Police killed at Dallas protest

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I doubt that the concern about turning him into a symbolic figure entered their minds, especially seeing as it's quite easy to create a martyr with a dead body and a martyr can often be more dangerous than a living person.  

Lots of people applauding his actions really doesn't mean much.  There are millions of people who applaud the actions of white cops who execute black men on video.  There are many who applaud the mass shooter Robert Dear.  This doesn't mean that these people are figure heads for popular movements.  

Yeah, I think you're right regarding the first point. They are dealing with a more pressing situation. I don't that really entered into their game planning.

 

I think that second part is actually pretty important. Gauging how the public perceives these sort events kind of gives you a starting point as to how we are going to deal with these issues as a society.

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Either way, I still hold that a drone strike is highly disturbing.

To be clear, this was not a drone strike. The latter is an attack carried out by a machine designed to conduct either autonomous or remotely controlled attacks. The robot in question was built to safely dispose of bombs, not to deliver them which, incidentally, made this a rather expensive solution as the thing costs at least $80K and possibly more depending on the model. It's no more of a drone strike than putting an explosive into a semi-autonomous car would be a drone strike -- the result is an attack conducted by means of an unmanned machine, but the machine was never designed or intended to be used this way.

[Dr. Pepper]

26 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

No it's not where I talk about black on black.  I'm talking about people who hate the Police.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who didn't only refuse to condemn the killing of white women and children, but actually justified it as a necessary action.  Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant.  The fact is despite having such extreme views he become a global hero.

London rioted for three days in the name of a gang banging thug killed by the Police here.

I don't know your background.  Mine is from a council estate where I grew up around the mentality.  I know what certain subsets will rally too.  And a cop killer of such infamy will be widely celebrated and revered in certain sub cultural circles.

Whether or not the use of violence to break free of tyranny and subjugation is ever justified is a question that rarely has a firm yes or no answer.  Usually your answer would depend on where you sit on a certain issue.  

In this particular situation, I find the lack of commentary from posters who frequently discuss the need for guns (in America) in order to fight a tyrannical government to be curious.  

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

To be clear, this was not a drone strike. The latter is an attack carried out by a machine designed to conduct either autonomous or remotely controlled attacks. The robot in question was built to safely dispose of bombs, not to deliver them which, incidentally, made this a rather expensive solution as the thing costs at least $80K and possibly more depending on the model. It's no more of a drone strike than putting an explosive into a semi-autonomous car would be a drone strike -- the result is an attack conducted by means of an unmanned machine, but the machine was never designed or intended to be used this way.

That the machine wasn't designed to perform a bomb strike doesn't change the fact that it was used for that very purpose.

[DunderMifflin]

How much do we actually know about the robot delivered explosion.

Was the man alone and not near any innocents?

I think that changes things a lot if civilians were deemed collateral damage of the greater good of using a bomb to stop the guy.

I'm not a bomb expert so I don't know how big of an explosion it would be, how much risk there was to innocent lives, etc etc 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dr. Pepper,

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Whether or not the use of violence to break free of tyranny and subjugation is ever justified is a question that rarely has a firm yes or no answer.  Usually your answer would depend on where you sit on a certain issue.  

In this particular situation, I find the lack of commentary from posters who frequently discuss the need for guns (in America) in order to fight a tyrannical government to be curious.  

That the machine wasn't designed to perform a bomb strike doesn't change the fact that it was used for that very purpose.

Are you suggesting the actions of the shooter in Dallas were justified?

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr. Pepper,

Are you suggesting the actions of the shooter in Dallas were justified?

No, I'm suggesting exactly what I wrote.  That it depends on how one sees the issues, and that will be informed by things like race, politics, perhaps even gender, among other things.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What possible justification can there be for gunning down random offiers on a police force noted for its progressive, forward thinking, community oriented practices?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What possible justification can there be for gunning down random offiers on a police force noted for its progressive, forward thinking, community oriented practices?

What happened the day before, Scott? These things feed on one another.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What possible justification can there be for gunning down random offiers on a police force noted for its progressive, forward thinking, community oriented practices?

I'm not even sure what your confusion is.  Do you think that people can't find reasons to justify their actions?  Are you ignoring the rest of the sub-conversation (which is about the creation of symbolic figureheads)?  What's your issue here?  

Or is this just another one of your attempts to force people to engage in your sympathy theater?  Because I'll just go ahead and cut that short and say that I'm not interested. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What happened the day before, Scott? These things feed on one another.

ME,

That wasn't the Dallas Police Department.  Not all police are the same police.

Dr.Pepper,

What? "Sympathy theater"... what?  My point is that randomly shooting people who have nothing to to with the two recent events that were being protested is not something that can be legitimately justified.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

ME,

That wasn't the Dallas Police Department.  Not all police are the same police.

But those shootings the day prior were clearly the impetus. I imagine the Black Lives Matter event was just considered to be a target of opportunity for the shooter to best make his point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But those shootings the day prior were clearly the impetus. I imagine the Black Lives Matter event was just considered to be a target of opportunity for the shooter to best make his point.

That makes the guy an asshole looking for a convienent target, not in any way legitimately justified.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That makes the guy an asshole looking for a convienent target, not in any way legitimately justified.

I'd say he's more an asshole for killing other human beings to make a point. That said, I do imagine that he felt justified. This was a reaction to what occurred the day prior. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd say he's more an asshole for killing other human beings to make a point. That said, I do imagine that he felt justified. This was a reaction to what occurred the day prior. 

Yes.  His feeling doesn't make his justified.  His willingness to kill other human beings makes him an asshole.

[Xray the Enforcer]

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr. Pepper,

Are you suggesting the actions of the shooter in Dallas were justified?

If you take the Second Amendment at face value, sure. As Yags said -- what the shooter did is a logical endpoint for the NRA's justification of fighting against a tyrannical government. So, sure. The shooting is justified, since the cops and our justice system have already clearly decided it's OK to murder black people.

[Dr. Pepper]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

ME,

That wasn't the Dallas Police Department.  Not all police are the same police.

Dr.Pepper,

What? "Sympathy theater"... what?  My point is that randomly shooting people who have nothing to to with the two recent events that were being protested is not something that can be legitimately justified.

You didn't make that point at all.  You just started asking a question without regard to any of the conversation that had been happening.  You gave no reason for your question at all. 

In any case, I'll just repeat what I said and that it will depend where one stands.  I'd echo what X-ray and others have said that if someone takes 2A at face value*, then the shooting was logical and justified.  Even someone who is vehemently anti-violence may agree that the use of violence may be justified if the intended or even natural end result is worth fighting for.  To give some examples, definitely wars that have ended slavery or the holocaust, I've read about cases of female community organizers in India who have used violence to prevent other violence and rape against women.  I think it's easy to argue these instances of violence justified.  

I think it's clear that many things need to change, from systemic abuse and discrimination, to the way we are policed, to everything about guns. I'm decidedly anti-violence, yet I am also capable of seeing the all the ingredients that have gone into creating this storm and to understand why some might view Johnson's actions as completely justified, more so if it's the catalyst to a fairy tale ending of meaningful gun control and various forms of systemic change. 

*To be fair, most people who argue that reading of 2A rarely support it in practice, least of all when it's a black body exercising that 'right'.  But that interpretation exists nonetheless.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray, Dr.P,

I see what you are saying and I don't believe shooting random police who have nothing to do with the recent killings can be justified as legitimate under the 2nd Amendment.  

The Bundy's were wrong, and should have gone to prison, when they didn't shoot people and used firearms to intimidate federal agents.  Likewise this Johnson is wrong and unjustified when he murders random police officers.

The 2nd amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms.  It does not make murder or intimidation legal or proper.

[sagewich]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You didn't make that point at all.  You just started asking a question without regard to any of the conversation that had been happening.  You gave no reason for your question at all. 

In any case, I'll just repeat what I said and that it will depend where one stands.  I'd echo what X-ray and others have said that if someone takes 2A at face value*, then the shooting was logical and justified.  Even someone who is vehemently anti-violence may agree that the use of violence may be justified if the intended or even natural end result is worth fighting for.  To give some examples, definitely wars that have ended slavery or the holocaust, I've read about cases of female community organizers in India who have used violence to prevent other violence and rape against women.  I think it's easy to argue these instances of violence justified.  

I think it's clear that many things need to change, from systemic abuse and discrimination, to the way we are policed, to everything about guns. I'm decidedly anti-violence, yet I am also capable of seeing the all the ingredients that have gone into creating this storm and to understand why some might view Johnson's actions as completely justified, more so if it's the catalyst to a fairy tale ending of meaningful gun control and various forms of systemic change. 

*To be fair, most people who argue that reading of 2A rarely support it in practice, least of all when it's a black body exercising that 'right'.  But that interpretation exists nonetheless.

Scott is right. Under any state law, the Dallas shooter's action were not justified. He was not being menaced by Dallas officers, so it was not defense of self.

And the 2 Am is not a defense to a criminal charge. Was the shooter enraged? Yes, I am sure she was. Was he wondering why he risked his life in the bloody desert shooting and being shot at in the name of the US to come home and find people being murdered by police?  Undoubtedly.  But this is not the way. And he would have been charged with murder - how that would wash out would be any one's guess.  

There has to be a way to address this - I just don't know what it is. But random shootings on the street is not healthy for anyone.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In any case, I'll just repeat what I said and that it will depend where one stands.  I'd echo what X-ray and others have said that if someone takes 2A at face value*, then the shooting was logical and justified.  Even someone who is vehemently anti-violence may agree that the use of violence may be justified if the intended or even natural end result is worth fighting for.  To give some examples, definitely wars that have ended slavery or the holocaust, I've read about cases of female community organizers in India who have used violence to prevent other violence and rape against women.  I think it's easy to argue these instances of violence justified.  

I think it's clear that many things need to change, from systemic abuse and discrimination, to the way we are policed, to everything about guns. I'm decidedly anti-violence, yet I am also capable of seeing the all the ingredients that have gone into creating this storm and to understand why some might view Johnson's actions as completely justified, more so if it's the catalyst to a fairy tale ending of meaningful gun control and various forms of systemic change. 

*To be fair, most people who argue that reading of 2A rarely support it in practice, least of all when it's a black body exercising that 'right'.  But that interpretation exists nonetheless.

 None of that does anything to justify this shooting. It works as a form of throwing the 2nd Amendment  defenders points back in their face, but it justifies nothing. This wasn't some noble declaration of war against slavery or genocide. It's was a hot-blooded revenge killing.

[Dr. Pepper]

We know very little about the shooter and his reasons.  He's dead and there has been no sort of manifesto released.  We have no idea whether or not he was personally menaced by the police or felt that he was engaging in a noble declaration of war against tyranny.  

Like I said, where one stands on things changes one's outlook on it.  It's very easy for me to agree that there's no justification for violence, especially in this situation.  But it would be disingenuous for me to fail to acknowledge that there are a number of ingredients here where people would find valid justification when turning this person into a martyr or other symbolic figurehead.