Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 8 months ago
    A hate crime cop killer with no hostages says, "Stay away! I have a bomb!"
    The response? Roll a bomb detonating device his way and detonate it.
    I like it.
    But I won't like that technique used on my home should they ever come to take my guns.
    Any weapon is a proverbial "two-edged sword."
    It is only as good as those who control it.
    Define hate crime? Ask those who first came up with the term.
    Old Dino picked up rocks thrown at him to throw back when I was Little Dino.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 8 months ago
      DIY weapons and bombs are OUR defense against a powerful and oppressive government. Now we need to develop effective robot counter measures like submarines have to deflect incoming torpedoes. Maybe robot-seeking devices which neutralize the police robots.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 8 months ago
    Hell, after the first officer fell I would have used a rocket launcher if I had one. The guy turned out to be able to use military sniper tactics, making him a formidable enemy. There was no way to easily take him out with gunfire without risking more lives. Whoever decided to bomb the bastard deserves a medal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by InfamousEric 7 years, 8 months ago
    Using a bomb is completely unacceptable, a clear violation of due process, and another example of excessive force by authority.

    The militarization of the police does nothing to decrease crime, it only serves to create enemy combatants of those suspected of a crime. Whether that crime is a heinous one, or a simple infraction such as driving with a busted taillight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RobertFl 7 years, 8 months ago
      Dead is dead, does it matter if it were a bullet or bomb. This guy was not going surrender. He was told, surrender or die. It had plenty of time to consider it. Would you rather more cops die in an attempt to apprehend him a live? Only for Texas to give him a death sentence and 15 years to fulfill it. Was their any doubt of his guilt? He confessed. Being pissed off and black is not an excuse. Where was the due process for the murdered police officers?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by InfamousEric 7 years, 8 months ago
        I understand that the person "confessed", or the public was told "he confessed". However, we've been told many things by many different layers of authority, that seem to have been true at the time, then found to be false later.

        Do we automatically believe the information we are told buy those who have sworn to uphold the law of the land? I can think of 535 reasons, not to.

        The word of an authority figure is not the measure of guilt or innocence.

        Objective evidence is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 7 years, 8 months ago
        Well, a bomb does cause property damages to an innocent owner. Bullet, less damages.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RobertFl 7 years, 8 months ago
          Property can be repaired.
          I suppose we also have to define "bomb". A stick of dynamite or a handful of cherry bombs.
          I would agree, a stick of dynamite would be overkill.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 7 years, 8 months ago
            Who pays for the repairs caused by police violent action? (I can't agree or disagree with the action without more info. It could have been the best of limited options in the interest of stopping the perp.)
            Does the property owner gets the shaft from the government agency's act of force?
            One reason might be lack of security on the building that allowed the perp access. The "greater good" is not a good enough excuse to damage property without reimbursement, imo.
            In a free market environment, wouldn't the hired police be liable for property damages?
            (I realize this is not your original point;^)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by RobertFl 7 years, 8 months ago
              "...get the shaft from the gov't..." We all do :-)
              Well, we'll assume there's insurance, but, I suppose the deceased should, but we know that's a non-starter. Hard to say the city should, because "we" are the city - the price of police protection. Of course, we could assume there was little structural damage another than buddies last remains spread thin over the area.
              But, take your position, private security, what happens if the guy still slips through, does the same thing, and the private security team takes him out the same way-the same question arises, who makes the prop owner whole then? Not sure how to reconcile that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MinorLiberator 7 years, 8 months ago
        I agree. The right to self-defense is inviolate, an individual right, and that includes a policeman or group of policemen in harms way.. If this guy came to my house, armed and ready to kill "white families" in general, and I blew him away to protect myself and them, I don't think anyone would be saying that I as a private citizen (or even if I were an off-duty cop) violated his "due process". Yes, the police are an arm of the government, and should be held to a higher standard, but not a "suicide pact" standard. In a shootout self-defense in any form is the only moral response. Also, according to reports this man was trained and highly mobile. Although seemingly trapped, what if he had gotten away to kill further? IF the police had gunned down the protester who immediately turned over his legally carried rifle to a policeman, THAT would be an unacceptable overreaction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years, 8 months ago
        The question is...was it even legal to use a bomb against a civilian? If so, why weren't they tossing hand grenades, or something similar?

