Man kills 2 cops in apparent retaliation for police killings NYC

[state hater]

Welcome back, state hater. Apparently you've learned nothing about this forum in your time off, haha.

Apparently you haven't learned that appeasing psycopaths fails to acheive liberty.

 

[The Truth]

Apparently you haven't learned that appeasing psycopaths fails to acheive liberty.

Are you alluding to yourself or Grapeshot?
:lol:

 

[davidmcbeth]

"Protestors did not kill the two slain officers. Politicians, grand juries, or police unions did not murder them either. Ismaaiyl Brinsley killed the two police men and he alone is the one with blood on his hands."

http://theantimedia.org/deaths-of-two-nypd-cops/

Just an isolated incident.

 

[77zach]

All the boo hooing online is really something. Is the whole thing newsworthy? Sure, but people are murdered everyday.

These police are not heroes, but victims. The state and its media is using this in an obvious way.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I see that math can be challenging for some that would rather use emotions then facts.

 

[marshaul]

Can you provide data that this is worse than it was, say 40 years ago? I suspect it is, but I'd like to see data. And I'd like to see how it affects the mostly poor (read lack of assets to seize) residents of inner cities. This strikes me as an area where suburban, middle-class residents are getting a taste of what poor inner city residents have always been subjected to.

This is of legitimate concern to those of us who have not previously been likely to be victims of this, but hardly a reason for those who have always been subjected to it to riot or murder now, as opposed to 10 years ago.



Again, a real concern that has zero effect on inner city residents of the greater LA, Chicago, Detroit, or Ferguson areas. I don't see riots and cops getting murdered by "fed up citizens" in the American Southwest. The closest we've come was the Clive Bundy incident in Nevada. A couple of loose nuts that Bundy tossed off his ranch went on to murder a couple of cops and the media did their best to tie it to Bundy. More likely, a couple of folks looking for an opportunity to shoot cops went to the Bundy ranch, were uninvited, and then found random victims. I doubt anyone in the heartland is rioting over what happens with border policies or land use in the Southwest.



Again, how many of the rioters or those murdering cops care a bit about fast and furious or other such activities aimed at the middle class suburban and rural population?



Very annoying, but hardly a new creation. Remember, prior to the 20th century, the 1st amendment was far more limited in scope than it is today. Most 1st amendment zones happen at college campuses and around major events by high profile politicians. How many rioters and cop killers are attending these events and getting upset?



A basic understanding of history would make clear that most of these basic rights have been greatly expanded in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Most of the worst infringements we can point to still show more respect for these rights than may have been common prior to 1960 even for the general population and most decidedly for inner city blacks.

Let's cut to the chase, is the respect for the rights of black citizens today better or worse than it was during the Jim Crow south and de facto segregation of the north prior to the 1960s? Are black men more or less likely to get a fair trial today than in 1955?

I'm not saying things are peaches and roses. Indeed, there is evidence things are getting worse for the middle-class white population in certain regards.

But what can you point to that actually matters enough to inner city, poor residents to motivate them to riot and murder? What is different or worse today for them than 10 years ago? Or 20, 30 or 50 years ago?

I can't find it. And so I think blaming "oppression" from the cops / government is the wrong diagnosis.

I think that diagnosis explains Clive Bundy. In the last 20 years the feds have shut down most of his neighbors' ranching operations. He is facing loss of his livelihood and culture. Without arguing whether he is in the right or the wrong, I see motivation to take up arms and say, "No."

If we see conservative Christians start getting violent over their kids being taught in school that homosexual conduct is the legal and moral equivalent as conjugal marriage, or being forced to provide services to homosexual "weddings", or being forced to pay for abortions we could blame "oppressive" government laws.

Gun owners haven't had things so good, legally, since at least the Gun Control Act of '68, and for racial minorities, they've NEVER had better legal respect for their rights to defend themselves; though admittedly, many minorities remain in inner cities subject to laws that remain the least respectful of their rights.

So what is it that is motivating the rioters and murderers? Increased coverage? Increased stoking of racial flames? Increased sense of entitlement? Loss of semi-skilled jobs? General social breakdown from 75% unwed birthrates?

I don't know. But I haven't yet seen any data to convince me this has anything to do with new or worsening "government oppression" against those who are actually rioting and murdering right now. And that is where my original comment came from. I understand what is frustrating and alarming those of us in the middle class suburbs and rural areas. I'm not convinced those same concerns are shared by inner city poor residents.

Charles

Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.

Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.

Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny; it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.

(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops re: the OP. I'm referring to protestors, rioters, etc.)

 

[The Truth]

Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.

Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.

Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny; it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.

(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops re: the OP. I'm referring to protestors, rioters, etc.)

Marshaul, you're much better at saying exactly how I feel than I am.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.

Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.

Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny; it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.

(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops re: the OP. I'm referring to protestors, rioters, etc.)

+1

 

[WalkingWolf]

All the boo hooing online is really something. Is the whole thing newsworthy? Sure, but people are murdered everyday.

These police are not heroes, but victims. The state and its media is using this in an obvious way.

Police work is not even on the ten most dangerous jobs. And all those jobs on the list provide much more for society than police do. It is a shame/sorrow/injustice when anybody is murdered, but the idea that it is more so because someone wears a badge is ignorant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

1. Logging workers~without them most of us would not have safe homes
2. Fishers and related fishing workers~Fish is healthy and without them we would lose years of life due to lack of what fish provide
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers~Not only do they provide fast transportation, they also provide data for predicting weather, transport people injured or in need of medical services, among other things
4. Roofers~Just what would we do without roofs over our heads
5. Structural iron and steel workers~We would have no hi tech hospitals and governments buildings without them
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors~Without them more people would die from disease than any other cause, one only has to look at the plagues of Europe in history
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers~Now these guys in this day and age we would not be able to function, not only do they provide us with power, most of these guys are the ones that manage communication towers.
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers~No food, no medicines NOTHING without them
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers~Again no food
10. Construction laborers~Again no homes, unless you want to live under a bridge


And they do this without fanfare and accolades or hero worship. They are all my heroes!

 

[utbagpiper]

Oklahoma City bombing? OK is south-central technically but I always considered it south-west (west of Miss. river) .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma

Or Waco?

Who murdered any cops at Waco? I recall that the deaths of government agents there was the result of other "friendly fire" from fellow agents, or an act of reasonable self-defense on the part of those whose home was being invaded in an incompetent but military-style raid.

Keep up the trolling.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Who murdered any cops at Waco? I recall that the deaths of government agents there was the result of other "friendly fire" from fellow agents, or an act of reasonable self-defense on the part of those whose home was being invaded in an incompetent but military-style raid.

Keep up the trolling.

Charles

Do you have proof of this or is it one of those conspiracy theories?

 

[utbagpiper]

Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.

Especially coming from you, this is about the most vile insult you can throw and is clearly a direct violation of forumn rules. Abuse has been reported.

Let's see if the forum rules are enforced equitably or whether this supposedly pro-RKBA forumn has--despite supposed rules to the contrary--turned into a hotbed of cop bashing, anarchy, and personal insults toward any who don't tow the most radical libertarian line possible.

Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.

Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny;

So I'm wrong for pointing out what things are likely to be part of a particular group's life experience, but then you admit they probably lack that experience as well?!?!?!

it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.

The claim was made that increasing "oppression" was responsible for this murder and might well result in additional murders. I'm simply asking for evidence--other than the murders themselves--that any such "oppression" is actually the cause. So far only "The Truth" has made any real attempt to provide solid evidence. Twoskins has responded with a generic list of issues he doesn't like, and everyone else including you and WalkingWolf have responded with petty insults.

What is so threatening to you, WalkingWolf, and others about being calmly asked to provide some evidence that your claims are accurate?

Your response here is essentially begging the question or circular reasoning. "Increasing tyranny results in the murder of cops, and the murder of any cop is thus evidence of increasing tyranny which will result in the murder of more cops."

Where is the evidence that it is actually increasing tyranny--rather than any other trigger--that is leading to these riots and murders?

(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops )

Obviously not, directly. But there is an emerging tone of being anti-police, anti-government, anti-law, on this board that is deeply troubling.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Do you have proof of this or is it one of those conspiracy theories?

Do you have anything useful to offer? Any constructive discussion in which you wish to engage? Or do you just like to snipe and run with pithy one-liner bumper stickers?

Do you actually approve of the military style raid at Waco? Do you actually compare any shots fired at cops there to someone walking up and murdering two cops sitting in their car on a street?!?!?!?

When you want to engage in some mature discussion, let me know. Until then, take your snide one liners and shove them.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Do you have anything useful to offer? Any constructive discussion in which you wish to engage? Or do you just like to snipe and run with pithy one-liner bumper stickers?

Do you actually approve of the military style raid at Waco? Do you actually compare any shots fired at cops there to someone walking up and murdering two cops sitting in their car on a street?!?!?!?

When you want to engage in some mature discussion, let me know. Until then, take your snide one liners and shove them.

Charles

Follow the rules of the site! You made a claim now cough up the citation to back it up. In case you did not catch on that is the way we do things on this site.

 

[utbagpiper]

It is a shame/sorrow/injustice when anybody is murdered, but the idea that it is more so because someone wears a badge is ignorant.

What is ignorant is to fail to recognize the clear implications when someone attacks or murders a cop simply because he is a cop. Such an act is not merely an assault on the rights of an individual, but is an assault on the authority of the state, on the very foundation of our civil society.

Society's require laws and we require those to uphold those laws.

One of the specific grievances the founding fathers listed in the declaration of independence was that King George had left the colonies without functioning government. Anarchy, lack of government is not a prudent way for people to live, and certainly not any large group of people.

The anti-cop, anti-government, anti-rules sentiment that has manifest on this forum recently is really quite distressing. It appears that some of the more prolific posters have very little interest in even being civil toward fellow gun owners who might be socially conservative, religious, or anything else other than extreme libertarian and atheist or anti-religious.

A lot of us have no interest in living in anarchy, we respect those whose job it is to deal with the scum we like to avoid. We recognize that an attack on an officer of the law is an attack on law, society, and government itself.

Among rational, mature, thoughtful men, concern about excessive use of force by police does not require a hostility or even indifference toward police generally. A desire for limited government does not mean a desire for no government.

Those who are serious about owning and carrying guns for self defense are still too small a group for us to be able to afford to discard any over peaceful disagreements in non-RKBA areas. I spent years encouraging social and religiously conservative gun owners to work with liberals, libertarians, homosexuals, and others who support RKBA but may part company on lots of other social and public policy issues. How tragic that I'm now having to make a plea not to force social conservatives out of the RKBA community. You guys have done a fine job of making this forum really hostile toward any who dare disagree with you on any point, no matter how ancillary or even unrelated to RKBA. Is that really your intent? You might give some thought to how you respond to disagreements.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

What is ignorant is to fail to recognize the clear implications when someone attacks or murders a cop simply because he is a cop. Such an act is not merely an assault on the rights of an individual, but is an assault on the authority of the state, on the very foundation of our civil society.

Society's require laws and we require those to uphold those laws.

One of the specific grievances the founding fathers listed in the declaration of independence was that King George had left the colonies without functioning government. Anarchy, lack of government is not a prudent way for people to live, and certainly not any large group of people.

The anti-cop, anti-government, anti-rules sentiment that has manifest on this forum recently is really quite distressing. It appears that some of the more prolific posters have very little interest in even being civil toward fellow gun owners who might be socially conservative, religious, or anything else other than extreme libertarian and atheist or anti-religious.

A lot of us have no interest in living in anarchy, we respect those whose job it is to deal with the scum we like to avoid. We recognize that an attack on an officer of the law is an attack on law, society, and government itself.

Among rational, mature, thoughtful men, concern about excessive use of force by police does not require a hostility or even indifference toward police generally. A desire for limited government does not mean a desire for no government.

Those who are serious about owning and carrying guns for self defense are still too small a group for us to be able to afford to discard any over peaceful disagreements in non-RKBA areas. I spent years encouraging social and religiously conservative gun owners to work with liberals, libertarians, homosexuals, and others who support RKBA but may part company on lots of other social and public policy issues. How tragic that I'm now having to make a plea not to force social conservatives out of the RKBA community. You guys have done a fine job of making this forum really hostile toward any who dare disagree with you on any point, no matter how ancillary or even unrelated to RKBA. Is that really your intent? You might give some thought to how you respond to disagreements.

Charles

Are you going to provide the citation or not?

 

[utbagpiper]

Follow the rules of the site! You made a claim now cough up the citation to back it up. In case you did not catch on that is the way we do things on this site.

Bull snot. You've not asked a single person to cough up any cites that there even is any increasing oppression, much less that such "oppression" is the cause of the murder of 2 cops in the NYC.

