|
On February 17 2013 04:44 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality? That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response?
|
On February 17 2013 04:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:43 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:41 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea. I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either. Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent? Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user? It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents. Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea.
But it isnt and that si what you do not understand. You cannot claim that someone did something and then try to forget about it. You are acting like the LAPD.
I would like an apology from you as well before i continue answering. Until then, i will not.
|
On February 17 2013 04:51 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:43 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:41 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:33 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:30 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. And so far you cannot. + Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesNext sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself? Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea. I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either. Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent? Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user? It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents. Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea. But it isnt and that si what you do not understand. You cannot claim that someone did something and then try to forget about it. You are acting like the LAPD. I would like an apology from you as well before i continue answering. Until then, i will not.
Can somebody just report this post? I think it's obvious what is going on here.
|
On February 17 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:46 Underkoffer wrote:
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence? It wasn't that simple. Link
After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
|
On February 17 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:44 acker wrote:On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality? That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens... ......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response?
???
You seemed quite...sure...of your facts.
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
You were wrong and didn't even spend ten seconds on Google to verify your conclusion.
I don't mind gun control talk, as guns need to be regulated. But wrongful arrogance is annoying, especially when it comes to facts.
|
On February 17 2013 04:54 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:On February 17 2013 04:44 acker wrote:On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality? That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens... ......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response? ??? You seemed quite...sure...of your facts. Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote:
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality? You were wrong. I don't mind gun control talk, but wrongful arrogance is annoying.
If you are going to say that I am wrong, please, prove it. I'd like a good piece of credible evidence that an armed neighborhood stopped a corrupt cop. I'm waiting.
Edit: Google does not prove anything you've said. Still waiting.
|
An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars.
|
Killer cop is way worse than copkiller imo.
|
On February 17 2013 04:57 hzflank wrote:
An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars.
I do not think you read the other posts. But i will not tolerate when someone tries to state something I did not. And the apology was because he stated that I was insulting other users when I clearly was not.
|
On February 17 2013 04:49 acker wrote:
I'm getting almost no independent information on this incident from Google. Where are people getting this meth stuff from?
The reason article linked to the police letter that closed the case.
Link
|
On February 17 2013 05:00 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:57 hzflank wrote:
An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars. I do not think you read the other posts. But i will not tolerate when someone tries to state something I did not. And the apology was because he stated that I was insulting other users when I clearly was not.
You on multiple occasions stated that people can't read, which is a light insult. The point was that you are spending time -- wasting time -- chasing tangents that aren't directly relevant to the discussion at hand. You claim that increasing gun ownership will improve the public's safety from corruption. I posted a lot of stuff that points in the other direction, and instead of addressing this rationally, you decided to focus 100% of your efforts on seeking apology and other things.
It's completely ridiculous.
|
Running away doesn't sound very threatening. This is ridiculous and absolutely heinous that anyone can get away with this. Unfortunately this kind of thing is more common than it should be in the LAPD. Terrible.
|
On February 17 2013 04:54 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:46 Underkoffer wrote:
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence? It wasn't that simple. Link After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
|
If somebody shoots me multiple times, I'm probably going to be having a hard time following orders in a prompt and deliberate manner.
|
At this point im not even mad at Americans to wanna keep the guns, if police is going around killing people randomly i would prefer hiding with a helllot of guns myself.
Is this country still able to recover and come to a "normal" solution?
I doupt it.
Its not a very rare incident we had several of these on TL in the past 5 years.
And those were just the tip of the iceberg for each of those there are probably 50 others not even making it here, becouse of no Video or no clear evidence, it seems this happens on regulare bases.
|
w...t...f... this is so wrong...
-______-
i think that cop was pmsing about Dorner...
though Dorner is a murderer and deserved to die.... i wish he was alive to continue his manifesto, bringing justice to LAPDs.. 
|
On February 17 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:54 a176 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:46 Underkoffer wrote:
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence? It wasn't that simple. Link After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop. He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
"Autopsy Report
Los Angeles County Medical Examiner David B. Whiteman, M.D., performed a post-mortem
examination on the body of Johnathan Cuevas on October 13, 2010. Cuevas had a total of four
gunshot wounds. He sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the middle right back which was back to
front, right to left and upward. He sustained two fatal gunshot wounds to the right flank which
were back to front, right left and upward. There was a fourth potentially life threatening
wound to the lower right back which was back to front, right to and upward. The toxicology
report revealed that Cuevas’ blood tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine and
marijuana."
"Other Evidence
Deputy Jove’s service weapon is a Heckler & Koch .45 auto caliber semiautomatic handgun. He
normally carries it with one round in the chamber and the twelve round magazine loaded to
capacity. When the weapon was recovered it contained seven Winchester .45 auto caliber
cartridges in the magazine.
Two Winchester .45 auto casings were recovered on Long Beach Boulevard southwest of the
patrol car. F our Winchester .45 auto casings were recovered in the vicinity ofthe northeast
corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street. Two possible bullet strikes were
observed on the east curb just north of the northeast corner of Long Beach Boulevard and
Josephine Street."
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-PsnQUvThWKaU1wVkRSWGlyY3c/edit?pli=1
|
On February 17 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:54 a176 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 04:46 Underkoffer wrote:
Runs away -> gets shot in back for self defence? It wasn't that simple. Link After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop. He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
Thanks for posting that Jonny. The easy gut reaction is to say "Wow, police need to be punished!" -- and indeed I may have felt that way too for a bit. But upon reading that report it seems clear that the man who was shot was more at fault than the officer. I suppose one could counter here and claim that the report is fabricated or something, though I think that would be a pretty weak counter
|
On February 17 2013 05:12 -Kaiser- wrote:
If somebody shoots me multiple times, I'm probably going to be having a hard time following orders in a prompt and deliberate manner.
Probably. But you shouldn't engage in threatening behavior either. If you have the ability to do that, then you have the ability to comply with the officer's order.
|
On February 17 2013 04:55 farvacola wrote:
If you are going to say that I am wrong, please, prove it. I'd like a good piece of credible evidence that an armed neighborhood stopped a corrupt cop. I'm waiting.
Edit: Google does not prove anything you've said. Still waiting.
If the movie is "An American Story" you refer to...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103673/
Then the incident behind it is the Battle of Athens, 1946.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Short Story: bought cops undergo vote and voter suppression for a decade, GIs and citizens snap.
Long Story: It's complicated.
One incident is certainly not the end-all be-all, but it's still one incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
