RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:...the only guys who could have stopped this were in Washington, including an African-American so-called leader....

To which "guys" do you refer ?

Why do you refer to Obama (I assume you ARE referring to him) as a "so called leader" ?

What would you have him do that he hasn't already done ?

...they had their chance to stop this many times over the past eight years that Obama has been "in power," but failed to do so...

When did "they" have their chance ?

...even the first African-American president has failed them. So anyone who is surprised needs to brush up on their history and read about the great revolutions and what caused them...

Obama has failed no-one...are you suggesting he should act outside the law ?


Are you suggesting a revolution ever occurred through lack of gun control ?

Mikey Brown wrote:What the fuck is going on?

A former army reservist took his SKS carbine and shot 14 people...12 of them white cops...killing 5

Then got killed himself.

WaspInWales wrote:Perhaps if some of the bystanders and other protesters had guns, they could've taken the snipers out?

Why, he/they were shooting at the bystanders....well two did get shot but not on purpose.

To answer your question, Rich, the puppet of white billionaires whom we refer to as America's president, could have taken some of the very simple steps outlined in the following article:

This Country Needs a Truth and Reconciliation Process on Violence Against African Americans—Right Now

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justic ... -americans

rowan wrote:To answer your question, Rich, the puppet of white billionaires whom we refer to as America's president, could have taken some of the very simple steps outlined in the following article:

This Country Needs a Truth and Reconciliation Process on Violence Against African Americans—Right Now

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justic ... -americans

No offense mate but that article is just political BS

Same as your contention that Obama is the puppet of America's rich. He is not - however he has to work within the political process that the US Constitution has laid down.

The US president is not a king, he doesn't even have the powers that a British prime minister has.

The US Constitution was designed to halt any one man or group of men/women taking decisive action as it was feared it might be for the worst. The US congress is, by result, a force of political inertia. And inertia is a powerful force.

The USA has many political problems - a significant rich-poor divide. Many of the poor - especially in the South are persuaded to vote Republican because they still buy into the patriotism BS that was shamelessly touted by Bush Jr. They vote for anything the GOP proposes if its wrapped up tightly enough in a Stars & Stripes.
I think that Republicans in Congress let Americans have the right to own guns as a price to pay in order for them to buy into this patriotism/freedom BS.

The USA consequently has a dangerously high level of gun ownership and suffers a casualty rate accordingly - some 10,000 per year dead.
US police are driven to take on a warrior culture - they dress in dark uniforms, shaven heads and carry military weapons.
They kill over 1,000 people per year.
Small cities in the USA see police kill more people in a month than the UK kills in 10 years.

In some parts of the USA, it is not unlike Ulster was with the relationship between the Catholic community and the RUC.

The police and the black community are at polar extremes....

Yeah, blame Obama.

Excuses, excuses. Bottom line is he hasn't even tried to fulfil his election campaign promises - remember 'Change, Yes we Can!'' - but he hasn't changed the gun laws, he hasn't changed the racist behavior of the police force, he hasn't changed the disproportionately high incarceration rates of African (& Native) Americans, he didn't follow through with the investigation of the Iraq War but instead changed his mind and whitewashed it, and he didn't get the troops out of the Middle East either. In fact, Obomber started new wars and massacred countless civilians with his drones! So much for the Nobel Peace Prize, but we've known what an ironic farce that is for a long time now.

Rich wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Perhaps if some of the bystanders and other protesters had guns, they could've taken the snipers out?

Why, he/they were shooting at the bystanders....well two did get shot but not on purpose.

My comment was entirely flippant Rich. It's the kind of thing that some NRA/pro gun types say after similar tragedies.

rowan wrote:Excuses, excuses. Bottom line is he hasn't even tried to fulfil his election campaign promises - remember 'Change, Yes we Can!'' - but he hasn't changed the gun laws...

Are you saying Obama has not tried to change gun laws ?

If you are, then you are wrong.

...he hasn't changed the racist behavior of the police force,...he hasn't changed the disproportionately high incarceration rates of African (& Native) Americans...

You don't understand how the USA is run.

The POTUSA has no responsibility for local police forces

Federal authorities ARE trying to prosecute abuses of police power - they have to work within the framework of established due process.

Racism runs deep in the USA

It's how the cops who beat up Rodney King were found not guilty by a white jury and OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wide by a predominately black jury.

Also crime is committed by a disproportionate number of black/hispanic males.

...he didn't follow through with the investigation of the Iraq War but instead changed his mind and whitewashed it, and he didn't get the troops out of the Middle East either.00

I don't recall any commitment to investigate the second Gulf War (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and US troops have been gradually pulled out - for better or worse we now have a power vacuum.
Would you have Obama order an instant withdrawal ?

