2 NYPD Cops Shot in Squad Car in Bed Stuy

[erowe1]

The proof of my claim is that this is what these guys did for a living. If you would like to refute my claim, then how about YOU prove to me that it ISN'T true?

They are guilty of a crime until I prove they're innocent?

[PRB]

They are guilty of a crime until I prove they're innocent?

because they're the gubmint, yes.

[invisible]

They are guilty of a crime until I prove they're innocent?

They make their living by stealing from people, and kidnapping people at gunpoint. If you feel that this is somehow not true, I'm asking you to prove to me that they make their living without personally engaging in this behavior.

[Christian Liberty]

They are guilty of a crime until I prove they're innocent?

Come on erowe1, please use your brain Cops all at the very least steal from others via government force. Don't pretend like you don't know that.

[XNavyNuke]

Police are civilians.

Only occupying armies call the citizens "civilians".

Bingo. Article 50 of the Geneva Conventions clearly defines when law enforcement officers are to be considered lawful combatants. All other times they are civilians. Military gear and camo may mimic the trappings of the military, but does not change that status no matter how much they believe it does.

XNN

[phill4paul]

I don't think two cops who had zero to do with Saint Brown or Saint Garner deserved to die. Sorry you feel they did. Ass.

I'm sure Aiyana Brisbon could sympathize.

[squarepusher]

When good cops allow bad cops to get away untouched, good cops sometimes pay for bad cops actions.

I am against violence for anyone, including police officers or thugs, but can kind of understand why this happened.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. The whole question that led to "render unto caesar", whatever else you might say about that text, is about "paying taxes" not collecting them. I think this issue is Biblically clear.

Sure it is. Neither did Jesus condemn tax collectors, but He was Himself condemned for hanging out with them. The tax collectors were the people who put you in jail if you didn't pay your taxes. Not paying the Roman tax was a direct route to jail. The question was about rebelling against the state, and the answer was basically "not now." Which is also inclusive of your current understanding, but fundamentally deeper, and more broadly affecting.

You were pointing to the unjust nature of the cause and arrest itself. Wanting to cite the officers for kidnapping, and therefore 'murder' on account of a death caused during the commission of a felony. I explained that the morality of the underlying warrant was impossible to justify...

In order to justify the underlying warrant, one would have to justify the practice of arresting people for failing to pay a tax.

But that the same paradigm was already accepted reality in Jesus day, and it continues to be accepted reality today. He never commented on the rightness of paying taxes, just pay your taxes really so you don't land in jail dummy. Neither is the 'rightness' of the arrest warrant for Eric Garner relevant to the officer's intent except actually to assuage police guilt and place responsibility back on the head of the judge that issued it.

At the end of the day, right or wrong for better or worse, cops are basically the dumb gears in a smart machine. Going after the teeth as "wrong" will go nowhere since the teeth are performing their duty perfectly, criticism will seem extreme and bordering on lunacy. Going after the system that spins those gears will have more effect.

That's not to say don't expose and humiliate psychopath cops, but the problem is clearly systemic, which means the origin of the plague is in the system and not the individuals who fill it. Hacking at the branches is less effective when the cancer is in the root. There is no question that the system as it is now composed attracts certain personalities that contribute back to the plague in a vicious cycle, and chicken or the egg is a valid question, this being a parasitic relationship from the Pinkerton start, but at the end of the day these people are precisely fulfilling the role that the system is giving them, and so it it more the underlying system that is 'at fault' than the individual who is just a cog in it's wheel.

That does not absolve one of atrocity, of course, I think more the discernment of it helps in targeting the actual source of the cancer. The thugs at the branches and the really poison fruit is individually less relevant when the whole damn tree is poison at the root.

That said, we don't disagre on the reality of the situation. We are indeed in "Herod's Court" so to speak. You were talking about what the law is, I was talking about what it should be.

[Mani]

I'm not happy 2 cops are dead like this. All this does is play right into the paranoid cops hands that their use of force is necessary and reasonable. All this does is justify the fact that if someone twitches funny when walking by a cop, the cop has the right to blow them away. They can simply point to, "See those 2 dead NYPD cops" we had no choice but "feared for our safety." We need to "make it home safe to our family." All that stupid rhetoric becomes reality in their minds when some idiot decides to blow away 2 cops for no reason.

