be. But how many of those black people killing other Blacks are police officers with the duty to "protect and serve"?

I mean, are you telling me that a police officer killing an innocent person is okay because criminals do it as well?

@all
cracked.com recently ran an interesting interview/ article about a guy who used to work as a police officer in London. You know, in Britain, where the police does not carry guns and has to solve confrontations in different ways.

ron@152

Justice is blind

Ideally yes. In practice not so much.

We should all strive to be equal under the law.

Which is exactly what this is all about.

...towards self-defense

Code for gun ownership, which despite what the NRA says are not effective self-defense.

RickA@153

So 90% were black on black crime.

Separate issue*. Reducing violent crime and police reform are not mutually exclusive (in fact police reform is likely a necessary step to reducing violent crime).

*Actually, these are likely highly intertwined as far as causes and solutions go. But in the context of a discussion on police brutality/reform it's a distraction from the issue at hand.

Michael 2@156

It is a good thing that the French police were armed.

How's that working out for them? More high profile terrorist attacks in France than the UK recently it seems.

I say that to make a point. You are just throwing around anecdotes. When you look at the statistics it appears as though in the US police officers both kill and are killed at much higher rates than in the UK. Granted it doesn't appear that our data on this are great but on the other hand, you made the claim that guns make US cops safe so the onus is on you to provide evidence.

London is home to the UK’s ten most violent places to live

So what? London is dangerous compared to the rest of the UK? That's not a meaningful comparison for the point you are trying to make. How about this instead: the murder rate in London in 2011 (latest year the data source has) was 1.3. In New York in the same year it was 6.3 [1].

[1] h[]ps://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html

"While your skill with language cannot be disputed, you seem to lack a proper cause and effect understanding of things."

You just broke all the irony meters in existence.

Remarkable. The exact same behavior described in two ways. You have an admirable gift with language.

And you missed my point spectacularly. I was not arguing that France is necessarily less safe than the UK but rather demonstrating that that by cherry-picking headlines you appear to support whatever claim you feel like.

That violent people feel safe to be violent because there’s no guns to stop them seems fairly obvious to me.

And yet the data doesn't support that, being why I asked for evidence. What you gave is simpy a reassertion.

But they exist for a valuable reason; they make the weak nearly equal with strong; a 120 pound woman can have less fear of a 300 pound man, in certain circumstances like she knows he is coming, which in my opinion is frequently the case.

And once again, your opinion fails to jive with reality.

There were no gun uses in self-defense reported for either sexual assaults or purse snatching/pick pocketing.

---------------

Don’t change the scenario; the scenario is actual. Any of the police that responded could have chosen to not be armed, and sometimes negotiators play it that way, or so I suppose.

This is a strawman. It wasn't the beat cops how stormed the nightclub nor would be the beat cops responding in the UK. There are people specially trained and equipped for these situations. Every cop being armed and trained to treat every encounter as a potential active shooter incident is the problem here.

And again, look at the data. Despite most police not carrying guns in the UK there are far less deaths in the line of duty there. Is this stuff really that hard to grasp? If you want to disagree provide some evidence not just assertions and opinions.

"It would be better if they were non-ferrous."

And it would be better if you showed any bit of honesty or integrity, but that has never happened and most likely never will.

And none whatsoever in Iceland so far as I know. It appears to be inversely proportional to per-capita consumption of fish.

Rather than joking it away, I'd be actually interested in why you think this might me... It's pretty much all of Scandinavia. They have one third to half the guns US has, per capita, but less than 1 percent the deaths by police (or by firearms altogether).

In the last 25 years, Finnish cops have killed four people.Four. In a country where 45 out of 100 households own firearms. In the last 14 years, there has been 13 people shot by police in Sweden and 2 in Norway. (Warning: link in Swedish but you can manage with google translate if you want to).

In 2013, they fired a total of 6 shots in the line of duty, including (and actually, consisting of) warning shots.

t’s pretty much all of Scandinavia.

