Coward fatally ambushes 2 NYPD, commits suicide (9 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

So if this shooting didn't happen, would these people still be guilty of something? Just trying to see where the line is.

Absolutely. Free speech has limitations imposed by law. Many states have statutes prohibiting fighting words. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. There are statutes against hate speech. You can't threaten someone's life.Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Do you really believe that someone who says "someone should assassinate X" should be charged with a crime?This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater.

I can't believe this is actually a serious question. Of course I think they should be charged with a crime. Because it is a crime. In many states, like Ohio for instance, it's a third degree felony:2917.01 Inciting to violence.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation on this topic if you would spend a few years in law school first.

This was such a ######## comment to make from somebody that has your intelligence.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Hey Pimp, was this dubbed too? http://hw-mobile.worldstarhiphop.com/u/vid/2014/12/7f79b7f_mobile.mp4

No those are just idiots.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that. It's a small step, but encouraging.

do you really think that all the protesters and supporters of this movement think like the folks in that video?

And BTW i saw that video when it came out and was ashamed. but knew at some point someone would point out that video and make it seem as if we all think like that. The makers of that video are as bad as the few cops that tweeted out threats. Neither are representative of the entire group however.

So maybe I need to read some more of Pinky's posts, but I have a question for Pinky, and I mean this forthrightly and not in a baiting fashion:

- I noticed Nick Mangold wore an NYPD hat in remembrance of what happened to the two cops and in support of their families, is that something you would consider doing just for a day?

Not asking/daring you do to do it by the way, I'm just wondering if you would find that upsetting or offensive or maybe offensive to others you know. It's not offensive to support the cops and call for reform at the same time, right?

I dont find it offensive at all. I don't want more violence. What happened was awful. I saw Coughlin did something as well. Im not offended by it at all. Would i wear it? Sure. I wrote tribute on my facebook page about it. I think it would actually be a nice gesture if the protesters did so. I happen to know there was a protest organized last night in silence as a dedication. It got ZERO media play though.

Having said all that, whats interesting is the backlash at the players wearing icantbreathe shirts, when ive seen none at coughlin or mangold.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sharpton has already been down this road. Why someone like that with his history in Crown Heights and Brawley is allowed to intermingle with and speak for well meaning reformers (and given a national tv news show) is beside my understanding.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey Pimp, was this dubbed too? http://hw-mobile.worldstarhiphop.com/u/vid/2014/12/7f79b7f_mobile.mp4

No those are just idiots.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that. It's a small step, but encouraging.

do you really think that all the protesters and supporters of this movement think like the folks in that video?

And BTW i saw that video when it came out and was ashamed. but knew at some point someone would point out that video and make it seem as if we all think like that. The makers of that video are as bad as the few cops that tweeted out threats. Neither are representative of the entire group however.

So maybe I need to read some more of Pinky's posts, but I have a question for Pinky, and I mean this forthrightly and not in a baiting fashion:

- I noticed Nick Mangold wore an NYPD hat in remembrance of what happened to the two cops and in support of their families, is that something you would consider doing just for a day?

Not asking/daring you do to do it by the way, I'm just wondering if you would find that upsetting or offensive or maybe offensive to others you know. It's not offensive to support the cops and call for reform at the same time, right?

I dont find it offensive at all. I don't want more violence. What happened was awful. I saw Coughlin did something as well. Im not offended by it at all. Would i wear it? Sure. I wrote tribute on my facebook page about it. I think it would actually be a nice gesture if the protesters did so. I happen to know there was a protest organized last night in silence as a dedication. It got ZERO media play though.

Having said all that, whats interesting is the backlash at the players wearing icantbreathe shirts, when ive seen none at coughlin or mangold.

Thanks, I agree. - I've been ok with the players doing that, I think I posted something in their defense in TSP when the Rams first came out. - I think the media has indeed done an awful job here.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

How do we move forward on these issues? What is the next step that should happen?

There needs to be dialogue. People need to acknowledge each sides feelings and then there needs to be constructive dialogue to discuss ways to reduce the tension and the underlying issues that got us to this point. Not finger pointing, not placing blame on who caused this incident and that incident.

