When should you shoot a cop? - Larken Rose

[jts]

14:22

[syrakusos]

Here is the original article.

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

Like the video, it is shallow and ignorant. I went to the home page and followed the story about the K-9 officer who kicked her partner. I watched the YNN video clip several times. I have no opinion. It is just as easy to see her push the dog with her foot. I did not see any anger or malice in the motion.

Overall, I am not impressed. Here in Texas, even in Austin - "This is the most liberal city in Texas" ... "Heck, it's the only liberal city in Texas." - I am often shocked by the excessive force that shows up in the local news. Be that as it may, these "Copblock" guys do not instill any confidence.

[caroljane]

When should you shoot a cop? Whenever you want...to go to prison.

[syrakusos]

Daunce, prison is not an option. Shooting a law enforcement officer is a capital offense. It is a federal crime which supersedes state-level laws on homicide. Of course, you live in Canada. Maybe things are different there.

Dogs have personalities, too. Once, I was working as a security guard in a campus police force. First a.m., as we assemble, the one cop says to the other K9 Officer that the K9 dog bit him. The other K9 Office, "How many times have I told you to stay away from the sharp end of the dog?" Just to say, dogs haver personalities, too. These Cop Stop guys have no interest in the dog. They just like to bitch about the police.

[caroljane]

Daunce, prison is not an option. Shooting a law enforcement officer is a capital offense. It is a federal crime which supersedes state-level laws on homicide. Of course, you live in Canada. Maybe things are different there.

Dogs have personalities, too. Once, I was working as a security guard in a campus police force. First a.m., as we assemble, the one cop says to the other K9 Officer that the K9 dog bit him. The other K9 Office, "How many times have I told you to stay away from the sharp end of the dog?" Just to say, dogs haver personalities, too. These Cop Stop guys have no interest in the dog. They just like to bitch about the police.

You're right, it is different here, there is no death penalty anywhere in Canada, no supersession required.

I did not watch the vid because I avoid reports about puppies, kittens etc. I am no big animal lover but just helplessly mawkishly sentimental and sad story or feel-good story, I will end up crying. I mean, I enjoy crying as much as the next person, but there is a limit.

[jts]

Did anyone listen to the video all the way to the end? He is talking about opposing tyranny. He is not talking about a crazy person shooting a cop whenever he damn well feels like it. He is talking about the people versus a tyrannical government like Hitler or Stalin. The Founding Fathers wanted the people to have guns and to be better armed than the government so that if it came to a war between the people and the government, the people would win.

Besides that, is he correct that the supreme court ruled that in some circumstance you can legally shoot a cop dead? Legally. Within the law.

[caroljane]

The Founding Fathers wanted the people to have guns and to be better armed than the government so that if it came to a war between the people and the government, the people would win.

Oh, so that was the reason! I always thought it was so that the citizens* could defend themselves from attacking Indians on the way home from church.

It's true, you learn something new every day.

*This included the Quakers. If they felt overwhelming impulses to shoot the Indians in defence of the meeting house, they could stay true to their pacifist principles and shoot themselves. Most of the FFs were Quakers as leading Constitutional scholars have proven.

[caroljane]

Further to previous jts, now that you have cleared up the question of what the Founding Fathers really wanted in 1776, maybe you could give Ed Hudgins a hand in deciding what the American electorate really wanted in 2012.

[syrakusos]

Did anyone listen to the video all the way to the end? He is talking about opposing tyranny. He is not talking about a crazy person shooting a cop whenever he damn well feels like it. He is talking about the people versus a tyrannical government like Hitler or Stalin. The Founding Fathers wanted the people to have guns and to be better armed than the government so that if it came to a war between the people and the government, the people would win.

Besides that, is he correct that the supreme court ruled that in some circumstance you can legally shoot a cop dead? Legally. Within the law.