        So, now it's "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a bomb"? I'm having a hard time with this one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RobertFl 7 years, 8 months ago
          A flash grenade or something similar would have required a cop to get within the area to deploy it.
          Further, this guy said he had bombs rigged up around the parking garage - so, a cop couldn't get near him to deploy such measures.
          They probably couldn't rig the robot to deliver it at that time.
          I agree with your concern, but, the time table and situation dictated the response.
          Next time, they'll probably have robots capable of delivering flash grenades.
          Regardless, it is very difficult for us to play Monday morning quarterback.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years, 8 months ago
            I wonder why the police didn't take the tried and true method of simply waiting him out? He had no hostages and no escape route. Was it entirely necessary to blow him to kingdom come?

            From what I've been reading on the Web...some are already suggesting that they would not have blown up a white guy. This could really backfire.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by RobertFl 7 years, 8 months ago
              If the guy said he had the parking garage rigged to explode, I suppose that is an immediate threat. They had to neutralize him so 1) he couldn't detonate it, 2) they could sweep the garage for bombs.
              If a sniper can't see him, and you can't move officers in to take him out a point blank range, and there's a threat to the public if blows the parking garage up - what options remain?
              Not an easy call - and I believe those police officers did not make that decision in haste.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
          That's a local call as long as the weapons of choice comply with the Naitonal Fire Arms Act going back to it's inception in the 1933 was it and the version passed under the guiding hand of Senator Thomas Dodd Senior who had the Library of Congress translate Hitler's version.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 8 months ago
      Would an armored drone robot with a camera that gave a manuvering technician the ability to aim and fire a .357 revolver at the perpetrator be acceptable?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by InfamousEric 7 years, 8 months ago
        An armored drone with a canister of sleeping gas would be acceptable. Then a trial by jury, to find the person guilty.

        When an officer shoots a suspect, it is because there is an imminent threat to their life.

        A standoff does not meet imminent threat, nor does a drone fear for it's life. The objective at this point is to capture the suspect, without further incident.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 8 months ago
          Aiming ability means the tech can decide what to shoot at so a kill shot is not required initially (albeit tempting given the examples on tv and in movies.)
          Your suggestion of gas may or may not be practical but non lethal projectiles could be an option, too, if the robot can get in range.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by InfamousEric 7 years, 8 months ago
            Agreed, the gas may not be practical. That is just the first thing that came to mind.

            As you pointed out, there are other types of non-lethal projectiles that can be effective. Tranquilizer Darts? (Maybe I've seen too many movies)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
            One shot one kill is the point at that point. It's used when the gunfire or use of other weapons is still in progress. Most enlightened departments hold warning or wounding shots as grounds for dismissal.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 7 years, 8 months ago
              Ignoring any rights of the alleged shooter, I keep thinking it's better intelligence to be able to talk to the perp. I keep thinking about Lee Harvey Oswald when police kill the perp preventing any interrogation. I realize sometimes it could be suicide by cop, too.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
                Good Point. I still laugh about taking an unaltered POS Carcano and firing that fast and that accurately when the shooter barefly qualified. FYI a Marksman as USMC trained Oswald in fact was is the lowest level of qualification.Nor did Oswald have the gunsmithing tools and experience nor the twenty years it took one of our illustrious LEA's using twenty years of practice to get off three rounds in that time frame. Never mind hit the target.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 8 months ago
          "a canister of sleeping gas"
          I completely agree with you if there were sleeping gas that could be deployed reliably in a real-word stand-off situation. My understanding is there isn't. If the dosage is large enough to take effect before the target can avoid the gas, it risks killing him and anyone nearby. If the technology exists, though, we should use it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 8 months ago
    Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][23]


    (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

    (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 8 months ago
      In 2001, violent crime rates were about 85% below national and state rates. Property crime rates were from 46-56% below national and state rates. From 1999 to 2011, Kennesaw crime statistics reported that both property and violent crimes had decreased, though from 2003 to 2008 the trend in both violent and property crime rates slightly increased.[21] The increase in crime rate overall is attributed to the population growth rate of 37.41%. The population growth rate is much higher than the state average rate of 18.34% and is much higher than the national average rate of 9.71%.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 years, 8 months ago
        This is immaterial to the government which opposes guns. They just want the citizens disarmed for the protection of a government that has gone too far.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 years, 8 months ago
        Governments want total control. Today they control our money, transportation, communication, food production, and medical care. Guns are the last line of defense the citizens have when the government goes nuts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 7 years, 8 months ago
    Well, technology marches on... Does anyone remember the name "Alex Murphy?" (Robocop). The biggest leap of logic (in my mind) in this movie was the necessity to implant a human brain inside the robot, as machine intelligence "was not quite there yet" (as the demo in the OCP board room demonstrated, "Lay down your weapon, you have 20 seconds to comply! You now have 10 seconds to comply..." (so the assistant lays down the weapon, but the robot didn't notice...) " you now have 5 seconds to comply..." Oops, technical glitch! I thought robot "tele-presence" (virtual reality remote operation) would be a lower-tech and easier to implement approach, but of course it wouldn't have made as dramatic of a movie. Oh well. In the future, a "Second Amendment" approach to fighting tyranny will be a lot harder when the government shock troops do not bleed...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 years, 8 months ago
    Just because he admitted to the crime doesn't necessarily mean he was actually the shooter, although current evidence strongly suggests he was. He was cornered and they knew where he was. Use tear gas, continue with negotiation, try to set a sniper up where he could take a debilitating shot. Besides giving him due process there are questions that need to be asked i.e.; why? how? objective? these questions often lead to the ability to predict or prevent a future attack. For the police to decide so quickly to bomb him and eliminate him makes the police suspect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 8 months ago
      Snipers don't do "debilitating shots," whatever the hell that means.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 7 years, 8 months ago
        Military snipers rarely do, however it has been done to sometimes discourage young children from participating in activities that could get them harmed, police often do when it is a viable option. I have seen them shoot a gun from a man's hand when he was alone, if he were holding a hostage it could easily change the dynamics and the decision. If you don't understand debilitating; to impair the strength of, enfeeble, weaken
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 7 years, 8 months ago
    Hmmpf! Sounds expensive. According to reports the device consisted of military grade C4 explosive and the resulting blast vaporized the suspect. It is likely that the robot was heavily damaged as well. Just the cost of doing business?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      That's a whole bunch of kilos of C4. Vaporizing a target is not as easy as it sounds. Sounds like a reporter and not a journalist at work.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 7 years, 8 months ago
        I have yet to meet a reporter that understands such things. It's the difference between wanting to inform and wanting to influence. Same as the difference between a journalist and a propagandist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 8 months ago
    was this another put up job as I believe the ones of the past were to further the agenda of the "lets get your gun administration?
    what if all of the radicalized blacks and whites were sent to see how things are in mexico or Africa or Russia or a multitude of other countries. places where you really have no chance to develop and possibly succeed. it is tough but still very possible to succeed in the usa.
    the problem in place such as the middle east is that the people who when young aren't job bound so all the male population has nothing better to do than create havoc. why should that be different in the usa. in the middle east as well as the usa the root cause of the problem is government. here we through our taxes give to the young healthy people government assistance just for being alive, it does not matter if you were born here or not. IF the greater part of the black population were not involved in criminal activities they would not be viewed with suspicion by the police. IF they had jobs they wouldn't be looking at what do I do to occupy my time. Keep in mind there is a significant growing population of youth who happen to be white that have joined them, why because they too do not have jobs.
    The reason 0 keeps talking about taking our guns is because what ever mind he has it has but one track. HE is also a muslim and as is obvious he thinks like a muslim and they as we know have no problem killing each other, get the point!

    I have more often than I care to remember have mentioned on this forum that I expected the demise of the usa to occur in less than the 40 years Leonard Peikoff suggested at the end of his book DIM HYPOTHOSIS which I recommend. I wrote to him that I expected the time taken would be 20 years. His response was he did not think things would go so bad so quickly. 20 years from now you will not recognize the country. 0 said he wanted to "fundamentally change the country". well he has in his eyes been very successful.
    buy a boat learn to sail since the air is free and once you leave the dock you have no need of money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      SMILE
      With a 10 meter sloop
      You can slip the loop
      Off your head and life
      Sure bring the wife
      Bring the GF too
      One on watch
      Two below
      Two Below? Say
      What's the game?
      Navigation of course
      And plotting is needed
      For a perfect rhumb line.

      And there is the tacking diagram to prove it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 8 months ago
    Are bomb robots covered under the 2nd amendment? They are not difficult to build at home too. All the parts are available from hobby sources. Maybe the terrorists will pick up on this now that the government has shown them the way..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo