Seattle Police Release Dashcam Video Of Woodcarver's Shooting

[coop44]

Most LEO's and correction officers (and I'm lifelong friends with a few) really believe that they are of a different class. You are either one of them, or you are part of a sub-class of civilians and perps that exist to make their lives difficult. They really do believe that just about anything they do is justified to 'protect and serve' us. Any LEO who doesn't believe this is an exception.

This case is a direct result of that pervasive attitude. I've seen the same attitude in Iraq with soldiers dealing with those 'f'ing Haji.' They are seen as sub-human, and their lives have little value

So correct, after associating with them (leo's) for years, I have found them to be just as you describe.

They, in their minds, have dehumanized everyone not wearing a badge. Of course this makes it easier to kill whom ever they wish.

Of course many of us who do not wear a badge have done the same, and see them as a bunch of state sanctioned gun weilding retards. (My apoligies to the truly retarded)

Study history, this is essential to winning wars, the third reich did it, the allies did it. It makes things a lot easier if you don't see the enemy as human, but some sort of animal.

The officer involved in this shooting probably feels no more remorse than any of us have for shooting a duck or rabbit. He is most likely sadder about his career being taken away and his upcoming trial.

 

[kyzug]

Feel free to start another thread with your answer (I think it would be a very interesting conversation), but what would you say are the top ten "unjust" laws in this country? What method of resistance do you feel would be effective in changing them? Also, then please cite what you feel are the best "real world" examples that demonstrate a functional society that does not have said laws.

I'm answering while on a lunch break, so can't give you all that you have requested, but I'll give it a shot:

To understand my mindset, you need to start with first principles. For me, that is the philosophy of liberty, and the libertarian non-aggression axiom. Simply stated, you own your body and your property and can do with them as you please, so long as you harm no one else or their property in doing so. Stated otherwise, no person may aggress against another person or their property.

These first principles are well illustrated here in this video:

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty

With that understanding, you then see that a whole set of laws become unjust. Laws which make crimes of voluntary exchanges such as of narcotic sales, prostitution, gambling are the most obvious examples. They move these activities to unregulated black markets, making them far more dangerous to engage in. Fighting the war against them also militarizes police, and costs an enormous amount. Putting someone in a cage for years for possessing a plant is an absurdity.

Another first principle is that property rights are sacrosanct. I own my property. No one else has a right to take it from me. It follows then that taxes are theft. Taxes are nothing more than the expropriation of property under threat of force. Resist paying and you will be asset stripped, killed or caged depending upon your level of resistance.

As a thought experiment, consider a mugger trying to take my wallet. You would likely agree that he has no right to my wallet, and I may defend myself from him trying to take it. If a mugger and his buddy team up to try to take it, most people would again agree that they have no right to it. If confronted by a gang of a dozen, most would still agree that they have no right to my wallet. What about a mob of a 100? Hard to fight them off, but again, they have no right to my wallet. I know this is absurd, but now the magic happens. At some point, when the mob grows large enough, people somehow believe that magically, they have a right to take my property, and I need to do my ‘fair share.' I.e., surrender my possessions, hoping those in charge of the mob will allow me to keep whatever portion they deem appropriate. Hogwash. It's all the same. Taxes are straight up theft. I'll not support a system of government based upon theft.

This is running long so I'll hit just a couple more briefly;

The Federal Reserve System and fractional reserve banking: There are a couple of ways for a government to get money. Tax (but this is theft.) Print you own (but this is inflationary). Borrow (but this creates a debt which you children must ultimately pay, and is immoral). Have someone else print the money and borrow it from them (both inflationary, and inane, as it combines the worst of the above.) Of course due to a banking cartel influencing congress in 1913 we went with the latter. We license banksters to print money. We allow them to loan out money they don't have to give them extra profit (fraction reserve banking) even though this is just legalizing fraud. We need to end this system and go back to commodity based money that can't be created willy-nilly and 100% reserve banking.

But as bad as all of these are, the worst 'Law of the Land' might be a foreign policy that rewards countries that do our bidding, and bombs those that don't bow to us. The blowback from this foreign policy designed to make the world safe for our corporate interests creates millions worldwide who wish us harm. ‘To keep us safe' the government passes laws such as the patriot act that strip away our rights, allowing agents in the field to right their own search warrants for example. ‘To keep us safe' the current administration has sought the authority to assassinate a U.S. citizen they suspect of anti-government activities, without due process. This extrajudicial killing is something Stalin would approve of.

Got to stop here. Back to work.

 

[saxon]

you have to remember this country is founded on Oliver Cromwell's type of republic and that is
"that no man be under any law that HE does not put HIMSELF under"
if you read the constitution and its bill of rights you will see that we as FREE MEN and women can DO what ever we want where ever we want as long as we do not violate some one else's rights in doing so.

 

[saxon]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

funny how it applies to all but a police officer there JRV

the officer him self states in the vid he told him to drop it and THEN he turned he had the knife
out and he would not drop it

according to the rest of the news that is coming out
the person shot was shot in the side so as if his back was to the officer turned to see what or who was yelling at him
as i never heard the officer identify him self he turns and is shot before he even finish's turning around?

 

[Bhowe]

Apparently carving wood is a capitol offense in Seattle. :angry:

+1

Criminal charges need to be saught in this officers case. Not that they would ever stand up. I'm sure the city will get hit with a civil case and pay out a huge settlement. Innocent man murdered, city robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars, why is this cop allowed to walk a free man again????

 

[jonnysportr]

Yah I got an idea. If your going to stage a protest don't take a pocket knife or wear KEVLAR. But instead if dead guy has family, a wrongful death lawsuit would be a pretty good wake up call for SPD and other LE agencies to keep their "loose cannons" restrained a little bit.

 

[JohnWayne]

The police are just armed enforcers of this state tyranny, enforcing unjust laws. As a libertarian, I believe the only time use of force is justified is in defense against an immediate threat. Police are granted by the state a monopoly on the use of force for other than defensive situations. The examples of police escalating non-violent situations into comply or die encounters are to numerous to list.

"to [sic] numerous to list"? take you "evidence" and then run those numbers against the number of total contacts police have and determine the true percentage of deadly encounters. I'm sure if you really do some study you will find the examples are few.

Police are granted no such thing as a monopoly on the use of force and use the same laws we all do. Regardless of what you believe, that is the truth.

You can rant all you want about the legal system protecting the officers but remember all deadly force in the State of Oregon goes before a grand jury. So that means that a group of twelve citizens decide the merits of a criminal case.

As far as enforcing unjust laws, do you mean like rape, murder, theft, assault? Those unjust laws? How about the two neighbors having a dispute over loud music?

 

[JohnWayne]

+1

Criminal charges need to be saught in this officers case. Not that they would ever stand up. I'm sure the city will get hit with a civil case and pay out a huge settlement. Innocent man murdered, city robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars, why is this cop allowed to walk a free man again????

I don't see this guy walking free if the information in the case is as it seems. If this preliminary info is correct, this guy is going to do some time.

 

[saxon]

"
Police are granted no such thing as a monopoly on the use of force and use the same laws we all do.

no we do not
in Oregon you may not use deadly force to protect property!
A police officer however can use deadly force to chase down and capture or even kill if need be some one who stole your stuff
But you MAY NOT !!!

Also ask a police officer any thing you say can be used against you in court
But oddly enough anything the police say can NOT be used against them in that same manner

know a police officer ask one

 

[JohnWayne]

no we do not
in Oregon you may not use deadly force to protect property!
A police officer however can use deadly force to chase down and capture or even kill if need be some one who stole your stuff
But you MAY NOT !!!

Also ask a police officer any thing you say can be used against you in court
But oddly enough anything the police say can NOT be used against them in that same manner

know a police officer ask one

Not true. The only exception I find for police officers is that they can use deadly force against someone escaping or attempting to escape IF that person poses a threat to someone else. So, escape is the only exception. I would imagine we all would have that right, if we had the right to arrest people. There is no property exception- sorry.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant.

 

[saxon]

No The only exception I find for police officers is that they can use deadly force against someone escaping or attempting to escape .

thanks for proving my point police can use deadly force in that case and we can not

 

[ArgentineSteel]

Haven't you been paying attention? Carrying a knife is already illegal. Ask any school child. Get caught carrying a knife in school and it's straight to disipline, call the cops, suspend the kid, hold a kangaroo court, he's guilty!

It's called zero tolerance. They don't care about the impact on the perp as long as it gets the message across to the community. This is just a little more extreme version.

 

[jordanvraptor]

I thought it was interesting that even bike cops were on the scene within 90 seconds of his calling shots fired. If backup officers were that close he could have called for them before initiating the confrontation and observed if the man with the knife was really an imminent danger to the public. If he really thought the guy was an imminent threat he should have just Taser'd the guy from behind without warning. I know this is all 20/20 hindsight but it seems to me to be the tragic result of bad assumptions all around.

Odd coincidence is that I have the same model knife laying right in front of my keyboard as I type this...

 

[JohnWayne]

thanks for proving my point police can use deadly force in that case and we can not

Right, simply because we cannot arrest people... but yes, here is the one instance the mean, bad, police get something you don't.

 

[JohnWayne]

I thought it was interesting that even bike cops were on the scene within 90 seconds of his calling shots fired. If backup officers were that close he could have called for them before initiating the confrontation and observed if the man with the knife was really an imminent danger to the public. If he really thought the guy was an imminent threat he should have just Taser'd the guy from behind without warning. I know this is all 20/20 hindsight but it seems to me to be the tragic result of bad assumptions all around.

Odd coincidence is that I have the same model knife laying right in front of my keyboard as I type this...

Now this... I can agree with.

 

[JohnWayne]

thanks for proving my point police can use deadly force in that case and we can not

Oh, and find one time in modern policing that this was ever used outside the prison.

 

[kyzug]

Police are granted no such thing as a monopoly on the use of force and use the same laws we all do. Regardless of what you believe, that is the truth.

Police are authorized to use violence to resolve disputes. I.e., when a cop gives an order that isn't instantly obeyed, he can then justify any level of violence applied to resolve the situation.

For example, if asked someone to stop filming me in public, and they said to F off - it a public space with no expectation of privacy, and I then proceeded to take their property and beat the crap out of them until they stopped resisting, I would be jailed. Police can do and have done that, arrest the person for 'resisting arrest' and write up a report to justify their violence. Without video evidence of their actions, there is little chance anyone will look twice.

 

[kyzug]

Oh, and find one time in modern policing that this was ever used outside the prison.

<broken link removed>

It goes without saying that any police officer who shoots a fleeing person in the back will later claim they were reaching for a weapon, or add some other mitigating factor to their report to attempt to justify their actions.

 

[The B]

<broken link removed>

It goes without saying that any police officer who shoots a fleeing person in the back will later claim they were reaching for a weapon, or add some other mitigating factor to their report to attempt to justify their actions.

it's really not unrealistic. a person can make a mistake, but when a cop does it and it causes someone to be SHOT, and possibly DIE, the instinct for self-preservation will likely override, and after-the-fact justifications are likely.

think about it... you make a mistake that costs a life. it was really a very simple mistake, but you're now on the proverbial firing line. one life is destroyed, but do you really think TWO (one being yours) should be destroyed with it? a very simple lie can fix this......

 

[crosse]

i think as a wood carver, he's actually allowed to carry whatever knife length folded or fixed he pleases as it was being actively being used as part of work.