Thin Blue Line

[Uncle Charlie]

Thank you to all the blue who stand between my family and the evil elements of the world every day. Chicago is evidence of what things can look like when that line starts to fade.; I cannot imagine raising children in such an environment.  I pray for those who gave their lives, have served in the past, those serving today and those who will protect us in the future. Thank you.

[Mr. Happy]

Thank you to all the blue who stand between my family and the evil elements of the world every day. Chicago is evidence of what things can look like when that line starts to fade.; I cannot imagine raising children in such an environment.  I pray for those who gave their lives, have served in the past, those serving today and those who will protect us in the future. Thank you.

I echo this sentiment. I'm grateful to all of them.

[Navin R Johnson]

I echo this sentiment. I'm grateful to all of them.

I am grateful to the  majority that are good cops.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I am grateful for all men and women of integrity regardless of profession. I am especially grateful to those that risk their lives to protect others.

[JimR]

I am grateful to the  majority that are good cops.

Overwhelming majority. That said, the rash of inexplicable police shootings should be a wakeup call for PDs.

[Lefty]

Overwhelming majority. That said, the rash of inexplicable police shootings should be a wakeup call for PDs.

Ironically enough, the Dallas PD has been lauded for their procedural and cultual shift in community relations and interactions with individuals (especially deescalation of potentially violent situations).

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Ironically enough, the Dallas PD has been lauded for their procedural and cultual shift in community relations and interactions with individuals (especially deescalation of potentially violent situations).

I'm actually stunned that DPD gave the guy plenty of opportunities to negotiate and surrender before taking him out. No SWAT assault, no aggressive approach.

[Lefty]

I'm actually stunned that DPD gave the guy plenty of opportunities to negotiate and surrender before taking him out. No SWAT assault, no aggressive approach.

They talked for hours, he said he had IEDs and would not give up without more blood, then they blew him up with a bomb diffusing robot that had some C4 on it's arm.  Not complaining , but that's the first time that's happened on US soil.  It's a crazy world. 

[Navin R Johnson]

If they just blew some crook up, I'd question it but under the circumstances they ended it in the most prudent way possible.

[Bench]

If they just blew some crook up, I'd question it but under the circumstances they ended it in the most prudent way possible.

I'm not sure it's the most prudent, but it does seem defensible under the unique circumstances.  I'd like to know more about what prompted the timing of that decision and whether they could have waited longer to diffuse the situation. 

That said, it's not the role of the police to engage in targeted assassinations, which sending in a robot to explode a person certainly is.   

[JimR]

I'm not sure it's the most prudent, but it does seem defensible under the unique circumstances.  I'd like to know more about what prompted the timing of that decision and whether they could have waited longer to diffuse the situation. 

That said, it's not the role of the police to engage in targeted assassinations, which sending in a robot to explode a person certainly is.

disagree. this was no different than a sniper's bullet to end a standoff. They tried for two hours, and he made it clear he was going to attempt to kill others.

[Limey]

I am grateful for all men and women of integrity regardless of profession. I am especially grateful to those that risk their lives to protect others.

What he said.

In other news, I have purchased a dash-cam having become the second member of my immediate family (of two) to be ticketed for not stopping at a stop sign where a full stop was properly and completely executed.  In both cases, video of the stop and audio of the subsequent conversation would have been exculpatory and damning.

[Dark Star]

The NRA's varied responses to recent shooting incidents has some members questioning its overall message.

The Link

[MusicMan]

The NRA's varied responses to recent shooting incidents has some members questioning its overall message.

The Link

Perhaps such members will finally realize that the NRA may accept their fees, but it does not represent them.  It represents gun manufacturers.

[Limey]

The NRA's varied responses to recent shooting incidents has some members questioning its overall message.
The Link

Castile and Alton Sterling were carrying legally when they were shot and killed by policy...because they were armed.

John Crawford was shot and killed by police in a Walmart (that sells guns) for carrying a BB gun (also sold at Walmart).  Tamir Rice was shot and killed by police for holding a replica pistol.  Both cases happened in an open carry state - Ohio.

