Ex-Navy LAPD Officer Wages Guerilla War Against Former Employers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

TechNoFear:
So when a firearm owner goes on a shooting spree I can hold ALL firearm owners accountable?

LAPD =/= The Nation's Police Force

I know a few officers in the town I live in who are not trigger happy, barely trained, monkeys. In fact, most of the one's here, aren't. Are there good men in the LAPD? Of course, LA is a massive city the entire PD isn't just a bunch of Ralph Wiggums running around lighting up anyone in a blue-ish vehicle. But when you have "Protect and Serve" painted on the side of your vehicle, the whole DEPARTMENT is responsible for backing that up. It's a team effort, not an individual effort.

Speaking of which...

A few minutes later, a truck slowly rolled down the quiet residential street.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

Source

The Forces of Chaos:

As for hollywood they did a film like this. Law Abiding Citizen (had a rubbish ending though).

How dare you? I thought the ending was quite great, what with the turning of tables and Fox's character progression. :)

LetalisK:

The Forces of Chaos:

As for hollywood they did a film like this. Law Abiding Citizen (had a rubbish ending though).

How dare you? I thought the ending was quite great, what with the turning of tables and Fox's character progression. :)

It was convoluted. You know...the chick just happened to have a boyfriend with the exact information that was needed to foil Clyde; and the guy acquired that information completely independently, because he just happened to work for a company that did the real estate transactions. What an amazing coincidence. That totally wasn't in the script just because the good guy had to win.

The mos interesting thing about this case is the fact that there are so many opportunities for the narrative to be distracted. Some of those who agree with and support Dorner's campaign, they all too easily forget the fact that he's killed innocent people who only had a tangential relationship to his grievances. Then, for those who not only realize that but are horrified by it too, it is easy for them to forget that at least some of these grievances seem to be legitimate.

Dorner is a rogue crazy whose day of ruin will come and shortly too. What we have to ask ourselves is that when that day comes, do we close the book on this story?

Dear Lord, I hope not. Because the fact remains that the Police have TWICE (so far) opened fire on civilians who were no threat to them; whom they had not even bothered to identify or even attempt to secure. That they had managed to riddle these targets with bullets and NOT score a kill (while fortunate for the civilians involved) denotes some pretty shoddy marksmanship as well.

That these officers have not been (to my knowledge) immediately fired for gross incompetence suggests that their departments are more than okay with having such caliber officers on their force. That when you call for help: THESE are the kind of men and women you can expect to show up. I don't know about the rest of you, but that fails to inspire confidence in me.

To think that LA is rife with gangs and other petty criminals but one loner with a couple of rifles has them so rattled that they jump at their own shadows does not speak well for the LAPD and adjacent departments. Is this the Los Angeles Police Department we want? Should the conduct of those we hire to enforce our laws not be held to a higher standard?

People like Dorner come and go, but the Police Department is an establishment. Getting rid of Dorner is easy, getting rid of the corruption and incompetence of these Keystone Departments is another story.

I'm just glad they aren't the only ones allowed to have guns.

Food for though when those bystanders sue the LAPD for filling their cars with holes it's the taxpayers that will pay the bill.

It's unlikely those officers will spend a day behind bars.

It's possible that even if by some miracle they are kicked off the force, they would likely be able to find employment elsewhere in security.

The Forces of Chaos:
Looks like there may be more to this.

Russia Today however is known for messing things up, especially when it comes to subjects regarding the United States. Let's just say their journalistic standards aren't very high. I'd be cautious with what they report, because I think they may have an anti-American bias going on.

Aerodyamic:
Does no one think it's a little unusual that the police appear to have used upwards of 20 rounds on the vehicle they misidentified as the suspects?

Thanks to the tireless work of the gun lobby, every suspect is ussually armed with a lot of firepower, or at least it's not an irrational assumption to think they will be.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that police, who are being murdered by firearms owners at a rate of about one each week on a good year, get a little nervous.

