Auburn, WA police shooting no cause for hysteria

[MountainBear]

So a guy who gets pulled over for having a burnt out headlight gets shot for holding a knife? Maybe he was concerned that he was being accosted by a thug with a gun... rightfully concerned, as it turned out, because the thug murdered him.

But hey, WA cops don't even need to see a weapon to brutalize the citizenry: YouTube - Raw Video: Police Slam Wrong Man Into a Wall

Really? A guy gets pulled over by a uniformed officer, pulls a DEADLY WEAPON, and you blame the officer for defending himself? Wow. That's not even remotely logical...

 

[dmancornell]

Really? A guy gets pulled over by a uniformed officer, pulls a DEADLY WEAPON, and you blame the officer for defending himself? Wow. That's not even remotely logical...

What's not logical is giving cops the authority to kill a man who did not even attempt to attack him. On the other hand, the cop had a ranged weapon, which means the act of pointing the gun at the victim is an attack. The cop is the aggressor, first for harassing a motorist, then murdering him.

As always, simply apply the cop vs citizen comparison. If a regualr civilian ran a guy off the road then shot him for holding a knife, he'd be locked up for murder.

 

[MA Duce]

What's not logical is giving cops the authority to kill a man who did not even attempt to attack him. On the other hand, the cop had a ranged weapon, which means the act of pointing the gun at the victim is an attack. The cop is the aggressor, first for harassing a motorist, then murdering him.

As always, simply apply the cop vs citizen comparison. If a regualr civilian ran a guy off the road then shot him for holding a knife, he'd be locked up for murder.

Harassing a motorist??? He was performing his duty and making a traffic stop. Your analogy of "If a regular civilian ran a guy off the road" is flawed on many levels. Any citizen has the right to defend himself. The simple truth is this: Bring a knife to a gun fight and you always lose.

 

[dmancornell]

Harassing a motorist??? He was performing his duty and making a traffic stop. Your analogy of "If a regular civilian ran a guy off the road" is flawed on many levels. Any citizen has the right to defend himself. The simple truth is this: Bring a knife to a gun fight and you always lose.

His "duty" is immoral and unnecessary. Traffic stops are nothing more than money making schemes cooked up by greedy government bureaucrats to line their own pockets, basically a legalized holdup. Therefore my analogy is correct, it's only flawed to people who acquiesce to being robbed by government thieves.

You're right, any citizen has a right to defend himself. That includes regular civilians against cops. However, the "law" skews morality and logic and allows cops to execute any civilian they deem to be a threat with no penalty, but imposes massive retaliation against civilians who defend themselves against police attackers.

The real simple truth: avoid the cops at all costs and hope you don't get accosted.

 

[glock.40]

You're right, any citizen has a right to defend himself. That includes regular civilians against cops. However, the "law" skews morality and logic and allows cops to execute any civilian they deem to be a threat with no penalty, but imposes massive retaliation against civilians who defend themselves against police attackers.

Firstly, are police officers not citizens? You don't seem to see how ridiculous you sound by claiming that it is somehow wrong that a police officer would respond with deadly force to an individual who exited his vehicle (presumably without request) while holding a deadly weapon. Would any other individual not respond the same?

Secondly, the logical conclusion of your apparent desire to not have traffic stops because it is "immoral and unnecessary" because it is nothing more than "money making schemes cooked up by greedy government bureaucrats to line their own pockets, basically a legalized holdup." is quite ridiculous - how would the state pay for all of the law enforcement without consequences - sometimes financial, for breaking those laws. I am perfectly happy to pay for a speeding ticket because those limits have been set up with the intention that at a certain speed, motorists are able to keep themselves safe as well as preserve the safety of others.

dmancornell, you sir, are irrational and your thoughts on the subject are illogical.

 

[glock.40]

That first section was supposed to be a quote from dmancornell - certainly not my own thoughts.

 

[dmancornell]

Firstly, are police officers not citizens? You don't seem to see how ridiculous you sound by claiming that it is somehow wrong that a police officer would respond with deadly force to an individual who exited his vehicle (presumably without request) while holding a deadly weapon. Would any other individual not respond the same?

Did you even read my post? I said a civilian who acted the same way would be thrown in jail, whereas the cop would be judged "justified" and goes back to work after a paid holiday.

Are you saying the civilian wouldn't have been charged? If not, you too think the shooting is wrong, but cops are somehow on a different moral realm compared to the rest of us. And if that's the case, I'd like an explanation why.

Secondly, the logical conclusion of your apparent desire to not have traffic stops because it is "immoral and unnecessary" because it is nothing more than "money making schemes cooked up by greedy government bureaucrats to line their own pockets, basically a legalized holdup." is quite ridiculous - how would the state pay for all of the law enforcement without consequences - sometimes financial, for breaking those laws. I am perfectly happy to pay for a speeding ticket because those limits have been set up with the intention that at a certain speed, motorists are able to keep themselves safe as well as preserve the safety of others.

Consequences should only apply for real crimes, not crimes manufactured by the government for financial gain. For example, NFA34, which created a whole new class of criminals for no reason other than financial gain.

If speed limits were really for our safety, why are speed limits being lowered as cars become safer? There is literally no proof that "speed kills", as the idiotic saying goes. Just look at Germany, or even the saner states in the US that have moderately reasonable "limits" such as Texas or Montana.

It's not surprising that police departments focus far more attention on policing "crimes" that yield financial gain as opposed to crimes that yield nothing. Drug policing (for seizure of private property via civil forfeiture) and traffic stops (straight up fines) are lucrative, solving real crimes like robberies is not.

dmancornell, you sir, are irrational and your thoughts on the subject are illogical.

I used to like cops, then I engaged in something called critical thinking. Here, you can start with this, it talks about natural law vs bureaucratic law which is relevant to the topic at hand: Amazon.com: The Law (9781936594313): Frederic Bastiat: Books

 

[U201494]

So a guy who gets pulled over for having a burnt out headlight gets shot for holding a knife?

Yes.
You could also say: "So a cop pulls a guy over for having a burnt out headlight and the guy confronts him with a knife."

I engaged in something called critical thinking. Here, you can start with this, it talks about natural law vs bureaucratic law which is relevant to the topic at hand: Amazon.com: The Law (9781936594313): Frederic Bastiat: Books

.....must come with a free meth pipe.

 

[dmancornell]

Yes.
You could also say: "So a cop pulls a guy over for having a burnt out headlight and the guy confronts him with a knife."

So? Did the guy actually attack the cop? If not, he was only a threat in the delusional mind of the armed thug masquerading as a cop. The cop was far more of a threat to the victim than the victim was to the cop, as you can see from the end result.

.....must come with a free meth pipe.

Just 100 pages of clear, logical reasoning on the law and society. You should read it sometime.

 

[MA Duce]

His "duty" is immoral and unnecessary. Traffic stops are nothing more than money making schemes cooked up by greedy government bureaucrats to line their own pockets, basically a legalized holdup. Therefore my analogy is correct, it's only flawed to people who acquiesce to being robbed by government thieves.

You're right, any citizen has a right to defend himself. That includes regular civilians against cops. However, the "law" skews morality and logic and allows cops to execute any civilian they deem to be a threat with no penalty, but imposes massive retaliation against civilians who defend themselves against police attackers.

The real simple truth: avoid the cops at all costs and hope you don't get accosted.

You should just be up front and admit you are an anarchist who wants disorder in our society. I want safe roads and regulation to keep maniacs from killing me as I drive. Your views on police indicate serious issues with authority and a refusal to understand the requirements of a civil society..or to put it succinctly..... you're an idiot.

 

[dmancornell]

You should just be up front and admit you are an anarchist who wants disorder in our society. I want safe roads and regulation to keep maniacs from killing me as I drive. Your views on police indicate serious issues with authority and a refusal to understand the requirements of a civil society..or to put it succinctly..... you're an idiot.

You should just be up front and admit you're a authoritarian who gives up liberty for temporary safety. For that, as Benjamin Franklin put it, you deserve neither. Indeed I have serious issues with immoral and illegitimate claims to authority. As I recall another band of people had similar thoughts in 1775, you know, those Patriots. Damn them for dismantling the "civil society" of Pax Britannica

And yes, I will take a little disorder any day over giving the police caste a license to kill anyone they or "the law" (translation: the government) deem unfit for society. This country was founded on equal rights for all people, not just people who abide by laws created by fascist bureaucrats and politicians.

By the way, the real way to safe roads is to ban unsafe drivers, but good luck doing that since the government seized all roads and deemed driving to be a right as opposed to a privilege. As usual, government screws up whatever it does then claims to be the solution.

 

[glock.40]

Friends, reason is not sufficient for this one, and continuing to try and argue will do nothing against his "critical thinking".

MA DUCE - spot on.

 

[glock.40]

"this one" is referring to dman.

 

[dmancornell]

"this one" is referring to dman.

LOL I think people can see that. If you can't figure out how to edit posts, you can forget about engaging in critical thinking of any sort, hence your quote marks are entirely appropriate.

Next time you get wallet-raped by a cop for going 5 over, let me know if you feel the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance. I can send you that book link again.

 

[dolooper]

LOL I think people can see that. If you can't figure out how to edit posts, you can forget about engaging in critical thinking of any sort, hence your quote marks are entirely appropriate.

Next time you get wallet-raped by a cop for going 5 over, let me know if you feel the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance. I can send you that book link again.

Next time you go 5 over, accept that you're assuming the risk of getting popped. It's called personal responsibility. If you don't like that aspect of your personal responsibility, vote and contact your legislators that craft the laws. It's called civic responsibility.

 

[dmancornell]

Next time you go 5 over, accept that you're assuming the risk of getting popped. It's called personal responsibility. If you don't like that aspect of your personal responsibility, vote and contact your legislators that craft the laws. It's called civic responsibility.

One of Steve Martin's jokes back in the 70's was that imposing the death penalty on jaywalking was sure to bring about a rapid decline in the crime rate. What was once a punchline is now seriously called "personal responsibility". Pathetic.

And if you really believe the government will allow anyone to take away their money train, you're delusional. Just look at Texas, when they tried to raise the limit from 75mph to 80mph the cops went on a scare campaign predicting apocalypse on the interstates. Measure killed. The American legal system has no recourse against the tyranny of the majority. Your "civic responsibility" is the new punchline.

 

[dolooper]

One of Steve Martin's jokes back in the 70's was that imposing the death penalty on jaywalking was sure to bring about a rapid decline in the crime rate. What was once a punchline is now seriously called "personal responsibility". Pathetic.

And if you really believe the government will allow anyone to take away their money train, you're delusional. Just look at Texas, when they tried to raise the limit from 75mph to 80mph the cops went on a scare campaign predicting apocalypse on the interstates. Measure killed. The American legal system has no recourse against the tyranny of the majority. Your "civic responsibility" is the new punchline.

Here's what I do to take away their "money train"-- I avoid doing stupid bubblegum on the roads that gets me tickets.

There are a number of ways I am concerned by the potential "tyranny of the majority." Failure to raise the speed limit from 75 to 80 is not one of them. Who knows, you may have a point, but it's well camoflauged by the generalities and hyperbole.

I should have listened to the warnings earlier in the thread.

 

[dmancornell]

Here's what I do to take away their "money train"-- I avoid doing stupid bubblegum on the roads that gets me tickets.

Indeed, that is one way, by obeying arbitrary laws which serve no purpose other than collecting money for the government. It's not the moral or just way, but it works. To each his own.

There are a number of ways I am concerned by the potential "tyranny of the majority." Failure to raise the speed limit from 75 to 80 is not one of them. Who knows, you may have a point, but it's well camoflauged by the generalities and hyperbole.

And why not? It's just another manifestation of government divide and conquer. All they have to do is scare enough sheeple to vote to give up one of their rights and presto, everyone else loses that right too. That's no hyperbole, that is government's exact modus operandi.

In any case, this thread is off topic enough and I'm calling it a day. Gun forum people defending police brutality is hilarious. Don't touch 2A, but go ahead and take 4A and 5A.

 

[MountainBear]

Indeed, that is one way, by obeying arbitrary laws which serve no purpose other than collecting money for the government. It's not the moral or just way, but it works. To each his own.

And why not? It's just another manifestation of government divide and conquer. All they have to do is scare enough sheeple to vote to give up one of their rights and presto, everyone else loses that right too. That's no hyperbole, that is government's exact modus operandi.

In any case, this thread is off topic enough and I'm calling it a day. Gun forum people defending police brutality is hilarious. Don't touch 2A, but go ahead and take 4A and 5A.

I do not believe in personal attacks on the internet. But sir, your arguments are overly simple and illogical. You must simply be trolling, because nothing you have said makes any sense in the real world. If you are that afraid of the government stepping over their bounds, and are too scared to do anything but make nonsensical comments here, then perhaps you should move off the grid. Just disappear until you feel safe enough to come back to reality...