The NRA should be all over these cases as infringements (actual or perceived) of the 2nd amendment rights of these individuals.  That they have not become causes célèbre for gun rights activists is damning in the extreme.

Donald Trump's rally in Dallas was attended by a group of open carry enthusiasts proudly sporting their legally purchased and carried rifles - they were predominately, if not exclusively, white and went unmolested by the police.  At Trump's rally in Houston, a man was arrested in an attached parking garage for having a pistol - he is black.

I could, unfortunately, go on and on about the disparity of treatment for black vs. white (Dylann Roof - the Charleston church shooter - was allowed to give himself up and taken to Burger King because he was hungry).  The statistics are stark and terrifying, as is the seeming truth that this is not new behavior, what is new is the existence of video footage.  Independent video is still a rarity though, so it's even more frightening that such footage so often shows a different event to that reported by the officers in question.

571 people have been shot and killed by the police so far in 2016.  Now, this number includes the likes of the Orlando night club shooter, so it's not a tally of questionable police shootings; but that's still a huge number and completely out of whack with the rest of the world.

[mrpink]

Castile and Alton Sterling were carrying legally when they were shot and killed by policy...because they were armed.

This is wrong.  Castile appeared to be carrying legally, but Sterling was a felon and therefore ineligible to own or possess a firearm.

[Limey]

This is wrong.  Castile appeared to be carrying legally, but Sterling was a felon and therefore ineligible to own or possess a firearm.

Thanks for the clarification.  I wonder how Sterling acquired a gun if denied the right as a felon...

[JimR]

Thanks for the clarification.  I wonder how Sterling acquired a gun if denied the right as a felon...

It is called "Lying and buying."

[Limey]

It is called "Lying and buying."

Would be nice if that wasn't so easy to do.

[mrpink]

Would be nice if that wasn't so easy to do.

I don't believe anyone has said he got it from a dealer.  I might even dare say he obtained the gun through questionable means.  It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

[geezerdonk]

There is no denying that blowing the guy up may have some visceral appeal to the more bloodthirsty among us. Personally I consider it harsh; maybe overly so. Instead, I would have taken him to Disneyland.

[HudsonHawk]

...a felon and therefore ineligible to own or possess a firearm.

And don't get me started on that...

[JimR]

There is no denying that blowing the guy up may have some visceral appeal to the more bloodthirsty among us. Personally I consider it harsh; maybe overly so. Instead, I would have taken him to Disneyland.

Yeah, a bullet to the brain is much more sensitive.

[Fredia]

one of those dammed if you do or dammed if you do cases

[Limey]

And don't get me started on that...

As in, if the rights established under the Constitution are inalienable, how can we take them away from someone?

Or, if we can take away a felon's right to bear arms, why can't we do it for people on the terrorist watch list and/or no fly list?

Does that suitably poke the ant nest?   

[Bench]

As in, if the rights established under the Constitution are inalienable, how can we take them away from someone?

Or, if we can take away a felon's right to bear arms, why can't we do it for people on the terrorist watch list and/or no fly list?

Does that suitably poke the ant nest?   

When will gun purchasers have to establish that their militia is indeed well-regulated?

[Limey]

When will gun purchasers have to establish that their militia is indeed well-regulated?

When you can prise the reading of a comma as a full stop from their cold, dead hands.

[Bench]

Yeah, a bullet to the brain is much more sensitive.

It's the human element.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I am curious if sending the robot in armed with some kind of a tranquilizer gas was considered. Not that I have a problem with blowing him up. Saved the expense of a trial and subsequent death-row incarceration, multiple appeals, and execution.

[HudsonHawk]

As in, if the rights established under the Constitution are inalienable, how can we take them away from someone?

First, the Constitution doesn't establish rights, it protects them.  Secondly, the loss of civil rights due to certain criminal convictions is long and well established throughout history, going back to the Greek idea of the "civil death penalty".  But you can't beat the drum for the 2nd Amendment arguing it guarantees unrestricted right to carry a firearm, then turn around and restrict that same right.  Either you believe it's an inalienable right, or you don't.  I don't mind you being either way, it's the part-timers that irritate me. 

Or, if we can take away a felon's right to bear arms, why can't we do it for people on the terrorist watch list and/or no fly list?

Yeah, let's deny Constitutionally guaranteed rights to people who are put on a secret government list.  What could possibly go wrong?

Does that suitably poke the ant nest?   

I'm sure it does.

[HudsonHawk]

Saved the expense of a trial and subsequent death-row incarceration, multiple appeals, and execution.

Due process is a pain in the ass, ain't it?

[Lefty]

It's the human element.

It's not skynet yet, I don't really see the difference between a human-controlled gun and a human-controlled robot.

[JimR]

It's not skynet yet, I don't really see the difference between a human-controlled gun and a human-controlled robot.

exactly. they negotiated with him until it reached a point of kill him or risk other innocent lives. he was in a position out of a sniper's aim for a clear shot. fuck him.

[Mr. Happy]

exactly. they negotiated with him until it reached a point of kill him or risk other innocent lives. he was in a position out of a sniper's aim for a clear shot. fuck him.

You're absolutely right. Whatever his motivations, he assaulted society as a whole and had to be taken out by whatever means possible. I think that law enforcement usually works very well. There are some trigger-happy bad actors, but those usually don't stick around. I appreciate law enforcement and all first-responders  in general because they've chosen to do a job that I don't think I could ever do or want to do.

[Limey]

First, the Constitution doesn't establish rights, it protects them.  Secondly, the loss of civil rights due to certain criminal convictions is long and well established throughout history, going back to the Greek idea of the "civil death penalty".  But you can't beat the drum for the 2nd Amendment arguing it guarantees unrestricted right to carry a firearm, then turn around and restrict that same right.  Either you believe it's an inalienable right, or you don't.  I don't mind you being either way, it's the part-timers that irritate me. 

Yep.  Used the wrong word to describe what the Constitution does vis a vis rights.  And agree completely on the part-timers; reminds me of self-proclaimed libertarians who are for the abolition of a whole bunch of laws, but usually only the ones the either help or, at worst, don't affect them.  When it hurts them personally, that's where the line gets drawn.

I'm a liberal-libertarian.  For example: I don't do drugs, but I don't see why we have to restrict the recreational use of them.  Basically the classification of drugs is just a way to protect Big Pharma's monopoly on legal highs*.  But, at the same time, we have to put money into health and education programs to offset the negative effects that increased drug use will have.  The trade-off being that we eliminate a vast segment of the criminal underworld, take the dangerous variables out of manufacture, eliminate regular people having to interact with said criminal underworld and keep hundreds of thousands of people out of jail and thereby employable in today's mandatory background check employment market.

* The spike in heroin use, addiction and death has been linked to the abuse of prescription drugs and the escalation therefrom.  So, ironically, your doctor, not your friendly, neighborhood pot dealer, is holding the gate open to illegal drugs.

Yeah, let's deny Constitutionally guaranteed rights to people who are put on a secret government list.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well I'm of the camp that likes to read the 2nd amendment with the commas and connecting the phrases, not separating them (a grammatically correct reading).  So unless ISIS is deemed a well-regulated militia, denying them or suspected "thems" the ability to purchase guns is not a conflict for me.  I do agree that secret government lists is never a good idea - and "CitizenFour" scared the living shit out of me.

FTR, I'm of the mind that the cat is out of the bag re guns, and further I accept fully that there are myriad legitimate uses for them - even assault rifles (I have been informed reliably that you don't go up against a feral hog in Texas without one).  But I don't believe that sensible legislation - background-checks for every gun sale, limit magazine sizes, registration and insurance - is not contrary to the 2nd amendment.  We already legislate around what can (and can't) be purchased by civilians and where and when you can and can't take your guns; e.g. the RNC and NRA conventions which ban attendees from bringing loaded weapons (hopefully no "bad guys with guns" show up).

