Five reported dead in northeast Las Vegas police ambush

Quote: MidwestAP

I'll agree with you, anybody that wishes death upon lawmen who for the most part do a good job of protecting law abiding citizens, while putting their necks on the line, is scum. That sentiment is reprehensible. Suspend me if you have to.

+100,000

Quote: mcallister3200

Can someone lock this thread so people stop feeding the troll?

If you're calling me a troll I do take offense. I'm trying to open peoples eyes up to overcome their naivety.

Quote: rudeboyoi

If you're calling me a troll I do take offense. I'm trying to open peoples eyes up to overcome their naivety.

maybe. But if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Doesn't bother me if they suspend you or not. I realize our beliefs are opposite each other and can evoke strong emotions either way. More than 3x as many citizens are killed by law enforcement than law enforcement are killed per year. I'm for what's fair. The closer that gap becomes the happier I'll be.

You would expect that folks who decide that they should not follow the law and do things like shoot people, rape people, steal things, etc. will get shot by those out to stop them at a higher rate than that...I guess our law enforcement folks do a pretty darned good job of holding their fire!

I'm sorry for any loss of life of those not involved in criminal activity and for those regrettable incidents were true innocents are killed. We should prevent as many of those as we can. That being said, the lawlessness that you seem to prefer would do nothing but make things worse.

It isn't "fair" that someone disobeys a command to disarm (drop a knife or gun) and then advances towards and officer forces the officer to make the decision to pull the trigger. They wouldn't have to shoot that person if the person complied with the command.

Quote: RonC

You would expect that folks who decide that they should not follow the law and do things like shoot people, rape people, steal things, etc. will get shot by those out to stop them at a higher rate than that...I guess our law enforcement folks do a pretty darned good job of holding their fire!

I'm sorry for any loss of life of those not involved in criminal activity and for those regrettable incidents were true innocents are killed. We should prevent as many of those as we can. That being said, the lawlessness that you seem to prefer would do nothing but make things worse.

It isn't "fair" that someone disobeys a command to disarm (drop a knife or gun) and then advances towards and officer forces the officer to make the decision to pull the trigger. They wouldn't have to shoot that person if the person complied with the command.

How is it fair that they are able to give that command in the first place?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Explain to me exactly how lawmen protect us.

The cops are involved in making arrests on warrants for crimes where people weren't caught. I'm not going to start doing that.

Anybody can be robbed. Just wait until their back is turned and have a gun on them. Better yet, if no one is likely to be coming after you, just smash the person's head in while they aren't looking.

WE ALL CAN'T SLEEP WITH ONE EYE OPEN.

Nor do I want to.

Quote: rudeboyoi

How is it fair that they are able to give that command in the first place?

So given the hypothetical of a man advancing on a cop with a gun or a knife, you don't think the cop should be able to give the command to drop the weapon?

Quote: RonC

You would expect that folks who decide that they should not follow the law and do things like shoot people, rape people, steal things, etc. will get shot by those out to stop them at a higher rate than that...I guess our law enforcement folks do a pretty darned good job of holding their fire!

I'm sorry for any loss of life of those not involved in criminal activity and for those regrettable incidents were true innocents are killed. We should prevent as many of those as we can. That being said, the lawlessness that you seem to prefer would do nothing but make things worse.

It isn't "fair" that someone disobeys a command to disarm (drop a knife or gun) and then advances towards and officer forces the officer to make the decision to pull the trigger. They wouldn't have to shoot that person if the person complied with the command.

How do you know that lawlessness would make matters worse? How do cops stop rape? Again is a cop magically going to appear to protect someone thats being raped? Only we can protect ourselves.

NSA is all up in rudeboi business putting him on some sort of list if he wasn't already there.

Quote: rxwine

The cops are involved in making arrests on warrants for crimes where people weren't caught. I'm not going to start doing that.

Anybody can be robbed. Just wait until their back is turned and have a gun on them. Better yet, if no one is likely to be coming after you, just smash the person's head in while they aren't looking.

WE ALL CAN'T SLEEP WITH ONE EYE OPEN.

Nor do I want to.

This is my whole point though. They can't stop a crime from being committed. They can only respond after the fact.

