…shoot ‘em.
“Time to end this,” bellowed Meade, according to Klocker. “Enough is enough.” From a distance of six to seven feet, Meade fired eight shots into the car, murdering Meservey.
|
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage
« NYC council hopeful pleads Fifth Amendment in lawsuit involving ACORN frontgroup Working Families Party [Darleen Click] | Home | Evangelical atheists fire first shot … [Darleen Click] »
November 2, 2009
When in Doubt… [JHoward]
69 Comments ::: Post a comment »RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=15474 Leave a commentIf you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. |
||
|
Comment by Bob Reed on 11/2 @ 9:34 am #
DWI is a capital crime now…Who knew!
Comment by bigbooner on 11/2 @ 9:51 am #
I live in the area and they did leave some info out of this story. Some bystander was knocked down (either by the fence or the car it was unclear in original reports) so it seems that should have been in the story. You NEVER reach into a car to grab the keys unless your want to go for a ride. Lastly, in the state of Washington we have a law where the bartenders are held liable for “getting” a guy this drunk. I wonder if his daughter is suing the bar too?
Comment by agile_dog on 11/2 @ 9:55 am #
I’ll say it up front, so people don’t get the wrong idea: The driver shouldn’t have been murdered. Now, having said that, let me ask this: How do you stop someone who:
1) is very drunk
2) so drunk that they were not incapacitated by a taser shot
3) behind the wheel of a running automobile
4) has already demonstrated that they are willing to try and drive out of there
Shooting him 8 times isn’t the answer. But what is? I.m asking this as a real question – how WOULD you stop someone in that circumstance? If you think you could reach in and take the keys like the article writer suggested, you must not care about your limbs. And since he already tried to ram his way out, waiting for him to fall asleep doesn’t sound like it would work, either. Quick, you have a drunk armed with a motor vehicle and citizen witnesses – what do you do?
Comment by Eben on 11/2 @ 10:09 am #
Well, according to the rules, and the other officer there, you escalate to pepper spray. If that doesn’t work you escalate to physical force, with proper back up. If that doesn’t work, you can always call the dog catcher and shoot him with a tranq, which would be more appropriate than hot lead, I do believe.
Comment by JHo on 11/2 @ 10:10 am #
If there are two competent attorneys in the courtroom, agile_dog, and more importantly, a jury equipped with twelve independent minds, we’re about to find out.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/2 @ 10:42 am #
“Both Meade and Klocker withdrew their portable electro-shock torture devices (more commonly called Tasers)”
[eye roll]
While the story was written in typical leftist “cops are jackbooted murdering thugs!” hyperbole, the idea you need to plug a drunk guy whose brandishing no weapon, while his car is blocked in is ridiculous.
Reaching for the keys though? Also ridiculous. But less so. You don’t do it because he could have a weapon, and, as bigbooner said, you don’t want to go for a ride. Even if it’s a short ride, its into a chain link fence.
Pepper spray, tasers, a bit more back up for muscle, and it’s over.
His partner don’t back him at all. And if you know any cops, that says it all right there.
It’s obvious Meade had some serious built up issues, and that night his cheese slid clean off his cracker.
Comment by Pablo on 11/2 @ 10:55 am #
If you can reach into the car to get the keys, you and your partner can reach in to drag his drunk ass out. And being boxed in, they could have waited him out, waited for him to pass out. He wasn’t going anywhere.
Comment by agile_dog on 11/2 @ 10:57 am #
Eben,
If a taser didn’t stop him, pepper spray will make him not just a drunk wielding a dangerous weapon (running automobile), but doing so in a literal blind rage. And what is “physical force, with proper back up“? If you shouldn’t reach in to take the keys, are you gonna reach in and grab him? Is he going to sit still while you get the jaws of life to rip off the drivers’ door so you can bull rush him? Hurry, he’s backing up after trying to go forward. He just slammed into the cruiser behind him. He’s putting it in drive, and going forward again. Hurry up – make a decision NOW. Your life, and other’s, could be at risk. Decide NOW. Act NOW.
Sorry, I’m not trying to be an ass. But I don’t know what the officer could have done. Maybe if the driver of the cruiser behind him was still at the wheel, he could pull forward and really pin the car, but was the fence in front likely to hold? What is the threshold for a police officer to use the deadly force we’ve authorized him to use? 8 shots seems like an execution – would it have been different if it was just one? I say yes.
Comment by sdferr on 11/2 @ 10:58 am #
“…what do you do?”
While there are a myriad of ways to approach the problem, one among them might be to attempt to persuade the guy to accompany you back into the bar where you tell him you will buy him another drink. ‘Course, you could be lying but does he have to know that?
Comment by McGehee on 11/2 @ 11:01 am #
A car is considered a deadly weapon; Meade will almost certainly hang whatever defense he needs to mount, on that. Despite the rhetoric about the Garrity ruling, I really doubt it shields the officer from his answers under questioning being provided to prosecutors if the departmental investigation finds that he committed a crime.
I’ve been watching various dash-cam-video shows on TV lately, and I’ve seen a lot of situations similar to the one described in the linked article. Some few have resulted in shots fired, but I don’t recall any of those involving a car that is physically prevented from leaving the scene. Based on the article, if Meade doesn’t get charged with a crime he ought to at least be cashiered.
Comment by McGehee on 11/2 @ 11:03 am #
Instead of… opening the door?
Comment by agile_dog on 11/2 @ 11:14 am #
Instead of… opening the door?
My doors automatically lock when you put it in gear and hit the gas. It needs a certain speed, I believe, but not all automatic systems work the same. And did he have his seat belt on? – its a reflex for me now. You’d have to reach across him to undo it.
I’m not a lawyer – I’m not thinking of any of this in legal terms. I’m thinking about the practical aspect of stopping a person with faulty reasoning and a drug-induced high tolerance for pain.
Comment by JD on 11/2 @ 11:17 am #
Electro-shock torture device?!
Give me a fucking break.
Comment by JHo on 11/2 @ 11:18 am #
Unless there’s clear evidence of potential great harm or death to a bystander, seven shots in the head and neck is excessive. I think we can agree on that.
Assuming there wasn’t that immediate risk, this action was probably criminal, and the charges indicate that the prosecutor agrees with that context as well.
I didn’t really have a point in posting this except that I wondered just how we, as classical liberals, saw the phenomenon of collectivized law and order at the point when such offenses are committed, that they’re defended as though they were the only option available to the only people we entrust with upholding the law. It’s that latter construct that concerns me. It parallels our collective thinking on authority in the political arena, a like phenomenon that, as it turns out, also carries its repercussions through at the effective barrel of a gun.
Undoubtedly there are other options to the undeniable force of extreme authority, the best being to admit that life has great risk and to do your best to protect yourself without resorting to asking it for its help. I don’t think that’s left wing; I think that’s the way liberty is kept.
Comment by JD on 11/2 @ 11:20 am #
8 shots seems a rad excessive.
Comment by JD on 11/2 @ 11:22 am #
Or a tad excessive …
Comment by JHo on 11/2 @ 11:26 am #
There was no problem using said revolver to eliminate the entire back hatch. Same principle works on side glass. And, most effectively, on tires and radiators and such.
With substantial access to the interior, and with multiple officers, does it matter? The guy was stone-drunk and the windows were out or down while the car could have been disabled: You find a way to take the keys. You shoot the guy in the throttle leg. Whatever.
Comment by sdferr on 11/2 @ 11:33 am #
JHo, how would you write down “the phenomenon of collectivized law and order” and “our collective thinking on authority in the political arena” were you to fill out such a portrait? I don’t know what to make of the bare claim where it stands alone to explain itself.
Comment by Bob Reed on 11/2 @ 11:38 am #
Speaking of unloading…
Ratigan unloads on Geitner; read it here to avoid HuffPo:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-why-keep-geithner
Not trying to thread-jack at all, just putting it out there…
Comment by agile_dog on 11/2 @ 11:46 am #
“seven shots in the head and neck is excessive. I think we can agree on that.”
Yes. Yes, we can.
You shoot the guy in the throttle leg. – I was going to suggest this. But if you hit the artery, he bleeds to death.
I find myself arguing a position that I don’t think I’ll like the outcome of, when we finish the discussion. So unlike the trolls here, I’m gonna shut up and think about this. Here is my “exit” question: what is the moral difference between shooting a person once in the head, and seven times in the head?
Comment by Pablo on 11/2 @ 11:54 am #
There’s not much. But what there is is based on the difference between looking to stop someone and looking to kill them. One should expect when firing a weapon that death will result. Emptying said weapon into someone tends to ensure that death will result.
Comment by SDN on 11/2 @ 12:07 pm #
Agile,
Seven in the head is pretty clear overkill, demonstrates that the shooter is not in control of himself mentally and / or possibly physically, and isn’t concerned for the bystanders, including his “fellow officers”, who just might get in the way of the bullets that go through / back out. They do ricochet off the metal surfaces even if they don’t punch through. One might still have been excessive, seven is over the line.
Oh, and as far as getting him out of the car, open the front or back door, recline the driver’s seat until the belt isn’t working to hold him, and drag him over the back of it.
Comment by JHo on 11/2 @ 12:08 pm #
I think we have our heads on sideways, sdferr. I question the concept that we can hire out law enforcement and at the same time proportionally scale back personal responsibility.
About once a week I find some idiot out on the highways and byways recklessly risking his, someone else’s, or my life, and sometimes, all three. Why can’t I and why shouldn’t I act to enforce the law against such recklessness — from calling in the account and taking it to court as a witness, to a citizen’s arrest, to, yes, lethal force if the guy comes at me with willful intent — while other reckless acts incur the lethal action of an increasingly violent and arbitrary collective, statist, exclusive force for ostensible law ‘n order?
Does that premise raise certain difficulties? Of course it does. But are we wise to hire out our safety and convenience when it assaults both more than it should?
Comment by ThomasD on 11/2 @ 12:08 pm #
Even when boxed in a car remains a deadly weapon (Never mind that your average cyclone fence wouldn’t stand for more than a moment against the V8 inside a corvette.) Trying to reach into the vehicle only places the person in a position between the lethal weapon and another large object, and a position which they cannot quickly or easily get out of – aka a really bad idea.
That said, the report does not give any indication the driver was attempting to use the car as a weapon. Even if he attempted to ram the car through the fence so long as no one was in his direct path all that effort would represent is an attempt to flee.
So far it appears the cops badly mishandled this situation, they escalated what needed to be de-escalated and one of them rushed right up to use of lethal force with no indication of necessity.
Assuming the one cop could see whether the car was in park the other cop could have taken further steps to disable the vehicle – slash the tires, block the exhaust pipes, etc. Or maybe the cop could have just produced his pistol and visibly threatened the driver before actually pulling the trigger (I’d still find that somewhat excessive, but at least it wouldn’t have been deadly.)
Manslaughter seems like understatement, particularly eight shots, but I understand that a murder charge would certainly have guaranteed an acquittal.
Comment by geoffb on 11/2 @ 12:21 pm #
My opinion is that a modern car’s engine compartment wouldn’t react well to 7 or 8 shots either. Just shooting out the driven tires would make it not have a lot of ability to move well.
That said it was a decision that had to be made NOW. Training and reflexes take over. Any shot fired means that the death or the suspect was an option.
Comment by geoffb on 11/2 @ 12:22 pm #
of not or
Comment by A simple mind on 11/2 @ 12:31 pm #
Florida law allows them to shoot you dead, if you attempt to use your vehicle to flee and the officer believes his life or anothers life is at risk. They don’t take into account the number of bullets required to reach that end. This report is difficult to glean info, in that the obvious bias,(to me), of the writer interfers with the actual narative.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/2 @ 2:06 pm #
Florida allows – not just ‘them’ but anybody including you – the use of deadly force (not the same as shooting someone until dead) any time there is a threat of death or great bodily harm (in Florida that definition includes rape among other things.) It further allows the use of deadly force to stop someone fleeing the commission of violent felony.
Even if this occurred in Florida, neither of those conditions apply.
Comment by McGehee on 11/2 @ 2:07 pm #
Shooting out the tires — or using “stop-sticks” as some agencies call spike-strips — fails to bring chases to a quick end more often than I ever would have expected. Some people manage to cover quite a few miles on four rims before they set fire to the car.
Also, as I understand it police training is to keep firing until the gun is empty or the suspect is down. I can believe that at night it may not always be possible to tell over the gunsights what damage you’ve actually done to the person you’re shooting at.
All that said though, there would have to be something severely wrong with the source for the linked article — such as the purported eyewitness account from the other cop being outright false — for Meade to have been justified in firing his gun at that point.
It being LewRockwell.com I expect a big dose of bias, but that much? Hard to say.
Comment by agile_dog on 11/2 @ 2:48 pm #
I question the concept that we can hire out law enforcement and at the same time proportionally scale back personal responsibility.
Our legal system may have done this, but I don’t. I would hold a police officer to the same level of responsibility that I would hold myself to. But on the other hand, one of the points I was trying to initially make, although I did it poorly, is that the legal system too oftens expects clear, rational, politically-correct thought and action in crisis situations.
As JHoward said, I should be allowed to stop that asshole from driving off drunk. And legally shielded if it escalates and I have to defend myself or others. But the reason I would hesitate is that what many people would think is due and proper actions, when viewed in the cold hard daylight, with hours of deliberation (and the clarity of hindsight) is not what is likely to happen in the heat of the moment. And to address JHoward’s point, a hired out law enforcement is, in part, specifically suppose to address this issue, by training and practice. They are suppose to be level-headed and calm. Are they always? No, not always. Does their training cover every situation? No, it doesn’t. In fact, the meme says that we let police carry guns and use deadly force just because they are professionals, and will exercise sound judgement when considering using deadly force. The truth is that cases like this show that that whole theory is, at best, a goal, and often just wishful thinking.
Comment by A simple mind on 11/2 @ 2:55 pm #
28# Worse has happened with less provocation in Florida. With regard to this case, who knows. I found the article un-readable and as such, I am un-able to form an informed opinion as what occurred.
Comment by geoffb on 11/2 @ 4:40 pm #
A car already in motion has momentum and doesn’t need much to keep going. One that is stopped already would be harder to get going especially against resistance, a fence or another car.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/2 @ 4:46 pm #
“One should expect when firing a weapon that death will result.”
Which is one reason why police are not trained to shoot folks in the legs or shoot the guns out of hands as shown in the movies. Even the use of pepper spray (I used it many times in my job) doesn’t always stop someone. I have grappled with many a drunk, doped up, out of control person and believe me their strength is sometimes unbelievable. Not that they wrestled this guy, just saying that all those little tools they give you before you get to lethal force aren’t always effective.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/2 @ 6:19 pm #
Police are being systematically trained as a paramilitary force that sees the citizen as the enemy. They seem to think their role is to punish people, rather than deliver them safely to a magistrate for charges.
Watch this. I bet you can’t stomach the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-xtddgL_s
It’s perfectly legal for police to lie to you, in order to trick you into self incriminating statements. Rape is seen as just part of the punishment in a prison sentence. There are so many laws, it’s impossible to obey them all. Automated theorem provers have shown the laws to be inconsistent, meaning you are always a lawbreaker no matter what you do.
Even if you are innocent and tell the truth, your statements can convict you in court.
Watch this. Never, ever talk to police. Ever. Never. Ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Police have too much power. We need to empower the citizenry more and the government less.
Comment by Rusty on 11/2 @ 6:22 pm #
Why not just drain the idiots gas tank. Puncture all four tires.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/2 @ 6:25 pm #
One more thing. The drunk started the car and fled after being tased. Why were the tasers used, when the drunk was not a threat to anyone? Tasers are routinely used by police as a pain compliance technique, but it’s illegal and unethical. I think that was the mistake that caused the drunk imbecile to attempt escape.
Comment by Blitz on 11/2 @ 6:48 pm #
Ok…long ago, I posted a comment here that may or may not be remembered, but here is the story.
This is what they ARE. This is what they DO.
I have long blonde hair, a cheesy moustache and dress shabbily for my work ( mechanic/what have you. I can do it) I was living in Fitchburg Mass, new there, I did not KNOW?
The day was gorgeous, air was crisp and dry, and it was rush hour, so I decided to walk the half mile.
Unfortunately? My path took a turn that would be your worst nightmare.
A public park…a guy that hadn’t even SEEN an illegal drug in 10 years…BUT? a long haired hippie type pinko fag* (acording to them and the CDB) can’t walk publically there without being questioned.
So, I had ID, I had money, I had everything they asked for. Thing was? They INSISTED that they’d seen me there before, I was a dealer,a thug and lowlife scum, although at that point in time? I was a part owner of a Shell francise in Acton. MA
Before I go into it, let me describe cops A and B?
A) was a typical skinhead, his left thigh probably weighed more than me. VERY angry SOB, hit me in the head before I could get my ID out.
B) was a short little weasel. smaller than me, and HE was the “bad guy” in the scenario. More on him later.
I was arrested for walking in a public park!! Brought to the station, NOT fingerprinted, NO pics taken…and then?
The small guy threw my ass in the cell, hit me with (something), I’ve never known what. I was down, out and still handcuffed.
So,I guess I “resisted”? I was knocked out, but….I suppose it’s possible? The small guy then dislocated my elbow,breaking the (bursa sac?) and continued to use his (hockey stick?) on my head.
Long story, that gets even longer when I tell it? But in the end? ALL Hospital records were removed, ALL traces of my incarceration were scrubbed, ALL my dignity was destroyed, along with my misplaced belief in the integrity of assholes.(cops)
I’d rather Alphie on the streets than the new crop of skinheads.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 11/2 @ 8:31 pm #
The police have always been a paramilitary force, as are fire fighters. They use military style ranks and are subject to orders and a chain of command.
The Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts are also paramilitary.
Comment by ukuleledave on 11/2 @ 8:34 pm #
I read the original stories from the local paper — not the opinion piece linked. They’ve charged the police officer with manslaughter. (Not, convicted, just charged.) Family is suing for millions. The car was boxed in, and there is some slight dispute over whether he was trying to drive away, or he hit the accelerator as a reaction to the tazer.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 11/2 @ 8:37 pm #
If the details of this story are true, then this was a case of gross misconduct. However, the source is lewrockwell.com, which I trust even less than Counterpunch (or Stormfront, who are big fans of Lew Rockwell).
“Armed enforcers”.
Good grief.
Comment by Pablo on 11/2 @ 8:41 pm #
Try the link in my #7, Spiny.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 11/2 @ 9:06 pm #
Thanks, Pablo.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/2 @ 9:37 pm #
“Why were the tasers used, when the drunk was not a threat to anyone?”
Yeah, because a drunk driver has never killed anybody.
Comment by Joe on 11/2 @ 10:09 pm #
Patterico will find a way to justify this.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/2 @ 10:15 pm #
bigbooner wrote, “Yeah, because a drunk driver has never killed anybody.”
Um, drunk drivers are … well … driving. This drunk wasn’t driving when he was tasered. He was not presenting a threat when he was tasered. His keys were not even in the ignition when he was tasered. It was the taser that caused him to attempt to flee.
RTO Trainer wrote, “The police have always been a paramilitary force”
Yes. But you left out the relative clause qualifying the word ‘force’: “that sees the citizen as the enemy.” The police have not “always been a paramilitary force” that sees the citizen as the enemy.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/2 @ 10:20 pm #
He was getting in his car to drive. He was drunk. That’s what usually starts the drunk driving thing.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/2 @ 10:31 pm #
bigbooner wrote, “That’s what usually starts the drunk driving thing.”
The thing that starts “the drunk driving thing” probably isn’t a sufficient cause to taser. Sounds like the taser was used for pain compliance. Saps and blackjacks were banned because police abused them and killed people without just cause. Likewise, the taser is being widely misused. It probably was in this case, too.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/2 @ 10:43 pm #
#
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/2 @ 6:25 pm #
One more thing. The drunk started the car and fled after being tased. Why were the tasers used, when the drunk was not a threat to anyone? Tasers are routinely used by police as a pain compliance technique, but it’s illegal and unethical. I think that was the mistake that caused the drunk imbecile to attempt escape.
Lookit, I don’t know you from Adam but I am not getting the “illegal and unethical” thing. I guess you should take that up with the countless agencies that use them. It sounds like you either have a problem with cops or with tasers.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/2 @ 10:45 pm #
Yeah, because a drunk driver has never killed anybody
So is it your position that drunk driving, or attempted drunk driving constitutes a deadly threat? Because absent that you really can’t shoot a drunk driver without some further provocation. One that was not present in this incident.
Comment by Pablo on 11/2 @ 10:46 pm #
And here I was thinking that we were bitching about the 8 rounds fired into the guy’s back.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 2:59 am #
Would that be through or under the three cars pinning him in? Would that be before actually, you know, doing any drunk driving, he being stationary and all? And assuming he could momentarily fly so as to imminently assume that drunk driving thing in some immediate future so as to wipe half of Washington off the map, is the suspicion of this, well, lesser crime of such religious important that law enforcement should commit what may prove to be the greater crime of plugging him seven times from point blank range in the back of the head and neck until dead? You know, to “end this thing”?
Because that’s some protecting and serving.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/3 @ 10:08 am #
“And here I was thinking that we were bitching about the 8 rounds fired into the guy’s back.”
Actually I read a bunch of bitching about of bunch of really stupid ideas. Reach in and take the keys, drain the gas tank, blah blah blah. I did not say the cop should have shot this idiot just that some of these “prevention” ideas are idiotic. My other point being that drunken driving is indeed a deadly threat. Read the statistics. I also did not advocate shooting drunken drivers but merely noted that people (including someone from the bar who called 911) were concerned that this guy might get in his car and kill someone. Try to focus.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 11/3 @ 10:24 am #
bigbooner wrote, “I guess you should take that up with the countless agencies that use them. It sounds like you either have a problem with cops or with tasers.”
You’re uninformed. The agencies that use tasers, you know the police agencies, say it is illegal and unethical to use tasers for pain compliance. And please, spare me the Internet mind reading. You’re writing like a leftie troll, now.
bigbooner wrote, “My other point being that drunken driving is indeed a deadly threat.”
You’re right that some of the prevention ideas presented here are idiotic. So was tasering the guy, and so was shooting him. Why? Because he was pinned in. The threat presented by his desire to drive was neutralized. The officer faced a vehicle extraction problem. This is dealt with extensively in police training. You’re serving up red herring. Try to focus, bigbooner.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 11/3 @ 10:30 am #
Oh, great. Lew Rockwell, huh?
I think I will wait for the trial.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 10:34 am #
I think that’s guilt by association, MikeyNTH, and not a rigorous analysis. Just saying.
Government has too much power. Law enforcement has too much power. In the sense that real justice is dispensed, the courts are eroding. The land is growing complacent. It kinda all ties together.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/3 @ 11:16 am #
Jeff Y, I know a little about continuum of force. I understand completely that this was a vehicle extraction problem. If you actually read my posts on this subject you would clearly see that. For every person saying he shouldn’t have been tasered there is another person saying that should have been the weapon of choice. Please leave the “leftie troll” comments to actual leftie trolls.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 11/3 @ 11:44 am #
Darn right it is guilt by association. With some associates, that’s all the analysis it gets.
Law enforcement has too much power? You should recall the days of “alley justice” and four-man cruiser cars. Tuning up a suspect was par for the course, coercing a confession by having a suspect fall down the stairs several times was par for the course. And the land was awfully complacent about that for quite a long while. And the courts, for quite a long while, didn’t say anything about it either.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 11:59 am #
If we’re going all Godwin now, I’ll add that the Nazis were Socialists…
Comment by bigbooner on 11/3 @ 12:19 pm #
JHo, not sure what your problem is but somebody else was calling me a leftie troll. I was merely pointing out to them that that is not what I am. Evidently we were disagreeing about police tactics. You might want to reread my posts.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 3:04 pm #
I already read ‘em, big, and they come up wanting.
There’s always a faction that expends paragraphs not delivering a solution but won’t condemn an outrageous but entirely preventable act or circumstance. Guess that’s my problem.
Comment by sdferr on 11/3 @ 3:05 pm #
JHo, do you read Bob Higgs? If not I think you’ll find him interesting given your posts heretofore.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/3 @ 3:18 pm #
#
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 3:04 pm #
I already read ‘em, big, and they come up wanting.
There’s always a faction that expends paragraphs not delivering a solution but won’t condemn an outrageous but entirely preventable act or circumstance. Guess that’s my problem.
I guess you didn’t like me referring to your comment about reaching into the car and taking the keys as being “idiotic”. Fair enough. But if that’s what you call “delivering a solution” then God help us. What is it I need to condemn? Did I ever say that the shooting was justified? Seems like there was plenty of folks saying that. Maybe you just needed some reassurance. Now before you even respond, if you do, you obviously have a problem with police in general. That’s your problem.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 5:07 pm #
I haven’t, sdferr, but thanks. The linked article is one of those thought pieces you wish you’d written, if only to grasp consciously what’s intuitive – the evidence fits the crime that preceded it. Special interests are the problem, aren’t they?
Of course, booner here thinks he’s got another insight entirely.
Comment by sdferr on 11/3 @ 5:11 pm #
If you are unfamiliar with his work JHo, read back into his archive. Or better, search C-Span’s In Depth for … aw nevermind, this is easier. It’s a three hour comprehensive interview.
Comment by Pablo on 11/3 @ 5:18 pm #
Two words regarding that car: boxed in. Yeah, try to focus.
Comment by JHo on 11/3 @ 5:29 pm #
Appreciated, sdferr. Been rummaging around and it’s apparent this fellow has a solid perspective on the problem.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/3 @ 10:53 pm #
I just realized you guys were right. I should have issued a condemnation immediately. So this is for you JHo and your little hanger on buddies. I condemn this stupid fuck for getting in his car drunk with every intention of driving on the same streets where me and mine live. He would have been his own little lethal weapon. And JHo was right about the eight shot thing. Way too fucking many. Any decent cop could have finished it in one or two shots. Saved us tax payers some money. And for all you stupid fuckers with the “boxed in” argument have you not ever watched any episode of Cops or any other such shows where the have a guy “boxed in”? Cause those guys NEVER get out by backing up into a police car or smashing into them in some other way.
I guess that’s what you wanted me to say. And to my special buddy JHo I do have one special insight. You are a legend in your own mind.
Comment by Pablo on 11/4 @ 11:48 am #
…to death. Because it was your street!
Genius.
Comment by bigbooner on 11/4 @ 3:36 pm #
Pablo, lick me.