Perspectives

[Belsnickel]

So, I saw someone post something that I thought could potentially generate some interesting discussion, or a flame war, let's hope for a civil discussion.

Something that is often brought up when gun control arguments are hashed out if the need for the citizenry to be able to rise up against an oppressive government. We don't know all the details about the Dallas shooting as of yet, but the assumption has been made it is reactionary to the recent killings of black men by police that are being viewed as unjustified. If this is the case, what could be argued is that the incident in Dallas last night is an example of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to rise up against an oppressive government.

It is often said that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. This is another angle on that, but one that hits closer to home because of it being entirely within our borders, citizen against citizen.

Do you agree with this sentiment? That it is all about perspective?

Should this affect how we handle these sorts of situations in any way?

Does it complicate any of your current political stances? Why or why not?

Edit: I want to add that I don't justify violence because I abhor it no matter the situation. Many violent acts justified by the majority in the country I am still against. So this isn't me trying to go down that road, I just thought this might be a little more thought provoking than some other stuff we see sometimes.

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I saw someone post something that I thought could potentially generate some interesting discussion, or a flame war, let's hope for a civil discussion.

Something that is often brought up when gun control arguments are hashed out if the need for the citizenry to be able to rise up against an oppressive government. We don't know all the details about the Dallas shooting as of yet, but the assumption has been made it is reactionary to the recent killings of black men by police that are being viewed as unjustified. If this is the case, what could be argued is that the incident in Dallas last night is an example of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to rise up against an oppressive government.

It is often said that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. This is another angle on that, but one that hits closer to home because of it being entirely within our borders, citizen against citizen.

Do you agree with this sentiment? That it is all about perspective?

Should this affect how we handle these sorts of situations in any way?

Does it complicate any of your current political stances? Why or why not?

Edit: I want to add that I don't justify violence because I abhor it no matter the situation. Many violent acts justified by the majority in the country I am still against. So this isn't me trying to go down that road, I just thought this might be a little more thought provoking than some other stuff we see sometimes.

That's a brilliant take.

Rep.

And I totally agree on the violent behavior...

[Benton]

I wouldn't say it counts as oppressive government as there's no unified effort. There isn't some state cabinet promoting the idea that all law enforcement officers should shoot first and confiscate cell phones second. If anything, there's the opposite in many states where the government is calling for less profiling and less use of force.

I do see where some people could get the impression it's the government. LEO's work for some branch of it, either local, state or federal. But most people don't understand the gap between the top and the bottom. A state senator has no real connection to a sheriff's deputy in his state, outside of maybe voting on the guy's hazardous duty pay. Your local city councilman isn't calling up a city police Lt. and reminding them to read the Miranda rights. And sure, there are plenty of examples where law makers interfere with law enforcement, but I'm talking about the regular day-to-day, it's not a situation where the two are overlapping.

In terms of their 2nd amendment rights, I could see if this were people attacking lawmakers for things they've done, but this isn't that.

[Rotobeast]

If they researched bad cops and that is who they took down, then I can see that perspective.

However, I suspect that merely took the softest targets to make a statement.

They would have made a larger statement, were they to travel to Minnesota and target that cop.

Regardless, it is terrorism/hate crime, considering only white cops were shot. (still terrorism though, being only cops)

Quote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/three-officer-fatally-shot-during-000000452.html

The sniper who participated in an attack that killed five officers and wounded seven others during a demonstration in downtown Dallas was hell-bent on killing white people, especially white police officers, police said Friday.

Were it less discriminate, I would be able to look more at the freedom fighter angle.
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2016, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's a brilliant take.

Rep.

And I totally agree on the violent behavior...

Not his take, he was reporting some garbage being spewed to justify last night's incident.  They, and you, sound exactly like the people after the Charlie Hedbo attacks who condemned the violence but excused it because it was a response to the magazine mocking the prophet.

(07-08-2016, 12:28 PM)Benton Wrote: I wouldn't say it counts as oppressive government as there's no unified effort. There isn't some state cabinet promoting the idea that all law enforcement officers should shoot first and confiscate cell phones second. If anything, there's the opposite in many states where the government is calling for less profiling and less use of force.

I do see where some people could get the impression it's the government. LEO's  work for some branch of it, either local, state or federal. But most people don't understand the gap between the top and the bottom. A state senator has no real connection to a sheriff's deputy in his state, outside of maybe voting on the guy's hazardous duty pay. Your local city councilman isn't calling up a city police Lt. and reminding them to read the Miranda rights. And sure, there are plenty of examples where law makers interfere with law enforcement, but I'm talking about the regular day-to-day, it's not a situation where the two are overlapping.

In terms of their 2nd amendment rights, I could see if this were people attacking lawmakers for things they've done, but this isn't that.

Pretty much this.  Every time there's a potential bad shoot the total number of blacks killed by police is brought up.  The total number doesn't mean a damn thing in this context, the number of potentially bad shoots does.  If 500 black people are killed by police in a year and five of them were bad shoots why would anyone logically bring up the other 495 when discussing them?  Point being, this is not a concerted effort by the any government as evidenced by the huge geographic spread of the incidents.

In terms of 2nd amendment rights, would the same apologists in the OP maintain that opinion is people attacked the lawmakers and the governor in CA that just turned millions of previously law abiding citizens into criminals?

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not his take, he was reporting some garbage being spewed to justify last night's incident.  They, and you, sound exactly like the people after the Charlie Hedbo attacks who condemned the violence but excused it because it was a response to the magazine mocking the prophet.



Pretty much this.  Every time there's a potential bad shoot the total number of blacks killed by police is brought up.  The total number doesn't mean a damn thing in this context, the number of potentially bad shoots does.  If 500 black people are killed by police in a year and five of them were bad shoots why would anyone logically bring up the other 495 when discussing them?  Point being, this is not a concerted effort by the any government as evidenced by the huge geographic spread of the incidents.

In terms of 2nd amendment rights, would the same apologists in the OP maintain that opinion is people attacked the lawmakers and the governor in CA that just turned millions of previously law abiding citizens into criminals?

Certainly.  Matt and I wanting less violence is the problem.

Clearly there is only one way to look at these things...yours.


Great take.

This is why the adults can't have a conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2016, 12:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Certainly.  Matt and I wanting less violence is the problem.

Clearly there is only one way to look at these things...yours.


Great take.

This is why the adults can't have a conversation.

I wonder if you realize how contradictory your response is.  I'm guessing no.

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2016, 12:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If they researched bad cops and that is who they took down, then I can see that perspective.

However, I suspect that merely took the softest targets to make a statement.

They would have made a larger statement, were they to travel to Minnesota and target that cop.

Regardless, it is terrorism/hate crime, considering only white cops were shot. (still terrorism though, being only cops)

Were it less discriminate, I would be able to look more at the freedom fighter angle.
 

(07-08-2016, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not his take, he was reporting some garbage being spewed to justify last night's incident.  They, and you, sound exactly like the people after the Charlie Hedbo attacks who condemned the violence but excused it because it was a response to the magazine mocking the prophet.



Pretty much this.  Every time there's a potential bad shoot the total number of blacks killed by police is brought up.  The total number doesn't mean a damn thing in this context, the number of potentially bad shoots does.  If 500 black people are killed by police in a year and five of them were bad shoots why would anyone logically bring up the other 495 when discussing them?  Point being, this is not a concerted effort by the any government as evidenced by the huge geographic spread of the incidents.

In terms of 2nd amendment rights, would the same apologists in the OP maintain that opinion is people attacked the lawmakers and the governor in CA that just turned millions of previously law abiding citizens into criminals?

I like playing devil's advocate, so this conversation interests me. But some of this is coming from people I know. It is concerning to me because this language is, and should be, disturbing. The mindset of some people is that the police, overall, not just the ones that have been involved, are the enemy of their people and that any cop is an armed combatant and should be treated as such.

I wish I were joking about this mindset, but people I have known for years have said things like this recently. They believe the police are acting out what the state wants because of the lack of punishment. The hyperbole coming from politicians and media plays the largest role in this, I have no doubt about this. But this type of justification is what some people are using, albeit a very small minority at this time.

In all seriousness, though, this is what an armed insurrection looks like in the beginning stages. And that concerns me because violence only begets violence. I want us to find a solution to calm the waters instead of churning them, which is what is happening.

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder if you realize how contradictory your response is.  I'm guessing no.

As much as you don't understand that people having a conversation can talk about their views and the views of others without just saying "I'm right".

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like playing devil's advocate, so this conversation interests me. But some of this is coming from people I know. It is concerning to me because this language is, and should be, disturbing. The mindset of some people is that the police, overall, not just the ones that have been involved, are the enemy of their people and that any cop is an armed combatant and should be treated as such.

I wish I were joking about this mindset, but people I have known for years have said things like this recently. They believe the police are acting out what the state wants because of the lack of punishment. The hyperbole coming from politicians and media plays the largest role in this, I have no doubt about this. But this type of justification is what some people are using, albeit a very small minority at this time.

In all seriousness, though, this is what an armed insurrection looks like in the beginning stages. And that concerns me because violence only begets violence. I want us to find a solution to calm the waters instead of churning them, which is what is happening.

Which I why I thought (and still think) it's a brilliant take.

Doesn't have to be correct...just a great look at how people can interpret these things to fit their own agenda and ignore any and all other views.

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2016, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Do you agree with this sentiment? That it is all about perspective?

2. Should this affect how we handle these sorts of situations in any way?

3. Does it complicate any of your current political stances? Why or why not?

1. No. But I do believe that the people who murdered those LEOs have probably been told something similar. The only thing that could possibly change is if you would classify them as murders or Terrorists.

2. No. These murders should be found, tried, and sentenced. No mitigation as a "freedom fighter" should be given.

3. No. I still believe the answer to gun control is harsher sentences, not more laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2016, 12:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like playing devil's advocate, so this conversation interests me. But some of this is coming from people I know. It is concerning to me because this language is, and should be, disturbing. The mindset of some people is that the police, overall, not just the ones that have been involved, are the enemy of their people and that any cop is an armed combatant and should be treated as such.

I've been talking about this for the past few years, as far back as the old board.  I've continued to find it odd that the media frequently gives credence to the idea that LEO's need to change their behavior because of a statistically insignificant number of incidents and bad actors.  Yet if you made the same argument about why blacks are disproportionately committing homicides you'd be instantly called out for painting an entire group with a huge brush.[/quote]

Quote:I wish I were joking about this mindset, but people I have known for years have said things like this recently. They believe the police are acting out what the state wants because of the lack of punishment. The hyperbole coming from politicians and media plays the largest role in this, I have no doubt about this. But this type of justification is what some people are using, albeit a very small minority at this time.

I also agree it's a small minority, unfortunately the loudest voices get the most attention.  My interactions with the public continue to be cordial over all but there is a lot more of an initial barrier to rational interaction than there used to be.

Quote:In all seriousness, though, this is what an armed insurrection looks like in the beginning stages. And that concerns me because violence only begets violence. I want us to find a solution to calm the waters instead of churning them, which is what is happening.

A few good solutions would be to stop treating LEO's as a monolithic group whenever a potentially bad shooting occurs.  Another good solution would be for everyone to withhold their comments until all the facts are known (right GMDabo?).  Please believe me when I tell you that we've been through endless training on subjects related to this, action is being taken on the law enforcement end.  Finally, it would also be useful if we stopped conflating actual bad shootings with justified ones.

[JustWinBaby]

Fix the justice system and then tell people to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the police and let the system work. Stop fueling the meme that race is factor in every questionable shooting - even if true, it's wholly unproductive and entirely divisive.

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 01:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fix the justice system and then tell people to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the police and let the system work.  Stop fueling the meme that race is factor in every questionable shooting - even if true, it's wholly unproductive and entirely divisive.

[NATI BENGALS]

I dont think there was anything political about it.

He said he wanted to kill white people. This was an angry racist who finally went over the edge.

A lot of press goes to blacks being killed by cops. How many cops that die are killed by blacks?

You can only blame cops so much. Their job is to fight crime. Almost every city that has a "ghetto" full of crime is primarily made up of black people.

Jesse Williams wants to complain on BET about white people stealing their culture. How about fixing the shit and quit playing the victim card.

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2016, 01:44 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Jesse Williams wants to complain on BET about white people stealing their culture. How about fixing the shit and quit playing the victim card.

Stacey Dash is right there with you:

http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/312285-stacey-dash-blasts-jesse-williams-for-bet-speech.html

[JustWinBaby]

(07-08-2016, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Well, I guess the alternative is not to fully cooperate and create a situation that might result in your death, and leave your family to ***** about racism.

[Benton]

(07-08-2016, 01:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fix the justice system 

And that's the difficult part. The system is made up of people. People make mistakes. People interpret things poorly sometimes. People are subject to emotion.

[GMDino]

(07-08-2016, 02:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, I guess the alternative is not to fully cooperate and create a situation that might result in your death, and leave your family to ***** about racism.

If you think you can get people to fully and unconditionally do what they are told you are crazy.

Worse, if you think be should ALWAYS  fully and unconditionally do what they are told you are crazier.

Be respectful? Sure!

Follow orders as best you can? Absolutely!

Have it be  fully and unconditionally follow orders or get killed?  Not so much.

At least it's not supposed to be that way here.

[McC]

This is some people who wanted to kill and considered this a good excuse to do it. I don't think we're talking about freedom fighters here. These are murderers.