Right. Who are the viable options for people that can speak for each side?

It doesnt and shouldnt have to be specific people. It starts with cops getting out in to the neighborhood and having meaningful interaction with the people. And vice versa. Maybe town hall meetings. Protests are fine as well, on both sides. Most of which have been peaceful.

Liu and Ramos were by all accounts "out in teh neighborhood." They were part of a community "safety" policing program that had reduced crime by 33% in a very dangerous neighborhood, helping people and families of all classes, incomes, backgrounds, ethnicities make a better life for themselves. My understanding is that the 'vice versa' was there too, that the people appreciated them and that there was genuine sadness hearing of this.

So what you ask was done and done successfully. Liu and Ramos were executed while doing just what you asked.

No. thats not what i mean.

Part of the problem is that there are many people that legitimately think all cops are bad, are killers, etc. And its because they dont know cops, ona personal level. what they know about cops is what they see on the news or see in their neighborhood, and that is the cops stopping and frisking, cops using violent tactics. Logically speaking, if thats all you know about cops you might think that they are all bad. Then in turn you begin to hate/fear them irrationally. What im saying is to break this up you need cops to really interact with these people, on a regular basis, starting from when they are young.

This goes both ways. You have cops out there that think all blacks for example are violent or criminal. If they havent had any meaningful interaction with black people, and go by what they see on tv, rap videos(like the one posted earlier) and the news, they are going to irrationally fear black people. So what you have is many different people irrationally fearing each other and it leads to an extremely tense situation.

its not just blacks either many kids from other races irrationally dislike cops as well.

So my thinking is, if there is meaningful interaction between the parties involved, people can start to base their assumptions on those real life interactions and not the news.

You cant fix the problems that got us here over night though. It will take time.

 

[Sammy3469]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

So if you admit we don't know the shooters true motivations why are you spouting off like someone who does?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill.
And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I just thought I'd take a crack at this one because I got to read on my phone while watching my NFL and FF teams tank and considered I should let the smoke clear a little...

These are a couple themes that have been running through this discussion. One is that the killer was a loon and somehow loon killers can't be political, can't have ideologies or be influenced by political rhetoric or news events. In my opinion it's quite the opposite. All the political killers in our recent history going back to Oswald had serious mental or emotional problems. Sometimes such lunatics in terrible times have become actual leaders of countries and do untold harm and devastation. Maybe not losers like Oswald and this bstrd in NY but inevitably you are going to find a very thin line between crazy and evil. Sane people almost never go out and kill people in cold blooded fashion for political reasons. Yes, sane people kill for things like their girlfriend sleeping around or drug money or the like, but for political reasons? No, then you have crossed the line into sociopathy.

When it happens people on the right and left rush to find the reasons these people were pure "nuts" and the opposite bent goes looking for the evidence that they were politically motivated. The truth is they are not mutually exclusive.

About the rhetoric: I can tell you we have had bad police issues here in New Orleans for at least a century, no exaggeration. I won't go on, but I can tell you we had a choke-hold death in the French Quarter maybe 2-3 years ago. Black victim, black cop, and you can mix in some of the seeming callousness of cops standing around the body like we saw with the Brown case. Did anyone nationally care? No. Did msnbc or Fox go nuts running diatribes? No, no one cared. We had five citizens shot at on a bridge during Katrina. The reason? They were crossing the bridge to go to the father's/ or uncle's dentist's office for food and supplies. We had another situation where a man was randomly killed by cops and his car burned on the levee. The cops were mostly white, but black cops participated in the coverup. Did we see an outflowing of support nationally? No. Do we now? No. We also have a serious crime problem and the cops regularly stand between us and mayhem every day and we appreciate what they do, even the poor and minorities here.

