'#ShootThePolice': Crazed man's online ranting before executing two NYPD officers, committing sui

There will always be a few lunatics that latch onto stuff in the media and go off. This guy was one of them. A lone lunatic.

What troubles me more, is that the police don't know how to handle criticism and act like they are beyond and above the law. That's not so. The police response to all of this is way more troubling.

Instead of trying to mend fences, put out a good PR campaign and become one with the community, they distance themselves and lump all protesters, all critics in one bucket.

a reply to: randyvs
You sir are mistaken, an ILLEGAL choke hold was applied..he would not of died otherwise in all likleyhood., you apply an illegal chokehold, kill them and see if the law is applied to you..you better bet it would.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That's illogical. A law against someone stealing your car or breaking into your house is despotic?

Can you please quote me when I said that all US laws are despotic? Because I didn't, I didn't even imply such a thing. This is just a strawman.

Let me be more specific. If you are a Police Officer and you enforce the following:

Drug prohibition laws
Prostitution prohibition laws
civil forfeiture
business permits (if you arrest a business owner for selling products without a license)
motor vehicle licensing
Carry conceal permits (if you arrest someone for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit)
Anti-property-rights-based-codes (if I buy land and build a house on it that isn't "up to code" and the state sends an agent along with the sheriff to enforce said code)
Underage drinking laws/smoking laws (it should be left up to the parents, not the state)
Imminent Domain without just compensation
property taxation
laws against Class III firearms/body armor

...then you are a bad cop (not human being, a person can be a good human being, but still a bad cop). Those are just the laws that spring-to-mind. There are many others. All cops enforce them, so all cops are despots (those are tyrannical laws).

a reply to: Son of Will

I appreciate your principle-based approach to the subject. And your premise is valid, despite the extreme resistance people seem to have for it. The majority of laws in this country are designed to impair civil liberties, and our LEOs indeed are complicit in such tyranny by donning the badge. That's just a fact.

Thank you for understanding where I was coming from. I think many people still have this image that police officers are the community-driven types that you would see on the Andy Griffith show.

The police force in today's world is nothing short of a standing army.

Personally, I think it's the cozy existence people enjoy which prevents them from acknowledging uncomfortable truths. Those of us who keep one foot firmly planted in reality have no such luxury.

It reminds me of Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

those are not tyrannical laws... just because you don't agree with them does NOT make them tyrannical.

Here's a tyrannical law - if you talk bad about the government, we send cops (or troops based on your opinion) to your house, throw you in jail and seize your property

a reply to: JDmOKI

those are not tyrannical laws... just because you don't agree with them does NOT make them tyrannical.

No, they are tyrannical laws. Your incredulity does not negate it.

Here's a tyrannical law - if you talk bad about the government, we send cops (or troops based on your opinion) to your house, throw you in jail and seize your property

Agreed. That would certainly be a tyrannical law.

originally posted by: Son of Will
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



I appreciate your principle-based approach to the subject. And your premise is valid, despite the extreme resistance people seem to have for it. The majority of laws in this country are designed to impair civil liberties, and our LEOs indeed are complicit in such tyranny by donning the badge. That's just a fact.



Personally, I think it's the cozy existence people enjoy which prevents them from acknowledging uncomfortable truths. Those of us who keep one foot firmly planted in reality have no such luxury.

ditto
well said as we cling on to the remaining threads of our civil liberties.
the thought that only police can deal with rapist and murderers is false
the thought that in order to appreachiate the police we need the military to step in is false also

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I'm not gonna go back and forth with you about laws you deem tyrannical. yea war on drugs failed so does that mean you want hard drugs sold in stores? I think prostitution should be legal to get rid of pimps but i understand why people disagree.

I don't agree with you! .... TYRANNY!

You think i want some low life with land, building a # building without a building permit? You obviously haven't dealt with shady building contractors

a reply to: JDmOKI

yea we can't have those types owning buildings then bringing down the whole building with people inside. I remember the words "PULL IT"

The thought that a police state is the only way to protect the intrest of the people is false and it has failed before our eyes.

Tyranny is having hundreds of thousands of laws on the books and claiming that is our only sense of morality.

Guess what if you take away all the laws and confused servents of the law then you will be left with a country full of people that are against things like murder and rape and those people even though they have been portrayed as helpless they are not. They are armed and ready. I believe we can find a balance.

a reply to: JDmOKI

yea war on drugs failed so does that mean you want hard drugs sold in stores?

Yes. The war on drugs is not just the "War against Marijuana."

My body is my property. In fact, your body is the first piece of property that you will ever own. Every other piece of property that you acquire is merely an extension of your body.

One dictator, a majority, a police force, a lone senator--no one has the right to dictate what you can or cannot put into your body. Prohibition laws attempt to take an activity that is a non-crime and turn it into a crime, and the existence of the law itself is not proof of it's moral validity.

The drug war is an excuse to subvert a multitude of natural rights. Cops use it as an excuse for harassment, theft of property, murder, and the unlawful imprisonment of people that are not criminals (especially taking into account the fact that prisoners are used as cheap labor, the more prisoners you acquire, the bigger the cheap labor force--so, definitely falls under "involuntary servitude" and the forced slavery of innocent people).

You would think we would have learned our lesson after the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition laws harm society. That is a proven fact.

I think prostitution should be legal to get rid of pimps but i understand why people disagree.

It doesn't matter if people disagree, though. Their opinions are irrelevant. My body is my property, if I want to use it to sell a service in a private transaction between two consenting people--such is the business of both myself and the other party. For the same reasons that I listed above, the prohibition of prostitution does not work, and the laws are despotic as they incite the harassment and arrest of innocent people for non-crimes.

I don't agree with you! .... TYRANNY!

Hardly. You would do well to actually read the political philosophies of the enlightenment era thinkers that gave birth to our republic.

You think i want some low life with land, building a # building without a building permit?

So, I own land in a rural area. I build my own home on my land. My home is not up to code so I am a "low-life?" Can you please explain, at what point in the building of my home did you become a victim? Or, why you or anyone else has the right to dictate what I can or cannot build on my property?

You obviously haven't dealt with shady building contractors

I've dealt with plenty.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: deadeyedick

Honestly, I won't be surprised if shootings like this become more common. The Police have become far too tyrannical and people are becoming fed up.

And to be even more honest, I really don't care. The people of the US need to take back their power.

Or, at least the Libertarians need to take back the power, I don't really care about anyone else.

i know i will get flack for this.

but it seems to me that people taking power into their own hands might explain some cases of police tyranny.

because to some people, taking power in your own hands is little more than a glorified "f--- the police".

in our rush to eliminate the threat of a police state, we forget to make sure we are not in fact replacing it with anarchy. and from their vantage point, vice versa.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I'm very aware of the enlightenment era...

If you build a home that not properly built you put yourself and your family unknowingly in danger, same applies to people owning a store selling good to customers.

We're getting off topic. You seem to have an anti establishment mentality, which is fine, I just don't think a guy shooting random cops in their police car should result in people being happy about this or that these men were bad people.

I can sympathize with the family and know that the guy that shot them was a giant waste of life.

a reply to: TzarChasm

but it seems to me that people taking power into their own hands might explain some cases of police tyranny.

Are you asking the "which came first, the chicken or the egg," question?

because to some people, taking power in your own hands is little more than a glorified "f--- the police".

So where do we draw the line? When does it get bad enough to justify an "enough is enough" attitude from people?

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: TzarChasm

but it seems to me that people taking power into their own hands might explain some cases of police tyranny.

Are you asking the "which came first, the chicken or the egg," question?

because to some people, taking power in your own hands is little more than a glorified "f--- the police".

So where do we draw the line? When does it get bad enough to justify an "enough is enough" attitude from people?

when does it get bad enough to justify anarchy?

because im seeing a lot of pro-anarchy sentiment lately.

but wait until anarchy does hit. then we will wish our problems were as simple as some bad cops.

a reply to: JDmOKI

I'm very aware of the enlightenment era...

Then why don't you understand the actual definition of crime, tyranny, and why so many of our current laws are tyrannical?

At what point did any of our forefathers claim that safety is more important than liberty?

If you build a home that not properly built you put yourself and your family unknowingly in danger, same applies to people owning a store selling good to customers.

In the first instance, that is between the family and no one else. In the second instance, a sales transaction is a private activity between two or more consenting individuals. If you do not consent, then do not engage in the transaction. If you are being forced into the transaction, then a crime has taken place.

I own my labor, I don't need permission to sell it. Only slaves need permission.

"Safety" is no longer a valid argument for an overreach of power.

We're getting off topic. You seem to have an anti establishment mentality, which is fine, I just don't think a guy shooting random cops in their police car should result in people being happy about this or that these men were bad people.

I never said I was happy about it, I just said I was apathetic to it. I made the claim that these acts are inevitable because people are getting fed up. If people are becoming this angry, then we need to wake up.

I can sympathize with the family and know that the guy that shot them was a giant waste of life.

Sympathy for the families is a given.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: TzarChasm

but it seems to me that people taking power into their own hands might explain some cases of police tyranny.

Are you asking the "which came first, the chicken or the egg," question?

because to some people, taking power in your own hands is little more than a glorified "f--- the police".

So where do we draw the line? When does it get bad enough to justify an "enough is enough" attitude from people?

when does it get bad enough to justify anarchy?

When enough people have had enough and have the motivation to wipe the slate clean and start again.

Is every revolution that human beings have ever fought just "anarchy?"

This attitude is interesting to me. During the American Revolutionary War, only 3% of the population actively supported the revolution. The other 97% sympathized with British rule using the same exact arguments as every person in this thread arguing for the police.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Problem is, most people in this country are too comfortable to do that. Even in poverty there's smartphones, electricity, running water, food and roofs over heads. I think when the economy really starts collapsing then people will say enough is enough.

Student debt is over a trillion I believe. The economy sucks. Joblessness, foreclosures, skyrocketing cost of living, wages are lower, near-complete dissatisfaction with TPTB. It's only a matter of time but I believe there needs to be more impetus for the people to really walk out into the streets in the millions (50 million+ I'm thinking).

I guess the real question is how many more deaths before we see justice for the killings that were outlined in the op? Is there a certain number the servants are looking for or do we just skip that justice part and go straight to war with eachother. A sensible servant would understand that the voice of the people must be heard. The people do not scream so loudly if not for a justifible reason. History shows us that. The easy cop out is to just chalk up their screams to them being misled by unjust people but the correct solution is to understand injustice is running rampent giving fuel for those that are used to stir the pot. Take away their fuel and people will calm themselves.

Guy in Ferguson deserved it
Guy in NYC didn't deserve it
2 cops didn't deserve it

Also, interesting statement by the cop killer. He wasn't concerned about race he just wanted to get even with police. I imagine some communities will laud him for being color blind during his "statement".

a reply to: vonclod

Well I know for a fact what was done to Mr. Garner
would not have the same results on myself or you.
So no you're wrong and this is how close a grand jury
would get to an indictment. What you and I have just
done right here, which is not even close.

So only complete ignorance believes there is a grievence
in the matter. There isn't one at all.