4 Oakland officers killed

[RedChief]

Was driving home on Sat night but hadnt heard any news. Drove past a house about 6 houses down from me and there were a few cop cars out front. The next day, there were cops out in front of the house. Turns out I live right down the street from where Daniel Sakai lived (one of the two SWAT officers).

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Who popularized the term and made it hip to be a "Thug" for kids and anyone else dumb enough to lead such a lifestyle? Was it a white guy or black guy who popularized the term?

Edit: What would you call him if not a thug, scum or any other appropriate derogative term for a career criminal of his caliber? Please let me know because I am curious.

Thanks for admitting that "thug" only describes blacks. It only took a few hours.

I don't think that "thug" is appropriate because it implies that his race was a factor in his crimes. It's saying that it would be different if a white person committed those crimes. Allow me to quote myself:.

No one ever forced a segment of the black population to embrace the word as a positive term. If you don't like the term because you feel that it only refers to black people well then maybe black people should disassociate themselves from the term altogether and not allow a part of their own population to wrap themselves around the word "Thug" as a positive term. This is not the fault of white people or anyone else in society.

Even without the popular connotation of the word ?Thug? he was and is a thug because that is the title he earned via his criminal actions. Even by Webster?s own dictionary definition he has earned the moniker via his criminal actions throughout his life.

Oh and you dodged my last question. What do you call him and what should he be called? What should a murderer, rapist of a 12 year old girl, a car jacker and over all career criminal be called?


Answer this question if you have any sort of intellectual honesty about yourself.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
[Just like anti-gunners have to get past their own illogic.

I agree. But the post I responded to contained a pro-gun error, not an anti-gun error.

You don't look at individual incidents, you look at the total package and compare it to other total packages and then point out where the differences are. From there you extrapolate logical cause and effect scenarios and arrive at policy that is workable.

Reducing problems is useless unless it does so without creating new ones, and only if it is a significant reduction. There are around 12,000 firearm deaths (homicide & accident) per year. If you cut that down to 11,000 but take away a fundamental right, is it worth it? If you get rid of 6000 deaths it might be, but what if they're replaced by 5500 knife deaths? Then what have you really accomplished? Moreover, what of the hundreds of thousands or even millions of defensive gun uses every year? You save 4000 lives but cause 500,000 victimizations? That hardly seems a bargain worth exploring.[/quote]

Yes, you're going on to other issues on gun control. I assume then that you are agreeing with the point I made about the one that's fallacious.

A law must meet three standards for it to be useful:

1) it must address a real problem
2) it must be able to actually SOLVE that problem
3) the unintended consequences must not outweigh the benefits

I don't know what (1) means. Does it mean that if it's aimed at preventing a potential problem, it's not valid?

I disagree with 2. Murder laws have not 'solved' the problem of murder. Drunk drivign laws have not 'solved' the problem of drunk driving.

Perhaps society simply wants to be able to arrest people who do something they think is criminal.

One law that came up in recent years was the law against those who have been given access to information on the identities revealing those identities, willfully. It was aimed at one person who had done so for their own political reasons. The law has never been used to convict anyone, and was found not to fit the behavior of those who had outed Valerie Plame. Why should it be removed from the books, when it's not being used for any prosecutions?

I think the better argument you make is (3), that it makes sense to weigh the pros and cons. Even then, though, it may not be an absolute bar to a law.

Take for example the way some people want crack cocaine outlawed - many of them would want that even if it were shown the law causes more harm than good, because they're simply not willing for society to condone the use by legalizing it, and they want to continue to try to battle it with the criminal system. Should they not be allowed to make that choice?

Until you can CONCLUSIVELY show how gun control meets those three criteria it should not be implemented.

So now, people aren't allowed to pass laws because they think they're a good idea, they have to 'CONCLUSIVELY show' all those things. I think that's ridiculous.

Go back to the better arguments on gun control, that's not it.

***NOTE: there is also a pre-requisite to the above standards...the agency in question must have the authority to enact the law - otherwise the rest is moot. Along with that authority is the consideration of rather the law will withstand scrutiny. So consider adding:

0) the acting agency must have the authority to enact such a law
4) the law itself must be likely to withstand scrutiny (ie suits to overturn)

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here, apparently something about the 2nd amendment and why the law should not be passed if there are any questions on that.

Odd that you did not say a word about the topic I posted on, the logic error in the post I responded to.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

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'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

Nowhere did I claim he was a victim. I distinctly said "I'm not defending Mixon." I think he was a terrible person. He stole, raped, and murdered.

I do think that many white people are showing their bias by calling him a "thug" though.

The only victim here is you. You instantly think I'm against you and all whites. You think that I'm calling you racist. I wasn't, I was just pointing out a word that only describes blacks. Saying something ignorant (like calling him a "thug") doesn't make someone racist. It's hard not to use that language when you grow up in our society. For some reason, you assume that any discussion of race vilifies you. Well, if you get defensive, it does. If not, it doesn't.