That doesn't justify the way they opened fire in any way, but it does explain it.

senordesol:
That these officers have not been (to my knowledge) immediately fired for gross incompetence suggests that their departments are more than okay with having such caliber officers on their force. That when you call for help: THESE are the kind of men and women you can expect to show up. I don't know about the rest of you, but that fails to inspire confidence in me.

Look at it this way: Despite shitty conditions and the government letting them get shot at and not giving a single fuck about gun legislation to stop that, despite being pretty certainly getting constant verbal abuse, danger, stress and what not, they're still working to try and keep order, for a salary that's really low for what they do.

Whatever they may screw up, police officers are still doing a job. One or two bad apples, whose improper conduct can even be explained by circumstances, shouldn't spoil the bunch.

Most of what they need to do should consist of bumping up the fitness standards, and better training in regards to handling their own responses. Most US police misconduct I've seen documented were officers who clearly hadn't been trained in how to estimate situations with agression in them, or were completely not up to the task, ussually because like the average American, they were heavily overweight.

And the blame for that rests with the government, and therefore indirectly with the American people who, evidently, aren't willing to afford police the training they need.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys, you know?

Blablahb:

senordesol:
That these officers have not been (to my knowledge) immediately fired for gross incompetence suggests that their departments are more than okay with having such caliber officers on their force. That when you call for help: THESE are the kind of men and women you can expect to show up. I don't know about the rest of you, but that fails to inspire confidence in me.

Look at it this way: Despite shitty conditions and the government letting them get shot at and not giving a single fuck about gun legislation to stop that, despite being pretty certainly getting constant verbal abuse, danger, stress and what not, they're still working to try and keep order, for a salary that's really low for what they do.

Whatever they may screw up, police officers are still doing a job. One or two bad apples, whose improper conduct can even be explained by circumstances, shouldn't spoil the bunch.

Most of what they need to do should consist of bumping up the fitness standards, and better training in regards to handling their own responses. Most US police misconduct I've seen documented were officers who clearly hadn't been trained in how to estimate situations with agression in them, or were completely not up to the task, ussually because like the average American, they were heavily overweight.

And the blame for that rests with the government, and therefore indirectly with the American people who, evidently, aren't willing to afford police the training they need.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys, you know?

One or two bad apples deliberately left in the bunch DO spoil the bunch. They FIRED on civilians, they didn't have a clear target, and they couldn't even hit what they were shooting at. That's reason enough to get rid of them.

Now you can make all the arguments you like about how much funding the police force should be getting (side note: California has the HIGHEST State Income Tax, and the HIGHEST Sales Tax in the nation), but the fact is you cannot allow people like that to remain in the department. (Further, I would argue that the cost of training these keystone cops properly would have probably cost a hell of a lot less than the lawsuit the city's going to be slapped with).

Should there be a joint-community cooperative to assist police forces and report the scum that the neighbors must surely know walk among them? Absolutely. But if there are 'monkeys', as you put it, on the police force; then the cages need to be cleaned.

Blablahb:
Thanks to the tireless work of the gun lobby, every suspect is usually armed with a lot of firepower, or at least it's not an irrational assumption to think they will be.

You're assuming the entire US is like Arizona when it comes to gun laws.

California has some of the tightest gun control in the nation next to New York and Illinois, you will be hard pressed to find law abiding citizens who legally carry guns.

And the only people in Southern California who have concealed weapon permits? Are the politicians and the celebrities of the area. Commoners such as myself are allowed no such abilities. So unless you're among the elite in California, no gun for you.

Smagmuck_:
California has some of the tightest gun control in the nation next to New York and Illinois, you will be hard pressed to find law abiding citizens who legally carry guns.

You act though like tight gun laws in one state mean anything when surrounding states have lax laws, and make it easy to simply move guns illegally. This is something I don't understand about the crowd that says 'gun laws don't prevent gun violence'. They completely ignore that unless you have homogenous laws across the board, yea, its not going to be all that effective. If everything east of the Mississippi had the same gun control laws, say, on par with Hawaii's laws, do you really think places like D.C. and Baltimore would have the same level of gun violence?

Ugh, why are we talking about Gun Control when both parties involved are unaffected by it (Donner using military hardware he stole and the LAPD being given guns)? And why in the blue hell would anyone try and debate Blab about it considering how utterly irrational he is on the topic? It's like arguing with a brick wall, except you would make more progress with a brick wall and it'd be much less frustrating.

Shaoken:
Ugh, why are we talking about Gun Control when both parties involved are unaffected by it (Donner using military hardware he stole and the LAPD being given guns)? And why in the blue hell would anyone try and debate Blab about it considering how utterly irrational he is on the topic? It's like arguing with a brick wall, except you would make more progress with a brick wall and it'd be much less frustrating.

Another nut with a gun, so people make the connection to gun control. Frankly I'm more worried about the people in this thread that aren't condemning this guy. Even if his allegations are true, even if the LAPD in its entirety is corrupt, the solution isn't 'kill cops'.

That's insane. People need to stop living in fantasy land. Blow the whistle, get the feds involved, go to the media. Those are all appropriate responses. Picking up a gun and dealing out your own version of justice only undermines your own cause. It also undermines the democratic rule of law.

edit: Found this in a CNN opinion piece. The topic of the piece deals with Iran and religion, but I think that this sentiment can be applied to most causes, not just religion. And is especially applicable here.

In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, courageously declared, "Religion is worth the name only so long as it is in consonance with reason. If it fails to satisfy that requisite, if it has to make up for its weakness in argument by handling the sword, it needs no other argument for its falsification. The sword it wields cuts its own throat before reaching others."

a mission based mass murderer out to avenge his perceived persecution by the world and has the training and knowledge of police proceedure and guerilla warfare to evade capture for days.

what concerns me is how long he has been planning this and what continencies hes put in place whether arms caches or explosives.

hopefully but unlikely he will be captured and put on trail for his crimes

Jux:
You act though like tight gun laws in one state mean anything when surrounding states have lax laws, and make it easy to simply move guns illegally.

Which is true, even on a national level here in the US since we live north of a country that's going through some very violent times. One of the Cartel's main businesses is smuggling arms to gangs in the US. So we could have tight gun control across the country and yet places with gangs would still have gun crime.

So until Mexico sorts itself out, if it sorts itself out, Gun Control, at least in bordering states is going to be very ineffective.

Smagmuck_:

TechNoFear:
So when a firearm owner goes on a shooting spree I can hold ALL firearm owners accountable?

LAPD =/= The Nation's Police Force

Irrelevant, you hypocritically condem the entire LAPD for the actions of the few, while shouting that firearm owners should not be blamed when a legal firearm is used to kill / maim.

Smagmuck_:

Jux:
You act though like tight gun laws in one state mean anything when surrounding states have lax laws, and make it easy to simply move guns illegally.

Which is true, even on a national level here in the US since we live north of a country that's going through some very violent times. One of the Cartel's main businesses is smuggling arms to gangs in the US. So we could have tight gun control across the country and yet places with gangs would still have gun crime.

So until Mexico sorts itself out, if it sorts itself out, Gun Control, at least in bordering states is going to be very ineffective.

First, most of the guns coming across the border into the US are US made guns, as I understand it. Second, I think that being able to focus resources on the border states will help with that. Resources that could be freed up from across the nation if we had sensible gun control laws. Last, I don't know if you're making the argument that it isn't worth enacting gun control laws because border states are going to have a hard time of it, but if you are, that doesn't make much sense to me.

TechNoFear:
SNIP

Nope, I don't blame every Department in the nation for one's fuck ups.

Jux:
First, most of the guns coming across the border into the US are US made guns, as I understand it.

That's only partially true. The Guns coming from the US into Mexico are sold to the Mexican Gov't, and when Mexican soldiers defect, they take their arms, and other things, with them. This is how the majority of US made firearms are gotten by Cartels.

Second, I think that being able to focus resources on the border states will help with that. Resources that could be freed up from across the nation if we had sensible gun control laws.

We're having a hard time with resources as it is. And tighter border control is not very popular.

