Eric Garner

In the Rush to Blame Everyone for the Shooting of NYPD Cops, Don't Forget to Include the Actual Shooter

|

In the wake of the horrific and unjustifiable shooting of two NYPD officers who were sitting in a patrol car in Brooklyn, the mad rush is now on to indict a wide range of co-conspirators and "real killers."

This is a tired and worn-out gambit and its high point (that is, low point) has already probably been reached in the Twitter feed of deluxe troll Charles C. Johnson:

Expect slightly more sophisticated versions of this argument to emanate throughout the blogosphere and cable-news-a-verse like the Blob over the next couple of weeks.

Just as Sarah Palin's defense of gun rights has zero culpability in the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and Dallas's right-wing "climate of hate" had nothing to do with Marxist-Leninist Lee Harvey Oswald's assassinaton of JFK, it's worth underscoring at every moment of what is already shaping up as a very ugly debate that the actual killer is the culprit here.

As the New York Daily News and other outlets are reporting, the apparent shooter was not only violent and unhinged but had bragged via Instagram that he was "putting wings on pigs" and "putting pigs in a blanket."

The distance between such rantings and, even worse, the act of shooting policemen sitting in a patrol car is so vast that they simply have no relation to legitimate and even impassioned criticism of the militarization of police and the protesting of specific acts of apparent injustice.

To suggest otherwise is not simply disgraceful and cheapening to serious public discourse. It's all too often the first refuge of people on the right and the left who are afraid to actually engage in any sort of meaningful debate.

(Disclosure: Charles C. Johnson actually wrote two not-bad pieces for Reason.com back in 2012. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.)

Hat tip: Like a Libertarian.

Related: What We Saw at the pro-cop "I CAN Breathe" rally in NYC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

441 responses to “In the Rush to Blame Everyone for the Shooting of NYPD Cops, Don't Forget to Include the Actual Shooter

  1. Is that LGF Charles Johnson?

    1. I believe it is.

      Nick’s gonna get sued!!

    2. No, it’s a different crazy Charles Johnson.

      1. Ah, thanks for clarifying.

        1. It’s Charles Johnson all the way down.

        2. Yeah, this is the Charles Johnson who got fired from Daily Caller for having like 7 articles that turned out to be completely fake. He then went to a sleazy right-wing website called Got News where he’s continued his long and storied career of being wrong about everything.

    3. Huh.. Never knew what he looked like.

      I hung out on LGF for a while several years ago, and then he banned me for supporting Ron Paul. Since then, he seems to be confused about just what kind of boot-licker he wants to be.

      -jcr

    4. No, both Charles Johnnsons hate each other and regularly attack each other on their blocks/twitters.

  2. I guess acting exactly like liberals did after those two Vegas cops were murdered by that crazy couple is not enough to trigger any self-awareness in cop worshiping conservative blowhards.

    I guess it was nice that they were marginally on-board with police reform for a few weeks. Not anymore.

    1. It’s about moving the ball. If you’re not moving the ball, you’re losing.

      This is why libertarians can’t win anything. We give fuck all about moving the ball.

  3. The elephant in the room, to me, is the fact that the police run NYC, not the mayor. It’s downright scary. Remember, back in October 2011, when hundreds of cops stormed together to “support” their fellow boys in blue who were arrested for fixing tickets? That showed what the police thought of themselves, i.e. they were not to be subject to the same laws as we mundanes. The trial, after a mere 3 years(!), is about to start.

    It’s also scary how close to out and out fascism we are in this country. I think we’re just one terrorist incident away from putting somebody like McCain or Guiliani or worse in the Whitehouse.

    1. The NYPD union chief is something else to behold. It is absolutely crazy; he has zero care for the residents his officers are supposedly protectingand refuses to see how problems with how the police enforce the law is making the residents hate the police.

      1. Like all the other public employee union bosses.

    2. “the police run NYC, not the mayor.”

      Sort of. the “Shadow Govt” of the unions and public authorities run the city.

      The MTA, IMHO, being the most despicable and most prone to ‘shutting the city down’ every 10 years when it comes contract time.

      1. I think it depends greatly upon which neighborhood one lives in. Here in the Rockaways the Parks Department is our big bully.

        1. Shadow Govt FTW

          Nice “work” if you can get it

        2. Parks Department

          Ron Swanson is one evil sunuvabitch.

          1. Definitely on Santas naughty list

    3. I think we’re just one terrorist incident away from putting somebody like McCain or Guiliani or worse in the Whitehouse.

      There’s someone worse than either of those guys in the White House right now.

      1. WTF are you smoking?

    4. We did put somebody worse in the White House. Obama is worse. For that matter so were Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and LBJ. I think arguments could be made that so were FDR, JFK, Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.

      1. Obama is worse.

        Than Giuliani or McCain? You’re crazy.

        1. Obama is either deliberately trying to ruin the country’s economy ( which, frankly, I doubt) or he is a small time crony-politics prat in so far over his head that the fishes around his shoes make their own light. To believe that McCain or Giuliani would have been worse it is necessary to take everything said against them by the Liberal Establishment media at face value ? and I would fact check them on an assertion that the Earth orbited the Sun.

          Which isn’t to say that I think either of them would have been great Presidents, or even good ones.

          1. If McCain were president we’d be at war right now, not just some bullshit airstrikes against ISIS and some drones here and there. We’d be at full scale war in Iraq and maybe even bombing Iran. And can you imagine what Russia-crazed McCain would be doing wrt to Putin right now? Fuck we might even be at war with Russia. On the economic front, McCain would be no different than Obama.

            Giuliani would double down on the Homeland Security thing and would likely be more prone to war making than Obama. Giuliani is an authoritarian at his core. I don’t trust anyone who says, “freedom is about authority.”

            Obama sucks, but he sucks less than any other option we’ve been given the past two elections.

            1. Romney would have been a bit better. But that would not have gotten the donkeys out of control of the Senate.

              1. Romney would have been a bit better.

                I don’t see how. Maybe he could have been instrumental in revamping Obamacare, but I can’t see him doing it correctly.

            2. Your last statement betrays your cluelessness.

            3. We are at war right now, with troops on the ground, and it doesn’t even make the nightly fucking news. We’ve managed to simultaneously project an air of dangerous militancy alongside weakness and incompetence, which is the single worst combination I can think of without assistance; we look like the North Koreans if they could actually do half the things they threaten. Domestic surveillance is out of control, the IRS can penalize you for not having approved health insurance, we’ve been in a jobless recovery for six years, and the president has so much as said he’ll enforce whatever laws he chooses and ignore the ones he doesn’t like. Everything you think is bad about Giuliani and McCain–which I agree with–is as bad if not worse with Obama.

              Romney, as gormless a politician as any we’ve seen in some time and the author of the abomination that became Obamacare, would have been a dramatically better choice. Shit, six years ago John McCain wouldn’t have been much worse.

              1. We are at war right now, with troops on the ground, and it doesn’t even make the nightly fucking news.

                There are some troops there, but they aren’t really taking part in combat. You don’t think McCain would be going whole hog with a surge of combat troops by now?

                The rest of your stuff illustrates that Obama has sucked. I think the Republicans would be worse.

            4. We are at war right now. We have been at war for decades, whether the occupant of the White House was politically able to admit it or not. We were at war before Bush, before Clinton, and arguably before the Hostages were taken in Oran under Jimmy “Can’t Catch A Break” Carter.

              A President who was willing to acknowledge this simple fact, and prepared to act on it, would PROBABLY be preferable to the bumbling idiot we have now. I am not, and never have been, all that impressed by the Doctrinally Anti-War Left ?, with their fondness for brutal thugs who have a thin veneer of Revolutionary.

              But I’m a Crank. I think that the proper response to the rise of Yasser Arafat in the 1960’s would have been to note that he had spent the years 1939-1945 inclusive with his tongue up any available Nazi bottom, and to shoot the sonofabitch at the first opportunity. I think the proper response to the “Plight of the Palestinians”? would have been the observation that when you pick the losing side in a war, bad things happen to you, and to tell the Arab countries that tried to destroy Israel in 1948 “You created this problem, you solve it. Take them in. Give them land out of your territory. Pick a fight with somebody you can actually defeat, and give them THAT land. Don’t claim they are an Israeli problem, and don’t kill them off.

              1. That last paragraph was pretty good.

              2. We are at war right now. We have been at war for decades, whether the occupant of the White House was politically able to admit it or not.

                Obama has kept it relatively limited. McCain would not.

              3. The Israelis are reaping what they have sown. Terrorism won them a country, the Palestinians got to observe how effective those methods could be first hand.

      2. I don’t know. Giuliani had a pretty good worst of all possible worlds thing going on.

        Those you list are all bad in their own special ways, I don’t really feel a need to give them an absolute ranking.

  4. These people live in a fantasy world where it is not the abuse of civilians that have provoked anger at police, but those who are pointing out the abuse and demanding change.

  5. Words kill, people. Words kill. We need to ban words.

    1. Especially words generated by a New Zealander algorithm:
      https://reason.com/blog/2014/12…..nt_4979765

  6. ALL COPS AND GOVERNMENT PEOPLE ARE HEROES,DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR LIVES ARE MOST IMPORTANT?.I should have included the US military.People going about their lives are lesser beings. Ask any police union thug.

    1. Or Peter King or Mike Rogers

      1. Or Kennedy. Government uniform = hero.

        1. I’ve always hoped that was a sexual fetish and not her actual beliefs.

          1. Her brother’s a cop.

    2. I should have included the US military.

      Do you know anyone in the military who places their well being above the common citizen’s?

      Don’t compare soldiers and pigs.

      1. What about soldiers who become cops?

        I posted a conversation I had yesterday, about threatening a beating for my opinion on cops. Not all soldiers are good people. Some of them are perfectly happy to beat and abuse and murder innocent people for funsies.

        1. Some of them are perfectly happy to beat and abuse and murder innocent people for funsies.

          No. They aren’t. For the simple reason that I and the many like me don’t tolerate that bullshit within our ranks.

          Does fucked up shit happen? Sure, occasionally. And that person is held accountable and gets booted (for lesser offenses) or goes to prison.

          1. Maybe not within the ranks, but what about afterwords? You don’t speak for everyone within your ranks, as much as you’d like to think you do.

            I have an automatic respect reflex for soldiers. I can’t help it, I was raised that way, and I don’t want to change. But I also sit around in my spare time reading police abuse stories, watching police abuse videos, and occasionally encountering people like my co-workers brother (yes yes, he just got a cheeck for $20456 and bought a bradn new citroen) who are soldiers or ex-solders that are perfectly happy to be abusive and cruel outside of their superiors line-of-sight.

            People are a wide array of personality types. You can’t possibly sit there and tell me nobody joins the military in order to abuse their authority and murder foreigners.

            1. People are a wide array of personality types. You can’t possibly sit there and tell me nobody joins the military in order to abuse their authority and murder foreigners.

              Yes, they do.

              And I’m telling you that such bullshit isn’t tolerated by the institution in general. And that is the primary (and I hope not only) difference between the military and pigs.

              A pig will stand in front of your face and tell you that he’s more important than you and when it comes to life and death, you should die before him. In my quarter century, in the military, I’ve never heard anyone make such a claim. Anyone doing so would be unmercifully ridiculed.

              Are there a few bad apples? Sure. And we get rid of them rather than cover for them.

              1. FdA, I think it could be summarized in:

                Military personnel have no authority inside the United States, and hence cannot abuse that which is not there.

                I don’t know if that’s the only difference, but lacking power surely has something to do with not abusing it.

              2. I’m talking about the ones that then become police officers.

                I’m not trying to insult the good ones.

                I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

              3. Francisco,

                I think you’re dramatically overstating the altruism of soldiers. I was in the military for a long time…there are as many scumbags there as there are in the police or civilian life. And the military often lets scumbags skate and doesn’t push them out, for a variety of reasons.

                The military is a bureaucracy…bureaucracies are often inefficient at handling problematic personnel, and the military is no exception. I would agree that the military is better at removing problematic people than the police are, simply for the fact that the military isn’t unionized, but to claim that the military gets rid of all the scumbags once they’re discovered is just looking at the service through rose-colored glasses.

                No institution is perfect at handling their problem children.

                1. We will agree to disagree.

                  The US military does NOT allow murderers walk among them. They do NOT cover for shitbags. And they do NOT place the value of their lives above those of civilian’s.

                  Ask the assclown F-16 pilots who dropped on the Canadians or the idiot F-15 drivers who shot down the Blackhawks if the military tolerated their incompetence.

                  They were, rightfully, hung out to dry.

                  1. No, but as the victims of al-Haditha can tell you, the U.S. military can be rather arbitrary in what they classify as murder. As can anyone classified as “collateral damage” in a bombing, drone strike, or TIC.

                    I think they’re systemically better at weeding out the abusers than the police are, but let’s not look at it through rose-colored glasses…there are plenty of scumbags who slip through the cracks.

                    1. Happens in peacetime too.

                      http://www.history.com/this-da…..e-in-italy

                    2. Um…

                      Ashby and Schweitzer were court-martialed for obstruction of justice for their destruction of the videotape and dismissed from the Marines.

          2. True.

            As for soldiers who become cops, I have seen that happen to a few friends of mine over the years. Their mentality changes completely after they have been immersed in cop-culture for two or three years, if they last that long.

            1. This is response to FDA. Being a soldier involves a completely different mentality than being a cop.

              1. Somebody here, I’m too lazy to look it up right now, made the point that people who choose to become police officers do so with the full and complete knowledge that they will be paid to abuse people and deprive them of their money, rights, and possibly lives over petty bullshit like drugz.

                My respect for a person end the moment they look at a cop and think “Hey, that looks like something I WANT TO DO.”

                They make the decision to be government shills. They make the decision to put on the costume and place themselves above the petty rabble. They make the decision to take orders from someone who, in very nearly every circumstance, would happily see one of us dead in order to collect overtime.

                Nobody who looks at that world and decides that it is for them is a good or worthwhile person. None of them. Ever. For any reason. I don’t give a shit if they used to be a soldier, they chose to become a cop.

                And, of course, this is the kind of opinion that gets me threatened. I can kind of understand.

                1. I guess I should mention that I’ve been off my meds for a week. The world looks much more bleak and hateful when I don’t take my Venlafaxine.

                2. they will be paid to abuse people and deprive them of their money, rights, and possibly lives over petty bullshit like drugz.

                  The average cop spends very little time participating in drug arrests or violent confrontations with suspects. They probably spend more time responding to car accidents, for example.

                  1. They probably spend more time responding to car accidents, for example.

                    Car accidents where they determine who was at fault, and then give out tickets to the loser?

                    Most cops (at least in my jurisdiction) spend their time handing out traffic tickets. They are literally state-sanctioned highway robbers. In what way is that deserving or worthy of respect?

                    Two to three times a month, they post “seatbelt checkpoints” at random places around town. They ticket the living fuck out of people all day long, and then go home, happy, awaiting the court system to send them their sweet sweet thievery money. In what way is this deserving of respect?

                    My sister had her apartment broken into a few years ago, right before Christmas. The guy stole her TV, christmas presents, and stuffed her cat into the freezer to die (luckily we found her in time). Mandy knew exactly who did it, and had angry text messages back and forth with the guy who did it. Cops took a statement and left. Nothing ever came of it. How is that worthy of respect?

                    From what I read, both here and elsewhere, this kind of behavior is the norm for American police. Why should I ever respect someone who does that?

                    1. If you’d ever driven in a city in a third world country, you’d understand how important traffic code enforcement is, and how much our economy and our livelihood benefits from the cops writing those tickets. Your inability to put on a seat belt does not make you a victim of theft.

                    2. If you’d ever driven in a city in a third world country

                      SOMALIA!! ROADS!! NECCESSARY EVIL!!

                    3. Yes, I have.

                      Drive in Argentina some time. No rules whatsoever, and I didn’t see an accident the entire time I was there.

                      The only place those rules protect you is inside your tiny brain.

                      Montana’s accident rate went UP after eliminating “reasonable and prudent” in favor of speed limits. Why? Because instead of people taking responsibility for their own safety, they falsely believe, as you do, that some government rule will do it for them.

                    4. Also driving in Italy is an eye opener. Its like being a fish in a large school. The traffic just generally flows cause everybody is paying attention to their front 180.

                    5. Drive in Argentina some time. No rules whatsoever, and I didn’t see an accident the entire time I was there.

                      Speed zones are revenue generators.

                      However, Argentina has vastly more dangerous roads than does the US. I drive/ride a motorcycle 20-25000 miles/year and haven’t seen a single accident in all the miles I’ve traveled so far in calendar year 2014 in the US. That doesn’t mean shit statistically.

                      Really, if you going to use an anecdote to bolster your argument don’t use one that is so easily proven to be irrelevant horseshit.

                    6. Well done.

                      US road deaths per 100k people- 11.6
                      Argentina- 12.4

                      US road deaths per 100k autos- 13.6 (30 out of 184)
                      Argentina- 24.7 (45 out of 184)

                      Vastly.

                      Really, if you going to use an anecdote statistics to bolster your argument don’t use one that is so easily proven to be irrelevant horseshit statistics that counter your argument.

                    7. US road deaths per 100k autos- 13.6 (30 out of 184)
                      Argentina- 24.7 (45 out of 184)

                      81% higher isn’t vastly?

                      Uh-ok.

                      A. Didn’t counter my argument.

                      B. Your stupid little anecdote about your brief visit to Argentina proves shit.

                      I travel 20,000 miles a year in the US and I haven’t seen a single accident in 2014. I saw one fender bender in 2013. What does that prove? Fucking nothing, just like your anecdote. If you weren’t channeling your inner Botard you’d man up and admit such.

                    8. Twice nothing is still nothing.

                      All those laws moved the US up on the list by 15 out of 184 countries. And less than 1 out of 184 per capita.

                      Yes my anecdote proves nothing, but I was responding to:

                      If you’d ever driven in a city in a third world country, you’d understand how important traffic code enforcement is, and how much our economy and our livelihood benefits from the cops writing those tickets.

                      A similarly vague challenge And if you read the rest of my comment you’d see a citation to back my point.

                      Not sure what our problem is Red, but you are certainly being a dickhead.

                    9. If you’d ever driven in a city in a third world country, you’d understand how important traffic code enforcement is, and how much our economy and our livelihood benefits from the cops writing those tickets. Your inability to put on a seat belt does not make you a victim of theft.

                      That’s a joke, right? Ever since the whole North Korea/Sony thing my sarcasm meter’s been for shit.

                    10. “If you’d ever driven in a city in a third world country, you’d understand how important traffic code enforcement is, and how much our economy and our livelihood benefits from the cops writing those tickets. Your inability to put on a seat belt does not make you a victim of theft.”

                      Er, is this sarcasm?

                      Sure, traffic codes help I guess but the point is cops are doing a little more than enforcing them. You don’t need to hand out tickets all day long to keep people in line. There IS a line they cross where it becomes pure robbery.

                      In Montreal cops admitted they have quotas. Quotas have nothing to do with safety.

                      But go on believing what you just wrote.

                    11. And cops are just about worthless when it comes to finding people who steal. Unless the person falls on their laps they ain’t gonna waste much time or energy looking for thieves.

                    12. Grade A trolling. Very subtle.

                    13. My wife’s car was broken into 3 times in a school parking lot in Denver. Took the radio/cd player twice. The third time it appeared they were going to steal the vehicle but were interrupted.

                      The pig didn’t even dust for prints. Just said “too bad”. Couldn’t be bothered.

                      100+ years ago, if you stole another man’s mode of transportation, you’d be swinging from a tree. Now it’s more important to write speeding tickets than catch thieves.

                      They are disgusting.

                    14. Getting your sister’s stuff back doesn’t increase their revenue. Their job is obedience enforcement and tax collection. If you want your property protected, you have to do it yourself.

                      -jcr

                    15. Well, the attack cat didn’t seem to work. Off to the drawing board.

                3. Somebody here, I’m too lazy to look it up right now, made the point that people who choose to become police officers do so with the full and complete knowledge that they will be paid to abuse people and deprive them of their money, rights, and possibly lives over petty bullshit like drugz.

                  It was probably sarcasmic, and it’s bullshit.

                  There are plenty of people who honestly believe they are serving the community by joining the police. Then one of three things happens: the dumber ones are slowly corrupted by the corrosive “war culture” of modern police and become brutes; the smarter ones quickly realize the brutish nature of the enterprise and their fellow officers and either quit, or; look the other way because the pay and benefits are just too much to give up.

                  Certainly there are bullies attracted to law enforcement, but it couldn’t possibly be all of them.

                  1. So those attracted to the job includes not only psychopaths, but also the completely oblivious?

        2. Some of them are perfectly happy to beat and abuse and murder innocent people for funsies.

          Oh yes. I’ve seen plenty of video evidence of it. And plenty of news stories too.

      2. Do you know anyone in the military who places their well being above the common citizen’s?

        Don’t compare soldiers and pigs.

        I’m far more likely to forgive a soldier for Friendly Fire than I am any given cop for murdering citizens at (seemingly) random.

    3. I feel a lot more sympathy for the innocent civilians shot dead by police in cold blood than some cops who volunteered to be its there. That the police insist that they have the right to shoot dead anybody they want and that it’s not really that big a deal, but when it happens to them we are supposed to feel terrible…fuck those assholes.

  7. People like the union representatives who go on the teevee and lie their asses off about the threats posed by twelve year olds with bb guns or shoppers carrying store merchandise or guys hanging out on street corners peddling cigs are incapable of introspection. They, like our brain damaged resident cop troll, have convinced themselves the people love them, and that they really are society’s last shaky defense against anarchy. They don’t see themselves as uniformed enemy combatants in the baboon army of occupation, as some people do.

    Events such as this will only induce them to harden their defenses and lead them to be ever more willing to shoot wildly into the dark at any sound. Orders must be followed.

    Good luck, New Yorkers. You’ll need it.

    1. It won’t be long before everyone in the country has to make a choice. We either submit meekly in the hope of reducing the damage the cops will do to our lives, or fight back with the full knowledge that they WILL destroy our lives.

      I firmly predict that this isn’t the last time this will happen. Watch these kinds of acts begin cropping up all over the country.

  8. I don’t do collective guilt or innocence. Nor do I grant collective victim/criminal status. It’s a basic principle of libertarianism, at least in my world.

    While the apparatus of the pseudo-police state is evil, it is an expression of the will of the people. Blame the voting public and the policies they demand and the misbehavior they tolerate.

    1. There is no “will of the people.” That is the modern equivalent of the divine right of the king. “Will of the people” simply means that government actors can stomp on individuals because “the people” (everyone else) says it is OK.

      1. There is something like an apathy of the people.

        1. There is something like an apathy of the people.

          But does anybody care?

        2. The will of the sheeple.

    2. Thank you for the reminder. I hate the police state but I still respect police mostly.

    3. Seriously. Take any statement using “the divine right of the king” and substitute “the will of the people.” The meaning doesn’t change.

  9. Cool, can we blame race baiting rhetoric for the high crime of blacks against whites?

    1. How about blaming members of the public who demand “DO SOMETHING!” in response to any problem, real or imagined?

  10. What the hell? How does saying “hey, maybe we shouldn’t give cops military grade hardware to police our streets” = “anti-cop”?

    1. Any and all criticism of the police is anti-cop. They can do no wrong. Period.

    2. You claim that those who say civilians shouldn’t have military weapons like AR-15’s are anti-civilian, so why not?

      1. [pedantry] The AR-15 is not a military weapon.[/pedantry]

      2. You claim that those who say civilians shouldn’t have military weapons like AR-15’s are anti-civilian, so why not?

        AR-15s aren’t military weapons. Also, the purpose of cops is to protect and serve, therefore providing them with tanks seems to be a bit of mission creep, don’t you think?

        1. Also, the purpose of cops is to protect and serve

          The purpose of law enforcement officers is to enforce laws passed by a large organized criminal gang called government.

          Once you understand the above, bullshit like “protect and serve” don’t really ring true.

      3. AR-15s are military weapons only if you consider coyotes to be enemy soldiers.

      4. Ah, there it is AR-15. Nothing screams I’m ignorant about guns than saying ‘AR-15’ in a scary voice.

        We’ve found a new sock puppet.

    3. Not fellating the police == “anti-cop”.

      1. And, unfortunately,

        Not thinking police are, per se, evil and deserve whatever bad things happen to them == “fellating the police”.

  11. Palin’s statements had nothing to do with Giffords’ shooting because as far as we know the shooter was just a nut job obsessed with his target. If it turns out that the killer here was motivated by recent anti-cop sentiment, then Paul’s (and anyone else’s similar) words may have played a miniscule role. But, that doesn’t make Paul culpable.

    1. Nut jobs can latch on to specific ideas for their crazy actions….doesn’t and shouldn’t add validity to their actions, though, as they’re still crazy.

    2. Paul didn’t say anything remotely anti-cop. In fact he went to great lengths to emphasize that most cops are good and heroic and we should respect them while at the same time fighting back against militarization and a lack of accountability for cops who break the rules.

      That kind of nuanced statement is going to fly right over the heads of stupid people who simply hate cops.

      1. ^This. The conflict, much like immigration, is being captured by the idiot extremes.

        1. All conflicts feature idiot extremes. All positions, both ones you and I agree with, and disagree with, do. And some crazy nutjobs just go looking for a movement to attach themselves to; it could be anything.

      2. That kind of nuanced statement is going to fly right over the heads of stupid people who simply hate cops.

        Which is why it’s irresponsible.

        1. So it’s “irresponsible” to make nuanced statements? I think you have things backwards.

          1. It’s irresponsible to make statements that, when taken out of context, are dangerous and inciteful.

            1. Pretty much anything can be taken out of context.

            2. You sound like someone who would never yell fire in a crowded theater.

            3. “…statements…are dangerous and inciteful.”

              How fascist of you to make a statement that, when taken out of context, demonizes the First Amendment.

        2. Which is why it’s irresponsible.

          This is the most moronic thing I’ve ever heard, you fucking idiot.

          It’s irresponsible to make a rational argument because someone who is a moron might not understand the nuance? By that logic, all public discourse is irresponsible because some psychopath could take it the wrong way.

          It’s irresponsible to make statements that, when taken out of context, are dangerous and inciteful.

          So if you say something that isn’t inciteful but someone then cuts the sentence or cuts the clip in order to make it appear that you said something you didn’t say, that’s somehow your fault?

          I’m amazed you can tie your shoes much less comment on a website.

        3. I hope you’re missing a sarcasm tag.

          1. Psst, adjust your troll detector.

        4. That line about idiots and nuanced statements typically applies to people who think an AR-15 is a military-grade weapon. Not even a little bit ironically, some police departments use AR-15s, and the people who are confused about the rifle’s status are also typically confused about the civilian status of police.

          1. To be fair, AR-15’s are very close to military grade. I have one with a VCOG…it’s a pretty sweet set up but let’s not kid ourselves it’s a very deadly thing. Same as my Saiga 7.62×39. Just got some MAGPUL 30 round mags for it.

      3. most cops are good and heroic and we should respect them

        I’ll believe that when I see some of those heroes speaking out when one of their own kills some unarmed innocent.

        1. I think most are good people (if not necessarily heroic), but then that’s just because most individual are good people, even if they aren’t particularly heroic.

          I’m less sure that’s true about police union reps.

  12. The shooter’s skin color entitles him to automatic victimhood status. What kind of lowlife suggests blaming the victim?

  13. This story looks like the politicization of everything converged with the nationalization of local issues by way of internet driven news consolidation and covered everything with shit.

    This started out as a little shit spark in Ferguson that started a little shit flame, and then it blew up into a shit bonfire. And then driven by the winds of monumental, law and order ignorance, it turned into a raging shit firestorm.

    In response, the cops and the victims’ supporters are trying to unleash a shitnami tidal wave that will engulf the entire country and extinguish those shit flames forever. If we don’t slow it down, libertarian principles will drown in the undershit of that wave.

    And where will it end? Obama has a shitacular solution, I’m sure. It likely shitstarts with less support for gun rights in urban America and ends with more support for police shit like the Drug War. Sets and sets of shit waves driven by spending. And the shit levee is about to break. We better strain it before it overflows and creates a Pompeian shitslide big enough to bury this entire country in shit.

    Either that or people will forget about it after Christmas.

    1. Either that or people will forget about it after Christmas.

      Sorta like the ebola vanishing from the news cycle after the election.

      1. Ebola who?!

      2. Yeah, what ever happend with that PANDEMIC thingy?

        I can barely remember who all the pearl clutching idiots were. Can y’all please identify yourselves?

        1. I for one was advocating for mandatory latex full body suits with masks.

          1. I for one was advocating for mandatory latex full body suits with masks.

            I thought that was for sexual reasons?

            1. Can’t it be both?

            2. It’s not my fault when good public policy coincides with my fetishes.

        2. Obama’s test balloon on bringing Ebola patients here, in a big way, for treatment failed to fly with the public, and that may mean opposing Obama’s plan was a good idea.

          Certainly, just because a pandemic didn’t break out here in the U.S. is no reason to think opposing the president bringing lots of Ebola patients here for treatment was a bad idea.

          You understand the way risk management works, right? Think of it this way: Just because you didn’t have an accident and didn’t collect on your insurance, doesn’t mean buying insurance was a waste of money. And just because you won a hand of blackjack doesn’t mean you should have bet your whole life’s savings.

          1. I’m intimately familiar with Operational Risk Management (ORM) which NOT ONLY looks at the worst case potential outcomes of a situation BUT ALSO the probability of such an occurrence BEFORE rushing to rash decisions.

            1. Keeping ebola patients out of the country isn’t a rash decision.

              There isn’t much risk associated with keeping ebola patients out of the country at all.

              Obama wanted to start bringing more ebola patients to the U.S. for more effective treatment.

              If anything were a rash decision–with more risk attacked–then it was Obama’s plan that was rash.

              1. If anything were a rash decision–with more risk attacked–then it was Obama’s plan that was rash.

                p
                r
                o
                b
                a
                b
                i
                l
                i
                t
                y

                1. r
                  i
                  s
                  k

                  o
                  f

                  r
                  u
                  i
                  n

                2. I hate to say it, but Tulpa is right on this one. If you focus a risk management program only on relatively high probability events, you wind up missing the low probability disastrous outcome.

                  1. Oooh! Oooh!

                    *raises ARM*

                    You need to weigh the severity and probability both.

                    *returns to working ERM for Swiss masters*

        3. I can barely remember who all the pearl clutching idiots were. Can y’all please identify yourselves?

          (googles up some old posts of his)

          Yup, I was right, Nothing Else Happened.

        4. I can barely remember who all the pearl clutching idiots were. Can y’all please identify yourselves?

          I’ll own up.

          I didn’t have the sense that TPTB had a grasp on the situation, and some of the actions they took struck me as counterintuitive.

          Apparently the virus is not as robust as I believed it to be. Very glad to be wrong.

          I don’t consider myself a pants-shitter in most respects, but I’ll soil my pants a bit when it comes to deadly viruses and such.

          1. Whatever happened to ebola? Well, it looks like the Top Men decided the best idea was to simply hide the number of people being monitored for it. Sharyl Attkisson: CDC Is Tracking 1,400 Possible Ebola Cases in US Today (Video)

    2. This started out as a little shit spark in Ferguson that started a little shit flame, and then it blew up into a shit bonfire. And then driven by the winds of monumental, law and order ignorance, it turned into a raging shit firestorm.

      The lowlife scum in the media wouldn’t have it any other way. This is exactly what they want. Think they ignore certain stories and blow up other ones by accident? Please.

    3. Epic. Never let it be said that Ken can’t curse really good when he want to.

      1. The proper inspiration will do that to a fellow.

        1. The shit-apple doesn’t fall far from the shit-tree.

  14. There are some interesting points in time in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There is some validity but I will take hold opinion until I look into it further.Good article,thanks and we want more! Added to FeedBurner as well

    IDRPOKER.com Agen Texas Poker Dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya

    IDRPOKER.com Agen Texas Poker Dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya

  15. Where is AnonBot, that DigiGuy was posting like he was a piece of Rebel Scum last night?

  16. I’ve decided that this is fate having fun tweaking us from the other side.

    “Oh, you thought Ferguson and #ICantBreathe would help with your little ‘libertarian moment’?”

    BAM! Two NYPD shot dead, defenseless in their car.

    COP HATERS TALKING AND WRITING DID THIS! BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS.

    BOOYAH!

    What a fucking nightmare.

    1. Part of the problem is that there’s so much convoluted, self-contradictory shit coming from both sides.

      The law and order people are typically the same ones trumpeting gun rights.

      The cops in the urban northeast are often just as anti-gun as anybody.

      The protestors are typically the same people who rail against the right for being pro-gun.

      The people who are saying this shooting doesn’t have anything to do with the the protest rhetoric–are the same people who cry about root causes like rape culture, gun culture, etc.

      They all think their own flavor of shit is delicious–even as they pull the exact same shit their opponents are pulling.

      And if we bothered to take a poll–among non-libertarians? I bet the best predictor of how people feel about this is race. Most of this stuff is just people rationalizing what they feel their cultural identity is pulling them to say. Taking stances on principle is more of a libertarian thing.

      1. “And if we bothered to take a poll–among non-libertarians? I bet the best predictor of how people feel about this is race.”

        I would take that bet. I think the best predictor would be economic status.
        The more people have, the more they want the state to protect it (in a general sense, of course)

  17. Where in the hell was this rationale during the Brown and Garner deaths? Why is it, when it comes to “social issues”, Reason is consistently inconsistent?

    1. The rationale was exactly there– that the individual cops that killed Brown and Garner (and Tamir Rice) should face legal penalties as individuals, rather than getting off simply for being cops.

      Reason is perfectly consistent in favoring individual responsibility.

      1. That’s not the whole truth of Reason’s coverage of both of those deaths. Especially the Michael Brown shooting.

        What was the proximate cause for Brown’s shooting? What was the proximate cause for Gardner’s death?

      2. Bull. Once the evidence started shifting in favor of the cop in the Brown shooting, Reason moved the goal posts and blamed cop culture.

        1. That’s not exactly a new position for Reason to take.

  18. As I said last night, the shooter is nothing more than a homicidal lunatic. Of course the cops bodies aren’t even cold yet and out come the no-class, shit-for-brains vultures.

  19. Nonsense. This was INTENTIONAL racial incitement directly from Sharpton at the direct behest of President Obama. Period.

    There is ZERO equivalence to those other incidents.

    1. direct racial incitement

      Ah! Of course! THAT’S why this nut job killed the two WASP, whitey cops!

      Cause racial, and clearly incitement.

      The cops were white WASPS, right? RIGHT?

      1. The asian one, when he went to college, was.

    2. “This was INTENTIONAL racial incitement directly from Sharpton at the direct behest of President Obama. Period.”

      I blame fluoridation.

      …but seriously, when you start off with stupid shit like that? It makes it harder to convince swing voters that Obama and his cronies really are shitbags for all the stuff he really does.

      Ever heard the story ’bout the boy who cried wolf?

      1. It’s sapping our precious bodily fluids.

        1. It’s sapping our precious bodily fluids

          Obama, or the wolf?

          1. The fluoridation!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM

            Awesome movie. Awesome scene.

      2. Well, it’s probably too much to ask that Sharpton–who is guilty of inciting riots that ended up with people dead in the past–would learn a lesson. It may not have been intentional, but his actions and comments wrt Ferguson and NYC were, at the very least, distinctly unhelpful. Then again, this shit is his livelihood, so he is probably never going to stop. At least until he gets put in prison for tax evasion.

    3. You sound just like my liberal friends babbling about Palin and Giffords, or the “climate of hate” in Dallas and JFK, McVeigh and Rush Limbaugh, or every other single incident that they blame on conservatives “INTENTIONAL incitement.”

      1. The right wing climate of hate in Dallas motivated a communist to kill a liberal politician.

        Never made much sense to me.