Thing is we have KKK in this country, we have New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as well. I hope we all agree on this - those fkers LOVE this race war rhetoric. They LOVE to see us tear at each other. And they prey on sick minds like the NYPD killer's, because they are out there and they will act in furtherance of their cause and they will use their words and polemics like a match is used to kindling. IF we start letting this rhetoric get into our mainstream, into the reform discussions, onto national tv, into the mouths of our politicians (I heard a MO state rep use the words "race war" with regard to Brown) then we are all in big, big trouble. It would be nice to see some political leadership in this country that marginalizes the Sharptons and Farrakhans (and btw take your pick from the right, don't mean to leave them out) and and their ilk and elevates the well-meaning people calling for reform.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

...Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill.
And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

Thing is we have KKK in this country, we have New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as well. I hope we all agree on this - those fkers LOVE this race war rhetoric. They LOVE to see us tear at each other. And they prey on sick minds like the NYPD killer's, because they are out there and they will act in furtherance of their cause and they will use their words and polemics like a match is used to kindling. IF we start letting this rhetoric get into our mainstream, into the reform discussions, onto national tv, into the mouths of our politicians (I head a MO state rep use the words "race war" with regard to Brown) then we are all in big, big trouble. It would be nice to see some political leadership in this country that marginalizes the Sharptons and Farrakhans and elevates the well-meaning people calling for reform.

ok. But lets not mistake protesting, or people voicing their opinions for rhetoric.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill.
And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

Thing is we have KKK in this country, we have New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as well. I hope we all agree on this - those fkers LOVE this race war rhetoric. They LOVE to see us tear at each other. And they prey on sick minds like the NYPD killer's, because they are out there and they will act in furtherance of their cause and they will use their words and polemics like a match is used to kindling. IF we start letting this rhetoric get into our mainstream, into the reform discussions, onto national tv, into the mouths of our politicians (I head a MO state rep use the words "race war" with regard to Brown) then we are all in big, big trouble. It would be nice to see some political leadership in this country that marginalizes the Sharptons and Farrakhans and elevates the well-meaning people calling for reform.

ok. But lets not mistake protesting, or people voicing their opinions for rhetoric.

No, of course not, but when the well-meaning reformers start letting in the extremists, even as a mere tiny minority, and don't explicitly throw them out, it's a problem. We've got a great thing going in this country, but we could screw it up.

 

[Henry Ford]

So if this shooting didn't happen, would these people still be guilty of something? Just trying to see where the line is.

Absolutely. Free speech has limitations imposed by law. Many states have statutes prohibiting fighting words. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. There are statutes against hate speech. You can't threaten someone's life.Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Do you really believe that someone who says "someone should assassinate X" should be charged with a crime?This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater.

I can't believe this is actually a serious question. Of course I think they should be charged with a crime. Because it is a crime. In many states, like Ohio for instance, it's a third degree felony:2917.01 Inciting to violence.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation on this topic if you would spend a few years in law school first.

This was such a ######## comment to make from somebody that has your intelligence.

Wait, sorry - someone's trying to be a flippant ###hole to me on a message board and then attempts to educate me on the law by stating that something is a crime, I respond not by completely demolishing them with case law, legal arguments, or any other legal method but rather say that I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation about this topic if he had a real legal background - implying that I think he's intelligent and has decent ideas, but that the interpretation of what he's looking at is complex and different than what he's thinking it is - and that makes me a huge jerk?

 

[General Tso]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

Man, you just dont get it. Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill. And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I get that part, Pimp, and I fully support the legitimate issues you outlined. But the movement has gone off the rails a bit and is in danger of losing its legitimacy amongst the very people we should be swaying to get the changes that are needed. That crowd of people marching through the streets was chanting for cops to be killed. Your lack of acknowledgement of this hasn't helped. You can still support a cause while calling out that which can't be accepted.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

...Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill.
And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

Thing is we have KKK in this country, we have New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as well. I hope we all agree on this - those fkers LOVE this race war rhetoric. They LOVE to see us tear at each other. And they prey on sick minds like the NYPD killer's, because they are out there and they will act in furtherance of their cause and they will use their words and polemics like a match is used to kindling. IF we start letting this rhetoric get into our mainstream, into the reform discussions, onto national tv, into the mouths of our politicians (I head a MO state rep use the words "race war" with regard to Brown) then we are all in big, big trouble. It would be nice to see some political leadership in this country that marginalizes the Sharptons and Farrakhans and elevates the well-meaning people calling for reform.

ok. But lets not mistake protesting, or people voicing their opinions for rhetoric.

No, of course not, but when the well-meaning reformers start letting in the extremists, even as a mere tiny minority, and don't explicitly throw them out, it's a problem. We've got a great thing going in this country, but we could screw it up.

Yea, i can agree with that. I just think there will always be the extremists. Someone in the media will always give them an outlet(and usually they would rather talk to them than the "well meaning" folks), however, we need to look through all the distractions and get to the root issues. But i agree that can be difficult to navigate.

 

[General Tso]

So if this shooting didn't happen, would these people still be guilty of something? Just trying to see where the line is.

Absolutely. Free speech has limitations imposed by law. Many states have statutes prohibiting fighting words. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. There are statutes against hate speech. You can't threaten someone's life.Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Do you really believe that someone who says "someone should assassinate X" should be charged with a crime?This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater.

I can't believe this is actually a serious question. Of course I think they should be charged with a crime. Because it is a crime. In many states, like Ohio for instance, it's a third degree felony:2917.01 Inciting to violence.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation on this topic if you would spend a few years in law school first.

Oh please. What a toolishly snobby and condescending remark.

As opposed to respectful, humble comments like:

Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Or:

I can't believe this is actually a serious question.

That's fair actually. With the Avalanche of trolling that has been going on in here you may gotten some of my residual Fire. I try not to attack people in here unless provoked, but it appears I may have crossed the line a bit with you. Apologies.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

Man, you just dont get it. Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill. And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I get that part, Pimp, and I fully support the legitimate issues you outlined. But the movement has gone off the rails a bit and is in danger of losing its legitimacy amongst the very people we should be swaying to get the changes that are needed. That crowd of people marching through the streets was chanting for cops to be killed. Your lack of acknowledgement of this hasn't helped. You can still support a cause while calling out that which can't be accepted.

See but even if we acknowledge there were people chanting that, it doesn't mean the protest has gone off the rails. The number of people that were chanting stuff like that was negligible. 99% of the protesters where non violent. Just because certain media outlets want to focus on the 1% that are out there acting like #######s doesn't mean that the majority weren't out there for legitimate reasons. Just like if i go to the pro cops protest and start saying "kill the protesters" it doesn't make their cause any less legitimate. This is what people do. They purposely try to derail others for their own agenda.

 

[General Tso]

...Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill.

And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

Thing is we have KKK in this country, we have New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as well. I hope we all agree on this - those fkers LOVE this race war rhetoric. They LOVE to see us tear at each other. And they prey on sick minds like the NYPD killer's, because they are out there and they will act in furtherance of their cause and they will use their words and polemics like a match is used to kindling. IF we start letting this rhetoric get into our mainstream, into the reform discussions, onto national tv, into the mouths of our politicians (I head a MO state rep use the words "race war" with regard to Brown) then we are all in big, big trouble. It would be nice to see some political leadership in this country that marginalizes the Sharptons and Farrakhans and elevates the well-meaning people calling for reform.

ok. But lets not mistake protesting, or people voicing their opinions for rhetoric.

No, of course not, but when the well-meaning reformers start letting in the extremists, even as a mere tiny minority, and don't explicitly throw them out, it's a problem. We've got a great thing going in this country, but we could screw it up.

Yea, i can agree with that. I just think there will always be the extremists. Someone in the media will always give them an outlet(and usually they would rather talk to them than the "well meaning" folks), however, we need to look through all the distractions and get to the root issues. But i agree that can be difficult to navigate.

Lots of wisdom in this statement. As Saint said as well, we need to marginalize the extremists and keep our eyes on the prize.

 

[General Tso]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

Man, you just dont get it. Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill. And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I get that part, Pimp, and I fully support the legitimate issues you outlined. But the movement has gone off the rails a bit and is in danger of losing its legitimacy amongst the very people we should be swaying to get the changes that are needed. That crowd of people marching through the streets was chanting for cops to be killed. Your lack of acknowledgement of this hasn't helped. You can still support a cause while calling out that which can't be accepted.

See but even if we acknowledge there were people chanting that, it doesn't mean the protest has gone off the rails. The number of people that were chanting stuff like that was negligible. 99% of the protesters where non violent. Just because certain media outlets want to focus on the 1% that are out there acting like #######s doesn't mean that the majority weren't out there for legitimate reasons. Just like if i go to the pro cops protest and start saying "kill the protesters" it doesn't make their cause any less legitimate. This is what people do. They purposely try to derail others for their own agenda.

I think what frustrates people is when bad behavior appears to be explained away rather than flatly condemned.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

Man, you just dont get it. Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill. And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I get that part, Pimp, and I fully support the legitimate issues you outlined. But the movement has gone off the rails a bit and is in danger of losing its legitimacy amongst the very people we should be swaying to get the changes that are needed. That crowd of people marching through the streets was chanting for cops to be killed. Your lack of acknowledgement of this hasn't helped. You can still support a cause while calling out that which can't be accepted.

See but even if we acknowledge there were people chanting that, it doesn't mean the protest has gone off the rails. The number of people that were chanting stuff like that was negligible. 99% of the protesters where non violent. Just because certain media outlets want to focus on the 1% that are out there acting like #######s doesn't mean that the majority weren't out there for legitimate reasons. Just like if i go to the pro cops protest and start saying "kill the protesters" it doesn't make their cause any less legitimate. This is what people do. They purposely try to derail others for their own agenda.

I think what frustrates people is when bad behavior appears to be explained away rather than flatly condemned.

I get that. All i know is that in my circles, that type of stuff is strongly condemned. And from everything i have seen and heard it has been condemned from those on the forefront of the protests as well.

 

[jonessed]

So if this shooting didn't happen, would these people still be guilty of something? Just trying to see where the line is.

Absolutely. Free speech has limitations imposed by law. Many states have statutes prohibiting fighting words. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. There are statutes against hate speech. You can't threaten someone's life.Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Do you really believe that someone who says "someone should assassinate X" should be charged with a crime?This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater.

I can't believe this is actually a serious question. Of course I think they should be charged with a crime. Because it is a crime. In many states, like Ohio for instance, it's a third degree felony:2917.01 Inciting to violence.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation on this topic if you would spend a few years in law school first.

Oh please. What a toolishly snobby and condescending remark.

These are the kinds of things you would learn in law school.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think it's a twist of irony that this probably was a racially motivated killing but resulted in the deaths of two minorities.

Totes probablies!

... this is where you follow it up with some kind of fact, opinion, or heck - even an emotion or feeling - that advances the conversation...Fact is, we don't know yet what the killer's primary motivations were. Did he just want to kill two cops? Was he targeting white cops? Was he in fact a member of the very racist and violent Black Guerillas as has been reported? Was he politically active? Did he attend Farrakhan's controversial speech in Baltimore a few weeks ago? Was he a part of the protest movement? Was he suffering from mental illness?

It's clear to me there are some in here who don't want to even investigate these questions. Let's just continue to blindly storm the Mall of America screaming "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and continue demonizing the racist police.

Man, you just dont get it. Why are you searching for some agenda with this incident. The guy was crazy, tried to kill himself previously, did something crazy and killed himself. He in no way has nothing to do with the protesters other than him using the hashtag. Even if he had attended a protest, he is obviously mentally ill. And btw. The people out there protesting arent against all cops. They are against the institutional racism within the law enforcement institution and legal institution(and many other institutions) that seems have lead to excessive violence and death at the hands of police officers (much of which is against blacks) and allows them to legally kill without any form of legal discourse over many decades in this country.