Last, I don't know if you're making the argument that it isn't worth enacting gun control laws because border states are going to have a hard time of it, but if you are, that doesn't make much sense to me.

How does it not make much sense?

Smagmuck_:
That's only partially true. The Guns coming from the US into Mexico are sold to the Mexican Gov't, and when Mexican soldiers defect, they take their arms, and other things, with them. This is how the majority of US made firearms are gotten by Cartels.

That seems unlikely, as that would mean they'll always have fewer guns than people. Buying guns in the US and taking them across the border however should be a simple affair.

There was a large case that seems to contradict that too:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-06/justice/mexico.u.s..citizen.detained_1_mexican-attorney-grenade-mexican-federal-police?_s=PM:CRIME
192 grenadees...

And more:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-23-gun-smuggling_N.htm

With 77 rifles in circulation at the given time of arrest, and one suspect charged with purchasing 339 weapons for the cartels by herself (this could be stopped easily if the gun lobby get could its head out of its arse for a moment and making registration of guns compulsory), it's likely they channeled hundreds of legal firearms from the US into the hands of Mexican cartels.

Imagine there's a few of these smugglers active at any given time, and there will be, you're already talking about tens of thousands of weapons each year. That's all you need to fuel a drug war in Mexico really. It seems the US legal weapons market is the main sources of weapons for the Mexican drug wars.

It's mainly the extremely heavy military weapons that aren't from the US, because they're not available even there. But if you want an answer to the question where 'the guns' are coming from, then the answer is they're coming from the US' legal weapons market.

The US government reports 87% of the firearms seized from cartels were traced to the United States' legal gun market.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-709

Some criticised that figure as being only the amount of guns submitted to the ATF for tracing, and not the total number, but there is no reason to suspect guns not submitted or not traced, are necessarily always from other sources.

Blablahb:

Smagmuck_:
That's only partially true. The Guns coming from the US into Mexico are sold to the Mexican Gov't, and when Mexican soldiers defect, they take their arms, and other things, with them. This is how the majority of US made firearms are gotten by Cartels.

That seems unlikely, as that would mean they'll always have fewer guns than people. Buying guns in the US and taking them across the border however should be a simple affair.

There was a large case that seems to contradict that too:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-06/justice/mexico.u.s..citizen.detained_1_mexican-attorney-grenade-mexican-federal-police?_s=PM:CRIME
192 grenadees...

And more:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-23-gun-smuggling_N.htm

With 77 rifles in circulation at the given time of arrest, and one suspect charged with purchasing 339 weapons for the cartels by herself (this could be stopped easily if the gun lobby get could its head out of its arse for a moment and making registration of guns compulsory), it's likely they channeled hundreds of legal firearms from the US into the hands of Mexican cartels.

Imagine there's a few of these smugglers active at any given time, and there will be, you're already talking about tens of thousands of weapons each year. That's all you need to fuel a drug war in Mexico really. It seems the US legal weapons market is the main sources of weapons for the Mexican drug wars.

It's mainly the extremely heavy military weapons that aren't from the US, because they're not available even there. But if you want an answer to the question where 'the guns' are coming from, then the answer is they're coming from the US' legal weapons market.

The US government reports 87% of the firearms seized from cartels were traced to the United States' legal gun market.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-709

Some criticised that figure as being only the amount of guns submitted to the ATF for tracing, and not the total number, but there is no reason to suspect guns not submitted or not traced, are necessarily always from other sources.

Blablahb, I regret to inform you that my own government is involved with the gun smuggling in Mexico, it's called "Operation Fast & Furious". We are also actively aiding the Sinaloa cartel. There is a similar action going on in Honduras called "Operation Castaway". Please do your own research.

We had a gun smuggling operation going on in Libya and Syria. We are actively arming the failing Egyptian Government.

I have to supplement that story with the counter claim to the GAO report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

Smagmuck_:
We're having a hard time with resources as it is. And tighter border control is not very popular.

So focus those resources in a smaller area. And give the ATF the budget and personnel it needs to do its job. Unpopular with who?

Smagmuck_:

Last, I don't know if you're making the argument that it isn't worth enacting gun control laws because border states are going to have a hard time of it, but if you are, that doesn't make much sense to me.

How does it not make much sense?

Because as it is now, the country as a whole is having a hard time. Why not try to minimize that? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

aelreth:
Blablahb, I regret to inform you that my own government is involved with the gun smuggling in Mexico, it's called "Operation Fast & Furious". We are also actively aiding the Sinaloa cartel. There is a similar action going on in Honduras called "Operation Castaway". Please do your own research.

I'm quite familiar with that, and much more importantly, I'm also aware that it's bullshit. It's gun lobby blamegaming towards the ATF, who try to stop the gun trade towards Mexican cartels.

Of course the gun lobby that makes bloodmoney from that trade is going to complain about such operations and rile the conservative propaganda lobby, what else would you expect?

And I'll believe an official report over the latest lies by Fox News, thank you.

Jux:
So focus those resources in a smaller area. And give the ATF the budget and personnel it needs to do its job. Unpopular with who?

The gun lobby makes billions selling guns destined for Mexican cartels. They certainly won't like it if border security or sales restrictions were made. We're talking about thousands and thousands of weapons each year.

The funny thing about this, in the local media in California, a lawyer has bought ad space during and after the news (who is fixated on Dorner) claiming he fights corruption and helps people who have lost their jobs due to corruption.

If I catch his ad again, i'll be sure to post it.

And as an update, the LAPD have basically lost his trail now. They are now trying to plead him out using a promise to re-open his case.

The LAPD are out classed at this point. As an ex-cop has already said, the navy seals are far above what LAPD can muster.

Ultratwinkie:
As an ex-cop has already said, the navy seals are far above what LAPD can muster.

Er, yes, they sorta are, but what's that got to do with it?

thaluikhain:

Ultratwinkie:
As an ex-cop has already said, the navy seals are far above what LAPD can muster.

Er, yes, they sorta are, but what's that got to do with it?

The training? That's part of the reason the LAPD lost his trail. They expect the same mentality as a panicked gang bangers or regular criminal. Dorner is neither.

The LAPD are basically under siege right now. Scared of their own shadows. While they are sitting scared in their buildings, they are leaving the city and its county vulnerable.

Dorner doesn't even have to do anything anymore, the LAPD are so scared they are doing most of the damage to themselves.

Ultratwinkie:
The LAPD are basically under siege right now. Scared of their own shadows. While they are sitting scared in their buildings

All reports are saying they've locked down the area where he went, with helicopters with infrared cameras to ensure he's nowhere outside, and police systematically searching all cabins in the area.

Also nothing seems to describe him as being a navy seal. It all says he's a navy reservist who got sent to Bahrein once, which is hardly a warzone. Plus the description released of him states a height and weight (120 kg by 1,80) that makes him clinically obese. At a young age you can compensate some of that by working out, but it's never good for one's physical condition. He wouldn't be able to survive being outside in the winter, because that requires a level of strain and activity no obese person can sustain.

Mr.Mattress:
And Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, Charlie Sheen! ... Is gonna try to be our Negotiator with the criminal... I wish I were making this up...

What on earth could he have against Anthony Bourdain by the way? Did Bourdain insult his favourite recipe on television or something? No Reservations was awesome for a culinairy show.

Blablahb:

Mr.Mattress:
And Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, Charlie Sheen! ... Is gonna try to be our Negotiator with the criminal... I wish I were making this up...

What on earth could he have against Anthony Bourdain by the way? Did Bourdain insult his favourite recipe on television or something? No Reservations was awesome for a culinairy show.

According to the link, he has quite a positive view of Mr. Bourdain, which is more than I can say for a number of restaurateurs...

Shaoken:
Ugh, why are we talking about Gun Control when both parties involved are unaffected by it (Donner using military hardware he stole and the LAPD being given guns)? And why in the blue hell would anyone try and debate Blab about it considering how utterly irrational he is on the topic? It's like arguing with a brick wall, except you would make more progress with a brick wall and it'd be much less frustrating.

Because one of our lovely R&P members just won't shut up about it and derails every topic into the same issue.

..And because there isn't much to say here, really. The man is a nutjob and isn't 'ethical' in the least bit of sense. You can't 'fight the good fight' by murdering peoples families.

Edit: Unless it's a war, but then it isn't considered 'okey' as much as 'inevitable civilian casualties'.

Blablahb:

Ultratwinkie:
The LAPD are basically under siege right now. Scared of their own shadows. While they are sitting scared in their buildings

All reports are saying they've locked down the area where he went, with helicopters with infrared cameras to ensure he's nowhere outside, and police systematically searching all cabins in the area.

Also nothing seems to describe him as being a navy seal. It all says he's a navy reservist who got sent to Bahrein once, which is hardly a warzone. Plus the description released of him states a height and weight (120 kg by 1,80) that makes him clinically obese. At a young age you can compensate some of that by working out, but it's never good for one's physical condition. He wouldn't be able to survive being outside in the winter, because that requires a level of strain and activity no obese person can sustain.

Actually they have a bunch of officers at the LAPD's HQ, have checkpoints everywhere, and even went as far as shut down schools.

Anything Dorner references seems to get shut down. The LAPD refuses to lift their "tactical alert" along as Dorner is out there because they think he will strike again. So basically, they are sitting scared. They even brought out the riot gear and the automatic rifles they keep around since the Hollywood shooting.

And if Dorner isn't caught, they will have to explain how the LA's "finest" can't catch a single man and have just delayed not just motorists but school children.

They even said it themselves that the LAPD is already diverting resources from normal day to day crimes.

If he isn't caught, they will be humiliated. All that effort and they would have nothing to show for it.

besides weight and height mean nothing if we don't know how much muscle he has. A California winter isn't very cold either. We hover around the 50-60F, that's what we consider cold.

It isn't the winter, its the summer people have to worry about. With common temperatures being from 90-110F.

Jux:

Smagmuck_:
We're having a hard time with resources as it is. And tighter border control is not very popular.

So focus those resources in a smaller area. And give the ATF the budget and personnel it needs to do its job. Unpopular with who?

Smagmuck_:

Last, I don't know if you're making the argument that it isn't worth enacting gun control laws because border states are going to have a hard time of it, but if you are, that doesn't make much sense to me.

How does it not make much sense?

Because as it is now, the country as a whole is having a hard time. Why not try to minimize that? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Latinos mostly. Any effort to tighten the border will mean less illegal immigrants. While they are not the majority, they hold a significant voting bloc (that gets stronger with every generation) so that (most rational) politicians are hesitant to do anything to tick them off.

Also, we cant minimize it, not now at least. Any effort to directly attack gun ownership will make the crime situation significantly worse without tackling the underlining reasons of why guns are used. But we cant attack those underlining reasons because it would either make our wars look like a speed bump when it comes to cost (with resources that we dont have anymore), it would be heavily resisted by various communities and you wont get any kind of significant traction politically, or it is just impossible without some very extreme and morally questionable tactics.

It is an extremely unrealistic goal at this point and irresponsible to tackle it when there are problems just as significant that we CAN solve right now. Especially since crime has been going DOWN for over 50 years, so it is not actually a problem. It is just getting a lot of limelight lately, but statistically we are doing a hell of a lot better.

Our homicide rate has dropped by 50% since the 70's, so the problem is getting better on its own without any assistance as it is.

Ryotknife:
Latinos mostly. Any effort to tighten the border will mean less illegal immigrants. While they are not the majority, they hold a significant voting bloc (that gets stronger with every generation) so that (most rational) politicians are hesitant to do anything to tick them off.

Then overhaul the way immigration works too. Make the path to citizenship accessible. The whole point of border patrol isn't going to be stopping immigrants, that'll just be a by product.

Ryotknife:
Also, we cant minimize it, not now at least. Any effort to directly attack gun ownership will make the crime situation significantly worse without tackling the underlining reasons of why guns are used.

In what way do you think things will get worse? Is there evidence to support that?

Ryotknife:
But we cant attack those underlining reasons because it would either make our wars look like a speed bump when it comes to cost (with resources that we dont have anymore), it would be heavily resisted by various communities and you wont get any kind of significant traction politically, or it is just impossible without some very extreme and morally questionable tactics.

What do you feel the underlying reasons are, and why do you think think it would be resisted?

Ryotknife:
It is an extremely unrealistic goal at this point and irresponsible to tackle it when there are problems just as significant that we CAN solve right now. Especially since crime has been going DOWN for over 50 years, so it is not actually a problem. It is just getting a lot of limelight lately, but statistically we are doing a hell of a lot better.

Our homicide rate has dropped by 50% since the 70's, so the problem is getting better on its own without any assistance as it is.

What goals do you think are more important? And how do you feel that the costs of dealing with the underlying causes would be cost prohibitive if it is already in decline? Looking at the statistics, yes, it looks like we're doing better now than we were before, but how are we measuring up against the rest of the world, specifically other westernized countries?

Jux:

Ryotknife:
Latinos mostly. Any effort to tighten the border will mean less illegal immigrants. While they are not the majority, they hold a significant voting bloc (that gets stronger with every generation) so that (most rational) politicians are hesitant to do anything to tick them off.

Then overhaul the way immigration works too. Make the path to citizenship accessible. The whole point of border patrol isn't going to be stopping immigrants, that'll just be a by product.

That is a major task you are talking about (and one that does need to be addressed at some point), however even if it was there would still be limitations on how many people can immigrate to the US, and that number will be lower than what the latinos want. That is a major task ON TOP OF tightening the border, which is a colossal task by itself. We are talking about a heruclean effort here to get the full support of the american people, reform immigration, and tighten the border. With the way our government is being run these days? HA. Not to mention we as a people rarely agree on anything ever, unless we are attacked. So unless a large group of Cartel comes across the border and start targeting latinos in a brazen fashion (fat chance, US is their best customer), you dont have much chance of that happening.

In what way do you think things will get worse? Is there evidence to support that?

plenty of evidence inside the US. Look at the cities with the worst crime and where they tend to be. look how crime was affected when harsh gun control laws were implemented in the US.

Now, that is not to say that it cant work outside of the US (and there are many examples in which it does outside of the US). But in the US? no, every single piece of data shows that it does not work. In this particular instance we are unique from the world, and not in a good way. Guns are not the ideal answer, but it is (currently) the best one we have.

What do you feel the underlying reasons are, and why do you think think it would be resisted?

-having the most diverse population in the world
-horrible bereuacracy
-unideal population density
-Cartels
-geography
-undefendable borders
-sue happy culture
-police response times
-gun culture
-drugs/gangs
-"gangsta" culture
-economic impact

as for resisting. For example if we tried to work on police response time. Pretty important goal yes? Well, only way that is possible is to significantly increase the police force. Problem is there are communities who view the police as a racist establishment, and increasing their power is just a way to oppress the minorities. To be fair to those communities, they do get treated harsher by law enforcement, but a lot of gangs tend to be minorities which creates a sort of infinite loop of backlashes.

What goals do you think are more important? And how do you feel that the costs of dealing with the underlying causes would be cost prohibitive if it is already in decline? Looking at the statistics, yes, it looks like we're doing better now than we were before, but how are we measuring up against the rest of the world, specifically other westernized countries?

Education
economy
businesses/industry/infrastructure
medical system (inlcuding mental health)

take your pick.

As for comparing to the rest of the Western World, no offense to them but in this case they have it EXTREMELY easy compared to us. They are significantly more homogenous and dont have a bunch of countries that turn a blind eye to certain activities or cant do anything about them.

Sad to say, the safest places in the US tend to be the most homogenous.

Ryotknife:
That is a major task you are talking about (and one that does need to be addressed at some point), however even if it was there would still be limitations on how many people can immigrate to the US, and that number will be lower than what the latinos want. That is a major task ON TOP OF tightening the border, which is a colossal task by itself. We are talking about a heruclean effort here to get the full support of the american people, reform immigration, and tighten the border. With the way our government is being run these days? HA. Not to mention we as a people rarely agree on anything ever, unless we are attacked.

Perhaps, but even if you can't lose through inaction, you can't win either.

Ryotknife:
plenty of evidence inside the US. Look at the cities with the worst crime and where they tend to be. look how crime was affected when harsh gun control laws were implemented in the US.

Now, that is not to say that it cant work outside of the US (and there are many examples in which it does outside of the US). But in the US? no, every single piece of data shows that it does not work. In this particular instance we are unique from the world, and not in a good way. Guns are not the ideal answer, but it is (currently) the best one we have.

Have you considered that the spikes in crime after gun control measures were implemented are the result of a lack of homogenous gun control laws?

Ryotknife:

-having the most diverse population in the world
-horrible bereuacracy
-unideal population density
-Cartels
-geography
-undefendable borders
-sue happy culture
-police response times
-gun culture
-drugs/gangs
-"gangsta" culture
-economic impact

as for resisting. For example if we tried to work on police response time. Pretty important goal yes? Well, only way that is possible is to significantly increase the police force. Problem is there are communities who view the police as a racist establishment, and increasing their power is just a way to oppress the minorities. To be fair to those communities, they do get treated harsher by law enforcement, but a lot of gangs tend to be minorities which creates a sort of infinite loop of backlashes.

A solution to this could be hiring into the force from those communities. Alot of police are looked at as outsiders because they are literally outsiders. If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to work from the inside out.

Ryotknife:

Education
economy
businesses/industry/infrastructure
medical system (inlcuding mental health)

All worthy things to work on, but I see them as interconnected, not independent of each other. I think in tackling crime and education, and improving on those, the rest will follow.

Perhaps, but even if you can't lose through inaction, you can't win either.

Under most circumstances yes. But our government when it enacts knee jerks changes tends to make things worse. Look at the educational system. Its downfall was caused SOLELY by the government when it tried to enact change to make it better.

Was the old education system great? no, not really, but it worked. Now? It is a horrible broken shell of its former self, and worse the infection is now starting at the university level which was the one place we did pretty well at. So yes, government action can (and often does if recent events are any indication) makes things significantly worse. Hell, the new federal assault bill has all sorts of stupid thrown in. Our government likes to enact change for the sake of change, NOT to make a situation better.

It is also why im opposed to socialized medicine. I am not opposed to the CONCEPT, but im opposed to our government trying it because I know they will F it up royally and make things worse.

Have you considered that the spikes in crime after gun control measures were implemented are the result of a lack of homogenous gun control laws?

interesting theory, but no way to prove it (or disprove it)

A solution to this could be hiring into the force from those communities. Alot of police are looked at as outsiders because they are literally outsiders. If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to work from the inside out.

Minorities are in the police force, it is the institution itself the minorities do not trust. Not to mention you are talking about some serious Affirmative Action, which would open a whole new can of worms completely unrelated to any of the other can of worms previously open.

Ryotknife:

Education
economy
businesses/industry/infrastructure
medical system (inlcuding mental health)

All worthy things to work on, but I see them as interconnected, not independent of each other. I think in tackling crime and education, and improving on those, the rest will follow.

Cant tackle crime without resources. A strong economy will give people less incentive to commit crimes just to stay afloat and will give us more resources to throw at problems.

Education is pretty important, unfortunately the government is completely inept at it. We are far better off if the government stopped getting involved at this point and repealed all the changes it tried to make during the past decade, especially the No Child Goes Forward program. Course even if it did that chances are the damage is already done as it will not stop the reaction caused from that program.

We will still have to deal with the helicopter parents and a new generation of school administrators that either have no backbone or are political monsters that throw people under the bus to advance their own career.

Personally, I would like for the US to help Mexico crack down on the Cartels. We have a crapton of firepower, Mexican government has the lay of the land. Course this would require a full blown war against the Cartels, and those guys fight dirtier than terrorists.

Smagmuck_:

A few minutes later, a truck slowly rolled down the quiet residential street.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

Source

I made a post just recently about how cops are too jumpy and paranoid.

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked