NYPD officers shot dead as "revenge" for Garner decision.

[The_Doctor]

Once again - can we now stop regarding all cops as "pigs" and respect that many, a vast majority, do hard work and risk their lives and put themselves in danger to protect communities, and not every situation is black and white?

I've still seen liberals on this board still use generic anti-cop rhetoric, albeit more muted, even after these cops were murdered.

You are the only person who has brought up the word "pig" in this thread other than Patrick, who agrees with you. Also just because two police officers were tragically murdered, doesn't mean we still can't criticize police and violent police behavior.

I've seen the epithet used here a lot (or a version of anti-cop rhetoric). Ditto other places like Daily Kos.

I agree that cops can and should be criticized. But not in a blanket way, that suggests all cops are somehow terrible human beings (or even most).

But I saw and still see blanket condemnation of the cops in many liberal quarters. It's telling, right now for example, that Daily Kos isn't addressing the murders on the front page at all.

[Rockefeller GOP]

This thread is an atrocity. Lief's posts are particularly  disappointing, though.

I look forward to hearing an actual local's input.

What do you expect?  He's delusional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the two situations are not identical.

Well..

I left an important word out.  I think it was fairly evident what I meant by context tho.

[bgwah]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that.  

Sure it does. For example, someone could knowingly post an article that doesn't match their thread title with the hope that others will point it out, presenting that someone the opportunity to climb up on a pedestal and launch a series of attacks while claiming some kind of moral high ground, when in fact that person is the one exploiting a tragedy for cheap, petty political points. Now that would be low.

[Deus Naturae]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

[Beet]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

We'll because the officers had guns, but they're still dead.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

We'll because the officers had guns, but they're still dead.

More guns is always the answer. Like when 2 members of the Oakland SWAT team were killed entering the residence of someone who had killed 2 cops earlier in the day, the problem was clearly that the Oakland SWAT team didn't have enough guns.

[Deus Naturae]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

We'll because the officers had guns, but they're still dead.

That's because the guy walked up to the car window. There are tons (probably hundreds) of examples of people defending themselves with guns, but because one time they weren't able to it's "stark and unanswerable" proof that guns don't help people defend themselves?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

We'll because the officers had guns, but they're still dead.

That's because the guy walked up to the car window. There are tons (probably hundreds) of examples of people defending themselves with guns, but because one time they weren't able to it's "stark and unanswerable" proof that guns don't help people defend themselves)?

I know, the Oakland SWAT team must have been caught off guard when they were told to enter the residence of a cop killer. Who could have predicted that someone who had killed cops that day would kill cops that day?

[Beet]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that. This guy snuck up behind the officers.

Actually it's a pretty stark and unanswerable counter to the notion that more guns is the solution to gun violence.

How, exactly?

We'll because the officers had guns, but they're still dead.

That's because the guy walked up to the car window. There are tons (probably hundreds) of examples of people defending themselves with guns, but because one time they weren't able to it's "stark and unanswerable" proof that guns don't help people defend themselves?

The argument from the pro gun side isn't that guns can sometimes help someone in some situations. It's that when someone gets shot, "if only they had a gun" they would be alive. This proves that's bull because you can't know what would happen in a counter factual. If there were very few guns in society, maybe these shootings never even would have happened. That's another, equally valid counterfactual.

[Deus Naturae]

The argument from the pro gun side isn't that guns can sometimes help someone in some situations. It's that when someone gets shot, "if only they had a gun" they would be alive. This proves that's bull because you can't know what would happen in a counter factual. If there were very few guns in society, maybe these shootings never even would have happened. That's another, equally valid counterfactual.

It's obviously true that having a gun won't guarantee a 100% chance of not being killed (nothing will), but in most situations it does improve your chance of survival significantly. Not in this case due to the logistics of the situations but still, if the cops hadn't had guns the probability of their survival in an alternate universe would almost certainly be lower.

As for your counterfactual, sure, if there were no guns, there would be no shootings. But, that doesn't equate to a sound argument for gun control because it assumes that gun control will get rid of guns, which is up for debate. In this case, for example, the murderer's gun was very likely owned illegally, since it's extremely difficult to get a handgun license in NYC and the guy had a history of violating gun laws.

[Keystone Phil]

You guys are forgetting the most critical point: this would not have happened if their were good guys with guns to save these police officers.

Wow. Doesn't get more low class than that.  

Sure it does. For example, someone could knowingly post an article that doesn't match their thread title with the hope that others will point it out, presenting that someone the opportunity to climb up on a pedestal and launch a series of attacks while claiming some kind of moral high ground, when in fact that person is the one exploiting a tragedy for cheap, petty political points. Now that would be low.

Let's not get so desperate as to deny that this is a revenge killing. I mean, are some of you still denying it by whining that the link I chose didn't mention it as a revenge killing? And you're pretty warped if you think I purposely chose an article that didn't mention it just so others would point that out and I could chastise them. I just didn't yet have an article that linked to the murderer's social media accounts. But please, go on whining about the link and the title not matching at the time of the posting. I'll note that the Moderators didn't change the thread title so you might want to knock the faux outrage down a notch or two.   

I made zero political point in stating that it's a revenge killing. As for getting up on a pedastal like handringers like yourself, I anticipated many idiotic "points" to be raised here. Thankfully, there weren't as many as I anticipated. It seems as if though that I still have to put out a few fires. All in a day's work though.

[Beet]

The argument from the pro gun side isn't that guns can sometimes help someone in some situations. It's that when someone gets shot, "if only they had a gun" they would be alive. This proves that's bull because you can't know what would happen in a counter factual. If there were very few guns in society, maybe these shootings never even would have happened. That's another, equally valid counterfactual.

It's obviously true that having a gun won't guarantee a 100% chance of not being killed (nothing will), but in most situations it does improve your chance of survival significantly. Not in this case due to the logistics of the situations but still, if the cops hadn't had guns the probability of their survival in an alternate universe would almost certainly be lower.

It would be negligibly lower. The cops here didn't have a chance, as no one can be vigilant against every other human being that happens to be in shooting range unless they move out to a rural area and barricade themselves in a fortified ranch. On the other hand, what if the killer had no gun? He would have had virtually no chance at all to kill the two officers sitting in their car. In any case, the pro gun side argument isn't that "well if the victim had a gun, there's a chance the killer could have been stopped, and let's weigh that possibility against the chance that the victim would be alive if the assailant didn't have a gun, and let's do objective academic studies of the effect of guns on killings and come up with a nuanced conclusion." Wayne LaPierre literally said, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" after Sandy Hook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except I'm not even arguing for gun control, I've said a number if times that I no longer support it / it's a lost cause. I'm just arguing against the logic that more guns is the solution to gun violence, and that the fewer guns that people voluntarily decide to buy, the less guns are a part of our culture, the better for public health outcomes.

[© tweed]

a few thoughts flowing through my head.

-GREAT luck for the NYPD/supporters of police power that this was a black guy shooting an Asian and a Hispanic. 

any criticism of police power is being tied to the double murder.  it should work on everyone except for the blacks, and isolating the blacks and then clubbing them over the head is a fail-safe, tried & true tactic.

-I think I get the cops grievance w/de Blasio.  Lynch said on Hannity "you don't want us to go after loosies, we won't go after loosies".  the problem is de Blasio has tried to curb the worst aspects of "broken windows" while not rocking the boat too much.  this translates to not "supporting the cops enough" when something bad happens due to broken windows re: Eric Garner.

if de Blasio came into office as a real reformist, brought in a new-blood commish (Bratton was a signal that, hey don't worry, thing will stay about the same), and blatantly said (internally) to the police: we no longer care about marijuana possession, we no longer care about drug possession, no longer care about any other daily life, petty crime: stay on your post and wait for something bad to happen", the cops would've accepted it.  instead de Blasio had tried to have cake and eat it.

the problem of course is, de Blasio needs broken windows to get enough black and browns to fill all of the prisons built upstate in the 80s and 90s, and to keep the correctional officers happy.. rock and a hard place.

[Simfan34]

Brown people are Indians.

[TNF]

This never would have happened if the NYPD didn't continually act as judge, jury, and executioner anytime that a person of color walked toward them on the street, or looked at them funny, or [insert pig excuse for murder here].

[Simfan34]

This never would have happened if the NYPD didn't continually act as judge, jury, and executioner anytime that a person of color walked toward them on the street, or looked at them funny, or [insert pig excuse for murder here].

sage, o sage

[Simfan34]

Strangely enough I am alive.

[© tweed]

This never would have happened if the NYPD didn't continually act as judge, jury, and executioner anytime that a person of color walked toward them on the street, or looked at them funny, or [insert pig excuse for murder here].

c'mon man, this is counterproductive.  there is something deeply sick about the USA that makes it churn out stunning numbers of habitually abused, angry, violent, "mentally ill" people with easy access to lethal weapons.  police violence is only a small part of all that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Earlier this month, a NYPD cop was shot dead. But it was OK because the shooter was NYPD, too.

http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2014/12/white-cop-kills-off-duty-black-officer-during-chase/

[Badger]

It's unfortunate, but other people suffer the consequences of bad decisions from prosecutors and juries.

Yes, and the term for such people is usually 'victims of crime'.

[Tender Branson]

Amazing scene of solidarity:



Only in the US (and probably Canada).