[Tiste Simeon]

5th one has died...

[Terez]

Yep, I posted that a while back. More importantly, the shooter in the standoff has killed himself. We should get some partial answers soon.

[Silencer]

EmperorMagus, on 08 July 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 08 July 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Wow, what a horrible sorry to wake up to. Do the people who are killing cops think that their actions will somehow help the cause? This is just going to justify more militarisation of the police, and the cycle continues...

I'm trying to put myself in their shoes, and what comes to me is this. (if this is somehow revenge for the shootings)

"1 of them for everyone of us"
They don't care about results. I know how I wouldn't care about results if I was in their shoes.

If it is truly a direct result of this, and not something else, then the only rationale I can figure is that these people are frustrated with the complete lack of change. "Why stick to peaceful measures when it's not changing anything?" basically.

I can see that frustration. This is the culmination of the "nothing will change as long as it's not affecting them" mentality. And whether it was serious or not, I've seen a lot of comments on social media to that effect in the past day. Some calling for retaliation on cops, some calling for rioting, but it all amounts to the same thing - the laws aren't protecting 'us' any more, so fuck the laws, make the man listen.

It's not ubiquitous and I doubt it's a serious proposal for most people (at most being a spur of the moment anger thing), but there's always a handful who will take it to heart and end up acting on it. Not all of whom are doing so in "good faith" so to speak with the cause.

[Tiste Simeon]

Terez, on 08 July 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

Yep, I posted that a while back. More importantly, the shooter in the standoff has killed himself. We should get some partial answers soon.

Sorry, still waking up and trying to sort through the mountain of reports and things on Twitter, Reddit, BBC etc. So much information!

[worry]

Not to sound naive, given the context, but we still don't know that the shooters were black. No identifying info has been released on the suspects.

And while it very much appears that the targets were police, it's worth noting there was a twelfth victim who was a civilian, one of the protestors. A woman named Shetamia Taylor who was shot protecting her kids, and as of now has survived.

[Tiste Simeon]

Silencer, on 08 July 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 08 July 2016 - 07:34 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 08 July 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Wow, what a horrible sorry to wake up to. Do the people who are killing cops think that their actions will somehow help the cause? This is just going to justify more militarisation of the police, and the cycle continues...

I'm trying to put myself in their shoes, and what comes to me is this. (if this is somehow revenge for the shootings)

"1 of them for everyone of us"
They don't care about results. I know how I wouldn't care about results if I was in their shoes.

If it is truly a direct result of this, and not something else, then the only rationale I can figure is that these people are frustrated with the complete lack of change. "Why stick to peaceful measures when it's not changing anything?" basically.

I can see that frustration. This is the culmination of the "nothing will change as long as it's not affecting them" mentality. And whether it was serious or not, I've seen a lot of comments on social media to that effect in the past day. Some calling for retaliation on cops, some calling for rioting, but it all amounts to the same thing - the laws aren't protecting 'us' any more, so fuck the laws, make the man listen.

It's not ubiquitous and I doubt it's a serious proposal for most people (at most being a spur of the moment anger thing), but there's always a handful who will take it to heart and end up acting on it. Not all of whom are doing so in "good faith" so to speak with the cause.

Yes, I do understand that - to a point - but if they are affiliated (however loosely) to BLM, they surely can't think this will end well for them or their cause.

Which leads me to...

Kanyemander West, on 08 July 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Not to sound naive, given the context, but we still don't know that the shooters were black. No identifying info has been released on the suspects.

And while it very much appears that the targets were police, it's worth noting there was a twelfth victim who was a civilian, one of the protestors. A woman named Shetamia Taylor who was shot protecting her kids, and as of now has survived.

I did hear somewhere that one of the shooters has already been identified as some white power movement guy but I don't know how good the source was for that. I know that nowhere have the police released any information yet.

But you bring up a scary point. These guys could have a lot to gain by furthering tensions between the black communities and the police. It is a terrifying, blood chilling thought that they would do this to enable more violence against blacks...

[Silencer]

Kanyemander West, on 08 July 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Not to sound naive, given the context, but we still don't know that the shooters were black. No identifying info has been released on the suspects.

And while it very much appears that the targets were police, it's worth noting there was a twelfth victim who was a civilian, one of the protestors. A woman named Shetamia Taylor who was shot protecting her kids, and as of now has survived.

Absolutely - and I chose my words in the opening of my response to reflect that because I can see so many possibilities that it's *not* a retaliation, it's either someone trying to provoke the situation or a completely unrelated nut job(s) who wants to shoot cops.

I made a similar response to a friend on Facebook who was talking about how anyone who wants to shoot innocent cops in protest over cops shooting innocent people is crazy - the fact is we don't know that's what has happened or even if it's related at all. A lot of people are assuming it is though, and I am a bit hesitant to do the same myself, but it's realistically the only scenario we can talk about without engaging the paranoia drive...

[worry]

To be frank I wouldn't be surprised by nearly any category the perpetrators fall into, including some of the speculated groups above. There is a video out there of one of the shootings, ground level, and the perp there (who is covered head to toe) looks pretty familiar with his weaponry, and knows enough to outmaneuver a trained officer. That's the one thing that sticks out, since the murder of Sterling is so recent, and this protest was put together on really short notice (like the day before, meaning Wednesday), and yet it's hard to believe there was zero prep-work to this.

Edit: So what I'm saying is that I agree on what the odds are, re: the suspects, but something about this still seems like convenient opportunity, rather than a specific response to Sterling/Castile. Anyway, that's my own bit of speculation/thinking out loud.

This post has been edited by Kanyemander West: 08 July 2016 - 08:38 AM

[polishgenius]

Kanyemander West, on 08 July 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

To be frank I wouldn't be surprised by nearly any category the perpetrators fall into, including some of the speculated groups above. There is a video out there of one of the shootings, ground level, and the perp there (who is covered head to toe) looks pretty familiar with his weaponry, and knows enough to outmaneuver a trained officer. That's the one thing that sticks out, since the murder of Sterling is so recent, and this protest was put together on really short notice (like the day before, meaning Wednesday), and yet it's hard to believe there was zero prep-work to this.

Edit: So what I'm saying is that I agree on what the odds are, re: the suspects, but something about this still seems like convenient opportunity, rather than a specific response to Sterling/Castile. Anyway, that's my own bit of speculation/thinking out loud.

Yeah, I've seen that idea brought up - that an attack this well-organised is unlikely to have been entirely planned in the couple of days since the Alton Sterling shooting, and thus there's a good chance that it's pre-agreed opportunism to cause maximum chaos rather than a specific response.

[Nicodimas]

Details: Military Vet Afgan War:

https://www.google.c...es-family/amp/#

https://www.google.c...icle-1.2704275#

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 08 July 2016 - 05:09 PM

[Nicodimas]

Group taking responsibility creepy stuff

http://drudgetoday.c...k-power-8378177

[Terez]

Not clicking on any Drudge link. Find better sources...

[amphibian]

Terez, on 08 July 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Not clicking on any Drudge link. Find better sources...

The following is a serious question:

Is Drudge equivalent to ZeroHedge or worse?

[Terez]

amphibian, on 08 July 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

Terez, on 08 July 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

Not clicking on any Drudge link. Find better sources...

The following is a serious question:

Is Drudge equivalent to ZeroHedge or worse?

I dunno; I don't read either enough to say which or whether. The most I see of ZeroHedge is on Naked Capitalism; they read him and cite him sometimes but I find them to be a less credulous source. Kind of a filter for the more credulous ones, if that makes any sense. It's very hard to find alternative media that doesn't go too far into selling a particular narrative. The same goes for mainstream, which is why alternative media is even needed.

Edit: I remembered that ZH actually writes for NC officially sometimes. So I should have specified that I mostly read Yves Smith there; I sometimes think of her and NC as being synonymous.

This post has been edited by Terez: 08 July 2016 - 06:46 PM

[Nicodimas]

ZeroHedge Is considered a credible source it breaks new information more often than not than the Major's now. I love it.

Is it good that some of it's staff left two year's ago? No.

Certain post's look like real posts, but are really advertising. That happened about 2 years ago..

I would avoid the comment's and the advertising side of the posts. I think this is true everywhere lately..I go some comment's at times and eye's glaze over.

However it's spin is a Bear Market Market site for sure, so as long as you it's slant.

Remember Zero hedge uses real writers under Alias: Tyler Durden is more than one writer. They will not disclose writers so take that how you will.

Quote

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.

our method: pseudonymous speech...

anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority

though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

Sidebar: I go to Democratic Underground just as much as I go to say a Right wing site these days. Individual perspective's from a lot of different sources/sites/area's are important in the internet age, everyone is trying to fight for you to think a certain way, and only you can decide the way you want come to your own individual conclusion.

Some people are just trying to sell you on a belief structure that may not be your own.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 08 July 2016 - 07:05 PM

[Nicodimas]

Back to the topic at hand ..

Should police be able to use any weapon to kill a suspect ?

http://fusion.net/st...las-bomb-robot/

https://www.google.c...1783350007/amp#

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 08 July 2016 - 07:47 PM

[Studlock]

No, absolutely not. The law is very specific in the way a police officer can kill a suspect and it should be--its should be even more so. Much of mishandling of these cases, in terms of justice, and not in terms of the law, comes from the over-reliance of the police officers own mental state in these interactions, instead of the actions taking by said police officer. Any kind of loosening of the laws surrounding the lawful use of violent force will just exacerbate that problem. How much tactical room should we give police officers when it comes to killing someone? How creative do you want to be? There are reasons that there are legal (and moral) distinctions between military and police and the legality of the use of force is one of them. One of the most troubling aspect of modern policing in the States in the militarization of the police--giving them modern military-grade weaponry undercuts their moral and legal duty to not act like an occupying military force. Police forces around the world tend to get by without using tanks, or bombs, or what have you.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 08 July 2016 - 10:15 PM

[worry]

Nicodimas, on 08 July 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

Back to the topic at hand ..

Should police be able to use any weapon to kill a suspect ?

http://fusion.net/st...las-bomb-robot/

https://www.google.c...1783350007/amp#

This is super disturbing. Off the bat it strikes me as a shortcut, and a "Let's get this over with" judgement call. But should that call be an available option? Even in exceptional times? I dunno. I don't like police militarization at all, and I also think police maybe have an extra burden, or at least a thinner band, for when "self defense" use of deadly force is appropriate. Police have more and more been using flash/stunner grenades, and this just seems like upping it to shrapnel grenades or their equivalent.

Anyway, I went to bed feeling sad, and woke up feeling just as sad, if not worse. Does this strike anyone else as exactly what a "2nd Amendment Solution" looks like when carried out for real?

And, while not assuming too much about the guy, his veteran status does make this a little more complicated -- like the Orlando shooting there's a whole lot of intersectionality at play here.

Lastly, while I'm not necessarily surprised, I'm still really disappointed in the DNC and other Dem statements either directly or by implication laying this at BLM's feet. That couched "While most protestors..." have been peaceful nonsense. Milquetoast Democrats are sickening.

[Cause]

I have to say I read that yesterday. Not fully briefed on all the details but certainly that they killed the suspect with explosives via the 'bomb robot' was a huge shock.

Certainly I never expect police to risk themselves unduly but the police killing suspects with explosives is highly unusual at best

[amphibian]

The bomb robot had little explosives, which were used to detonate the big explosive where the shooter was. This is fairly normal. What isn't normal is going ahead with that when a person is nearby.

I'm not as hyped up as some people over a robot remote controlled by a human and being used to kill a person by explosives as we've been doing this for years and years with airborne drones and other bomb robots overseas.

What are the differences between an American and a person from elsewhere? There shouldn't be that big a set here in the States.

I'm mostly against drone strikes btw.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 09 July 2016 - 08:35 PM