Quote: bbbbcccc

So given the hypothetical of a man advancing on a cop with a gun or a knife, you don't think the cop should be able to give the command to drop the weapon?

I don't think anyone should be able to command anyone to do anything.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't think anyone should be able to command anyone to do anything.

Well then, it's readily apparent that you've spent a lot of time thinking through your belief system.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Just taking the averages over the periods. About 1k/yr over an 80yr period and about 16k/yr over a 13yr period. Do you really think that difference in rate is based primarily on population growth?

The answer is clear in a state that has grown far more than 1,000 percent in your time period.

Quote: rudeboyoi

This is my whole point though. They can't stop a crime from being committed. They can only respond after the fact.

Sure, but like I said, I'm not going tor track them down and give chase and risk my life for all the criminals who get away. They'll still be out there, to rob rape and murder.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't think anyone should be able to command anyone to do anything.

Never been in the armed forces, eh?

Quote: SanchoPanza

The answer is clear in a state that has grown far more than 1,000 percent in your time period.

How much has it grown in the 13yr timespan from 1997-2010? To be completely fair wed have to create a graph of the ratio of felony convictions to the population for each year.

Quote: rudeboyoi

How is it fair that they are able to give that command in the first place?

Because society has given them that power, that right and that duty.

Quote: rudeboyoi

This is my whole point though. They can't stop a crime from being committed. They can only respond after the fact.

I'm not so naive to think that cops can stop all crime, but there is a determent impact. I can think of a number of a number of situations that are safer because of police presence.

There is not such a thing a safety utopia, but in a civilized society, their job is important and much appreciated by me.

If you've been wronged by police then that's a shame. But to support criminals/murder's who kill police officers isn't defendable in my opinion.

Quote: rudeboyoi

This is my whole point though. They can't stop a crime from being committed. They can only respond after the fact.

Not true. I have seen police officers stop crimes in the course of being committed, and the presence (or implied presence) stop other people committing crimes.

Quote: rudeboyoi

How much has it grown in the 13yr timespan from 1997-2010? To be completely fair wed have to create a graph of the ratio of felony convictions to the population for each year.

Be our guest. You made an assertion. The data are readily available.

Quote: rudeboyoi

This is my whole point though. They can't stop a crime from being committed. They can only respond after the fact.

The theory that doing away with police forces lowers crime rates is, shall we say, unique.

Quote: rudeboyoi

How is it fair that they are able to give that command in the first place?

Measuring fairness is subjective.

They were given that command by the creators of the Constitution who created the Executive Branch of government. Law enforcement is an extension of that branch.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Never been in the armed forces, eh?

They gave their consent to be commanded. When you take a job you give your consent to be told what to do and in return get paid for it. With the police we don't have that luxury. By the way I'm friends with a lot of active duty/ex-military enlisted men. Mainly marines. They take an oath to support the constitution and can easily understand my point of views. As clearly our rights are slowly being eroded away especially the rights granted to us by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment.

To sort of get back on topic, it pleases me greatly to see that the "Media" option hasn't a single vote. It's a start =)

But I want to put down my pro-gun rants for a second and ask of all the voters for more gun laws - how does that help?

I ask because I live in a very unfriendly state when it comes to guns. Depending on what criteria one uses, the People's Republic of NY ranks 3rd or 4th worst (or best, depending on your stance) in gun rights. Getting a pistol is not guaranteed, and the process for certain counties, including mine, involves months if not years of wait and hundreds of dollars just to ask for them to consider you. With the implementation of the (un)SAFEAct, everything got 10x's harder.

Yet in 2011, I acquired an M-4. It has a forward and rear pistol grip. It can accept 30 round mags, and I possess a few. Today after some self inflicted modifications, it fires in full auto at 900rds p/min. It has an adjustable stock and a flash suppressor / muzzle break.

In short, I have ticked every single box for accessories and functions which are banned. Every single aspect of a gun that NY has made illegal I have molded into my weapon. Because of that, I am currently an as-of-yet unconvicted felon.

