Update on Militia Chaplain...

[Moosenose]

http://www.detnow.com/news/0307131301.html


He was shot and killed.

I guess we'll never know what really happened now... It's awfully convenient, isn't it...no need to answer pesky questions, like was he in the house at all during the standoff, or did he fire the shots that killed the trooper, or how did he escape when his house was surrounded by dozens of cops...

[MrBenchley]

1. So in other words

This armed white supremaccist loony who killed a cop was shot when he refused to surrender.

Good for the cops. The Michigna Militia and similar borwnshirt groups are a disgrace.

[CO Liberal]

2. He Was Just Another "Law-Abiding Citizen"......

....exercizing his Second Amendment rights, doncha know? :-)

I'm waiting for the mental midgets in the NRA leadership (such as La Pierre and Nugent) to weigh in on this story.

[slackmaster]

3. Sounds like "suicide by cop" to me

As opposed to "extrajudicial execution".

[iverglas]

5. I do think I agree

"Suicide by cop" ... whereas shooting an obviously unarmed shoplifter would be "extrajudicial execution" (and no reflection at all on the validity of the law the shoplifter was allegedly breaking ;) ).

Sometimes people just want to die, or insist on behaving in a way that makes their deaths virtually inevitable whether they want to die or not -- and we must all be presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of our actions, after all.

Of course, how much better it would be, from the community's and society's and various individuals' viewpoints, if he had not been shot -- and how much more likely that outcome would have been if he had not been carrying a firearm.

For one thing, his death may indeed leave some important questions unanswerable, and this is not a desirable outcome. I would imagine, of course, that the question of who shot the state trooper will be answered to a fair degree of certainty, i.e. by ruling out the possibility that the bullets came from the other troopers' guns -- but regardless of who fired the shots, here again we have someone, the state trooper, who would still be alive had someone else not had access to a firearm.

His death means that there will be no publicly-imposed retribution or calling to account for the state trooper's death and whatever other offences he was wanted for, and retribution does serve a valid social purpose.

And of course his death is the death of a human being, which human beings naturally regard as not a good thing. (In the big picture, we're all valued by all of us in principle, and that's why we have things like laws and due process even for murderers; in the smaller picture, even thoroughly rotten people have families and his is now deprived of him.) That why if I'd walked up and shot him dead when not in fear of my life, I'd have been prosecuted for homicide regardless of how much of a shit he was.

And all of it could have been avoided if he had not had access to firearms.

I'm not saying he could have been prevented from having access to firearms. I'm not saying that he could have been prevented from having access to firearms (in my opinion, a not too valuable opinion given the little I know, likely a perfectly justifiable interference with his rights) without also unjustifiably violating, say, other people's rights, or even other rights of his.

I'm just saying how nice life would have been if he hadn't had access to firearms, and that it seems to me that it might be worthwhile to seriously, and honestly and sincerely and in good faith, inquire into whether there are acceptable methods of achieving that end in the future.

.

[MrBenchley]

4. B-b-b-b-b-but wait until he shot a few more cops

before we "rush to judgement." <snicker>

[jody]

6. The article doesn't say, but it's possible that he was mentally disturbed

just as the young man in Colorado who was shot by the police because he attacked the police with a knife. The man in Mississippi who attacked his co-workers was apparently also mentally disturbed.

We see incidents happening all over the country. Is this outbreak of murders by various means; knives, guns, cars, etc.; a byproduct of our recession and high unemployment?

[slackmaster]

7. I blame it on the economy and the terror threat level system

Most of the time since 9/11 we really should have been in Condition Green, but you will NEVER see it go that low. We have to keep people on edge to maintain the justification for the wars and provide an ongoing excuse for the erosion of privacy and civil rights.

[RoeBear]

8. This happened in my neck of the woods...

...I don't think this guy could have raised his hands high enough to surrender.

[Moosenose]

9. this guy would have been shot dead "resisting arrest"...

if he surrendered himself unarmed and surrounded by a busload of nuns in front of 50 media cameras.

the facts presented lead me to believe it was "CYA" time for the cops....

[jody]

15. I'm surprised you haven't had responses from the naysayers

[acerbic]

16. I see "jody" has found a fitting avatar for herself

:-)

[acerbic]

10. Nice to see how much sympathy these "pro-RKBA" "liberals" here have

...for extreme neo-nazi wingnuts like this guy, Eric Rudolph, Benjamin Smith etc. They just MUST be innocent, just persecuted and murdered by the evil jew and n*gger loving government. :eyes:

[Moosenose]

11. Ummm...Acerbic....

do you deny that the current government has pulled some evil, vile shit since it's taken office? Does the workings of BFEE, LIHOP, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (along with our support of the NA's slaughter of "enemy combatants" in "death by Conex" situations) qualify as evil, vile shit? I think it does...and I think a lot of "non-RKBA" folks think so, too.

I can't think of ANY pro-RKBA posters here who have said that it's the "jew and n*gger loving" government that's evil....just that the current Government has pulled some evil crap.

And come to think of it....YES, the government HAS killed a whole FUCKLOAD of innocent people....not all of them domestically. If you're too blind to see that, I wonder what the fuck you're doing on this board.

[acerbic]

12. Christian Identity critters like this

...one hate even Dumbya's government because it's not evil enough for them and especially not the exact type of evil that Christian Identity critters want. So, by all means continue proclaiming their innocence against all reports... :eyes:

And come to think of it....YES, the government HAS killed a whole FUCKLOAD of innocent people....not all of them domestically. If you're too blind to see that, I wonder what the fuck you're doing on this board.

I hate Christian Identity critters and I hate Dumbyaites but I don't hate all the government on all levels, so you can just go build some more straw men with your Brothers in Christ...

[Moosenose]

13. that'll be hard to do...

"so you can just go build some more straw men with your Brothers in Christ..."

considering I'm a long-term atheist. Of course, don't let little things like facts mess with your rantings... ;-)

Oh, yeah...on edit...well, since you seem to think it's all well and good for the Government to assassinate far righties, should we expect to hear you bitch when they find out that they can get away with assassinating far lefties?

Personally, I'd rather that they didn't assassinate ANYBODY. You know not for whom the bell tolls...

[acerbic]

14. So you claim AGAINST ALL REPORTS that THIS neo-nazi wingnut was innocent,

just assassinated by the government:

Oh, yeah...on edit...well, since you seem to think it's all well and good for the Government to assassinate far righties

Where did you get your "information", other than from your beliefs that neo-nazi wingnuts are always innocent?

[iverglas]

17. oh really?

"well, since you seem to think it's all well and
good for the Government to assassinate far righties,
should we expect to hear you bitch when they find out
that they can get away with assassinating far lefties?"

(emphasis added to identify questionable content)

Come again?

TO WHOM does acerbic seem to think this?

Not to me, I assure you. I can't imagine how acerbic could seem to anyone to think this. Really, truly; I can't imagine it.

YOU seem to be attributing this perception to a lot more people than just yourself, since you then enquire what "we" should expect, given the state of affairs that YOU allege to be apparent.

If acerbic seems to you to think this, you might want to take a little more ownership of that thought, rather than leaving it all unattributed like that and then asking what other people might expect based on YOUR perception. 'Cause that question just makes no sense. Try something like:

well, since you seem **TO ME** to think it's all well and good for the Government to assassinate far righties, should **I** expect to hear you bitch when they find out that they can get away with assassinating far lefties?

I mean, after all, no one to whom acerbic didn't seem to think this would expect any such thing, would s/he?

Now, you know what's coming next.

What we have here -- ta da! -- is a loaded question. It's loaded with a premise that the person being asked the question does not acknowledge as true, and that is stated without the slightest apparent or demonstrated foundation. The allegation is unproved, and contrary to the available evidence. It is a mere allegation, and a pretty demonstrably false one.

Acerbic (I believe I can confidently state, but you, or acerbic of course, could demonstrate where I have gone astray) does NOT think that it's all well and good for the government to assassinate far righties. Acerbic does not even SEEM to think such a thing.

So how could acerbic answer the question of what should be expected of acerbic based on acerbic's alleged belief, when acerbic does not believe or even seem to believe such a thing?

Since you seem to be a person who beats your dog, should we expect you to beat your children?

(And oh PLEASE, everyone spare me the disingenuousness of pretending to think that the above is a "personal attack" and launching yet another disingenuous alert. It is an illustration of a question loaded with a false and slanderous premise just as the question put to acerbic was, and can no more be understood to be an allegation that Moosenose beats his dog than his question to acerbic can be understood as an assertion that acerbic believes that it is all well and good for the government to assassinate selected people. ... Oops, damned if that isn't exactly what it must be understood to be. So, the real point -- let's not anyone pretend that the question I have asked was anything other than rhetorical, 'k?)

.

[iverglas]

18. posting problem ... duplicate deleted by me (n/m)

.