Yes, I watched it all the way through, and yes, as usual, JTS, you are full of bullshit. Please understand that this is the first time in ten years on Objectivist sites that I said that to anyone. You, JTS, are especially stupid. Please allow me to open your chimpanzee brain and pour this inside:

John Bad Elk versus the United States (10:28 into the video)

A related case is US Supreme Court Case John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900) 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, where a man was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing a police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest the man, because, at the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter. Runyan v. State is further supported by additional cases such as Miller v. State (1881) 74 Ind. 1., Jones v. State (1888) 26 Tex.App. 1, 9 S.W. 53, 8 Am.St.Rep. 454, Beaverts v. State (1878) 4 Tex.App. 175, Skidmore v. State (1875) 43 Tex. 93 (http://en.wikipedia...._(United_States)_

Read the actual ruling here on Justicia. Note that this involved two Tribal policemen in North Dakota. One was sent to arrest the other who declared the arrest unlawful. The US Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the jury had not been informed that it could find for manslaughter, rather than capital murder. Either way, it was (and is) wrong to shoot a police officer.

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if, in the course of that resistance, the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter."

Here is an easy to read article from the Huffington Post explaining another new law referenced by other crazy right wingers: http://www.huffingto..._b_1596846.html

That article includes a link to the Indiana law itself here:

http://www.in.gov/le...E/SE0001.1.html

Note that this is a LAW passed by the legislature of a STATE in response to a state supreme court decision.

Like a poorly maintained firearm, JTS goes off half-cocked. When the USA Constitution was created police did not exist. The London Metropolitan was formed in 1829. New York, Boston, and Philadelphia created forces in the 1830s. As further evidence of the total ignorance of both the right wing nutcase and his acolyte JTS the horrible atrocities cited were not carried out by police at all, but first by the army and then also by pro-government vigilantes and illicit death squads. Generally, the police are usually excluded as unreliable. Totalitarian regimes rely on multiple enforcement agencies that exclude and supersede the police.

PDS, you slipped in ahead of me, but let me say that as clearly as I understand your caveat, I trust that no one who really pays attention will be fooled. That said, I must add that JTS is not the only conservative gun nut and conspiracy theorist here. They infect Objectivism from some misunderstanding about traditional, frontier American values.

[PDS]

What bothers me about JTS is his willingness to pollute MSK's site with inane headlines that do a disservice to this site. He leaves an awful lot of mud on the carpet, and first time visitors and other random guests are undoubtedly led astray about the nature of the discourse around here. I realize this is MSK's policy, and that he is the opposite of heavy-handed about such things, but let's not kid ourselves that there aren't negative consequences to the light touch.

[caroljane]

jts, I seldom watch your videos, unless they are like Dog Entertains Baby, which is my fave and I have watched twice and thanks for it. As you see from above though, other people do watch them, which I presume to be a main aim of yours, and in a perverse way I admire you for achieving it.

You know that everytime you post one of these things, an OLer like MEM will challenge you on the facts. Look what you made him do, you provoked him to a level of insult to which he would not otherwise descend. You know I will whack you upside the head, not everytime just to keep in practice, not because I know or care what the video is about, but because you irk me. You know that WSS will occasionally sighingly try to reason with you, hardly a fun job for anybody. You know that you will provoke our reactions and if you enjoy them, good for you. You don't seem to get much enjoyment out of life otherwise.

And you know that onlookers will read the post and hear the message, and if that gives you a sense of achievement, good for you. Some of them will agree with you although they won't tell you so and you can never know for sure, but on probabilities you will have spread the word a little. The dumb, misspelled word.

You are not that bad of a propagandist. I've seen worse. Well, I'm sure I've seen somebody worse somewhere. By bad propagandist I mean BAD AT PROPAGANDA. The stuff you propagandize is not uniformly bad, technically speaking.

Thus in the aforementioned perverse way I have to hand it to you. Like Ed Hudgins and Gulch, you keep plugging.

[caroljane]

What bothers me about JTS is his willingness to pollute MSK's site with inane headlines that do a disservice to this site. He leaves an awful lot of mud on the carpet, and first time visitors and other random guests are undoubtedly led astray about the nature of the discourse around here. I realize this is MSK's policy, and that he is the opposite of heavy-handed about such things, but let's not kid ourselves that there aren't negative consequences to the light touch.

I can't agree that the inane headlines would do much damage. They could easily be satire headlines, and caveat lector about headlines anyway. However, I have had too much fun in serious discussion about whether Rumsfeld was a Lizard Person to be unbiased on this.

[caroljane]

Oh my galt, I just realized what I implied in my #11.

Ed Hudgins and Gulch8, you are in no way like jts, and I deeply apologize for inadverdently giving rise to the impression that you might be.