In fact it seems it's a lot of Europe. Reading a bit further, In 2013 German police fired 42 shots, killing eight. When compared to the population, German police shot far less per capita than Finnish police*, even though they did use lethal force on eight individuals.

The numbers presented at 153, despite the racist language, illustrate how much of the other stat-factoid food fight is irrelevant.

People are mostly killed by people they know or who are part of their community. Pretty much explains everything y'all are arguing about.

With respect to comparisons of prevalence of firearms, we again have the classic problem: What is the question? Dueling non-sequitur statistics don't help.

"Resolved: Reducing the number of guns per capita in the US would reduce gun deaths."

That's an example of a question. There are many others.

"Wow writes “Why don’t we ACTUALLY ACT LIKE LIVES MATTER”

There is no “we”; consequently your question cannot be answered as stated."

There's you. There's me. There's your momma. There's all of us, also named "We".

If there's no such thing as "We", then you have no constitution, since there's no "We, the people...".

You, sir are a halfwit.

"In the last 25 years, Finnish cops have killed four people.Four. In a country where 45 out of 100 households own firearms"

Ah, I think you need to read up on finland and their firearm ownership.

They have conscription there, and you have a gun and you keep it LOCKED AWAY WITHOUT AMMO.

You know, like a goddamned millitia, not raving gun nuts taking the freaking things to bed because they're scared of the dark or monsters under the bed.

ron would like to know what you should do if you are threatened by someone robbing you.

If you're not a wimp, you can beat off an armed attacker *with a packet of bacon*, like this person:

http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14627754.Woman__86__beats_off…

Yeah, that's right, a pensioner, well past their prime.

Odd what you can do to defend yourself against criminals without guns.

If you're not a wimp.

"" It is a good thing that the French police were armed."

How’s that working out for them? More high profile terrorist attacks in France than the UK recently it seems."

How did it work out for the armed police in Baton Rouge? Seems like merely being armed isn't going to protect you at all.

"The whole “white lives matter” counter movement is absurd. White people don’t experience institutionalized racism. White males are the institution."

Apart from that, if he's so afraid of cops killing whites, why isn't he out there demanding that the officers killing white people be thrown in jail for murder or manslaughter?

The cry is nothing more than "LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!". No actual feeling other than a desire to distract because he doesn't want the situation to improve.

“In the last 25 years, Finnish cops have killed four people.Four. In a country where 45 out of 100 households own firearms”

Ah, I think you need to read up on finland and their firearm ownership.

There's that, although not many women go to the army as it's voluntary, but they do own firearms.

There's also the fact that those wanting to become police in Finland go through three years of training at a national police academy before graduating (so every cop in Finland has had the same training). Compared to two months or so in much of US.

#169 That's a highly entertaining story of one female attacking another (and a lesson on cultural differences in language). I'm glad that the innocent person was unharmed and that there were apparently no weapons used on either side.

Yeah, I could fend off most unarmed ladies without a firearm (but there may be violence)...so I should not arm myself? IS that your argument?

I would suggest that said pensioner would have been gravely wounded if the attacker had a sharp object (knife / broken glass) or a blunt object (pipe/bat).

#169 Lucky she had that bacon in her hand...sounds like she may have injured herself if she swung her fist (assuming bag was immobile)...

Pensioner ARMED herself and used a weapon...is she a wimp for doing so? Should we all carry bacon around? Wouldn't that offend certain peoples?

"" Ah, I think you need to read up on finland and their firearm ownership."

There’s that,"

And when you do that, you find that the situations are entirely different and the explanation of those differences are that the finns treat the guns as an obligation and a responsibility, NOT a right.

"#169 That’s a highly entertaining story of one female attacking another "

Without a gun. Note that "one female" is an OAP and "the other one" is a criminal.

Odd how ron the coward really doesn't see the difference between a criminal and a law abiding citizen if they're both unarmed...

