The only way more killings will stop violence is if both "sides" if you want to call them that kill off EVERYONE. Because if everyone is dead, no one else can die.
why thank you, we were just missing the part where ppl literally start accusing the police of killing the officers.ObsidianJones said:Which leads me to my final point; I almost think this is some kind of set up. I can't see how a minority would think anything would be better by a senseless two murders of innocent cop. If they attacked minorities 'without cause' before, you better believe every action now will be justified with the names of Ramos and Liu, the two officers killed. Every cop now will say they are not going to be another Ramos and Liu.
And I absolutely understand that the police have been extremely poor in the past few months and showed no consideration but 100% blame isn't warranted. Heck, the blame should go to the arseholes out there who thinks grabbing a gun and extracting revenge in a "us vs them", is justifiable and needed. They think violence is the only answer but it really isn't.Albetta said:I didn't even imply that this was a good thing. It's obviously only going to make things worse, but the central problem here is and always has been police conduct, and nothing can change that.Paradox SuXcess said:So two wrongs make a right? Really? 100%? You are going to mark and judge an entire group by the actions of a small few? and I am talking about both sides here. NO ONE deserves to be killed and NO ONE should be killed through revenge and thinking, "Well they did it to us, so we can do it back to them". That's not how problems are sorted.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
There should be a fair trial yes but not with more blood being spilt.
So simply saying there's a problem with how the police handle things, that there should be no things as acceptable losses or grievous mistakes that end with a human life loss... is enough to say you don't stand with the police officers. This is the police mentality. It's fine that if a few civilians get roughed up, killed, or whatever, but you better stand by us regardless or we'll turn on you too.New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called Garner's death "a terrible tragedy that no family should have to endure," and said he would continue to work to decrease the use of excessive force among officers.
"This is a subject that is never far from my family?s minds ? or our hearts," he said. "And Eric Garner?s death put a spotlight on police-community relations and civil rights ? some of most critical issues our nation faces today."source [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner_n_6263656.html]
Cold-blooded murder is never a rational reaction to anything. This man didn't kill two police officers because of police conduct, he killed two police officers because he is in some way unhinged or unable to deal with anger rationally.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
Im not going to reply to the same comment again so do me a favor and look a couple comments up.Lilani said:Cold-blooded murder is never a rational reaction to anything. This man didn't kill two police officers because of police conduct, he killed two police officers because he is in some way unhinged or unable to deal with anger rationally.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
That comment doesn't adequately respond to what I'm saying. I'm not accusing you of saying it's a "good thing," I'm saying this man committing murder had nothing to do with police conduct. Plenty of people are mad about what police have been doing, and much of that anger is justified. But if someone outright shoots a couple of officers over it, that says less about police conduct and more about that individual's mental health.Albetta said:Im not going to reply to the same comment again so do me a favor and look a couple comments up.Lilani said:Cold-blooded murder is never a rational reaction to anything. This man didn't kill two police officers because of police conduct, he killed two police officers because he is in some way unhinged or unable to deal with anger rationally.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
Lilani said:That comment doesn't adequately respond to what I'm saying. I'm not accusing you of saying it's a "good thing," I'm saying this man committing murder had nothing to do with police conduct. Plenty of people are mad about what police have been doing, and much of that anger is justified. But if someone outright shoots a couple of officers over it, that says less about police conduct and more about that individual's mental health.Albetta said:Im not going to reply to the same comment again so do me a favor and look a couple comments up.Lilani said:Cold-blooded murder is never a rational reaction to anything. This man didn't kill two police officers because of police conduct, he killed two police officers because he is in some way unhinged or unable to deal with anger rationally.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
So you think that revenge murder is a completely rational reaction to a situation?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
For christ's sake, I already said it isn't. Why are you so desperate to force that view point into my argument?Lilani said:So you think that revenge murder is a completely rational reaction to a situation?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
The statement also completely muddies the water on what happened with the lack of indictment in both the Garner and Brown cases. It wasn't the police who were tasked with finding the associated officers potentially at fault. Could you argue that it's a problem with the system itself? Sure. Could you argue that it's an issue with the individual officers? Absolutely. It's a large and complex issue with many fault points, but it's not the fault of "the police" that the officers who killed those unarmed black men weren't indicted.Paradox SuXcess said:So two wrongs make a right? Really? 100%? You are going to mark and judge an entire group by the actions of a small few? and I am talking about both sides here. NO ONE deserves to be killed and NO ONE should be killed through revenge and thinking, "Well they did it to us, so we can do it back to them". That's not how problems are sorted.Albetta said:This is 100% the fault of the police. If they had just accepted wrongdoing and given their officer a fair trial for Garner's death, this wouldn't have happened.
There should be a fair trial yes but not with more blood being spilt.
so, which part of that have to do with killing his ex?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
As far as we know, possibly nothing at all.kyp275 said:so, which part of that have to do with killing his ex?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
Because it rather debunks the idea that nothing else could have possibly caused him to commit murder. It's impossible to say this murder was 100% caused by police actions when the person we're talking about could have just as easily been driven to that point by getting cheated on, or getting fired from work, or getting harassed by somebody on the street, or anything that makes him that angry.Albetta said:For christ's sake, I already said it isn't. Why are you so desperate to force that view point into my argument?Lilani said:So you think that revenge murder is a completely rational reaction to a situation?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
so how is it 100% the police's fault? what, did he just go "welp, imma go kill some police.... but before that. imma go kill my ex first because lulz!"?Albetta said:As far as we know, possibly nothing at all.kyp275 said:so, which part of that have to do with killing his ex?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
Oooohhhh ok. That makes perfect sense. The man posted a picture on social media ranting and raving about police actions, and you're response is. "....nah must have been about something else."Lilani said:Because it rather debunks the idea that nothing else could have possibly caused him to commit murder. It's impossible to say this murder was 100% caused by police actions when the person we're talking about could have just as easily been driven to that point by getting cheated on, or getting fired from work, or getting harassed by somebody on the street, or anything that makes him that angry.Albetta said:For christ's sake, I already said it isn't. Why are you so desperate to force that view point into my argument?Lilani said:So you think that revenge murder is a completely rational reaction to a situation?Albetta said:But he didn't. He killed police officers because he wanted revenge for their killing of an unarmed man. That is what happened.Lilani said:If this man hadn't been angered by police conduct, he likely would have been just as angered by something else in the future and committed murder for that.
Yeah. I like to see a history or some kind of evidence before that sort of thing is thrown around. It's not a good light for media to shed on people that deal with mental illness in general, they have enough crap to put up with as it is on a daily basis.thaluikhain said:What he did was totally wrong, of course, but that is not to say that he must have been mentally ill. People commit terrible crimes all the time without being mentally ill.