Minneapolis Finder Forum MN
RegisterSearchTutorialsMemberlistLog in
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
North St Paul Cop Killer Was Convicted Felon
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post North St Paul Cop Killer Was Convicted Felon 
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/57665807.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU


Devon Dockery, the 34 year old Minneapolis man who killed a North St Paul police officer this morning, was a convicted felon who had been previously convicted of illegal possession of a gun.

Sounds like the heroic Maplewood officer who was wounded in the exchange of shots with Dockery managed to save the justice system the bother of trying and releasing this creep again and sent him to deal directly with the Supreme Court.

Roast in peace, Devon.

Reply with quote
Post  
Off topic, it still baffles me how people who don't believe in an afterlife have accepted the premise that they will be no more accountable for their lives than a cockroach is. Just sayin'...

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
Off topic, it still baffles me how people who don't believe in an afterlife have accepted the premise that they will be no more accountable for their lives than a cockroach is. Just sayin'...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb0FW4gj3Yo

Specifically with regards to #3.
"If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do."

Just thought that might be relevant here.

Reply with quote
Post  
That circular philosophy just doesn't sing to me, Prae. Much of what is wrong with our world today is caused by intelligent people who have decided that morality and ethical behavior is whatever they personally define it to be. For example, I might just walk down the street today and bump into the most beautiful, intelligent, wonderful woman I've ever seen, and coincidentally one who might happen to think I'm mighty spiffy too. She might be a wonderful addition to my life and bring me great happiness. Given all those positive possibilities, should I just go for it and gently advise my spouse she might need to seek counseling to deal with her inability to accept my exercise of free will and failure to support my bid for greater satisfaction? Some who consider morality and ethical behavior to be situational and self-defined might say yes.

Reply with quote
Post  
To me it sounds like some folks have a hard time dealing with the natural ambiguity and unfairness of the world as it is, so they need to make up systems of order to impose upon it in order to feel secure in the world. It's absolutely their right to do so, but it doesn't make their made-up systems of order (after death the good guys go to this room and the bad guys go to another room) any more plausible.

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
That circular philosophy just doesn't sing to me, Prae. Much of what is wrong with our world today is caused by intelligent people who have decided that morality and ethical behavior is whatever they personally define it to be. For example, I might just walk down the street today and bump into the most beautiful, intelligent, wonderful woman I've ever seen, and coincidentally one who might happen to think I'm mighty spiffy too. She might be a wonderful addition to my life and bring me great happiness. Given all those positive possibilities, should I just go for it and gently advise my spouse she might need to seek counseling to deal with her inability to accept my exercise of free will and failure to support my bid for greater satisfaction? Some who consider morality and ethical behavior to be situational and self-defined might say yes.


Well I can't see how it would be moral or ethical behavior to enter in to a relationship under one pretense and then bolt because you've found someone better. I would dearly love to have a conversation with anyone who would answer yes to this situation. It sounds more like they're living self centered lives.

Reply with quote
Post  
I wish I had time today to really boil this all down, Dora.

Guess all I'm saying is that we need to recognize the reality of human nature, and to acknowledge that if the "rule book" is fluid and self-authored, it's human nature that we will generally interpret and define it in a way that allows us to do whatever we wanted to do anyway. It is the very fact that we have the ability to overcome the urging of our own interests and desires that differentiates us from most of the other organisms on the planet. Certainly such rebellion against self-serving instinct is the result of an externally agreed upon moral consensus, and it's unlikely to occur in the vacuum of solitude.

As I've noted before, care for others is not a generally natural state. You don't see the squirrels queing up to wait their turn at the bird feeder. But you do see humans voluntarily organizing themselves to meet the interests of all, and that's clearly a choice borne of consensus that the group has agreed to use and enforce if necessary.

It's a long discussion...

Reply with quote
Post  
"I would dearly love to have a conversation with anyone who would answer yes to this situation. It sounds more like they're living self centered lives."

If you're accountable to no one but yourself (other than social rules enforced by force), then what is your life but self centered?