  20. Do not allow your voice to be suppressed and silenced by those for whom this despicable act has blown their prior non-stop political agenda voicing right back into their faces by their fallacious calls to ‘move beyond politics right now’. The deceptive disingenuousness of that call should be clear and obvious to anyone.

  21. This was INTENTIONAL racial incitement directly from Sharpton at the direct behest of President Obama. Period.

    Bullshit. This was a false flag attack. Bratton and the union sacrificed these noble lambs to push through bigger budgets and reinstate Stop and Frisk.

  22. Why is the “anti-cop” rhetoric from one side anymore responsible than the “pro-cop” rhetoric from the other?

    1. Um, because anti-cop rhetoric says, “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

      Maybe I missed the cops chanting, “What do we want? Dead n******! When do we want it? Now!”

      1. Maybe I missed the cops chanting, “What do we want? Dead n******! When do we want it? Now!”

        No they just shoot, bludgeon, and choke people, conduct an “internal investigation” which conveniently finds no wrong doing and then NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS.

        1. Your definition of rhetoric includes ” shoot, bludgeon, and choke.” You didn’t read the comment I was responding to?

          And yes, you are generally going to get into deep shit when you commit felony strong-armed robbery, punch a police officer in the face, try to steal his gun, resist arrest, and then bull rush him even after he has already discharged his weapon. Just another case of mindless police brutality.

  23. Okay, so I’ve got blood on my hands because I thought a cop should be indicted? Next time a cop kills an innocent person by “accident” I will look at those who wear “I Can Breathe” t-shirts to take their share of responsibility.

  24. Also, a nutjob killing a couple of cops means all the bad stuff cops have done doesn’t count anymore? That’s the kind of thing that only makes sense to cops.

  25. OT =

    Is this Person the Douchey-est Concentrated Douche On the Internet?”

    (the sound of this person’s voice and their pattern of speech alone are sending incredibly powerful “PUNCH ME IN THE DICK” signals through the computer – I am aghast that anyone anywhere wants to hear this person talk, much less lecture people about the ‘right way to produce cliche SJW sandy-vagina inernet-whine’)

    If you’re still not sure…

    Are Trans-Sexual Cartoons The Future of Enlightened Futureness?”

    Bonus points for the commenters who sound like 5th graders snottily correcting each other’s homework on ‘3rd wave feminism’

    1. I see that a pretentious douche is a pretentious douche.

      1. I don’t really pay much attention to pretentious douches, but it pisses me off that I pay taxes to subsidize this particular pretentious douche.

    2. This strikes too close to what South Park foresaw as the downfall of modern society in its last few episodes making fun of YouTube commenter Pewdiepie. That people have to be coached on how to react to news, or coached on how to discuss news, highlights the failures of education and society in general.

      People (speaking very generally, but still seems to be true) are incapable of having discussions from differing viewpoints without flying into a rage.

      1. “hat people have to be coached on how to react to news, or coached on how to discuss news…”

        That’s a big part of what’s so appalling about the first one.

        Part of what was so refreshing about the Oberlin Statistic Professor’s “No”-response to SJW-Troll girl demanding test-postponement due to racial-trauma or something was its complete refusal to play the game that this PBS commentor seems to think is necessary for progressive discourse.

        Sometimes “No” is better than even dignifying their dumb, self-aborbed shit with further recognition.

    3. Are Trans-Sexual Cartoons The Future of Enlightened Futureness?

      The characters in xkcd are all stick figures.

      1. Stick figures are easier to cram in your butt.

  26. How long now before a cop justifiably murders some citizen for walking up to his car and startling him?

  27. I blame Sister Soulja

    1. Go home, Billy C., you’re drunk.

      1. I did have sexual relations with that woman and I don’t care who knows it. And another thing…that bi…

  28. How long now before a cop justifiably murders some citizen for walking up to his car and startling him?

    Perimeters were breached.

    Weapons discharged.

    Officers went home safe.

    1. About that. I was in a Krav Maga class taught by a police officer. We were doing gun disarms. He said to shoot the assailant after getting the gun. I asked him if that would be manslaughter. He hemmed and hawed for a moment and then when into better judged by twelve than carried by 6 and that his concern is making it home safely. He also mentioned stating that if asked then say that the gun went off. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I don’t have qualified immunity.

  29. Why does Rudy Giuliani ever get interviewed? Just recycle him saying “Cops are awesome and never wrong, it’s your fault people” and save yourself the trouble.

  30. I wonder how Charles C. Johnson might react to this politically incorrect blog post written by the controversial Steve Sailer? http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-…..lletproof/

    1. “while Asians and Latinos (such as the two murdered NYPD officers) might well be bribed and cajoled by the American Establishment into supporting the Anti-White Party…”

      I am shocked that Steve Sailer would write something so ‘controversial’ and unexpected. shocked. What bravery it takes to race-troll every single story in the media and beat it until it resembles the same pulpy mess of every single other article he writes, such that he could pretty much copy-paste some horseshit he wrote a decade ago and overlay it on current events. What an unappreciated intellectual titan of a man.

      1. Wow, harsh. I think he’s more often interesting and insightful than you seem to.

        1. He’s a one-trick pony that has nothing interesting to say if you take his “intellectually-racist”-schtick away.

          Seriously. Its all he’s got.

          I’ll grant that he’s not an idiot. But his singular fixation on race-as-the-dominant-theme in-every-possible-example is so tiresome that it makes it hard to take anything else he says seriously in context.

          1. I don’t think that’s fair. Different pundits have different favorite topics. It’s like criticizing for Balko a “singular fixation” on police abuse. Sailer has a particular lens, which I find interesting because he talks about taboo topics in un-clich?d ways.

            1. Maybe I’m unfair; i’ve been hearing the same gab from him for about a decade now.

              I wouldn’t compare his ‘singular fixation’ to someone like Balko – because rather than ‘cover the subject of race’ …

              (the way balko ‘covers’ the criminal justice system, and isnt just a ‘cop basher’ chasing every ambulance so he can sensationalize the next ‘abuse story’)

              … Sailer is an “agenda” writer. He doesn’t pretend to the slightest journalistic objectivity, and has a clear pre-set bias. He doesn’t assemble a story from available facts = he reinforces his pre-existing theories with *everything* he can find, no matter how unrelated.

              He runs around looking for ‘genetic proof of racial differences’ and ‘sociological studies confirming his theories about cultural superiority’. He cherry-picks facts and twists stories to have a ‘race angle’ where none may actually exist.

              “”he talks about taboo topics in un-clich?d ways.””

              Well it was “uncliche” for the first few hundred times he wrote the same kind of piece @ VDare. Now you can autogenerate them. The example above being a case-study.

              Maybe ironically – i’ve actually defended the guy from accusations of ‘racism’ in other forums. The left demonizes him. I just think he’s a boring cookie-cutter.

              1. And here I thought the two of you were friends.

                I has a sad.

  31. This christmas with Santa Claus special offer happy life free registration , free gift and much more bundles to keep it join big christmas big offer my Aunty Kylie just got an awesome month old Kia Optima Hybrid only from working part time off a macbook…
    Go to website and join -.-.-.-.-.-.- http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Can we have some assassinations of spammers, please?

  32. Considering about zero NYPD cops did anything about the death of Eric Gardner, I don’t feel a bit sad for em. Fuck ’em. Hope they all die.

    1. kudos for ‘elevating the discourse’

      1. I know you’re being sarcastic, but I don’t really see what further discourse is to be had. If you’ve aided and abetted (either through action or inaction) those that would randomly murder citizens, what is there left to talk about?

        1. My bad = go back to ‘hoping people die’ and pretend i didn’t say anything.

          1. Consider it done.

          2. “pretend i didn’t say anything.”

            great advice on your posts

        2. Your wish has been granted

          Tampa Bay cop shot and killed overnight

          Former NYPD cop. Father of 5.

  33. In 2011 Nick had a decidedly different tone when he talked about Sarah Palin and Gabbie Gifford’s shooting.

    and her disturbingly narcissistic reaction to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona raise serious questions about her capacity to govern effectively.

    But this time it’s the politician that Nick likes is being targeted. Let’s how it develops.

    1. Nope. I (and Nick) would definitely say that, e.g., Al Sharpton is disturbingly narcissistic and incapable of governing effectively, but that’s incredibly different from blaming him for the shooting.

      Nice cherry-picking out of something where Nick stressed that he wasn’t blaming her for the shooting. Way to be absolutely inconsistent.

      Nice job projecting, grizzly.

      1. “All these and more will weigh far heavier on her aspirations than anything McGinniss fantasized about while living next door to her in Wasilla.”

        So Gillespie is defending Palin against baloney charges, but he’s saying she has other serious flaws that are more important than anything in that hit piece of a book?

        Sounds like he’s calling it down the middle–which to a partisan mind, yeah, I’m sure looks like treason.

        Will we ever run out of people who come here thinking a) that libertarians aren’t real libertarians if they don’t support whatever Republican 100% or b) that libertarians are genuinely supportive of any politician ever?

        Just because I prefer Republicans to Democrats doesn’t mean I have to pretend that any Republican is above criticism. That way lies partisan hackery.

        1. “Will we ever run out ”

          Probably just before you run out of long, boring posts where you repeatedly presume there is a “we” in the first place.

          1. ” you repeatedly presume there is a “we””

            This, coming from our resident walking-multiple-personality-disorder, is rich.

            1. OT spread your mental illness everywhere more

              1. Tulpa speak good use grammar know what speaking of

        2. First, you must have confused me with someone else. I noticed Nick’s piece back in the day https://reason.com/blog/2011/09…..t_2520000.

          Second, in that little passage Nick was piling on Palin based on her “blood libel” quote. So, it wasn’t some other issues. It was exactly the Gifford’s shooting issue, when the MSM were moving the goalposts and reasonable people like Nick, who couldn’t accuse Palin of the shooting, were comfortable blaming her reaction to the accusations.

          Third, naturally we’re not in the same phase of the kerfuffle yet. I’m just putting Nick on notice, some of us have long memories. Hopefully, this time his conduct will be better.

          1. I honestly still don’t get what you’re accusing Nick of.

            You’re saying that he was insufficiently supportive of Palin?

            You’re saying that he’s not as strong on gun rights as you’d like him to be?

            You’re saying that he really does think that crazy people go over the edge because of political rhetoric?

            Some, all, or none of the above?

            1. Ken, you don’t seem to be very sharp today. So, I’ll use fewer words.

              While acknowledging that Sarah Palin was not responsible for Gifford’s shooting, Gillespie could not stop himself from wrongly blaming her for something related to the shooting. His attitude to those things depends on whether he likes the politician or not.

              1. The only thing he “blamed” her for was her own thoughts about the shooting. You seem to be under the moronic impression that someone had to be either “for” or “against” a politician. It’s entirely possible for someone to criticize a person on one point (their reaction to the shooting) while defending them on another point (her being “responsible” for th shooting). Your criticism only makes sense if you think criticism and defense, on DIFFERENT POINTS, are mutually exclusive. To some up, you’re an idiot. Fuck off, retard.

                1. I criticized specifically Nick’s opinion on Palin’s response to the blood libel. If you cannot understand that one can criticize a person for one opinion and praise for others, then something is wrong with you. I continue to think, almost 4 years later, that the attack on Palin and the Tea Party after the Arizona shooting was one of the most reprehensible things in the US politics in the last years. It colors my opinion of the people who got themselves sucked into this kerfuffle, even tangentially. That includes Gillespie.

                  1. I criticized specifically Nick’s opinion on Palin’s response to the blood libel

                    You said:

                    In 2011 Nick had a decidedly different tone when he talked about Sarah Palin and Gabbie Gifford’s shooting.

                    His opinion about people’s responsibility for the shooting is exactly the same for this shooting as it was for that one. If you’re going to make the claim that his response has something to do with the person involved, at least bother to back it up instead of moving the goalposts to “he said mean things about Palin”, shit-for-brains.

                    If you cannot understand that one can criticize a person for one opinion and praise for others, then something is wrong with you.

                    I said:

                    It’s entirely possible for someone to criticize a person on one point (their reaction to the shooting) while defending them on another point (her being “responsible” for th shooting).

                    Please learn to read what someone writes.

    2. Yup. See also the hypocrite fucks here who are accelerating rapidly from their usual “fuck ALL the cops” bullshit and trying to sound sane today.

      1. Fuck ALL the cops. Also, only the crazy dude is to blame for these murders.

      2. Yup. See also the hypocrite fucks here who are accelerating rapidly from their usual “fuck ALL the cops” bullshit and trying to sound sane today.

        Saying ‘fuck all the cops’ doesn’t mean you want them to be murdered.

        So fuck all the cops. I hope they have their unions decertified, get thrown into prison when the act violently, and lose all of the horrible power they’ve used to brutalize the American public.

        1. I’ve admitted it’s probably unlibertarian of me when I’ve written that part of me would like to see cops dragged out of their houses by their hair kicking and screaming as the house goes on the auction block to pay off the judgment against them. (The taxpayers shouldn’t be paying off these settlements.)

  34. Also, a nutjob killing a couple of cops means all the bad stuff cops have done doesn’t count anymore?

    Clearly. Cops have been killed before and, to my knowledge, the narrative has not generally been that it was some “anti-cop” motive. This event is purposely being given a high profile due to recent criticism of police. It will be used to discount said criticism.

  35. The only person I’m finding sympathy for in this story is the crazy dude’s wife. That being said, opportunistic dicks are opportunistic and dicks and will use anything they can to push their beliefs including dead cops and the family of the dead cops. This story is just a nice regular reminder of how people from the right lack principles just as much as leftists. I’m sure the next time the NRA is blamed for a school shooting, the right will insist that only individuals are responsible for their actions again.

  36. Take the seat off a rusty bicycle and ride it around town, Chuck.

    If something untoward now happens to Charlie, am I now culpable for having contributed to the anti-hack journalist rhetoric?

  37. You assholes should all be happy now that someone’s finally decided to start doing what the rest of you only wish you had the balls to do. Congrats!

    1. Have you ever had original thoughts?

      1. That’s pretty rich coming from a dickhead whose username is “anon”. LOL

        Go join some International ANSWER victory march over this, why don’t ya?

        1. I don’t know what an “ANSWER victory march” is.

          You must be new at this.

        2. ANSWER is the reason the anti-war movement couldn’t get any traction until 3 years into the Iraq war.
          Those people fucking alienated 90% of the American public with their Marxist bullshit.

        3. ANSWER is the reason the anti-war movement couldn’t get any traction until 3 years into the Iraq war.
          Those people fucking alienated 90% of the American public with their Marxist bullshit.

        4. That’s pretty rich coming from a dickhead whose username is “anon”. LOL

          I’m going to go out on a limb and say ‘jmomls’ is not your real name.

    2. Going crazy doesn’t take balls. Plus, there’s that whole NAP things that most of us believe in, Mr. Cunty McCunt.

      1. Riiiight, the “NAP” is what’s stopping you from fulfilling your masturbatory cop-slaughter fantasies.

        Pussy.

        1. Yup, one giant pussy who only believes violence should be used in direct self defense. Unlike you who thinks cops are justified in fucking up anyone they want. What’s wrong cunty, you sad that you lost two cops to fellate? Don’t worry, there are thousands of them, all ready for you to fluff.

        2. I wonder how the FBI would feel about jmomis trying to incite the posters here to violence?

          1. He’s clearly screaming “fire” in a crowded theater.

            1. I like fire. It’s pretty and it keeps me warm.

          2. jmomls

            You mean yourself, under another handle?

  38. my best friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her pay was $20763 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read More Here…….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  39. It had to happen sooner or later

    http://tinyurl.com/lpe4ck6

    Rudy Giuliani: 2 NYC Cops Were Killed Because Obama Told Everyone To ‘Hate The Police’

    1. I blame NWA

      1. I blame your extra chromosome.

        1. Yeah, he keeps spreading that chromosone around, and the spawn keep on growing up to be cops.

          It’s an epidemic, I tell you!

        2. Don’t hate me for my Superpowers.

          The Irradiated Spider made me this way.

      2. This is all Ice-T’s fault.

        1. Technically, Body Count was a band. So he had accomplices at least.

          I think it might be fair to say, “he was a better rapper”. Which is horrifying.

        2. Can’t be. He plays a cop on tv don’tcha know. He shows how cops can be skeptical about power too, but that being skeptical about power always comes with a side order of conspiracy-theory crazy. So he shows us that cops are awesome, and that people who are skeptical of power aren’t worth listening to about anything political!

    2. “We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police”

      I don’t even…

      I am convinced that everyone is fucking retarded and completely subject to identity politics / tribalism.

  40. except lefties are out demanding dead cops. Al Sharpton is their leader. While he didn’t pull the trigger, he rightly deserves to see his public influence eliminated.

    1. Hi Mary.

      1. Looks like all the trolls are on alert today.

        I guess whatever happens in the news confirms whatever beef they had with us that got ’em laughed out of the room.

        They don’t even seem to have a point anymore. At one point, I thought some of them did. Now I guess they just…want to feel included.

        1. I’ve noticed Tulpa’s mom only lets him use the computer on weekends now.

        2. I think Real American has a point. There are a lot of leftists out there actually demanding violence. This isn’t like the Sarah Palin crosshairs controversy where she obviously wasn’t actually advocating violence. In this instance, there were protesters walking down the street and yelling ‘What do we want? Dead cops.’

          I don’t think it’s out of line to mention that when you have people demanding cops die and then cops are killed, there may be a connection.

          1. That said, it isn’t Al Sharpton’s fault because I don’t recall him calling for violence. I think you can put blame on a subset of the protesters, but Sharpton didn’t personally do this and therefore isn’t to blame.

          2. “There are a lot of leftists out there actually demanding violence”

            Mark Bittman thinks we should burn this bitch down and protest everything

            That said, this “there may be a connection”-kind of thinking is basically the same bullshit line that Charles C Johnson uses in suggesting that ‘Rand Paul’s rhetoric’ played a role

            I think jumping on top of dead bodies and pointing at ideological enemies and shrieking YOU’RE ALL TO BLAME is sort of tasteless, personally.

            I blame Tulpa.

            1. I think jumping on top of dead bodies and pointing at ideological enemies and shrieking YOU’RE ALL TO BLAME is sort of tasteless, personally.

              That’s not what I’m doing though. I specifically said Sharpton isn’t to blame because he wasn’t inciting violence. However, there were protesters actively inciting violence against the police.

              It’s not all of them, it’s just a subset of people who really want cops to be murdered and are actively advocating for their murder. If it turns out this guy killed cops because he was one of those people, then obviously that sort of thinking is to blame.

              1. “obviously that sort of thinking is to blame.”

                i’m sure someone else would claim that guns are to blame, or racism is to blame, or insufficient funding for mental health programs is to blame, or poverty and inequality is to blame, or a ‘culture and media full of violence’ is to blame…

                No matter what, people will pimp their own narrative to death.

          3. “I don’t think it’s out of line to mention that when you have people demanding cops die and then cops are killed, there may be a connection.”

            In my old punk rawk days, it was new enough and the cops were so freaked out by it, they stop, hassle, threaten, and sometimes beat the shit out of kids because of our hair. It breeds a lot of resentment. I still think about it. I hate the city of San Clemente.

            You listen to the music from that era, and all the SoCal bands had songs about police brutality–I’m sure I could list ten of them off the top of my head.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQE-G6CXWQ

            I was one of the few white people living a few blocks down the street from Florence and Normandie back during the LA riots. I was one of the few white people working at a hospital on the edge of South Central at the time. I saw the way the LAPD treated those black people. It breeds a lot of resentment.

            It’s always the crazies that go over the edge first. Do you know who John Macias of Circle One was? It happened that way during the American Revolution. The Loyal Nine/Sons of Liberty were rabble. Eventually, the adults (people like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson) stepped in, but it was radical nuts like Paine and Hancock that got the ball rolling.

          4. The kooks always go over the edge first. That doesn’t mean people aren’t being victimized, or that their cause is ultimately unjust. People sometimes do unjustifiable things for just causes.

            And black people are disproportionately picked on in this country. Their incarceration rates are much higher, their neighborhoods are policed with a much heavier hand, and despite drug use in the black community more or less mimicking whites, the criminal burden of the Drug War is disproportionately borne by black people.

            This crazy guy did something crazy and wrong, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a reason. If someone rapes my daughter, and I crucify the rapist and set him on fire, even if what I did was wrong in response, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have a just cause.

            And I don’t know what their response is supposed to be to their situation. Politically, they could hardly be any more unified in support of the Democrats, and that’s gotten them nowhere. And if you look at the response of the law and order Republicans to Ferguson, it looks like the Republicans could hardly be much more unified against them and their interests.

            1. Best analysis I’ve seen in the comments here.

              Mr Lynch of the police union in NYC says that criticism of the cops is responsible for this, but I have to say that Mr Lynch himself, in fostering an atmosphere in which even clearly murderous cops are never held accountable, is far more responsible for these deaths than those demanding accountability. People like Mr Lynch make peaceful solutions impossible – and that makes violence inevitable.

  41. Rudy Giuliani: 2 NYC Cops Were Killed Because Obama Told Everyone To ‘Hate The Police’

    Obama’s antiestablishmentarianism is killing America.

  42. Nick, I love you. But we need to recognize something here. There is a climate of hate and violence growing in this country and it does not spring from an intellectual vacuum. Paul’s Ferguson statements, and perhaps even the president’s racial rhetoric, did not lead to the murder of these police officers. But the essentially Marxist narrative of America as a land of oppressors and oppressed dominates college education, popular culture through left leaning Hollywood and the music industry, and the left leaning news media. Not to mention certain social media circles. Whole segments of the black community, including privileged attendees of elite universities, believe they are victims of oppression. They have been indoctrinated to see white privilege and white racism everywhere, and they believe that every problem, setback, or struggle in life is caused by police / white depravity. In short, the far left narrative is one of hate, it has been embraced by millions of young people, some will act on their perceived victimhood, and the narrators are culpable. There is indeed blood on the hands of DeBlasio, Sharpton, a bunch of millionaire rappers, and a huge percentage of our college professors. Let’s not pretend that the far left narrative has no impact on people’s beliefs and thus behavior; or that both the American left and right engage in this sin equally.

    1. ^ This. Similarly, we’ve seen a rash of false rape claims because the left confers privileges on people who claim they’ve been sexually assaulted. As a result, if you haven’t actually been sexually assaulted, it’s socially and possibly economically beneficial to pretend you were.

      The left has created a culture among various groups of people where a) being a victim is seen as somehow making you better and more moral than everyone else, b) you are always being oppressed by white men, and c) everything that goes wrong in your life is part of a gigantic conspiracy of corporate billionaires, Republicans, and cops to keep you living in penury, misery and destitution.

      This paranoia absolutely impacts behavior and never in a good way.

      1. I agree with Pufendorf and Irish.

  43. This is a tricky area, and despite someone above claiming that nuanced statements are irresponsible, I will try anyway.

    It’s technically correct (the best kind of correct) to say that only the perpetrator of a crime is at fault, and not any third parties who may have said or done something to “encourage” it. However, we all understand that on some level, words and social attitudes can influence people’s actions. Progressives, conservatives, and yes, even libertarians do it all the time. Balko has complained about cop t-shirts that promote the “wrong attitude.” The other day some bozo was going on about how the Elf on the Shelf “promotes the surveillance state.”

    So there’s a lot of hypocrisy going around. People tend to see messages they don’t like as contributing to Larger Problems that they oppose, but refuse to see messages they do like as contributing factors to crimes that they oppose.

    1. Agreed. While I don’t blame the message and I definitely don’t support any restriction on speech, that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a connection. To claim a connection for things you support and deny any connection for things you don’t is the opposite of ‘reason’.

  44. Guy shoots girlfriend, then shoots cops. Why? I’m going to speculate that he shot his girlfriend because he did’t like her and then shot cops to ‘transform’ his image from simply an asshole who shot his girlfriend to a SJW.

    Supposedly bystanders clapped and laughed? I find that very hard to believe, but if true then claiming that this ‘movement’ and this killer are unconnected is a bit like claiming that ISIS, Taliban, Hezbolla, etc have “nothing to do with Islam”

    I know there are a lot of cop haters here, but what is the alternative to cops anyways? Private cops? People taking justice into their own hands each with their own conflicting set of laws and punishments?

    I’m curious what the full-blown cop-hating anarchist libertarians solution to law and order is (this is not sarcasm or provocation, but actual curiosity). I consider myself minarchist, but interested to hear a theory of how society works without cops, judges and juries (for example).

    1. but what is the alternative to cops anyways?

      Fewer cops.

      1. Sure, with the caveat that we decriminalize all drugs so police can focus on actual beneficial laws (i.e. homicide, assault, theft). A lot of police ‘evilness’ can be directly linked to the enforcement of drug crimes (i.e. no-knock raids), with no benefit to society for doing so.

        1. Even without changing the laws. Here’s the cycle:

          Unlike the private sector, the government NEVER downsizes. Times are bad, business gets lean and cuts jobs. The government doubles down.

          When times are good, government revenue increases. They get to the end of the year and see that they have all this money laying around. And since it’s a government imperative that taxes NEVER, under ANY circumstances, be given back to the rightful owners, our betters ask themselves…”What can we spend it on?”

          The answer is always…MOAR GOVERNMENT…so they hire a bunch of cops (or firefighters or teachers or secretaries…)

          When times turn bad, they find they don’t have the dough to pay everyone. Instead of firing the cops they didn’t need in the first place, they raise your taxes to pay them.

          You end up with more cops (government) than you need and there is nothing more dangerous than someone with authority that has too little to do.

          And that, boys and girls, is why we are in the situation we are today.

          THE END

          1. All true, but that a larger story than “do we need police” to which the answer is “in some form, yes”.

    2. More police accountability together with a dismantling of the anti-liberty laws/legislation that allow and promote the abuse of civilians by police.

      1. Totally agree. Equality of law. The ‘role’ of police will always be needed though.

    3. Privatization of police. Contract with security companies on a town by town or county by county basis, making sure to have clauses in the contract that allow for personal liability and instant termination of security officers that act out of place.

      1. I’m all for privatization of police contracted by government under a uniform law. If the misconduct of police can be linked to any one thing I think that thing would be unions and the inability to fire bad police officers.

        So let’s attack the ‘real’ problem i.e. government unions.

        1. If the laws that the police enforced were just, then the unions wouldn’t matter.

        2. You said attack!

          You incited the killing of those two cops!

          GET HIM!!!

          1. Please ….

        3. So let’s attack the ‘real’ problem i.e. government unions.

          1. To be replace with? Feudalism! Because that the default setting of society.

            1. Extremely limited government.

              (When I say government, I mean its size and scope.)

              Tenet 2:

              The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

              1. I see three legitimate functions of government:

                1) React to attacks on the people by a foreign power.

                2) Enforce criminal law – specifically reacting to the use of force and/or fraud against the people.

                3) Provide courts where the people can resolve conflicts without resorting to criminal violence.

                Government is force. That’s it. So when government acts, when force is used, it should be in reaction to force or to prevent the use of force.

                1. Yeah, that’s what I said, only with fewer words. 😉

    4. but what is the alternative to cops anyways

      There needn’t be an alternative. Utilitarianism is for cowards.

      1. In other words there should be no laws. Every man for himself.

        Such a society would almost immediately turn into a feudal system by default.

        1. Just because there are no laws, does not mean there are no rules.

    5. People taking justice into their own hands

      Might be better than where justice is right now, MIA.

      1. In practice, such a society would almost instantly transform into feudalism.

        1. You don’t think we’re living in a feudal state?

          We have the political class, their knights, and everyone else. Only the costumes have changed.

          1. Democracy isn’t feudalism. We ‘could’ change the system if we wanted to. The fact that the majority prefer false security over freedom is lamentable, but choosing to be controlled is not the same as being forced to.

            Yes, the minority of us ARE forced to. Such is the unavoidable flaw of majoritism. A true federalism would help (you could move to the state that best matches your philosophy), but Lincoln killed that a long time ago.

            All we can do is try to convince others the security they have traded their freedom for is an illusion and freedom is better.

            1. Democracy is simply substituting “the will of the people” for “the divine right of the king.”

              The end result is the same.

              1. Not quite. There are more freedoms in a democracy. The fact that you can criticize it so openly is one of these freedoms (unlike criticizing a king).

                1. A king can allow open criticism if he wants. He’s king.

                  1. And in practice? Name one.

      2. I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating.

        A coworker of mine was talking about something that happened to her neighbor. Someone broke into the neighbor’s car and stole a bunch of music discs. Well, the neighbor went to the cops and of course they didn’t do anything. The neighbor then went to the store down the road that sells used discs, and sure enough there they were. Because state law requires someone to fill in some information when they sell used discs to a store, she was able to identify the person who did it. With this information she again went to the police. After soundly mocking her for doing their job (which they had no intention of doing) they reluctantly acted on the information and busted the thief.

        Sometimes the only way to get justice is to do it yourself.

        1. I’m shocked that they actually made a bust. Usually they don’t even do that.

          1. The lady really had to push the issue. Initially they just laughed at her and weren’t going to do shit. I don’t remember how she got them to do their job. Maybe she threatened to take the information to the press or something. But she did have to push it.

  45. I don’t know where to draw the line. More than many people around here, I lean towards the “cut the police some slack, they have a tough and necessary job” attitude. At the same time, I dislike police unions, and think police are often overpaid and over-praised and get away with bad actions that they should not. I also dislike what can only be called the fanning of flames that the left, Obama, Holder, Sharpton, and the rest (including libertarians) have been doing in recent months. I don’t think demonizing the police as a whole is a good idea. Sweeping generalizations are a bad idea, and “the police are power-mad white racists who are slaughtering black men with impunity” is a particularly absurd one. And yet, that’s the tl;dr combined message of the left and libertarians about the police in recent months. So it’s not a surprise that some criminal nut decided to “do something about it.”

    1. I don’t think libertarians have been arguing that the police are racists slaughtering black men with impunity. I think libertarians have been pointing out that police behave in ways that would get any non-cop hurled into prison, yet they are held to a lower standard and never punished for their malfeasance.

      There’s the issue of competence. The guy who shot Tamir Rice did not do so because he was a racist, he did so because he was a total incompetent who never should have been on the street in the first place.

      1. ‘Some’ of the libertarians on here are advocating equality of law. I’d be in that category. To me that is the right stance. Cops are necessary, but the law needs to apply to them just like everyone else.

        However, others are unambiguously stating ‘cops are evil’ and even cheer their murder. Maybe that’s just a noisy minority that show up frequently in the comments?

        1. Well, the average police officer seems to noisily clap and cheer the death of american citizens.

          What’s wrong with a little equality?

          1. “Well, the average police officer seems to noisily clap and cheer the death of american citizens.”

            I don’t think so.

            1. I’ve overheard drunk cops talking shop, and many of them take the job because they want to get away with murder. They look up to and envy officers who have had the opportunity to kill someone. One was talking about holding his pistol to some woman’s head until she peed her pants in terror, and his buddies got a hearty laugh. When they started trading stories about how much fun it is to choke people I left. I have nothing but contempt for people who choose that profession.

              1. Condemning all cops because of your anecdote is an over-generalization. You are projecting this experience in a particular bar in a particular city in a particular state to every cop in the US?

                If you were mugged and beaten by a black gang would you blame all blacks?

                1. You are projecting this experience in a particular bar in a particular city in a particular state to every cop in the US?

                  I’ve lived in more than one city in more than one state, and cops have been the same wherever I’ve been. It’s a culture of violence and contempt for the people they supposedly serve, not just some bad apples here and there.

                  Show me an instance of cops criticizing one of their own for wronging the people they serve, and I will consider believing that good cops exist.

                  1. I’ve gotta agree with sarc.

                    The institution itself is corrupt.

                  2. Show me an instance of cops criticizing one of their own for wronging the people they serve,

                    They serve the state, and cops who do wrong to the state do sometimes get criticized.

            2. I don’t think so.

              You can be as wrong as you like. It isn’t a free country.

              1. Please lay out your solution.

                1. Please lay out your solution.

                  I already did. Eliminate unjust laws. Then the only time the police will have any just authority and power is when a just law has been broken.

                  1. Sorry, not you sarcasmic. I was replying to RussianPrimeMinster. Darn limited rely levels.

                    1. Wait. . .you’re asking me for a solution to the police clapping and cheering whenever one of their own brutally murders someone?

                      Hmmmm. . .let me think. . .

                      Get rid of them. All of them. Right now. Fire every single police officer in the entire country in one go. If that isn’t possible (unions and so forth) send them all on unlimited paid administrative leave.

                      Replace them immediately with a private security force, contracted to provide the maximum amount of accountability with the minimum amount of allowable force usage.

                      While in this state of affairs, begin working to change the laws regarding police unions and use of force by government officials.

                      With the police out of action, they will be unable to use their police powers to influence or threaten our representatives, hopefully creating an environment in which they can change the rules without fear of direct, abusive reprisal.

                      It isn’t a perfect plan, but it might actually get something done. And that’s just off the top of my head.

                      Why don’t you come up with something better? Something other than asking us what we think and then spouting that we’ll “always need the police!”.

                    2. RussianPrimeMinister,

                      Okay. So you support the idea of police, just not the current system as it is now.

                      I agree. You could have saved a lot of argument by stating that upfront instead of ‘essentially’ just yelling “fuck the police” nonsense over and over.

                    3. “The Idea” of the police is what got us into this mess, so no, you’re still wrong.

                      Shows like Cops and Law and Order gave us images of cops as being good, worthwhile people who were always up against odds that seemed insurmountable. It made us see them as people who were only fallible in situations where a “bad guy” set them up to take a fall. They’re not the only examples, obviously, but you get my point.

                      The reality of the police is far FAR removed from the idea of police.

                      This may be a semantic argument, but it’s still important. This is the main, #1 reason people like Sarc and I knee-jerk disagree when you say stupid shit like “so you DO support the police!” because NO WE FUCKING DON’T.

                      Now back the fuck up, plebe, I’ve got to stomp around to let off some of this aggression.

                    4. RussianPrimeMinister,

                      You said – “Replace them immediately with a private security force, contracted to provide the maximum amount of accountability with the minimum amount of allowable force usage.”

                      To me, that is “the idea of the police”, it’s just private instead of public. Other than that, I don’t see what the difference is you are getting at.

      2. Irish, what I said was that the combined left + libertarian message was merging into “racist cops out of control,” not that libertarians, specifically, were arguing that cops were racist.

    2. I lean towards the “cut the police some slack, they have a tough and necessary job” attitude.

      I used to have that attitude, until I was the victim of a few violent crimes. Each time I called the cops they ran me for warrants and wanted permission to search for drugs. Then they left. At this point the only time I would ever call the cops is if I needed paperwork for an insurance claim, or if I had a dead body and a damn good explanation. Other than that, calling the cops is only giving them an opportunity to bust you, the victim.

      1. I totally agree with you. I would be hesitant to call the police for anything.

        However, I still believe the role of ‘police’ in some form in society is necessary. Police unions need to be abolished and police oversight needs to be stronger and independent. In other words, ‘fix it’ don’t throw it away. Throwing it away is not even possible (although some seem to claim it is). There will always be some equivalent to police.

        1. Justice is a negative term. It is an absence of injustice. Just as dark is an absence of light and silence is an absence of sound.

          The biggest problem is that most crimes on the books to not have victims. This means that the police, by enforcing these laws, are not an instrument of justice. They are the ones committing the injustice. There is no place to go for justice since the people who are tasked with dealing out justice are the ones committing the injustices.

          Dealing with public sector unions and immunity would help, but the biggest factor is that the government and police who are duty bound to administer justice are the single greatest perpetrators of injustice.

          1. Decriminalize drugs. Reduce laws in general. That is the libertarian message that I fully support. Focus laws and enforcement on violence and theft.

            I didn’t follow your “justice is an absence of injustice” statement though. Justice is punishment for crimes after they have been already been committed to discourage future crime and to fill a human need and feeling for revenge.

            1. As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

              Bastiat

              1. Fuck Bastiat. Only cryptic knows the truth.

                1. Fuck Bastiat. Only cryptic knows the truth.

                  Apparently.

              2. Does justice exist on the moon? No.

                Justice is not the absence of injustice. It is the system of laws and punishment to reduce violence or in other words “the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning.”

                1. I dunno, the moon seems pretty Just.

                  Until the cops get there. They’ll find the flag and bust Armstrong for littering.

          2. Embarrassing pseudo-profundity. Notice how your two examples are drawn from physics. Justice is not a physical property. Life is the absence of death-see how stupid that sounds. No their something to life beyond merely the absence of its opposite. Same with justice. terms whose meaning is derived from their negation or all most non-existent in philosophical fields. Injustice has no meaning until what is just is defined.

            Honestly I don’t know anything about high level math so I don’t comment on it. I recommend the same for you when it comes to basic philosophical terms. You are completely ignorant.

            1. Harsher than I would have stated it, but agreed.

              Dark may be the absence of light, but saying that light is the absence of dark is nonsensical.

              Justice does not exist on the moon simply because there is no ‘injustice’ there.

            2. Take it up with Bastiat. You’re obviously much smarter than him.

            3. Life is the absence of death-see how stupid that sounds.

              Yeah, that does sound stupid. Death is an absence of life.

              1. 1.) Appeal to authority fallacy. Write your own arguments. Don’t point to an author you mistakenly think agrees with you and go “there”.

                2.) Misusing authority’s writings. He does not say Justice = Not Not Justice (as you did), which is a completely meaningless statement because it is a ..

                3.) Pointless tautology. What you are arguing is that

                Justice = NOT NOT Justice

                True, but also completely meaningless.

                X = NOT NOT X

                does not define what ‘X’ is. There is zero new information in this statement.

                ‘Justice’ does not exist without rules and desires (and so does not exist on the moon). If one animal kills another, is that injustice? No, that’s just nature. Only if animals got together and formed agreements between each other and then one of them breaks that agreement is there injustice.

                I didn’t mean to attack that part. I just meant to say we agree, but I don’t get ‘that’ part of what you are saying. It doesn’t make sense to me.

                1. jus?tice

                  /?j?st?s/

                  noun

                  noun: justice; plural noun: justices

                  1. just behavior or treatment.

                  “a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people”

                  synonyms:

                  fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality

                  “I appealed to his sense of justice”

                  The moon is a completely just place because there is just behavior and treatment everywhere. Nobody and nothing (that we know of) causes any sort of unjust behavior or unjust treatment anywhere on, in, or around the moon.

                  Lack of injustice is indeed justice.

                  1. RussianPrimeMinister,

                    So justice is when behavior and treatment are just? LOL. That’s almost as ‘illuminating’ as Justice = NOT NOT Justice.

                    Justice require rules based on human value judgments. Injustice is when rules are broken. Justice is when rules exist and a system is in place to encourage them not to be broken.

                    There is no injustice in the wild because there are no rules. Would you claim that there is no injustice in the wild, therefore the wild is an example complete and absolute justice? Hopefully not.

                    1. Sooo. . .anybody anywhere, with any sense of justice AT ALL can look at the huge empty vast nothingness of the moon and go “yep, that’s a completely dead, totally just world all right!”.

                      No matter whose moral compass you’re using, the lack of activity makes it a just place. We don’t physically have to be there to impose our values on it.

                    2. It’s not ‘just’, and it’s not ‘unjust’. The concept of justice doesn’t make sense in vacuum.

                      You’ve picked this position and are going to defend it no matter where it leads hmmm. Oh well.

                    3. Also, it seems tome that you’re imposing your own personal feelings onto this argument, instead of looking at the given definition and working from there. What I posted is the official definition of justice.

                      What you’re describing is law, order, and punishment.

              2. Yes the moon is dead. Rocks as well. Death is when life ceases not when no life exists at all. This is the problem you don’t know what you are talking about. And you keep flipping these absurd definitions around to fit your argument. If light is the absence of dark then the we are talking about defining a postive value by the absence of a negative. You don’t get to flip your formula around and define the negative value by the absense of a positive value. Socrates was dismissing these kind of sophistries millenias ago.

                1. dark?ness:

                  /?d?rkn?s/

                  noun

                  noun: darkness; plural noun: darknesses

                  1. the partial or total absence of light.

                  “the office was in darkness”

                  synonyms:

                  dark, blackness, gloom, dimness, murkiness, shadow, shade; More

                  light:

                  /l?t/

                  noun

                  noun: light; plural noun: lights

                  1. the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible.

                  “the light of the sun”

                  synonyms:

                  illumination, brightness, luminescence, luminosity, shining, gleaming, gleam, brilliance, radiance, luster, glowing, glow, blaze, glare, dazzle; More

                  Seems to me that you don’t actually know the definition of any of these words. You’re just an idiot with an ax to grind. If you don’t like the definition, go bitch to Webster.

                  1. You’re just an idiot with an ax to grind.

                    This may come as a shock to you, but there are quite a few people out there who really don’t like me. I have no idea why. I mean, I’m like such a likeable guy and stuff, you know?

                2. If there is no justice until there is injustice to correct, how can there be a state of justice?

                  Are you saying that justice cannot reign until first there is crime?

                  What if there is no crime? Would that not still be a state of justice?

                  That’s what I mean by defining justice as a lack of injustice.

                  1. Sam thinks he’s clever, when in fact he’s just shouting about how the fucking egg came before the fucking chicken, God damn it.

                  2. Sarcasmic,

                    How did we get into this silly semantics argument.

                    To apply your argument, the wild (nature) is ‘just’ because there is no injustice. However, animals kill each other and take things from each other and commit all sorts of general violence towards each other. We don’t call that injustice, because injustice requires human values and rules. Violence without human social context is just ‘nature’. Lack of injustice in nature does not mean nature is just.

                    If you still disagree, then fine, whatever. Let move on to arguing about whether love is the absence of hate next and whether empty space is therefore a ‘state of pure love’ or something.

      2. At this point the only time I would ever call the cops is if I needed paperwork for an insurance claim

        Lately cops can’t even be assed to do that. Unless it’s “serious” as they see it, they don’t file a page of paperwork. It’s up to you to fight with an insurance company with no real way to threaten them with court. Happened to me.

    3. I don’t think demonizing the police as a whole is a good idea.

      I wholeheartedly disagree.

      These fuckers need to clean up their houses and it needs to be done from within. If they tolerate/condone incompetence and/or criminal activity then they have an institutional problem. You may think you’re a good cop, but if you allow other cops not to be…you’re not a good cop…

      They aren’t going to change by telling them what a good job they’re doing. The change will come when they are held accountable.

      1. Any cop who turns in one of his brothers for committing crimes while in uniform will get nothing but crickets when they call for backup. If they’re not fired that is.

      2. I think everyone agrees the bad cops should be held accountable. The question is how? I advocate getting rid of police unions (the source of the problem). Privatization and having competing companies also seems like a good idea.

        I can’t tell what your solution is, but for many it seems like they are implying ‘revolution’, which is just mindless ranting and obviously would not benefit society.

        1. 1. Eliminate all laws against victimless crime.

          2. Reduce the number of cops by 92.7%, ensuring they are busy dealing with “real” crime (with victims).

          3. Ensure cops must live under the same laws we do by eliminating immunity.

          4. Make examples of the fuckups. Fire incompetent cops and prosecute the criminal cops. If convicted, they go in the same rape cages as everyone else.

          5. Eliminate ALL public sector unions (why just stop with the pigs?).

          1. Agree with all except #2. I don’t know what the right level of policing is. This is a trade-off between ‘how minor of a crime does society want to enforce’ and resources and is up to society to decide.

            1. Even minor crimes are punishable by death if the perp resists.

              Don’t believe me? Ask Eric Garner. Oh, you can’t. He was choked to death for resisting after being suspected of committing a minor crime.

              All laws should be put to a simple test: is this worth killing someone?

              1. Sarcasmic,

                “Even minor crimes are punishable by death if the perp resists.”

                This doesn’t exist in the current discussion about “what should be done”. Everyone is on the same page that the system needs to be changed, no need to keep going on about that.

                The question by me was “should there be police”, which from previous comments it seemed some people thought “no”. But now that everyone is being force to mentally confront what a real working system might look like it seems the answer is actually “yes, but private and with few laws to enforce.”

                We are all in violent agreement for the most part it seems.

                1. We are all in violent agreement for the most part it seems.

                  Then stop being such an insufferable douche. Put away your keyboard and go suck a dick.

                  1. What do you know, from my position it is you that is the insufferable douche. 😉

            2. This is a trade-off between ‘how minor of a crime does society want to enforce’ and resources and is up to society to decide.

              Define “minor crime”.

              In my world, there is no such thing. There are only a handful of crimes and NONE of them are minor.

              Murder, rape, assault, fraud, robbery. Perhaps a few others I’m not thinking of, but that’s about it. You could replace the entire Constitution with the following two tenets:

              1. A person may do anything he chooses, PROVIDED in doing so he doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

              2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

              1. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.

                -Neal Boortz

              2. A kid stealing a candy bar from a grocery store equals murder? Execute him?

                1. I didn’t say they were equal. Did I say they were equal?

                  I said they weren’t minor.

                  1. Fine, both are ‘major’ crimes according to you. What does that even mean?

                    Should the kid should be executed or put in jail for 10 years? OR is the crime order of magnitude less severe than murder and deserving of only a fine or a couple of days in jail i.e. a ‘minor’ crime.

  46. However, others are unambiguously stating ‘cops are evil’ and even cheer their murder. Maybe that’s just a noisy minority that show up frequently in the comments?

    Still waiting for the mythical “good cops” to police their own ranks.

    Until then, I’m going with “cops are evil”.

  47. Apparently if you don’t defend crooked cops as well as those who do their jobs without murdering unarmed people, you ‘hate cops.’ It is unfortunate that those cops were killed, primarily because it means that cops and their sycophant supporters will now totally justify ANY killing by a cop because the cop ‘was afraid for his/her life’ and said cop will automatically respond to someone holding NOTHING in their hands -or giving the cop a disrespectful glare- with lethal force.

    1. So. . .nothing will change?

      1. No. It’s going to get worse. A lot worse.

    2. I mentioned something along those lines in a different thread this morning and ‘the artist formerly dunphy’ jumped on me for it.

      1. With his bear hands?

      2. I SAID BEAR HANDS! AS IN THE HANDS OF A BEAR! THOSE ARE HANDS THAT PEOPLE DO NOT NORMALLY HAVE, AND THEREFORE THIS IS FUNNY! LAUGH, OR I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THE JOKE UNTIL YOU DO!

        BEAR. HANDS.

  48. NFL break: It looks like Joe Franco is quarterbacking the Ravens.

  49. It certainly complicates things that the shooter was Muslim and was known to have visited a terror-linked Brooklyn mosque, doesn’t it?

    1. I hear he also liked butternut squash.

      1. Right, because we’re always hearing about butternut squash devotees advocating and committing terrorist violence.

        1. Yeah. You almost NEVER hear about non-muslims killing cops.

  50. OK, so Tulpa’s on here as Dekikon and is being a retarded moron as usual, The Whole Truth is on here as Tulpa and is being an eristic moron as usual, and we have one or two honest cop apologist trolls. Do I have it about right?

    1. Do me! Do me!

      1. I think this is the first instance of someone voluntarily using this phrase on Warty EVER. You, sir, are inhumanely brave.

    2. It’s a weekend so there are at least 3 Tulpa socks up there.

  51. Lauren . I see what you mean… Russell `s comment is unimaginable… I just received Maserati since I been making $7685 this – four weeks past and in excess of 10k last-munth . it’s certainly the most-comfortable job I’ve ever had . I began this six months/ago and pretty much immediately was bringin home more than $77… p/h . take a look at the site here

    ????????MONEYKIN?????????

  52. Public unionization of police officers appears to be an incentive towards pushing certain boundaries.

    Is anyone aware of any stories detailing the actions of a private security guard using deadly force who was not prosecuted or otherwise disciplined? How are incidents involving private security guards adjudicated?

    Although anecdotal, this might provide some insight on the private vs. public policing question.

    1. Public unionization of police officers appears to be an incentive towards pushing certain boundaries.

      Public Unions don’t want anyone fired and not firing cops give them no incentive to be less brutal or shoot less.

  53. So does this meant the IRA and the Taliban deserve an apology? They like killing cops.

    1. When has this place been against the Taliban?

      I mean, there’s very little difference from Reason’s view on foreign policy than say, Chomsky.

    2. I always thought they preferred killing soldiers and women, respectively.

      1. Well the Taliban just killed some cops:
        http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..checkpoint

  54. If you think that killing two aggressors whose occupation is to threaten the use of deadly force against those who disobey the whims of sociopaths who win popularity contests is “horrific” and “unjustifiable,” then you are a not a libertarian.

    1. Some of us might not have any sympathy left for your average police officer, but that doesn’t mean that we advocate violence.

      We actually advocate non-violence for both the citizenry and the police. A combination of criminal law reduction and violence reduction would improve the country by several factors.

      1. That’s good to hear. Feeling contempt for a group is one thing, but actively advocating violence against them is quite another.

      2. I do not advocate violence against agents of the state (not yet, anyway). I think it is tactically unwise (for now). But the moral case for whether such an act is justifiable is quite different.

  55. I’ll just leave the juxtaposition here…

    A black man kills two police officers because he hates what they represent and is attacking them based on rhetoric from various race-bating/anti-police groups.

    A muslim man kills two police officers because he hates what they represent and is attacking them based on rhetoric from various jihadist groups.

    1. In both situations, America is probably slightly better off without them.

      That being said, they’re both equally murder.

      1. OK, but do you assign blame to either of the rhetoric groups?

        1. Yep. the same way I assign blame to cops that murder people.

          Just because I feel antipathy or hatred towards one group doesn’t mean I will countenance the actions of another.

  56. The question by me was “should there be police”

    This is a completely frivolous and obfuscatory question. Try asking if the police in this country can ever be made accountable for crimes against the people they are ostensibly sworn to serve and protect. Ask if we can find our way back to a place in which an American may assert his equality of status with a cop without taking his life in his hands.

    1. “should there be police”

      Kind of a mute question isn’t it? You’re always going to have them one way or another whether you call them police, viglantes, enforcers, or whatever.

      1. This isn’t a moot question to pure anarchists who don’t believe in any level of government.

        This is why I asked. I don’t understand how a pure anarchist system is supposed to work. Apparently neither does anyone else.

  57. The distance between such rantings and, even worse, the act of shooting policemen sitting in a patrol car is so vast that they simply have no relation to legitimate and even impassioned criticism of the militarization of police and the protesting of specific acts of apparent injustice.

    Some good selective quoting there, Nick. Now, what’s the distance between protesting the death of Michael Brown and putting “#RIPMikeBrown” in an Instagram post?

    We’ve got people upset about Mike Brown who speak about it; we’ve got people upset about Mike Brown who go to rallies to speak about it; we’ve got people upset about Mike Brown who harass random innocent people by shutting down traffic about it; we’ve got people upset about Mike Brown who attack the property of random innocent people by committing arson about it; and we’ve got a person upset about Mike Brown who went out and committed a double homicide about it.

    There’s no imaginative leap being made here like in the Kennedy or Giffords shootings; we’ve got a continuous chain from talk to homicide. The speakers are not culpable, but they are indubitably linked.

  58. They got shot because they were cops. What do cops dp lately? Abuse their powers and step on the rights of citizens. Citizens finally had enough and are taking these punk cops out. Deal with it, getting shot at comes with the badge.

    http://www.AnonBay.tk

    1. Cuz cop-killing terrorists have such a great track record of not killing innocents or not having thug cops once they take power.

      1. Uh, your responding to a bot.

      1. Anonbot just went full SKYNET !!

        1. It went Skynet last night. We’re currently looking for the plug.

    2. I see what you are doing. If you can convince humans to kill each other, they will either (A) be that much easier to conquer or (B) turn the launch codes over to a rational, calculating being like you. Maybe both.

      I’m on to your game, Anon-bot.

  59. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, even if they were inspired by a movement. That’s a given.

    But it should be noted that a fringe of the left have always advocated violence as a response to injustice. Militant rhetoric and calls for revolution? That’s their playbook. And we’re not talking about some generic “let’s lock and load” call for action. We’re talking “kill all cops” type of lines from people who are organizing protests.

    There was a facebook page dedicated to Dorner when he went on a killing spree. There was an explosion of glee in social media when two minority officers were executed. Those (almost completely white) who protested the death of Kelly Thomas would not have celebrated vigilante justice in any form. They actually recalled a number of their city officials.

    If you advocated murder of your opponents online and then celebrated their deaths in social media, you’re guilty of anything. You’re just human trash, and you never accuse someone else of creating some sort toxic environment that breeds radical behavior.

  60. The lowlife that murdered two policemen is ultimately responsible. However, the tone of Democratic politicians from Obama on down, not to mention Al Sharpton, has been to exaggerate the extent of shootings by police and downplay crime in minority communities. Attacking police for political gain has increased animosity toward police. Who knows how that influences a deranged loser.

    1. I don’t think anyone is exaggerating the extent to which police are thugs. If anything, even Progs downplay it because engaging it honestly would make their god (the state) look bad, so they are put in a position of arguing that racism, or capitalism, or something else which they claim to oppose taints the police, facing the awful reality would undo their whole worldview.

  61. Hey, saw Banjos upthread. How are the little tax write offs doing?

  62. Now Reason is going back to “individual personal responsibility”, when Rand Paul a few weeks sounded like a typical “it’s society’s fault” liberal?

  63. Al Sharpton and Bill DeBlasio are directly responsible for the climate here in NYC. The Garner case was an atrocity, but not because the officer who leveraged him down wasn’t indicted, there are three parts to the situation:
    1. Stupid law, criminalizing the pettiest of things. Blame Cuomo and the state legislature. DeBlasio ordered a crack down on this behavior 1 month before the Garner incident, then Chief of Department Banks ordered the surveillance in Tompkinsville, SI which lead to the arrest.
    2. Garner resisted arrest and the headlock employed to bring him down was not a chokehold and didn’t kill him.
    3. What killed him was the fools standing around watching him struggle to breathe while laying face down, his own weight compressing his chest, this after they were kneeling on him trying to get the cuffs on. They should have sat him up and they should have realized he was in trouble. Even the EMS didn’t act urgent about the situation when they finally got there. Seargent Kizzy Adoni, who was in charge of this crew, is the one who should be disciplined and charged with negligent homicide.

    1. There is 0 chance of the press criticizing Banks or Adoni, due to political correctness. Daniel Pantaleo didn’t have their PC cover, so was a good one to pin the blame on. Also, nobody will dare challenge Cuomo or DeBlasio for their adding to the increased criminalization of minor ticketing offenses. DeBlasio then went on to attack the police department (for following his orders) allow unchecked marches that turned violent. Two police officers were assaulted by the mob last week and the same night hundreds of people marched down the street screaming “What do we want? Dead cops!” If this sound similar to the Sharpton protest in DC, it is because his organization, NAN, organized the NYC one simultaneously. Sharpton incites it, DeBlasio refuses to back up police, gas on the fire.
      We need to talk about over militarization of the police, no knock warrants, ill-trained cops and a hosts of other issues. What we don’t need is targets on the backs of a police department who are forced into arresting people for ever increasing nanny-state laws. It is like Obama decrying militarized police; who the F*&% does he think gave them the military surplus tanks etc, to begin with?

      1. What we don’t need is targets on the backs of a police department who are forced into arresting people for ever increasing nanny-state laws.

        No one is forced into enforcing nanny-state laws. There are many options for a conscientious objector in the police force, such as avoiding escalation and being selective about which laws he enforces. The worst penalty he could face is termination, which I would think is a small price to pay for the privilege of upholding his conscience.

        Nothing excuses the politicians, the race baiters, the bombasts, or the murderers. But the notion that cops are at the mercy of the lawmakers is complete and utter bullshit. If my boss told me to do something I found unethical, my resignation would immediately follow. I expect no less of anyone else.

  64. Al Sharpton and Bill DeBlasio are NOT directly responsible for the climate here in NYC.

    The following are the reasons for the Anti-Police Climate in NYC and America:

    1. The “Broken Window Policing Policy” put in place by William Bratton many years ago in which selling loose cigarettes is an arrestable offense. In fact, Eric Garner didn’t even Sell that day. He was being arrested for Pissing the cops off.

    2. The Choke-Hold along with several Police Officers on top of Eric Garner while he squeeled ‘I can’t breath’ several times.

    3. The District Attorney Acting as the Police’s defense attorney in the Grand Jury. Although four officers were involved, three were given immunity so that they can testify and defend the fourth Officer (their friend).

    4. The Police defending each and every act of misconduct by other police officers.

    1. And btw,

      Had Eric Garner used the “Take down” method on Officer Pantaleo and three of Eric Garner’s friends had jumped on top of Officer Pantaleo, The same District Attorney would not had given the three friends of Eric Garner immunity in a grand jury hearning. It would had been MURDER ONE for all four.

      Plus, the officers had no reasonable suspicion let alone probable cause to arrest Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes merely because he did it before. They attempted to arrest him because he was having a verbal argument with Officer Pantaleo and the officer got pissed off.

      1. No. They were sent specifically to pick him up after multiple complaints and surveillance. http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.1893790
        I suppose they could have all quit their jobs and he could have not resisted arrest, called a lawyer and sued the shyte out of the department for harassment over petty crimes. http://nypost.com/2014/08/14/n…..er-arrest/

  65. Whether or not criticism, even strident criticism of the police influenced this guy is irrelevant. The only thing worth considering is whether or not the criticism was justified. With very few exceptions, criticism of the police has been merited. If I say a bunch of mean things about Neo-Nazis and someone decides to go kill a few of them after hearing me, I am not to blame, and nothing I said about the Neo-Nazis is any more or less true because of it. As long as one doesn’t advocate violence, the only culpability they deserve is based on if their argument was a good one or not. The criticism of America’s police forces was certainly justified, so someone committing murder in response to it is neither here nor there, the only person culpable for the murder is the murderer. Now, if someone supports authoritarianism, makes excuses for the police when they murder innocent people, and blames people like Tamir Rice and Eric Garner for what happened to them, those people are morally culpable for future murders committed by cops.

    1. should be “are partly morally culpable for future murders committed by cops.”

    2. Only the actor or direct conspirators of Murder are responsible for Murder.

      Blaming the Media, Al Shapton, the KKK, Metallica, Marilyn Manson, GWB, the Devil, God, Israel, Muslims, etc doesn’t count.

  66. i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is……………………….

    Great Deal Freely Just Check Out…. http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  67. Thanks Nick, you took the words right out of my head. I definitely
    needed the oxygen, now if I could only find the apparatus that filters
    centuries of cause and effect. We all just might have to find those ancient dormant gills instead– breathing is definitely subjective. Like watching the fog roll in, visibility is the platform from which we base all knowledge.

  68. $6370 , I didnt believe that my brother was realy earning money in there spare time at their computer. . there moms best frend had bean doing this for less than seventeen months and by now repayed the loans on their cottage and got a brand new Porsche 911 .
    navigate to this site ==—-==—- http://www.jobsfish.com

  69. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  70. just before I saw the receipt which said $5461 , I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actually bringing in money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this 4 only about twenty months and by now paid the mortgage on there house and purchased themselves a Audi Quattro . this link………..www.netjob70.com

  71. Distributor Meja Kantor Dan Kursi Kantor Murah Berkualitas

    Distributor Meja Kantor Dan Kursi Kantor Murah Berkualitas – Disini Kami Menjual Berbagai jenis kursi kantor dan Meja Kantor dengan harga yang murah akan kami tawarkan kepada anda
    Kursi Kantor

    Meja Kantor

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.