• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

I bet this cop was pissed off! LOL!

 
Part 1

1. Reading a brief history on the Republican Party according to Wikipedia does not suffice as an actual historical account.

In fact Wikipedia is vastly vague and open to no actual academic criticism, so suggesting that the Republican Party started because they were anti-slavery is completely full of fallacies. The Whig party and it's principles, when it fell to the democrats, rebranded itself as an anti slave party to try to emerge the migrating german Lutheran population. This is according to the books money and banking, and a course the American economy by Murray rothbard.

It doesn't take Wikipedia to know that the Republican party was founded by abolitionists.

the Republican Platform of 1856 focused entirely on an anti-slavery platform.

The foundation of the Republican party is traced back to the "Appeal to Independent Democrats in Congress" which was published by Fee Soil and Liberty Party members (Salmon Chase, Joshua Giddings, Charles Sumner, Alexander DeWitt and others) in 1853. The "Free Soil" were a mix of ex-Democrats and Ex-Whigs who challenged both the Democrats and Whigs on the subject of Slavery. The appeal was so well received that thousands of people turned out in rallies in support of the Anti-Slavery appeal, and the resulting political fallout sapped both Whigs and Democrats to the cause. The movement would later to called the Republican party by newspaper owner Horace Greeley in 1854, two years before the Whig party folded. So your narrative that the Republican party was a reformation of the failed Whig party is patently false. The Republican party was born of a rising abolitionist movement, and it would be more accurate to say that the Whigs were undone by the Free Soil/Republican movement.



In fact, the reason I replied to your ridiculous argument in the manner I did is because I said you're right the Republican Party has always been authoritarian and you suggested I didn't know my history or was just making things up. Neoconservativism is a response to the expansion of federal power by the progressive era and the fdr administration. Plain and simple, if the democrats want to expand political power we have no problem with that so we will support socialist concepts like monetarism and a federally controlled money supply. Barry Goldwater was the only one who really combated the movement

False, Neoconservatism is a movement born of the Anti-Communist left and is expressly dedicated to anti-Communist foreign policies that focus on the spread of democracy around the world by diplomacy or by force. It has NOTHING to do with domestic policy. It is possible for people who are neoconservative on foreign policy to have domestic views as you have described, but it wouldn't have anything to do with them being neoconservative. As I keep trying to tell you, your insistence of branding all bad things "NeoCon" doesn't make you look any smarter.

2. I'll answer your response in three parts
A. When I limit supply what I'm doing is raising prices, this is how a monopoly works, by attemptinto turn the demand curve from relatively elastic to relatively inelastic. This is easier to do with a fiat currency because you can boost sales to a foreign market meanwhile cut supply domestically. If you devalue your currency you can do this, if it is tied to a hard currency you can not


B. By using a fiat currency system you raise prices by devaluing currency, this is pretty obvious as to why so I won't go into detail h this destroys the consumer sovereignty of capitalism because the central authority now controls prices as opposed to consumers
C. It's authoritarian because the suppliers should be given the ability to compete by using lower prices and ways to price cut competition to increase profits, however the usage of an inflationary currency sets up huge obstacles to subsidize big business. Meaning, limiting the freedoms to enter or exit a market place. This is how it is authoritarian

So you are arguing that businesses are not able to compete in the market business because they can't lower prices? How so and what does that have to do with inflation?

This argument is like the 1) Buy a rabbiot 2) Buy rabbit a carrot 3)??? 4) Profit.

The crux of your argument rests in the details of your statement "inflationary currency sets up huge obstacles". What obstacles?
 
Part 2

3. In the eyes of his fellow "good cops" it might be the sense of an individual basis, but if it's the tax payer that is the victim then it's state oppression, due to the fact that a police officer is seen as authority or a representative of the state. There is no subjective response to change this mere fact, the victim will always look at it as state oppression, the state may prosecute officers but the leeway for a police officer to commit crimes is much more flexible then an average taxpayer. This is due to he mentality that they are above the law, meaning there is an authoritarian state.. Which is always the outcome of any government

For it to be state oppression the state would have to sanction the actions of the officer. If the opfficer is dragged to court facing a murder charge then the state isn't sanctioning the murder of its citizens by police officers.

4. Please explain the differences, but did the neocons talk **** about the cia terrorist report yes or no, did bush administration create patriot act yes or no, has every neocon administration expanded military spending yes or no

Again, you are just a disaster of a debater. With every counter you want to send your response in 30 new unrelated directions. You also fall pray to the "every neocon" argument which is really just the precursor to a "No True Scotsman" argument. Tell me what the Patriot Act has to do with establishing democracies around the globe, for starters.

5. I'm not saying it's a platform in saying this way of thinking is a product of the state

So you are saying it is not really Neoconservatism, it's just Neoconservatism? You still haven't established that you understand what the word means.
 
I bet this cop was pissed off! LOL!



He was probably pissed off more at the person who called them about a guy walking around with a gun. That person just wasted the cop's time.

LOL!!
 
Yes will Bryan, it was actually an interesting time in American history what it was was the battle between chase and Carnegie vs the Rockefeller empire. So the rockefellers bought politicians and the chases bought politicians. The easiest way to finds out who was working for who is if you look at politicians from Cleveland, they are rockefeller. Sherman, McKinley = rockefeller. Sherman started the anti-trust act, and I could go into huge detail about how that actually empowered big business, but I won't. Bryan and teddy roosevelt = chase. They weren't "republican plants" they were big business cartel plants.

Tell me the fundamental difference of having a centrally controlled currency and a central controlled economy, and then explain to me how you do not favor some of the assumptions of Marx

Centrally controlled currency:

Jim has a neat idea for a new item he calls a widget, he draws up his plans, gets a patent, and then secures a business loan to acquire a manufacturing facility, hire workers, and get an assembly running. He tallies that given the rate of the widget production and his overhead costs he is spending $0.15 per widget. He then checks his competition and sees that Ivan Inc. across town makes a Frizzle which performs a similar task as his new Widget and sells for $0.20. Jim then sets his price at $0.18 per widget, turns on his "Open" sign in the window, makes a sign of the cross, and unlocks his shop door.

Centrally Controlled Economy:


Jim has a neat idea for a new item he calls a widget, he draws up his plans, and submits it to central planning. Four months later he gets a letter "Why would people need Widget when Brother Ivan already make Frizzle? Application denied."
 
Part 1



It doesn't take Wikipedia to know that the Republican party was founded by abolitionists.

the Republican Platform of 1856 focused entirely on an anti-slavery platform.

The foundation of the Republican party is traced back to the "Appeal to Independent Democrats in Congress" which was published by Fee Soil and Liberty Party members (Salmon Chase, Joshua Giddings, Charles Sumner, Alexander DeWitt and others) in 1853. The "Free Soil" were a mix of ex-Democrats and Ex-Whigs who challenged both the Democrats and Whigs on the subject of Slavery. The appeal was so well received that thousands of people turned out in rallies in support of the Anti-Slavery appeal, and the resulting political fallout sapped both Whigs and Democrats to the cause. The movement would later to called the Republican party by newspaper owner Horace Greeley in 1854, two years before the Whig party folded. So your narrative that the Republican party was a reformation of the failed Whig party is patently false. The Republican party was born of a rising abolitionist movement, and it would be more accurate to say that the Whigs were undone by the Free Soil/Republican movement.





False, Neoconservatism is a movement born of the Anti-Communist left and is expressly dedicated to anti-Communist foreign policies that focus on the spread of democracy around the world by diplomacy or by force. It has NOTHING to do with domestic policy. It is possible for people who are neoconservative on foreign policy to have domestic views as you have described, but it wouldn't have anything to do with them being neoconservative. As I keep trying to tell you, your insistence of branding all bad things "NeoCon" doesn't make you look any smarter.