I get that part, Pimp, and I fully support the legitimate issues you outlined. But the movement has gone off the rails a bit and is in danger of losing its legitimacy amongst the very people we should be swaying to get the changes that are needed. That crowd of people marching through the streets was chanting for cops to be killed. Your lack of acknowledgement of this hasn't helped. You can still support a cause while calling out that which can't be accepted.

See but even if we acknowledge there were people chanting that, it doesn't mean the protest has gone off the rails. The number of people that were chanting stuff like that was negligible. 99% of the protesters where non violent. Just because certain media outlets want to focus on the 1% that are out there acting like #######s doesn't mean that the majority weren't out there for legitimate reasons. Just like if i go to the pro cops protest and start saying "kill the protesters" it doesn't make their cause any less legitimate. This is what people do. They purposely try to derail others for their own agenda.

I think what frustrates people is when bad behavior appears to be explained away rather than flatly condemned.

Think Deniro's Character in Taxi Driver

 

[Gawain]

No traffic cops on the 34th st crossings. Two NYPD in Penn station instead of the usual dozen or so.

Really feels like the police presence in the city part of the city I walk-through has pulled back. Be extra safe crossing the streets until this gets cleared up.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

No traffic cops on the 34th st crossings. Two NYPD in Penn station instead of the usual dozen or so.

Really feels like the police presence in the city part of the city I walk-through has pulled back. Be extra safe crossing the streets until this gets cleared up.

yikes. Im headed down to WTC in a few. im curious to see the presence there as its usually flooded with cops.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This thread is way off track and far from the victims and the real issue (that you can't kill ####### cops in this country!).

However the complete nuclear meltdown of General Tso tells us this mess is a keeper, and will be added to the FFA Index. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

So in your simple mind that's all that can be said about this topic - that you can't kill cops. Bravo! Why didn't anyone think of that earlier? You sir are a genius.No, the fact is, much of the derailment in here has been the result of trolls baiting me, and me occasionally taking said bait. If I'm being completely honest, there hasn't been much in the way of positive, intelligent discourse in here from anyone. Once again, I invite you to discuss the broader issues at play here - such as over-policing, how the war of words between the Mayor and the police has escalated into a dangerous situation, or - most importantly and what I've been trying to discuss - how the irresponsible actions and words of protesters, artists, the media, and civil leaders has contributed to the atmosphere of violence that has New York facing wartime police conditions tonight. And correction - this isn't me saying this, or me going off the track. This is coming directly from the New York Police Union. And if you gave one flying #### about the victims here like you say you do, you'd at least honor that debate.

You seem angry......and also quite crazy.

 

[fantasycurse42]

So if this shooting didn't happen, would these people still be guilty of something? Just trying to see where the line is.

Absolutely. Free speech has limitations imposed by law. Many states have statutes prohibiting fighting words. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. There are statutes against hate speech. You can't threaten someone's life.Amazing how uncivilized this country has become. People don't even know the boundaries anymore.

Do you really believe that someone who says "someone should assassinate X" should be charged with a crime?This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater.

I can't believe this is actually a serious question. Of course I think they should be charged with a crime. Because it is a crime. In many states, like Ohio for instance, it's a third degree felony:2917.01 Inciting to violence.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation on this topic if you would spend a few years in law school first.

This was such a ######## comment to make from somebody that has your intelligence.

Wait, sorry - someone's trying to be a flippant ###hole to me on a message board and then attempts to educate me on the law by stating that something is a crime, I respond not by completely demolishing them with case law, legal arguments, or any other legal method but rather say that I think we could have a really worthwhile conversation about this topic if he had a real legal background - implying that I think he's intelligent and has decent ideas, but that the interpretation of what he's looking at is complex and different than what he's thinking it is - and that makes me a huge jerk?

Well the jerk store called...

 

[Two Deep]

So is there anything going on in here that I would like to be involved in?

 

[jonessed]

So is there anything going on in here that I would like to be involved in?

I think you are looking for the troubled bi-sexual teenage girl thread.

 

[General Tso]

So is there anything going on in here that I would like to be involved in?

It depends. There's some real lowbrow stuff that you probably want to stay away from. The usual - name calling, baiting, trolling... But there's also some very interesting and intelligent views being expressed by people from a variety of different backgrounds, which is always a good thing.

