Snipers shoot 10 Dallas Cops at Black Lives Matter Protest

[Dan]

Last I checked, the military provides a pretty good opportunity for anyone of any race or socioeconomic background. You can either make a career out of it or use it to get some order into your life and use the GI bill for an education.

[shocka khan]

Certainly in the running.

I think there's a ring of truth to most of the poster's comments, EXCEPT where he starts running off the rails on white males aged 40 to 70. People need to understand and realize that the problems are part of SOCIETY in general and have nothing to do with RACE.

BTW, as an older white male, I was laughing my @$$ off about the part regarding older white males. It's so funny how a poster can kvetch about how they aren't protected, or buy-in to the concept of protected classes, while totally ignoring the fact that a lot of older white males (as well as older women and other minorities) are victims of age discrimination these days.

Older people in the workforce are 'supposed' to be a protected class, yet some of our politically correct minorities seem to just skip over that part.

So if the poster doesn't think there should be protections for all groups who have traditionally been the target of discrimination, then why do they feel they should be protected? After all, when congress wrote the laws regarding age discrimination, there must have been a good reason for it, just like there was good reason to protect women and racial minorities.

I chalk this up to the fact that the poster isn't 50 yet. When they get to be 50, they will quickly learn how the world really works. You're the last to get hired, the first to get fired (at least in at-will states) and carry the burdens of stereotypes (not quick enough with the work, not smart enough with the strategy, out of place in time, not young/pretty enough).

And if you're a white male, absolutely NO ONE wants to hear about it. All these people want to do is lecture you about 'white privilege'. What privilege? My privilege was gone about 10 years ago. I'm in the same boat as you, the only difference is that I'm old and it's easy to throw rocks at old people.

[shocka khan]

Last I checked, the military provides a pretty good opportunity for anyone of any race or socioeconomic background. You can either make a career out of it or use it to get some order into your life and use the GI bill for an education.

I totally agree, Dan. In fact, one of my best friends sons joined the army for that exact reason. I thought he was a pretty sharp guy. He worked the system well. He took his G. I. Bill money, went to the Phillipines on a visa, got his degree in nursing over there, lived like a king when he was there (and married and adopted two children), then returned to pass all his tests.

[ShockTalk]

I think there's a ring of truth to most of the poster's comments, EXCEPT where he starts running off the rails on white males aged 40 to 70. People need to understand and realize that the problems are part of SOCIETY in general and have nothing to do with RACE.

BTW, as an older white male, I was laughing my @$$ off about the part regarding older white males. It's so funny how a poster can kvetch about how they aren't protected, or buy-in to the concept of protected classes, while totally ignoring the fact that a lot of older white males (as well as older women and other minorities) are victims of age discrimination these days.

Older people in the workforce are 'supposed' to be a protected class, yet some of our politically correct minorities seem to just skip over that part.

So if the poster doesn't think there should be protections for all groups who have traditionally been the target of discrimination, then why do they feel they should be protected? After all, when congress wrote the laws regarding age discrimination, there must have been a good reason for it, just like there was good reason to protect women and racial minorities.

I chalk this up to the fact that the poster isn't 50 yet. When they get to be 50, they will quickly learn how the world really works. You're the last to get hired, the first to get fired (at least in at-will states) and carry the burdens of stereotypes (not quick enough with the work, not smart enough with the strategy, out of place in time, not young/pretty enough).

And if you're a white male, absolutely NO ONE wants to hear about it. All these people want to do is lecture you about 'white privilege'. What privilege? My privilege was gone about 10 years ago. I'm in the same boat as you, the only difference is that I'm old and it's easy to throw rocks at old people.

My wife and I, both being self-employed, didn't face this, but we have a number of friends and acquaintances who have. Sometimes, a company will ask that you train your replacement who will have a new and different title before you're cut loose (not sure I could do that). When they go out to find a new job, it's not their age that is mentioned, it's that they are "over-qualified" for the position.

These are people who are not in a position to retire yet and now will have to work additional years to get there due to the time out of employment and/or lesser paying employment. They will now be competing with younger and/or less experienced workers for jobs, making it even more difficult for those people to find good employment.

[SHOCKvalue]

I guess they're now reporting that police killed the suspect with an explosive device typically used by the bomb squad.

On the one hand, it's a positive that no other police officers were harmed in the take down, but this makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I'm not sure where the line is for police militarization, due process, self-protection, etc.

I have similar feelings.

To take nothing away from the horrific loss of life yesterday, but the militarization of US police departments should be a concern for anyone who values liberty - left or right. It is one of the issues that is at the core of the current law enforcement public relations nightmare. When you start looking and acting like an occupying force rather than public servants, irrational and unstable people are going to act out like last night.

This entire cultural predicament we are in the midst of has problems on all sides of the equation. Urban communities need to be called to account just as much as the law enforcement community does.

[WuDrWu]

I guess they're now reporting that police killed the suspect with an explosive device typically used by the bomb squad.

