Dallas police shootings
Comments
-
Mad when he came back in a later episode though weren't itbobmunro said:
Agreed. For me it was Bobby's death that ended the hope.redlanered said:
IMO had MLK and Robert Kennedy not gone the same way then things would have progressed, however shocking JFK's assassination was. At that point it seemed that anyone trying to do the right thing was a target.soapboxsam said:53 years ago in Dallas, the best hope for Black America to make some progress disappeared with the Shooting of JFK. How ironic that the Grandchildren of black Americans from the 60's still feel the same way despite having a Black President.
The gun culture is out of control. If everyone is (potentially) armed, then not surprisingly the police will overreact at the merest twitch from someone in a tense situation, and we know they are more likely to overreact more to people with particular profiles. Prison & arrest are not deterrents, which is why the jail population is ridiculously high.7 -
Nope.Leroy Ambrose said:The world is certainly in a far, far more dangerous place than it ever was when two superpowers were facing off against each other. No exaggeration to say that the US is - and has been for years now - on the verge of a civil war. Now that their economy has been exposed as being built on sand, if it tumbles into serious recession (and it will do if Trump gets into power) it could just explode. A general public armed with assault weapons, a militarised police force, inherent racism, media ramping everything up into a frenzy and millions of people living below the poverty line in what should be the world's most advanced nation is a recipe for absolute disaster. The worst part of this is that Trump's knee-jerk reaction to this would be to start wars elsewhere to detract attention from his failure. Frightening.
0 -
Disgraceful commentWelshAddick said:Can you blame them? There still is huge issues of racism. The police are way over the top.
6 -
Actually, I think the original point does stand. When there were two superpowers, there was the prospect of mutual destruction - you could destroy them, but would yourself be destroyed. These days, with America and Russia not in direct conflict, either of them can do pretty much what they like because no-one will (or realistically, can) stop them - look at Ukraine. Lots of handwringing and proselytising but Putin just went ahead and marched his troops in regardless. Or the American equivalent, Iraq and Iran. A war started by America, based primarily on fabrication and greed, but ongoing fifteen years later - longer than both world wars combined.kentaddick said:
Nope.Leroy Ambrose said:The world is certainly in a far, far more dangerous place than it ever was when two superpowers were facing off against each other. No exaggeration to say that the US is - and has been for years now - on the verge of a civil war. Now that their economy has been exposed as being built on sand, if it tumbles into serious recession (and it will do if Trump gets into power) it could just explode. A general public armed with assault weapons, a militarised police force, inherent racism, media ramping everything up into a frenzy and millions of people living below the poverty line in what should be the world's most advanced nation is a recipe for absolute disaster. The worst part of this is that Trump's knee-jerk reaction to this would be to start wars elsewhere to detract attention from his failure. Frightening.
1 -
But similar things went on during the Cold War anyway; i.e Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, The Falklands War, and I'm sure America had their campaigns.thenewbie said:
Actually, I think the original point does stand. When there were two superpowers, there was the prospect of mutual destruction - you could destroy them, but would yourself be destroyed. These days, with America and Russia not in direct conflict, either of them can do pretty much what they like because no-one will (or realistically, can) stop them - look at Ukraine. Lots of handwringing and proselytising but Putin just went ahead and marched his troops in regardless. Or the American equivalent, Iraq and Iran. A war started by America, based primarily on fabrication and greed, but ongoing fifteen years later - longer than both world wars combined.kentaddick said:
Nope.Leroy Ambrose said:The world is certainly in a far, far more dangerous place than it ever was when two superpowers were facing off against each other. No exaggeration to say that the US is - and has been for years now - on the verge of a civil war. Now that their economy has been exposed as being built on sand, if it tumbles into serious recession (and it will do if Trump gets into power) it could just explode. A general public armed with assault weapons, a militarised police force, inherent racism, media ramping everything up into a frenzy and millions of people living below the poverty line in what should be the world's most advanced nation is a recipe for absolute disaster. The worst part of this is that Trump's knee-jerk reaction to this would be to start wars elsewhere to detract attention from his failure. Frightening.
In some ways not much has changed, as long each party (be they Russia or the US/UK etc) doesn't directly threaten the interests of the other, then they're quite happy to sit back and watch.
The Cold War just gave each party a boundary of what was acceptable to be involved with.1 -
Vietnam springs to mind!!LuckyReds said:
But similar things went on during the Cold War anyway; i.e Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, The Falklands War, and I'm sure America had their campaigns.thenewbie said:
Actually, I think the original point does stand. When there were two superpowers, there was the prospect of mutual destruction - you could destroy them, but would yourself be destroyed. These days, with America and Russia not in direct conflict, either of them can do pretty much what they like because no-one will (or realistically, can) stop them - look at Ukraine. Lots of handwringing and proselytising but Putin just went ahead and marched his troops in regardless. Or the American equivalent, Iraq and Iran. A war started by America, based primarily on fabrication and greed, but ongoing fifteen years later - longer than both world wars combined.kentaddick said:
Nope.Leroy Ambrose said:The world is certainly in a far, far more dangerous place than it ever was when two superpowers were facing off against each other. No exaggeration to say that the US is - and has been for years now - on the verge of a civil war. Now that their economy has been exposed as being built on sand, if it tumbles into serious recession (and it will do if Trump gets into power) it could just explode. A general public armed with assault weapons, a militarised police force, inherent racism, media ramping everything up into a frenzy and millions of people living below the poverty line in what should be the world's most advanced nation is a recipe for absolute disaster. The worst part of this is that Trump's knee-jerk reaction to this would be to start wars elsewhere to detract attention from his failure. Frightening.
In some ways not much has changed, as long each party (be they Russia or the US/UK etc) doesn't directly threaten the interests of the other, then they're quite happy to sit back and watch.
The Cold War just gave each party a boundary of what was acceptable to be involved with.2 -
Why the shock over this, you were all for facts a minute ago?Huskaris said:
And what proportion of criminals?Henry Irving said:
but black people make up only 12.4% of the US populationleftbehind said:
So the majority are not black thennth london addick said:Of which 136 are African American mate
#whitelivesmatter4 -
I think as a society we give the police a degree of power and in exchange they agree to use it appropriately. When they fail to use that power appropriately then that agreement is undermined and law and order begins to brake down. The murder of the five police officers last night (and it is murder) is the manifestation of that break down of law and order that began when the police began to abuse the power that society gives them.
I can completely understand the anger in the black community not that it's an excuse, one or two videos of clear police abuse have surfaced, imagine how frequently it happens unrecorded ? Imagine if that was happening to your community day in day out and the people you would normally trust to protect you from this abuse are the perpetrators ?1 -
Just a shame the victims didn't have guns
RIP those that lost lifes yesterday1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?1
-
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common, I wouldn't want to pull a taser in a situation where there is a likelihood that someone has a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
1 -
AND... a semi automatic high velocity one at that!LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common, I wouldn't want to pull a taser in a situation where there is a likelihood that someone has a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
1 -
What on earth?shine166 said:Just a shame the victims didn't have guns
RIP those that lost lifes yesterday
One of them DID have a gun! He even told the cop who stopped him so!1 -
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
0 -
That's one exampleJayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
1 -
How many black lives are saved by the police in the US every year?1
-
.....maybe no one keeps track of that stat though1
-
Why is it relevant ?i_b_b_o_r_g said:How many black lives are saved by the police in the US every year?
0 -
No excuses?? The guy had a gun on him! Why is he carrying a gun if he wouldn't use it?Jayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
He was legally allowed to carry that weapon. That also doesn't mean he was going to use it on the police officer.BR7_addick said:Dear black Americans youths who carey
No excuses?? The guy had a gun on him! Why is he carrying a gun if he wouldn't use it?Jayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
2 -
Because he's legally entitled to.BR7_addick said:Dear black Americans youths who carey
No excuses?? The guy had a gun on him! Why is he carrying a gun if he wouldn't use it?Jayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
0 -
Well because if law enforcement in the US is so inherently racist, as quite a few people on both sides of the pond keep saying, surely this would be the case in them not wishing to save lives as well as cold bloodedly shooting non white folk on sightse9addick said:
Why is it relevant ?i_b_b_o_r_g said:How many black lives are saved by the police in the US every year?
0 -
The stats were flying in at the start of the thread followed by comments saying "don't let facts get in the way" then someone dared to ask for a stat that some felt uncomfortable with and it was "oh lord think of the children".i_b_b_o_r_g said:.....maybe no one keeps track of that stat though
0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/
"More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first. Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal. So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late."2 -
The world has been getting less and less violent year on year for the past 40 years. Its a fact.thenewbie said:
Actually, I think the original point does stand. When there were two superpowers, there was the prospect of mutual destruction - you could destroy them, but would yourself be destroyed. These days, with America and Russia not in direct conflict, either of them can do pretty much what they like because no-one will (or realistically, can) stop them - look at Ukraine. Lots of handwringing and proselytising but Putin just went ahead and marched his troops in regardless. Or the American equivalent, Iraq and Iran. A war started by America, based primarily on fabrication and greed, but ongoing fifteen years later - longer than both world wars combined.kentaddick said:
Nope.Leroy Ambrose said:The world is certainly in a far, far more dangerous place than it ever was when two superpowers were facing off against each other. No exaggeration to say that the US is - and has been for years now - on the verge of a civil war. Now that their economy has been exposed as being built on sand, if it tumbles into serious recession (and it will do if Trump gets into power) it could just explode. A general public armed with assault weapons, a militarised police force, inherent racism, media ramping everything up into a frenzy and millions of people living below the poverty line in what should be the world's most advanced nation is a recipe for absolute disaster. The worst part of this is that Trump's knee-jerk reaction to this would be to start wars elsewhere to detract attention from his failure. Frightening.
The Korean War is technically still ongoing, with many many deaths north of the border because of it.
24 hour news and the instant internet updates has completely warped our sense of how dangerous the outside world is. Before it didn't seem that bad because it would be on the 8 o clock news and you could just switch over.0 -
Doesn't answer my question, WHY? Why carry a gun whether it's legal or not unless you were going to use it? I don't carry a cricket bat everywhere I go just because I'm entitled to!colthe3rd said:
He was legally allowed to carry that weapon. That also doesn't mean he was going to use it on the police officer.BR7_addick said:
No excuses?? The guy had a gun on him! Why is he carrying a gun if he wouldn't use it?Jayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
0 -
I've never carried my bat.BR7_addick said:
Doesn't answer my question, WHY? Why carry a gun whether it's legal or not unless you were going to use it? I don't carry a cricket bat everywhere I go just because I'm entitled to!colthe3rd said:
He was legally allowed to carry that weapon. That also doesn't mean he was going to use it on the police officer.BR7_addick said:
No excuses?? The guy had a gun on him! Why is he carrying a gun if he wouldn't use it?Jayajosh said:
The police gun was already in the black guy's face before he reached for his licence so he would have been zapped with thousands of volts even if had gone for a weapon. I cannot see any excuse made in this particular instance.LuckyReds said:
In a country where gun ownership is incredibly common I wouldn't want to pull a taser on someone with a firearm.Jayajosh said:Why is it necessary for the Police to pull a gun all the time, what's wrong with using a taser?
Got to 6th wicket down once.
5 -
Agreed, and somewhat ironically, it was Jack's death in Dallas that really changed Bobby. Bobby was known for being a little shit (not necessarily one who was wrong) when he was Attorney General. His brother dying really softened him. He was a man who, by 1968, was genuinely committed to racial and socio-economic healing within the United States. He was shaking the hand of a Hispanic cook who'd stopped him in the kitchen after a speech when he was shot dead.bobmunro said:
Agreed. For me it was Bobby's death that ended the hope.redlanered said:
IMO had MLK and Robert Kennedy not gone the same way then things would have progressed, however shocking JFK's assassination was. At that point it seemed that anyone trying to do the right thing was a target.soapboxsam said:53 years ago in Dallas, the best hope for Black America to make some progress disappeared with the Shooting of JFK. How ironic that the Grandchildren of black Americans from the 60's still feel the same way despite having a Black President.
The gun culture is out of control. If everyone is (potentially) armed, then not surprisingly the police will overreact at the merest twitch from someone in a tense situation, and we know they are more likely to overreact more to people with particular profiles. Prison & arrest are not deterrents, which is why the jail population is ridiculously high.0 -
Why isn't it relevant? It supports the fact that Black lives do in fact matter. ALL lives matter is what they should be championing.se9addick said:
Why is it relevant ?i_b_b_o_r_g said:How many black lives are saved by the police in the US every year?
Regarding taser use on baggy clothes
“The most effective place for a TASER probe to hit is one probe above the belt and one below the belt with a spread of a foot or more,” Tracy said. Baggy clothing can get in the way of probes making contact with the skin. Denim can stop the probes getting through all together. The probe can also come loose of the wire/skin and the probes can be shot too close together.
All of these scenarios would leave the intended target unaffected.
“A lot of times the top dart misses or the bottom dart misses,” Paxton said. "The top probe has a laser sight on it and is fired directly, while the second probe is fired at an angle. Firing it from a distance usually means a better spread of the probes, but the probability of missing is greatly increased by distance.”
It also is difficult to hit a moving target. If the probes are not shot directly into the subject, the TASER takes time and can be difficult to reload.
“The TASER X-26 (U.S standard Police issue) is limited to one deployment at a time,” Tracy said. "While the cartridge can be dropped and reloaded, reloading is difficult under stress.”1