 

[fantasycurse42]

So is there anything going on in here that I would like to be involved in?

I think you are looking for the troubled bi-sexual teenage girl thread.

Not so fast!! We haven't seen pics yet...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

So is there anything going on in here that I would like to be involved in?

I think you are looking for the troubled bi-sexual teenage girl thread.

is that on the second floor ...3rd door on the left? Unisex rest room?

 

[Two Deep]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

 

[TobiasFunke]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

 

[Two Deep]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

you never let me down.

 

[D_House]

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-importance-of-treating-nypd-officers-as-individuals/383976/

A number of good points made in this article.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

you never let me down.

I try to be there for my fellow FBGs.

Seriously, though- he said nothing remotely close to "implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly," yet you assign that position to him just so you can criticize him with a ridiculous analogy. You think that's a good way to kick off an interesting dialogue?

 

[tommyGunZ]

MOP, are you really reporting people?

 

[Jackstraw]

This incident didn't seem to portend the "war on cops" or really much national outrage at all. Must be some minor difference between the two. If only I could put my finger on it. Thinking......thinking....

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/jerad-amanda-miller-las-vegas-shooting-cliven-bundy-anti-government

The suspects in Sunday's shooting spree in Las Vegas that claimed the lives of two police officers and a shopper were a young married couple who espoused extreme pro-gun and anti-government views on their Facebook pages and who had spent time at the ranch of Cliven Bundy, whose standoff with the federal government made him a cause celebre in the so-called "patriot" movement.

Jerad Miller's Facebook "likes" include the NRA, American Patriot Media Network, Support the 2nd Amendment, The Patriot Party, Rand Paul 2016, Ron Paul, the Washington Examiner, Legalize Weed, Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, American Crossroads, and Allen West.

A few days later, Miller shared a photo that proclaimed, "The police have never attacked a pro gun rally."

On her YouTube page, Amanda Miller liked videos called, "Shooting Cops," "Citizens Can Shoot Police," and "When Is It Okay To Shoot a Cop." She posted a video of Jerad Miller interviewing people at the Bundy ranch. Her Facebook page contains photos of a woman posing with guns and she shared a picture of the "best coffee table ever"—it was a table with a drawer full of guns.

 

[Two Deep]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

you never let me down.

I try to be there for my fellow FBGs.

Seriously, though- he said nothing remotely close to "implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly," yet you assign that position to him just so you can criticize him with a ridiculous analogy. You think that's a good way to kick off an interesting dialogue?

I just made a statement. You can agree or disagree. Obviously you disagree. I'm not for overhauling a system because of a few dissatisfied people.

 

[fantasycurse42]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

you never let me down.

I try to be there for my fellow FBGs.

Seriously, though- he said nothing remotely close to "implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly," yet you assign that position to him just so you can criticize him with a ridiculous analogy. You think that's a good way to kick off an interesting dialogue?

This thread has passed me by for interesting dialogue, but your comment is extremely hypocritical based on your follow-up.

 

[Apple Jack]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

I did not imply "all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly." Nor would that need to be the case to justify tweaking the system to where DAs from outside of the district handle homicides by cop. The goal is impartiality. There is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest. Are all DAs going to be biased or easily swayed by a department? Of course not. It's those who are that are the concern.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

This thread is somehow worse than I thought it would be.

you never let me down.

I try to be there for my fellow FBGs.

Seriously, though- he said nothing remotely close to "implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly," yet you assign that position to him just so you can criticize him with a ridiculous analogy. You think that's a good way to kick off an interesting dialogue?

I just made a statement. You can agree or disagree. Obviously you disagree. I'm not for overhauling a system because of a few dissatisfied people.

You didn't just "make a statement." You claimed that a poster said something controversial and disrespectful towards police officers when in fact the poster didn't say anything resembling what you claimed.

Let's say I criticize you for "implying that all black people are criminals" even if you didn't actually say or imply anything like that. Can I just say "I just made a statement" in defense of my post? Does that seem like a good way to start a respectful conversation?

 

[shadyridr]

Is General Tso = MOP?

 

[Apple Jack]

I just made a statement. You can agree or disagree. Obviously you disagree. I'm not for overhauling a system because of a few dissatisfied people.

Schtick?

 

[Two Deep]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

I did not imply "all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly." Nor would that need to be the case to justify tweaking the system to where DAs from outside of the district handle homicides by cop. The goal is impartiality. There is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest. Are all DAs going to be biased or easily swayed by a department? Of course not. It's those who are that are the concern.

So the DA outside of the district won't be any more officer friendly than the DA from within the district. Is that your thought?

 

[rct]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

I did not imply "all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly." Nor would that need to be the case to justify tweaking the system to where DAs from outside of the district handle homicides by cop. The goal is impartiality. There is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest. Are all DAs going to be biased or easily swayed by a department? Of course not. It's those who are that are the concern.

So the DA outside of the district won't be any more officer friendly than the DA from within the district. Is that your thought?

He shouldn't be, because he is not working with these same officers on a regular basis and does not have to depend on their testimony in other cases.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Is General Tso = MOP?

I'm confused. I've never seen anyone take over a thread like this besides Tim, and it's the first controversial thread since he got locked up.

 

[FlapJacks]

Remember when the left pinned the gabbie Gifford shooting on Sarah Palin because of some obscure marketing piece showing giffords district with a target over it?

Yes. It was equally incensed by that. I said earlier that I think the Right is largely to blame for starting this horrible tradition of veiled physical threats against political targets. The Left is taking it to a whole new level. Thankfully the Right doesn't have rap videos.

I think there was precedent

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=917&bih=478&q=kill+bush&oq=kill+bush&gs_l=img.3..0i24l7.1051.3878.0.4349.9.9.0.0.0.0.310.1167.0j2j2j1.5.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.60.img..4.5.1162.puI4eUBuKRw

 

[Two Deep]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

I did not imply "all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly." Nor would that need to be the case to justify tweaking the system to where DAs from outside of the district handle homicides by cop. The goal is impartiality. There is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest. Are all DAs going to be biased or easily swayed by a department? Of course not. It's those who are that are the concern.

So the DA outside of the district won't be any more officer friendly than the DA from within the district. Is that your thought?

He shouldn't be, because he is not working with these same officers on a regular basis and does not have to depend on their testimony in other cases.

So proximity makes one fair, impartial and honest, not good character.

 

[rct]

What needs to come out of all this, aside from imbalanced people getting medicated, is removing DA's who count on their local police departments to do their jobs (and further their careers) from cases involving the people in those exceptionally tight-knit departments killing people. Acknowledgement and action along those lines would go a long way to diffuse tensions.

Implying all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly is no different than thinking all black people are criminals. You are practicing "jobism".

I did not imply "all officers of the law are bad or incapable of doing their job honestly." Nor would that need to be the case to justify tweaking the system to where DAs from outside of the district handle homicides by cop. The goal is impartiality. There is an immediate and obvious conflict of interest. Are all DAs going to be biased or easily swayed by a department? Of course not. It's those who are that are the concern.

So the DA outside of the district won't be any more officer friendly than the DA from within the district. Is that your thought?

He shouldn't be, because he is not working with these same officers on a regular basis and does not have to depend on their testimony in other cases.

So proximity makes one fair, impartial and honest, not good character.

I didn't say that, not that you care - it seems like that there is no argument one can make that you don't mischaracterize.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

MOP, are you really reporting people?

This hypothesis can accurately explain the direction this thread has taken.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Is General Tso = MOP?

I'm confused. I've never seen anyone take over a thread like this besides Tim, and it's the first controversial thread since he got locked up.

Tim is not locked up, he has been a voluntary shut in.

 

[Fennis]

Is General Tso = MOP?

I'm confused. I've never seen anyone take over a thread like this besides Tim, and it's the first controversial thread since he got locked up.

FFA abhors a vacuum