You much vaunted rules prohibit personal insults, yet you give a "+1" to Marshaul's insult to me. We all know full well that coming from Marshaul, calling a man a "committed statist-collectivist" is about the most offensive epithet he can throw out. It is at least as offensive as any racial or sexual insult. You, yourself, toss out insults (cowardly hidden behind "you look like") suggesting that I think women should submit to rape.

You don't give a rat's behind about rules or civility. You bring them up only as a weapon when it suits your purposes.

No, I have no proof that the Branch Davidians didn't shoot first. But I have solid proof they didn't go looking for cops on the street. The government agents came to them and mounted a military style raid against their home. I watched in horror as government agents set up a weeks long siege that (one way or another) ultimately resulted in a home burning down around a lot of innocent babies all over allegations of what? Failure to pay taxes on and register a firearm that shot more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger?

It is truly ironic and sick and twisted that as you and others beat the war drums of government oppression, rather than using Waco as an example of such government oppression, you now use it as some weak example of people killing cops. Really?!?!?

What is your problem?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Are you going to provide the citation or not?

Right after you ask for a citation about increasing government oppression causing murders, we can talk about your demand for this citation.

Snipe and run; snipe and run.

Grow up.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

Right after you ask for a citation about increasing government oppression causing murders, we can talk about your demand for this citation.

Snipe and run; snipe and run.

Grow up.

Charles

Be a responsible adult and provide citation for your claims. Otherwise you made them up.

 

[marshaul]

Especially coming from you, this is about the most vile insult you can throw and is clearly a direct violation of forumn rules. Abuse has been reported.

:lol: An impartial description of your consistent political approach is hardly an "insult". I'm under no obligation to pretend that you're an individualist, for certain, and if the word "statist" has any meaning then you, Charles, are unquestionably and unambiguously a statist. If you don't like that, then it's yourself you'll have to change.

So I'm wrong for pointing out what things are likely to be part of a particular group's life experience, but then you admit they probably lack that experience as well?!?!?!

What on earth are you talking about? Perhaps you need to practice that "reading comprehension" you talk so much about. Experience and articulateness have virtually nothing to do with one another, although it's clear you'd like to conflate the two. I think it's clear the folks I was describing have ample experience – unquestionably more than yourself – although they may lack the training and skill in rhetoric to make their experience accessible to you. That was, in fact, the point I was trying to make.

The claim was made that increasing "oppression" was responsible for this murder and might well result in additional murders. I'm simply asking for evidence--other than the murders themselves--that any such "oppression" is actually the cause. So far only "The Truth" has made any real attempt to provide solid evidence. Twoskins has responded with a generic list of issues he doesn't like, and everyone else including you and WalkingWolf have responded with petty insults.

This is a pointless avenue of discussion, much as it was a pointless claim to begin with. The motivations of an individual are knowable only to him, and it is futile to make sociopolitical attachments thereto.

However, a quick glance at your previous post confirms that you were, indeed, intentionally conflating "rioters" with outright cop-murderers. I was responding to this conflation and specifically how your post applies to rioters. I'm not interested in the other side of the discussion because I'm not interested, as I said, in justifying murder (which is always wrong).

What is so threatening to you, WalkingWolf, and others about being calmly asked to provide some evidence that your claims are accurate?

I'm not threatened. I don't see how one could provide the evidence you ask; as I said I believe the claim was without value to begin with. I take issue instead with your casual conflation of rioters with outright cop-murderers.

Your response here is essentially begging the question or circular reasoning. "Increasing tyranny results in the murder of cops, and the murder of any cop is thus evidence of increasing tyranny which will result in the murder of more cops."

Straw man of the highest order. I was quite clear with my postscript that I was not speaking as to cop murderers, but to rioters. Cop murderers be damned for all I care.

Where is the evidence that it is actually increasing tyranny--rather than any other trigger--that is leading to these riots and murders?

You did it again! You're intentionally trying to confuse the discussion in your favor.

Obviously not, directly. But there is an emerging tone of being anti-police, anti-government, anti-law, on this board that is deeply troubling.

I'm fairly certain that implying I might in fact harbor sympathies for murderers is a far lower – and frankly despicable – breach of decorum than was my calling you a "statist-collectivist". I guess the gloves are off, huh?

I'm not intersted in the murderers. Hang 'em. That conflation is yours to own; I was responding merely to the application of your remarks to the unrelated case of rioters and protesters.

But thanks for twisting my words and their clear intent. Your continued good faith is firmly established.