Skip to main content

View Diary: "F**K That! No More Killing!'" Continuing the Fight Against Police Violence. (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Shootouts with gang members are the issue (0+ / 0-)

    because if you are trying to disarm the police (not saying you are), then you are leaving them out to be sitting ducks.

    It's irrelevant that a "vast majority" (in many areas of this country, this isn't really true) of people don't have guns.  The point is, some do, legally or illegally, and many crimes in America involves those guns.  Police need to be able to protect themselves and the public from these gun-toters, and thus, police need to be heavily armed.

    As long as our country tolerates any random Joe arming himself like the 5th Infantry Division (and thanks to the power of the gun-toters, that's basically the situation we have), then the police need adequate arms to counter that.

    •  When 'gang' members (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, Horace Boothroyd III

      (may not be members of any actual recognized gang) get in a shoot-out with other not-actually recognized gang members around here, it usually happens in a park or neighborhood street or nightclub where police aren't present until it's over. They come because they've been called, thus have plenty of warning to bring a sidearm.

      I recall not a single instance in more than twenty years here where a police officer or group of police officers got to play the third 'gang' in a major shoot-out. By the time they get there they've got witnesses to interview, injured people to see to, and involved individuals to arrest. They are not there to contribute to flying bullets with their notoriously bad aim.

      Do police in your locality commonly involve themselves in gang shoot-outs? If so, perhaps your city manager should ask more questions while interviewing wannabe recruits to see if they've got a gang-related history.

      •  Not sure I see your point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        It's not about whether the police regularly get involved in gang shootouts.  It's about whether these shootouts occur, and whether people on the streets do fire guns.  We know that they do.  Asking the police to protect us from this violence, without arming the police, does not seem wise to me.

        Are you trying to say that because the police don't try to get in the crossfire of shootouts, they shouldn't have guns?  I mean, I don't get that.  Just because they don't actively fire their weapons doesn't mean they shouldn't have weapons.

        •  I haven't suggested not arming (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, Horace Boothroyd III

          police. Though I agree they don't need to be militarized - if a situation needs military response, there's military available in every major city. It's called "National Guard."

          I don't know where you live, but where I live everybody and their mother can be armed if they want to be. It's entirely safe to presume that every house along the road harbors at least one gun, and I've personally seen at least 6 people just today skirting the edge of my property openly carrying guns. They skirt my property, by the way, because it's well-posted, and they presume I've got a gun too. Which I do. I've never shot a human, cop or civilian.

          There are a total of 38,000 people in my entire county, I'd wager at least three quarters of them have access to firearms. Yet the murder-by-firearm rate in the past year is about what it always is, maybe 2, sometimes 3 or 4. Usually family or feud related, as are most murders by other means. Not counting suicides by gun, though those may be technically classified as murders.

          The murder-by-firearm rate in the more populous county next door - which boasts a sizeable city - is higher, so far this year a couple of those have involved police (for whom murder was charged), plus one murder-by-cop who ran over a guy on a bicycle because 1) he was drunk, and 2) he doesn't like bicycles on "his" roads. Some bad drug deals, a nightclub shooting thought to be gang related, and the usual jilted lovers/family feuds. Less than a handful of gun deaths during robberies/home invasions, but there homeowners hold the upper hand and generally aren't charged. Oh... and one crazy 'roided out junior cop who got a whole family killed on the interstate by outrageously bad driving at over a hundred miles an hour for no reason. He is no longer a cop.

          Murder rates are down significantly all over this country. If you don't count unarmed civilians killed by cops with guns. And that's what this protest is all about, because way too many of those DON'T count.

    •  By the way, unless you can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, Horace Boothroyd III

      establish that ANY of the 50 people killed by police who serve as impetus for this protest in California, or any of the untold numbers nationwide that will serve to highlight the issue in the rest of the country were armed and dangerous when the cops decided to kill them in cold blood, you've got nothing.

      An appeal to "but... but... scary guns!" won't work. In all cases, the police who did the killing were armed. The people they killed were not.

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        Where did I say anything about about any of that?  All I said was the police shouldn't be disarmed.  Has nothing to do with anything you just said.

        I like how you make fun of people for "scary guns" as if guns are toys, not scary.  Yeah, they're just fun things aren't they?  Nothing to be afraid of.  They only destroy lives.

        •  huh? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III

          Since I never said the police should be disarmed, you may be confusing me with some other commenter. Which probably explains your "reading-into" of things I haven't said.

          Nobody has said that guns are toys, or that they aren't scary in a number of circumstances. But that cannot ever justify the murder of a single unarmed civilian by any cop, anywhere. It just can't. Cops should not get away with killing unarmed civilians - even if they're mentally ill, even if they've been caught speeding or in possession of stolen goods, etc. - in cold blood. That's murder. It needs to be charged against murderous police much more often than it is.

          I personally have no sympathy or use for cops who are terrified of the public they are employed to serve. Nor do I think cops EVER need to get away with killing unarmed civilians just because somebody somewhere might be armed. Cowards make lousy guardians.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site