Boom HeadshotFollow

First, the thread and glorification of the act are in poor taste. Just as poor taste as it would be to glorifiy the actions of the deceased if he'd succesfully used the child as a bargaining chip in some ploy.

Second, value is perceived. All value, including that of hard monies, is based upon perception. If I have a bag of chips that has $1.39 printed on it for a price, I can believe that those chips are worth that price, more than that price, or less than that price. We all perceive the values of things differently. That's why sales is a career option. You can leverage at a person's value structure beliefs enough to convince them that product X is worth price Y. It's a profitable enough exercise that businesses pay people to do it and make more money even after covering the expense of employing those people.

MY value perception is based upon utility. Not necessarily how useful something is, but how much use *I* get out of it. If I won lotto today, the money would only be slightly more valuable to me than my paycheck. Why? Because my lifestyle cannot be significantly altered by the addition of more money. I would not have to check my account balances before purchasing groceries or writing a check any more than I do now. I would not buy more expensive clothing or foods than I do now. The value of the money would only be in the additional emotional security offered by the concept that I could, if I chose, no longer work at a job without changing my lifestyle.

In my perception, the value of this man was negative to society. He was worth less than nothing because he was contributing less than nothing. In short, he was a burden. The officer eliminated the burden, thereby doing his job. It's regrettable that he had to do such an unenviable task, but that's what he signed on for.

Before anyone decides that I'm advocating that we measure each person immdeiately and irrevocably for their net contribution and then pass judgement, I'm going to point out that we, as a society, have the excess wealth available that allows us the luxury of not making that decision. We do not have to leave our unwanted children exposed to die or put our elderly out because we cannot afford to feed or house them. We are more civilized because of our wealth; we have the ability to be "soft." It wasn't always so and it isn't ALWAYS so now. This "judgement" of the dead man's value was forced by none other than himself. His own actions brought about his demise.

I just wanted to make sure there was no uncertainty on your part Omelette.

You have become better at Trolling (236)!

Do I like violence? No I don't.


Would I like the world to be all happy and pink with lollipop trees and cute bunny farts? Yes I would.


That's not quite how the world works and as such I 100% agree with what happend in that situation.

I believe you're not seeing the perspective here: was the move executed by the police NECESSARY? I believe it was not.

Maybe negotiating with the deluded individual, giving him what he wanted, or just tricking him into giving the boy away and THEN proceeding to arrest and not kill him would be a much more respectable way to handle the situation.

Unfortunately, police/military/any form of governmental security are known to be violent and disgustingly blatant in their support for violence.

And personally, I don't know what's scarier: your support (and millions like yourself) for such acts of force or the idea that policemen who are paid with our tax money to be trained to kill people in such a way.

Society seems to get more disgusting by the day.

Edited, Sun Jan 8 19:27:28 2006 by Meeko

Lose faith in the system? I hate the system, it has so far failed me and failed my daughter. I've been fu[b][/b]cked by the system so hard a bowling pin would shoved up my ****** would fail to provide any enjoyment.


However regardless of the situation of the man, no matter how misreable his life is, nothing is more important then children, protecting them is far and away more important then the life of someone who would endanger the helpless for their own benifit.

I gotta throw the BS flag here.

I can confidently say I've been harassed having been drawn down on for doing nothing more than driving a truck that matched the description of one given by an officer shot twenty minutes earlier. It was 3AM and I had legit (sober) business out. As was my practice at the time, I stepped out of my vehicle, got out my wallet and started digging out my license, insurance, etc. The cop popped out, drew down and ordered me back into my vehicle, which I complied with in a very slow and cautious manner. After 45 minutes of roadside grilling I was released, more because of who I was than any proof I had of where I'd been. Two weeks later it was proven that the officer shot himself trying to get some easy money. At the time I found myself so very offended....

I knew that night that the cop was wrong for pulling me over. I knew he was "wrong" when I saw his lights come on. That was when I thought I was goign to get a BS "You swerved, no I need to do a sobriety test on you" bit. That incident didn't kill my faith in the system. I guess it's because I already knew that the system is not perfect, that no system is. If one's expectations are not realistic, then I imagine one would suffer from crises of faith in such situations.

As long as she's ok with that video I can live with that.

The english language is fickle. I wanted to say consequence, but it was not fully appropriate. Punishment is the optimal choice.

In a purely moral context I don't see how anything further was achieved by the man dying. How does this benefit the child?

If the man was not killed right there and then, who knows what he might have been able to get away with. If he had been pepper-sprayed, he'd be perfectly able to slit the child's throat. Same if he had been tasered. Shooting the bas[b][/b]tard in the head was, at the time, the absolute best way to ensure the child's survival.

In other words, if he had not been killed, the child might be dead and the man might be alive. That counts as a benefit to the child in my book.

EDIT: Book has two "o"s.

Edited, Sun Jan 8 22:01:21 2006 by DodoBird

Exactly what I mean.