Five Dead in Las Vegas Shooting

[DaveTN]

I remember once in a vehicle stop seminar one of the instructors told us that discussing the real life deaths of Police Officers as examples can be tough; especially if it an Officer you knew. But it is done and we learned from it so we didn’t make the same mistakes.

I think what the victim did was extraordinary. Not many people would do it or even have the ability to react fast enough under stress to do it. We don’t have to take anything away from him to learn from what happened. Like a cop, when everyone else was running from the danger; he confronted it. Those situations are micro seconds quick and he missed a perp.

It’s hard not to have tunnel vision when you are engaging an armed perp; I know I have done it. When you aren’t dressed it’s a cops uniform its much worse. You have to have your head on a swivel and watch everyone. Another armed citizen could be walking in on your situation and not know if you are a good guy or a bad guy. Have a plan on how you will deal with people in the vicinity.

Three innocent people lost their lives because two dirt bags were pretty sure they wouldn’t get shot. The victim that reacted and engaged the shooters is a hero; the fact that he got ambushed doesn’t change that.

[Chucktshoes]

[URL]http://c4ss.org/content/28140?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+c4ss+%28Center+for+a+Stateless+Society%29[/URL] Here is another article with a slightly different perspective than the one I posted before. Still from anarchist position but offering a different a view.

[Ted S.]

http://c4ss.org/content/28140?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+c4ss+%28Center+for+a+Stateless+Society%29

Here is another article with a slightly different perspective than the one I posted before. Still from anarchist position but offering a different a view.

 

I like that article. Way more in line with my thinking.

 

"Today is a day to recognize that the death of these police officers was a detriment, not a triumph, in the fight for freedom: An example of sinking to the level of statism. We must be better than that. We are better than that. So instead of shooting a cop when he’s grabbing some pizza, join him. Pick up a slice and talk with him about why liberty is so important. Pizza and ideas: Those are the keys to freedom."

 

Makes me want pizza for some reason though.....

[diablo982]

Never mind. Edited June 13, 2014 by diablo982

[Chucktshoes]

Well, ain't this a whole new wrinkle.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/drug-war-blowback-vegas-murderers-were-police-informants/

 

 

 

Jerad and Amanda Miller, who were banished from Bunkerville by supporters of Cliven Bundy, had worked as informants for Nevada law enforcement agencies. After the Millers murdered three people — Las Vegas Metro Officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo, and Joseph Wilcox, an armed citizen who heroically tried to stop their rampage — their former handlers claimed that they were unaware of the couple’s “anti-police sentiments.” That claim is difficult to credit, given that Jerad Miller had a lengthy criminal record, and the fact that the couple had made itself very prominent in protests associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Jerad Miller, who was mired in the probation system because of narcotics convictions, was precisely the kind of person whose vulnerabilities make him valuable as an informant and provocateur.

The Millers were among many hundreds of people who traveled to Bunkerville, Nevada to support rancher Cliven Bundy in his confrontation with the BLM. They may well have been the only volunteers who were asked to leave because of concerns regarding what was described as their “aggressive nature and volatility.” During their brief visit, however, Jerad was interviewed by the local NBC affiliate, which meant that he was depicted as representative of the people who had rallied to the Bundy family’s cause.

Predictably, following the couple’s subsequent killing spree critics of Cliven Bundy claimed that the rancher, his supporters, and the entire “insurrectionist right” shared collective responsibility for that crime. Honest people who aren’t imprisoned in collectivist ideology would recognize that rather than being radicalized by so-called anti-government extremists, Jerad Miller is more properly seen as a living example of “blowback” in the government’s war on drugs.

 

 

 

[Ted S.]

 

Well, ain't this a whole new wrinkle.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/drug-war-blowback-vegas-murderers-were-police-informants/

 

That pretty much solidifies the process of manufacturing pseudo-events. Media skews information in their favor while it feeds the ratings and people are paying attention, and once bigger stories control the attention of the general public, damning information surfaces. I doubt it will gain any mainstream attention.

[DaveTN]

Jerad Miller is more properly seen as a living example of “blowback” in the government’s war on drugs.