...in fact, Obomber started new wars and massacred countless civilians with his drones! So much for the Nobel Peace Prize, but we've known what an ironic farce that is for a long time now.

Obama has started no new wars.

Countless civilians have not been "massacred"

If you want to see examples of indiscriminate bombing, look to Russian air force operation in Syria.

I'm going to start from the bottom up with this one, because the comments become increasingly absurd as we progress through Rich's latest diatribe of denialism.


If you want to see examples of indiscriminate bombing, look to Russian air force operation in Syria.


That's a complete inversion of the truth. In reality, Russians are in Syria at the governments request (unlike NATO members, who are there uninvited), are fighting the rebels NATO members sent in, and have been more effective against ISIS, in particular, than anyone else. A leaked CIA document actually praised their accuracy.
https://www.rt.com/usa/338726-kerry-pra ... ole-syria/

Countless civilians have not been "massacred"

Wiki gives the below figures:

Iraq - like more than 1 million
Libya - like about 25,000
Syria - like more than 400,000

Obomber's drone wars - like 2500 18 months ago https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2 ... uguration/

Obama has started no new wars.

The invasion of Libya was undertaken by NATO troops during Obomber's presidency. The Syrian War was instigated by American-backed rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters (who used chemical weapons in Damascus and blambed it on Assad). Obomber has also carried out multiple drone-strikes in Pakistan and Somalia, and supported Saudi as it bombs weddings, schools and hospitals in Yemen. The CIA has helped staged coups in the Ukraine and Honduras during his presidence, bringing murderous regimes to power.

http://www.poynter.org/2014/fact-checki ... sh/272471/


I don't recall any commitment to investigate the second Gulf War

Are you a fish, by any chance? It's well-known that Obama whitewashed the Iraq War crimes inquiry, despite saying he would do the opposite during election campaigning.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/07/ ... and-kerry/


You don't understand how the USA is run.

It seems that you don't, judging by your comments. At least, you're extremely naive and appear to have been brainwashed and dumbed down, like most Americans - which is precisely why wars like Iraq are enabled to happen. As for me, I studied journalism in the US and understand plenty. In fact, I wrote a couple of articles on American foreign policy for the international press last year, both published, both about what's going on in the Middle East.

Are you saying Obama has not tried to change gun laws ?

I'm saying he hasn't changed the gun laws - or anything else, for that matter. I actually read 'Change, Yes we Can' from cover to cover, and now I know that the whole things was a lie, & that's because the US president is no more than a puppet of the billionaires club who really run America and the world.

zer0 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:What the fuck is going on?

Just a heavily armed population having a slight dust up. More guns and concealed carry permits will solve it, obviously.

It's hard to deny a certain shadenfraude.......... 'As long as they're shooting each other....'. Harsh and unfair but there it is.

rowan wrote:...as we progress through Rich's latest diatribe of denialism...

Well thank you

Aside from the fact that "denialism" is not actually a word, do you actually know what a "Diatribe" is ?

...that's a complete inversion of the truth. In reality, Russians are in Syria at the governments request...

Russia in conducting an indiscriminate bombing campaign to destabilize Syria...the neutralize opposition to the Syrian government

Russia doesn't care who it kills

Yet your "diatribe" is reserved for the President of the USA and not Putin

...
Iraq - like more than 1 million
Libya - like about 25,000
Syria - like more than 400,000

All killed by the US military no doubt


Interesting when people deride Wiki yet are so quick to quote it when it suits them

...the invasion of Libya was undertaken by NATO troops during Obomber's presidency. The Syrian War was instigated by American-backed rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters (who used chemical weapons in Damascus and blambed it on Assad)....

I'd have more confidence in what you say if you learned how to spell Obama

Since when did NATO = the USA

I'm not sure you can say the USA backs a clear side in Syria, but even if it did, how is that starting a war ?

...Obomber has also carried out multiple drone-strikes in Pakistan and Somalia...

These are "wars" ?

You need to reign back on your blinkered diatribe

You may have missed it but there's an ongoing war against terroism that started on the 11th of September 2001....I think you'll find Obama wasn't the POTUSA then.

...it's well-known that Obama whitewashed the Iraq War crimes inquiry, despite saying he would do the opposite during election campaigning....

Really, why don't you prove it with some facts instead on engaging in some diatribe rant.

...it seems that you don't...

Oh this should be good...you're going to tell me you know more about the US political process than I do....please go on...

...you're extremely naive and appear to have been brainwashed and dumbed down, like most Americans...

Are you calling me an American ?

...I'm saying he hasn't changed the gun laws...

And you would be right

...or anything else, for that matter....

Are you sure you have studied here ?

...I actually read 'Change, Yes we Can' from cover to cover, and now I know that the whole things was a lie, & that's because the US president is no more than a puppet of the billionaires club who really run America and the world.

Please cut out the diatribe and make reasoned argument - you're coming across as an American-hating-troll

POTUSA scans very oddly. Mind I can't say I much like the far more common use of POTUS and V-POTUS either, we just don't need so many abbreviations in our lives.

Tee hee.

UG crawls out from underneath his hilux to say



HELLOOOOOO

Obama's main mandate seems to have been pushing "free trade" agreements across the globe at the behest of corporate interest. It certainly has been where the majority of his effort seems to have been invested. I was particularly thrilled by the increase in social security tax and employee contributions to health benefits that insurance companies forced on everyone as soon as the affordable health care act kicked in. I'd imagine the arms industry has him over a similar barrel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-pol ... m-account/
Florida police shoot a caregiver who is laying on his back, with his hands up and is trying to help his patient - I'm sure being black had nothing at all to do with it.

Which Tyler wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-pol ... m-account/
Florida police shoot a caregiver who is laying on his back, with his hands up and is trying to help his patient - I'm sure being black had nothing at all to do with it.

Yeah, saw that! Horrendous.

Yep. The highly trained (?) officer (apparently he was a SWAT member for 4 years) and his partner, each armed with rifles, missed the rather large target sitting in the street playing with a toy truck with all three shots from about 15 yards away. Total accident.

The statements made in support of this shitheel officer... I don't... I can't express... fuck this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cha ... 9876cecb95

Despite saving the man from the toy truck death he had coming, the officers still handcuffed the victim and left him laying in the street. Oddly, no one has explained that, not even the shitheel apologists trying to cover this up as a victimless accident.

The officer was trying to save Kinsey.

Which Tyler wrote:

Yep. The highly trained (?) officer (apparently he was a SWAT member for 4 years) and his partner, each armed with rifles, missed the rather large target sitting in the street playing with a toy truck with all three shots from about 15 yards away. Total accident.

The statements made in support of this shitheel officer... I don't... I can't express... fuck this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cha ... 9876cecb95

Despite saving the man from the toy truck death he had coming, the officers still handcuffed the victim and left him laying in the street. Oddly, no one has explained that, not even the shitheel apologists trying to cover this up as a victimless accident.

The officer was trying to save Kinsey.

There doesn't seem to be any way the officer involved in the shooting can possibly have been highly trained nor be considered remotely safe to carry a gun, it'd be easy to miss with a handgun at that distance, but a rifle. What should happen for me is a complete overhaul of the training process prior to arming officers, for the officer in question to be fired and to lose any licence he has to carry a firearm outside his job, and for those involved in the management of the training of officers to be so equipped to be fired, and too for the officer who fired to face charged for his actions up to and including jail time. The idea is to serve and protect, two duties they not only failed in spectacular style but don't even seem to be considerations.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Yep. The highly trained (?) officer (apparently he was a SWAT member for 4 years) and his partner, each armed with rifles, missed the rather large target sitting in the street playing with a toy truck with all three shots from about 15 yards away. Total accident.

The statements made in support of this shitheel officer... I don't... I can't express... fuck this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cha ... 9876cecb95

Despite saving the man from the toy truck death he had coming, the officers still handcuffed the victim and left him laying in the street. Oddly, no one has explained that, not even the shitheel apologists trying to cover this up as a victimless accident.

The officer was trying to save Kinsey.

There doesn't seem to be any way the officer involved in the shooting can possibly have been highly trained nor be considered remotely safe to carry a gun, it'd be easy to miss with a handgun at that distance, but a rifle. What should happen for me is a complete overhaul of the training process prior to arming officers, for the officer in question to be fired and to lose any licence he has to carry a firearm outside his job, and for those involved in the management of the training of officers to be so equipped to be fired, and too for the officer who fired to face charged for his actions up to and including jail time. The idea is to serve and protect, two duties they not only failed in spectacular style but don't even seem to be considerations.

Its crazy. Its fair to allow these incidents to be investigated properly, but in this case the police officer in question is totally incompetent. If he considered the man on the ground with his arms raised to be a threat and missed twice, and inflicting a leg wound, using an assault rifle at close range then he is clearly not capable of discharging his duties. If he was aiming at the autistic man then its even worse.

That before any consideration over whether the use of a firearm was appropriate. America has huge issues with its gun culture and this is one of the symptoms; but there has to be better accountability than this.

That before any consideration over whether the use of a firearm was appropriate. America has huge issues with its gun culture and this is one of the symptoms; but there has to be better accountability than this.

It also has issues with its hatred of black men, which a puppet president failed to change.

Thankfully; no-one got shot this time, but...
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/he ... c-stop.ece

Merely some light physical abuse for the crime of doing exactly what she was told by the officer whilst wearing black skin.
Then with a stunning lack of self-awareness, the cop: is heard telling her that so many white people are afraid of blacks because of "violent tendencies."

"I don't blame them," he says.

He goes on to say that "because of their appearance and whatnot, some of them are very intimidating."

Which Tyler wrote:Thankfully; no-one got shot this time, but...
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/he ... c-stop.ece

Merely some light physical abuse for the crime of doing exactly what she was told by the officer.

Some small mercy is that the police leadership there at least realize that standards have not been maintained.

There was a BBC interview with a retired US police officer who was explaining why police officers who are investigated for officer involved shootings are often absolved of any blame by the subsequent investigation.

In a nut shell, the officers merely have to convince another 'reasonable' person that they were in fear of their lives and using a weapon was appropriate. The whole discussion is from the perspective of that the officer regards as a threat. So, an excuse could be given that as black men are more likely to be involved in crime (based on US stats) and he was moving his hand to recover something that could have been a firearm. Hence a justifiable fear and an appropriate response.

The problem here is that the story looks less believable when viewed from a third person perspective.
In a country where guns are practically everywhere and crime using weapons is common place, I can understand why, to a degree, police officers presume that they are likely to encounter a firearm. Yet they are being paid to accept a level of risk and shoot on sight is not a credible policy. There definitely has to be better training in the threat and response pyramid, including the use of non-lethal weapons and the best way to de-escalate a situation.

Carrying a firearm in a policing environment adds extra stress - Ive done just that and the whole time you are dealing with routine events, you are very conscious of the firearm you are carrying, even a belted pistol. Disarming the US police is never going to happen; so the answer is better training and a better standard of defining what is reasonable when using force.

Sandydragon wrote: There definitely has to be better training in the threat and response pyramid, including the use of non-lethal weapons and the best way to de-escalate a situation.

I've never been convinced that US police are interested in de-escalating anything; they always seem much more interested in escalating beyond the point that the "criminal" is willing to go to, safe in knowledge that the more the situation escalates the more the law favours them.

Out of interest; and in follow-up to my post on the first page; 1146 kilings by US police last year alone.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2486371

nydailynews wrote:Of the 1,200 people killed by American police in 2015, only seven cases resulted in charges — a ridiculously tiny number. Six other officers were charged this year for deaths that happened as far back as early 2013 — as police investigations into their own wrongdoing have a dubious way of dragging on not weeks or months, but years.

Here's where I drop the hammer:

Not one single police officer was convicted for an on-duty death in 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30339943

BBC wrote:"Everybody knows policing is violent, and [jurors] don't want to second guess those decisions," says Philip Stinson, a researcher at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and former police officer.
...
Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: There definitely has to be better training in the threat and response pyramid, including the use of non-lethal weapons and the best way to de-escalate a situation.

I've never been convinced that US police are interested in de-escalating anything; they always seem much more interested in escalating beyond the point that the "criminal" is willing to go to, safe in knowledge that the more the situation escalates the more the law favours them.

Out of interest; and in follow-up to my post on the first page; 1146 kilings by US police last year alone.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2486371

nydailynews wrote:Of the 1,200 people killed by American police in 2015, only seven cases resulted in charges — a ridiculously tiny number. Six other officers were charged this year for deaths that happened as far back as early 2013 — as police investigations into their own wrongdoing have a dubious way of dragging on not weeks or months, but years.

Here's where I drop the hammer:

Not one single police officer was convicted for an on-duty death in 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30339943

BBC wrote:"Everybody knows policing is violent, and [jurors] don't want to second guess those decisions," says Philip Stinson, a researcher at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and former police officer.
...
Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides.

Which is part of the problem. The point of force within a policing context is that you use the minimum to achieve the aim and then reduce the tension. We don't always get that right in this country,but I think we are both agreeing that there is an element of gung ho in American policing which serves to create an escalation, almost regardless of the scenario.

The problem is, that whilst we could suggest training and more robust investigations, the issue is that US police are part of their own culture. Gung ho attitude and a love of firearms is widely accepted in society, with their attitude to firearms (or the more vocal parts of it anyway) they are getting the police force they deserve - one that is permanently pumped up and views the firearm as the go-to solution.