"Yeah, I could fend off most unarmed ladies without a firearm"

So you're a female too???

"#169 Lucky she had that bacon in her hand"

Lucky she wasn't a coward like you, ron. otherwise someone would have died. And probably not the criminal.

"Pensioner ARMED herself and used a weapon"

OK, so your second amendment rights are solved by you being able to pick up a packet of bacon in a supermarket, and you have absolutely no need to demand a firearm.

And when you do that, you find that the situations are entirely different and the explanation of those differences are that the finns treat the guns as an obligation and a responsibility, NOT a right.

I fear there may be a lapse in communication here... I raised
the Finland (and Sweden/Norway)-example to ask Michael 2 what he thought the reason was why deaths-by-cop statistics were so different between US and Scandinavia, not to debate the intricacies of Finnish gun ownership.

Well, I took that you were pointing to widespread gun ownership not being a risky proposition.

It's only a non risk if you have sane people who aren't terrified of ghosties and goblins and want to sleep with their guns "as a right" rather than as their responsibility.

It points to the USA having a sickness with guns, but not with guns being safe.

The crime of being in the wrong political party, I think.

Not the wrong gender. Not the wrong race.

The wrong political party.

"At Wow #60

I made it clear in my post that I was addressing ONLY the standoff in the garage in Dallas. "

Then, Dave, there IS no "new orthodoxy", since that was a single event and could not even have been promoted as a theoretical idea until AFTER the Dallas shooting.

Moreover, it could not have been orthodoxy until a vast number of cases had been guided by the same sentiment, an event that cannot have happened in a single Dallas shooting, by definition of "single" and "vast number".

Therefore your post CANNOT have been ONLY about the Dallas shooting.

My post stands and remains unanswered.

"But non-whites, though a minority in the cop-killing population, are in the majority in the killed-by-cop population. Go figure."

According to The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-count…
148 / 604 in 2015 were black.

And there's only black and white?

"Wow wrote: “My post stands and remains unanswered.”

Most of your posts remain unanswered"

So you admit your avoidance. Proud of your ignorance, are we?

Mike, everyone here knows that you never say or mean anything and that any word you're tied down to is retconned into a completely new meaning if such idiocy means you can convince yourself you "won".

Mike, wrong. Both posts.

Greg,

I think that your position is utterly absurd. This individual had already killed several human beings and was shooting at more human beings from his strategically covered position. ( He also stated verbally that his intent was to kill as many more human beings as he could.

Is it ok with you that the police returned fire at all? Had they hit him with a bullet, would that be disturbing to you?

Nevermind. I'm sure it would be.

The fact that they used a different technique to achieve the same result that would have been perfectly reasonable to any reasonable person is your excuse of the day to malign police officers. Silly.

MC, my understanfing, which to my knowledge has not been contradicted, is that he was contained. Therefore, by the constitutional guarantee of fir process, the police are not go kill him.

Also,dont be an asshole about it.

What does that mean, "He was contained? Does that mean if he had an escape route, it would have been ok to use violence against him?
He was shooting at them. Why do you ignore this?

Also, what you've written is ridiculous on its face. I characterized your expressed opinion as "absurd"and "silly". I didn't call you a name.

MC, my understanfing, which to my knowledge has not been contradicted, is that he was contained. Therefore, by the constitutional guarantee of fir process, the police are not go kill him.

I presume "fir" was supposed to be "due," but the words make no more sense with that correction. What does the 14th Amendment have to do with being "contained"? Some case law would help here.

"He also stated verbally that his intent was to kill as many more human beings as he could"

So? Friends of Bundy ALSO claimed that they were going to kill any government employee who tried to oust them from the illegal occupation of the federal building they took over in an armed assault.

They weren't bombed by a remote guided warhead.

Was it because they were white?

Because they were right wing?

Or because they were both right wing AND white?

Or espousing christianity?

All three?

Or was it just "Not black"?