eric3579 said:

Why

I believe the only real solution is to recognize that the role of a police officer is one that is inherently unstable. As history shows, it is impossible to expect one small group of people to deal with all the violence, anger, punitive actions, and force for all of society.

But without this group of mentally and morally unstable people, then each person in the populace at large would need to individually learn how to deal with violent offenders, restrain someone, know when to use lethal force, adjudicate their punishment, carry out their punishment, handle traffic accidents, dead bodies, emergencies, and so much more. The culture at large already expects every person to delegate these tasks, and if an individual does not immediately call the cops there may actually be punitive action taken against that individual.

I have no solution to this societal problem. But then again, I don't feel obligated to solve the problem for society. In fact, the eventual destruction of the society (that so delegates) may be the eventual "solution" that inevitably comes without collective individual change. I'm content having a solution fit for myself, my family, and for those who other souls who come to me personally for a solution (to varying degrees).

JiggaJonson said:

Meh, I don't like that analogy.

If it were an accurate analogy, both people would be holding the cup of tea at the same time.

As I said, the two people are working in tandem. So she and I would be holding the tea with both hands, and we would bring the cup to her mouth to drink and then mine, and so on. Or even if only one person is holding the tea and only receiving instruction;

Think about a time when you've fed someone else food or poured a drink into someone else's mouth. Ever give them more than they wanted? Not enough? Ever spill some of it on their shirt even though you never intended for that to happen?

Remember!!! It's like a game of Operation! Don't give them a drop more or less than they want when you're pouring tea into their mouth or your entire life will be ruined.

Try pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth for them, do it deliberately and without error, and then we'll talk. Finally, consider that pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth is arguably less complicated than interpreting physical cues indicating a desire to have sex.

Those kinds of over simplifications of the nuances of human behavior are just that, over simplifications.

Understood, but I was talking about after it had landed, then toppled. Should have been clearer. ; )

enoch said:

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

If any police/military force is trained to "shoot to kill" I am unaware of it.

Every such force I know of trains members to "shoot to hit", which means center of visible body mass.

You can't "shoot to incapacitate" with regular ammunition. The targets either get so small (lower arm/leg) that they're impractical to shoot at, or you stand a significant risk of killing your target (femoral artery, a miss to the upper arm).

If you NEED to shoot, you need to put the target down NOW. Shooting at extremities is foolish and risky.

oritteropo said:

The version of the video I saw had a message at the end in English and Spanish saying don't trust walkie talkies, if it's an open road you can always get surprises.

http://youtu.be/bcSjUTx90W4?t=2m25s

(also @robbersdog49)