A gunman shot and killed two New York City police officers before taking his own life in a brazen ambush that played out on a quiet Brooklyn street corner Saturday afternoon, New York police said.
Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were shot at point-blank range while sitting beside one another in a police car in the East Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn, police said.
“It’s clear that this was an assassination,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said at a news conference Saturday night. “These officers were shot execution-style, a particularly despicable act which goes to the heart of our society and our democracy.”
“It is an attack on all of us,” he added.
Ramos and Liu, who were shot in the head, were transported to Brooklyn’s Woodhull Medical Center, where they were later pronounced dead, according to New York Police Commissioner William J. Bratton, who also spoke at the news conference Saturday evening.
I doubt that there will be demonstrations over the executions of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. These police officers were out of their district, called in for special assignment, and were just grabbing a bite to eat. It is doubtful they even saw their assailant.
Tonight, family members are going to bed asking why? A police officer’s family always knows this is a dangerous job and that the possibility of violence and death is always right around the corner. Are they ever ready for something like this to happen? Probably not. These men were killed, apparently, simply because they were police officers. That sounds like profiling to me.
According to the Dailynews.com:
The shooter — identified as Ismaaiyl Brinsley— boasted about wanting to murder cops in the hours before he ambushed the officers outside the Tompkins Houses in Bedford-Stuyvesant around 2:45 p.m. — around the same time Baltimore officers sent a wanted flier to the NYPD.
“I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” Brinsley, 28, wrote on Instagram alongside a photo of a silver handgun.
He also included the sick hashtags: #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGarner #RIPMike Brown.
“This May Be My Final Post…I’m Putting Pigs In A Blanket.”
Brinsley apparently had also shot and seriously wounded his girlfriend in Baltimore County, according to MSNBC news coverage. She is expected to recover following surgery.
Nothing we can say or do makes these senseless deaths less of a loss to the friends and families of the victims. The assailant is dead. He killed himself. The two police officers are death not because of something they did but who they were.
All police departments need to go on high alert. There are surely other nuts out there, looking for an excuse to execute cops. It’s not an easy time to be a police officer. On the one hand, you don’t want to be accused of profiling or excessive force. On the other hand, it appears that our police officers are now targets. That’s not a great spot to be in. It would certainly make me think twice about wanting to become a police officer. It’s going to be difficult to attract the brightest and the best, especially in high crime areas.
New York City has lost two of its finest. The City will mourn the loss of its own officers. There can be no more executions of police officers. A posthumous “Thank you for your service” just seems so inadequate.
Addendum: From WaPo:
Through his National Action Network, the Rev. Al Sharpton released a statement several hours after the shooting condemning the use of violence as a means of affecting change.
“I have spoken to the Garner family and we are outraged by the early reports of the police killed in Brooklyn today,” Sharpton said in the statement. “Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases.”
In a statement, the family of Michael Brown condemned the “senseless killing” of the officers.
“We reject any kind of violence directed toward members of law enforcement,” read the statement, issued by family attorney Benjamin Crump. “It cannot be tolerated. We must work together to bring peace to our communities. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the officers’ families during this incredibly difficult time.”
“Will the govenor call out the National Guard when the police protest with a big funeral procession?”
Another classic from Ed. Funerals are now protests, and he sees a moral equivalency between the two.
“Killing is not necessary to apprehend even violent criminals.”
Does this include violent criminals in the act of trying to kill innocent civilians, or resisting law enforcement by use of deadly force?
“I don’t see a peaceful end unless police agree to stop killing people.”
I don’t see a peaceful end, period. Throughout the entirety of man’s existence, violence has existed. Whether or not you believe the old testament is historically accurate, or just a morality tale, Cain slew Able out of jealousy. Or, if you are a “secular-progressive humanist”, one Homo Habilis earned his “handy man” moniker, when he cracked another Homo Habilis over the head with a bone club, to assert his dominance and his right to be with all the lady habilis’. Civilization arose when families, clans, tribes, etc. banded together in cooperation, and in order to keep the peace, mutually agreed to codes of acceptable conduct, and a means to enforce this, which means the use of force greater than what the criminal could use. How would “banishment” be enforced, unless there were a greater sanction to be faced for not staying banished?
Ed, here’s your problem: You don’t live in reality, you ignore it. You don’t think realistically, and as much as you like to use “logic” as a defense, you don’t use logic either. No insane person believes they are insane, and yet society deems them insane. Now, I’m not saying you are insane, but what you advocate for has never existed, nor will it. If “cops agree to stop killing people..” Really? In your world, the cops are the root of violence. Here’s a little sociology 101 fer ya: Government has three legitimate powers:
-Restrain the evil within the population
-Maintain the peace
-protect the governed from external threats
This is why individuals mutually agreed to live together, define what is “good and evil”, define acceptable ways of interacting, and ensure the survival of their group when threatened by those outside the group.
