Any man who voluntarily signs on to a squad/gang/group/ that has openly declared war on the citizenry that pays their salary has intentionally aligned himself with those who regularly assault men, woman and children most often in their sleep...
The gang in blue has chosen the tactics and declared the war and now folks whine about it when some joker uses their own tactics against them...
I fully expect the term "insurgent" to become common place in the MSM when referring to citizens who fight back...
As for me, I'll say a prayer for this young man and his wife and I'll refrain from cursing the gang-members they murdered....
Do you think I'm OK with it when cops do it? I know you know better than that.
Here's the bottom line. What if the worst thing these particular cops did was pull people over and write tickets? Its not justifiable, but they certainly didn't deserve death (in that instance) either.
Cantwell is a sometime stand-up comic who is one of those "mixed bag" LP personalities I run into in NY. He mixes his politics with his routine a lot, thus has a tendency for overstatement or profanity. I have happened to stand side by side with him at some protests, including one last year when he and I were the only LP people to show up. So I can confirm his dedication, just wish he was not carelessly inflammatory, as in this case.
Was Cantwell kidding? It didn't seem that way to me.
There is absolutely NO FUCKING EXCUSE for walking up to ANYONE and shooting them in the back of the head.
I don't agree with this statement as written. Mind you, its something that's true 99.999% of the time. But I don't think its always true.
To borrow some ideas (and somewhat modify it) from the Larken video that was posted: If there was a gang member who was a known serial killer, yet he had too many bodyguards for anyone to be able to stop him, and one day he happened to be eating lunch alone. Would it be wrong to shoot him in the back of the head? Assume for whatever reason that the police would not do anything to this man if they were called, because they are paid off by this man, and if you do a citizens arrest they will lock you up and let him go for the same reason. This man has been videotaped committing serial murder, and multiple people have seen him do it. Is it wrong to shoot him in the back of the head? I say no.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is comparable. Its very likely that the cops in question were not known serial killers. Its very likely that their crimes are not worthy of death. But if that's the case, that's what we should be defending, not a position that its always wrong to shoot a known, untouchable criminal in the back of the head. I would say that its wrong because we don't know that these people are murderers.
If these people did what they are purported to do, and the false flag wolf has been called too many times for me to take it seriously so I believe they did, they are the highest order pieces of shit no better than any other mass shooter. Your sentiments are disgusting and you've gone way too far when you're accepting just going out and killing people in cold blood and I'm kind of depressed that I have to be the first person here to say it. Your assertion that ALL cops have declared war on the citizenry by signing up makes exactly as much sense as when socialists claim we all signed a social contract just by existing.
Again, I'm not defending it, but its not comparable to the social contract. All cops are required to enforce the government's laws.
THe important distinction that needs to be made is the distinction between self-defense and justice. In self-defense cases, you have the right to use any degree of force necessary to end a violent confrontation. But in justice cases (vigilante or otherwise) the punishment has to fit the crime. To kill someone for theft is overboard, even if we assume that they realize that they are thieves (I don't think most cops do). In a self-defense case it could be justified, but to give the death penalty in order to punish theft would be overboard.
Mind you, despite strongly disagreeing with Cantwell's answers, I think he's asking the right questions. We should be asking to what degree the common cop is guilty and what the justified response would be. I just don't think this is justified unless they committed murder or perhaps some other serious crime (I could personally justify it for rape, but I can see that as being more debatable.)
I agree with Will Grigg.
The Facebook discussion continues. Larken came online to enter the discussion, and in my opinion he is trying to distance himself from his own words. Is he afraid of being labelled a provocateur, of inciting the violence? Or am I really dense or dishonest, as he suggests?
Its possible that he's afraid of being accused of being a provocateur. But I don't think he's being inconsistent. I understand his point.
Two cops who are eating lunch in uniform. We really know nothing about these people. Its theoretically possible that they're just wearing uniforms (which wouldn't rightly be a crime, though it would be "impersonating a cop" in current law.) Its most likely the case that they are in fact cops, and if they are cops, they've almost certainly violated the NAP. But in what ways? Maybe they've just written tickets. Maybe they've made arrests but never killed anybody. Maybe they are in fact murderers.
I'm not sure exactly where the line is between "deserving of death" and "not deserving of death." For me ignorance is going to play a role but I don't know whether it objectively should or not. Regardless, even if ignorance is not the standard, the death penalty is certainly not proportional for theft (fines and so forth.) Maybe you could make the argument that proportionality doesn't apply because its impossible to deliver a lesser penalty to a cop. Regardless, I don't think Larken is being inconsistent. He's making a distinction between protecting yourself against a cop, vigilante justice against a cop we know is a murderer, and vigilante justice against somebody wearing a cop uniform who we don't know anything about. He's saying the first two scenarios are justified and the last scenario is not justified. I don't see the inconsistency.
This is the same joker who refused to turn away the feds and help the Bundy family....
lol! I'll start respecting these cops when they start arresting the Feds. Absolutely agree.
