Saylorsburg PA, 3 DEAD - Town Hall Meeting

It was a town hall meeting but that doesn't mean everyone there exercises the force of government. There could have been protesting anarchists there or maybe a pacifist simply trying to inform themselves on local happenings, he didn't know that.

If he was, as some here seem to purport, attempting to target specific individuals he felt were transgressing against him then he should have actually targeted those specific individuals. He didn't, by the accounts in the articles above. He just was shooting into a room of people, many of whom he likely did not know and which were in no direct way linked to any injustices against him.

Well they are not (as yet) identifying the targets of his rage.

I am hoping that he hit those that were responsible for his troubles and not some random bystanders.
But that is yet unknown.

Government should rightfully fear the people.
 
It was a town hall meeting but that doesn't mean everyone there exercises the force of government. There could have been protesting anarchists there or maybe a pacifist simply trying to inform themselves on local happenings, he didn't know that.

If he was, as some here seem to purport, attempting to target specific individuals he felt were transgressing against him then he should have actually targeted those specific individuals. He didn't, by the accounts in the articles above. He just was shooting into a room of people, many of whom he likely did not know and which were in no direct way linked to any injustices against him.

The guy that tackled/shot him said that he had walked past him. Sounds like it was targeted after the first several shots.
 
The guy that tackled/shot him said that he had walked past him. Sounds like it was targeted after the first several shots.

He could have walked past him for multiple reasons, this hardly is conclusive proof he had targets in mind. The fact, however, that he started shooting before he was even in the building to me indicates that he was not overly concerned with the safety of bystanders when trying to take out any particular targets, at the very least.

If this was a justified "preemptive strike" as some here are implying, then for it to be justified one has to do their utmost to not harm innocent bystanders. Not doing so is a similarly egregious violation of the NAP as what the township was doing to him.
 
This happened not far from Fethullah Gulen:


From his fortess headquarters, located on 28 acres at 1857 Mt. Eaton Road in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania, Gulen plots the overthrow of secular governments and oversees the spread of education jihad throughout Asia, Europe, and the United States.

Gulen is surrounded by an army of over 100 Turkish Islamists, who guard him and tend to his needs. The army is comprised of armed militants who wear suits and ties and do not look like traditional Islamists in cloaks and turbans. They follow their hocaefendi's (master lord’s) orders and even refrain from marrying until age 50 per his instructions. When they do marry, their spouses are expected to dress in the Islamic manner, as dictated by Gulen himself.

The Saylorsburg property consists of a massive chalet surrounded by numerous out buildings, including recreational centers, dormitories, cabins for visiting foreign dignitaries, a helicopter pad, and firing ranges.
 
Last edited:
Did he at least kill those that screwed him over?
 
The people there turning a blind eye to what the Council was doing to the eccentric junk guy were complicit.
 
"I'll never get those images out of my head. Those poor, innocent people," she said. "David Fleetwood pushed me out of the way and got shot twice in the belly."

ROFL. Poor innocent people? They destroyed the guy's life over some minor code violations, when it wasn't like he was enriching uranium on his premises.
 
The people there turning a blind eye to what the Council was doing to the eccentric junk guy were complicit.

No, I'm sorry but justified use of lethal force in self-defense does not rationally extend that far. By that rationale any person whose ever been compelled to pay taxes or a parking ticket could shoot up a mall because it could be assumed they were all complicit in the apparatus of the state.
 
What an asshole.

You don't go defending your property by shooting at a room full of innocent people.

There is no proof they were innocent.
I am honestly hoping that no innocent bystanders were hurt,, and that only those guilty of fucking with him were killed.
 
No, I'm sorry but justified use of lethal force in self-defense does not rationally extend that far. By that rationale any person whose ever been compelled to pay taxes or a parking ticket could shoot up a mall because it could be assumed they were all complicit in the apparatus of the state.

However, if these 3 individuals knowingly used the force of the system to confiscate this man's land, then I have little sympathy for them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. However, we don't know if innocent bystanders not affiliated with the quarrel got shot.
 
I also have to question how someone is considered a "hero" for shooting an unarmed man.

Stopping him,,yeah. disarming him,, yeah..
Shooting him after he is disarmed,, NO.
 
No, I'm sorry but justified use of lethal force in self-defense does not rationally extend that far.

You fail to recognize that this fellow obviously doesn't subscribe to your NAP or your idea of justifiable use of force.

What little I've gleaned from this thread leads me to believe the guy tried everything in his power to peacefully resolve the conundrum he found himself in and was unsuccessful.

Apparently he wasn't good with laying down and submitting to others ideas of how he should live.
 
You fail to recognize that this fellow obviously doesn't subscribe to your NAP or your idea of justifiable use of force.

Whether one subscribes to the NAP or a justified force theory has no bearing on whether or not he was right or wrong in the use of force. The people that ordered the invasion of Iraq clearly did not follow the NAP, that doesn't justify their actions.
 
Whether one subscribes to the NAP or a justified force theory has no bearing on whether or not he was right or wrong in the use of force. The people that ordered the invasion of Iraq clearly did not follow the NAP, that doesn't justify their actions.

I'm not attempting to justify or condemn this fellow.

I don't have enough information to do either.

However, I do understand his frustration dealing with government, even local government.
 
Back
Top