2 NYPD Officers Dead In Brooklyn Shooting

[ksen]

I don't know who this ronburgundy guy is but I hope he never stops posting! This stuff is great!

stay classy ronburgundy

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You of course have these cases and can back up that the thousands of people were in fact violent criminals?

You of course have evidence that all of these cases were criminal acts by the cops shooting people who were innocent and unarmed?

So it is an all or either situation? And I know that you don't have that information because that information is not kept.

Cops are paid to go to places where criminal activity is reported and to confront the people involved, and thus they spend a majority of their time in areas with established high rates of violent crime and illegal gun possession.

Really? I'll pass that along to the police officers I know.

There is more than enough violent crime and illegally armed persons on the streets for them to deal with. They do not need to go around just inventing situations to use force.

WTF? Why would they seek out trouble? My point is that not everybody the police shoot are violent criminals.

 

[ronburgundy]

We know the killer targeted 2 cops explicitly for stated reasons that closely mirror the irrational rhetoric of the protests, which we know we're designed to and did in fact stir up hatred and violent actions in many people (as with the hateful, threatening words, and violent actions of many of the protestors).

I believe you are using the royal "we" there.

I am using the same "we" that you used.

For all "we know", it could have been the news report of those incidents plus his pre-existing mental state.

IOW, maybe the nutjob reacted with the same kind of unreasoned idiocy that the protesters reacted with and leapt to the same "because cops are mudering racists" conclusion they have. Sure, it is possible that he shared their idiocy, but even if he did, he was made to be far more likely to act upon it and include them as targets due to his impression that his cops are evil and deserve to die notions were shared by his community. His comments show strong evidence that he did hold this view that others shared his notions and thus would approve his actions. IOW, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he was made more likely to do these things by the protests. The only question is whether that increase in likelihood was irrelevant in his case because he was already sufficiently likely on his own, so the increase didn't alter the outcome. The same can be said of every single violent act no matter how seemingly tied to hate speech and violence fueling propaganda.

We know that all relevant psychological science predicts that such rhetoric would increase the willingness of many people to engage in violence against the cops, and would incite any already unstable person prone toward violence to be more likely to target cops. The timing by which such rare assassination style killings of cops occurred during the height of relatively unprecedented levels of anti-cop rhetoric is further evidence that they are directly related.

I think you need to learn the difference between causation and correlation.

No, I am actually scientifically literate, and psychologically literate. Timing and rarity of events matter greatly for inferring causality, but not for correlation. When there is a direct causal connection between events, they tend to occur close together in time, with the cause occurring prior in time to the effect. With correlation, the events can occur eons apart and in either order. When two relatively rare events occur relatively close in time and close to the time that such an effect would likely take, it increases the odds that there is a causal connection between them, especially when general theory already says that the preceding event is a highly plausible cause of the subsequent event (as is the case here). Imagine you have AIDS and a number of people know it, but most people you know do not. One day, you tell your co-worker and the next day, your boss says "I am sorry about your AIDS". There is a high probability that your co-worker told your boss, and that probability is directly related to the timing of the events and their relative rarity. Your boss never said anything before, so him saying it today was rare. Most people don't say it to you or know, so its rare in that way too. Your boss could have found out other ways because other people know too, but the timing with telling your friend rationally implicates him as the cause of your boss saying it today. Had your boss not said it either before or years after you told your friend, then both events would have co-occurred and yet the probability that your friend telling him was why boss said that to you on that day would be much lower.

IOW, we know these killings were made more likely by the protests and surrounding propaganda of the sort you have put forth, just as much as we know that lynchings of black persons were made more likely by the rhetoric of the KKK and white supremacists.

What propaganda have I allegedly put forth?

That the cops in these recent incidents acted upon racism and no real or honest response to a threat. If you're going to deny that you have put forth such ideas countless times, then your unwillingness to own your position makes further exchange pointless.

IOW, there is far more evidence of this impact than there is of the impact of racism by the cops in most of the incidents the protesters or you are claiming racism for.

Not if one pulls one head out of one's ass.

That statement requires total ignorance about what the concept of evidence is or how to apply reasoned thought to causal claims.

 

[Mumbles]

You are, of course, completely full of shit and have no actual experience with uniformed jackbooted thugs hiding behind their badges.
It's pretty easy for someone who has never had anything but cordial relationships with cops to dismiss the stories about "walking while black" as nonsense. Ignorance is so much easier, especially when it comes to self-righteous parroting of Faux Gnus idiocy.

First, this has zero logical relevance to the fact that the recent hysterical and violent protests have been a form of propaganda elevating notions that most cops are violent racist ready to murder any black person for no reason, and that the facts of this case show beyond and doubt that this propaganda was a causal factor in this killer targeting cops.

Could you find us a quote from any prominent protestor saying this? I mean aside from Ferguson, where the police actually were ridiculously violent and oppressive, to the point where multiple federal judges have ruled them to be violating the rights of the protestors?

Actually, the only people I can think of that basically say this...are the presidents of various police unions, such as this fella.

 

[ronburgundy]

You of course have evidence that all of these cases were criminal acts by the cops shooting people who were innocent and unarmed?

So it is an all or either situation?

If you want to count all the people cops shoot as evidence of their violence against "us" (which what ksen was doing and what I responded to), then you need to show that they are all innocent shooting victims.

And I know that you don't have that information because that information is not kept.

Actually, there is plenty of relevant information about who and why cops shoot, just not complete compiled records of all such shootings kept on a national level.
What we do have is a great deal of information highly relevant to fine folks cops spend much of their time interacting with and arresting as the defining part of their job. All of that information, some of which I supplied and your predictably completely ignored and cut from your response to me, supports the idea that cops are mostly shooting violent criminals that harm other people. We don't know the exact number of completely unwarranted shootings of innocent people that cops shoot, but the available info says to all rational people that it is a small % of the people cops shoot. Might that # still be higher than it acceptable? Yes, but that has nothing to do with ksen's absurd claim that it is thousands per year and thus maybe cops deserve to be shot.

Cops are paid to go to places where criminal activity is reported and to confront the people involved, and thus they spend a majority of their time in areas with established high rates of violent crime and illegal gun possession.

Really? I'll pass that along to the police officers I know.

No need, they all already know it as do all rational people who do not deny the fact that there are more frequent patrols in higher crime areas and that most calls cops respond to are in higher than average crime areas, something that is true by definition. If you want to throw out some red herring about the time they spend in station, then that will demonstrate the sincerity of your rhetoric. The point is that of the time in which cops are interacting with and thus might potentially shoot members of the public, a disproportionate amount is spent in areas with high crime rates and illegal guns.

There is more than enough violent crime and illegally armed persons on the streets for them to deal with. They do not need to go around just inventing situations to use force.

WTF? Why would they seek out trouble?

Are you so ignorant about the job description of cops that you would ask "why would they seek out trouble?" IF you actually know any cops, they would laugh at the absurdity of such a question. Crime is trouble, their job is to seek out and investigate crime and arrest people suspected of committing them. IOW, the sole purpose for which cops exist and are paid is to seek out trouble and troublemakers and confront them.

My point is that not everybody the police shoot are violent criminals.

That is an odd point to make since it has zero logical relation to anything I have said. Unless you want to claim that most the people cops shoot pose no violent threat to their communities, then your point isn't relevant to and doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Isn't it fascinating? Before, the libtards were saying they hate cops- now, once the true nature of their scheme is revealed, they're suddenly on the side of the police! /s

 

[ksen]

They talk a big game about watering the Tree of Liberty but when push comes to shove they back off.

 

[ronburgundy]

First, this has zero logical relevance to the fact that the recent hysterical and violent protests have been a form of propaganda elevating notions that most cops are violent racist ready to murder any black person for no reason, and that the facts of this case show beyond and doubt that this propaganda was a causal factor in this killer targeting cops.

Could you find us a quote from any prominent protestor saying this? I mean aside from Ferguson, where the police actually were ridiculously violent and oppressive, to the point where multiple federal judges have ruled them to be violating the rights of the protestors?
a[/URL].

Every poster referencing the race of the person shot while also denying that the person shot posed any plausible threat is logically implying that the cop is a murderous racist murdering civilians because of their race. When discussing these specific cases, citing use of force or shooting stats with reference to race (without also pointing out the objectively higher crime rates among blacks) is done solely to imply that cops in general violent and murdering racists, and therefore despite no direct evidence this cop is racist, his actions were likely fueled by racism. Such stats would have zero logical relevance to these discussions without those underlying implications. So, either those posting those stats are intending to imply the general existence of murderously racist cops who kill without provocation, or they are clinically insane posters who engage in a form or random word-salad where they just toss out ideas and stats without trying to imply anything relevant to the discussion.

So, do you really need me to show you posters that claim race is relevant, deny plausible threat, and offer up stats about higher rates of force and shootings against black persons?

 

[ronburgundy]

Isn't it fascinating? Before, the libtards were saying they hate cops- now, once the true nature of their scheme is revealed, they're suddenly on the side of the police! /s

What is fascinating is that someone might actually be capable of the level of self-delusion required to believe that you are referring to anyone or any arguments that aren't just a figment of your imagination.

 

[Underseer]

They talk a big game about watering the Tree of Liberty but when push comes to shove they back off.