So you are arguing that businesses are not able to compete in the market business because they can't lower prices? How so and what does that have to do with inflation?

This argument is like the 1) Buy a rabbiot 2) Buy rabbit a carrot 3)??? 4) Profit.

The crux of your argument rests in the details of your statement "inflationary currency sets up huge obstacles". What obstacles?

1. The creation of the free soil and liberty parties were the focus of the immigrants that were mainly libertarian, when the Republican Party started the free soilers who were Lutheran joined with the know nothing party as the begining stages of the Republican Party took off. This is because the Whig platform failed, and the democrats were increasingly gaining strength. This is also why a lot of liberty party members went back to the Democratic Party because the Republican Party wanted inflationary monetary system! This is the reality, the republicans, who stem from the know nothing's, used things like public schooling and immigration issues to try to convert immigrant children into being Protestant as opposed to catholic. Needless to say they became the first prohibitionists as well. This, by definition regardless of their propaganda, was the principle of state force to change the thought a of the next generation for the "moral good of the nation". I could really care less what you say about them not being authoritarian, they were. The people who initially created the Republican Party werenthe failed Whigs and the American party who wanted to appease to the newly german Lutheran vote. Same reason republicans were in favor of women's suffrage, and prohibition. Because they knew it was a blow to the democrats.

2. You're entire argument completely validities my point when you say "spread democracy by diplomacy or by force" meaning, expanding military budget, not being afraid to torture, and using state aggression to create a stronger nation "for the moral good of the nation" as the original prohibitionists would say

3. If you can't price cut other businesses there is no way to maintain a competitive edge, by using inflationary currency you create an international perceived monopoly, which is subsidized by the federal government by use of laws like tariffs, you then find it harder and harder with less incentive to actually invest in a competing firm. Put it this way, you had 10 million dollars, or whatever amount, and you had the ability to invest in a new software company competing with apple or Microsoft. Where is the incentive to do so? Ok, let's look in the 1860s when the railroad industry started taking off, we are talking about maintaining tons of entrepreneurs until state started subsidizing certain ones with eminent domain and etc. This is because a free market when a price goes up competition comes in. When you inflate the currency you subsidize exporting sector tremendously and maintain a non competitive monopoly, or a perceived monopoly. This makes it almost impossible to compete against which destroys incentive.
 
Last edited:
Part 2



For it to be state oppression the state would have to sanction the actions of the officer. If the opfficer is dragged to court facing a murder charge then the state isn't sanctioning the murder of its citizens by police officers.



Again, you are just a disaster of a debater. With every counter you want to send your response in 30 new unrelated directions. You also fall pray to the "every neocon" argument which is really just the precursor to a "No True Scotsman" argument. Tell me what the Patriot Act has to do with establishing democracies around the globe, for starters.



So you are saying it is not really Neoconservatism, it's just Neoconservatism? You still haven't established that you understand what the word means.

1. In the eyes of the state it won't be state oppression, in the eyes of the victim it is. There is literally no subjective morale response you could possibly say to make this truth false. Nothing, regardless of whether or not the state condones it or condemns it.

2. You didn't answer my questions I said yes or no 1. Talk crap about the cia torture report 2. Patriot act 3. expand military power answer yes or no don't try to insult me because it's really not adding anything if value

3. I'm saying the state has created a two party system where the neoconservatives actually think the expansion of the state will benefit the ideas of liberty. The platform is a replica of what our state has become, which is the inevitable outcome of every power structure. The only response to this is the fringe movements of the modern day right wing, considering the left ask for more state to combat this corruption that has taken control of our republic
 
Centrally controlled currency:

Jim has a neat idea for a new item he calls a widget, he draws up his plans, gets a patent, and then secures a business loan to acquire a manufacturing facility, hire workers, and get an assembly running. He tallies that given the rate of the widget production and his overhead costs he is spending $0.15 per widget. He then checks his competition and sees that Ivan Inc. across town makes a Frizzle which performs a similar task as his new Widget and sells for $0.20. Jim then sets his price at $0.18 per widget, turns on his "Open" sign in the window, makes a sign of the cross, and unlocks his shop door.

Centrally Controlled Economy:


Jim has a neat idea for a new item he calls a widget, he draws up his plans, and submits it to central planning. Four months later he gets a letter "Why would people need Widget when Brother Ivan already make Frizzle? Application denied."

1. Centrally controlled currency, we want our production to outcompete Japan's, so we will force domestic consumers to pay more and meanwhile we will price cut Japan's production firms by use of buying Japanese yen to subsidize our business into a perceived, monopoly or duopoly

2. Centrally controlled economy, we want our socialist production to outcompete the United States so we will use sponsor one firm to act on the states behalf, and then we will fix our exchange rate to the dollar so that even if the United States devalues their dollar from 1$=1.2 euros, to 1$=1.1 euros we will remain 1$ = 5 of our monetary units maintaining a competitive edge while using the state to control a monopoly

Both instances, consumer price goes up, value of production goes down, consumers are forced to work longer and harder, state is forced to give social safety nets which have opposite economic effect.... Now please tell me the difference and remember we are not talking about production theory we are talking strictly monetary theory
 
1. The creation of the free soil and liberty parties were the focus of the immigrants that were mainly libertarian, when the Republican Party started the free soilers who were Lutheran joined with the know nothing party as the begining stages of the Republican Party took off. This is because the Whig platform failed, and the democrats were increasingly gaining strength. This is also why a lot of liberty party members went back to the Democratic Party because the Republican Party wanted inflationary monetary system! This is the reality, the republicans, who stem from the know nothing's, used things like public schooling and immigration issues to try to convert immigrant children into being Protestant as opposed to catholic. Needless to say they became the first prohibitionists as well. This, by definition regardless of their propaganda, was the principle of state force to change the thought a of the next generation for the "moral good of the nation". I could really care less what you say about them not being authoritarian, they were. The people who initially created the Republican Party werenthe failed Whigs and the American party who wanted to appease to the newly german Lutheran vote. Same reason republicans were in favor of women's suffrage, and prohibition. Because they knew it was a blow to the democrats.

Again, false. The formation of the Free Soil Party had nothing to do with immigrants or monetary policy. The impetus of the formation of the Free Soil party was to push the abolition of slavery in western territories. "Free Soil" was reference to the new territories being free and unfettered by slavery. I am sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative, but it just doesn't.

2. You're entire argument completely validities my point when you say "spread democracy by diplomacy or by force" meaning, expanding military budget, not being afraid to torture, and using state aggression to create a stronger nation "for the moral good of the nation" as the original prohibitionists would say

That wasn't your argument. You argument was that "Neocons" are all about NSA spying and tariffs and fiat currency. That one of your litany of accusations actually falls close to the mark is not a validation for the litany of ignorant falsehoods that comprise the bulk of your manifesto.

3. If you can't price cut other businesses there is no way to maintain a competitive edge, by using inflationary currency you create an international perceived monopoly, which is subsidized by the federal government by use of laws like tariffs, you then find it harder and harder with less incentive to actually invest in a competing firm. Put it this way, you had 10 million dollars, or whatever amount, and you had the ability to invest in a new software company competing with apple or Microsoft. Where is the incentive to do so? Ok, let's look in the 1860s when the railroad industry started taking off, we are talking about maintaining tons of entrepreneurs until state started subsidizing certain ones with eminent domain and etc. This is because a free market when a price goes up competition comes in. When you inflate the currency you subsidize exporting sector tremendously and maintain a non competitive monopoly, or a perceived monopoly. This makes it almost impossible to compete against which destroys incentive.

Who says businesses can't price cut? Businesses price cut all the time.

Also, what stops you from entering the battle with Microsoft? It has zero to do with regulation. In fact, as an IT specialist I can tell you that there are many, many operating systems out there for very specific pieces of hardware that you know nothing about. They fit a niche. But if you want to invest $10 million in a new Operating system and expect software developers to dedicate resources to programing to an OS nobody uses then I would question your sanity. For an OS to be successful it needs to have a large enough install base to warrant third parties to investing in programming to it. Apple and Microsoft are the two largest install bases of OSs (though I think Android is catching them), but $10 million is simply not enough money to to build an Apple or Microsoft. You can take the Linux path and build a free OS and publish it as open source, maybe you will get some foothold, probably you won't, but that has little to do with authoritarian government.
 
Basing your opinion on a simple statistic is a heinous crime.

You are policeman to the rest of the world. When your law enforcement **** with the law, we **** you too.
 
1. Centrally controlled currency, we want our production to outcompete Japan's, so we will force domestic consumers to pay more and meanwhile we will price cut Japan's production firms by use of buying Japanese yen to subsidize our business into a perceived, monopoly or duopoly

I think you need to go back to the drawing board on that explanation. Are you saying that the US forces customers to pay more for Japanese goods? And please explain how buying Japanese Yen turns domestic companies into monopolies? You have a lot of scenes missing from this script.

2. Centrally controlled economy, we want our socialist production to outcompete the United States so we will use sponsor one firm to act on the states behalf, and then we will fix our exchange rate to the dollar so that even if the United States devalues their dollar from 1$=1.2 euros, to 1$=1.1 euros we will remain 1$ = 5 of our monetary units maintaining a competitive edge while using the state to control a monopoly

You are really losing track here. You start out arguing that fiat currency robs people of freedom, and now the reason you can't seem to push that argument across the finish line is that you think controlled currency and controlled economy are the same thing because you seem misunderstand what a controlled economy actually is. I mean I can define an orange as a red, firm fleshed fruit but that doesn't mean that apples are oranges, it just means I don't know what oranges are.

Both instances, consumer price goes up, value of production goes down, consumers are forced to work longer and harder, state is forced to give social safety nets which have opposite economic effect.... Now please tell me the difference and remember we are not talking about production theory we are talking strictly monetary theory

You aren't connecting the dots here. I have already explained the difference. Just because you have presented a bogus comparison doesn't necessitate I restate my point.
 
Again, false. The formation of the Free Soil Party had nothing to do with immigrants or monetary policy. The impetus of the formation of the Free Soil party was to push the abolition of slavery in western territories. "Free Soil" was reference to the new territories being free and unfettered by slavery. I am sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative, but it just doesn't.



That wasn't your argument. You argument was that "Neocons" are all about NSA spying and tariffs and fiat currency. That one of your litany of accusations actually falls close to the mark is not a validation for the litany of ignorant falsehoods that comprise the bulk of your manifesto.



Who says businesses can't price cut? Businesses price cut all the time.

Also, what stops you from entering the battle with Microsoft? It has zero to do with regulation. In fact, as an IT specialist I can tell you that there are many, many operating systems out there for very specific pieces of hardware that you know nothing about. They fit a niche. But if you want to invest $10 million in a new Operating system and expect software developers to dedicate resources to programing to an OS nobody uses then I would question your sanity. For an OS to be successful it needs to have a large enough install base to warrant third parties to investing in programming to it. Apple and Microsoft are the two largest install bases of OSs (though I think Android is catching them), but $10 million is simply not enough money to to build an Apple or Microsoft. You can take the Linux path and build a free OS and publish it as open source, maybe you will get some foothold, probably you won't, but that has little to do with authoritarian government.
1. Free soilers were against slavery because it was giving too much competition to labor. https://books.google.de/books?id=Tv...page&q=free soil party on immigration&f=false

"Free soil" was a reference towards westward expansion for natural citizens, not slavery... Their stance on slavery attracted anti slave democrats, libertarians, who thought it was unconstitutional like Jefferson.

2. My argument was that neocons are authoritarians which you just objectively proven, and then my counter argument was that republicans have always been authoritarians which I've shown to be true as well...

3. Because with an inflationary currency it makes it almost impossible to price cut internationally. The 10 million $ is an example, but the fact that they've monopolized themselves without any firms competing against them show us they are acting as a perceived duopoly. This is because of things like inflationary currency, subsidized exports, protective tariffs through inflationary currency. Not because of competition, they may have started as a competitive business but it takes state power to enforce duopolies and with an inflationary currency you don't necessarily need the state power, especially when you outsource. This is why it's almost impossible to compete with these mega companies. Have you ever studied exchange rate theory or monetary theory or subjective monetary value theory at all?
 
I think you need to go back to the drawing board on that explanation. Are you saying that the US forces customers to pay more for Japanese goods? And please explain how buying Japanese Yen turns domestic companies into monopolies? You have a lot of scenes missing from this script.



You are really losing track here. You start out arguing that fiat currency robs people of freedom, and now the reason you can't seem to push that argument across the finish line is that you think controlled currency and controlled economy are the same thing because you seem misunderstand what a controlled economy actually is. I mean I can define an orange as a red, firm fleshed fruit but that doesn't mean that apples are oranges, it just means I don't know what oranges are.



You aren't connecting the dots here. I have already explained the difference. Just because you have presented a bogus comparison doesn't necessitate I restate my point.

1. Obviously you have no economic backround in monetary theory. Us forces domestic prices to go up because they devalue the dollar. If I am selling an apple for 4$ in Japan and the market equilibrium rate is 3$, then I devalue the currency to make the value 2$in japan rather then 4$, I hold a competitive edge over Japanese apple market. In doing so, I skyrocket the price from 4$ to 6.5$ in the United States, thus making Japanese imports of rice which was valued at 5 yen import to jump to 8 yen import. Which makes it a tariff as well as an export subsidy. Doing so protects the production of American firms which lessens competition and where we have this loss of competition "deadweight loss" we create the perceived monopoly because all they need to do now is turn the demand curve inelastic by reducing production.

2. The only difference between a fiat currency and a centrally controlled economy is that a centrally controlled economy, I.e. Socialism, is the ultimate later stage of a fiat currency due to the fact that it is unsustainable. When monetary value rests in the hands of a few people, the entire purpose of the market becomes a cartel. This is literally what is happening to us right now, which is why we will always see more expansion on government

3. You did not explain any difference in monetary value theory at all, you explained the differences of the functions of a market society and a socialist society, not the differences of a central controlled monetary system and a central controlled economic system
 
If one person dies at the hands of a gangster is that one too many too? Because the bull crap in Baltimore has paralyzed that police force and a small war has broken out in gang territory.

Criminals will be criminals. We can, however, do something about what the government does. Big difference.
 
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - U.S. police have shot and killed 385 people during the first five months of this year, a rate of more than two a day, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The victims ranged in age from 16 to 83. More than 80 percent were armed with potentially lethal objects, mostly guns. Ninety-two victims were identified as mentally ill.
The Post's analysis also indicates the daily death toll for 2015 is close to 2.6 as of Friday. At that pace, police will have shot and killed nearly 1,000 people by the end of the year, the paper said.

U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months: REPORT

I'm scared as hell. How did it get this bad? When have they turned into bad characters? And why?! Do the police ever evaluate whether any of those killings are avoidable? or preventable? And what can we do to change the situation? Because the situation is really horrible!

How many of the people who were shot were armed? That's the stat that matters.
 
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - U.S. police have shot and killed 385 people during the first five months of this year, a rate of more than two a day, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The victims ranged in age from 16 to 83. More than 80 percent were armed with potentially lethal objects, mostly guns. Ninety-two victims were identified as mentally ill.
The Post's analysis also indicates the daily death toll for 2015 is close to 2.6 as of Friday. At that pace, police will have shot and killed nearly 1,000 people by the end of the year, the paper said.

U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months: REPORT

I'm scared as hell. How did it get this bad? When have they turned into bad characters? And why?! Do the police ever evaluate whether any of those killings are avoidable? or preventable? And what can we do to change the situation? Because the situation is really horrible!

And then cops turn around and don't do their job because they are "afraid" of lawsuits... good. Be afraid. Get fired too for not doing your job.
 
And then cops turn around and don't do their job because they are "afraid" of lawsuits... good. Be afraid. Get fired too for not doing your job.

But they won't get fired for not doing their jobs
 
I'm scared as hell. How did it get this bad?

If you're not a loon with a weapon, don't run when a cop tells you to stop, or try to grab his gun you'll be fine. I imagine things would get better if they started locking up crazies again.
 
If you're not a loon with a weapon, don't run when a cop tells you to stop, or try to grab his gun you'll be fine. I imagine things would get better if they started locking up crazies again.
Really?

What if your simply at home in bed in the middle of the night?

This is becoming more common with no-knock warrants - often issued under B.S. pretexts claiming a CI, who never needs show in front of the issuing judge. (IOW, the police have a suspicion so the make-up a CI to get to a friendly judge)

You may simply be the victim of an incorrect address mistake - God forbid you sleep with a gun at your bedside, and even worse if you grab it during your confusion when rocked awake by the flash bomb & the breaking wood & glass from your front & back doors, as you catch sight in the dark of men with guns dressed in black rushing your bedside.

Here's a couple random links from a quick Google (there's plenty - literally a plethora - more):

Kathryn Johnston shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meet 59-year-old David Hooks, the latest drug raid fatality - The Washington Post

Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House - ABC News

Sleeping 7-year-old girl shot in head during no-knock police raid on wrong home - Police State USA

[Don't forget if you survive one of these raids, most assuredly your dog(s) will not]
 
Really?

What if your simply at home in bed in the middle of the night?

This is becoming more common with no-knock warrants - often issued under B.S. pretexts claiming a CI, who never needs show in front of the issuing judge. (IOW, the police have a suspicion so the make-up a CI to get to a friendly judge)

You may simply be the victim of an incorrect address mistake - God forbid you sleep with a gun at your bedside, and even worse if you grab it during your confusion when rocked awake by the flash bomb & the breaking wood & glass from your front & back doors, as you catch sight in the dark of men with guns dressed in black rushing your bedside.

Here's a couple random links from a quick Google (there's plenty - literally a plethora - more):

Kathryn Johnston shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meet 59-year-old David Hooks, the latest drug raid fatality - The Washington Post

Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House - ABC News

Sleeping 7-year-old girl shot in head during no-knock police raid on wrong home - Police State USA

[Don't forget if you survive one of these raids, most assuredly your dog(s) will not]

The no-knock thing is definitely a problem.... even I can agree on that one.

However, its a small percentage (albeit growing) chance that this will happen to you. Nothing to lose sleep over.
 
The no-knock thing is definitely a problem.... even I can agree on that one.

However, its a small percentage (albeit growing) chance that this will happen to you. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Is that a pun about how no-knock raids frequently involve killing people in their sleep?
 
You take a country as vast and populated as the USA and break down those numbers... they are unfortunate don't get me wrong and I'm sure a number of those were probably not good shootings BUT.

That works out to be 0.000001% of the population.
 
You take a country as vast and populated as the USA and break down those numbers... they are unfortunate don't get me wrong and I'm sure a number of those were probably not good shootings BUT.

That works out to be 0.000001% of the population.
In addition, the number in and of itself says nothing of how each shooting was adjudicated by oversight review boards and district prosecutors.
 
Criminals will be criminals. We can, however, do something about what the government does. Big difference.

That is an odd way of thinking. Police who shoot defenseless and nonthreatening citizens are also criminals. Criminals will be criminals.

By vilifying police in general for the actions of a few you create an environment that discourages proactive policing, and you end up with the current murder sprees in Baltimore.
 
Back
Top Bottom