If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So even when all you have to do is drive a short distance to legally purchase a gun, stricter gun laws can have a significant effect on the supply and price of illegal guns?
Then why aren't the areas, such a short distance away, not having the same explosion in murder per capita? If being able to legally buy guns is the deciding factor, surely you would see Chicago-like numbers anywhere where you "can drive a short distance to legally purchase a gun"???? Right?
Thats not something a pro-gun person American admits every day.
Then why aren't the areas, such a short distance away, not having the same explosion in murder per capita? If being able to legally buy guns is the deciding factor, surely you would see Chicago-like numbers anywhere where you "can drive a short distance to legally purchase a gun"???? Right?
Why would we embrace an illogical conclusion?
The guns have been legal a long time. I never suggested they would cause a spike in crime. Pro-gun people however ALWAYS cite Chicago as an example of gun control failing to work.
If you're going to commit murder(s), crossing state lines to buy a gun certainly isn't going to stop you is it?
What are the stats on gun death/injury accidents in Chicago like?
Any idea how many of these gun deaths are crimes of passion or heat of the moment incidents?
How about the suicide rate? Guessing this one might actually be recorded somewhere.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
As an analogy, I present the issues the country faces in setting up fair elections.
In general, election law is created by the party in power, and the party in power wields control over who gets the majority of seats on an election board.
What results should we expect from such a system? One where the participants ignore the overwhelming pressure to behave in their self-interest? The scenario into which they've been placed is a nearly impossible one to succeed. I argue only so much blame can be placed on them for failing in the nearly impossible scenario.
I argue the police are in a similar situation. They've been placed in a close to impossible scenario. The system encourages bad behavior. The results are predictable.
For the system to function the way we want, as in police serve as a mechanism to keep the peace, the system requires a non-adversarial relationship between the police and prosecutors. There should be little surprise they have one, and I can place little blame at the feet of either. This is the system they've been given.
After the system fails to compel morality, there is still the golden rule: do to others what you will accept them doing back to you. If you go around shooting people dead, you can expect that eventually, if no remedy is made, they will start shooting you dead right back. If you go around gerrymandering people, are they going to start gerrymandering you right back? I don't think this analogy passes muster.
Is not the Hammurabi strategy the proverbial fighting of the symptoms instead of the disease? Is the problem more likely to be solved by redesigning the system, or applying pressure to a single component?
The problem already IS solved! For whites, for asians, for women, for hispanics, the problem is solved. It's implausible that we need a whole new system in order to give black men the same thing that everyone else already has.
Also, if I can't get a cure for my disease, you're darn right I fight the symptoms. Pop a handful of sudafeds and get back to your station, sicky.
If you plan to use a gun for a crime you would want the gun to NOT be traced back to you. This is why those guns cost more.
That would be true in any other state though. Filing off a serial number isn't the toughest job in the world. If guns can be stolen from every nightstand and glove compartment by petty thieves, prices will be cheap. If prices are expensive, stands to reason they aren't available in every nightstand and glove box.
If the price is high, the supply is constrained. This is a significant thing that I have never seen mentioned before about Illinois.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The guns have been legal a long time. I never suggested they would cause a spike in crime. Pro-gun people however ALWAYS cite Chicago as an example of gun control failing to work.
If you're going to commit murder(s), crossing state lines to buy a gun certainly isn't going to stop you is it?
What are the stats on gun death/injury accidents in Chicago like?
Any idea how many of these gun deaths are crimes of passion or heat of the moment incidents?
How about the suicide rate? Guessing this one might actually be recorded somewhere.
The Chicago law people cite was overturned in 2010. Making guns illegal in a single municipality does little to stop the flow of illegal weapons.
Stopping the flow across state lines is more effective because out-of-state buyers raise eyebrows and get the ATF sniffing around. Likewise, buying from the out-of-state black market makes it that much harder to vet the sellers, and therefore that much more likely one is buying from a sting operation.
That the police consider lax gun laws to be motivator is insulting. What gun laws changed at the beginning of the year?
Our gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country.
In fact, they're so restrictive, gangs here do a very unusual thing. In most places when a cop starts chasing a gang member, they throw their gun. This makes it less likely for them to be perceived as armed (and hence less likely to get shot), but more importantly, standard police procedure places a higher value on securing the now free weapon over chasing down a (now theoretically unarmed) suspect. It's a win-win for the gang member.
This doesn't happen in Chicago. The black market price for guns here is too high for them to be seen as disposable. I'll leave what would cause this economic state of affairs as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: it involves constricted supply.
Its ignorance, inability to grasp that the laws are NOT doing what they assumed, the CULTURE and the liberal politics and corruption within the city and state governments. The longer DEMOCRATS are running things they more they are ruining things. There is a track record.
Congratulations MWK you just gave Trump a few percentage points in Wisconsin.
Going after reporters and firefighters is going to play really well.
And over what? A criminal who faced off with police with a burgled firearm. At least that is the pretense being used and not the cause of the riots. The cause was a culture steeped in a victim mentality that uses opportunities like these to enact mob violence.
(
Last edited by Captain Obvious; Aug 14, 2016 at 09:27 AM.
)
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
After the system fails to compel morality, there is still the golden rule: do to others what you will accept them doing back to you. If you go around shooting people dead, you can expect that eventually, if no remedy is made, they will start shooting you dead right back. If you go around gerrymandering people, are they going to start gerrymandering you right back? I don't think this analogy passes muster.
The problem already IS solved! For whites, for asians, for women, for hispanics, the problem is solved. It's implausible that we need a whole new system in order to give black men the same thing that everyone else already has.
Also, if I can't get a cure for my disease, you're darn right I fight the symptoms. Pop a handful of sudafeds and get back to your station, sicky.
Do not we, as the creators of the system, bear some responsibility for "doing unto the police" with said system? My point with the analogy wasn't how the solution under discussion would apply, but to draw attention to the legislative conditions under which election boards operate. Put people in a system where the winning strategy is partisan, partisan results are to be expected.
The situation is similar with the police. The winning strategy for the system they've been put into is to protect each other, and to get in bed with prosecutors. This isn't the fault of the police.
With regards to the race question, I'd be surprised if the data didn't show lopsided results as far as the extent to which this problem has been solved, the question is how lopsided? As in, how much is due to race, and how much is due to the concentrations of poverty and crime found in any given race?
Perhaps I am stretching the analogy beyond its capacity, but there is probably some wisdom one should not continue to use Sudafed if the condition persists.
Congratulations MWK you just gave Trump a few percentage points in Wisconsin.
Going after reporters and firefighters is going to play really well.
And over what? A criminal who faced off with police with a burgled firearm. At least that is the pretense being used and not the cause of the riots. The cause was a culture steeped in a victim mentality that uses opportunities like these to enact mob violence.
Honestly I'm not informed about the circumstances in Milwaukee because I've spent the last several days driving my son to college, getting him moved in, and driving back home. All I've heard is that the police shot a fleeing suspect after a traffic stop who was supposedly armed. I'm not sure if he had the weapon in his hand. Protests ensued and turned violent. National Guard was called out. And things are pretty much a mess. I'll have to read up on the details and particulars when I have more time. What I can say generally speaking is that flare-ups in the streets like this are never just about the particular incident that triggered it. There is typically an underlying history of tensions that eventually boil over.
Honestly I'm not informed about the circumstances in Milwaukee because I've spent the last several days driving my son to college, getting him moved in, and driving back home.
No worries
All I've heard is that the police shot a fleeing suspect after a traffic stop who was supposedly armed.
He was armed. That's not in doubt. The gun was loaded with 23 rounds & stolen back in March.
I'm not sure if he had the weapon in his hand.
The report is that the suspect pointed the weapon at the officer, and apparently there is body cam footage to back up this claim (though that footage has yet to be released).
Protests ensued and turned violent. National Guard was called out.
The national guard was activated, but not deployed. Local police are attempting to handle the unrest though national guard units are on standby.
And things are pretty much a mess. I'll have to read up on the details and particulars when I have more time. What I can say generally speaking is that flare-ups in the streets like this are never just about the particular incident that triggered it. There is typically an underlying history of tensions that eventually boil over.
OAW
I agree that the national tensions here are boiling over, however the rioting has been widely criticized not only because the progenitor appears to be a "good shoot" but also because it seems that there is quite a bit of incitement seeming to go around, and videos of rioters inciting those around them to "beat up white people". You don't have to answer this until you're caught up with the situation, but do you think this form of "protest" will lead to anything productive?
I will also say there have been reports of a large group of people showing up with brooms, dustpans, & trash bags to clean up after the rioters during the daytime. If there's one upside to this situation IMO, it's that.
The report is that the suspect pointed the weapon at the officer, and apparently there is body cam footage to back up this claim (though that footage has yet to be released).
So I read a few articles about the incident. Black guy killed by a black police officer. Police claim there is body cam footage to prove the dude had a gun and refused to put it down. But as you noted it has yet to be released ... which given the unrest I find that to be highly questionable decision. Suffice it to say that given the numerous incidents we've been discussing in this thread that I am very skeptical of police accounts. I simply do not give them the benefit of the doubt because way too often they've been shown to be inaccurate or downright fabricated. And I suspect the people in the streets feel the same way. Case in point. Remember Alton Sterling who was killed in Baton Rouge? The guy who had two police officers pinning him down on the ground and ended up being shot 6 times in the chest? The guy was outside a convenience store selling CD's with the permission of the store owner who was a friend. The Baton Rouge police claim they received an "anonymous" call from a "homeless man" who said Sterling brandished a weapon at him in response to panhandling. But I'm skeptical because how would they know the caller was "homeless" if the call was "anonymous"? And more importantly, why was the audio of caller never released? They did release audio of a 911 dispatcher making these claims. But we never heard the caller ... let alone the actual conversation between the two. So absent that it strikes me as a CYA move on the part of the Baton Rouge PD. A way to justify the police hassling Sterling in the first place and to portray them as having reason to believe he was "armed and dangerous".
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I agree that the national tensions here are boiling over, however the rioting has been widely criticized not only because the progenitor appears to be a "good shoot" but also because it seems that there is quite a bit of incitement seeming to go around, and videos of rioters inciting those around them to "beat up white people". You don't have to answer this until you're caught up with the situation, but do you think this form of "protest" will lead to anything productive?
Not at all. In fact it's completely counter-productive. Because the minute people start going there the focus of the conversation stops being the legitimate grievances that the people in that community have with the police and it becomes a narrative of "lawless black thugs attacking random white people." And the worst part is that there can be thousands of people out there protesting who aren't engaging in that kind of stupidity ... but a single video of a handful of people who are can usurp the entire story.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I will also say there have been reports of a large group of people showing up with brooms, dustpans, & trash bags to clean up after the rioters during the daytime. If there's one upside to this situation IMO, it's that.
The exact same thing happened in Ferguson. I saw it with my own eyes. But to my point above, the media unfortunately showed the images of rioters looting liquor stores and hair weave from beauty supply stores a lot more than the images of the people trying to shut all that nonsense down or cleaning up the mess the next day. As the saying goes ..."If it bleeds it leads."
Best I can read, Milwaukee cops were in the right but the powder keg exploded anyway. Apparently Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the US, so I'm assuming there was a lot of previously existing friction before. That said I don't like anything I've heard about the protests, or more accurately, the riots.
So I read a few articles about the incident. Black guy killed by a black police officer. Police claim there is body cam footage to prove the dude had a gun and refused to put it down. But as you noted it has yet to be released ... which given the unrest I find that to be highly questionable decision.
Given the rioting occurring, I don't think releasing the video, regardless of what it shows, will do anything to calm those involved in the riots. This all seems pretty standard to me.
Suffice it to say that given the numerous incidents we've been discussing in this thread that I am very skeptical of police accounts. I simply do not give them the benefit of the doubt because way too often they've been shown to be inaccurate or downright fabricated. And I suspect the people in the streets feel the same way.
This is no rationalization for rioting.
Case in point. Remember Alton Sterling who was killed in Baton Rouge? The guy who had two police officers pinning him down on the ground and ended up being shot 6 times in the chest? The guy was outside a convenience store selling CD's with the permission of the store owner who was a friend. The Baton Rouge police claim they received an "anonymous" call from a "homeless man" who said Sterling brandished a weapon at him in response to panhandling.
This isn't Baton Rouge - this is Milwaukee.
But I'm skeptical because how would they know the caller was "homeless" if the call was "anonymous"?
You can be anonymous and still report information. The identity of the caller doesn't need to be known by the police in order to glean a report from that caller. Either way, this is irrelevant.
And more importantly, why was the audio of caller never released? They did release audio of a 911 dispatcher making these claims. But we never heard the caller ... let alone the actual conversation between the two. So absent that it strikes me as a CYA move on the part of the Baton Rouge PD. A way to justify the police hassling Sterling in the first place and to portray them as having reason to believe he was "armed and dangerous".
Again, this topic is Milwaukee - not Baton Rouge. I agree there is a larger conversation to be had, but lets stick to the facts of this case instead of bringing up others to justify/rationalize the burning a city hundreds of miles away and chronologically separated in time.
Not at all. In fact it's completely counter-productive. Because the minute people start going there the focus of the conversation stops being the legitimate grievances that the people in that community have with the police and it becomes a narrative of "lawless black thugs attacking random white people." And the worst part is that there can be thousands of people out there protesting who aren't engaging in that kind of stupidity ... but a single video of a handful of people who are can usurp the entire story.
Does not the same go for the police? Thousands are out there every day doing their jobs well, yet a handful who are engaging in that racism usurp the entire conversation, especially in the eyes of the rioters.
The exact same thing happened in Ferguson. I saw it with my own eyes.