Cliffs:
Black guy is called "thug"
I call out posters
Drift3r thinks I called him a racist; he gets defensive and starts acting like a racist

I hate to say it (no I don't) but the term thug has been around for a very long time. Go take your insecurities someplace else. Someone called him a "common thug" and I shortened it to "thug" because I didn't think he was very common thug at all. It has nothing to do with race.

thug : \'th?g\
Function: noun
Etymology: Hindi & Urdu t?hag, literally, thief
Date: 1810

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Craig234

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.

-snip-

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.

I'm very far from a right winger, but I'll comment anyway. I understand (just look at this thread) that most people have no sympathy, compassion or any understanding of the culture from which Mixon evolved. My mother and sister live in Oakland and I live less than a mile from the Oakland border. I spent over ten years working principally in Oakland, taking temporary jobs through the agencies and in most of those jobs I worked shoulder to shoulder with young black guys, the many of whom lived in conditions very similar to Mixon. I have understanding of what's going on in the disadvantaged areas of Oakland, and have some understanding of what's going on in Hunter's Point S.F. and the worst areas of Richmond as well, it's not all that terribly different. In the housing projects, it's all the worse, of course. To me, most of these guys aren't just thugs. Even the ones with criminal records in many if not most cases have tried to make it in legit ways, have worked jobs, had to deal with unemployment, insecurity, schools in which it was almost impossible to be motivated to learn what with what was going on all around them.

I haven't been convinced that Mixon was a thug. I've seen no information indicating that he was affiliated with any gangs or involved in organized drug trade. After he shot the motorcycle cops where did Mixon go? He didn't seek out his homies, he went to his sister's apartment. He was involved in one armed robbery (car theft), and they say he was a suspect in a murder. I've heard no details other than that charges were never pressed against him in the murder case. I heard that he wanted to work and that his problems with his parole officer (the officer stood him up for scheduled meetings) prevented him from getting a job.

You people can think that Mixon was simply being selfish when he killed cops to avoid being put in jail, but you aren't accessing his emotions. Put a gun in the hands of a fearful/resentful/humiliated person and you have a recipe for murder.

I am strongly in favor a gun control, but that's another thread.

You make it sound like Mixon had a 9-5 and needed a ride one day, so he car jacked someone to get to work. Describing it as armed robbery/car theft defuses it to what it was--unless you are the one getting car jacked. If you are car jacking people and your name pops up in a murder case--you're probably not dealing with legitimate businesses. Is he a thug? Maybe. Although killing 4 cops, regardless of race--you may qualify as a thug.

Trust me Muse, it may not sound like it but we would probably have sympathy for his situation--then he killed four people and at that point sympathy goes out the window.

My sympathy for this guy started going out the window when I saw on the news last night that he's thought to have been raping women over the last year, 5 of them, one a 12 year old girl. I suppose it isn't substantiated and is speculative at this point but if true, my take on him is way different and I can't muster sympathy for the guy. I just don't know now.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Correct. IF gun control actual worked (which it absolutely does not, in any meaningful way, as proven through numerous studies) then MAYBE there would be an argument for it. It doesn't, so there is none. But even if it did you'd have to weigh the consequences to see if the gains were worth it...and they just aren't.

It may or may not 'work' but gun advocates have got to get past their logic errors.

A shooting with a banned gun doesn't prove it 'doesn't work'. What about his next door neighbor who might have *also* got a gun and killed another officer but was prevented?

If gun control *reduces* the number of problems, it can be argued to work.

And if people view it as a stepping stone to more widespread gun control that would work, even if the local measures don't work; if people view it as something that might take decades to get rid of the excess supply already sold, but worthwhile - those are not easy to argue against. How can you 'prove' what the effect of a certain gun control policy implemented nationally would be in 40 years? Of course, neither side can easily 'prove' that.

It's not that gun advocates don't have some other good arguments, but the 'see, there was a shooting so that proves gun control doesn't work' is wrong.

One of the most enlightened passages concerning gun control I've seen.

A whole lot of gun control discussion is very irrational and charged with emotion, not calm clarity. People need a long time perspective on the problems associated with guns. Naturally, if you make guns illegal to have, the most law abiding would be the first to surrender their "arms." That sticks in the craw of a whole lot of people. But 2-3 decades down the line you are going to see a big reduction in gun related crime and injuries/deaths and that reduction will continue.

 

[jpeyton]

You should update the thread title to reflect the current death toll.

 

[EXman]

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?

Two reasons. Because you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Also because you sir are a pussy, and if random violence starts around you and no one is packing you are at the mercy of a thug with an illegal firearm.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Muse

My sympathy for this guy started going out the window when I saw on the news last night that he's thought to have been raping women over the last year, 5 of them, one a 12 year old girl. I suppose it isn't substantiated and is speculative at this point but if true, my take on him is way different and I can't muster sympathy for the guy. I just don't know now.

You just don't know?? He killed 4 people over a traffic stop, what the hell else do you need to know??

Unbelievable!!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You should update the thread title to reflect the current death toll.

Done.