User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/19/2003 10:01:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Why does every post about the police have to degenerate into this 'Cops are/aren't more special than the rest of us' thing???
As for 'should killing a cop be punished worse than killing someone else?', no - both should result in execution (and since you can't 'enhance' capital punishment, there'd be no need for special distinctions: commit murder, you die).... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2003 10:04:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Why does every post about the police have to degenerate into this 'Cops are/aren't more special than the rest of us' thing??? As for 'should killing a cop be punished worse than killing someone else?', no - both should result in execution (and since you can't 'enhance' capital punishment, there'd be no need for special distinctions: commit murder, you die).... Bingo ,we have a winner! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 1:29:41 AM EDT
[#3]
During the penalty portion of a murder trial, it is common for the prosecution to talk about the victims accomplishments. Father, business owner, little league coach, ect. So apparently the courts dont think everyones life is worth the same either. If they did they wouldnt allow that type of info to influence the jury.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 5:03:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Hmmm. Terribly close to contradicting your initial post. [blue][size=1]Somebody mention the blue wall approaching?[/size=1][/blue] Whats the matter ociffer no kids lemonade stands to bust tonight? LOL The blue wall, LOL Instead of making with the assinine quip, you might try explaining why he's wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:23:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hmmm. Terribly close to contradicting your initial post. [blue][size=1]Somebody mention the blue wall approaching?[/size=1][/blue] Whats the matter ociffer no kids lemonade stands to bust tonight? LOL The blue wall, LOL Instead of making with the assinine quip, you might try explaining why he's wrong. So when someone makes a comment about something really dumb a few cops did it's assinine,right? But everyone else [b]BUT[/b] cops are fair game when they do something dumb. Blue wall, LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:32:28 AM EDT
[#6]
It's a very simple concept.
Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:47:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Instead of making with the assinine quip, you might try explaining why he's wrong. So when someone makes a comment about something really dumb a few cops did it's assinine,right? But everyone else [b]BUT[/b] cops are fair game when they do something dumb. Blue wall, LOL What are you Smoking?...........Try to make sense not gibberish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:48:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute [red]crime of passion, lost control temp.[/red] 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. [red]wacko with a gun[/red] 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. [red]wacko with a gun and big balls[/red] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:54:51 AM EDT
[#9]
Exactly.
And that's why it's a more "serious" crime. Nothing more dangerous than a wacko with balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:55:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Exactly. And that's why it's a more "serious" crime. Nothing more dangerous than a wacko with balls. Or a couple of Jetliners |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 6:56:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Yes it is more serious than killing a humble citizen and is a crime against us all for [b]WE[/b] pay to train LEOs and [b]WE[/b] pay their salaries and they risk their lives to protect [b]US[/b].
I guess some of you guys feel that if someone kills someone you know or works for you, then you aren't a victim. Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 7:01:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: [size=5][green]Yes it's a lot more serious then killing a humble citizen,right?[/green][/size=5] Dang, jrzy. Don't you ever get tired of this stuff? Surely you must have something [u]positive[/u] to talk about every once and a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 7:19:33 AM EDT
[#13]
PINEBARON there are some good guys here but I would have to say the cops who are dickheads out number the good guys by far.
That's what happens when you have a state full of liberals that push the loss of rights at every turn,then the police who work under these neo nazi fucks in the state capitol serve by example and take the same posture. If you ask 1000 NJ cops if regular citizens should be allowed to carry guns you will get a big suprise, [b]NO![/b] will be the answer, even if you add in a training course to the question and tell the 1000 cops that the citizen will get 200 hours of training with the use and become an expert the answer is still no. Here in demo-liberal land most people don't believe in RKBA and that goes triple for cops here in jersey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 8:14:56 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: the cops who are dickheads out number the good guys by far. Didn't you just say a couple days ago that your good experiences BY FAR outnumber the bad? [:K], LOL CR |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 8:31:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: During the penalty portion of a murder trial, it is common for the prosecution to talk about the victims accomplishments. Father, business owner, little league coach, ect. So apparently the courts dont think everyones life is worth the same either. If they did they wouldnt allow that type of info to influence the jury. Which is yet one more demonstration, of how Perverted our criminal justice system is, if one life holds more value than another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 8:34:44 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. Obviously, #2 is the greater threat.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 8:38:01 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: the cops who are dickheads out number the good guys by far. Didn't you just say a couple days ago that your good experiences BY FAR outnumber the bad? [:K], LOL CR Is there something wrong with your ability to read and understand english? Yes I said that [b]my[/b] own persoanl experiences (with my friends) who are cops far out numbered the bad experiances [b]I[/b] had with LEO's. So how does [/b]my[/b] good experiences with [b]my[/b] friends translate into less dick head cops here in NJ? You should think about taking a remedial reading comprehension course or just , maybe you are the [:K] here,learn to understand what you read and you will be a happier person, (maybe) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:02:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. Obviously, #2 is the greater threat.... ...and you know that's not true. You're just being provocative. Or maybe it is your sincere belief? Please explain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:06:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Jrzy, I dopn't know what cops you are asking? As fart as I an many I know are concerned, citzens should carry. I am aganist the AWB, if you are responsible, who cares.
It seems that the higher a rank you get the more anti gun you get. I have seen guys climb up the ladder, and get real strange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:10:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. Obviously, #2 is the greater threat.... ...and you know that's not true. You're just being provocative. Or maybe it is your sincere belief? Please explain. #1) This person knows the wrongs this person committed against them, they are reacting to those "wrongs" -- whether real or imagined. #3) Is faced with a "group" to identify things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. This person is also armed. #2) Knows absolutely NOTHING about the person they just murdered. This person could have been Mother Teresa and it would not have mattered. Killing just to kill. Anonyomous. Random. Dangerous. A random cop killer will likely keep killing cops -- making him predictable. Therefore somewhat easier to catch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:24:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. Obviously, #2 is the greater threat.... ...and you know that's not true. You're just being provocative. Or maybe it is your sincere belief? Please explain. It is my sincere belief. #2 is murdering strangers, with no clear motive, and represents the greater threat, 'cause ya don't know who's next. ##'s one, and three, clearly have motive, and thus can lead to a suspect. #2 is like Lee and Malvo, and you can see the threat they were. Lee and Malvo were a FAR greater threat to "Society", than a cop killer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:25:48 AM EDT
[#22]
I couldn't make through most of this banal discussion. SGB and Old painless pretty much hit it. I will try to simplify. Its pretty simple. When confronted with violent criminals, the average guy on the street has the option to run away screaming like a little girl or whatever. The cop has no choice. He must as his sworn duty stand and deal with the situation lest the monsters get through the gates and past that thing blue line that some seem to so despise. The individual is responsible only to protect himself. The Police Officer is responsible for protecting society, hence the inference that his murder is more reprehensible. That someone would construe that to diminish any other killing is simply rediculous.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:31:13 AM EDT
[#23]
[:D]!! And 14 minutes apart too ED!!! We musta gone to different schools together!!! (Or read the same book!! [snoopy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:41:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I couldn't make through most of this banal discussion. SGB and Old painless pretty much hit it. I will try to simplify. Its pretty simple. When confronted with violent criminals, the average guy on the street has the option to run away screaming like a little girl or whatever. The cop has no choice. He must as his sworn duty stand and deal with the situation lest the monsters get through the gates and past that thing blue line that some seem to so despise. The individual is responsible only to protect himself. The Police Officer is responsible for protecting society, hence the inference that his murder is more reprehensible. That someone would construe that to diminish any other killing is simply rediculous. Would this answer have held up in 1776? Would your "average citizen" have turned his back to a killer? Or would he have done his moral duty and addressed the issues at hand? I know the answer through history. So my question: What has changed that the average citizen no longer feels compelled to "deal" with a killer? Why has it changed? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Most of the average citizens are not armed. Despite being in an environment that requires arms more than the wild west, many are unarmed by choice or by law. Most of the average citizens only trust the LEO's when they originated the call for help. Otherwise they have been mesmerized in to thinking that the LEO's are somehow superheros that can do more than they can. This is not the case. The LEO's have training, but quite honestly, many "average gun-owning citizens" may have more training -- at least in regards to using their gun. Of course the laws have been written such that a moral action of the "average citizen" is considered unlawful, despite the fact that the outcome was favorable for EVERYONE except the perp. So think on it....my guess is the cops will remain in one corner, the rest of will remain over here in our corner and we will forever more be separated by this: [blue]________________________________________________[/blue] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 9:57:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Ah finally a real question. The reason it changed was due to the post WW2 baby boom and the ensuing generation that grew up having everything handed to them. Myself included. You see, they came to see certain functions as the responsibility of someone else. Personal responsibility was not an option as their parents or someone else always fixed or made right everything they ever did wrong. Now this was not entirely their fault. The preceding generation enabled it trying to make things easier on their children than they had durring the depression and the war. That is at least the modern part. Prior to that from about the post civil war era onward we see the Industrial revolution taking serious hold, innovation and specialization. It simply became easier for people to pay others to do the jobs they didn't want to do themselves. This of course evolved into the present situation. Really this should be at least a semester long course, but this is the short and to the point version. Point is that this is not 1776, not everyone knows everyone else in the town anymore and we would rather have high paying careers while we hire someone else to be responsible for catching the criminals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 10:05:29 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Ah finally a real question. The reason it changed was due to the post WW2 baby boom and the ensuing generation that grew up having everything handed to them. Myself included. You see, they came to see certain functions as the responsibility of someone else. Personal responsibility was not an option as their parents or someone else always fixed or made right everything they ever did wrong. Now this was not entirely their fault. The preceding generation enabled it trying to make things easier on their children than they had durring the depression and the war. That is at least the modern part. Prior to that from about the post civil war era onward we see the Industrial revolution taking serious hold, innovation and specialization. It simply became easier for people to pay others to do the jobs they didn't want to do themselves. This of course evolved into the present situation. Really this should be at least a semester long course, but this is the short and to the point version. Point is that this is not 1776, not everyone knows everyone else in the town anymore and we would rather have high paying careers while we hire someone else to be responsible for catching the criminals. Therefore, you have a society ill-prepared to deal with real life/death emergencies. You also have a society of unarmed sheep who would rather watch a man be shot to death, and say or do nothing, then to take corrective action to end the threat to all of society. It's not the fault of the bystander who witnessed the guy gunned down in DC, hell, even if he had an illegal handgun in DC he would have been in jail for it even though he did a morally acceptable thing. The current "average citizen" thinks that someone else will take care of it -- someone else will do that which must be done, and will agree with laws that make people like me, who will DO SOMETHING, criminals. What a shame for society. [V] Maybe Draconian Law wouldn't be so bad after all. Eye for an eye, enforcable by ALL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 10:19:26 AM EDT
[#27]
I think you understand the situation quite well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 10:26:50 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I think you understand the situation quite well. Sad as it is.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 10:42:51 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. #1) This person knows the wrongs this person committed against them, they are reacting to those "wrongs" -- whether real or imagined. #3) Is faced with a "group" to identify things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. This person is also armed. #2) Knows absolutely NOTHING about the person they just murdered. This person could have been Mother Teresa and it would not have mattered. Killing just to kill. Anonyomous. Random. Dangerous. A random cop killer will likely keep killing cops -- making him predictable. Therefore somewhat easier to catch. Wow, that's quite a psych eval you just gave us all. Talk about textbook projection![:)] Notice how you assign all sorts of semi-legitimate motives to the cop-killer, yet my scenario offered not a clue. Then with the stranger on the street, you assume that it is complete anonymity. From this, I must assume that when you hear of a cop being killed, your reaction must be: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] Right? Pretty creepy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:05:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a very simple concept. Who is more of a danger to society? 1) a person who stranglers his wife in a domestic dispute 2) a person who walks right up to a complete stranger, on Main St. at noon, and shoots him. 3) a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and shoots publicly shoots him. Clearly anyone with an ounce of reason can see that the is a difference between these three killings. #1) This person knows the wrongs this person committed against them, they are reacting to those "wrongs" -- whether real or imagined. #3) Is faced with a "group" to identify things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. This person is also armed. #2) Knows absolutely NOTHING about the person they just murdered. This person could have been Mother Teresa and it would not have mattered. Killing just to kill. Anonyomous. Random. Dangerous. A random cop killer will likely keep killing cops -- making him predictable. Therefore somewhat easier to catch. Wow, that's quite a psych eval you just gave us all. Talk about textbook projection![:)] Notice how you assign all sorts of semi-legitimate motives to the cop-killer, yet my scenario offered not a clue.[red]Wrong. The wanting to kill a cop is more about the identifiable uniform. They may have been wronged by a cop at one time or another, it's more about the uniform than the cop. Same reasons Tim McVeigh wanted to blow up a federal building housing ATF agents not remotely responsible for the Waco actions. Get it? Identifiable.[/red] Then with the stranger on the street, you assume that it is complete anonymity.[red]Stranger = anonymous {i.e. DC Sniper} You set up the scenario. If you wanted to guarantee a certain reaction you set up your scenario poorly, don't get mad at me.[/red] From this, I must assume that when you hear of a cop being killed, your reaction must be:[red]You know what assume does? It worked on your behalf.[/red] [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] Right? Pretty creepy. You asked which was more dangerous to society. I can show you were two guys killing strangers on the street were more dangerous than guys who whacked a cop or two. Any more insane assumptions on your part? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:17:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Yet you assigned a very specific set of motives.
YOU assumed that the motive for killing had to do with something along the lines of Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Even your overly defensive response brings up McVeigh. Maybe the cop was having an affair with a man's wife. Maybe it was a corrupt cop and a deal gone bad. Maybe the killer was insane was insane. Maybe the killer was a woman scorned. Lots of assumptions could have been made, you chose a very specific set of motives. You may deny it, but your answer clearly PROVES, that when you hear of a situation such as: [b]A person walks right up to an armed police officer and publicly shoots him.[/b] You think: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] How can you deny this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:26:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Yet you assigned a very specific set of motives. YOU assumed that the motive for killing had to do with something along the lines of Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Even your overly defensive response brings up McVeigh. Maybe the cop was having an affair with a man's wife. Maybe it was a corrupt cop and a deal gone bad. Maybe the killer was insane was insane. Maybe the killer was a woman scorned. Lots of assumptions could have been made, you chose a very specific set of motives. You may deny it, but your answer clearly PROVES, that when you hear of a situation such as: [b]A person walks right up to an armed police officer and publicly shoots him.[/b] You think: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] How can you deny this? YOU said it. Deny what? Am I on trial? Firstly, quote me correctly or don't bother. Secondly, if the motives were other than killing a cop to kill a cop, that person still will be identified with astute police work when the determine MOTIVE. Thirdly, I have not said it is understandable to kill a cop for these reasons and I have given you a further example of the transferrance of hate to an entirely different group of similar individuals. {i.e. Tim McVeigh attacking a federal building simply because there was an office of the ATF there} Again, do not be ticked off that two people both see that #2 in your outlined scenario is the greater danger to society. Again, witness the DC Sniper case for the reassurance that my assertions and liberty86's are the correct ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:29:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] How can you deny this? Speak up......where did you get this quote that you are attributing to me???? Is this your interpretation of what I said, or what I actually said? No apology necessary when you get your head out of your ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:32:06 AM EDT
[#34]
I think that Cincinnatus has you by the short hairs SHIVAN458 [;)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:35:56 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: I think that Cincinnatus has you by the short hairs SHIVAN458 [;)] [>:/] You work part time as an ice skating judge in the Olympics? Better check your neighbor's scorecard again......[;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 11:45:28 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] How can you deny this? Speak up......where did you get this quote that you are attributing to me???? Is this your interpretation of what I said, or what I actually said? No apology necessary when you get your head out of your ass. Here, let help. You might not even be aware of your condition[:)]. Your interpretation, as to why: [b] a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and publicly shoots him. [/b] You clearly assume that the killer killed the cop, because he/she felt that... [b]"...things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. "[/b] As opposed to the INFINTE other possible motives. No, you were quite specific. Therefore I take that to mean that when you hear of just such a scenario as the one I posted, that you feel that... [b]"...it's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/u] Take responsibility for your words. It's no big deal, really [:)]. Either it's how you feel, or you mispoke. My interpretation was not exactly an assumption, or a leap. Merely the reading of you words in a direct manner. I have not said it is understandable to kill a cop for these reasons No, you demonstrated an understanding as to why a person would kill a cop for those reasons. After all, why are we even talking about Ruby Ridge, Waco, McVeigh? You brought these things up. Why? Very simple, to show what reason YOU THINK a person would have to kill a cop. I'd call that a demonstration of understanding. Empathy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:04:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [b]" It's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/b] How can you deny this? Speak up......where did you get this quote that you are attributing to me???? Is this your interpretation of what I said, or what I actually said? No apology necessary when you get your head out of your ass. Here, let help. You might not even be aware of your condition[:)]. Your interpretation, as to why: [b] a person who walks right up to an armed police officer and publicly shoots him. [/b] You clearly assume that the killer killed the cop, because he/she felt that... [b]"...things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. "[/b] As opposed to the INFINTE other possible motives. No, you were quite specific. Therefore I take that to mean that when you hear of just such a scenario as the one I posted, that you feel that... [b]"...it's understandable that someone would want to kill a cop, considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima..."[/u] Take responsibility for your words. It's no big deal, really [:)]. Either it's how you feel, or you mispoke. My interpretation was not exactly an assumption, or a leap. Merely the reading of you words in a direct manner. Actually, I said EXACTLY what I wanted to say. When you stop taking words out of context you will be able to form a complete thought. It is obvious that the two brain cells in your head can't agree; so let me REPOST my actual statement. "#3) Is faced with a "group" to identify things that are wrong in this country in regards to LE. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Abner Louima, etc, etc, etc. This person is also armed." Assuming that the act was random, as outlined in your scenario it comes down to an easily identifiable group of people. Cops wearing uniforms could have given him one too many tickets, cops in uniforms could have escorted him out of one too many bars, cops in uniforms could have hassled his family one too many times, the cops on TV could have pissed him off regarding any number of items -- but it still boils down to this killer picking a random cop -- not the ACTUAL cop who did all those things above. I picked the news items that garnered the most attention. Instantly recognizable ones to get the point across that a random killing on a street, of a cop, is likely caused by the constant oppression THAT person feels FROM COPS -- or more specifically people in a uniform doing that kind of duty. If the scenario is not random, than you would have qualified it, like you did in item #1. Again, do not be pissed off at me that your scenario building skills suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:13:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Unless you have specific language that indicates that [b]MY[/b] intent is to encourage the killing of cops, or even that I have sympathy, or empathy for doing this I would appreciate you not insulting me, nor attacking my moral judgement.
More to the point of the thread. The perps killed the cop because of the instanteous action of him doing his job, which was encroaching on their ability to conduct "business". They killed the cop because he was representative of those who would shut them down from doing business. They really could have cared less that he was Mike Buczek, he was wearing a uniform and that uniform meant bad things to thier business. Goes back to my post above -- Draconian Law -- enforceable by everyone. Dealers killed a man {a cop}, dealers are killed. Simple, no weight applied because he was a cop. Death begets death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Very simple, to show what reason YOU THINK a person would have to kill a cop. I'd call that a demonstration of understanding. Empathy. Killers are known and profiled to take the path of least resistance. Killing a cop is not that path. In order to be motivated to kill a cop you would need some sort of mitigating factors to pick a cop from "random", which BTW would take some work to single one out when the average population outnumbers their cops in the 1000's to 1. Much easier to isolate a single citizen and shot them them to shoot a cop. So what are those factors that make the cop the choice. See my above posts to understand why this person is more motivated, but [red]less dangerous to society[/red] than the person who takes random potshots at an average citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:20:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Hey, I thought I was the one who only had two brain cells. Now you're giving that honor to Cincinnatus. Its not fair. Dirty double dealer. You should not use the same pointless insult on someone when you are also engaged in the same thread with someone who you have previously insulted thusly.
What I basically take away from this is that you have a limited repertoir of insults. That you dislike people who have more authority than you, and that if you can't get people to agree with you on a subject you move to insulting comments, especially once you realize you lost the argument to them. Better to quit while you are behind than to be further humiliated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:24:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Hey, I thought I was the one who only had two brain cells. Now you're giving that honor to Cincinnatus. Its not fair. Dirty double dealer. You should not use the same pointless insult on someone when you are also engaged in the same thread with someone who you have previously insulted thusly. What I basically take away from this is that you have a limited repertoir of insults.[red]Actually the COC here on the board limits me to what I can use without getting the thread instantly locked.[/red] That you dislike people who have more authority than you[red]I know what you do, you have no inclination of what I do[/red], and that if you can't get people to agree with you on a subject you move to insulting comments[red]So being told that I empathize with cop killers in not immediately insulting. I think it was.[/red], especially once you realize you lost the argument to them. Better to quit while you are behind than to be further humiliated. Interesting that I can lose and argument when the argument is based on who [red]I think[/red] is more dangerous to society. Of course the cops and LEO's and LEO's sympathizers will believe that a cop killer is more dangerous. You guys wear what equates to a big target on your chest. Very easy to identify, very easy to pick out. This still does not change the fact that a truly random killer of innocent citizens with not motive other than to kill represents more of a danger to society. Again, see the DC Sniper case, where not ONE LEO lost his/her life. Who felt more in fear? The LEO's or the whole of society? Who was actually in MORE DANGER? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:27:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Hey, I thought I was the one who only had two brain cells. Now you're giving that honor to Cincinnatus. Its not fair. Dirty double dealer. You should not use the same pointless insult on someone when you are also engaged in the same thread with someone who you have previously insulted thusly. What I basically take away from this is that you have a limited repertoir of insults. That you dislike people who have more authority than you, and that if you can't get people to agree with you on a subject you move to insulting comments, especially once you realize you lost the argument to them. Better to quit while you are behind than to be further humiliated. [size=6][orange][b]Can I get an AMEN ! ! ![/size=6][/orange][/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:28:58 PM EDT
[#43]
[size=6][b]AMEN ! ! ![/size=6][/b]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:30:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Look, how quaint......as predicted pages ago.......[blue]the blue wall[/blue].
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:31:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Again, do not be pissed off at me that your scenario building skills suck. What would make you think that? I'm not at all angry. I'm just reading. You seem to think that I am disagreeing with your choice. I've voiced no disagreement. Like I said, I'm just reading the words you type. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:38:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Look, how quaint......as predicted pages ago.......[blue]the blue wall[/blue]. Oh my, that wasn't a predictable response was it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:38:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: You seem to think that I am disagreeing with your choice. I've voiced no disagreement. "Exactly. And that's why it's a more "serious" crime. Nothing more dangerous than a wacko with balls." [BLUE]In response to the assertion that #3 was a "wacko with balls"[/blue] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "...and you know that's not true. You're just being provocative. Or maybe it is your sincere belief? Please explain." [blue]In response to someone claiming #2 was the biggest danger...[/blue] You're right, no direct disagreement with me.... Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:40:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Very simple, to show what reason YOU THINK a person would have to kill a cop. I'd call that a demonstration of understanding. Empathy. Killers are known and profiled to take the path of least resistance. Killing a cop is not that path. In order to be motivated to kill a cop you would need some sort of mitigating factors to pick a cop from "random".... ....Much easier to isolate a single citizen and shot them them to shoot a cop. So what are those factors that make the cop the choice. I never said anything about the cop being "random", did I? I said: [b]"A person who walks right up to an armed police officer and publicly shoots him."[/b] The idea of "randomly" shooting a cop as a representative of "all cops", or of the flaws of society is purely your idea. I said nothing to lead you there. That's all you. So just accept your thoughts, and learn to live with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 12:42:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: You seem to think that I am disagreeing with your choice. I've voiced no disagreement. "Exactly. And that's why it's a more "serious" crime. Nothing more dangerous than a wacko with balls." [BLUE]In response to the assertion that #3 was a "wacko with balls"[/blue] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "...and you know that's not true. You're just being provocative. Or maybe it is your sincere belief? Please explain." [blue]In response to someone claiming #2 was the biggest danger...[/blue] You're right, no direct disagreement with me.... Sorry. Are those your words? No. I responded to other posters. liberty86 and I often spar on such issues, so our discourse has nothing to do with you. Your words were quite different. And I tell you what. I agree now 100% that the cop killer is not as dangerous as the other fellow. There. But that still leaves us with your interesting interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2003 1:03:20 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: But that still leaves us with your interesting interpretation. Cops walk around with a "target" on for any sicko or whack-job who has an issue with cops/EMT's/feds/IRS/other gov't agencies to spot. They have the unfortunate job of being the govt's liasion with the public. Which means they are there amongst the elements that present the most danger to them. They are easy to pick out because they wear a uniform. Gangbangers have targeted solo "beat cops" for decades, to get "made" -- South Central LA, DC, NYC. Wackos like Tim McVeigh have also found them as easy "targets", to send messages. I'm sorry if real life examples of the LE community breaking the trust of society, and the repurcussions, bothers you. This does not change the fact that radical groups will always mark LEO's for death. It has happened all throughout history. I will try to refrain from using real life examples in the future. This in no way outlines my state of mind in regards to LEO's. You may fancy yourself a detective or psychologist, but I was simply stating a prevailing trend in recent history. Now, Lon is a whole 'nother story. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
