The Tribal Politics of Police Brutality Has Torpedoed Criminal Justice Reform

Matt Welch argues in the Los Angeles Times that antipathy toward political enemies is blocking much-needed improvements to the law

|

Rudy Giuliani on The O'Reilly Factor. ||| Fox News
Fox News

As Jesse Walker noted earlier today, it's been a bad week for America, and "a lot of things really do look pretty bleak at the moment." In tomorrow's L.A. Times, I make the "Sympathy for the Devil" argument that after all, a lot of our dumb politics—particularly around police abuse and criminal-justice reform—is about the proverbial you and me. Excerpt:

Our dominant political culture in this country is sick, and we have ourselves largely to blame. From Ferguson, Mo., to Dallas, too many of us organize our reactions to news events not by fact or principle, but by antipathy to hated political tribes.

"#DallasPoliceShooting has roots in first of anti-white/cop events illuminated by Obama," tweeted the reliably inane Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) yesterday. "Black Lives Matter," Rush Limbaugh informed his listeners, is "a terrorist group." At press time there was no evidence linking killer Micah Xavier Johnson to BLM.

Democrats did not fail to sink to the occasion, either. "If this Congress does not have the guts to lead, then we are responsible for all of the bloodshed on the streets of America, whether it be at the hands of people wearing a uniform or whether it's at the hands of criminals," Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) told reporters Friday morning, using the opportunity to advance his party's gun-control agenda.

The New York Post, like all great tabloids, knows that conflict sells, headlining its morning-after coverage "CIVIL WAR." But ever since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, the rest of us have been far too willing to play into the hands of the country's professional polarizers[.]

Read the whole thing here. Then take a gander at an older piece of mine, "It's Not Just About Race, It's About Power."

Advertisement

NEXT: Was using the Dallas robot bomb legal?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This past week has fucked with my head so badly. And this ain’t helping. There’s no hope. We’re all doomed.

    Meanwhile, a California cop was arrested and convicted for bribery and conspiracy. Sentenced to a year in jail. 3 months into his sentence, he tells the judge that he’s feeling depressed and really doesn’t want to be in jail anymore and just wants to go home.

    And, just like he would for anyone else (right?), the judge released him.

    1. Good fucking grief.

    2. it’s that kind of shit that helps to stoke anti-cop sentiment. I still believe most officers have the right intentions, but between leadership that refuses to punish the bad apples and the code that makes the seemingly good ones do the wrong thing, the wounds are largely self-inflicted.

      1. When you put on stormtrooper armor, it means you’re working for the Empire.
        Fuck the police.

    3. I feel you, JB. A horrible week all around. Bombings in Iraq, counter productive assassinations of innocent police officers(not a lover of the police as a general rule of thumb but goddamn, that was the dumbest fucking response to police brutality one could have dreamed up), two horrible human beings destined to be the most powerful person on this planet, my newborn niece has down’s syndrome, that was a kick in the gut, it wasn’t hereditary just one of those random things, and to top it off,…(embarrassing to say but fuck it) the woman I’ve been in love with for four years just got engaged to the douche bag drummer she cheated on me with.

      I’m sorry. I know I’m being a whiny bitch right now and have made pretty lazy/stupid comments all week. Even worse than usual, if possible. So…

      Fuck July.

      Love you all. Even the trolls.

      1. 1. One of the reasons the cops are so militarized and quick on the trigger is: they fear for their own lives. Everyone is a potential killer.

        2. One of the reasons everyone is a potential killer is, it’s very easy for almost anyone in USA to get a gun.

        3. One of the reasons it’s so easy for anyone in USA to get a gun is, there are so many guns in USA.

        I understand that libertarians consider that the right to own guns is more important than most other rights. Central element of personal freedom and all that sort of thing. OK, your values are yours to determine. BUT you must accept the consequences: Unfettered license to own guns, and to manufacture guns, and to import guns, means cops will be frightened, militarized, and trigger-happy. It means we will have numerous shootings which will turn out in hindsight to be unjustified. It means that if you sneeze or reach into your pocket for an ID during a routine traffic stop, you will be at risk for being shot by the cop, (It means we will have reactions: violent crimes against cops by angry citizens, which will in turn make the cops MORE frightened, militarized, and.trigger-happy.)

