StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Heartless.Originally posted by: smack Down
Might care more when cops in oakland stop shooting suspects in the back.
Heartless.Originally posted by: smack Down
Might care more when cops in oakland stop shooting suspects in the back.
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Muse
-snip-
But I don't see much difference....
Besides the fact one's a fictional movie and the other is 'real life'?
Since Bonnie & Clyde were well before my time (or anybody else around here), I'll have to take your word for it they were 'folk heroes'.
A quick search shows they were farm-belt depression-era types. I imagine people hated banks back then (forclosing on homes and farms) and so didn't mind seeing them robbed.
That's my guess.
Fern
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'm a little surprised that there's still people like Muse and smack down defending the thugs. Sounds like they're happy about this.
Lets face it, the black community in Oakland has a way of looking for trouble with cops. There's no excuse for that anymore. Barack is president and people should stop blaming the man, the system, racism, etc.
But I do have to wonder about the effectiveness of the Oakland PD SWAT. I mean did they rush this? THis guy had already killed two cops. Maybe exercise a lot of caution and take your time surrounding him before you get shot more?
That piece of scum was hiding in closet at his sisters apartment. He opened fire as the SWAT team entered the room from behind the closet door.
Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.
Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.
Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?
:roll:
He was a felon, so did not obtain the weapon through legal channels. A ban on guns would not have mattered.
Nice try though, libby.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.
Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?
:roll:
He was a felon, so did not obtain the weapon through legal channels. A ban on guns would not have mattered.
Nice try though, libby.
Yeah, let's just keep flooding the market with assault riffles... This shit will continue going on when all the crazies out there start to get them. Let's just make it more easy for them to have access to them ... that's the ticket right?
Guess again.
FYI, you can't buy an assault rifle if you're crazy. Everyone knows this.
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.
Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.
Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?
:roll:
He was a felon, so did not obtain the weapon through legal channels. A ban on guns would not have mattered.
Nice try though, libby.
Dude, think. It's easy for felons to get guns because it's easy for non-felons to get guns. Once it becomes very very difficult (or to be far more accurate, a couple of decades later) it will be difficult for felons to get their hands on guns, particularly assault rifles. People's inability to perceive this is another blind spot in American society.
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Originally posted by: Muse
Bias is a weak word here. Most of the posters in this thread are incapable of looking at this without prejudice. Hopefully the justice system is not likewise infiltrated with such haters.
According to the TV news last night (CBS Bay Area) Mixon was having serious problems with his parole officer. The family said that he was trying to comply with the terms of his parole but the officer had failed 3 weeks ago to visit him as planned. When Mixon sought out the officer he was told "you don't come to me, I'll come looking for you." He was evidently confused, hurt and humiliated. IMO, that parole officer is in part to blame for Saturday's events. This is in part speculation (my intuition) on my part of course because my information is pretty limited.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.
It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.
Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
I can't believe posters in this thread are blaming the gun for pulling the trigger. This Piece of crap cold-blooded killer took out 4 victims. HE PULLED THE TRIGGER! There is no defense for this guy even if he had "issues" with his parole officer.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Oh wow, you're serious. :Q
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Muse
Bias is a weak word here. Most of the posters in this thread are incapable of looking at this without prejudice. Hopefully the justice system is not likewise infiltrated with such haters.
According to the TV news last night (CBS Bay Area) Mixon was having serious problems with his parole officer. The family said that he was trying to comply with the terms of his parole but the officer had failed 3 weeks ago to visit him as planned. When Mixon sought out the officer he was told "you don't come to me, I'll come looking for you." He was evidently confused, hurt and humiliated. IMO, that parole officer is in part to blame for Saturday's events. This is in part speculation (my intuition) on my part of course because my information is pretty limited.
Oh boohoo, you have a setback or two so you kill four cops? Give me a break. No matter how many setbacks you have, you don't kill people.
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Oh wow, you're serious. :Q
What? Do you think I was joking? :roll: WTH are you?
Originally posted by: mugs
<snip>
No, he's not a monster, he's a corpse, as he should be.The man who allegedly killed three Oakland police officers and left a fourth brain dead was well known to local authorities as a violent felon who was being sought on a no-bail warrant for a parole violation, according to the acting police chief.
...
?We know he had an extensive history of violence,? Jordan said. ?He been committed to the state penitentiary for shooting someone. He had a no-bail warrant (out) for a parole violation at the time of the shooting. That?s all we know at this time.?
The alleged gunman had served five years in state prison for an armed assault during a carjacking. He was back behind bars last year for a parole violation.
...
Meanwhile, Mixon?s family was trying to defuse the public perception of the Oakland being ?a monster.?
?I don't want people to think he's a monster." said Enjoli Mixon, the man?s sister. "He's just not."
Meanwhile his grandmother, Mary Mixon, offered condolences to the officers' family.
"Our hearts and prayers go out to the officers' families," she said. "This shouldn't have happened."
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.
It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.
Nothing but a thug, yeah right. Laugh your dumb head off but unless you walk a mile in someone's shoes you shouldn't be making judgment.
For those simply reviewing his criminal history, the shootings Saturday were in-line with his past.
Mixon first trip to state prison came in October 2002 when he was sentenced to serve six years after being found guilty of assault with a firearm for a San Francisco carjacking, state records show.
Mixon was released five years later but within two months became a "person of interest" for the murder of Ramon Stevens, a 42-year-old who was shot on the corner of 86th and E. 14th Street.
Stevens? sister, Felicia Stevens said Sunday she knows it was Mixon who killed her brother, but police said they could not find any witnesses at the time to prove Mixon was the shooter.
"There is no direct evidence that Mixon committed that crime, the murder of Ramon Stevens," said Oakland Police Det. Lou Cruz. "There is nobody saying I saw Lovell Mixon shoot Ramon Stevens, not one witness."
But Stevens, who?s nephew is Mixon?s cousin, said she knows of one person who saw the shooting but who refused to step forward. She said her brother owed Mixon $30 for what she thinks were drugs at the time of the shooting.
Although police could not gather enough evidence to prove Mixon killed Stevens, Mixon was found guilty of five parole violations including possession of drug paraphernalia, identification theft, forgery, attempted grand theft and receiving stolen property.
Originally posted by: alchemize
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18992....html?iref=werecommend
No, he's not a monster, he's a corpse, as he should be.The man who allegedly killed three Oakland police officers and left a fourth brain dead was well known to local authorities as a violent felon who was being sought on a no-bail warrant for a parole violation, according to the acting police chief.
...
?We know he had an extensive history of violence,? Jordan said. ?He been committed to the state penitentiary for shooting someone. He had a no-bail warrant (out) for a parole violation at the time of the shooting. That?s all we know at this time.?
The alleged gunman had served five years in state prison for an armed assault during a carjacking. He was back behind bars last year for a parole violation.
...
Meanwhile, Mixon?s family was trying to defuse the public perception of the Oakland being ?a monster.?
?I don't want people to think he's a monster." said Enjoli Mixon, the man?s sister. "He's just not."
Meanwhile his grandmother, Mary Mixon, offered condolences to the officers' family.
"Our hearts and prayers go out to the officers' families," she said. "This shouldn't have happened."
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article
I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.
You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.
You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.
Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.
Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.
It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.