In the last anti-gun dust up, I made a post on Facebook. It was similar to this in that I listed the details of my weapon and announced my possession of it. I reminded everyone that because of the (un)SAFEAct, I was no longer protected by the 2nd or the 4th, and because of NY's erosion of law in their unconstitutional act, even HIPPA did not apply to me. I reminded them all that they knew me personally and I was living in the same home as I have for 27 years of my life; they knew where to find me. I then supplied the phone number for the anonymous tip line that one would use to turn in those in violation of the (un)SAFEAct, reminded them that there was a $500 reward for a conviction resulting in their tip, and set them loose with a moral - when you continue to see me post, you'll understand why more laws are not the answer.

That was 6-ish months ago. I'm still here. I think I even made a similar post in the gun thread here, and with the bounty of personal info supplied at DT, I made the same statement. Try it. And when I'm still here, rethink your stance on more laws.

So here I am, with a big flashing sign that says "FELON HERE" and not a single law to protect me. Yet I'm. Still. Here.

If the law can't keep a particular gun out of my hands, how can it affect the criminal element? That's what I want to know from those who want more laws. I don't want stats, or reports that show some place with more gun laws have less gun crime. I just want a simple, logical, and personal argument to help me understand your line of thought. How do more laws help? Any takers?

Quote: rudeboyoi

By the way I'm friends with a lot of active duty/ex-military enlisted men. Mainly marines. They take an oath to support the constitution and can easily understand my point of views.

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic"...that oath takes a stand against you if you become an enemy of the government. I bet they don't really understand your point of view, they just tolerate it because you are okay to drink a beer with in their eyes.

Quote: rudeboyoi

As clearly our rights are slowly being eroded away especially the rights granted to us by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment.

Big Government does try to take away our rights, be it from the left or right. That is a whole different argument.

Still nothing you have said justifies your "giddiness"...

When it comes to freedom of press, we are currently ranked 46th in the world. Let that one sink in for a minute.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-united-states-just-finished-46th-in-a-press-freedom-contest/283798/

Quote: rudeboyoi

How is it fair that they are able to give that command in the first place?

What are you, six.

Quote: rudeboyoi

Quote: RonC

This is not about them. This is about two cops who were shot in cold blood by criminals. The two cops were victimized by criminals. All criminals are scum.

And it makes me giddy with delight. How about all the citizens (and their dogs too) that cops shoot in cold blood? This is justice for them.And it makes me giddy with delight. How about all the citizens (and their dogs too) that cops shoot in cold blood? This is justice for them.

I am not sure if this is covered in the (new) forum rules, but I would like to see rudeboyoi nuked from the forums. Anybody who publicly states an opinion like this has no place in this community. I enjoy this community as a group of people from all walks of life and across the political spectrum, which makes for interesting debates and conversations. But this crosses a line. Our community must respond to this totally unacceptable statement. Like in the Donald Sterling case, rudeboyoi is entitled to his opinion, but we, the community are entitled to a response:

We don't want you here anymore, rudeboyoi! The best solution would be for you to leave on your own accord, you don't belong here.

[Please refrain from posting "free speech" stuff everyone, this forum is not the government.]

Quote: rudeboyoi

They take an oath to support the constitution and can easily understand my point of views. As clearly our rights are slowly being eroded away especially the rights granted to us by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment.

Quote: RonC

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic"...that oath takes a stand against you if you become an enemy of the government.

This describes my LEO friends to a "T". Half of them don't even bust weed possession unless it is thrown in their face. Cell phones laws, gun laws, whatever, they refuse to pester and money grab and focus more on conflict mediation and rescue services.

I used to smoke weed in the presence of one of them, before we came to be friends and I learned he was the Chief of Police. He never said a word and just teased me years later after I had quit. After NYSafe was enacted, I helped a LEO friend of mine acquire the same felonious firearm that I owned because "he wasn't following that commie #%$^".

I'd like to think the power abusing, tough guy douchebags are the minority. Most, not all but most, of the LEO's I know are just regular guys putting in their hours, trying to make the town better and getting off the job before they're killed in a traffic stop.