        Libertarians must choose which is the more important freedom: an unrestricted gun industry, OR low likelihood of being unjustifiably shot by cops. You can’t have it both ways. This choice is not imposed by tyrannical government. It is imposed by nature. HUMAN nature.

        1. Gun laws will lead to more dead people killed by police, not less.

          You may want to consider the bloodbath that would ensue if they tried Australia-style confiscation.

          1. All it takes is 3% to start a revolt.

        2. Bullshit. There are plenty of places where police don’t “fear for their own lives” simply because they are around people with guns. Let’s face it: their major fear is guns in the hands of young black men. It’s not white farmers or old Chinese men who are shooting at cops and making the streets of Chicago run red.

          1. But they shoot white & Chinese people too.

            1. Proportionately, many fewer.

              1. If you look at it as shot by cops / share of population then you’re right. If you look at it as shot by cops / share of violent arrestees then the proportion goes the other way. The point being, it’s not exactly clear that cops shooting people has any connection to underlying facets of criminality.

            2. Police abuse has been twisted into a political issue, by grandstanding assholes and the media, with black lives matter at best useful idiots and at worst knowing participants in doing so. They have made it a ‘black thing’ to the point that anyone saying “all lives matter” is verbally assaulted as a result a racist. Occum’s razor suggests that the reason behind the movement is to get black people agitated so that the vote for Hill in the same numbers that they voted for 0. Actual reforming police abuses and the criminal justice system isn’t anything they car about, and they’ll quietly fade away if the real goal of electing Hill is achieved.

          2. Why did the cops fear Kelly Thomas?

            1. “Because he was a potential killer while lying in a pool of his own blood!”

              -Toad

            2. To get to the other side?

          3. It’s not fear of being killed; it’s lack of fear of consequences.

            1. That, plus training.

              They are trained, both formally and informally, to err on the side of killing innocent people.

              “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six”

              “You have to make sure you get to go home at night”

              Etc. Their training is to shoot before they see a gun. Suspect that he has a gun and he reaches toward his waistband? Shoot! “Furtive movement”, “Reached into the vehicle”, etc. None of these would have been legitimate reasons to kill someone two decades ago.

              They are trained to “assert authority”, so you have two or more guys yelling incoherently with guns drawn, shouting often incompatible commands. This may be what got the guy in Minnesota killed the other day. Remember the guy carrying in Costco in Arizona, was it? One officer yelling to freeze, one yelling to get on the down, one yelling to show me the gun…. so they shot him.

              Always consequence free, because nobody looks at – to borrow a phrase – the totality of the circumstances. When Rice was killed, the police side of the story was “what did the officer see in the instant he fired his weapon?” which is reasonable if you have to be one of the people carrying the guns. But we look at it from the point of view of “the police” as an entity…. and “the police” drove up to within feet of a kid with a suspected gun, hopped out and opened fire. “The police” murdered a kid.

              Until we address training and tactics and accountability, nothing will change on the street.

              1. Costco in Arizona

                It was in Las Vegas IIRC. The Las Vegas Review Journal, back when they had a libertarian-ish editorial board. did several articles on LV Metro’s use of force.

              2. What happened in the past 20 yrs. to change what they’re told?

                1. I think the watershed moment for it was that LA shootout where a couple heavily armed and armored guys robbed a bank then lead a shootout where the cops were outgunned.

                  My personal theory about what’s exacerbated that though is we’ve had 15 years of constant war. The Military -> Police career pipeline is well-known within the service. Our education centers push CJ degrees. Police Departments are big recruiters at job fairs. Being a LEO is one of the few civilian jobs that has some overlap with the “Combat” part of the Combat Arms branches. This leads to a bunch of guys with a military mentality going into police work. Do that for 15 years and I’d be shocked if this wasn’t the result.

        3. I understand that libertarians consider that the right to own guns is more important than most other rights.
          We consider the right to self-defense to be as fundamental as breathing in and out.

          Unfettered license to own guns, and to manufacture guns, and to import guns, means cops will be frightened, militarized, and trigger-happy.
          There is no “unfettered anything. Owning a gun is regulated. Manufacturing is heavily regulated. Cops don’t need to be militarized; their masters choose to make that so, in large part becuase they keep passing law after law that requires someone to enforce it.

          We’ve had increased gun ownership AND lower crime for a good while now. What we also have is a law enforcement system that refuse to police its own and even the alleged good guys are brought to heel by a cop omerta that is backed by an implied threat to their well-being.

          1. Absolutely. I think the police have bought into the “War on Cops” narrative and really believe that they are under constant threat. They are trained to treat every citizen as a potential lethal danger and very rarely have any interaction with the communities they serve. I’ve lived in my current town for three years now and have never passed an officer walking down the sidewalk. The only time I’ve seen them out of their cars is when they have someone pulled over or are milling about during a parade. I certainly wouldn’t want to go up to any of them and ask for anything. They look like they think a mass shooting is about to break out any minute.

            There is no way to make the United States a gun free zone. I’m pretty sure the poster knows that, but in true double-think fashion, believes that disarming the populace is not only possible, but will produce a kinder, gentler police department who will be ever so more respectful of the citizens who are now incapable of resisting. The myriad of regulations governing the purchase and carrying of guns he either has missed or is willfully ignoring. In short, I’m pretty damn sure he’s a garden variety troll.

            1. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

        4. The Second Amendment is older than the modern conception of policing, which has also changed a lot from where it started 200 years ago.

          The idea that we have to give way on our rights because a bunch of trigger-happy dickheads have wormed their way into the cozy protection of police unions is laughable.

          I’ve got a better answer: treat the police like we used to and then the worst of them will learn to think twice before mag-dumping, or at least they won’t be on the forces anymore.

          1. *swoon* Calvin Coolidge: is there anything he can’t do?

          2. I like this Coolidge guy. He should run for President.

        5. Well, no, there’s another choice: The police surrender & go away.

        6. re: Toad

          You think giving the state more power to police people is going to result in less civilian/police conflict?

          You’re dumber than i thought.

          Guns don’t make violence happen. Some of the lowest-crime states/counties in the country have the highest per-capita gun ownership. Likewise, the worst crime areas in America often have “laws” which say that no one is supposed to legally own a gun.

          But you already knew that, and you’re trolling because you don’t have a life.

          1. GILMORE:

            RE: “Guns don’t make violence happen.” But they make it worse when it DOES happen.

            RE: “…the worst crime areas in America often have “laws” which say that no one is supposed to legally own a gun.” That’s because those laws are hard to enforce. And the REASON they’re hard to enforce is, there are too many guns in USA to stop criminals from getting them.

            We need to gather the guns up, melt them down, and kill the gun industry.

            No guns = no gun crime.

            1. Sure, sort of the way there are no drug crimes in America because all drug are illegal and destroyed whenever they’re found, yup yup.

              1. We have a CNC machine where I work. Ban guns. Melt them down. We will start manufacturing our own guns.

                1. And you will spend mandatory minimum 50 years in solitary confinement for doing so.

                  1. And you will spend mandatory minimum 50 years in solitary confinement for doing so.

                    Right, I’m sure that sort of mandatory sentence will really deter someone who’s plan is “Shoot s bunch of people and then kill myself.”

            2. Trying to take a cop’s gun is a good way to end up as one of these news stories.

            3. No guns = no gun crime.

              “gun crime” not “crime” ?

              Because people stabbed to death don’t count. Almost every time I see a stat prepended with “gun”, I know its a dishonest argument.

            4. Bravo Toad, I think you nailed the brain dead leftist talking points 100%.

              (At least I hope this a performance piece.)

              1. No knives = no knife crime

                No piano wires = no piano wire crime

                No books = no book crime.

                Anything else you want to ban?

        7. As stated above, I even love you. Thanks for hijacking my pity party to further espouse upon your personal bugaboo. 😉

          Smooches and salutations!

        8. Or maybe it’s because there are countless cops who are braindead thugs and won’t care one bit about other people’s rights, largely because there’s next to zero accountability if they do violate someone’s rights. Whether or not someone has a gun is irrelevant; that does not justify excessive force. Quit making excuses.

          I like how your conclusion is that guns are at fault, when we clearly know that there’s almost no accountability for cops. How did you jump to ‘Guns are evil!!!!’?

        9. People aren’t carrying guns because they are afraid of police. They are carrying guns because drug war.

          Without drug war, turf has much less value.

          1. People aren’t carrying guns because they are afraid of police. They are carrying guns because drug war.

            BING BING BING!

            The way you can tell that no one is serious about criminal justice reform is that absolutely no one on any side is talking about the impact the drug war has had and is still having.

        10. I don’t consider the Second Amendment more important than any of the others, save for the way a large and vociferous segment of society seems desperately eager to ignore it. The “That Second Amendment is about Militias) argument never made much sense to me; it rests on an ungrammatical interpretation, something I knew as a teenager. I later discovered, by reading, that it was a modern heresy, that no Supreme Court decision had ever been based on it, that it was refuted by original documents from the time the Amendment was written, and that mentioning any of these matters to a Gun Control advocate was likely to induce apoplexy.

          You believe that the prevalence of Guns in our society is a serious problem? Well and good. PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT.

          I don’t own any guns (unless you count props that couldn’t be used to fire a dried pea). I don’t expect to own any guns. Nevertheless, I have a right to own guns under the Constitution, and that right is not to be infringed. Until proponents of Gun Control broadly adopt the tactic of proposing an Amendment to change that, I must suppose that they would be equally contemptuous of other rights I hold more dearly.

      2. Aw, that’s all really sad. Hope you feel better soon.

        1. Sounds like it will ultimately be sad for the douchebag drummer, as cheaters tend to cheat.

          1. Exactly – it’s horrible, but better to find out early…

            (male equivalent of a hug)

      3. I have no doubt that your niece will be a blessing to all of you. I’m sorry about that fucking drummer, though.

      4. Hey man, sorry to hear about the trouble you’ve been going through.

      5. Hey man, sorry to hear about the trouble you’ve been going through.

      6. Sorry to hear that.

        Old joke:
        What do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians? A drummer

        nice handle, Morcheeba – ftw

      7. Fucking drummers!

        But seriously, fuck it. Don’t play the noble unrequited. Move on. You’ll need to fake it till you make it, but you’ll make it.

    4. Defense attorney Susan Chapman said Carrillo had lost 30 pounds…

      Yeah, judging from the picture…

    5. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do_________ http://www.trends88.com

  2. No Shit

    The most brilliant Top Men couldn’t have come up with a better PsyOps conspiracy than #BlackLivesMatter

    1. Everyone knows the best way to enact policing reform is to scare old white people.

      1. Everyone knows the best way to enact policing reform is to scare old white people.

        I think a lot of people are underestimating the degree to which opinions on this matter cut across racial lines when you start picking apart other demographics.

  3. At press time there was no evidence linking killer Micah Xavier Johnson to BLM.

    Just like Tim McVeigh had nothing to do with a militia.

    1. Except McVeigh didn’t attack law enforcement at a militia protest/rally.

      1. Are you arguing with yourself?

        1. Just restating my original point more forcefully.

    2. Who cares if he is linked to BLM? The fact that some violent asshole followed their movement says nothing about their movement.

      1. False. Obviously, some movements/ideologies/religions are more attractive to violent nuts than others.

        1. This is a stupid argument to make because it always leads to somebody playing the No True Scotsman game.

        2. And we can clearly see that with our data point of 1.

          1. It’s a general principle that applies in general (and thus imperfect) terms, but it’s undeniable. Ideology A that preaches pacifism will attract fewer violent nuts than Ideology B which preaches violent revolution. Libertarianism vs. communism. Islam versus pretty much all other religions. BLM vs. the Tea Party.

        3. Cops kill lots of unarmed people therefore …

  4. 1. One of the reasons the cops are so militarized and quick on the trigger is: they fear for their own lives. Everyone is a potential killer.

    2. One of the reasons everyone is a potential killer is, it’s very easy for almost anyone in USA to get a gun.

    3. One of the reasons it’s so easy for anyone in USA to get a gun is, there are so many guns in USA.

    I understand that libertarians consider that the right to own guns is more important than most other rights. Central element of personal freedom and all that sort of thing. OK, your values are yours to determine. BUT you must accept the consequences: Unfettered license to own guns, and to manufacture guns, and to import guns, means cops will be frightened, militarized, and trigger-happy. It means we will have numerous shootings which will turn out in hindsight to be unjustified. It means that if you sneeze or reach into your pocket for an ID during a routine traffic stop, you will be at risk for being shot by the cop, (It means we will have reactions: violent crimes against cops by angry citizens, which will in turn make the cops MORE frightened, militarized, and.trigger-happy.)

    Libertarians must choose which is the more important freedom: an unrestricted gun industry, OR low likelihood of being unjustifiably shot by cops. You can’t have it both ways. This choice is not imposed by tyrannical government. It is imposed by nature. HUMAN nature.

    1. Since you reposted, I’ll repost my reply.

      Gun laws will lead to more dead people killed by police, not less.

      You may want to consider the bloodbath that would ensue if they tried Australia-style confiscation.

    2. Horseshit!

      Funny how in places like Montana, where guns are commonplace, pigs don’t consider armed citizens a threat.

      1. Yay! Francisco and I can agree on something.

      2. Funny how in places like Montana, where guns are commonplace, pigs don’t consider armed citizens a threat.

        Scott Adams is quite good on how treating gun control like a uniform issue across different communities in the US guarantees that people will not agree.

        1. “Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.”

          And libertarians are using guns to defend against both.

        2. It’s the same reason for the TSA at airports: fliers vs. people on the ground.

    3. The Second Amendment didn’t up and appear yesterday, it has been in our country’s fabric since the beginning. The modern police, on the other hand…

    4. Then why are police militarized in countries where that doesn’t apply?

    5. So, why weren’t the police more militarized when you could order a machine gun from Sears?

    6. Well, cops only kill 1000 people a year. Thugs kill 10,000 so…

      1. Usually each other. I don’t see a problem with that.

      2. 20,000 kill themselves!

        Ban suicide. Make it a capital offense!

  5. I have friends who’d be all about, sure, the cops shot him 3 times in the back while his hands were up, then did a Mexican hat dance around him, but he had outstanding parking tickets & didn’t properly separate his garbage. They do sell dinner tickets to all the representatives they can find from every police union or benefit fund, but what is this fetish with “siding with the police” regardless of circumstances? The only thing I can figure is that they figure it might save them if ever they have an interaction w the cops.

    1. If you have something to lose, you want the cops on that wall. You have the incentive to interpret any behavior in a good light. You got nothing to lose, and the cops are always in the wrong. Coming up with a nuanced answer just means you’re camouflaging your selfish reason better than others. Or may be you’re operating on principles.

      1. But I mean, why are there even organiz’ns who state in advance of any conditions & generally, “We side w the police.”? Wait a minute…”side”? Why are there sides? & if there are sides, how do you know which side you’ll be on given the circumstances in some future event? The answer seems to be that there are people reflexively on the other side, of whom the same question could be asked. “Pro-police.” “Anti-police”?although nobody identifies publicly by the latter phrase. WTF? How does anyone know?

        1. I gave up being a Vikings fan when the “love boat” scandal hit. Most people are more tribal than I am, however. And evolution usually rewards them for it.

        2. This is the problem. “You are either with us, or a terrorist.” Remember that?

          If you want to see police accountability, you are considered anti-police by definition.

      2. Yay! You took my suggestion for the handle!

    2. what is this fetish with “siding with the police” regardless of circumstances?

      A deep, un-articulated belief that all the rhetoric and about “civil society” and “rule of law” is just a scam charade, and that the reality is that there are only a few simple classes =

      – “rulers” who control things,
      – “the ruled” who mostly play along for the benefits…
      – and “savages”, the people who will tear everything down and fuck everything up unless they’re constantly kept in their place

      They know that they’re the ruled, and that if they want to stay on the Ruler’s good-side, they should cheerlead the people who keep the savages off their front lawn.

      This shit with Hillary’s email is the sort of thing that reminds them they’re right. Laws are just for show. Power is about protecting itself.

      1. That’d make sense, except for 1 glaring fact: Those who’d be predicted to be the rulers by this analysis tend to be anti-gov’t in most respects, & to complain of being hard put upon by gov’t. Like gov’t policies are bad, but their enforcers & the means of enforcement are good?

        1. Maybe it’s about the sort of thing the cops enforce. Maybe the things they complain about are the sorts of things enforced, in effect, by lawyers, because the only useful resistance vs. them would be overwhelmingly defeated, while someone in an interaction with 1 or a few police has a chance of beating them. So they side w the police in anticipation of the circumstance that the opposition is unlikely to be in the right, as far as they’re concerned, while those who are in the right always comply (so never see the cops) because they know they can’t possibly get away w their kind of violation.

        2. Those who’d be predicted to be the rulers by this analysis tend to be anti-gov’t in most respects, & to complain of being hard put upon by gov’t

          I don’t know what you mean by this. ‘predicted’? Rulers are simply those who seek to rule, and promise not to upset the game.

      2. Hobbes vs Locke. This shit should’ve been settled by now.

        1. I’m personally a fan (and endorser) of Locke.

          But Hobbes is the “realists” philosopher, and when Robert asks why other people are so tolerant of police conduct, i think that worldview provides an easy answer.

          ie. No matter how much you dress it up, we’re all just serfs on the kings’ land and most people are happy just knowing that there are walls keeping the barbarians away.

          1. Yep, and because some of them bitch about the Kings extravagances, or seek some favor does not mean that the side with the barbarians when they come raiding.

  6. what is this fetish with “siding with the police” regardless of circumstances?

    Not to defend it all, but a core reason those feelings exist is that the average person knows they have less to fear from the cops than from the sort of people who are the reason we have cops.

    1. That’s probably true, but it’s also a massive goalpost shift on “the reason we have cops”.

    2. Grew up in rural Northern Wisconsin. Guns everywhere and cops nowhere. The only time we came across cops or fish and wildlife goons was when they were shaking us down for revenue. We had more than enough reason to hate them, but were smart enough not to take pot shots at them. This Dallas shooting was monumentally stupid.

      1. You bet. Could they not at the very least target cops who deserve it? Cops who should have been fired but weren’t? Cops who belong in prison but beat the rap?

    3. “than from the sort of people who are the reason we have cops.”

      The kind of people who steal from us with impunity, resort to hair-trigger violence as the first option, shoot first.. and never ask any questions, and take us hostage at any perceived slight or hint of personal danger? Those guys?

      1. Because tribe.

        1. Same reason he dun like the Mexicans. He just doesn’t have the cognitive function required to dress up his racism.

          1. Ummm… what?

            1. You’re a mouth-breathing troglodyte.

              1. That’s rich, coming from you.

          2. Pathogen was, of course, referring to the cops.

            1. Seemed obvious to me.

                1. Referring to Cytoxic, of course.

    4. If so then the ‘average person’ is an idiot. Most normal people in most normal places have no reason to be more afraid of run of the mill crime than police.

      1. That’s incredibly stupid, even for you.

    5. the sort of people who are the reason we have cops.

      The people selling loosies or driving with a broken tail light?

    6. Most people value security over liberty, especially other people’s liberty.

  7. “The Tribal Politics of Police Brutality Has Torpedoed Criminal Justice Reform”

    No. There was never going to be any meaningful reform.

    1. Behold the ugly truth…

    2. Yes there was and will be if for no other reason than $$. That’s why Texas started releasing prisoners back in 2007.

      1. “That’s why Texas started releasing prisoners back in 2007”

        That’s corrections, not police.

        They do different things, and citing one as evidence of the other is pointless, and a demosntration of profound ignorance.

        1. I had interpreted CJR to mean prison sentencing.

          Police ‘reform’ will come in the form of budget cuts. Unfortunately, that does not mean better cops, just fewer of them.

          1. “I had interpreted CJR to mean prison sentencing.”

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/07…..pent-three

            State and Local Spending On Prisons Has Grown Three Times as Fast as Spending on Schools, Says New Report

            1. Yeah but that doesn’t change the fact that Texas released a bunch of prisoners back in 2007 to save money. IIRC so did some other states.

              1. Yeah, but that doesn’t change the fact that net spending has continued to increase.

                1. Is the pace of increase lowering? We need another 2008 crash.

    3. That’s basically right.

      though i think there could be some various superficial measures made. body cameras will become an enforced norm.

  8. This place is hardly immune to what Welch is talking about. There were some commenters actually ‘outraged’ that the Dallas PD efficiently neutralized the shooter with an (ingenious) bomb placement. Somehow, killing an active shooter is ‘murder’.

    Pro-tip to fellow pro-CJR people: anyone who thinks the Dallas shooter was murdered is a morally demented idiot, and we need to dissociate from them.

    1. Are the military and police the same people in Canada?

      1. No. I’d ask why you ask but you’ll something extremely stupid. It’s a constant, like pi.

        1. “but you’ll something extremely stupid.”

        2. Soo.. the police routinely dispatch suspects with military hardware in Canada? How long do you suppose it will take for these Heroes In Blue? to arm drones now? Use explosive laden robots in any/every conceivable circumstance that they think they can get away with it.. now that there is a precedent? Why is there any discernment between the military and police at this moment.. other than the police and their rather lax rules of engagement? Why would they even need explosives in the first place?

          1. Well gosh, maybe we shouldn’t even give them guns. Or cars. Or batons. Because slippery slope fallacy.

            In Canada, there have been some justified lethal shootings yes. No robots yet but what difference does it make what the method of killing is? This is verging on Luddism.

            1. They’ll be detonating your strawmen with them next…

              1. It’s not a strawman. It’s your argument writ large.

                1. Also, there’s nothing ‘routine’ about the EOD-bombing.

                  1. “Also, there’s nothing ‘routine’ about the EOD-bombing.”

                    Yet..

                2. “but you’ll something extremely stupid.”

            2. “but you’ll something extremely stupid.”

    2. ^This is what it looks like when you’re too fucking stupid to realize the shit you’re saying is moronic and laughable.

      1. Yes, claiming that I voted for Trudeau is something that a moron with no self-awareness would do.

        1. ^And this is what it looks like when your best response is to ignore a tilde

          1. Yes, and it still totes pwnd u. #REKT

            1. “but you’ll something extremely stupid.”

              1. Yes you did.

                1. “but you’ll something extremely stupid.”

        2. To be fair, there are a lot of morons in Canada.

    3. Somehow, killing an active shooter is ‘murder’.

      Shocker, your mendacious summary of the discussion in question omitted the key detail in question, and assumed it as given. I see why people around here have such little respect for you and are so vocal about it.

      The detail in question is whether the shooter was “active” or not at the time that the police blew him up with a bomb. I believe a threat must be “imminent” to morally (and possibly legally) justify killing the shooter, even if he has been recently shooting. You and a handful of other commenters appear to believe that if he shot at police at any time in the past, he is subject to summary execution at any later time.

      The guy was cornered for FOUR HOURS during which no one was harmed. What happened after those FOUR HOURS to suddenly turn him into an imminent threat who could not be allowed to live any longer? It’s POSSIBLE that he suddenly presented a new imminent threat, but the police explicitly state that they blew him up from a position of safety… because it was safe… so that makes me skeptical.

      tl;dr – Your summary (of a discussion you didn’t participate in) is bullshit, and so is your little call to social exclusion. Cheers.

      1. Ok. But let’s be fair. This wasn’t a typical hostage situation where no one is dead yet. This guy has already killed people.

        And let’s assume that they simply wait him out. At some point he is likely to come storming out with guns blazing. That is an unnecessary risk in my opinion.

        No, I don’t want cops blowing up hostage situations, but at the same time they picked the right time to do such a thing.

        Perhaps the answer is that they need some sort of judicial sign off before deploying such tactics? Seems like a rare situation. Can’t use bombs when you have hostages.

        1. And let’s assume that they simply wait him out. At some point he is likely to come storming out with guns blazing. That is an unnecessary risk in my opinion.

          Thanks for your reasonable and considered reply.

          That said… they have ballistic shields, tear gas, flash-bangs, body armor and overwhelming numbers. They were also withdrawn to a position of safety, such that the last time he fired at them, no one was injured. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the “blaze of glory” scenario actually exposes them to much additional risk.

          IMO, his life doesn’t become forfeit forever because he previously shot some people… as a simple example, insanity is a defense under the law and police executing a suspect deprives them of their legal right to an insanity defense. If he is actively shooting at them and they shoot back and kill him, I have absolutely no problem with that. If the shooting stops and they premeditate how to kill him, I am… skeptical.

          The police habitually demand our respect for choosing to step into the line of fire to protect human life. They don’t really get to demand our respect for being willing to take those risks on behalf of the public and then say “psyche, just kidding, we decided that in some cases we’ll just execute the suspect so that we can all go home safely tonight.”

        2. They probably could have had a non-lethal bomb — those things have existed for decades and I’m sure a big city police department has them in stock — jury-rigged to the robot to knock him out just as easily as a Claymore.

          The police used lethal weaponry in a situation where there was no apparent imminent threat, they had plenty of time to assess their options (i.e., it wasn’t a “heat of the moment” decision) and they were in a vastly superior tactical position. Such a decision should be questioned. I don’t agree with people calling the cops “murderers” but we do need to know more.

          1. I don’t agree with people calling the cops “murderers” but we do need to know more.

            I was one of those people, so I’ll explain why. The dictionary definition of the word murder :

            the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

            Premeditated? Check. One human by another? Check.

            The key here is “unlawful”. That’s why there’s a semantic difference between the two renderings of the commandment “thou shalt not murder” vs. “thou shalt not kill.” I also alternately used the similar, but less strict word “extralegal” to describe their behavior. The combination of premeditation with the lack of an explicit legal framework is a significant component driving my skepticism.

            Unfortunately, as we all know, police are almost never legally sanctioned for even flagrant abuses of deadly force. Their behavior, when considered in light of the laws of man that will be enforced against them, is unlikely to be “murder.” I was additionally making the morally skeptical claim that, regardless of the laws of man that render it not-murder, it might be morally considered “unlawful” in the same context as the biblical commandment commands one to not “murder.”

    4. The police aren’t judge, jury, and executioner.

      1. Sure they are. Just ask them. “Obey or Die.”

  9. Civil rights were nice up until this week.

  10. Relax, everyone. The hysteria surrounding this week’s events will abate soon. The same reason we don’t get new national common sense gun control after a shooting is the same reason these events won’t speed or torpedo reforms. People have short attention spans and it’s just plain easier to forget and do nothing.

    1. Oh,sure ,be the voice of reason..

      1. Well, someone needs to be. But do I get a reason paycheck?

        1. After you get your check from the Koch Brothers.

    2. But I just ordered a new AR lower.

  11. What has changed in the last few years is the use of cell phones..At first,people were just catching the action by accident. Now,they are being used as a weapon to show police abuse on a sometimes daily basis..Cops and their supports are still trying to play by the old rules of defend ,delay and cover up.Look for more nut punch videos in,say,the next couple days.The watchers are being watched.

    1. This is why cops ignore court decisions and departmental orders and arrest anyone pointing a camera at them.

  12. The BLM people – except perhaps the ones who come up with those useful Web sites – are like someone who tells you to get on the roof during a hurricane, or get in the cellar during a flood. It’s not just that their prescriptions are misguided, they make things worse.

    “But the last time there was a natural disaster, we got on the roof and we didn’t drown!”

    “Yeah, but that was when we faced a flood, now it’s a hurricane.”

    “Oh, so you deny that hurricanes and floods are problems?”

  13. Left-Wing Pundit Has THE ABSOLUTE WORST Take On The Dallas Police Attack
    Sally Kohn thinks police are to blame for the sniper-style ambush that killed five Dallas police officers on Thursday….

    CNN Contributor Shifts Blame To Christians After Islamic Terrorist Attack In Orlando
    Leftist CNN contributor Sally Kohn attempted to shift the narrative to Christians in the aftermath of radical Islamic terrorist who killed 49 people in a gay bar in Orlando, Florida….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.