On the one hand, it's a positive that no other police officers were harmed in the take down, but this makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I'm not sure where the line is for police militarization, due process, self-protection, etc.

Seriously? I would have had NO problem with them clearing out and detonating the parking garage in a controlled demolition and let the bugs clean him up.

No uncomfortable feelings here. One less asshole.

[WuDrWu]

I have similar feelings.

To take nothing away from the horrific loss of life yesterday, but the militarization of US police departments should be a concern for anyone who values liberty - left or right. It is one of the issues that is at the core of the current law enforcement public relations nightmare. When you start looking and acting like an occupying force rather than public servants, irrational and unstable people are going to act out like last night.

This entire cultural predicament we are in the midst of has problems on all sides of the equation. Urban communities need to be called to account just as much as the law enforcement community does.

That's a fair point, and I'll admit one I ignored in my earlier statement, but this was dealing with a "one off". No more lives were lost. I know...starting down a slippery slope and all.

[DUShock]

I merged the Dallas Attach thread into this thread and I moved the Dallas Snipers thread from the Politics thread to the Off-topic simply because I do not feel the discussion should be, although it is, related to politics. All lives matter and there is nothing political about that.

[SHOCKvalue]

That's a fair point, and I'll admit one I ignored in my earlier statement, but this was dealing with a "one off". No more lives were lost. I know...starting down a slippery slope and all.

Sure, at a fundamental level I have no issue with the guy being taken out, I just think the scope of US law enforcement SOP is just as much of a slippery slope.

Anyways... I certainly don't want to come off sounding like the victims of last night's shootings somehow brought it upon themselves, because that's far from my own personal standpoint.

[jdshock]

I have similar feelings.

To take nothing away from the horrific loss of life yesterday, but the militarization of US police departments should be a concern for anyone who values liberty - left or right. It is one of the issues that is at the core of the current law enforcement public relations nightmare. When you start looking and acting like an occupying force rather than public servants, irrational and unstable people are going to act out like last night.

This entire cultural predicament we are in the midst of has problems on all sides of the equation. Urban communities need to be called to account just as much as the law enforcement community does.

I am interested in why there isn't more bipartisan support for this discussion. I agree completely, and I don't think you and I agree on many political issues.

Further, aside from the militarization aspect, I think it raises an interesting question about collateral damage. Government seizures (whether through a literal taking of the property or via destruction of the property) in general should cause people concern. How much property can justifiably be destroyed in the pursuit of an active shooter?

If the government destroys property to help the general population, should the government be liable for the cost of that property? Historically, it wasn't liable, but it's not as clear now. If the government is on the hook for the property, how much damage can we as taxpayers expect to have to reimburse?

[DUShock]

An honest question, why is it okay for a single citizen to be heavily armed, dare I say militarized, while our police agencies are not given the fire power to match those of civilians? Most on this board are probably too young to remember the North Hollywood shootout but this incident is a significant reason why local police agencies have the weaponry they have.
Personally, I want my local police department to be as heavily armed as they need to be to match the threat level of the situation.

[DUShock]

North Hollywood Footage:

https://youtu.be/wZg4mcYkIwU Bank footage starts around the 4:50 mark

https://youtu.be/EaUoBIkcVQw

https://youtu.be/omZJ24RVlXs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qJbNZYdBNM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALD9AVM-Tc

[jdshock]

Seriously? I would have had NO problem with them clearing out and detonating the parking garage in a controlled demolition and let the bugs clean him up.

No uncomfortable feelings here. One less asshole.

You can see my post in response to @SHOCKvalue:.

So that I don't post 3 times in a row, I have one more question that I'll ask here.

I'm interested to hear from people who would generally be opposed to more gun control. If the Second Amendment is a self-defense right, what does last night mean for our right to bear arms? If there was no safe way to take the shooters down with guns, should civilians also have the right to own explosive devices for protection purposes?

[SHOCKvalue]

I am interested in why there isn't more bipartisan support for this discussion. I agree completely, and I don't think you and I agree on many political issues.

Further, aside from the militarization aspect, I think it raises an interesting question about collateral damage. Government seizures (whether through a literal taking of the property or via destruction of the property) in general should cause people concern. How much property can justifiably be destroyed in the pursuit of an active shooter?

If the government destroys property to help the general population, should the government be liable for the cost of that property? Historically, it wasn't liable, but it's not as clear now. If the government is on the hook for the property, how much damage can we as taxpayers expect to have to reimburse?

It looks like this might be a picture of some of the damage: https://twitter.com/DallasPD/status/609687108828033024. Admittedly, it appears relatively little damage was done. I just think these are discussions and decisions that need to be made before an incident, not after.

Interesting. So the bad guys really did have bombs last night. I assumed that was just a ruse.

[jdshock]

Interesting. So the bad guys really did have bombs last night. I assumed that was just a ruse.

nm