As for the "mean cop?" Gimme a break. If a cop is cold to you, then take it like a man. Many of these guys just pulled a child's bloated corpse out of a lake or scooped a suicide's brains into a bag just 10 minutes before he ran into you. Now he's gotta hear you call him names for daring to pull you over for 10 over? And just like the military, there's no extensive program to address that stress. Just finish your hours, go home to a wife pissed about all the overtime, get 3 hours of nightmare filled sleep, and go back for another 16hr stint on the job.

Cut 'em some slack.

No, you are entitled to make a response. I am not sure who this 'we' you talk about is.

Personally, I find the idea of being happy that anyone just got a bullet in the head for no good reason is abhorrent, too. I am not about to call for a perma-ban for holding such a view either.

Where the notion, that somehow goverment won't nuke it's own people came from? Each and every goverment hates it's own people, they won't hesitate much of wiping off thousands. How can hand held guns can protect anyone against armed to their teeth army is beyond my understanding.

Quote: rudeboyoi

They gave their consent to be commanded. When you take a job you give your consent to be told what to do and in return get paid for it. With the police we don't have that luxury. By the way I'm friends with a lot of active duty/ex-military enlisted men. Mainly marines. They take an oath to support the constitution and can easily understand my point of views. As clearly our rights are slowly being eroded away especially the rights granted to us by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendment.

I concur. But abolishing police forces won't accomplish that. The ruling executive would order the military to carry out his/her wishes. Unless you say abolish the military, too?

Quote: thecesspit

No, you are entitled to make a response. I am not sure who this 'we' you talk about is.

Personally, I find the idea of being happy that anyone just got a bullet in the head for no good reason is abhorrent, too. I am not about to call for a perma-ban for holding such a view either.

Thank you.

Quote: Canyonero

I am not sure if this is covered in the (new) forum rules, but I would like to see rudeboyoi nuked from the forums. Anybody who publicly states an opinion like this has no place in this community. I enjoy this community as a group of people from all walks of life and across the political spectrum, which makes for interesting debates and conversations. But this crosses a line. Our community must respond to this totally unacceptable statement. Like in the Donald Sterling case, rudeboyoi is entitled to his opinion, but we, the community are entitled to a response:

We don't want you here anymore, rudeboyoi! The best solution would be for you to leave on your own accord, you don't belong here.

[Please refrain from posting "free speech" stuff everyone, this forum is not the government.]

+100
Rudeboyoi is celebrating the murder of two people and advocating more of it. What is the Wizards stance on this? No action will, I believe, degrade this forum.

Will any advertiser from Las Vegas have any interest in this site after reading this?

There are many reasons.

First, as discussed on Sixty Minutes last night (a rerun), many young mass murderers suffer from severe mental illness. Voices tell them to do something, and they do it. For those of you who believe that that explanation is just a copout, I've lived with schizophrenia in my home, and indeed to those affected, they truly believe what they have heard. At some point, you pray that you'll be lucky enough to be able to have your loved one be in the mental state where they are clearly at risk of harming themselves but end up getting the treatment they need.

For those millions of Americans that are untreated, they are all ticking time bombs, and with access to guns and the right commands their voices in their head, more murders will be committed. The issue is that there are many states (including this province in Canada) that won't provide access to mental health care unless they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. This situation in North America isn't going to improve anytime soon -- there isn't much of a political will for increased mental health treatment, but I feel that thowing money at mental health might have a much better impact than trying to influence or enforce gun control laws.

Second, there is an element of anger and lack of reasoning that prompts people to grab a firearm and go on a killing spree. Given the recession and the lack of being able to live out the "American dream" as advertised in all of the media, one can easily feel awful about themselves and believe that they are in a situation that is worse than anyone else's. I call this a "temporary insanity" that we are all capable of. And it's why I don't a gun. To prevent those accidental deaths, I would recommend an education program to have people lock up and unlead weapons especially when there are children and teens at home.

Finally, the availability of guns is very very high. People feel like they need to own protection in their homes to defend themselves against Obama's oncoming oppression, home-invaders, ex-husbands, bad police officers, and dogs that poop on their lawn. And while the odds of having to use the gun in legitimate self-defense are very-very low, the odds that the same gun will be used in a suicide, homocide, accident, or stolen for crime is much much higher (another reason why I don't own a gun). Because 2nd amendment rights are pervasive, there is no solution to this, and the conservatives will argue that this is okay, while libs will push for more government regulations.

