Probably members of Black Lives Matter.

Criminals are criminals.

What did he do to earn that nickname?

That one such officer had a nickname may suggest the militarism with which he approached his job. Otherwise, why would he have that nickname?

Comprende?

His co workers most likely gave him the nickname out of respect for his military service.
Something like "Robocop" might be more indicative of how he did his job.
You have no clue how this officer performed his duties, until something bad comes out, lighten up with your anti military crap.

Don't convict him till the evidence comes out.
It sounds like you already have though.

Lol. Genius, I'm a vet myself.

You would want the same consideration.
Thank you for your service, too.

You're the only one reading "anti-military" into it. Clean your own lens, dude.

Nope.

Either way, I get your point (a point without a purpose), but you're excluding the real context of what is going on with the militarization of police in this country.

I do not agree with the militarization of the police and I do not think they should be assassinated either. Just as people of color should not be assassinated by the police.

So we agree then?

Yes

It was published.

It's a fair question to ask "why" that was his nickname. Anything that suggest militarism in police forces is worthy of scrutiny.

At least we agree the militaration of the police is a bad thing and needs to be reversed.

If he's been on the force since 1983 or so, he likely didn't "do" much if anything in the military--he would have been a post-Vietnam veteran.

The other possibility is that he served in the reserves, as many people do.

Or maybe he had a "Kung Fu grip."

What does it matter? He's dead and he didn't deserve to be killed. That "senseless killing" shit can go both ways.

As to your explanation, that is plausible.

Plenty of Veterans lose their lives in peacetime training accidents.

Again, you play the "deliberate misinterpretation" card. You've been doing that a lot lately.

I think it's pretty sick that you're laughing at some poor guy getting shot and killed on the job, when all he was doing was responding to a call--he wasn't abusing anyone, or throwing his weight around, or acting like a jerk.

Four kids don't have a father--that's nothing to "LOL" about.

smh.

a lot of crap in this thread...

"If he's been on the force since 1983 or so, he likely didn't "do" much if anything in the military..."

I'm not laughing at anything. I actually find DU's conditional compassion sickening.

And don't cherry pick my post--read the whole thing. Turns out my 2nd speculation was correct. The meme being presented is that this guy was some kind of "knife in the teeth" killer who was helping to "militarize" the police. That wasn't accurate.

LOL is a wrong vibe to be shaking out in this thread.

The guy was doing his job, not bullying on/brutalizing anyone, and he's dead. I don't like it when anyone ends up dead at the hands of an asshole--I'm picky that way.

He was supposed to retire a month ago and stayed on for a bit at the police chief's request.

Most police activity in Fox Lake is dealing with drunken boaters on summer weekends.

logic has gone on for too long!

gratuitously hyperbolic, and entirely counterproductive. Why rehash the discussion again with the exact same quote?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027121019

No notable person on DU, Congress, the NRA, or elsewhere, supports the ridiculous, no less absolute, contention that "if everybody had a gun, no one would get shot." Of course, you are free to offer reputable citations in support of you comment.

Now, if you wish to allege that a great number of people, including many otherwise very liberal Democrats, believe a firearm could under certain, but by no means all, circumstances be employed for lawful self-defense, even if a shot isn't fired, but you believe the purported risks of carrying a firearms outweigh potential benefits, that would certainly constitute a basis for a mature and potentially productive discussion.

As for my initial contribution to such a dialogue, I would offer the fairly balanced article in the well-known right-wing rag Slate ( ), particularly referencing the CDC study demonstrating how firearms are used often and effectively for self defense, as well as the National Institute of Justice Report from 2013, "Summary of Select Firearm Prevention Strategies," that questioned the effectiveness of the most popular gun control proposals.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2013A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/c4b73dc817da609e87257b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf


More importantly, and directly relevant to the OP, I wish to express my sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Officer Gliniewicz. I hope for the swift and uneventful capture of his assailants, a fair trial, and if convicted, the harshest penalties available under the laws of Illinois.

Short memory?

They and many others believe that additional security, including permitting qualified teachers to maintain arms, could possibly help in the event of a Newton-type scenario. However, no one even remotely suggested that such a policy (which actually exists without problems in many jurisdictions across the USA) would immunize schools and other locales from violence, firearm or otherwise. Again, as per our discussion in the other thread, your statement that "If everybody had a gun, no one would get shot" has been advocated by no one of note, including the dreaded NRA, and is unequivocally a hyperbolic, disingenuous and unhelpful strawman argument.

As I indicated in my prior post, if you wish to discuss the actual policies proposals from gun rights supporters, NRA or otherwise, including teachers with firearms, than simply do so without the rhetoric, exaggeration and intellectual insults.

It's the insistence on supporting such strawman argument that, in part, explains why compromise and trust in the national gun debate is impossible, and the litany of judicial and electoral failures in the gun control movement.

After Sandy Hook? Memory indeed.