SarasotaSabre

I am only talking about this incident with the decision to use the weaponry in the manner the DPD did. I think the boundaries are pretty clear and have been recited here ad nauseum: a militant psychopath hellbent on killing white cops used an AK-47 and military tactics to kill 5 cops and was intent on doing more. He also threatened to detonate an explosive device and lengthy attempts at negotiations a stand down broke down. It seems self-evident those are an example of the "boundaries" you are asking about.

in this case the assailant got the ultimate justice he deserved. And you're wondering why the DPD had C4 to begin with?

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'd suggest Chief Brown may not have been thinking about the court of law/Supreme Court precedent(s) and/or considerations in the heat of the moment, and this was not a singular moment but a highly volatile & already deadly engagement with an individual utilizing military tactics. I would also suggest it might be prudent for those questioning this use of overwhelming force to put yourselves in the shoes of the DPD/Chief Brown at that moment in time. It is very easy to sit behind a keyboard and wax poetic about the legal precedent(s) and associated judgments. Chief Brown, with 30+ years of service, used exemplary decision -making to account for risk mitigation, avoidance of collateral damage, and termination of the assailant.

now this is absolutely something PastaJoe and I completely agree on. I have no earthly idea how there is any discussion or debate around the method used to take out the shooter. It is obvious to the bolded below that in addition, all attempted negotiations had broken down, and in fact the shooter was LAUGHING, asking how many white cops had been killed. I every confidence that Dallas police chief Brown explored and exhausted all opportunities to neutralize the shooter in some other fashion. With a highly mobile shooter using military tactics, it is doubtful that a sniper would have been successful in taking out this psychopath. FYI, major props to Chief Brown; what a classy and inspirational leader.

just curious - are you disagreeing with the use of the robot or the description of the shooter as an "enemy combatant" ?

did you actually read the article or just look at the picture ?

fantastic..... not https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/07/08/obama-justice-department-laughed-off-armed-new-black-panther-threat/

there have been several instances cited here upthread where different police departments have instituted such training with demonstrable results for the better. If you are going to cite "the same routine", be careful to include cases where 911 calls are made and then the responding cops are ambushed, like in Valdosta, GA 2 days ago, or where cops are gunned down while they are walking up to a stopped vehicle. The "routine" cuts both ways and we all need to intellectually honest. To the second bolded statement, if those are generalizations you are seeing "all over social media", they need to be denounced as counterproductive.

agreed in that BLM's charter and practice is largely nonviolent peaceful protest, but "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" doesn't exactly promote great optics a couple other inconvenient truths: (http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler) 4. Black and Hispanic police officers are more likely to fire a gun at blacks than white officers. This is according to a Department of Justice report in 2015 about the Philadelphia Police Department, and is further confirmed that by a study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Gary Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene. 5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to MacDonald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person. (aka the Ferguson effect)

Not "putting up with as much sh*t" is a possibility which can't be objectively proven, in the same way that BLM has polarized things more caustically, along with the failure of those in positions of leadership in the African African community to effectively provide change agency. yep, the same episode in the Henry Louis Gates dustup in which Obama infamously stated "the cops acted stupidly" before all the facts were in. Sometime you reap what you sow.

Obstructionism is a known defect in recent American political history and I am not disagreeing with your position that Obama has had perhaps an unfair amount thrown at him. One can also argue this was a knee jerk reaction from the right side of the aisle to a President who claimed his mission was to "fundamentally transform America" The obstruction behavior cuts both ways; Kate's Law has been blocked buy the same cast of spineless Democrats because it deters from the pro-immigration/sanctuary city narrative. I cannot think of a more clear cut case to approve a Senate bill as this one, so thank you Harry Reid et al. Obama had a tremendous opportunity to unite this country in ways other than policy/legislation which might have been blocked. I was inspired by his soaring rhetoric and call to action for change. I believe he has squandered this opportunity. Who can say with a straight face that the state of race relations has gotten better over the last 7.5 yrs? It has gotten WORSE. Chicago is a prime example, but you might not ever know Obama started his career there by the ignorance & apathy shown by him and other African-American "leaders".

FWIW, that was the description given by Andrew McCarthy's relationship with Comey. Not mine..... I found this following article very interesting in that it lays out Comey's specific background with fact-based statements; I am sensitive to the danger of linking op-ed pieces in such a politically charged and divisive time. http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/?cat_orig=politics On another note, my Dad is a retired Buffalo city cop & detective, retired after 30+ years on the force. He lost a partner in a gunfight back around 1970 when I was a toddler - so last night's rampage hit home to me in a very big way. I don't want to stir the pot needlessly on the ongoing politicization & divisiveness on this Board and, on a macro level, at the national community level. Two black men were killed by cops this week, then you had cops ambushed last night while trying to protect the rights of BLM protesters. Absolute horror on both sides. Meanwhile in Chicago, more B on B murders are not reported on with the same vigor b/c it may not fit the media narrative, while the so called "black caucus" leaders remain strangely silent. Tonight Sheriff David Clarke & Jesse Jackson will be on the same show - now that should be interesting. I do agree with the previous statements around the need for absolute love, compassion, mercy, and respect. You all know what side of the fence I reside on most issues, and It might sound touchy/feely, but I am agreement with these statements.

nice catch Eleven ....

I did not downplay your post, I called a spade a spade. The question was what is the layman's explanation of gross negligence, which your linked article did not address. Yes I posted an op-ed from National Review but I also disclosed it was written by a former colleague & good friend of Comey. And stop with the name calling; you're better than than that....I think. If you want to go down that road I can certainly oblige, but that's what I thought this Board was not supposed to be about.

"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require.....The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook (written by a former colleague and longtime friend of Comey)

that link is not a layman's definition of Gross Negligence. This is an op-ed from the Huff Post (surprise) on why Clinton's actions apparently did not meet the threshold for gross negligence.

I cited a source which proved Comey's decision to invoke a lack of intent was unprecedented IN THIS INVESTIGATION. I will find it and re-post.

there WAS plenty of chargeable evidence. Comey used his discretionary power to recommend charges not be brought forward after spending 30 minutes reciting the litany of offenses committed by Hillary. He then used an unprecedented "lack of intent" as a caveat. This is why a lot of top legal scholars are objectively saying the Comey recommendation makes no sense.

no apologies needed. I am way past the point of being incredulous Hillary was not indicted. I just see a pattern of corruption, abuse, and unchecked lust for money and power that sickens me. To wit: 1) the rapes by Bill, coverups, and co-dependency by Hillary 2) the threats and abuse of those women by Hillary to squash any retribution 3) Whitewater 4) Travelgate 5) Clinton Foundation pay to play, quid pro quo, slush fund scandal 6) Filegate 7) the Waco tragedy 8) the hubris of earning millions in speaking fees and refusing to release speech transcripts 9) Juanita Broaddrick To the Clinton defenders, the justification is since they were not proven or prosecuted, there is nothing to see here or discuss. Others see a disturbing pattern of abuse. With the 30 second sound bite culture and American predilection for convenient amnesia, these are unconnected, isolated incidents which don't deserve any scrutiny. I beg to differ. I listed these purely as a first pass given their business-friendly climates

I do appreciate your sincerity BagBoy, and I don't think for one moment that you are trying to push my buttons. Please hear me out; I'm not sure my wife and I are considering a permanent move at this point. We wife grew up w/ a great private school education and studied abroad, resulting in her to maintain fluency in 5 languages. We have a 5 yr old daughter and we'd like the similar experience for her. So my previous comments were not entirely driven by a patent disgust for a Clinton Administration - there are a number of other quality of life issues we are considering. I also am not ready to renounce my US citizenship. My wife worked very hard to get hers (she has dual citizenship) and we spent a sh*tload of $$ and lot of aggravation to get her US citizenship, so we don't take this lightly. I will say this, though, - the opposite end of the spectrum is unchecked illegal immigration which really steams my wife especially, b/c she was treated at times like a common criminal while going through the LEGAL immigration process. The next part will I'm sure sound to some like I am a flaming ideologue; my wife and I have a core set of beliefs and values which are not consistent with the Obama/Clinton paradigm. I do realize this is not a permanent reality, but overall I see a once great country in decline and I really fear certain things being changed forever - some of these things are good, others are not. I also agree with your "grass is not always greener" analogy. I am not going to make a hasty decision, that's for sure. Other countries have warts, that's for sure. I do appreciate your input !!

Wasting of taxpayer money is certainly not limited to Congressional investigations, that's for sure. And I'd like to see a cited source per the bolded. I would argue the Clintons are doing enough egregiously & openly that investigations are no longer really needed. Hell, if I was Bill or Hillary, I am thinking I am Teflon - catch me if you can. They are as crooked as they come. But that's just my opinion....shared by many others.

News flash: every Congressional investigation has political motivations. It's the American way. what haven't the Clintons done in 30+ years of public "service" that was done to do nothing more than help their own political ambitions/agenda? Do you think the CGI is legitimate? http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/is-the-clinton-foundation-just-an-international-money-laundering-scheme/ your opinion of Trump is duly noted. At least he has the willingness to fund his own campaign. Will the Clintons bring back everything they "borrowed" from the White House if Hillary is elected?

OK, I don't wish to maintain any acrimony after yesterday's landmark (but tainted) announcement. Somehow I still sense complete sarcasm and patronization on your part.... Am I correct or can you prove me wrong.? My partisanship begins and ends with my belief that Comey's announcement was politically driven and has connections to the covert "social" meeting in Phoenix between Bill & Loretta. This is not conspiracy drivel, it's very easy to connect the dots but I understand you are driven by incontrovertible proof. That is your M.O. My takeaways are that Hillary proved to be above the law and she DID lie. I am thoroughly unshocked by Comey's "decision" in that it fits the mold of pure political corruption. And I'm not naive to think it hasn't happened on the other side of the aisle, I just happen to have vitriol for those arrogant enough to lie to the American people. do we want this person in the White House, seriously" Her hubris and deception knows no limits....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rha6Wamfp0 Here is the PROOF she lied, thus exonerating me from pure partisanship. I seek the truth and not opinion to fit my narrative: http://time.com/4393705/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-james-comey/ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437485/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-james-comey-turn-america-banana-republic http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/05/ap-gee-hillary-lied-to-us-huh/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/proof-that-hillary-lied-about-fbi-investigation/ https://thehornnews.com/fbi-exposes-5-big-hillary-lies/ Do you want to call these opinions or lack or proof? Joe, you can choose to defend Hillary all you want, and that is your prerogative, but please at least try to show a sliver of intellectual honesty. I think you are conflating Comey's exoneration with something else in effort to call me and others purely driven by partisan politics. I am driven by utter contempt and disgust of this woman, and, full disclosure - I am no big fan of Trump either. I'm interested to see which way Ireland goes with the anti-EU movement; they have a large tech sector which is the space I'm in, and have very favorable corporate tax rate of 12.5% with a personal max. rate of 40% (I have been in the 43-45% bracket here). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates As an aside, I may have opportunity in Italy, as both my wife & I speak the language and I have family there. ... also interested in the evolution of the Five Star Movement which has gained representation. My wife is from Brazil and knows a thing or two about socialist democracy, corruption, and all around bad politics. See: Rousseff, Dilma I'm sorry, I have to disagree with your opinion that "I will like a Hilary-led America better than any of them". I am categorically, philosophically, and emphatically opposed to a Hillary-led America.

Whiskey, I am considering Ireland, Australia, & New Zealand.....in no particular order.

OK, you've lowered the bar far enough. I was actually going to reply with an honest response about where I'm going but I don't engage in gratuitous snarkiness all that well. The families of those lost deserved the truth which Clinton would not offer, hence the continued "partisan waste of $". In the liberal mind the moral relativism in this case is on full display.