I was very vocal in my admonishment of the Ferguson police reaction. Infact, quite a bit of the country was. The riots in Milwaukee are not going to help any of us address what happened in Ferguson.
But to my point above, the media unfortunately showed the images of rioters looting liquor stores and hair weave from beauty supply stores a lot more than the images of the people trying to shut all that nonsense down or cleaning up the mess the next day. As the saying goes ..."If it bleeds it leads."
OAW
I don't disagree the media profits from showing only the most offensive and sensational of these events. Your problem, then, isn't with the police - but with the media. Still, the response is misguided at best if the response is to riot because of a man legitimately killed by the police when he threatened them with a loaded firearm.
Best I can read, Milwaukee cops were in the right but the powder keg exploded anyway. Apparently Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the US, so I'm assuming there was a lot of previously existing friction before. That said I don't like anything I've heard about the protests, or more accurately, the riots.
I read much of the same. Obviously there needs to be a dialogue about this, but the rioting needs to stop before any productive conversations can be had. I'm thinking this "progenitor" event may have little to do with the rioting over racial tensions. The rioters, however, need to organize themselves in a peaceful way in order for the real conversation to begin, and to distance themselves from the man killed by the police over the weekend. The police have seemed to handle this far better than those in Ferguson or Baltimore - and I have to applaud Walker for doing everything he can to keep the national guard from being deployed unless absolutely necessary.
Do not we, as the creators of the system, bear some responsibility for "doing unto the police" with said system? My point with the analogy wasn't how the solution under discussion would apply, but to draw attention to the legislative conditions under which election boards operate. Put people in a system where the winning strategy is partisan, partisan results are to be expected.
The situation is similar with the police. The winning strategy for the system they've been put into is to protect each other, and to get in bed with prosecutors. This isn't the fault of the police.
The system in question includes the constitution, which includes the bill of rights, which includes the second amendment. The "winning strategy" would have to account for being fired, account for being prosecuted, and account for sparking an armed citizenry to take justice into its own hands when necessary.
With regards to the race question, I'd be surprised if the data didn't show lopsided results as far as the extent to which this problem has been solved, the question is how lopsided? As in, how much is due to race, and how much is due to the concentrations of poverty and crime found in any given race?
I dispute the connection between crime rates and police drawing on unarmed motorists or pedestrians. Also there are plenty of whites and hispanics and women in poor neighborhoods.
Perhaps I am stretching the analogy beyond its capacity, but there is probably some wisdom one should not continue to use Sudafed if the condition persists.
If it doesn't cure the condition, and it was never intended to cure it, then why stop on account of it not curing? If you have chronic pain that has no cure, don't you continue to use painkillers indefinitely, to treat the symptoms?
Suffice it to say that given the numerous incidents we've been discussing in this thread that I am very skeptical of police accounts. I simply do not give them the benefit of the doubt because way too often they've been shown to be inaccurate or downright fabricated. And I suspect the people in the streets feel the same way.
This is no rationalization for rioting.
Indeed it is not. But even in this instance we see exactly what I'm talking about. In his press conference Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn mentioned Sylville Smith's "lengthy criminal record." Because the police all too often try to "criminalize" someone they have shot and killed in the psyche of the public in order to justify their actions. But it turns out that characterization was "inaccurate" to say the least ...
A search of Wisconsin court records revealed several arrests, but only one misdemeanor conviction for Sylville Smith. His record also included traffic offenses. No felony convictions were found.
The misdemeanor conviction, for carrying a concealed weapon, came in July 2014. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined $443 and ordered to serve one day in jail.
His record also included guilty findings on traffic offenses for speeding, operating a motor vehicle without insurance, possession of open intoxicants in a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license.
Smith was arrested in 2015 on a charge of intimidating a witness by a person charged with a felony, which is itself a felony offense. The case was dropped later that year by the prosecutor.
He was also charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, a felony, and misdemeanor possession of THC earlier in 2015. Those charges were dismissed by a judge based on a motion by the defense.
So he did NOT have a "lengthy criminal record" as the Milwaukee Police Chief claimed. He had a grand total of ONE misdemeanor conviction. Being arrested or ticketed does not necessarily make you a "criminal". Especially in urban areas where police routinely target the residents with "stop and frisk" and other forms of harassment. And perhaps this explains why was he carrying a concealed weapon in the first place?
Smith’s mother, Haynes, said her son had recently gotten his conceal-carry license because he had been shot twice and robbed four times – and was stripped of all his clothes during one robbery.
So after having pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon in 2014 he went "legit" and got himself a CCL ... which sheds a different light on him being armed. The mayor of Milwaukee made sure to emphasize that the gun he had on him was stolen in a home burglary. Making the implication in minds of the public that Smith did that. But the reality is that he could have easily purchased the weapon "on the street" and had no knowledge of its history. And another reality is that poor people in crime-ridden urban areas ... the type of people that should be poster children for 2nd Amendment advocates ... very often can't afford to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. So we have a traffic stop that occurred because the police say they observed "suspicious activity". We have Smith and his companion fleeing the vehicle. Was that because they were up to no good? Or because they feared the police in this climate of heightened tensions between the black community and law enforcement? I don't know. What I do know is that the body cam footage is even more important in light of these discrepancies. And I suspect it may very well not be as clear cut as the police are characterizing it. Otherwise they would have released it already.
Indeed it is not. But even in this instance we see exactly what I'm talking about. In his press conference Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn mentioned Sylville Smith's "lengthy criminal record." Because the police all too often try to "criminalize" someone they have shot and killed in the psyche of the public in order to justify their actions. But it turns out that characterization was "inaccurate" to say the least ...
Heavy.com is not a reputable news source. "Inaccurate" is the most you could say, and even that is quite a stretch.
So he did NOT have a "lengthy criminal record" as the Milwaukee Police Chief claimed. He had a grand total of ONE misdemeanor conviction. Being arrested or ticketed does not necessarily make you a "criminal". Especially in urban areas where police routinely target the residents with "stop and frisk" and other forms of harassment. And perhaps this explains why was he carrying a concealed weapon in the first place?[/quote]
Your clickbait website failed to mention arrests for shooting someone, robbery, theft, possession of heroin, and most recently possession of cocaine on July 22 of this year.
So after having pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon in 2014 he went "legit" and got himself a CCL
Source, please. His mother saying that in the wake of the shooting isn't exactly convincing.
The mayor of Milwaukee made sure to emphasize that the gun he had on him was stolen in a home burglary.
Making the implication in minds of the public that Smith did that. But the reality is that he could have easily purchased the weapon "on the street" and had no knowledge of its history.[/quote]
So even if he was a CCL, he'd still be breaking the law by possessing a stolen firearm. Whether he stole it or not is irrelevant.
And another reality is that poor people in crime-ridden urban areas ... the type of people that should be poster children for 2nd Amendment advocates ... very often can't afford to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.
Why not? Legal guns are generally cheaper than illegal ones for myriad reasons, including trace-ability. I find it far more likely that he had the stolen gun because he could not buy one from a licensed dealer because he was convicted of a firearms charge & had been arrested on felony possession charges (that hadn't gone to trial yet) would have been grounds in and of themselves to deny sale.
So we have a traffic stop that occurred because the police say they observed "suspicious activity". We have Smith and his companion fleeing the vehicle. Was that because they were up to no good? Or because they feared the police in this climate of heightened tensions between the black community and law enforcement?
Given his recent arrest on 7/22 for possession of cocaine the evidence seems to point to the former.
I don't know. What I do know is that the body cam footage is even more important in light of these discrepancies. And I suspect it may very well not be as clear cut as the police are characterizing it. Otherwise they would have released it already.
OAW
I'm just not seeing the discrepancies you're speaking of, OAW. The man was no saint, and was not killed for his past indiscretions. He was killed because he raised an illegal weapon at the police while he was running from them. We have no reason to doubt the word of the police officer, especially since they've been forthright that there is video of it and it will be released per procedure. On the other hand, we have a man that was committing at least two crimes (and quite probably 2-3 more) when he was killed.
We have no reason to doubt the word of the police officer
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with that. Aside from the obvious self-interest for the involved parties, its been shown repeatedly that the climate of police departments is one where they seek to downplay misconduct and protect their own. Until good officers stop staying silent and the thin blue line disappears, police have lost the benefit of the doubt. Aside from clear-cut cases, I'll keep my skepticism until independent reviews are conducted.
Lest we forget, you can be a criminal and still be wrongfully shot. Too many people seem to think committing any criminal act (sometimes past or present) is forfeiting your rights as a human being.
Yet I already linked to that very article in my post. It's in the sentence where I said "And perhaps this explains why was he carrying a concealed weapon in the first place?"
Perhaps you missed it?
Online court records show Smith has one prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor. The rest of the arrests did not result in charges or were dismissed.
Moreover, it says the same thing as the Heavy.com site you say is "not reputable".
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Source, please. His mother saying that in the wake of the shooting isn't exactly convincing.
Well how about a video of his own brother who is holding Smith's CCL in his hands?
Or this one where the brother is holding his own CCL in his hands?
Furthermore, the Milwaukee PD hasn't disputed the claims of his family that he had a CCL. And why on earth would they lie about something like that when it could so easily be disproven?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Why not? Legal guns are generally cheaper than illegal ones for myriad reasons, including trace-ability. I find it far more likely that he had the stolen gun because he could not buy one from a licensed dealer because he was convicted of a firearms charge & had been arrested on felony possession charges (that hadn't gone to trial yet) would have been grounds in and of themselves to deny sale.
Given his recent arrest on 7/22 for possession of cocaine the evidence seems to point to the former.
But it doesn't. Again, the firearms charge he pled guilty to was a misdemeanor. And you have to be a "convicted" felon to be denied a CCL .... not just "arrested' on a felony charge. See the statute for yourself here ...
I'm just not seeing the discrepancies you're speaking of, OAW.
The discrepancy is just as I stated. The Milwaukee Police Chief claimed that Smith had a "lengthy criminal record" .... and he did not. I meant nothing more and nothing less than that.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The man was no saint, and was not killed for his past indiscretions. He was killed because he raised an illegal weapon at the police while he was running from them. We have no reason to doubt the word of the police officer, especially since they've been forthright that there is video of it and it will be released per procedure.
Again. The contents of this thread gives ample reason to not blindly accept the word of the police. I've also seen conflicting reports about the circumstances. Some reports say the police claim Smith "raised the gun" at the officer. Others say they claim he "failed to comply with orders to put his gun down" when ordered to by the police. Then there is this ...
Haynes said she last saw her son about 12:30 p.m. Saturday when he and another man were stopped by police. She said she missed a call from him at 3 p.m., when she thinks he was being chased by police.
She said she called him back, but he didn't answer. She then got a call from someone who told her what was happening. She said she raced over to the area of N. Sherman Blvd. and W. Auer Ave. but couldn't find out what was going on.
"They wouldn't let me see him," she said of police.
She said she doesn't think her son would pull a weapon on police. She said she could envision him running and hiding.
Smith's younger sister, Sherelle Smith, 22, said her brother carried a gun because he was scared and needed to protect himself, not because he was violent.
And if that turns out to be the case did Smith have a cell phone in his hand and not a weapon?
In the end, it may turn out that this was a legally justified shooting. And if the purported body cam footage is as clear cut as Milwaukee officials claim it is then that makes it all the more baffling why it wasn't released immediately. Especially after things turned violent because people on the street believed that Smith was shot in the the back while running away.
[Milwaukee Police Chief] Flynn said Smith was shot in the chest and arm, but he could not yet say if Smith also took a shot to the back.
Well, there's also the issue of them saying the video shows one act and then when it finally comes out it shows another (or is an exaggeration, etc.)
And as I mentioned earlier, the Baton Rouge PD claimed there was an anonymous 911 caller claiming that Alton Sterling had threatened him with a gun. He was killed on July 5. It is now August 16 and to my knowledge no audio of this purported call has been released. But what has been done is that this narrative has been planted into the minds of the public by media reports that simply repeat what the police say without demanding they prove it.
Sylville Smith and the Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot him had crossed paths before a lethal encounter that led to days of unrest, according to Smith's relatives and friends.
A city long marred by racial strife erupted in violence over the weekend after the police officer shot the 23-year-old in the arm and chest when Smith failed to put down his handgun, city officials said.
A pair of officers had stopped Smith and another man in a car Saturday afternoon when the men bolted on foot. Smith was black, as is the unidentified 24-year-old officer who shot him.
Smith's sister, Sherelle, said her brother and the officer attended the same school at one time.
"The officer knew him personally from high school and he still shot him," Sherelle Smith told CNN on Wednesday. "He didn't like my brother. The officer had a career, but my brother was more popular. He used to harass Sylville."
A source close to the family -- without elaborating -- accused the young officer of having a "personal vendetta" against Smith.
Some online posters described encounters with what they said was an overzealous officer.
A Sherman Park community activist, Goddess Mathews, 30, said it was known in the neighborhood that the officer and Smith were onetime classmates.
"No one doubts the officer knew Sylville. How could he not?" she said.
Mathews remembered Smith as a popular hip-hop dancer and the officer as an "aggressive" cop who was not well liked in the community.
"Yes, a black man did the shooting but he was wearing a blue uniform with a badge," she said.
"He represented the mentality that people around here are less than human. We're enemies of the state."
Mathews said many Milwaukee police officers treat residents of the predominantly black Sherman Park neighborhood with dignity and respect but the man who shot Smith wasn't one of them.
"He was like a tyrant," she said. "He took a very aggressive approach on the street."
The cop has six years of service with the Milwaukee police -- three as an officer, officials said.
The officer has been placed on administrative duty during an investigation. Police have been stationed outside his home and local media reported that he has been staying elsewhere.
Mathews said the officer was a familiar figure in the hip-hop nightclub scene.
"He could be overly aggressive out here but, in a room with 200 of us and without his badge and uniform, he wasn't so tough," she said.
Deandre Ueal, 25, said he knew Smith from the Boys & Girls Club and the officer from the local basketball courts when they were younger.
Ueal said the officer had a reputation "for messing with people for no reason" and always seemed "eager to bust people up."
Yet I already linked to that very article in my post. It's in the sentence where I said "And perhaps this explains why was he carrying a concealed weapon in the first place?"
Perhaps you missed it?
I'm not sure you read that article correctly then. The allegation is that Smith shot somebody, then (successfully) persuaded that person to recant the allegation in court. The state could not move forward with the case when the victim and only witness backed out. Why would Smith need a CCL to protect himself from someone he was allegedly coercing?
Also, the CCL license does not give you a free pass on an illegal gun. Whatever the reason, smith had an illegal gun and absolutely 0 legal or other justification for possessing that stolen firearm.
Moreover, it says the same thing as the Heavy.com site you say is "not reputable".
No, it's not. The Heavy.com article does not include all of Smith's arrests, including for robbery, theft, shooting someone and a recent 7/22 arrest for possession of cocaine.
Well how about a video of his own brother who is holding Smith's CCL in his hands?
CCL's do not apply to illegal weapons. Moreover, a CCL is for exactly that - a concealed weapon. You cannot unconceal that weapon, especially while running from the police, unless trying to prevent a violent crime against yourself or another. The CCL, regardless of it's veracity, does not give Smith any legal or moral justification in this situation.
Or this one where the brother is holding his own CCL in his hands?
I don't think you understand CCL's very well if you believe this changes anything in the eyes of the police/public. Unless the bodycam footage shows Smith attempting to submit to the police & allow them to disarm them safely, he's got no justification. Even then, he would have gone down for possessing a stolen firearm.
Furthermore, the Milwaukee PD hasn't disputed the claims of his family that he had a CCL. And why on earth would they lie about something like that when it could so easily be disproven?
They aren't talking about it because it's irrelevant to Smith's death. As I said, CCL's do not cover illegal/stolen firearms, and those firearms must stay concealed unless you are stopping a crime (Not one that you yourself are committing).
But it doesn't. Again, the firearms charge he pled guilty to was a misdemeanor. And you have to be a "convicted" felon to be denied a CCL .... not just "arrested' on a felony charge. See the statute for yourself here ...
The discrepancy is just as I stated. The Milwaukee Police Chief claimed that Smith had a "lengthy criminal record" .... and he did not. I meant nothing more and nothing less than that.
Well, we'll agree to disagree here.
Again. The contents of this thread gives ample reason to not blindly accept the word of the police. I've also seen conflicting reports about the circumstances. Some reports say the police claim Smith "raised the gun" at the officer. Others say they claim he "failed to comply with orders to put his gun down" when ordered to by the police. Then there is this ...
How do those two statements conflict?
I don't blindly accept the word of the police - you should know that by now. You also shouldn't blindly accept the words of Smith's family.
]
And if that turns out to be the case did Smith have a cell phone in his hand and not a weapon?
He probably shouldn't have run from the police then, right?
In the end, it may turn out that this was a legally justified shooting. And if the purported body cam footage is as clear cut as Milwaukee officials claim it is then that makes it all the more baffling why it wasn't released immediately.
There's rioting in the streets because a man got killed by the police. You think releasing video footage of that killing would do anything to help the situation in Milwaukee right now? The DA's office needs to have a chance to review the footage as part of their investigation before it gets released to the public. If 6 months go by and we don't see it, yeah I'm with you. But right now it's barely been a week.
Especially after things turned violent because people on the street believed that Smith was shot in the the back while running away.
OAW
So a man with an illegal gun was running from the police, and you think somehow the CCL applies here? It does not.
I don't understand how the plot has thickened. Can you substantiate any of these "personal vendetta" claims from anyone other than Smith's family? I don't understand how you can be so skeptical of what the police say but use terms like "the plot thickens" when Smith's family makes dubious, unsubstantiated claims in the immediate aftermath of the killing. Either apply the same standard to both parties in the name of objective fact-finding or admit your bias.
I'm not sure you read that article correctly then. The allegation is that Smith shot somebody, then (successfully) persuaded that person to recant the allegation in court. The state could not move forward with the case when the victim and only witness backed out. Why would Smith need a CCL to protect himself from someone he was allegedly coercing?
I read it just fine. The allegation was that Smith shot AT someone and that person recanted. As for why Smith needed a CCL it was because of what I quoted from the article above ...
Smith’s mother, Haynes, said her son had recently gotten his conceal-carry license because he had been shot twice and robbed four times – and was stripped of all his clothes during one robbery.
Smith was a repeated victim of violent crime. And that is why he got himself a CCL.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Also, the CCL license does not give you a free pass on an illegal gun. Whatever the reason, smith had an illegal gun and absolutely 0 legal or other justification for possessing that stolen firearm.
You will get no argument from me on this point.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
No, it's not. The Heavy.com article does not include all of Smith's arrests, including for robbery, theft, shooting someone and a recent 7/22 arrest for possession of cocaine.
Again Smith was not charged with shooting someone. And the only arrest not mentioned in that article was the most recent one from July 22.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
CCL's do not apply to illegal weapons. Moreover, a CCL is for exactly that - a concealed weapon. You cannot unconceal that weapon, especially while running from the police, unless trying to prevent a violent crime against yourself or another. The CCL, regardless of it's veracity, does not give Smith any legal or moral justification in this situation.
The bottom line is that I don't trust the police as far as I can throw them in situations like this. So you'll have to forgive me if I need to see actual video footage of this and not simply take their word for it.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I don't think you understand CCL's very well if you believe this changes anything in the eyes of the police/public. Unless the bodycam footage shows Smith attempting to submit to the police & allow them to disarm them safely, he's got no justification.
My point in showing his brother holding his own CCL was because you seemed somewhat incredulous when I first said that Smith had one. The goal being simply to prove to you that Smith and his brother BOTH had a CCL because neither were felons and they lived in a violent, crime-ridden neighborhood.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
How do those two statements conflict?
Surely you see the difference between actually pointing a firearm at a police officer and having a weapon in your hand NOT pointed at the officer and either A) refusing to put it down, or B) not putting it down in the millisecond the officer gave you to comply before shooting you?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I don't blindly accept the word of the police - you should know that by now. You also shouldn't blindly accept the words of Smith's family.
There's no need to blindly accept the word of Smith's mother in this instance. If he called her during the timeframe that this police encounter was occurring then the cellphone records will reflect that.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
He probably shouldn't have run from the police then, right?
I don't really know why he ran. What I do know is that he didn't appear to have any outstanding warrants. And if there was anything illegal in the car the Milwaukee PD would surely be trumpeting that in the media. At this point we have the claim by the Milwaukee PD that Smith was in the possession of an illegal, stolen firearm. If we roll with that premise then perhaps he ran because he knew he couldn't produce registration papers for it and figured the cop would insist upon searching the vehicle. Legally or not. And if we are skeptical of that claim then perhaps Smith ran because this particular cop had a history of harassing him or because he didn't want to end up in jail again for months on charges that were eventually dismissed?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
There's rioting in the streets because a man got killed by the police. You think releasing video footage of that killing would do anything to help the situation in Milwaukee right now? The DA's office needs to have a chance to review the footage as part of their investigation before it gets released to the public. If 6 months go by and we don't see it, yeah I'm with you. But right now it's barely been a week.
Absolutely I do. But I don't buy the "investigation" excuse. Because if that's the case then it should apply across the board. But the police will release whatever information they choose to when it serves their interests. And sit on information when it doesn't. Because again at this point all we have is a CLAIM by the police that Smith was in possession of an illegal weapon.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
So a man with an illegal gun was running from the police, and you think somehow the CCL applies here? It does not.
Why are you so obsessed with the CCL? The point you are replying to made no mention of that. What I said was that the streets were hot because word had spread that he was shot in the back while fleeing. And there are people ... myself included ... who have a problem with cops shooting fleeing suspects in the back.
I read it just fine. The allegation was that Smith shot AT someone and that person recanted.
After Smith was recorded instructing his girlfriend to coerce that person.
As for why Smith needed a CCL it was because of what I quoted from the article above ...
Smith was a repeated victim of violent crime. And that is why he got himself a CCL.
He could get a CCL, but he was unable to buy a legal firearm to use it with?
You will get no argument from me on this point.
So we can agree the CCL was irrelevant as the gun he possessed at the time of his death was neither legal nor concealed.
Again Smith was not charged with shooting someone. And the only arrest not mentioned in that article was the most recent one from July 22.
Right, an arrest for possession of cocaine. How many people do you know that have multiple hard drug arrests (weed notwithstanding) that are otherwise upstanding citizens trying to make a living? Usually, where you find such drugs you find other crimes such as illegal weapons (sound familiar?), gang ties, thefts, robberies....wait - aren't all those things on Smith's arrest record save the gang ties?
The bottom line is that I don't trust the police as far as I can throw them in situations like this. So you'll have to forgive me if I need to see actual video footage of this and not simply take their word for it.
I do not need to forgive you, as I highly respect your position here & you have no need to apologize for it. I am less skeptical of this situation than many others, though believe me I will want to see the video too before I am satisfied. In the meantime, the rioting is/was hurting good people in Milwaukee.
My point in showing his brother holding his own CCL was because you seemed somewhat incredulous when I first said that Smith had one. The goal being simply to prove to you that Smith and his brother BOTH had a CCL because neither were felons and they lived in a violent, crime-ridden neighborhood.
I was incredulous because you don't find many CCL's carrying stolen firearms. If you can get a CCL, you should have no problem buying a gun from a dealer to use with that CCL. The primary reason to get an illegal gun when you're otherwise eligible is to prevent the gun from being traced back to you. Black market guns are often times more expensive than legit dealer guns.
I am a huge champion of gun-rights, especially for the underprivileged in high crime areas where the need to defend one's self and one's family is most likely to be realized. Abuse of a CCL lends fuel to those who wish to disarm all of us, leaving only the elites & government with access to guns. I find that to offensive in it's own right, especially to those all around Smith who responsibly carry day-in and day-out without most people even realizing.
Surely you see the difference between actually pointing a firearm at a police officer and having a weapon in your hand NOT pointed at the officer and either A) refusing to put it down, or B) not putting it down in the millisecond the officer gave you to comply before shooting you?
Surely you understand that there's a difference between doing so while submitting to the police & running from them, right? If he had intended to cooperate, he would have cooperated. Running from the police is a pretty big indicator that Smith did not intend to cooperate, in which case the precise positioning of the firearms itself is largely irrelevant. Had he intended to submit after/during trying to flee, he never would have brought the gun out and let the cops disarm him. That he was shot at least twice in the front also leads me to believe that he was no longer running, but instead turned to face the police with a gun in his hand. I'm sorry, OAW, but it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion that Smith intended to comply with the police given this information, and equally as unreasonable to put the cops life on the line waiting to see if a fleeing, armed individual with a gun in his hand would be doing so for any other reason than to shoot. Had he intended to submit, he would have thrown the gun while running, not turned around with it in his hand.
There's no need to blindly accept the word of Smith's mother in this instance. If he called her during the timeframe that this police encounter was occurring then the cellphone records will reflect that.
We will have to wait and see.
I don't really know why he ran. What I do know is that he didn't appear to have any outstanding warrants. And if there was anything illegal in the car the Milwaukee PD would surely be trumpeting that in the media.
Uh, how about the illegal gun in his possession?
At this point we have the claim by the Milwaukee PD that Smith was in the possession of an illegal, stolen firearm. If we roll with that premise then perhaps he ran because he knew he couldn't produce registration papers for it and figured the cop would insist upon searching the vehicle. Legally or not. And if we are skeptical of that claim then perhaps Smith ran because this particular cop had a history of harassing him or because he didn't want to end up in jail again for months on charges that were eventually dismissed?
It doesn't really matter why he ran. He shouldn't have run.
I think the charges for the stolen gun would have stuck, and Smith knew it. So he ran, but not fast enough. Why didn't he drop the gun while running? Many times fleeing suspects will try to get juuuust far enough away to ditch a gun or drugs. In this case, Smith did not ditch the gun and turned to confront the cop.
Absolutely I do. But I don't buy the "investigation" excuse. Because if that's the case then it should apply across the board. But the police will release whatever information they choose to when it serves their interests. And sit on information when it doesn't. Because again at this point all we have is a CLAIM by the police that Smith was in possession of an illegal weapon.
I think the police not wanting to incite further rioting is a valid, appropriate interest for keeping the neighborhoods safe. Far more lives were altered/harmed in the rioting, including business owners and residents of the rioting neighborhoods. Can you not acknowledge that preventing further harm to innocent people should be the police's #1 priority?
Why are you so obsessed with the CCL? The point you are replying to made no mention of that. What I said was that the streets were hot because word had spread that he was shot in the back while fleeing. And there are people ... myself included ... who have a problem with cops shooting fleeing suspects in the back.
Smith was shot twice in the front (chest & arm). Where did you get the idea that he was shot in the back from?? Another unsubstantiated claim from his family? Your outrage & skepticism is paranoid. I can understand this, but it is my duty to, to the best of our ability, separate the facts from emotion-driven rumors. I understand that we do not have all the facts yet, but the ones we do certainly point to a particular scenario I've outlined for you. Should we get evidence (and not rumors) that indicates otherwise, you know me well enough to know that my opinion can and will change to reflect the new information. In the meantime, Milkwaukee's streets have burned and even more innocent people from the affected areas are losing parts or all of their livelihood. Distrusting the police with a healthy, academic skepticism, IMO, is a good thing. That doesn't mean that we should hold other assumptions to be true in it's place, however (i.e. the idea that Smith, given what we know, was anything but a criminal who posed a very real and very dangerous threat to his neighborhood and specifically to the life of an officer). I've held that we need to support the good cops, and crucify the bad ones. Right now, there's nothing to suggest this officer is a bad one aside Smith's family's (understandably) emotional assertations in the immediate aftermath of his killing.
You brought up the CCL - I at first did not believe that someone who took the time and trouble to obtain a CCL would be carrying a stolen weapon & running from the police. You were right, but that CCL still has no relevance to this situation. You've agreed (at least in part) that the CCL is irrelevent:
#1 The gun was illegal
#2 Smith was fleeing from the police
#3 The gun was not concealed as the permit requires during Smith's death.
I'm good with moving on from the CCL if you are.
He could get a CCL, but he was unable to buy a legal firearm to use it with?
This is odd. And after you made an earlier point I looked into it and it does appear that it's usually less expensive to buy a quality firearm legally ... whereas it's cheaper to buy a low quality firearm on the streets. Perhaps it was given to him for free?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
So we can agree the CCL was irrelevant as the gun he possessed at the time of his death was neither legal nor concealed.
Once I see evidence of this then absolutely.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I do not need to forgive you, as I highly respect your position here & you have no need to apologize for it. I am less skeptical of this situation than many others, though believe me I will want to see the video too before I am satisfied. In the meantime, the rioting is/was hurting good people in Milwaukee.
Agreed!
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I was incredulous because you don't find many CCL's carrying stolen firearms. If you can get a CCL, you should have no problem buying a gun from a dealer to use with that CCL. The primary reason to get an illegal gun when you're otherwise eligible is to prevent the gun from being traced back to you. Black market guns are often times more expensive than legit dealer guns.
You make a good point here. That being said this guy was known in the neighborhood for being a hip hop dancer and "ladies man". Father of a two year old. Well liked by the people in the community. From everything I read he wasn't known for being a dealer or a banger. That being said, in poverty stricken neighborhoods like this the underground economy is often the #1 employer. Especially in light of BS like this ...
Sheds a whole new light on the multiple traffic violations including driving on a suspended license huh?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Surely you understand that there's a difference between doing so while submitting to the police & running from them, right? If he had intended to cooperate, he would have cooperated. Running from the police is a pretty big indicator that Smith did not intend to cooperate, in which case the precise positioning of the firearms itself is largely irrelevant. Had he intended to submit after/during trying to flee, he never would have brought the gun out and let the cops disarm him.
Tell that to Philando Castile up there in Minnesota.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
That he was shot at least twice in the front also leads me to believe that he was no longer running, but instead turned to face the police with a gun in his hand. I'm sorry, OAW, but it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion that Smith intended to comply with the police given this information, and equally as unreasonable to put the cops life on the line waiting to see if a fleeing, armed individual with a gun in his hand would be doing so for any other reason than to shoot. Had he intended to submit, he would have thrown the gun while running, not turned around with it in his hand.
As I mentioned earlier ...
[Milwaukee Police Chief] Flynn said Smith was shot in the chest and arm, but he could not yet say if Smith also took a shot to the back.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I think the police not wanting to incite further rioting is a valid, appropriate interest for keeping the neighborhoods safe. Far more lives were altered/harmed in the rioting, including business owners and residents of the rioting neighborhoods. Can you not acknowledge that preventing further harm to innocent people should be the police's #1 priority?
Absolutely. But my point is that releasing this supposedly undeniable video evidence that Smith pointed a gun at the officer would go a long way towards that doing that. Sitting on the footage is what endangers the public.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Smith was shot twice in the front (chest & arm). Where did you get the idea that he was shot in the back from?? Another unsubstantiated claim from his family? Your outrage & skepticism is paranoid. I can understand this, but it is my duty to, to the best of our ability, separate the facts from emotion-driven rumors.
See the quote above where the police chief was asked directly and he could not rule out Smith being shot in the back as well. A fleeing suspect can be shot from behind and have an exit wound in the chest or arm that at first glance might appear like he was shot in the front. Or a fleeing suspect can be shot from behind and the impact spins him around so that subsequent shots enter from the front. I'm not saying Smith was actually shot in the back. What I'm saying is that the people on the streets were enraged because they thought he was shot in the back. And that is why if the police had incontrovertible video evidence that this was NOT the case then releasing it IMMEDIATELY would have gone a long way towards calming the situation. Cities don't go up in flames when it's obvious that the person killed by the police pointed a gun at them. Long-simmering powder kegs explode when people think an unarmed person is beaten with batons to within an inch of his life ... or a person is shot in the back while fleeing ... or a person is shot with his hands in the air.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Right now, there's nothing to suggest this officer is a bad one aside Smith's family's (understandably) emotional assertations in the immediate aftermath of his killing.
Actually there is more than the family. I posted an article that made it very clear that this officer had a very bad reputation in the community for being overly aggressive.
The system in question includes the constitution, which includes the bill of rights, which includes the second amendment. The "winning strategy" would have to account for being fired, account for being prosecuted, and account for sparking an armed citizenry to take justice into its own hands when necessary.
I dispute the connection between crime rates and police drawing on unarmed motorists or pedestrians. Also there are plenty of whites and hispanics and women in poor neighborhoods.
If it doesn't cure the condition, and it was never intended to cure it, then why stop on account of it not curing? If you have chronic pain that has no cure, don't you continue to use painkillers indefinitely, to treat the symptoms?
Sorry for yet another long delay!
My argument is of the three things a winning strategy should account for, termination (job), prosecution, termination (life), the first two mechanisms are broken, and hence there's no strategic gain in accounting for them.
The police didn't break these mechanisms, why should they pay the price?
If I blackmail someone into murdering someone else, I'm the one responsible, not them. I would argue if following the rules makes it likely to lose your job or your life, that is blackmail for all intents and purposes.
How often an officer draws will be strongly dependent on how scared they are of the person they've encountered. If women don't make them scared, they won't draw on women.
In the painkiller situation, the reason you stop taking it is because dealing with the pain is the better option than having the painkillers do something like melt a hole in your stomach due. Though not a painkiller, IIUC naproxen salts are like this. They do the job, but constant use will at some point cause more damage than its fixing
My argument is of the three things a winning strategy should account for, termination (job), prosecution, termination (life), the first two mechanisms are broken, and hence there's no strategic gain in accounting for them.
The police didn't break these mechanisms, why should they pay the price?
You said it yourself: it's the only way to make the "winning strategy" switch from pro-murder to anti-murder. If the other such mechanisms are broken, then that makes this last one MORE important to maintain, not less important.
All police have to do is stop murdering, and there won't be such a price. It's within their power.
If I blackmail someone into murdering someone else, I'm the one responsible, not them.
Both are. And the target of the murder has two paths to defend herself, either to identify and defeat you, or to make the blackmail-ee more afraid of her than he is of you. If that's the only kind of pressure that police deign to respond to (rather than the previously-mentioned trust, guilt, and shame), then they might as well have it balanced on both sides.
Edit: who is the blackmailer in your analogy? other cops?
How often an officer draws will be strongly dependent on how scared they are of the person they've encountered. If women don't make them scared, they won't draw on women.
Unacceptable. That dog won't hunt.
In the painkiller situation, the reason you stop taking it is because dealing with the pain is the better option than having the painkillers do something like melt a hole in your stomach due. Though not a painkiller, IIUC naproxen salts are like this. They do the job, but constant use will at some point cause more damage than its fixing
Cherry picking. Many drugs exist that are taken in perpetuity, to treat symptoms for which there is no cure. Like.... caffeine.
(
Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Aug 21, 2016 at 08:41 AM.
)
You said it yourself: it's the only way to make the "winning strategy" switch from pro-murder to anti-murder. If the other such mechanisms are broken, then that makes this last one MORE important to maintain, not less important.
All police have to do is stop murdering, and there won't be such a price. It's within their power.
Both are. And the target of the murder has two paths to defend herself, either to identify and defeat you, or to make the blackmail-ee more afraid of her than he is of you. If that's the only kind of pressure that police deign to respond to (rather than the previously-mentioned trust, guilt, and shame), then they might as well have it balanced on both sides.
Edit: who is the blackmailer in your analogy? other cops?
Unacceptable. That dog won't hunt.
Cherry picking. Many drugs exist that are taken in perpetuity, to treat symptoms for which there is no cure. Like.... caffeine.
An analogy requires cherry picking unless it is a perfect one, no? Does caffeine appropriately represent the strength of the medicine in question?
I need more to go on with the "unacceptable" statement. Is the accuracy of my statement in dispute? Honest question. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go.
In my analogy, the blackmailer is the system, which is so broken the police have created a counter-system. This counter-system wouldn't be able to support itself if it was solely meant to protect homicidal cops. It maintains itself because the non-homicidal cops receive protection from it.
My ultimate argument is fixing the system will cause less death and destruction than trying to patch over it with force of arms.
An analogy requires cherry picking unless it is a perfect one, no? Does caffeine appropriately represent the strength of the medicine in question?
If you're claiming that treating the symptoms is a bad decision, then only one counter-example is sufficient to disprove such a generalization. There are far more that one, of course.
I need more to go on with the "unacceptable" statement. Is the accuracy of my statement in dispute? Honest question. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go.
Being too lazy to control one's irrational prejudices is not an acceptable justification for murder, nor for defending murderers who wear the same uniform as you. If you think that a nebulous "fear" of a category of people is an acceptable reason to shoot a member of that group, then you will agree that a nebulous "fear" of police is an acceptable reason to shoot at any particular member of the police. You don't, do you?
In my analogy, the blackmailer is the system, which is so broken the police have created a counter-system. This counter-system wouldn't be able to support itself if it was solely meant to protect homicidal cops. It maintains itself because the non-homicidal cops receive protection from it.
And by defeating the protection granted by the immoral counter-system, we can defeat the immoral counter-system itself.
My ultimate argument is fixing the system will cause less death and destruction than trying to patch over it with force of arms.
I haven't heard any proposals about how to fix it. Do you have one?
I surmise that the main reason no proposals have been made to fix the system, is that the existing system is functional (it functions for non-black-male demographics). So those who have the power to replace the entire system (and btw who are those people?) don't see a point in doing so.
A North Carolina state trooper shot dead a deaf and mute man who was apparently trying to communicate using sign language after he was pulled over for a speeding violation.
Daniel Kevin Harris, 29, a father to a son, was killed just feet from his home in Charlotte by trooper Jermaine Saunders on Thursday evening.
Police say Saunders tried to pull Harris over for a speeding violation on Interstate 485 at around 6.15pm, but the driver led authorities on a brief pursuit before stopping.
Officials said that's when the driver got out of his car and an encounter took place between the driver and the trooper, causing a shot to be fired. Harris died at the scene.
But witnesses said Harris – who was unarmed – was shot ‘almost immediately’ after he exited his vehicle, WCNC reports.
My argument is of the three things a winning strategy should account for, termination (job), prosecution, termination (life), the first two mechanisms are broken, and hence there's no strategic gain in accounting for them.
The police didn't break these mechanisms, why should they pay the price?
Side note, and I apologize for jumping in with a comment, but between police unions and the thin blue line, police have absolutely contributed to the breaking of the mechanisms.
Yet another black male who was shot on sight for simply having a gun in his hand.
Few cases typify everything that is wrong with gun rights, police brutality and racial profiling like this one.
Early Tuesday in Indianapolis, an African-American woman was being carjacked in front of her home in her working class neighborhood. She ran back in the house, told her husband, who is also black, and they called the police to report the robbery. That seemed to be the right and safe thing to do.
As the police pulled up, the husband, who was later identified as 48-year-old Carl Williams, opened the garage to their home and was immediately shot in the gut by police.
They claim they believed he was the robber and that because he had a firearm of his own, he was shot in self-defense. Officials identified the officer who shot Williams as nine-year veteran cop Christopher Mills.
He, of course, was not the robber. In fact, police have yet to even say if they caught the robber. Since they dusted the car for fingerprints, it appears that the actual man committing a crime got away and the man who wanted to protect his wife and family was instead shot and currently fighting for his own life in the hospital.
"I think that's really crazy. What do we have, trigger-happy police officers out here now?" asked Angela Parrot, who lives in the neighborhood told the Indy Star.
Speaking to the Daily News, several reporters and neighbors all confirmed that the husband who was shot was black, but said that they do not yet know the ethnicity of the officer who shot him.
Whatever the case, the violent encounter should help illuminate the very real fears so many black families have when calling the police. This family needed help. They wanted to report a crime in their neighborhood. The husband wanted to protect his wife. These are all very basic rights we have, but day after day we see that gun rights don't really apply equally to African-Americans.
Merely reaching for his wallet got Philando Castile shot and killed in his own car. Having a gun in his pocket caused police to shoot Alton Sterling repeatedly in his back and chest.
Now this.
We do not yet know the extent of this man's injuries, but a bullet to the mid-section can wreak havoc. Yet again, without fully understanding the facts of what they were seeing, American police fired upon a man unjustly. It's just not right.
Some of you guys might have thought I wasn't serious as a heart attack when I said that African-Americans have to think long and hard before calling the police. And this exemplifies why.
I meant "concealed" carry... I was drunk when I wrote that.
Also, AFAIK everybody is allowed to carry on their own property.
It should also be noted that a car matching the description of the car which was jacked was in the driveway. I have to either take a swipe at King for doing so little research he was unaware, or take a swipe at him for knowing and intentionally rejecting evidence which makes the mistake appear more understandable.
Top