Limey - Cruz 2016!!
Neither of us was born here - but we got here as soon as we could!!

[JimR]

Yep.  Used the wrong word to describe what the Constitution does vis a vis rights.  And agree completely on the part-timers; reminds me of self-proclaimed libertarians who are for the abolition of a whole bunch of laws, but usually only the ones the either help or, at worst, don't affect them.  When it hurts them personally, that's where the line gets drawn.

I'm a liberal-libertarian.  For example: I don't do drugs, but I don't see why we have to restrict the recreational use of them.  Basically the classification of drugs is just a way to protect Big Pharma's monopoly on legal highs*.  But, at the same time, we have to put money into health and education programs to offset the negative effects that increased drug use will have.  The trade-off being that we eliminate a vast segment of the criminal underworld, take the dangerous variables out of manufacture, eliminate regular people having to interact with said criminal underworld and keep hundreds of thousands of people out of jail and thereby employable in today's mandatory background check employment market.

* The spike in heroin use, addiction and death has been linked to the abuse of prescription drugs and the escalation therefrom.  So, ironically, your doctor, not your friendly, neighborhood pot dealer, is holding the gate open to illegal drugs.

when you have personal experience with a loved one addict, get back to me.

[Bench]

It's not skynet yet, I don't really see the difference between a human-controlled gun and a human-controlled robot.

It was an oblique reference to the argument against replacing umpires with automated strikezones.

[Lefty]

It was an oblique reference to the argument against replacing umpires with automated strikezones.

Well, that certainly went completely over my head.

[Limey]

when you have personal experience with a loved one addict, get back to me.

Alcoholism runs in my family, and in my wife's (but we are both free of it, thankfully).  I was powerless (5,000 miles away) while my alcoholic mother and alcoholic sister got drunk every day rather than attending to my father's last few months on this earth as he succumbed to cancer.  Hearing his stories him of being unable to breathe and unable to summon help, while my mother lay passed out in another room with a cigarette burning elicits a maelstrom of emotions for me, none of them good.

But the issue isn't the substance, it's the way society shuns addiction as a moral or behavioral flaw  It's a disease, and it needs to be treated that way.  That's why any change in drug laws must be balanced with health and education programs.

[Bench]

Well, that certainly went completely over my head.

It was a connection that probably existed only in my mind. 

[Dark Star]

Alcoholism runs in my family, and in my wife's (but we are both free of it, thankfully).  I was powerless (5,000 miles away) while my alcoholic mother and alcoholic sister got drunk every day rather than attending to my father's last few months on this earth as he succumbed to cancer.  Hearing his stories him of being unable to breathe and unable to summon help, while my mother lay passed out in another room with a cigarette burning elicits a maelstrom of emotions for me, none of them good.

But the issue isn't the substance, it's the way society shuns addiction as a moral or behavioral flaw  It's a disease, and it needs to be treated that way.  That's why any change in drug laws must be balanced with health and education programs.

It makes me sad to know you have gone through this (and I guess continue to go through this,) You have my unreserved empathy.

Yes, our society (generally speaking) needs to rethink the attitude toward addiction and addicts. I also hope stories like yours will once and for all dissuades the drunks out there with the notion that everyone should leave them alone, because their alcoholism is only hurting themselves.

My ass.

[Limey]

Yes, our society (generally speaking) needs to rethink the attitude toward addiction and addicts. I also hope stories like yours will once and for all dissuades the drunks out there with the notion that everyone should leave them alone, because their alcoholism is only hurting themselves.

My ass.

Exactly.  We are currently working on forcing my alcoholic/addict sister-in-law into rehab.  She is unable to control herself, and is a violent drunk.  She has a 4-year old daughter and is a danger to herself, her child and anyone else around her.  We are being as supportive as we can to her husband because it is he who has to make the ultimate decision to force rehab - one that has the potential to break up his marriage, bring him physical harm, cause endless drama and heartache, and perhaps even end up with the death of his wife (by suicide - threatened on multiple occasions).

The chaos and damage around the epicenter of an addict is immense.

[HudsonHawk]

Well I'm of the camp that likes to read the 2nd amendment with the commas and connecting the phrases, not separating them (a grammatically correct reading).  So unless ISIS is deemed a well-regulated militia, denying them or suspected "thems" the ability to purchase guns is not a conflict for me.  I do agree that secret government lists is never a good idea - and "CitizenFour" scared the living shit out of me.

I'm not arguing the correct interpretation of the 2nd, only saying that it's generally a bad idea to pre-emptively deny certain citizens the rights granted others when they, without their knowledge and without due process, end up on a secret government list that cannot be challenged. 

[MusicMan]

I'm not arguing the correct interpretation of the 2nd, only saying that it's generally a bad idea to pre-emptively deny certain citizens the rights granted others when they, without their knowledge and without due process, end up on a secret government list that cannot be challenged.

"At long last, sir, have you no decency?"

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Due process is a pain in the ass, ain't it?

I'm sorry you might have inferred that but I'm assuming read what you edited out.

[Fredia]

this is no longer a thread its a full blown crazy quilt

[HudsonHawk]

I'm sorry you might have inferred that but I'm assuming read what you edited out.

I don't get this statement. In any event, you mentioned that it was more cost effective to not have a trial, appeals, etc.  I'm sure it is. Due process isn't free, monetarily or from inconvenience.

[Mr. Happy]

Exactly.  We are currently working on forcing my alcoholic/addict sister-in-law into rehab.  She is unable to control herself, and is a violent drunk.  She has a 4-year old daughter and is a danger to herself, her child and anyone else around her.  We are being as supportive as we can to her husband because it is he who has to make the ultimate decision to force rehab - one that has the potential to break up his marriage, bring him physical harm, cause endless drama and heartache, and perhaps even end up with the death of his wife (by suicide - threatened on multiple occasions).

The chaos and damage around the epicenter of an addict is immense.

Your last statement is the absolute truth. As a recovering drug addict myself, one fact that often gets overlooked in 28-day spin cycle rehab programs is that, in most cases, the addict also suffers from a co-occurring mental issue too. You have to treat both of them. I made absolutely no progress on drug addiction until they started treating my bipolar disorder too. I'm grateful for where I am in my life today. I wish you well, my friend.

[Limey]

Your last statement is the absolute truth. As a recovering drug addict myself, one fact that often gets overlooked in 28-day spin cycle rehab programs is that, in most cases, the addict also suffers from a co-occurring mental issue too. You have to treat both of them. I made absolutely no progress on drug addiction until they started treating my bipolar disorder too. I'm grateful for where I am in my life today. I wish you well, my friend.

Thank you, sir.  And I wish you well in your ongoing recovery.

I have seen (too much) addiction from the outside, yet I  do not - and likely will never - have any true understanding of what it's like from the inside.

[Mr. Happy]

Thank you, sir.  And I wish you well in your ongoing recovery.

I have seen (too much) addiction from the outside, yet I  do not - and likely will never - have any true understanding of what it's like from the inside.

You're welcome! Addiction and a depression cycle is a dangerous combination where the feelings are dark and hopeless. My bottom was spent in the suicide cage of a local jail. I tried suicide twice but failed, thank God. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I don't get this statement. In any event, you mentioned that it was more cost effective to not have a trial, appeals, etc.  I'm sure it is. Due process isn't free, monetarily or from inconvenience.

I meant to type: I'm sorry you might have inferred that but I'm assuming you read what you edited out. The part about a robot and gas. But don't worry about it. You have a right to take a whimsical statement and extrapolate as you please. This is America.

[Lefty]

It was an oblique reference to the argument against replacing umpires with automated strikezones.

The ferrets and prairie dogs love them some robots.  And M&Ms.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/12/us-government-black-footed-ferret-mandm-vaccines?CMP=edit_2221