Police shot in Dallas

Agree about the instant info culture though the internet is such that the lack of instant disclosure leads to nuttiness of the "why arent' they identifying the shooter, it must be a muslim" kind. I can accept that it was a lone shooter and hope it was but they should explain the apparent arrests of several other people (or say that it was false info).  

bub said:

Agree about the instant info culture though the internet is such that the lack of instant disclosure leads to nuttiness of the "why arent' they identifying the shooter, it must be a muslim" kind. I

That's exactly the problem, isn't it? The public expects a quick disclosure of info and when that doesn't happen many people fill the space with speculations and criticisms. And this in turn seems to pressure the police to release information quickly (one of the lessons of Ferguson it seems)...but also prematurely.

In many cases, I'd agree - rumors can now spread like wildfire - but for the purpose of video documenting events like this, or the events that transpired earlier this week, the same instantaneous dissemination of information is allowing for more transparency to the public. 

The same type of social media used to originally identify Hughes ultimately vindicated him after he was accused:

https://amp.twimg.com/v/256d04e0-6728-443b-a3ce-786a13ab28e9

The conversation isn't clear, but you can infer the officer kindly asked for the assault rifle and Hughes obliged. Doesn't seem he was ever taken into custody. It's just that a guy with an assault rifle becomes an obvious "person of interest" in that situation. If he was still at large at the time, it was probably right for his picture to get hastily circulated, for the safety of the public, and then fortunate enough for him that someone was there to stream the exchange between him and the police, clearing his name and his face. 

Can you imagine if both the original picture and subsequent video exchange were both absent from the current narrative? He was spotted by many witnesses during the peaceful protest - I saw at least one interview live on the news very late last night where a woman described seeing a man in camo carrying an assault rifle in the crowd. Rumors would circulate leading to eventual conspiracy theories. "Did you hear there was a second gunman seen by dozens of witnesses?" It's like de ja vu all over again...

xavier67 said:

For me this event illustrated the pitfalls of social-media culture of instantaneous dissemination of info, as evident by all the misinformation that spread during the initial hours. 

Cop ambushed after a phony 911 call in Georgia, another shot in the back of the neck walking back to his car after writing a ticket. Both post-Dallas.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-exchanges-gunfire-georgia-police-officer-40434452

http://fox2now.com/2016/07/08/report-officer-shot-in-ballwin-manhunt-underway/

Make that 3- one in TN

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-tennessee-shooter-targeted-white-victims-similar-to-dallas-ambush/

WHAT THE *****?

Good news. The murderer's sister is sharing her thoughts.

If you're hoping she is sending out prayers for peace, don't click.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/micah-xavier-johnson-sister-defends-dallas-rampage-article-1.2704540

We are reaping what the left sowed. 

We are reaping what society sowed.  Do you think the 99% good cops are all right wing, and the 1% who make them look bad are lefties?  People don't react like this unless they think that there is no hope, and thanks to the right they have easy access to powerful weapons.

FilmCarp said:

We are reaping what society sowed.  Do you think the 99% good cops are all right wing, and the 1% who make them look bad are lefties?  People don't react like this unless they think that there is no hope, and thanks to the right they have easy access to powerful weapons.

So let's focus on the real bad guys- people that take away people's hope, forcing them to kill, and the NRA.

Can't make this up.

bramzzoinks said:

We are reaping what the left sowed. 

You are despicable! 

Bramz, I kind of have to agree with the "despicable" comment.  You've got this all purpose, lazy "the left" boogieman in so many of your comments.  If you can point to some editorial, think piece etc. that calls for the shooting of cops, please do so.  And even if you can, you're not in a position to say that it caused a young man to martyr himself in an explosion of violence.  You want that to be true but you have zero basis for saying so.

People have observed that the cops appeared to shoot a citizen without justification, as they have regarding prior incidents.   Whether ultimately right or wrong, is that kind of observation somehow inflammatory or over the line?  Please tell us the correct way someone should address the issue or do people have to just shut up?

paulsurovell said:

breal said:

Paul Surovell -- Maybe remove that innocent person's name and photo from this thread?  (You are 100% right about showing up at a peaceful demonstration with a machine gun, but maybe make that point without showing his image or listing his name?)  

I attached a tag to photo to show no longer a suspect.  I think the photo is part of the story.

Yes, attaching a face to the incident makes it much more memorable.

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

Jeezuz...could you make a more stupid comment? 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

Jeezuz...could you make a more stupid comment? 

I'm sure he already has, and often.

Here's my overly simplistic solution for America's law enforcement professionals: stop killing innocent people.

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

Um, no.  Not really, no.  Not at all.

Mark Hughes was carrying an AR-15 at the BLM protest march because he "is a staunch believer Second Amendment rights" according to his attorney.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

ice said:

Wow, I must be on MOL.  A bunch of cops are murdered, and so far the NRA and open carry laws have been blamed, but there has been not a word about all of the violent anti-police rhetoric that has become an accepted part of the political dialogue over the past couple years.

(FYI...I don't support the NRA on assault weapons and many other things, and don't feel strongly about open carry laws in states where people want them.  But the elephant in the room here has little to do with either)

There isn't any elephant in my room.  

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

Maybe not all our police need to be carrying guns? Clearly some do, but the assumption that tools of deadly force are part of the standard toolkit for every officer is one I think worth questioning.

PVW said:
Maybe not all our police need to be carrying guns? Clearly some do, but the assumption that tools of deadly force are part of the standard toolkit for every officer is one I think worth questioning.

You can't be serious.

paulsurovell said:

Mark Hughes was carrying an AR-15 at the BLM protest march because he "is a staunch believer Second Amendment rights" according to his attorney.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/

His 2nd Amendment rights almost got his sorry ass shot off.

Open carry in situations such as Dallas put the police in a really difficult situation.  Some might thing our country has gone mad.

tjohn said:

PVW said:
Maybe not all our police need to be carrying guns? Clearly some do, but the assumption that tools of deadly force are part of the standard toolkit for every officer is one I think worth questioning.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I am. In the UK, for instance, not every officer carries a gun.

What does it say about our culture that it's assumed that the ability to kill is a standard requirement for all police officers?

When the left governor of Minnesota says Philando Castile would not have been shot had he been white that is incendiary speculation and is as bad if not more demogogic than anything Trump has ever said. 

Unlike your own speculation - politician criticizes police, blacks agitated by said criticism, cops get trigger happy out of fear of agitated blacks.

Since the word "left" appears in almost everyone of your posts, can you define please?  Is it Che Guevera?  Black Lives Matter? All Democrats?  Anyone who expresses discomfort/skepticism/concern about a police shooting?  I don't think of myself as a leftist but I'm sometimes in the last category so I'm just wondering.

PVW said:

tjohn said:

PVW said:
Maybe not all our police need to be carrying guns? Clearly some do, but the assumption that tools of deadly force are part of the standard toolkit for every officer is one I think worth questioning.

You can't be serious.

Yes, I am. In the UK, for instance, not every officer carries a gun.

What does it say about our culture that it's assumed that the ability to kill is a standard requirement for all police officers?

Also, I'd say that in general we should be re-thinking our approach to policing. Above I suggest questioning our assumption that tools of deadly force should be standard equipment for all officers. Here's a suggestion that not every traffic violation should require an office to interact with a motorist:

I am not saying that all broken taillights should be ignored.

What I’m suggesting is a change in protocol: A police officer who sees a car with a broken taillight, or a malfunctioning blinker, should pull it over, park behind it, photograph the license plate, and issue a “fix it” ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle without ever approaching a window or interacting with anyone on the roadside.

Some traffic stops are unavoidable. Police officers need to interact with drunk-driving suspects to determine their blood alcohol level. They need to interact with a person driving a car reported stolen to recover the property and arrest the thief. But broken taillights and similar matters can be addressed without any human contact. And minimizing interactions between police and motorists is a good thing.

If we're serious about reforming our police, we need to be thinking of ways to make police-citizen interaction less confrontational, and of lowering the stakes so that it' s not always potentially life and death.

bramzzoinks said:

When the left governor of Minnesota says Philando Castile would not have been shot had he been white that is incendiary speculation and is as bad if not more demogogic than anything Trump has ever said. 

Less than incendiary speculation, it's just obvious common sense.

I do agree that police do not need to always be armed and some infractions can be dealt with by a picture and a summons in the mail.