CSNbbs

From the DOJ website

Anybody notice what words are missing from the statement about the Dallas shooting that AREN'T MISSING from the Louisana/Minnesota incidents?

Quote:This has been a week of profound grief and heartbreaking loss. The peaceful protest that was planned in Dallas last night was organized in response to the tragic deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota. We have opened a civil rights investigation in Louisiana and we are providing assistance to local authorities in Minnesota who are leading the investigation there. Today, we are feeling the devastating loss of Dallas Area Rapid Transit Officer Brent Thompson and four other fallen officers whose names remain unreleased as we await notification of all the families. After the events of this week, Americans across the county are feeling a sense of helplessness, of uncertainty and of fear. These feelings are understandable and they are justified. But the answer must not be violence. The answer is never violence

So where's the Civil Rights Investigation in Dallas??? Hmm?? It sure as heck didn't take more than a day to open the one in MN and LA..

Dallas was not an action of the government. IMHO that is where open civil rights investigations belong.

Has Obama/Holder/Lynch ever done a DOJ investigation for a white victim?

(07-08-2016 04:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Dallas was not an action of the government. IMHO that is where open civil rights investigations belong.

Terrorism and/or hate crimes are federal jurisdiction

(07-08-2016 04:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Dallas was not an action of the government. IMHO that is where open civil rights investigations belong.

Terrorism and/or hate crimes are federal jurisdiction

But that's not the point. The targets of this guy were not denied any civil rights.

Quote:A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.

I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

(07-08-2016 04:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

I did not follow the Zimmerman case that closely to comment.

But most all civil rights investigations involve something along bill of rights type issues. Free speech, discrimination, searches and seizures, etc, and they're usually perpetrated by figures in authority or in government. The guy just shot random police officers, not because they were black, white or otherwise. It's just not a civil rights issue. Sorry.

(07-08-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

I did not follow the Zimmerman case that closely to comment.

But most all civil rights investigations involve something along bill of rights type issues. Free speech, discrimination, searches and seizures, etc, and they're usually perpetrated by figures in authority or in government. The guy just shot random police officers, not because they were black, white or otherwise. It's just not a civil rights issue. Sorry.

Not according to the DPD Chief

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...brown-says

Quote:"He was upset about Black Lives Matter," Brown said, adding that the man cited the recent killings of black people and said that he wanted to kill white people — particularly white police officers.

(07-08-2016 04:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

I did not follow the Zimmerman case that closely to comment.

But most all civil rights investigations involve something along bill of rights type issues. Free speech, discrimination, searches and seizures, etc, and they're usually perpetrated by figures in authority or in government. The guy just shot random police officers, not because they were black, white or otherwise. It's just not a civil rights issue. Sorry.

Not according to the DPD Chief

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...brown-says

Quote:"He was upset about Black Lives Matter," Brown said, adding that the man cited the recent killings of black people and said that he wanted to kill white people — particularly white police officers.

Well then, if that's the case, then yes, he should be subject. But isn't he dead anyway? You don't charge a dead guy.

(07-08-2016 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

I did not follow the Zimmerman case that closely to comment.

But most all civil rights investigations involve something along bill of rights type issues. Free speech, discrimination, searches and seizures, etc, and they're usually perpetrated by figures in authority or in government. The guy just shot random police officers, not because they were black, white or otherwise. It's just not a civil rights issue. Sorry.

Not according to the DPD Chief

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...brown-says

Quote:"He was upset about Black Lives Matter," Brown said, adding that the man cited the recent killings of black people and said that he wanted to kill white people — particularly white police officers.

Well then, if that's the case, then yes, he should be subject. But isn't he dead anyway? You don't charge a dead guy.

You investigate and go after anybody and everybody who aided him.

(07-08-2016 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 04:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm siding with Kaplony here Bull.. those snipers were involved in a hate crime... therefore it falls under federal mandate, which means it should be open for Civil Rights investigation, IMO.

And Tom, just ask yourself by that argument.. why did they want to go after Zimmerman for civil rights investigation?

I did not follow the Zimmerman case that closely to comment.

But most all civil rights investigations involve something along bill of rights type issues. Free speech, discrimination, searches and seizures, etc, and they're usually perpetrated by figures in authority or in government. The guy just shot random police officers, not because they were black, white or otherwise. It's just not a civil rights issue. Sorry.

Not according to the DPD Chief

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...brown-says

Quote:"He was upset about Black Lives Matter," Brown said, adding that the man cited the recent killings of black people and said that he wanted to kill white people — particularly white police officers.

Well then, if that's the case, then yes, he should be subject. But isn't he dead anyway? You don't charge a dead guy.

You investigate and go after anybody and everybody who aided him.

Of course.

Newt Gingrich: "It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years, to get a sense of this: If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk," he (Gingrich) said during a CNN interview Friday.

"It is more dangerous to be black in America," Gingrich said. "It is more dangerous in that they are substantially more likely to end up in a situation where the police don't respect you and you could easily get killed. And sometimes for whites it’s difficult to appreciate how real that is and how it's an everyday danger."


I'm glad one rightist has balls. I hope Trump picks this guy as VP, and then if he wins the election I hope Trump leaves after he realizes the job is too hard for him.

As long as the police operate with a militarized "force projection" mentality instead of a "protect and serve" mentality, this will remain an issue.

(07-08-2016 05:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]As long as the police operate with a militarized "force projection" mentality instead of a "protect and serve" mentality, this will remain an issue.

Again, when someone declares open warfare on you it leaves you no choice but to adopt a war footing. Fourteen officers in three states shot in ambush in less than 24 hours. The party in power of the federal government treats you with open contempt and the majority of the citizens aren't much better.

To be honest if I were the head of a law enforcement agency I would have the entire shift at the office and when we received a call for service we go in with overwhelming force just for force protection.

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/v...474144205/

Learn something.

(07-08-2016 05:45 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/v...474144205/

Learn something.

I will not learn anything from a domestic terrorist organization

(07-08-2016 05:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2016 05:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]As long as the police operate with a militarized "force projection" mentality instead of a "protect and serve" mentality, this will remain an issue.

Again, when someone declares open warfare on you it leaves you no choice but to adopt a war footing. Fourteen officers in three states shot in ambush in less than 24 hours. The party in power of the federal government treats you with open contempt and the majority of the citizens aren't much better.

To be honest if I were the head of a law enforcement agency I would have the entire shift at the office and when we received a call for service we go in with overwhelming force just for force protection.

Dallas does change the equation a bit, and I have responded many times in the past that I think it’s desirable for the police to possess overwhelmingly more force than those who may confront it. As in possessing high performance police cars, access to shotguns and limited semi-automatic weapons, and additional training to confront dangerous individuals.

But not possessing MRAPs, sniper rifles, military surplus semi-auto weapons, camouflage, and an "us vs. them" mentality.

So why are they outfitted with military gear? Why are they trained in military tactics? Why are they being militarized? Is it all for show?

I am under the impression - and at a first hand impression at that as a previously appointed citizen to the Minneapolis Police Chief's Citizen Advisory Committee - that US police departments and law enforcement officers are currently trained and encouraged to intimidate law abiding citizenry and keep them cowed and under thumb.

Protect and serve is not job one on patrol, not today.

I hope that one day this will change and there were lots of great stories about the police in Dallas which lends me hope.

But almost certainly on the way home today I will see the same all black, ghost lettered undercover Charger looking for speeders, with an officer bulked to the extreme with batman-belts, a service firearm and a taser, pulling over soccer moms in CR-Vs on their way home to get the kids from day care.

You tell me what this accomplishes:

I'm not a fan of ghost decals.

As for the load bearing vest it's primarily for the officer's health. Just as the military evolved from carrying everything on a web belt to the load bearing vests it's the same with law enforcement. A service weapon, taser, two sets of cuffs, extra magazines, radio, cell phone, etc. adds up to a lot of weight to be bearing solely on your hips. The load bearing vest distributes said weight over more parts of the body causing less stress on individual joints.

(07-08-2016 05:01 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote: [ -> ]Newt Gingrich: "It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years, to get a sense of this: If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk," he (Gingrich) said during a CNN interview Friday.

"It is more dangerous to be black in America," Gingrich said. "It is more dangerous in that they are substantially more likely to end up in a situation where the police don't respect you and you could easily get killed. And sometimes for whites it’s difficult to appreciate how real that is and how it's an everyday danger."

95% of blacks are killed by other blacks.

That is a FAR larger problem than police shootings.

People are more comfortable blaming the "other" though.

(07-08-2016 04:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Has Obama/Holder/Lynch ever done a DOJ investigation for a white victim?

Livingston in NC is being investigated.