I think this is just going to make things worse.



I thought the police brutality movement was making progress, and all the cops whining and complaining was making them look bad, and further helping the movement. Then some $#@!ing moron blows away 2 cops and now the "politically correct" thing to do is to shut up and not say bad stuff about cops because they REALLY are getting killed on the street.

By killing 2 cops, that piece of $#@! just took a couple bullets into the police brutality movement.

Don't justify their existence $#@!. $#@!ing idiot.

[Christian Liberty]

Sure it is. Neither did Jesus condemn tax collectors, but He was Himself condemned for hanging out with them. The tax collectors were the people who put you in jail if you didn't pay your taxes. Not paying the Roman tax was a direct route to jail. The question was about rebelling against the state, and the answer was basically "not now." Which is also inclusive of your current understanding, but fundamentally deeper, and more broadly affecting.

You were pointing to the unjust nature of the cause and arrest itself. Wanting to cite the officers for kidnapping, and therefore 'murder' on account of a death caused during the commission of a felony. I explained that the morality of the underlying warrant was impossible to justify...

The Pharisees viewed tax collectors much like we (most of us) view cops on RPF. Jesus and the Pharisees agreed that tax collectors were sinners. That wasn't a point of contention. The point of contention was how they were supposed to treat sinners. That's the bottom line.

So, if you were to be hanging out with non-Christian* cops and I were to criticize you for it, you would be right to cite Jesus as your example. I'm not really sure what that has to do with this particular situation though. I'm talking about justice. Which is a completely different question than what we individually are supposed to do when stuck in unjust systems.

*I specify "non-Christian" so as to avoid any possibility of a controversy over 1 Corinthians 5, a passage of which I am uncertain how to apply to this situation (that was awkwardly worded, but I'm not sure how to reword it. I think you know what I'm getting at.

[devil21]

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-...e-in-brooklyn/

Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were working overtime as part of an anti-terrorism drill in Bedford-Stuyvesant just before 3 p.m. when they were shot point-blank in the head by lone gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, who had addresses in Georgia, Maryland and Brooklyn.

Always a drill....

Hmm, I wonder if his MD address was anywhere near Ft. Meade.

[invisible]

I'm not happy 2 cops are dead like this. All this does is play right into the paranoid cops hands that their use of force is necessary and reasonable. All this does is justify the fact that if someone twitches funny when walking by a cop, the cop has the right to blow them away. They can simply point to, "See those 2 dead NYPD cops" we had no choice but "feared for our safety." We need to "make it home safe to our family." All that stupid rhetoric becomes reality in their minds when some idiot decides to blow away 2 cops for no reason.

I think this is just going to make things worse.



I thought the police brutality movement was making progress, and all the cops whining and complaining was making them look bad, and further helping the movement. Then some $#@!ing moron blows away 2 cops and now the "politically correct" thing to do is to shut up and not say bad stuff about cops because they REALLY are getting killed on the street.

By killing 2 cops, that piece of $#@! just took a couple bullets into the police brutality movement.

Don't justify their existence $#@!. $#@!ing idiot.

I'm not happy that people are dying either, no matter who they are. I'm even less happy to see some people say that some "thugs" deserved to be killed, and other "thugs" do not, based on the color of their skin or what sort of clothes they wore. What is the difference whether a "thug" wears baggy pants, or blue with a tin trinket? Why should either "thug" deserve to die for their crimes, rather than answer for them in a court of law? Why should the killing of one "thug" be cheered, and the other condemned? So far, none of those posters cheering the killing of some "thugs" and condemning the killing of other "thugs" have been willing to actually explain this.

As others have pointed out, it does certainly seem possible that these recent cop killings are a false flag. If that is true, the second part of your post is exactly the line of thinking that such a false flag is designed to push people into. My own take on this is that if it is not a false flag, that it is the start of a slow-motion low-intensity civil war. Perhaps people have simply been pushed far enough, especially after seeing these killer cops walk, time and again. Cue up the quote from the Russian again.

[TheCount]

The proof of my claim is that this is what these guys did for a living. If you would like to refute my claim, then how about YOU prove to me that it ISN'T true?

I found proof of their innocence, and put it in a teapot which is orbiting the moon.

[James Madison]

Mike Brown was not killed when he was shot at point blank range. And the whole "reasonable suspicion" argument is bollocks. Either he was walking with his hands up as multiple credible witnesses said or he charging as the two DISCREDITED witnesses for Darren Wilson said! Based on the probable cause standard that usually holds his should have been indicted. The prosecutor threw the indictment. Had this been a real prosecution no exculpatory evidence would have been presented. Worse the prosecution introduced a law to the grand jury that had already been overturned as unconstitutional.

Jesus. Cocksucking. Christ.

There is no physical evidence that Brown had his hands up when he was shot, which has been stated by multiple forensic pathologists. You know, doctors? People who get paid to do this. The case was that flimsy.

Really I don't know why you can't just admit you were wrong in your early claim that Mike Brown was on top of Wilson when he was killed. He wasn't.

Looking through my posts...never once did I say that. I said, "anytime someone is on top of you, lethal force is acceptable". Brown was shot while in very close proximity to Wilson, which escalated the confrontation.

Have you never heard of something called luck? And as for "collateral damage" the street most likely cleared out once the shooting started back at the car. Also, I said 30 to 150 feet away! Wilson claimed 30 feet. The mark off from the car to Brown was 150 feet. Now maybe Wilson was following on foot. But why the hell do that? He could have stayed in his car, called for backup, and followed by driving. If he was soo afraid of Brown, stay in the car. The most obvious reason to get out is to get a better shot.

I don't care what is reasoning was, and it doesn't matter.
Who made the decision to charge at Wilson? Brown.
Who made the decision to bullrush at a guy pointing a gun at you? Brown.

Get this guy a $#@!in Darwin Award. You earned it, Mike.

Do you not know what the word "dispositive" means? It doesn't mean "irrelevant". It means "not enough to rule on." If we had video camera footage of Mike Brown walking or standing still with his hands up and Wilson shot him, then the shooting at the car wouldn't mean anything.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I don't think you do either.

Red herring. Scientists haven't given "answers" in this case. The way Brown was shot he could have had his hands up (some claim that the bullet holes show he must have had his hands up but I'm not convinced) or maybe they were down.

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...7df75fef6.html

And there it is, folks. What medical school did you graduate from, drake?

$#@!in $#@!...

But guess what? Prosecutors routinely get indictments and convictions based on nothing but the testimony of a single witness.

Which is why, if I had to choose one, I'd save Obama before I saved a prosecutor.

In this case you had multiple witnesses including two white construction workers not from the area who's immediate impressions were caught on camera. What reason would they have at that moment to say "He had his hands up?"

Once again, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. These witnesses are the same retards that vote. Yeah, they're real $#@!in smart.

I was kicked off a jury where the only evidence was an ex girlfriend who had gone back to the defendant after the alleged incident. The prosecutor had no medical evidence, no physical evidence, no weapon (he claimed a pen is a "deadly weapon"), nothing. The defendant got 40 years for "especially aggravated kidnapping and robbery" which requires either serious bodily harm or use of a deadly weapon. Go watch jury selection at your local courthouse for criminal trial. Count the number of cases where prosecutors say "I hope you know that real life is nothing like CSI. We typically don't have scientific evidence to prove the case and you have to rely on witness testimony." I heard one prosecutor say "In most cases of child molestation there is no physical evidence. So are you willing to convict on just the testimony of the victim, or should child molestation be legal?"

Which is why my first act as president would be to have all the prosecutors packed into a rocketship and then flown into the sun.

And before you give me some crap about "Well prosecutors shouldn't do that either" realize that equal protection under the law means that prosecutors cannot have one standard for the general public and another for their buddies in the police department. Had the prosecutors done their job Wilson would have been indicted. Had he ultimately been acquitted I would't have had a problem with that.

So, you're mad the government saved tax payers money by not indicting Wilson?

Fine. But please try to know what you are talking about. I wouldn't comment on "MMA-takedowns" if I didn't know anything about MMA-takedowns.

You gonna make me?
Seriously, check yourself because you don't have any room to be throwing stones, especially on the religion forum. But we aren't on the religion forum so I won't say anymore than that.
You said that move is used in the UFC all the time in post 187.

Because in the grand jury process the defendant has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented. Because the prosecutor in the Wilson case introduced bad law that had been ruled unconstitutional into the proceedings. Because the officer in the Garner case did action on camera that fits New York's criminally negligent homicide statute. Because neither Wilson nor any of the witnesses who's testimony corroborated his story would have stood up to a vigorous cross examination. Because one of the witnesses that was heavily relied on to set him free brought evidence to the grand jury that showed she was a racist and had means, motive and opportunity to perjure herself.

Post 158, two posts after my original post on the subject:

The Garner cop should have been punished...probably involuntary manslaughter or manslaughter. But that's a big difference from the first degree murder charges that this guy would have faced if he hadn't offed himself. That's the difference between 15 years and getting the chair. Revenge killing is arguably justified in the latter, but clearly is immoral with the former.

The OP was replying to a question asking why it was okay to kill 'thugs' like Mike Brown but not 'thugs' like these cops.

There's me saying the officer should have been punished. But keep lying about me.

$#@!.

[Origanalist]

Video Taken by NYPD Killer Surfaces, Shows Him Being Shaken Down by K-9 Unit Last Year
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/vid...LzmGF5PQXUF.99

[squarepusher]

so James Madison, let me get what you are saying .

Brown was in a confrontation with Darren in the car, struggle occurs, gun goes off and Brown is hit.
Brown runs away from the vehicle, Darren gets out in pursuit (is Darren fearing for his life here?)
Brown has run away, somehow sees that Darren has got out of his car, and turns around and "bum rushes" the officer who just shot him thinking that he is going to tackle and kill him? That is really what you think happened?

[James Madison]

I don't know exactly what happened. And more importantly, I don't really care what happened. None of this has any effect on my life and before any mouth-breathers on here wanna say it does -- shut the $#@! up. I'm not that important and neither are you. Since the beginning of time, $#@! like this has happened every single $#@!in day.The only difference is now you have 24hr media to tell you about it and enough breaks in your day to give a $#@!.

Brown's dead. Wilson has to live with it.
They'll be judged by god, if that's your thing.
And if it isn't, take solace in knowing Wilson will probably die a far more painful death from either heart disease or cancer.

Bleak message for the kids, but it's the truth.

[UWDude]

I don't know exactly what happened. And more importantly, I don't really care what happened. None of this has any effect on my life and before any mouth-breathers on here wanna say it does -- shut the $#@! up. I'm not that important and neither are you. Since the beginning of time, $#@! like this has happened every single $#@!in day.The only difference is now you have 24hr media to tell you about it and enough breaks in your day to give a $#@!.

Brown's dead. Wilson has to live with it.
They'll be judged by god, if that's your thing.
And if it isn't, take solace in knowing Wilson will probably die a far more painful death from either heart disease or cancer.

Bleak message for the kids, but it's the truth.

He'll burn his liver out and die alone, getting one last prostitute in. That's how cops live, drunk and $#@!ing whores.

[James Madison]

He'll burn his liver out and die alone, getting one last prostitute in. That's how cops live, drunk and $#@!ing whores.

Liver cirrosis and gonorrhea...

...I'd take a bullet to the head.

[A Son of Liberty]

You know, I recently read a book about a Nazi soldier who was drafted and made it a point never to kill anyone, not even another soldier. To avoid ever killing anyone, he threw away his gun and replaced it with a piece of wood cut out and painted to look like a gun. He was a Christian. (Seventh-Day Adventist). If he had resisted the draft his family might have been killed. They ended up having to run for their lives anyway. Once he found out the SS were killing Jews, he would go ahead of his company to villages and warn the Jews to leave. Some heeded his warning and lived. Some did not and died. Eventually the war ended and he was able to reunite with his family. While I could imagine some civilian in occupied territory killing him, that would have been sad. I understand anger at the police in general. I realize that we live in a country with a lot of corrupt politicians passing all sorts of ridiculous laws like "You can't sell cigarettes without a license" and that for the most part police go along with enforcing these stupid laws. But I still find the deaths of these officers sad. They didn't pass the laws and they have grown up not fully understanding the nature of the system they are working for. I believe the to be victims in more ways than one.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

[Weston White]

The major difference between these deaths and recent police killings is intent.

I don't have a problem with the Mike Brown shooting because anytime someone is on top of you, deadly force is acceptable. (see Trayvon Martin)
The Garner decision was crap, but the officer wasn't trying to kill him. There's no need for MMA-style takedowns, but try that move against any of us and nobody dies.

Completely different than someone deliberately setting out to kill someone.

Which speak mounds of regarding your recent posts:

At least with Zimmerman (HMA 28-years old, 5'8" at 200lbs and having enough sense to call for help) there was evidence of him having been physically defeated by Martin (BMJ 17-years old, 5'11" at 158lbs). ...Now, how many times did Mr. Zimmerman fire, was it 10 or 12 times? Oh yes that is right, once, he fired only 1-time--with zero evidence of Martin attempting to flee from Zimmerman, which is completely opposite than the incident involving Brown and Wilson.

[jmdrake]

Which speak mounds of regarding your recent posts:

At least with Zimmerman (HMA 28-years old, 5'8" at 200lbs and having enough sense to call for help) there was evidence of him having been physically defeated by Martin (BMJ 17-years old, 5'11" at 158lbs). ...Now, how many times did Mr. Zimmerman fire, was it 10 or 12 times? Oh yes that is right, once, he fired only 1-time--with zero evidence of Martin attempting to flee from Zimmerman, which is completely opposite than the incident involving Brown and Wilson.

Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. In James Madison's first post in this sub thread he made the provably false assertion the Mike Brown killing had something to do with Mike Brown "being on top" of Darren Wilson when that just wasn't the case. In the Trayvon Martin case, had the prosecution been able to show that Trayvon got up from Zimmerman and was leaving and Zimmerman followed him and then shot him Zimmerman's self defense argument would have fallen apart.l

[jmdrake]

Jesus. Cocksucking. Christ.

There is no physical evidence that Brown had his hands up when he was shot, which has been stated by multiple forensic pathologists. You know, doctors? People who get paid to do this. The case was that flimsy.

SMH At first you said Brown was on top of Wilson when Wilson shot him and you referenced the Trayvon Martin shooting. So you are the clueless one here.

Looking through my posts...never once did I say that. I said, "anytime someone is on top of you, lethal force is acceptable". Brown was shot while in very close proximity to Wilson, which escalated the confrontation.

Direct quote from you!

I don't have a problem with the Mike Brown shooting because anytime someone is on top of you, deadly force is acceptable. (see Trayvon Martin)

I copied and pasted that. Come on man. Don't run from your own words. And if the facts had matched your assertion on deadly force that wouldn't have been a problem. But the facts in this situation are different. It seems you drawn conclusions about both killings without really knowing the facts. That's fine. Many people did that on both sides. But when you take the time and look at the facts the picture becomes clearer that there should have been and indictment.

I don't care what is reasoning was, and it doesn't matter.
Who made the decision to charge at Wilson? Brown.
Who made the decision to bullrush at a guy pointing a gun at you? Brown.

Except you have no solid evidence that Brown was charging Wilson. All you have is the testimony of Wilson and the testimony of two now discredited (one openly racist and likely not even at the scene) witnesses.

Get this guy a $#@!in Darwin Award. You earned it, Mike.

Yeah. Smarting off to a cop isn't a good idea. It's not illegal, but it's not a good idea. Mike Brown and his friend should have just run from the cop as soon as they saw him and kept running.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I don't think you do either.

dis·pos·i·tive adjective \di-ˈspä-zə-tiv\

Definition of DISPOSITIVE

: directed toward or effecting disposition (as of a case) <dispositive evidence>

It's a legal term. It means the entire case can be settled on this one fact. For example, in the Duke Lacrosse case the fact that rape kit showed no DNA from the alleged rapists but did show DNA from other men was dispositive of the case. There's really nothing else the prosecution could have asserted to possibly prove they raped her. Had she instead claimed that they forced her to have oral sex and she immediately washed her mouth out then the rape kit would not have been dispositive. In this case, the fact that Mike Brown was shot once at close quarters is not dispositive of the case. He was not on top of officer Wilson the way Trayvon Martin (your example) might have been on top of George Zimmerman when he was killed.

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.

A "proper surrender position"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Your arms have to be above your shoulders? So if your hands are like this the police are free to shoot?



Further, do you know the difference between saying the report doesn't support the witness account and the report categorically refutes it? No. I guess you don't. If Brown had his hands up, got shot in the gut, lower his hands to hold his own wound (natural reaction), then got shot again, that fits the witness account of him having his hands up. We aren't talking about an unmoving unfeeling statue after all.

And there it is, folks. What medical school did you graduate from, drake?

What law school did you go to since you think you know the definition of "dispositive?" And what medical school teaches people what the "proper surrender position" is?

$#@!in $#@!...

That's what I think about your "proper surrender position." Also you have discounted the possibility that Brown was at one point in the "proper surrender position" but that none of the bullets him his arm in that position. The final shot went though the top of the head. Was that because he was charging or because he was falling? Your forensic report can't tell you that.

Once again, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. These witnesses are the same retards that vote. Yeah, they're real $#@!in smart.

And relying on a medical expert to learn about a "proper surrender position" is? And regardless, the evidence that you are relying on does not disprove that Brown was never in the "proper surrender position." Even if we accept your experts opinion on what a "proper surrender position" is, Brown could have had his hands up, got shot someone else, dropped his hands to hold his wounds, and got shot in the arm. That's were "medical" expertise breaks down and legal analysis has to take over.

You gonna make me?

No. Feel free to make yourself look as ignorant as you want. Proper surrender position.

Seriously, check yourself because you don't have any room to be throwing stones, especially on the religion forum. But we aren't on the religion forum so I won't say anymore than that.

If you want to argue with anything I've said on the religion forum, just do it dude. But in this thread you've made yourself look like an ass. Mike Brown on top when killed like Trayvon Martin? MMA-Style takedown of Eric Garner? You should have stopped there. Now you going to talk about "proper surrender positions." I guess I need to teach my kids that if they are trying to surrender to the police make sure they have their hands immediately go ALL the way up because if they are halfway up it and they are shot it won't be deemed a "proper surrender position". Oh, and if they get shot as their hands are going up it still doesn't matter. Tell me this, how do you get the the "proper surrender position" without first going through an "improper surrender position"?

You said that move is used in the UFC all the time in post 187.

It is used in the UFC all the time. It's a well know choke hold. UFC choke holds are not legal for the New York police department to use! You can use an MMA choke hold in the UFC because there is a ref there to stop the fight as soon as one fighter says "I can't breathe." Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Post 158, two posts after my original post on the subject:

The Garner cop should have been punished...probably involuntary manslaughter or manslaughter. But that's a big difference from the first degree murder charges that this guy would have faced if he hadn't offed himself. That's the difference between 15 years and getting the chair. Revenge killing is arguably justified in the latter, but clearly is immoral with the former.

The OP was replying to a question asking why it was okay to kill 'thugs' like Mike Brown but not 'thugs' like these cops.

Great. Wonderful. The problem is that the cops weren't punished at all. We don't have the grand jury proceedings like we do from the Mike Brown case (and at this point I doubt they'll be released) but something dispositive of this case (I hope you understand that word now) is if the hold was a chokehold or not. If it wasn't then there's no grounds for a manslaughter charge. If it was the there's grounds not only for a charge but for a conviction. Now if we're talking about the thug that killed the cops, did you hear about the case where a father killed a drunk driver who had just killed his son? The drunk driver should have ultimately been convicted of manslaughter. And while I don't approve of what the father did, I do understand. Imagine the father's rage if hadn't killed the drunk, and despite all of the evidence that the drunk killed his son, the drunk was not even indicted and the perception was because the drunk was somehow connected to the prosecutor. That's what's going on here. Cops and prosecutors are joined at the hip. And the perception is that these cops are not getting indicted because of their special relationship to prosecutors. And that perception is justifiable.

There's me saying the officer should have been punished. But keep lying about me.

I haven't "lied about you." You were pushing the very same argument that was pushed by those saying the cop in the Garner case shouldn't have been punished. And if your argument was right (it wasn't) then the cop shouldn't have been punished. If the cop had done everything by the book and Garner had "just died" there would have been no reason for an indictment. But that wasn't the case. YOU ARE THE ONE LYING HERE! Go back to my original response to your nonsense. I didn't say you said they shouldn't have been indicted. I said you didn't know the facts of the cases, and you don't. I added my own assertion that in both cases both cops should have been indicted. You asked me why. I told you why. Rather than asking me you could have said "Well I do think the cop in the Garner case should have been indicted."

$#@!.

Whatever dude. You're just mad because you were provably wrong and you are too immature to deal with it.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not happy 2 cops are dead like this. All this does is play right into the paranoid cops hands that their use of force is necessary and reasonable. All this does is justify the fact that if someone twitches funny when walking by a cop, the cop has the right to blow them away. They can simply point to, "See those 2 dead NYPD cops" we had no choice but "feared for our safety." We need to "make it home safe to our family." All that stupid rhetoric becomes reality in their minds when some idiot decides to blow away 2 cops for no reason.

I think this is just going to make things worse.

I thought the police brutality movement was making progress, and all the cops whining and complaining was making them look bad, and further helping the movement. Then some $#@!ing moron blows away 2 cops and now the "politically correct" thing to do is to shut up and not say bad stuff about cops because they REALLY are getting killed on the street.

By killing 2 cops, that piece of $#@! just took a couple bullets into the police brutality movement.

Don't justify their existence $#@!. $#@!ing idiot.

This is why violence is often counter-productive, even if and when it is "righteous" ,,,

[tod evans]

Whether logical or not there's a couple of dead tax-ticks....

The remaining ticks are going to burrow in deeper which will no doubt have the expected result....

Get out of the cities!

[Weston White]

In the Trayvon Martin case, had the prosecution been able to show that Trayvon got up from Zimmerman and was leaving and Zimmerman followed him and then shot him Zimmerman's self defense argument would have fallen apart.

Exactly, and in the more recent (i.e., instant) case, grouped shell casings cover an approximate area of 150' x 20'. A big, BIG, major, HUGE difference.

[erowe1]

They make their living by stealing from people, and kidnapping people at gunpoint. If you feel that this is somehow not true, I'm asking you to prove to me that they make their living without personally engaging in this behavior.

It doesn't work that way. Prove these individuals are guilty of specific crimes committed at specific times and places against specific victims. Until that's done, it is unjust to punish them for it.

[KingNothing]

Guess I'm just not focused enough on "liberty" then because this sure seems like fighting back to me.

You're a $#@!ing scumbag then, because there is no reason to believe these cops were anything more than unfortunate, random, victims of a raving lunatic who also killed himself and his girlfriend.

This $#@! is not the answer and condoning it by suggesting that this is "fighting back," is beyond moronic. This will probably lead to an even greater "us versus them," mentality between police and the rest of us, and could cause police to even have a stronger suspicion and fear of the mundanes they come across during the day. This violence could very easily perpetuate further violence at the hands of the police, which could, in turn, perpetuate more animus towards them. This is depressing news, and it is a giant step in the wrong direction -- particularly if people tacitly endorse/forgive/justify/explain-away the lunatic's actions.

[KingNothing]

This is probably true. I'm not yet sure if vigilante justice can be MORAL, but its almost certainly necessary.

You're completely insane and you should pause before speaking and posting, because when you convey a message like this you further discredit yourself.

[KingNothing]

The shooting was clearly a response to the deaths of Eric Garner and Mike Brown. Right now, it's real criminals that are killing cops, but in the future it might be petty criminals who are sick of being screwed by the system and treated like scum by the police.

We can only have true change when enough people are scared to be cops because of how much they're hated for their fascist ways. This can only happen when people recognize that there is no justice for people killed by the police and they start dealing out their own justice.

First, police having MORE fear of violence from the rest of us is NOT the answer. The answer is that police should KNOW that they will be held accountable for their illegal/immoral actions, via the judicial system. Second, you're making a big assumption when you ascribe a specific purpose to this lunatic shooting two cops. Remember, he also killed his girlfriend and himself. The more reasonable approach would be to say that a deranged person committed a violent act, and that he alone is responsible for doing so. At this point, there is not an actual war on cops, much as police propagandists would like us to think, and thank god for that. Let's not give any momentum to that belief.