In order for the group to function, it needs two things: Law, and the means to enforce Law. This the development and improvement of the technological means to do this. Fists, nails, and teeth are defeated by rocks and sticks. Put a big rock on the end of a stick, and you have a club. Put a pointy rock on the end of a stick, and you have a spear. Put point rocks on the end of sticks and use another special stick or animal bone to fling sticks, and you have an AtlAtl. Improve upon this, and you have a bow. Take a special rock and heat it, beat on it till its flat, and you have knives and swords. Why the improvement? Because every technological advance was countered by those resisting the technology. Wicker, Hide and wooden shields. Leather armor, Brigandine, chain and plate. Earthwork walls, masonry walls. Fire lances, match-lock, flint-lock, percussion cap, breach-loader, revolver, bolt-action, semi-auto, full-auto. plate armor, silk armor, ceramic plate, Kevlar…and on and on.
Weapons exist, because man developed them, to either impose his will on his fellow man, or to resist the imposition of another’s will upon him. It is man’s true nature, that some would call “sinful nature” that drives the need for weapons. There have always been those among us who would do evil, and will use weapons to do evil. Therefore, there will always be a need for those who resist evil to have the same or better weapons. It has always been this way, and it always will be this way…until the end of man. This is why all of your assertions regarding the police, the 2nd amendment are ridiculous, and your solutions pure fantasy. You are, IMHO, one lacking in sense, the very definition of a fool.
IMO, in an ideal world :
Facebook and Twitter should take these people’s accounts away
They should generally be allowed to speak
Right-wingers should stop trying to use the death of two officers as part of some political wedge movement in New York, and fodder for the imbeciles of FOX News to pretend that Obamamis a secret anarchist
I saw a couple of minutes of FOX News walking by a TV yesterday; that young woman who has started getting attention for stupidity (Andrea something) was angry about the very notion that any police officer, anywhere, was bad.
My God FOX News is stupid. It has to be having a negative effect on the IQ of anyone who watches it in large doses.
It offends me not because it presents a conservative viewpoint. It offends me because it is so anti-intellectual and vulgar and stupid. It’s like watching preteens talk about politics.
That pretty much describes Faux News. I can’t argue with you there.
I guess Andrea never read Serpico.
Having said that, I would say that the preponderance of cops are decent people who follow the rules. One of the problems has become, especially in urban areas, cops are so restricted by foolishness that they try to circumvent the rules. This isn’t because they are bad people, but because the rules are often stacked against those who want a crime free life.
Criminals want to keep committing crimes. Cops are paid to stop them. This sometimes leads to some serious opposition of wills.
CNN for me … they’ve cleaned up their act and are a good channel. BTW Anthony Bourdain’s show is top-notch food/culture television.
I can watch Anthony Bourdain explore food and culture, or I can watch someone like “Huckabee” reduce conservative thought into bats*** and then spout it in a loop … hmmm I wonder which one is better for my brain.
I had to switch over to CNN for a few days. don’t make me say why. I hate Anthony Bourdain’s show. He is always eating something repulsive.
Joe Scarborough had a very good monologue on cops yesterday. I will try to find it.
@Scout
Scout, from the 12/5/2014 NY Post:
http://nypost.com/2014/12/05/de-blasio-is-throwing-cops-under-the-bus/
This is why the cops were mad, before the ambush-murders of two of their own. Post-murder, di Blasio will never have the support of the police. To the police, he might as well be carrying a protest sign. They see him as painting bulls-eyes on them. Perception = Reality in politics, and when deaths result, even more.
I’m going off topic and I’m ranting, but I don’t think that conservatives realize how stupid FOX News makes them look.
20 years ago, working in the software industry among young college-educated professionals, maybe one out of 10 was conservative to the degree of voting Republican. They could discuss serious issues in a civilized manner.
When I work in or with groups of young software professionals now, there are no such characters to be found. It’s not even a choice for a serious-thinking educated young person. Wherever they do or don’t agree with the Democratic Party, they don’t take the GOP seriously or see it as a possibly constructive force. Conservatism is becoming stupid where it used to be smart.
To anyone with a modicum of intelligence, the parade of ass-clownery on FOX News is a surreal and fatalistic comedy show like “Family Guy” rather than “news” or informed viewpoint.
I pretty much feel the same way as Rick about Faux News.
OK Rick, we get your anxiety. Tell you what, when liberal progressives start acting like adults and not fuzzy eyed sophomores maybe we can start to get to the root of our problems – to include some appreciation of the “unintended” consequences of their actions.
In the meantime, why has MSLSD not taken bloody Al off the air waves. That would be a good start to the healing process, but then I get your point, Democrats are not responsble for what they do or how they report the facts.
Blue, your problem is that you are pigeon holing people according to your own definitions and labels. I consider myself a progressive. What have I said on this topic that particularly offends you? Why have I said “fuzzy eyed?”
MSNBC has an audience. Al Sharpton is on for an hour. Change the channel.
You want to box everyone off into their respective corners, assign them a name, and think that only your opinion is right. You don’t seek common ground so you will never understand anyone else’s point of view.
@Steve, the government’s weapons need to be defensive ones. It is when the police only have offensive weapons and therefore need to shoot (to kill) first … that’s the problem. I don’t see the police doing enough to research and implement non-lethal laws enforcement techniques.
Ed, I think that some police forces have perhaps gotten weapons that they don’t need through homeland security grants.
I think 90% of police work, at least in this area is non lethal and preventative. I think you are looking at bad areas where every day a cop goes out on the job might just be his or her last. Those situations will be dealt with differently than say Prince William County.
I don’t watch broadcast or cable news. Not Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, or MSNBC. I haven’t had regular TV for several years. I don’t think any of these organizations, not a single one, presents a balanced view, and I don’t think they ever have. They target specific demo’s, for add revenue. Same can be said for most of the major print media. All have a target market, and all try to appeal to that market. That market consumes their product, because it reinforces their individual world-view.
So, I don’t think your criticism of Fox News is anything more than opinion, as much as my views on MSNBC is anything more than my opinion. Were I to watch cable or network news, I would most likely watch Fox News. Are you arguing that I am “stupid”, lack intelligence, or am otherwise un-informed? I could argue that anyone who watches CNN is “ill-informed”, but I won’t. I understand the “what” and “why”.
Nor is today’s condition any different from that which existed previously. Go back and read newspapers from the run up to the Civil War. You will see clear biases based on the regions and readership. Looks at the newsreels from WWII. Nazi’s bomb London: Terror. The allies bomb Dresden: necessary. Facts with a biased presentation, based on the consumer. Where the Brits and Americans who agreed that the Blitz was terror and the Dresden firebombing necessary, “stupid”?
The fact that you don’t watch Fox News says why you aren’t stupid. It’s pretty awful. So is MSNBC much of the day. I like Morning Joe. It is usually informative. I also like Rachel Maddow. I admit she is liberal and her shows are biased but she does present facts and corrects if she says something untrue. I like her because she is polite. I used to like Gretta also, before she had love fest for Sarah Palin. I still think she has journalistic principles, like Rachel.
Define the difference between “defensive” and “offensive” weapons. The weapon doesn’t decide. It’s the heart and mind of the one who wields the weapon. I think you are confusing potential lethality and the continuum of force, with “offensive” and “defensive”. Police have mace, batons, and tasers, along with handguns, shotguns, and semi-auto and full-auto rifles. They may use mace or a baton on someone throwing punches and kicks, but when someone is shooting at them from 25 feet, or trying to run them down with an automobile (ie. using lethal force), mace, batons, and tasers are ineffective.
@Steve Thomas
It won’t matter.
People have spelled out, in small words, where he is wrong.
He is completely ignorant of weaponry, less than lethal weaponry, the laws and principles of self defense, and the concept of rights. We have explained that there is no such thing as “non-lethal” weaponry. We’ve explained the laws of self-defense.
By his own words, he’s admitted to insulting police and then cries “victim.” He jokes about harming innocent people because he feels “threatened.”
He is a bigot against cops and other armed people.
He lives in a fantasy land.
@Ed Myers
“Both have fringe messages of violence (retaliation killings) that are rightfully condemned. (except some of you seem to give the police a free pass)”
Please point out ONE. SINGLE. SOLITARY message of support for “retaliation killings.” By anyone.
There have been NO messages of retaliation killing by the cops.
But then, I’m replying to someone that considers stopping a car next to someone to be an attack.
I have heard people support the cop killer. It’s horrible. May he rot in hell.
There hasn’t been a real journalist since David Brinkley retired. Look at what we have today; poseurs and pretty faces on opinion shows masquerading as “News”. Morning Joe? He’s an ex-politico. Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity…all ex-disc jockeys. Greta and Kelly? Ex-lawyers. Jon Stewart and Colbert…comedians. None of these people are “journalists”. Few of the pretty-faces on TV News have journalism degrees. Most studied communications. I remember when newscasts were newscasts, and there might be an op/ed at the end of the broadcast. They were special, they were rare, and they were CLEARLY labeled as “opinion”. News today is mostly commentary and opinion, and we are bombarded by it.
If I want news, I read it. I can dissect the words. I can check and cross-check facts. I can arrive at my own conclusions. I read everything from the Huffpo, to politico, to Foxnews.com, and I take nothing at face value, until I’ve looked at multiple sources, and look for the common facts. I also look at UK, Japanese, and Russian news outlets to see their perceptions.
I find that Al Jazeera shoots pretty straight. Go ahead, laugh.
In defense of Morning Joe, yea, he’s an old politico. He often makes me angry and he has bad manners. BUT…the show has interesting people on who represent all points of view. It certainly isn’t one sided. Mika does pretty well. Brings her daddy on a little too often for my tastes but that isn’t the point.
I think we are going to have to settle for the new journalism which probably is the communications degree. That’s just changing with the times. We don’t have to give up our principles though.
@Cargosquid
I hope that he is never in the situation where he learns that “Evil” is quite real, that more often than not, violence is required to stop violence. I hope he never has occasion to learn that Law Enforcement are under no legal obligation to protect him from violence, and the moral obligation to do so depends on the individual officer. These things are understood by the armed citizen.
I watch enough cop shows to make me very skeptical about dealing with violence any other way other than with violence. Criminal Minds, all the Law and Orders, NCSI, Forever, Stalker, etc etc. Criminals don’t usually surrender gently. Only on Murder She Wrote.
Sure it’s all TV and fiction–or is it? Most Hollywood cop shows are based on reality.
Some of you guys are awfully quick to say Ed Myers lives in fantasyland or has no grip on reality when it is you who can’t feel safe stepping out your front door without a gun. Who’s not facing reality? Am I living in fantasyland because I can go to Target, Wegman’s, the movies, on a walk in the woods without a gun?
Ed needs a champion right about now. Glad you are here.
I have pretty much stayed out of that fight.
@Censored bybvbl
That depends. Do you plan on walking through one of the “peaceful” protests for “social justice” to get there?
Censored, not surprisingly, you have totally missed the point. We don’t say Ed live in “fantasy land” because he chooses not to carry a gun. We say he lives in “fantasy land” because he thinks that cops shouldn’t be permitted have guns, and if they’d give up their guns, no one (especially criminals) would end up dead. Ed argues that lethal force is never justified.
If you want to leave your home secure in the good will of all mankind, by all means, do so. Your choice. But don’t even try to argue that I somehow don’t live in reality. All I have to do is copy/paste the crime blotter from the local newspaper to prove that I do, in fact, live in reality. Go armed, or unarmed. Your choice. I choose armed when legal and practical. My choice. If I never have need to defend myself, even better. But a rationale person never relies solely on “Luck” and “good will” of the attacker, or bystanders.
Steve, you also aren’t one of those idiots who walk through Target or Walmart just trying to provoke people. You don’t make me ill at ease at all.
There are people who do. I am generally ill at ease around people who want to show their weapons and who feel the need to shout and wave them about. I just see that as unbalanced and somewhat unstable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I will just leave to get away from the situation so I don’t have to find out.
@Moon-howler
And no one has answered Scout’s question either:
” does anyone know what de Blasio said that caused the police unions to say that he “had blood on his hands” (or whatever variation of that statement placed the blame for the murder of the two policeman on the Mayor or the Mayor’s office)”
I think Steve left him a link. re DiBlasio. I didn’t read it. I heard what he said on TV but don’t remember a direct quote. I would have been pissed if I were a NY cop.
@Steve Thomas
I’d say it is you who doesn’t live in reality. How many times in your adult life (excluding the time you spent in the military) have you had occasion to need a gun? Not when you might have imagined a threatening situation but actually encountered one? I’ve had a couple occasions when I’ve called the police (and not on their 911 number either) but have never been physically threatened and am not naive enough to think that in a crowded situation I could fire a gun and not cause more innocent people to be hurt. Maybe because I grew up surrounded by LEO officers, I don’t have that false cowgirl mentality.
I think Ed is arguing that lethal force should be the last option – not so quickly used.
I think lethal force…aka shooting someone should be the last option but sometimes these things happen at lightning speed and there isn’t time to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. Life and death situations present themselves on a dime and must be resolved with lightning speed.
Having said that, that is the reason I personally don’t like guns. It takes a nano second to make a life and death move that cannot be taken back. Rather than me saying I don’t like guns, I should say why I don’t like guns being in my every day life. I like turquoise better than guns. That’s my girlie statement of the day. I want to have a revolver made with turquoise inlay. Sigh…nirvana.
How many people here have named their gun or guns?
@Cato the Elder
I betcha I could walk through one of those situations without injury.
What I see in the recent news is little pure justice – some thugs have been made martyrs, some innocent cops have been shot, some innocent store owners will close up shop permanently and local customers will suffer, one kid was shot when an officer didn’t get the info that his gun may have been a toy. BUT, there’s a lot of simmering racial tension in this country that has been swept under the rug and I think it was exacerbated by Obama’s election in the first place. I’m not naive to what exists in the South and why it’s mainly Republican now – the same reason it was mainly Dixiecrat decades ago. It’s the older population in this country that causes most of the problems although it’s the younger ones who take to the streets. Theirs is the smaller but vocal portion.
I tend to agree. I am not naïve to what exists in the south either. I also would say what we are talking about doesn’t stop at the Mason-Dixon line.
I guess it goes back to judging each person by the character of their soul…..
I do think that Obama’s elect did exacerbate some of this unrest. In fact, I am positive it did.
The use of a device to stop/disable someone with the objective not to kill them is a defensive-style non-lethal weapon. Mace, tasers, stun guns etc. are examples. Devices intended to kill are offensive weapons: e.g. guns.
The objective should be that police have enough non-lethal tools that they never apply lethal force even if the adversary is attacking with lethal force. The notion that police need to outgun the opponent misses the opportunity to use asymmetrical non-lethal force. For example the non-lethal tools that the officer in Ferguson didn’t deploy is to wait for backup before pursuing and to retreat to his vehicle when he felt himself in personal danger.
I think outlawing stun guns and mace is a violation of the 2A. However, I hear too many gun owners who express an interest in having a gun (i.e. to allow them to kill) to prevent a robbery in progress and that is a violation of basic human rights –to kill someone to prevent property theft.
I am not quite ready to say that killing someone for taking your property is wrong. I think it depends on your property. Someone takes my car in a car-jacking, my kid is in the back, you had better believe I am going to kill first and ask questions later. I don’t think that makes me an animal. Steal my jewelry, You might lose your life. I wear my valuable jewelry because it isn’t subject to residential burglary if it is on me at all times. Going for it will be seen as a deliberate endangerment of my life. BANG. You just might find yourself with your liver in your hands. Or Stab. Or Chomp.
@Moon-howler
“I think we are going to have to settle for the new journalism which probably is the communications degree. That’s just changing with the times. We don’t have to give up our principles though.”
I’ll stick with John Batchelor. Really. http://johnbatchelorshow.com/
Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn’t.
I’m all about eliminating the maybes.
I just wouldn’t go there in the first place. I used to be braver or dumber than I am now.
I went to a Bosnian demonstration back in the 90’s. There were a lot of folks there who weren’t Bosnians. They were scary and chanting. I left. When people are shouting and jumping and shouting things in Arabic, I don’t stick around to see if its all friendly talk.
@Cato the Elder
It would be tough to eliminate the maybes without having enough cash for a damn good defense attorney. I’d prefer not to spend my bucks that way… I’m like Moon-howler in that I collect jewelry although mine is the politically incorrect plastic type.
Censored, I have had two occasions, outside of the military, where I was glad I was armed. On one of the occasions, I was actually accosted outside of a convenience store, swept my coat back, and prepared to draw. The two males quickly fled the scene. I did call the police, and they took a statement from me and the clerk.
On the other occasion, I was sitting outside of a restaurant, which had just closed talking with a female friend, who happens to have limited mobility. We were approached by a male, and I also noticed an accomplice lingering just outside of the lighting. We both agree that we were being “sized up”. Since running was not an option for my friend, I was prepared to defend us both. Fortunately, the men left. She knows that I frequently carry, and told me “I am glad you are packing”.
Also, whether or not you’d “shoot in a crowded situation”… If you were armed, that’s a tough call. Really, you are only truly, 100% justified if the threat is specifically directed at you, or someone whose protection is your charge, like your spouse and kids. Would I shoot to protect a stranger? Probably not.
Again, I am happy that you have lived a life relatively free from strife and violence. The degree of passivity you choose is your choice, and I’ll wish you peace and leave you to it.
@Moon-howler
“I tend to agree. I am not naïve to what exists in the south either. I also would say what we are talking about doesn’t stop at the Mason-Dixon line.”
Try living in Boston during the era of forced busing.
I didn’t live there but I read about it. Not good. Different. Still not good.
I lived in Georgia for 3 years as a tweener. I saw and heard some things that still give me the creeps. We were suburban so I am sure it was cleaned up a lot. I have told everyone about bumping into the Imperial Wizard of the KKK at the height of integration of lunch counters in Atlanta. He wasn’t a gross ugly redneck. That is what was really scary about it.
I don’t open carry. Some people do, and I don’t begrudge them that right. That said, I understand that it makes some people uncomfortable. Skeezy-looking people on the metro make me uncomfortable, but I don’t begrudge them the right to be skeezy. Now, the reason I don’t open carry is I am not trying to make a political statement. That’s the same reason why you will never see me in an NRA hat (although I’m a life-member), one of those “safari vests” or one of those snappy pro-2nd amendment t-shirts (I like the Molon Labe shirts, especially). You won’t see a “keep honking I’m reloading bumper sticker on my car. “Grayman” is what I go for. Conspicuous draws attention, and attention draws fire. I go for invisible.
I think that has stood you in good stead, if I do say so myself.
I wish everyone behaved like you do regarding this issue.
I hate the NRA. I didn’t use to. I grew up with the NRA magazine right next to the porcelain convenience in my house. My parents both liked guns. They raised bird dogs and had rifles, shot guns and a hand gun or two. I grew to hate the NRA over the attitude they started projecting. I like But that is neither here nor there.
I like Tom Selleck. I hate someone like Ted Nugent. He, to me, is simply a fool.
@Censored bybvbl
Good for you. I’ll take my chances, thanks.
Blocking highways and shopping mall access is straight up domestic terrorism. I’ll not avoid or even attempt to circumvent the so-called “demonstrations.” If my movement into and out of areas in forcibly impeded, they’d better be prepared to do a lot more than yell with bullhorns and throw garbage cans.
It really just isn’t worth it to me. Its not a winnable situation.
I agree that it is domestic terrorism. I thought that dude that shut down I15 was a domestic terrorist also. (forget his name–over the cattle)
I think operation rescue are a pack of domestic terrorists also. Same with Westboro Baptist.
@Moon-howler
“I am not quite ready to say that killing someone for taking your property is wrong. I think it depends on your property.”
I go to a professional course at least bi-annually. At least a portion of each deals with the legalities of self-defense, taught by lawyers who specialize in use-of-force. You cannot use lethal force to defend property. If you are looking out your window, and see someone carrying off your roto-tiller, you cannot use lethal force to stop them. I’d call the police, and try to be the best witness I could be. Now, if a person breaks into my home, while I am present, I am not defending my TV. I am defending me. If I can secure myself and my family in a room, I will. They intruder can take what he wants, while I call the police, and again, I will focus on being a good witness. Now, should the intruder attempt to enter the room where I am at, I am now defending me, and my family. If an intruder is between me and my family, he is a threat….
Someone takes my car in a car-jacking, my kid is in the back, you had better believe I am going to kill first and ask questions later.” You wouldn’t be defending the car. You’d be defending yourself and your kid.
No comment on taking my jewelry? If its on me and someone is going for it…I take that as defending myself.
I am not going to argue the legal concept of defending property but I would not go quietly. Maybe the person shouldn’t be killed (under normal circumstances but I sure don’t see any problem with beating the crap out of them or siccing your dog on them. I would also beat someone about the head and shoulders with whatever was in my hand if someone tried to snatch my purse, for instance. Now if they strong armed me, different ball game.
“There hasn’t been a real journalist since David Brinkley retired. ”
Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon seem pretty good to me.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Al Sharpton shouldn’t be on TV, because he got famous promoting false allegations, recklessly.
On the other side of the coin, FOX News pays Mark Fuhrman to be an analyst. For those who don’t remember, he is best known because he perjured himself during the OJ Simpson trial, and cast a lot of shade on the chain of evidence and the whole of the LAPD. He couldn’t have done a better job of making himself and his employer look bad, and probably had a lot to do with the jury’s decision. This is how he made his bones. From saying he never used the n word, to a tape being produced where he drops it like Quentin Tarantino on a bad day, to a woman he once dated saying that he was actively prejudiced to the point that he couldn’t stand to see a black man with a white woman, and told her that he sometimes went out of his way on the job as a detective to cross them up.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20105164,00.html
But Ito is allowing the Simpson defense to question the detective about an incident that allegedly took place in 1985 or ’86. In a sworn statement, real estate agent Kathleen Bell, 31, told of a conversation in which, she said, Fuhrman told her he would pull over any vehicle occupied by a black man and a white woman. “If I had my way, they would take all the ni**ers, put them together in a big group and burn them,” Bell quoted Fuhrman as saying. Fuhrman denies the charge, and a private investigator he hired, Anthony Pellicano, claims to have found three witnesses to back him up. “This is not a racial issue,” Fuhrman said. “This is about a guy that murdered someone. And he was sloppy. I did my job. It irritates the defense the most because I did it right.”
”
Ignorant hyperbole. You “Hear” too many gun-owners express an interest in killing people?
I’ve tried to reason with you. I’ve tried to debate you with facts. You cannot be reasoned with. You’ve made up your mind and have expressed it often. Anyone who carries a gun, whether they be a cop or a private citizen, is a killer.
I’ve made up my mind: You are an idiot. I don’t argue with idiots.
@Cato the Elder
How did you feel about Cliven Bundy, the militias, and other gun-toting a-holes during their standoff with the BLM? Were they terrorists?
That’s who I meant! Cliven bundy. I think he is a domestic terrorist along with his followers.
@Cato, I’ll remember to bring spike strips if I’m ever protesting in the streets.
@Steve. Bye. Come back and chat when your world can have more colors than black or white.
@Steve Thomas There are hints in his original story and in the subsequent embellishments that scream fake. Unworthy of argument.
@Emma
Oh, I do believe he is full of crapolla, with regards to his story.
Abso-fu*kin-lutely. If someone stands in the middle of an interstate highway and points weapons at federal agents, then what else would you call it?
We tolerate mobs because no one seems to have the stomach to put them down.
Since I go most anywhere without a gun…then what’s your point? Of course, if you read all of his statements and then still believe that he is not in fantasy land….if you agree with him…..then enjoy your vacation in fantasy land.
Ed needs a champion. He was out there all by himself for a couple days.
He couldn’t even count on support from Elena and me.
He is arguing that it should NEVER be used, even by….actually specifically by police. EVER. He then describes scenarios that describe cops attacking people merely by pulling up next to them in the street: the Brown situation. He argued that Brown was defending himself from an attack by the cop when he reached into the cop car and attack Wilsion.
@Ed Myers
“Mace, tasers, stun guns etc. are examples. Devices intended to kill are offensive weapons: e.g. guns.
The objective should be that police have enough non-lethal tools that they never apply lethal force even if the adversary is attacking with lethal force. The notion that police need to outgun the opponent misses the opportunity to use asymmetrical non-lethal force. ”
So…in your world, the bad guy has the gun. The cop has only less than lethal weaponry. Now what? Bad guy is killing people. Please explain how the cops stop him? You already have the cop retreating from the threat back to his car and hiding. And now he’s waiting for back up…which ALSO does not have guns.
When will you realize that the Phaser with stun has not been invented?
As for self protection: “to prevent a robbery in progress” Robbery includes a threat. The victim has no idea where the desires of the criminal will end. If you wish to place your life within the good graces of someone using force to rob you….be my guest.
@Ed Myers
How nice of you to threaten to damage people’s property and strand them in a danger zone. That is just so pacifist of you. Of course, the unintended consequence of that declaration is the obvious fact that you have an inability to use logic.
Imagine, he drives down a street. You spike his tires. He is now immobile, and unable to retreat, nor is it safe to get out of the car. You…YOU have left him only one recourse, to use force to defend against any danger.
@Cato the Elder
I saw the Bundy thing as preventing another Waco or Randy Weaver. The BLM needed to collect a debt. One does not use snipers to collect debts. You use IRS liens on property and profits.
I have to side with Cato. Domestic terrorism.
Anyone who carries a gun, whether they be a cop or a private citizen, [is willing and prepared to be] a killer.
Fixed it for you.
Killing another is immoral because it fails the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The kill or be killed scenario is an exception … a golden rule singularity but it is so rare in civilized society (except on tv, of course) that those who dwell on that situation or prepare for it seem almost wishing and willing it to happen. That is the evil lurking in gun ownership…the need to prove that one’s investment in the capacity to kill is worthwhile.
Bad guy is killing people. Please explain how the cops stop him?
In almost all of the cop killing scenarios the perp has killed himself once cornered.
I’m not going to hijack this thread with detailed engineering ideas that you will just dismiss without consideration. However there are many ways to stop someone without killing them. Zoos and researchers do it all the time with wild animals. Vehicles allow cops to get close to dangerous people and box them in without endangering themselves. We also have drones and RC vehicles as stand-off weapons. That you can’t imagine ways to stop evil people short of killing them is telling. Are the entrance exams for law enforcement designed to screen out people with creative talent?
The spiked tire reference was a self defense mechanism to prevent pedestrian protesters from being run over by Cato intent on forcing his way through a crowd without respect for their lives. It was also a good example of a way to stop a person with a dangerous weapon (a car) without killing the driver. I see it sent you into brainstorming some sort of fantasy made-for-tv crime thriller.
“Robbery includes a threat. The victim has no idea where the desires of the criminal will end.” This idea that anyone engaged in a crime is less human than someone else and should thus be put down violates our rule of law that proscribes only a limited number of crimes that are eligible for capital punishment. Yes thieves do not respect personal property rights but that does not mean they also don’t respect personal safety boundaries. We have a lot of data on robbery and the personal risk of injury is lowest when you just give a thief what they want instead of fighting them. Banks figured this out; they do not arm their tellers or guards and no one has been killed in a bank robbery in a long time.
The meme that robbery is a personal threat seems to give a gun owner cover when they kill someone because of anger over being economically violated. Afterwards the shooter discovers that theft isn’t a valid reason to kill someone so they shade their story to pump in the requisite fear for one’s life angle. Street robbers are punks or addicts and when they are killed they don’t get any sympathy from the public. This kind of vigilante justice isn’t right but unless there is some other component like racism it just isn’t going to get people riled up.
@Ed Myers
“Anyone who carries a gun, whether they be a cop or a private citizen, [is willing and prepared to be] a killer.
Fixed it for you.
Killing another is immoral because it fails the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ”
Since I do not plan to murder or rob people, I’m perfectly fine with the idea that someone might kill me if I threaten them that way. The Golden rule is perfectly fulfilled. The criminal is threatening me with deadly force. I will do the same.
“Zoos and researchers do it all the time with wild animals. Vehicles allow cops to get close to dangerous people and box them in without endangering themselves. We also have drones and RC vehicles as stand-off weapons.”
Zoos are tranquilizing animals. Are you suggesting that cops carry tranquilizer guns and then attempt to fight a gun battle with them? Really? Please explain how they will get within range without being shot. Of course, tranquilizers that are not correctly configured will either kill someone or will be useless. How do you expect them to set the correct dosage?
Vehicles: you claimed that doing so is an attack worthy of self defense. And if the bad guy is in a building?
Drones and RC vehicles as stand off weapons using….what? Harsh language?
You are supposed to get these into a hostage situation? Stop a mall shooter? Creative talent? You think that there is some magic instrument that will stop people.
Said mass shooters kill themselves because they see a man with a gun. If he does not have a gun, said criminal will kill him.
Those threatening others during a crime are acting less than human. Capital punishment is not self defense. One must be captured and tried for capital punishment.
There’s a lot of data? Really? Because of banks. What if they want more than property in your home? I’m not talking about bank robbery. I’m talking about robbery vs private citizens. What if they want your life, or your loved ones?
“Yes thieves do not respect personal property rights but that does not mean they also don’t respect personal safety boundaries.”
And if want to trust that criminal to do so, go ahead. I think that I will shoot a criminal that comes into my home to protect my family from a deadly threat.
“when they kill someone because of anger over being economically violated.’
Nope…this is just your weird projection.
You don’t have to read to deeply between the lines to get how Ed defends the indefensible. The innocent NYC cops, sitting in their car eating lunch, got what they deserved because they carry guns, and they carry them with the intent to kill people. Every cop should be able to come up with a split-second plan to deter a criminal who has a gun pointed at his face or at another citizen, because, face it, criminals don’t really mean to shoot anyone anyway.
Moon should give out a “Troll of the Year” award for Ed’s contributions to this thread. I would be offended if I wasn’t laughing so hard right now. Thanks for the entertainment.
Ed, I am not going anywhere. I just refuse to continue the enablment of your silliness. To further indulge your idiocy is pointless. Sane people aren’t calling for the disarming of police officers. You are a fake.
“In almost all of the cop killing scenarios the perp has killed himself once cornered.”
Bullshxt. Fake statistic, from a troll. I’d ask you to prove it, but you won’t. I can prove you wrong, but you’ll ignore it… Pointless to argue with a fool. Even more pointless to play a Fool’s game.
@Cargosquid
We agree on a lot. We’re not going to agree on the Bundy issue. I’m sorry, but these people shut down an interstate highway and literally pointed loaded ARs at federal agents. If this isn’t an act of domestic terrorism, then I don’t know what is. We can’t tolerate this kind of lawless behavior as a society, otherwise we might as well have no law. In fact, I’d argue that the fact that this happened without any sort of consequence whatsoever directly leads to more situations of lawlessness like the Ferguson riots.
Standing ovation for Cato.
@Cargo
You can’t cherry pick your domestic terrorism. If its wrong for one, its wrong for all.
@Moon-howler
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “Domestic Terror”, since no one was hurt or injured, and no property was destroyed, I’m not giving the Bundy Ranch Minute Men a pass either. Not to re-argue the merits; Bundy was using Federal Land, refused to pay for the grazing, fought it out in court, and lost. Refusing the order to remove his herds, he, and his supporters armed themselves and prepared to “resist”. Very tense, and the wrong word or gesture could have resulted in a tragedy. Thankfully, it didn’t happen. Had it happened, those publically encouraging this would rightfully share the blame. I never saw this as a “2nd Amendment” issue. No one was coming to take his guns away. I never saw this as a private property rights issue, as the property at issue were private cows on land that the Federal government lawfully regulates. But, I don’t see this as “domestic terror” either. Nope. It was an act of civil disobedience that had the tremendous potential of getting very “uncivil”.
I agree that it wasn’t second amendment or property rights for the reasons you stated. I do think people were harmed. Time is worth something. How long were people stopped along I-15? Perhaps I would be comfortable saying potential domestic terrorism. I don’t think we have to have death to be terrorism. but as you said, it could have gone that way easily.
Whatever happened to that guy now his 15 minutes of fame are over?
Well, Ed, old Wolverine has to give a tip of his hat to a homeboy This is the longest I’ve ever seen you be able to string out one of your contrarian efforts on a blog.