If you think random unarmed African-Americans are dictators, then technically they do exactly what they boast. I think you just fail to realize how confused they are.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So it is an all or either situation?

If you want to count all the people cops shoot as evidence of their violence against "us" (which what ksen was doing and what I responded to), then you need to show that they are all innocent shooting victims.

Sir, please don't shift the goalpost. You need to show evidence that they are the violent criminals you say they are. Get with it, chop chop.

And I know that you don't have that information because that information is not kept.

Actually, there is plenty of relevant information about who and why cops shoot, just not complete compiled records of all such shootings kept on a national level.
What we do have is a great deal of information highly relevant to fine folks cops spend much of their time interacting with and arresting as the defining part of their job. All of that information, some of which I supplied and your predictably completely ignored and cut from your response to me, supports the idea that cops are mostly shooting violent criminals that harm other people.

Actually no, you just brought up statistics about convictions and arrests. Fatally wounded individuals are not tried, in a court of law. As the prominent cases brought forward in recent weeks show, not all of those shot by police are guilty of violent crimes.

Cops are paid to go to places where criminal activity is reported and to confront the people involved, and thus they spend a majority of their time in areas with established high rates of violent crime and illegal gun possession.

Really? I'll pass that along to the police officers I know.

No need, they all already know it as do all rational people who do not deny the fact that there are more frequent patrols in higher crime areas and that most calls cops respond to are in higher than average crime areas, something that is true by definition. If you want to throw out some red herring about the time they spend in station, then that will demonstrate the sincerity of your rhetoric. The point is that of the time in which cops are interacting with and thus might potentially shoot members of the public, a disproportionate amount is spent in areas with high crime rates and illegal guns.

You state that cops spend a majority of their time in high crime areas. Knowing police officers, I know this is simply not true. Yes, there may be more police patrolling those areas that other, but there are a huge number of police officers in this country and most patrol relatively peaceful places. I'd say most police deal with drunk bullshit than violent crime. And how do you know about illegal guns? This seems to be a fantasy since most guns can be obtained legally and are obtained legally. I'd like you to bring up some stats on this belief.

There is more than enough violent crime and illegally armed persons on the streets for them to deal with. They do not need to go around just inventing situations to use force.

WTF? Why would they seek out trouble?

Are you so ignorant about the job description of cops that you would ask "why would they seek out trouble?" IF you actually know any cops, they would laugh at the absurdity of such a question. Crime is trouble, their job is to seek out and investigate crime and arrest people suspected of committing them. IOW, the sole purpose for which cops exist and are paid is to seek out trouble and troublemakers and confront them.

I really don't think you know any cops. Cops don't seek out trouble, they respond to calls and incidents and do their best to avoid or escalate troublesome situations. But I guess you could call "Stop and Frisk" looking for trouble.

 

[fromderinside]

The police union has already said this is the fault of the protestors and the mayor.

Because until these latest protests everybody loved the police.

When you have resorted to depravity in defense of your bad position the only way out is to claim the other side 's protests of our abuses caused the killing to happen. Its their fault. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dude took advantage yes. Copycats are happening every day.

That doesn't give a pass to those who abuse their power of authority to take lives needlessly or wantonly. Nor does it give their apologists, the police union in this case, the creds to claim its the protesters fault for protesting of what we did wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

I really don't think you know any cops. Cops don't seek out trouble, they respond to calls and incidents and do their best to avoid or escalate troublesome situations. But I guess you could call "Stop and Frisk" looking for trouble.

My cops don't seek me out. However my cops do seek out teens, homeless, and other ne'r do wells with excess and eagerness on occasion to keep me safe. Some even beat and falsely accuse, leave false evidence in their effort to get the job done. ...and never do they take the attacking of a police officer, even a cop who was threatening the eventual attacker, as anything but an attack on america (my town's cops).

There are fuck ups everywhere and every body fucks up some time. But hardly ever does a fuck up in my trade ever get the benefit of unwavering support in the face of his fuck up being revealed.

 

[ksen]

If you want to count all the people cops shoot as evidence of their violence against "us" (which what ksen was doing and what I responded to), then you need to show that they are all innocent shooting victims.

Sir, please don't shift the goalpost. You need to show evidence that they are the violent criminals you say they are. Get with it, chop chop.

Actually, it'd be helpful if he could demonstrate that these "violent criminals" were doing something worthy of death when they were gunned down.

Also it's nice that ronburgundy thinks of all those dead people as others not realizing that at any moment a cop with a hair across his ass could decide at anytime to stop ronburgundy for any number of reasons and if ronburgundy tried objecting even a little is immediately eligible for a summary execution.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't think you know any cops. Cops don't seek out trouble, they respond to calls and incidents and do their best to avoid or escalate troublesome situations.

As a guy whose dad and stepdad were cops I can vouch for this.

 

[laughing dog]

IOW, maybe the nutjob reacted with the same kind of unreasoned idiocy that the protesters reacted with and leapt to the same "because cops are mudering racists" conclusion they have. Sure, it is possible that he shared their idiocy, but even if he did, he was made to be far more likely to act upon it and include them as targets due to his impression that his cops are evil and deserve to die notions were shared by his community.

"He was MADE to be far more likely..." ? From where do you pull these nuggets of "wisdom"? On 2nd thought, don't answer that.

y
His comments show strong evidence that he did hold this view that others shared his notions and thus would approve his actions. IOW, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he was made more likely to do these things by the protests....

I don't think the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" means what you think it means. It is entirely possible the protesters had nothing whatsoever to do with his actions. All you have come up with is 3rd rate psychobabble to justify your "knowledge".

No, I am actually scientifically literate, and psychologically literate.

And yet, you conflate correlation with causation. The only way you could know what caused the thug to murder the police is if he confessed to you before he died.

Timing and rarity of events matter greatly for inferring causality, but not for correlation.

A scientifically literate person would not make such an error.

When there is a direct causal connection between events, they tend to occur close together in time, with the cause occurring prior in time to the effect.

Nonsense.

With correlation, the events can occur eons apart and in either order. When two relatively rare events occur relatively close in time and close to the time that such an effect would likely take, it increases the odds that there is a causal connection between them, especially when general theory already says that the preceding event is a highly plausible cause of the subsequent event (as is the case here).

There is no general theory here to support your claim.

That the cops in these recent incidents acted upon racism and no real or honest response to a threat. If you're going to deny that you have put forth such ideas countless times, then your unwillingness to own your position makes further exchange pointless.

If I have put forth these ideas countless times, you ought to be able to produce one. I have that as a general rule, that when someone uses such broadbrush characterizations as "countless times", the claim is literally horseshit.

That statement requires total ignorance about what the concept of evidence is or how to apply reasoned thought to causal claims.

Not if one pulls one's head out of one's ass. Try it, you may like it.

 

[laughing dog]

Every poster referencing the race of the person shot while also denying that the person shot posed any plausible threat is logically implying that the cop is a murderous racist murdering civilians because of their race.

Extreme logic failure on multiple levels. First, that conflates "infer" with "imply". Second, a poster may be implying that race played a factor which does not automatically mean the cop is a murderous racist.

 

[RavenSky]

What is fascinating is that someone might actually be capable of the level of self-delusion required to believe that you are referring to anyone or any arguments that aren't just a figment of your imagination.

You are talking to yourself?

 

[Mumbles]

Could you find us a quote from any prominent protestor saying this? I mean aside from Ferguson, where the police actually were ridiculously violent and oppressive, to the point where multiple federal judges have ruled them to be violating the rights of the protestors?
a[/URL].

Every poster referencing the race of the person shot while also denying that the person shot posed any plausible threat is logically implying that the cop is a murderous racist murdering civilians because of their race. When discussing these specific cases, citing use of force or shooting stats with reference to race (without also pointing out the objectively higher crime rates among blacks) is done solely to imply that cops in general violent and murdering racists, and therefore despite no direct evidence this cop is racist, his actions were likely fueled by racism. Such stats would have zero logical relevance to these discussions without those underlying implications. So, either those posting those stats are intending to imply the general existence of murderously racist cops who kill without provocation, or they are clinically insane posters who engage in a form or random word-salad where they just toss out ideas and stats without trying to imply anything relevant to the discussion.

Or, as a third option, they use the statistics to show an elevated risk of being killed by police without cause for black people, and you are falsely accusing them of claiming that this means that most cops are racist murderers. Because, you know, they're more concerned about the people senselessly killed by police with impunity than whatever the reason is that they were killed. Which would mean that you are wrong about what "the discussion" actually is.

So, do you really need me to show you posters that claim race is relevant, deny plausible threat, and offer up stats about higher rates of force and shootings against black persons?

Actually, I choose to reiterate my question: do you know of any prominent protestor claiming that most police are murderous racists?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Isn't it fascinating? Before, the libtards were saying they hate cops- now, once the true nature of their scheme is revealed, they're suddenly on the side of the police! /s

What is fascinating is that someone might actually be capable of the level of self-delusion required to believe that you are referring to anyone or any arguments that aren't just a figment of your imagination.

Clearly you aren't aware of Free Republic. Furthermore, I wasn't necessarily implying that anyone believes that. I was satirizing the paranoid thinking that some republicans have.

 

[RavenSky]

No, protesters painting cops as evil murderous racists + a shooter who references those ideas as his motive = cops were targeted due to inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda by protesters.

You might be on to something.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8[/YOUTUBE]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop