Fresno officer shoots teen

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:33 pm

After the teen hit him in the back of the head with a baseball bat.

Fresno

More lack of respect for authority?

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:46 am

Good lord of course he has to shoot in those circumstances, who on earth would want him to just lie there and get murdered?

What does any of it have to do with "lack of respect for authority"? The guy with the bat was in the process of killing the police officer, that's not a respect issue at all. There's no indication in the article of his motivation. I think you're reading what you want to find into the story, Val, just as Jester's reading anti-authority in the media because they reported it. They reported it because it's an event of sufficient magnitude to warrant reporting and they did it with no bias at all as far as I can tell.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:10 am

Good lord of course he has to shoot in those circumstances, who on earth would want him to just lie there and get murdered?

Well said Spot. An officer in the scope of his job and his life has to protect Him self.

redfan29 · Post by **redfan29** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:04 am

Thats really good parenting of you ask me. :wah:

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:18 am

Jester, you rarely hear a word I say. What point is there in my arguing that all adult citizens in the US with a clean criminal record should have a concealed carry permit if you don't hear me saying it? The reason is to deal with assaults like this. The fact that the guy was a policeman is irrelevant. I'm sure there exist perfectly laudable policemen just as there are perfectly laudable people in any profession. The assumption, at least in England, is that a member of the police is inept, corrupt, incapable of dealing with crime and not particularly bothered by the fact. I assume most of yours fall into the same category.

The final paragraph about the "random opinon about the actions of the officer" seems, from the way I read it, to be put in to show that there's idiots wherever you look. The article doesn't even hint that it agrees with her. Neither did I.

Countries with a " respect for authority" are authoritarian. Respect should be earned by individuals not assumed or worse yet demanded by officials, least of all in a country like yours which lacks even an approximation of a national democratic process.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:35 pm

Jester;840289 wrote: Spot, he openly and deliberatly attacked a uniformed police officer, that, in my book is the actions of someone who has a total disregard for authority. That is disrespectful to authority and obviously so, anyway you slice it... if by what you said last your agreeing wiht that then just say I agree so's this farm boy can stand down.:-2What you're failing somehow to notice is that I'm utterly disrespectful of authority as well. Authority is less likely to do things which warrant respect than people who lack authority do. I've spent a long time looking and that's what I've seen. For me to go along with what people want I need, on average, to be asked. To go along with what authority wants I need to be persuaded from a position of deep mistrust.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:01 pm

I'm not particularly troubled by this kid getting killed, because what kind of dumbass thing is it to crack someone in the back of the head with a bat? Was he trying to blind the cop or what? Stupid ass. However, why not just blow out the jerk's kneecap or shoot him in the leg so he wouldn't die and could be seen in court and hopefully pay for what he did?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:38 am

In a town 35 miles from my town we just had an incident that resulted in death. A cop tried to serve a warrant on someone. The guy shot the cop twice in the chest. The cop then shot and killed the bada**. Cop had on a vest. Bada** didn't.

Neighborhood then erupted in a mini riot because " Leroy didn't need to be killed".

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:27 am

RedGlitter;840517 wrote: I'm not particularly troubled by this kid getting killed, because what kind of dumbass thing is it to crack someone in the back of the head with a bat? Was he trying to blind the cop or what? Stupid ass. However, why not just blow out the jerk's kneecap or shoot him in the leg so he wouldn't die and could be seen in court and hopefully pay for what he did?

Because it's EXTREMELY difficult to hit an area that doesn't have a

good "mass" for one thing. It's amazing that after a crack on the

head this guy could even still function enough to pull his back-up

weapon and use it.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:28 am

Jester;840892 wrote: That explains a lot about you. I guess your part of the problem then and not part of the solution.

Possibly so. On the other hand I don't hit people on the back of the head with large lengths of wood.

There are laws. If I broke any I'd expect to be taken to court and sentenced to some form of punishment. Within the confines of legal behaviour I'm not subject to any restraint by authority. Isn't that a reasonable position to insist on?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:33 am

But if the lawbreaker becomes unreasonable and arms himself, shoot 'em in the head, so you know they are dead.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:56 am

rjwould;841131 wrote: Unfortunately, these stories, which are focused on and fed to us by the media and repeated by others merely serve to perpetuate the fear that is necessary to continue to imprison our youth in the school system.
I don't see how a shooting at a school perpetuates fear to keep them in school? Wouldn't that scare people into taking their kids out of school?

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:14 pm

Jester;841154 wrote: Yes, I insist you voluntairly confine yourself to legal behavior, or expect the consequnces thereof.

So I gather then that you really mean that you respect the law, but do not trust anyone who administers the law, is that correct?
If I were in complete moral disagreement with a particular law I'd be prepared to break it, knowing that it was my duty to then demand that I was prosecuted for the action. I can imagine such a circumstance but it's not arisen so far. To the extent that you use the words "respect the law" to mean that while I live in this society I'm subject either to obedience or to judgement then that's true, but if I were designing a new society I'd not include a concept of law. Even in this society I think law enforcers are the dregs of society, social outcasts who get their jollies from invoking a fear response whenever the opportunity arises. I'd not let my daughter marry one if I can put it in those terms.

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:30 am

spot;841403 wrote: If I were in complete moral disagreement with a particular law I'd be prepared to break it, knowing that it was my duty to then demand that I was prosecuted for the action. I can imagine such a circumstance but it's not arisen so far. To the extent that you use the words "respect the law" to mean that while I live in this society I'm subject either to obedience or to judgement then that's true, but if I were designing a new society I'd not include a concept of law. Even in this society I think law enforcers are the dregs of society, social outcasts who get their jollies from invoking a fear response whenever the opportunity arises. I'd not let my daughter marry one if I can put it in those terms.

I don't think you are a fool, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others"

WOW!:wah:

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:35 am

spot;841403 wrote: If I were in complete moral disagreement with a particular law I'd be prepared to break it, knowing that it was my duty to then demand that I was prosecuted for the action. I can imagine such a circumstance but it's not arisen so far. To the extent that you use the words "respect the law" to mean that while I live in this society I'm subject either to obedience or to judgement then that's true, but if I were designing a new society I'd not include a concept of law. Even in this society I think law enforcers are the dregs of society, social outcasts who get their jollies from invoking a fear response whenever the opportunity arises. I'd not let my daughter marry one if I can put it in those terms.

Sounds kinda like the wild west of old. Hell, I'll drink to that.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:01 am

hoppy;841513 wrote: Sounds kinda like the wild west of old. Hell, I'll drink to that.

It sounds like nothing of the sort. In any reasonable society a person brought up well who detected signs of anti-social pressures within himself would go to the nearest hospital to seek help, and bringing up a child badly would be an extreme example of an anti-social pressure.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:15 am

spot;841525 wrote: It sounds like nothing of the sort. In any reasonable society a person brought up well who detected signs of anti-social pressures within himself would go to the nearest hospital to seek help, and bringing up a child badly would be an extreme example of an anti-social pressure.

I like the wild west idea better. Ya does fer yourself, or die tryin.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:26 am

spot;841403 wrote: If I were in complete moral disagreement with a particular law I'd be prepared to break it, knowing that it was my duty to then demand that I was prosecuted for the action.

When was the last time this occured ?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:29 am

There must be something in the water where he lives. LOL.

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:54 am

hoppy;841538 wrote: There must be something in the water where he lives. LOL.

They put brain laxatives in the water in England?.:-3

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:08 am

Nomad;841536 wrote: When was the last time this occured ?

Do you know, it happens with major publicity in the UK and quite often the jury refuses to convict despite the evidence because they agree that the action was desirable. Fields with GM crops have been prevented from flowering by people who have then opted for prosecution in order to make their reasons more widely known, US airbases have been invaded by pensioners carrying paint-pots who actively wanted to go to court, the House of Commons was brought to a standstill by a crowd of fox-hunting toffs sitting on the despatch boxes looking for their day in court, civil servants have leaked cabinet minutes and gone to a jury explaining that their conscience demanded they did what they did. Mostly they get not guilty verdicts. I could keep typing and go back a century, it's a long-established principle. The editor of The Pall Mall Gazette in 1885 may or may not have intended to break the law when campaigning against White Slavery in London but he spent three months in jail for it on a matter of conscience, continuing to edit the paper from his cell. He's generally regarded as a bit of a hero by those who remember it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:24 am

Ok but I was just wondering when was the last time you felt compelled to get yourself arrested because of your convictions.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:31 am

spot;841546 wrote: Do you know, it happens with major publicity in the UK and quite often the jury refuses to convict despite the evidence because they agree that the action was desirable. Fields with GM crops have been prevented from flowering by people who have then opted for prosecution in order to make their reasons more widely known, US airbases have been invaded by pensioners carrying paint-pots who actively wanted to go to court, the House of Commons was brought to a standstill by a crowd of fox-hunting toffs sitting on the despatch boxes looking for their day in court, civil servants have leaked cabinet minutes and gone to a jury explaining that their conscience demanded they did what they did. Mostly they get not guilty verdicts. I could keep typing and go back a century, it's a long-established principle. The editor of The Pall Mall Gazette in 1885 may or may not have intended to break the law when campaigning against White Slavery in London but he spent three months in jail for it on a matter of conscience, continuing to edit the paper from his cell. He's generally regarded as a bit of a hero by those who remember it.

If all this works so well, why do you have to keep doing it?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:35 am

Speaking of convictions, I have to go out there this morning and put my ass on the line to keep the streets safe and the citizens secure from delinquent credit card holders.

If I dont make it back spock you can have my avatar.

And you know I love you right ?

(Just in case)

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:36 am

librtyhead;841542 wrote: They put brain laxatives in the water in England?.:-3

So ideas like theirs would be "brain farts". Lol.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:43 am

hoppy;841563 wrote: So ideas like theirs would be "brain farts". Lol.

Madam, that is Lord Melchett you're abusing, unhand him this instant.

At least I think it was Lord Melchett and if it wasn't him digging up fields of GM corn then it ought to have been. I'd need to check. Not only did he break the law on an issue of conscience, he was one of the upper crust who made the law in the first place.

here he is, Peter Mond, 4th Baron Melchett:He was a whip in James Callaghan's Labour Party government in the late seventies, then under-secretary for the Environment before becoming minister of state for Northern Ireland.

Announcing himself sick of the 'lying game' of Westminster politics, Melchett withdrew, working first for the Ramblers' Association in 1984, before being appointed Executive Director of Greenpeace UK in 1989.

Himself the owner of an 890 acre (3.6 km²) farm, Lord Melchett was arrested in 1999 when he was present at an environmental protest against a genetically modified crop trial, at which crops were destroyed by campaigners. Melchett spent a night in Norwich Prison before being released on bail. The case came to court in 2000 when Melchett, and his 27 co-defendants, were unanimously acquitted of Criminal Damage.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:53 am

A certain amount of disdain for authority is extremely healthy for the freedoms you yanks keep on about all the time

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:56 am

Bruv;841570 wrote: A certain amount of disdain for authority is extremely healthy for the freedoms you yanks keep on about all the time

We have plenty of folks with disdain for authority. We can send 'em over. How many ya want.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:04 am

We have plenty of folks with disdain for authority.

Obviously.......thats why you need armed Police on School grounds.

We can send 'em over.

Those that survive the shoot out ?

How many ya want ?

We have enough of our own thanks............

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:07 am

Bruv;841570 wrote: A certain amount of disdain for authority is extremely healthy for the freedoms you yanks keep on about all the time

But---You sounded as if it's a good thing?

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:10 am

hoppy;841572 wrote: We have plenty of folks with disdain for authority. We can send 'em over. How many ya want.

You created them, dear boy. Living with the consequences is part of the price.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:13 am

Bruv-We have enough of our own thanks............

Who created all yours?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:15 am

Best you read what was written........

A certain amount of disdain for authority is extremely healthy for the freedoms you yanks keep on about all the time

Doesn't mean baseball bat wielding youths or armed Police officers.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:17 am

Bruv;841587 wrote: Best you read what was written........

A certain amount of disdain for authority is extremely healthy for the freedoms you yanks keep on about all the time

Doesn't mean baseball bat wielding youths or armed Police officers.

What does it mean? Knife wielding muslim thugs roaming the streets?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:22 am

Spot is wasting his energies here..........And I cant be bothered

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:25 am

Bruv;841593 wrote: Spot is wasting his energies here..........And I cant be bothered

Sure. It was ok while you were taking YOUR shots, now you wanna bail.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:25 am

Bruv;841593 wrote: Spot is wasting his energies here..........And I cant be bothered

Some hear the word, some even listen. They still need telling before you shake the dust from your sandals.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:27 am

That underlies the waste of breath involved in talking to him. He's here to mock as opposed to think. There's a few like that wasting bandwidth.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:30 am

spot;841599 wrote: That underlies the waste of breath involved in talking to him. He's here to mock as opposed to think. There's a few like that wasting bandwidth.

I don't believe I started this go round SPOT.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:43 am

hoppy;841600 wrote: I don't believe I started this go round SPOT.

I shall take responsibility for an aside made earlier......about a healthy disdain for authority.

I shall stick by that....and leave all the oneupmanship alone