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
"I would dearly love to have a conversation with anyone who would answer yes to this situation. It sounds more like they're living self centered lives."

If you're accountable to no one but yourself (other than social rules enforced by force), then what is your life but self centered?


You're always accountable to the connection you have to the rest of existence. What goes around comes around. If you act in a despicable manner, there will be repercussions in your life. If you are a kind, generous, loving person, there are repercussions in your life as well, in the form of friends, family, community, inner peace, etc. I just don't see the need for fear of some deity in order to be a good person.

Reply with quote
Post  
I hear you, Dora, and I grant that the usual Heaven and Hell depictions are simplistic hyperbole. What my father taught me was much more basic. His interpretation was that our Creator would call us to account for the gift of life that we were given and how we used it. If we were found to have used it well and morally, we would be welcomed into the Creator's world. If not, we would simply cease to exist both physically and spiritually. Works for me.

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
"I would dearly love to have a conversation with anyone who would answer yes to this situation. It sounds more like they're living self centered lives."

If you're accountable to no one but yourself (other than social rules enforced by force), then what is your life but self centered?


Down this path lay the belief that you must have faith in a higher power in order to be a good person. The extreme conclusion one can draw from that belief is that the only reason someone who believes that is not a psychotic killer is because Magic Man will punish him/her. But boy oh boy would they love to take some people out.

I don't go to church, I'm not set on whether or not there's a higher power, yet I manage to be nice to people I don't have to be, do nice things for people I don't have to do nice things for, set my own selfish needs aside when another person's needs are greater. I do all of these things without even thinking about what Magic Man would like me to do.

Reply with quote
Post  
I don't go to church either, Prae, but I do believe in a Creator.

One thing to clarify, Dora. Under my dad's scenario, there is no fear or threat of retaliation from the Creator. The outcome he predicts for those who fail in accountability, that being nothingness and non-existence, is no worse than what atheists and no afterlife believers predict as the ultimate fate of us all. No fire, no brimstone, just a black void. I simply choose to bet my life and soul on the promise that I can earn something better as a result of living life in a way that I have been taught my Creator approves of and reflects their wishes for their "children". Guess if the result is good, my motives and beliefs are irrelevant.

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
I don't go to church either, Prae, but I do believe in a Creator.


That's all good and well, but you've made the assertion that people who don't believe in a higher power are inherently self centered people. My post was trying to show that I am one of those people not set on a higher power, I just go through my day to day life being nice to people and doing nice things for people regardless of whether or not they've done anything to warrant it. I do some selfish things, but on the whole I don't think I'm terribly selfish. Certainly a lot less so than some who claim to believe in a higher power.

Reply with quote
Post  
"If you're accountable to no one but yourself (other than social rules enforced by force), then what is your life but self centered?"

No mention of higher power there, Prae. You are either accountable to someone other than yourself, or you aren't. What I've tried to consistently point out is that if your entire moral standard is completely subject to your own wishes and rationalizations, then the potential for abuse of that infinitely manipulatable standard is immense, as is the potential for self-delusion.

There is a big difference between being self centered and being selfish. Part of the reason I choose to rely heavily on externally promoted moral and ethical standards is that I realize the need to hear things that I would prefer not to, and that the origin of such reminders would be unlikely to be me. It's an acknowledgement of my own weakness. Like Ulysses, sometimes I must choose to be lashed to the mast and relinquish control of my life when I know that my judgement will be clouded if left to its own devices.

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
No mention of higher power there, Prae. You are either accountable to someone other than yourself, or you aren't. What I've tried to consistently point out is that if your entire moral standard is completely subject to your own wishes and rationalizations, then the potential for abuse of that infinitely manipulatable standard is immense, as is the potential for self-delusion.


Ah, I see. This started with a comment that seemed to be about the failings of not believing in an afterlife/higher power judgment .

Yes, if you're accountable only to yourself, there is all sorts of opportunity for self-delusion and what not. I try not to do that myself, but I am guilty of it from time to time.

Reply with quote
Post  
"This started with a comment that seemed to be about the failings of not believing in an afterlife/higher power judgment . "

Gotta run, but this gets back to what Dora talked about with the Karmic Repercussions theory. As a motivator and deterrent, it's a pretty weak one. We can see many examples around us of people who have behaved in a perfectly rotten manner for many years and seemingly escaped mortal life with no significant consequences. If there is no further consequence for them beyond death, I guess they won...

Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:


Gotta run, but this gets back to what Dora talked about with the Karmic Repercussions theory. As a motivator and deterrent, it's a pretty weak one..


Well so is Catholic dogma, if all the priests who have abused children are any indication. It's not like the devout are any less likely to behave monstrously. The guy who kidnapped, raped, and imprisoned Jaycee Lee Dugard came to the authorities' attention because he was handing out religious literature. Fred Phelps uses his religion as an excuse to hate gay people. I think we just need to accept that humanity is imperfect, and any stories we tell ourselves to make us behave more perfectly can ultimately be manipulated to be used for the same imperfect and nefarious purposes that necessitated their creation in the first place.

Reply with quote
Post  
Off topic, it still baffles me how people who don't believe in an afterlife have accepted the premise that they will be no more accountable for their lives than a cockroach is. Just sayin'...

It baffles me that you would hold yourself accountable to the supposed dictates of a supernatural "Creator," particularly when it should be obvious to you that those dictates originate from human minds.

If your moral code is simply whatever others tell you it should be, you've abdicated your responsibility to decide what is moral and immoral for yourself. If your moral arbiters tell you it's moral to gas Jews or commit My Lai massacres or slaughter Tutsis, history suggests you'll believe those actions are moral too.

And afterwards if others tell you your actions were immoral, you may believe them and subscribe to their moral code. If that happens, do you have a personal moral code or is Right and Wrong whatever others tell you they are?

Reply with quote
Post  
Guess if the result is good, my motives and beliefs are irrelevant.

Your espoused belief in the existence of a supernatural deity whose dictates should be obeyed gives support to jihadists and other religious nutjobs who believe the same thing. Instead of being in a position to point out the absurdity of conforming to the supposed dictates of a supernatural being, you're reduced to the laughable position of arguing which invisible friend is more powerful and what it wants.

Reply with quote
Post BCA: Crittendon Killed With Own Gun 
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/58124457.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DUs

BCA investigation shows that North St Paul Officer Crittendon was disarmed in a violent struggle with Devon Dockery, who then shot Crittondon with his own gun and then engaged in a gun battle with the responding backup officer from Maplewood.

Sobering object lesson in why physical struggles between police and criminals often don't look pretty. Given the frequency of this kind of confrontation, clearly officers cannot afford the deadly consequences of losing a wrestling match with a suspect, and do what they need to do to win.

As the cops often say, it's better to be tried by 12 than carried to the hearse by six.

Reply with quote
Post  
I'd like to know what the heroic Maplewood officer was doing while the other officer was wrestling with the bad guy. Several years ago, there was a similar incident in which a cop had his gun wrestled away while his woman partner didn't jump in to help.

If I was a cop, I wouldn't want a woman cop for back-up. How do your cop buddies feel about it?

Reply with quote
Post  
From what I hear, Odin, it depends on who she is. Some jump right in and battle, and some are not too anxious to mix it up. Cops are taught all kinds of fancy Kung Fu grip stuff in their training that are intended to equalize differences in size and strength, but unless those skills are maintained by regular formal training they tend to fade away, and few if any US departments offer their cops regular and ongoing training in hand to hand combat. As a result, most tend to rely on a few basic moves and strength, and they tend to favor a male approach.

This particular case sounds pretty bizarre with the "ball of fire" stuff from the killer. I imagine it will be pretty hard to reconstruct exactly what happened. My guess is he knew they were coming and attacked immediately when they came in the door. A situation like that would turn to crap with blinding speed.

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum