4 Oakland officers killed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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

So, it's OK to shoot cops when it's fiction but not in real life? What kind of nation are we? That sounds very schizophrenic and hypocritical to me.

The movie B&C is what I was referring to more than the legend. It's the movie and its popularity, that phenomenon to which I refer. What relation that has to the actual events in the 1930's is a topic for discussion, sure, but not exactly germain to this discussion. In any case, I'm talking about the public take. The movie wasn't all that long ago and that movie is still very popular, often viewed.

 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.

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.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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?

OK, I agree with most of this post, but excusing shooting that guy in the back is the shits. Get a grip!
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.

Well, not legally. But if you're not crazy but have no respect for the law it's pretty easy in the good 'ole USA.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
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.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
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?

This is the kind of kneejerk reaction I was expecting. Lets ban weapons for law abiding citizens. That will surely change the behavior of career criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
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.


Uh huh, just like once you outlaw alcohol and drugs for law abiding citizens it will be harder for the criminals to get drugs. This backwards logic from the gun grabbers gets really old.
Assault rifles account for what % of crime in this country?


Gun Control

I suggest looking at about 4:20.

"No proof gun regulation reduced violent crime or murder"
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
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.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
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
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
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.

Flame somebody on the internet, Muse thinks you are a heartless bastard. Kill 4 cops, nope :)
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
Oh yeah, here's another point, this guy at most would get about 6 months for his parole violation. B&C were either getting the chair (or equivalent) or at the very least life imprisonment. It's a little different between those two. One other thing, I GUARANTEE they'll be a lot less people showing support for these slain cops than the Bart victim...
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
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.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.

I'm not talking about defending him. It's not a matter of defense anyway, there's a bunch of dead people. Try to imagine his state of mind, though. If you can't, you don't know WTF happened.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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?

 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,640
8,169
136
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.

You don't kill people. You know, he was living in something of a warzone. You're a pacifist? Fine. You don't have to look to far in this world to realize that a whole lot of people don't share your dictum against killing. Compassion comes first. Absent that, you're living blind.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
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?

I was hoping you were joking.

Who am I?
I'm someone who didn't immediately assume the criminal was black when I heard about this incident.
I'm someone who sees the criminal as a criminal, not just a black man.
I'm someone who can see more differences between this incident and Bonnie & Clyde than race.
I'm someone who thinks Bonnie and Clyde were worthless human beings who deserved their fate.
I'm someone who thinks that this criminal did was detrimental to all black Americans; he should be vilified by all black people, just like he is vilified by all non-black people.
I'm someone who is disgusted that some bystanders were taunting the police after the shootings.
I'm someone who freely admits that racism is alive and well in the United States, but this incident and the reporting of it have nothing to do with race.
I'm someone who is tired of greedy people who sell guns to criminals. I think whoever sold this criminal his gun(s) should be held responsible for the murders that were committed with it/them.
I'm someone who is glad that this criminal is dead, and angry that it cost the lives of four men.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
<snip>

His parole officer hurt his feelings, you insenstive clod! Why I'm so upset about this whole thing...

/eyeballs the shotgun in the corner....

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18992....html?iref=werecommend

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."
No, he's not a monster, he's a corpse, as he should be.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
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.

He sure sounds like a thug to me.

Cop shooter was frustrated with parole system, was person of interest in 2007 homicide

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.

 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: alchemize
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18992....html?iref=werecommend

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."
No, he's not a monster, he's a corpse, as he should be.

No doubt. My sympathies go out to the families of everyone involved in this incident, but they sure as hell don't go out to Mixon himself. The only thing that made this guy anything other than common criminal scum is that he was unusually well-armed and ruthless, even for a convicted carjacker.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
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.

I think the comparison to Bonnie and Clyde is legitimate - but rather than 'romanticizing this person', I think it says something about the craziness of romanticizing B&C.

It says something about the public, and something about racism in this case. Charles Manson is more 'romanticized' than the black sniper of a few years ago.

There's a long history though of the public romanticizing outlaws - and you can see even with police in popular entertainment that it's almost a law (pun intended) that the police characters are 'rulebreakers'. Not since the 1960's has that not been the case, with Dragnet and Adam-12 - now it's a cliche, where the cop is either a chronic rulebreaker, or at least the plots frequently have the drama involve rulebreaking, ranging from 'good cop puts justice ahead of the law' to 'Bad Lieutenant'. There was even a vigilante series.

Even a quality series like 'The Wire' - it's about the drug trade, about the corruption among the police, the corruption among the politicians - not about 'law abiding people'.

So, the question is fair, why do people find it so much preferable to watch 'rulebreakers' than 'rule followers' for their entertainment?

On another note, the right and the left both deplore the tragedy of these victims of this thug, and condemn his actions.

But one difference is that the liberal tends to notice things that increase the number of people who become thugs, and tend to come up with policies that reduce that number.

The right does that with one type of policy - mostly limited to increasing punishment and expanding the allowable behavior by the police to give defendants fewer rights (which they intend to hurt only criminials, but which inevitably results in harm to the innocent as well), while the left tends to ask what can be done to prepare prisoners for relase back into society, to note the 'root causes' from poverty to lack of education to family instability, but the public is rarely much interested in those areas.

The primary blame for this incident lies on the murderer.

I do think, though, that many comentators from the right will not understand many of the relevant issues. They can't even understand the discussion of those issues, only thinking that it's somehow wanting to excuse the murderer. I'm interested in hearing from each person on the right who has any direct experience with the environment of the typical young black thug, who understand their environment and influencers. I don't expect we have any such people.

As for the parole issue - the problem does not justify the murders. It is, however, if accurate, a very legitimate issue of justice - and those who blow it off and say 'who cares' are perpetrators of injustice and share the same flaws of a lack of concern for fairness to others as this murderer did when he put his desire to avoid incarceration ahead of his respect for the lives of these innocent officers. There's a reason it's called a 'cyle of violence'.

While most wouldn't, and most don't - whether right-winger or black thug - murder over the injustices, I'd like to see what a right-winger facing six months (or longer) in jail unfairly had to say about it. They take for granted the ability of lawyers to get them out of the problem if they're in the right, the media to write stories about the injustice - but if they faced the 'who cares' reaction to their own imprisonment, they'd better understand why this thug dehumanizes the same way he was dehumanized.

Ever notice how many thugs talk about 'respect' as the motive for their violence? How satisfied they feel about hurting those who support a system that doesn't care about them?

Of course, if liberal policies were enacted that prevented the thug culture for many, that's 'invisible' to the public - they just take it for granted. just as the thousands of people not killed by drunk drivers when policies reduce drunk driving don't give a lot of credit to those policies.

So, this story doesn't really say a lot beyond the tragedy to the people affected by this murderer - unless people look at the larger issues about why there are such thugs.