Snipers shoot 12 cops, kill 5, at Black Lives Matter Protest

[laklak]

Nothin' more peaceful than a dead activist.

[DaveDodo007]

Nothin' more peaceful than a dead activist.

This always makes my laugh, can you imagine lefty/liberals surviving in a anarchist state. If they are lucky we will eat them but let's be frank just putting a bullet in their head would be just rewards and then we would start farms and you know grow crops.

[pErvinalia]

I think it shows the state of the law enforcement in Dallas. They have not got a clue.

No, it's you who has no clue, having exactly zero experience as a police officer, particularly one in Dallas.

If I remember correctly, Dutchy was in fact a cop.

[pErvinalia]

The problem with "fuck dealing with the police" is it gets you shot. I'll do what Seth said, because I don't fancy becoming a "non-optimal outcome" statistic.

What you should do, instead of arguing for less government and less pay, is argue for well regulated, trained, and resourced police forces.

And do you have even one iota of evidence that the DPD isn't exactly that? Keep in mind that in any organization with 3,640 sworn officers is going to have a small percentage of bad apples no matter how hard it tries to weed them out. Some people seek employment as police officers precisely so that they can acquire power and prestige and use it to abuse others. I've worked with such people in the past. The real problem is that police unions strenuously protect these bad apples, to the detriment of everyone, just because. At the Denver Police Department there are a number of well-known abusive and violent cops who have had dozens of excessive force complaints lodged against them and who have even been judged guilty of using excessive force that the Chief of Police fired, only to have the union and the Civil Service Commission overrule him and force him to re-hire and often compensate the officer for firing him in the first place. So if there are abusive cops on the Dallas police force, or anywhere else there's a union involved, you can blame the union for the fact that, like federal government bureaucrats, it can be nearly impossible to get rid of them...just like it's the unions that are responsible for making it nearly impossible to get rid of incompetent and even sexually abusive school teachers.

Employing adult children and paying them shit and not training them properly only leads to these sorts of problems.

And your evidence that any of the 12 officers involved qualify under your specious and insulting, and grossly ignorant opinion is....???

It's a shame you and Coito can't follow threads properly. I'm not talking about the cops shot in Dallas. I'm talking about police forces in general. Follow the comments back. It's clear for those who can read properly.

Regarding police unions, I agree. I see the same phenomenon here, although the number of civilians shot by cops, and general abusive behaviour, is well below the level in the US.

Fixing that is going to take more government (i.e. regulations on who can and can't be a cop; and more funding).

It's not the regulations that are the problem, it's the public's willingness to pay what it takes to get a top-quality police force and the public's willingness to allow police unions to interfere in the decision to discipline or terminate abusive cops. If the public isn't willing to pay that much and give the administration the freedom to get rid of bad apples there's little the police department can do to improve things. So ultimately a community gets exactly as much competent policing as it is willing to pay for...and exactly as much crime as it's willing to tolerate.

Yes, you've just agreed with my point. The public needs to grow up and lose the libertarian and conservative nonsense that less government spending is generally a good thing.

[pErvinalia]

Yep, racism doesn't exist because there was a black president. Just like the Tories aren't largely sexist wankers just because they had a female party leader.

Stop being delusional, conservatism is based on the individual and is colour and sex blind.

Conservatism is a fear (or a wariness, if one was in a charitable mood - which I never am when it comes to conservatives) of difference. EVERY policy flows forth from that base.

[Seth]

Yep, racism doesn't exist because there was a black president. Just like the Tories aren't largely sexist wankers just because they had a female party leader.

Stop being delusional, conservatism is based on the individual and is colour and sex blind.

Conservatism is a fear (or a wariness, if one was in a charitable mood - which I never am when it comes to conservatives) of difference. EVERY policy flows forth from that base.

Only to delusional leftists. Conservativism is the principle that change qua change is irrational and that institutions, practices, principles, ideals and social mores exist and persist precisely because they have been tested by time and have evolved in useful and helpful ways for humans living in community, and that the liberal fascist agenda of change for the sake of change, particularly the commonplace attempt to replace existing practices and ideals with untested fucktarded notions that some liberal thunk up on the spur of the moment without either the intellect or the research to prove the new plan will actually be a social positive, is harmful to humanity and the lives, property and rights of the individuals who make up the society.

You see, liberal fucktards think they know everything when they actually know little to nothing and Conservatives understand that they are fucktards who are agitating for change merely because they think it will serve their own cupidinous self-serving purposes and ideals in the short term, so Conservatives resist them BECAUSE they respect the rights of ALL individuals, regardless of race or sex, not to be subjected to fucktarded liberal experimentation and meddling.

Conservatives are happy to amend how things are done once it's been proven that the amendment is useful, productive and respectful of the rights of individuals and will produce a better social outcome. Liberal fascists on the other hand just want to impose their ideas on everyone else by force, regardless of how useless the plan might be or how harmful to individual civil rights.

Gun control is a classic example of this. Conservatives are desperate to keep guns away from terrorists, criminals and the insane, just as liberals are, but they understand that it cannot be accomplished by taking guns away from people who are NOT terrorists, criminals or insane, which is what liberal fascists actually want. Therefore Conservatives resist the impulse to engage in knee-jerk legislation that does more harm that it does good, in favor of solving the root problems with, for example, the "terror watch list" and "no fly list" programs that ALREADY violate the civil rights of people who get put on the lists and yet have no due process rights to challenge such labeling.

Fix the due process issues with those lists and provide innocent citizens, like, oh, Teddy Kennedy, who was on the no-fly list, with due process recourse to appeal and adjudicate their placement on the list and provide a constitutional mechanism for getting OFF the list if improperly put on it and THEN Conservatives, right up to the NRA and even me will be happy to agree to ban people on those lists from buying guns.

But FIRST you have to protect the rights of innocent people wrongfully placed on lists over which there is quite literally no judicial or legislative oversight or control because the Constitution forbids the government from denying any citizen the right to keep and bear arms absent a compelling government need to do so in each and every individual case that achieves the legitimate public purpose in the manner least restrictive on the rights of citizens and without affording every person on such a list full substantive due process.

The problem is, of course, that the fucktards in Congress who are agitating for such bans, along with Obama and Clinton and Sanders, among many others, don't actually give a flying fuck about ANYONE'S constitutional rights, particularly not their gun rights, and they want to make a law that can be further abused by them through the simple expedient of denying due process to the accused and then placing NO LIMITS WHATSOEVER on who may and who may not be placed on such a list. As it stands now, ANY member of Congress, and almost ANY federal bureaucrat can get someone put on the lists without so much as documented reasonable suspicion, and people have gotten on those lists merely for pissing some liberal cocksucking Congresscritter off.

So, horse before the cart, please. Eliminate the potential for such lists to be used abusively by providing regulations about putting people on them, oversight of who gets on them and why, and judicial due process for those wrongfully added to the lists so that the lists only contain the names of people who are actual, verifiable security and terrorist risks and NOT innocent citizens and then I'll be happy to support banning those on such lists from buying guns.

[pErvinalia]

Yep, racism doesn't exist because there was a black president. Just like the Tories aren't largely sexist wankers just because they had a female party leader.

Stop being delusional, conservatism is based on the individual and is colour and sex blind.

Conservatism is a fear (or a wariness, if one was in a charitable mood - which I never am when it comes to conservatives) of difference. EVERY policy flows forth from that base.

Only to delusional leftists.

Are you calling me a delusional leftist? How is your holiday shopping going? Have you decided on a length of holiday yet?

[Seth]

Yep, racism doesn't exist because there was a black president. Just like the Tories aren't largely sexist wankers just because they had a female party leader.

Stop being delusional, conservatism is based on the individual and is colour and sex blind.

Conservatism is a fear (or a wariness, if one was in a charitable mood - which I never am when it comes to conservatives) of difference. EVERY policy flows forth from that base.

Only to delusional leftists.

Are you calling me a delusional leftist? How is your holiday shopping going? Have you decided on a length of holiday yet?

Of course not. That would be an FUA violation. I was merely commenting that your argument only appeals to delusional leftists because of your argument's fundamentally flawed and fallacious claims and understandings of Conservatism, which is actually neither a manifestation of fear or wariness of any kind nor is it related to "difference." Conservatism is a respect for established and proven institutions and practices that provide stability and protection for society and individual rights and a healthy skepticism for hare-brained liberal pie-in-the-sky notions that have no background of success, and often have a long, long and cruel background of utter, repeated and abject failure, like Venezuela's government's hare-brained notions that Marxism can ever be a useful or successful societal model...something that has been proven not to be true many, many times in the past.

Recognizing that your argument is not your person and that any member here is free to posit an argument that is at odds with their actual character or nature strictly for the purposes of stimulating debate and argumentation, and having done so many times myself, it would be silly of me to impute the negative personal characteristic of "delusional leftist" to you, rather than to your argument, which is what I did.

When I speak of delusional leftists I'm referring to delusional leftists as a class. Are you claiming to being a delusional leftist, because I operate under the assumption that you are not making such a claim because a delusional leftist might be offended at being called a delusional leftist, but one who is not a delusional leftist would not be offended because the label would have no application to anyone other than a delusional leftist, you see. A rational person would recognize the distinction between a general reference to a specified group and a personal attack. If however you wish to claim membership in the abstract group "delusional leftists" then I will be happy to profusely apologize for an improper member-group personal attack. Of course then it wouldn't be inappropriate for me to quote you in the future would it, since a voluntary admission like that demonstrates that mentioning it is not a personal insult but rather a compliment, just as a Marxist, lesbian or a Progressive is proud to be called a Marxist, lesbian or Progressive.

So, in what specific groups do you claim (or disclaim) affiliation or membership? Inquiring minds want to know...

[pErvinalia]

Stop being delusional, conservatism is based on the individual and is colour and sex blind.

Conservatism is a fear (or a wariness, if one was in a charitable mood - which I never am when it comes to conservatives) of difference. EVERY policy flows forth from that base.

Only to delusional leftists.

Are you calling me a delusional leftist? How is your holiday shopping going? Have you decided on a length of holiday yet?

Of course not. That would be an FUA violation. I was merely commenting that your argument only appeals to delusional leftists because of your argument's fundamentally flawed and fallacious claims and understandings of Conservatism,

It obviously appeals to me, as I made the argument. So you are calling me a delusional leftist. THIS is what got you repeatedly suspended and then banned at RD.net (and possibly ratskep, can't remember). Your stupidly thinly veiled personal attacks. It's why your whinging about the mods picking on poor widdle you is so laughable.

Recognizing that your argument is not your person and that any member here is free to posit an argument that is at odds with their actual character or nature strictly for the purposes of stimulating debate and argumentation, and having done so many times myself, it would be silly of me to impute the negative personal characteristic of "delusional leftist" to you, rather than to your argument, which is what I did.

You appear incapable of learning from the past. You, me and 914 exploited this loophole (like it even makes one bit of sense to give an argument personalisation like calling it a "delusional leftist") at RD.net and this is why the rules were changed for a while to put a stop to it. And while 914 and I largely stopped doing it, you just kept on going. And it's why you got banned from there. And it's why you'll end up getting repeatedly suspended from here.

When I speak of delusional leftists I'm referring to delusional leftists as a class. Are you claiming to being a delusional leftist,

No, your class was 'people who believe in argument xyz'. You then labelled those people as "delusional leftists". Given I advanced the definition, I clearly believe in it, or at the very least am purporting to believe in it (and there's no difference between the two regarding the forum rules).

[pErvinalia]

I just saw some detail about how they ended the shooting. They blew him up with a police robot equipped with explosives. That's pretty creative!

[JimC]

I just saw some detail about how they ended the shooting. They blew him up with a police robot equipped with explosives. That's pretty creative!

I hope they give a pension to the robot's next of kin...

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

I think it shows the state of the law enforcement in Dallas. They have not got a clue.

No, it's you who has no clue, having exactly zero experience as a police officer, particularly one in Dallas.

If I remember correctly, Dutchy was in fact a cop.

Correct. I ended up in the Drug Squad without a gun of course.

[pErvinalia]

Seth was a cop, allegedly. I reckon it's more likely he was a theme park security guard...

[Scot Dutchy]