He is by the drug addicts that are breaking into our homes and stealing our stuff. Sure, let’s slow down drug enforcement. Let’s see how many more burglaries and robberies there are when the risk of arrest is reduced. Or the murder of innocent people when these derelicts are in a drug induced stupor.

[TrickyNicky]

He is by the drug addicts that are breaking into our homes and stealing our stuff. Sure, let’s slow down drug enforcement. Let’s see how many more burglaries and robberies there are when the risk of arrest is reduced. Or the murder of innocent people when these derelicts are in a drug induced stupor.

How exactly is the threat of arrest for B&E or theft reduced by correcting our drug policy?

[TMF]

I don't buy the argument that we should have laws which restrict freedom simply because of what people might do. Tomorrow one of the 15 million owners of an AR15 might go on a shooting spree and kill a bunch of folks. Doesn't mean my rifle should be taken away. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

He is by the drug addicts that are breaking into our homes and stealing our stuff. Sure, let’s slow down drug enforcement. Let’s see how many more burglaries and robberies there are when the risk of arrest is reduced. Or the murder of innocent people when these derelicts are in a drug induced stupor.

Yes because treating a health issue as a law enforcement issue has been sooooo effective thus far. :lol: give me a ####in break. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I have still yet to see how anyone can make a cogent moral case for exercising prior restraint on an individual's liberty because of what they "might" do at some point to abuse it. "Drugs are bad and will ruin your life, so if I catch you with them I will arrest you, throw you in jail, and ruin your life," has never made a damn lick of sense to me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Edited June 20, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[K191145]

That pretty much solidifies the process of manufacturing pseudo-events. Media skews information in their favor while it feeds the ratings and people are paying attention, and once bigger stories control the attention of the general public, damning information surfaces. I doubt it will gain any mainstream attention.

 

According to Gallup, many are catching on to the media.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx

 

Unfortunatly though, if people can't hear the truth about a story because there's no media large enough to counter the bias, activisim and LIES, (call it what it really is), they will remain ignorant and believe the first reports. I am guilty myself of making a quick judgement as soon as I hear some news stories but i'm trying to tell myself to WAIT, don't believe what they say or report because the story will most likely change several times until the media and others have the story they want you to hear, but eventually some truth will leak out over time from smaller sources.

[Pain103]

So what exactly does being arrested for drug charges or even being an informant have to do with murdering 3 people? Nothing! There was no reason and you can't twist or blame any law or drug control policy for someone's action. People are born with brains to reason their decisions and they chose to be scum and murder people.

[DaveTN]

How exactly is the threat of arrest for B&E or theft reduced by correcting our drug policy?

It’s the threat of being arrested on drug charges being reduced that will increase drug use. Stealing is how these dirt bags get their drug money. I can’t begin to guess how many arrests I have made of burglar’s, thieves, and armed robbers; the most common reason given for committing their crimes; “I needed drug money”.

Don’t let these losers try to make you believe it is somehow our drug laws that caused this. Jerad Miller stole cars to get his money. By the end he decided to murder innocent people. No one is responsible for this except the Millers. For someone to claim this is “blowback” from drug enforcement they have to be ignorant or high.

[tnguy]

So what exactly does being arrested for drug charges or even being an informant have to do with murdering 3 people? Nothing! There was no reason and you can't twist or blame any law or drug control policy for someone's action. People are born with brains to reason their decisions and they chose to be scum and murder people.

 

Quite possibly they were effectively being blackmailed to be informants. Now, that's no excuse for what they did but I imagine it could be something that would upset a person.
 

[tnguy]

It’s the threat of being arrested on drug charges being reduced that will increase drug use.

 

Junkies are junkies. They're addicted. Threat of arrest will do little to prevent them thieving to pay for their habit. What will prevent them from thieving to pay for their habit is to make the drugs affordable by removing the artificial restriction on supply or getting them some help so they can get clean. I'm no fan of drugs* but the money would be far better spent on rehabilitation.

 

Pot itself should be decriminalized by end-of-day tomorrow, no questions asked. That it isn't shows there's more to this whole "war on drugs" business than common sense and logic.

 

(*Caffeine, alcohol and ibuprofen excepted)

Edited June 20, 2014 by tnguy

[Chucktshoes]

It’s the threat of being arrested on drug charges being reduced that will increase drug use. Stealing is how these dirt bags get their drug money. I can’t begin to guess how many arrests I have made of burglar’s, thieves, and armed robbers; the most common reason given for committing their crimes; “I needed drug money”.

Don’t let these losers try to make you believe it is somehow our drug laws that caused this. Jerad Miller stole cars to get his money. By the end he decided to murder innocent people. No one is responsible for this except the Millers. For someone to claim this is “blowback” from drug enforcement they have to be ignorant or high.

Of those burglars, thieves and armed robbers, how many of them were locked out of the legitimate job market due to convictions for possession? Can you begin to guess at that number? Many folks can do the illicit drug of their choice on a recreational basis and maintain themselves as a productive member of society just as many people can drink alcohol and not end up on skid row hustling for spare change in front of Walgreens. The difference between the two is that if someone is a drunk they don't get thrown in jail on felony possession charges for having a 40 in a paper bag.

 

That aside, I am still waiting for an explanation on how it is morally justified to tell someone what they can or cannot choose to personally ingest into their own body. I seem to remember lots of folks getting all up in arms about Bloomberg attempting to ban big gulps. 

[TrickyNicky]

 
That aside, I am still waiting for an explanation on how it is morally justified to tell someone what they can or cannot choose to personally ingest into their own body. I seem to remember lots of folks getting all up in arms about Bloomberg attempting to ban big gulps.

That's different. Soda fits into the conservative agenda.


<END SARCASM>

[DaveTN]

Of those burglars, thieves and armed robbers, how many of them were locked out of the legitimate job market due to convictions for possession? Can you begin to guess at that number?

I taught my kids that being convicted of a felony, DUI or domestic violence would impact their job opportunities. Owners don’t want thieves, drunks or those that can’t control their anger in the workplace. We live in a society that will judge you. Are you suggesting that felon’s thieves and drunks become a protected group and have to be hired?
 

That aside, I am still waiting for an explanation on how it is morally justified to tell someone what they can or cannot choose to personally ingest into their own body. I seem to remember lots of folks getting all up in arms about Bloomberg attempting to ban big gulps.

Really? Does a big gulp cause you to stick a gun in someones face and take their money?

[Chucktshoes]

I taught my kids that being convicted of a felony, DUI or domestic violence would impact their job opportunities. Owners don’t want thieves, drunks or those that can’t control their anger in the workplace. We live in a society that will judge you. Are you suggesting that felon’s thieves and drunks become a protected group and have to be hired?

Not at all, employers should be completely free to employ or not whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish. But the next bit of that paragraph that you conveniently ignored already answered your question. Mere possession or use of an item does not necessarily result in an inability to function in life. Just as some folks can drink responsibly, some folks can use other intoxicants responsibly. I am stating that drug possession and other mala prohibita "crimes" aren't really crimes at all and should not result in a felony conviction. Mala prohibita IS mala en se.

Really? Does a big gulp cause you to stick a gun in someones face and take their money?

Putting a gun in someone's face is a choice. While addiction may be a reason someone chooses to do it, it isn't an excuse for the action and does not absolve someone from the consequences of that choice. Now, as far as the big gulp goes, the Bloombergs of the world say that obesity is a public health issue that has costs to society as a whole. Folks who are obese consume more health care. That raises insurance rates. Also, the poor tend to have higher rates of obesity. That means the government picks up their health care costs. In my view, if the government is picking up the tab, that means the government is sticking a gun in lots of folks' faces demanding the money in the form of taxation. So if you want to go down that road, what's worse? An individual putting one gun in one person's face and taking the risk of getting their just due in the form of an armed citizen defending themselves, or a group of people accountable to nearly no one sticking lots of guns in lots of people's faces and killing those who resist? You know my pick. All that to say that once again, you attempt to dodge the question. Justify the prior restraint on the individual's liberty that you advocate. What is the moral basis for denying someone the ability to make choices (even bad ones) for themselves that are not a direct aggression on another human being?