Quote: Canyonero

I am not sure if this is covered in the (new) forum rules, but I would like to see rudeboyoi nuked from the forums. Anybody who publicly states an opinion like this has no place in this community. I enjoy this community as a group of people from all walks of life and across the political spectrum, which makes for interesting debates and conversations. But this crosses a line. Our community must respond to this totally unacceptable statement. Like in the Donald Sterling case, rudeboyoi is entitled to his opinion, but we, the community are entitled to a response:

Is your outrage at him valued differently than his outrage at 5-0?

I know, nuking is different than joy at loss of life. I'm just saying.

The rules cover profanity (not present), legality (no issue here), insults to members (toeing the line), and gentlemanly conduct (an arguable breach).

But like thecesspit offered, I'm not about to do something yet. I share the forum view of wanting less moderation and censorship, and am leaving it up to the participants to bring this thread around themselves. While I also find the idea abhorrent for the reasons I've listed, I can't in good conscience make decisions based on my own personal bias. Plus, ending this now makes permanent the state of the argument now. Could leaving it open make it worse? Sure. But it could also allow it to improve. A fight about cop killing isn't where I'd like the status of this thread to solidify.

Perhaps I will get overridden. It's happened before. Maybe I will look back on not acting as a bad decision. That's happened before, too. But my opinion of rude up until this point has been positive, so I'm willing to see where this goes. Every post he makes is painting a picture for me, and violent-sociopath-who's-using-this-platform-to-spread-his-hate isn't the view I'm seeing. Not yet, anyway.

We shall see. Carry on.

Quote: Wizard

Yes, and less than others.

This article has a map of homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population. For example, here is where some countries fit it:

Canada: 0.01 to 1
United Stated: 2 to 5
Brazil: 12 to 70

Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Hounduras all have gun laws Democrats would salivate over-and are violent cesspools. Switzerland and Finland have loose gun laws and VERY little street crime of any sort.
I can prove gun laws aren't the problem and that the real problem makes "progressives" sweat like Mike Tyson at a spelling bee:

Vermont: Population 700,00. All white. Loosest gun laws in North America- 8 murders in 2012.
Detroit: Population 700,000. All black. 411 murders in 2012.

Any questions?

Quote: SanchoPanza

I concur. But abolishing police forces won't accomplish that. The ruling executive would order the military to carry out his/her wishes. Unless you say abolish the military, too?

I have no problem with the military. I have a problem with conscription though since its involuntary. I don't believe our military (especially the marines) will turn on its own people if ordered to do so but instead on the tyrannical government that gave the order to do so.

Quote: Dicenor33

Start a revolution with guns? What planet these people live on?

Methville without doubt.

Quote: mickeycrimm

My views on the police have evolved over the years. Muhammad Ali and me had to retire. Him from boxing and me from street fighting. Time, tide and old age, you know. We both got a step slow and one punch to many. Nothing lasts forever. I enjoy the police protection nowadays. I even thank them for their service just like I do the vets.

Street cops are not generally devils or evil. It's the ones in suits and the federal "agents" that are too often worse than the criminals.

Quote: rudeboyoi

When it comes to freedom of press, we are currently ranked 46th in the world. Let that one sink in for a minute. http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-united-states-just-finished-46th-in-a-press-freedom-contest/283798/

Rankings like that are as preposterous as those that find the U.S. lagging below third-world health-care standards. They are nothing more than agenda-driven exercises in pure subjectivity. To classify the press as freer in places like Namibia, Belize, El Salvador, Samoa, Botswana or Papua New Guinea merits the most derisive laughter.

If promoting the murder of policeman, and specifically being giddy at the direct murder of two innocent individuals is not against "gentlemanly conduct" then I'd really like to hear what I would need to do to be described as ungentlemanly.

Quote: rudeboyoi

I have no problem with the military. I have a problem with conscription though since its involuntary. I don't believe our military (especially the marines) will turn on its own people if ordered to do so but instead on the tyrannical government that gave the order to do so.

I wish I was as optimistic as you are.

The military is a group of men whose salary is paid with money stolen from the rest of us. They are paid to kill strangers and do so willingly. Uniforms don't grant extra rights.

Shouldn't we have a problem with an organization which exists solely to kill people and break things?

Quote: rudeboyoi

I have no problem with the military. I have a problem with conscription though since its involuntary. I don't believe our military (especially the marines) will turn on its own people if ordered to do so but instead on the tyrannical government that gave the order to do so.

American history, both recent and not-so-recent, indicate otherwise. Don't fall for that Posse Comitatus line.

Quote: Beardgoat

If promoting the murder of policeman, and specifically being giddy at the direct murder of two innocent individuals is not against "gentlemanly conduct" then I'd really like to hear what I would need to do to be described as ungentlemanly.

I never promoted the killing of policemen. I simply expressed my schadenfreude of their slaying. I'm sure we could all agree if a child molester was slayed it would be a good thing. However I have the viewpoint that police are also scumbags which isn't a view shared by all.

Quote: bobsims

I can prove gun laws aren't the problem and that the real problem makes "progressives" sweat like Mike Tyson at a spelling bee:

Vermont: Population 700,00. All white. Loosest gun laws in North America- 8 murders in 2012.
Detroit: Population 700,000. All black. 411 murders in 2012.

Any questions?

Nope, two cheap racist shots don't make progressives sweat at all. Here are some other numbers:

Vermont: Population 700,00. Persons below poverty level: 11.6% 8 murders in 2012.
Detroit: Population 700,000. Persons below poverty level: 36.4% 411 murders in 2012.

The point is well taken that a reduction of poverty rates might be a good subsitute for strict gun control. But the right hates government support for the poor and redistribution of wealth even more than gun control, I suppose.

Facts are well known to have a liberal bias, so don't even try.

Quote: bigfoot66

I wish I was as optimistic as you are.

The military is a group of men whose salary is paid with money stolen from the rest of us. They are paid to kill strangers and do so willingly. Uniforms don't grant extra rights.

Shouldn't we have a problem with an organization which exists solely to kill people and break things?

If it reached that point our money wouldnt have much value so it wouldn't be a monetary decision.

Quote: Beardgoat

If promoting the murder of policeman, and specifically being giddy at the direct murder of two innocent individuals is not against "gentlemanly conduct" then I'd really like to hear what I would need to do to be described as ungentlemanly.

It is my own failing. In April I had a man in my face threatening to kill me. My response was to talk to him and hear him out. Pro-gun nuttery aside, that's who I am.

I give people chances. Some (most?) say too many. But I know I have said I was going to kill someone or I wished death upon someone before in the heat of the moment. I bet most here have done as well. Based on my opinion of rude up until this point, I'm trying to give him benefit of doubt. I'm hoping his statement was more of the same, and in allowing the debate to continue, we will learn more of why it was said.

Again, maybe I screwed this one up, but that's what felt right. To assuage your fears, I'll let you know that I have sought outside counsel on the matter.

Sorry face, I dont need an ongoing debate and further explanation to recognize that being giddy at the murder of two innocent people is sick and disgusting.

Quote:

[CNN) -- A Las Vegas couple who gunned down two police officers and a civilian before killing themselves apparently looked at law enforcement as oppressors, a sheriff's department official said Monday.

Among the clues: a "Don't Tread on Me" flag and a Nazi swastika the couple placed on one of the police officers they ambushed Sunday at a pizza resaurant. They also pinned onto officer the officer's body a note saying something to the effect of "this is the beginning of the revolution," Second Assistant Sheriff Kevin McMahill told reporters.

"We believe that they equate government and law enforcement fascism with Nazis," McMahill said. "In other words they believe law enforcement is the oppressor."

Police said Monday that Jerad Miller shot Officer Igor Soldo in the back of the head, then shot fellow Officer Alyn Beck in the neck before his wife, Amanda, pulled a gun from her purse and also fired on Beck.

They then ran to a nearby Walmart where they shot a bystander before barricading themselves inside the store during a brief firefight with responding officers.

Amanda Miller shot her husband repeatedly as officers closed in on them inside the Walmart, McMahill said. She then turned the gun on herself.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting/