WESLEY CHAPEL, Fla. — A 71-year-old retired police officer accused of shooting a man dead in a Florida movie theater told authorities that “he was in fear of being attacked” during Monday’s confrontation.
Curtis Reeves is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 43-year-old Chad Oulson. A judge ordered Reeves held without bond during a court hearing Tuesday afternoon.
Pasco County Sheriff’s officials say Reeves initially asked Oulson to stop texting at the theater in Wesley Chapel, a suburb about a half-hour north of downtown Tampa.
Sheriff’s Detective Allen Proctor wrote that Reeves spoke to Oulson during the movie previews, then got up from his seat and informed management.
When Reeves returned to his seat “additional words were exchanged” and Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, the report said.
After officers read him his rights, Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that’s when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he “was in fear of being attacked.”
Oulson’s wife, who was also in the theater, had put her hand on her husband’s chest prior to the shooting in an attempt to shield him. Officials say she was also struck by the bullet.
There were about 25 people in the theater at the time of the shooting, witnesses and authorities said. The movie playing was “Lone Survivor,” about Navy SEALS in Afghanistan.
“I can’t believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie,” said Charles Cummings, who was sitting near Oulson and Reeves. “I can’t believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone.”
Cummings, who said he was a combat Marine in Vietnam, said Oulson fell onto him and his son. When they spoke to reporters on Monday, both had blood on their clothes.
“Blood started coming out of his mouth,” said Alex Cummings. “It was just a very bad scene.”
Charles Cummings said his son went to call 911, while Cummings and another patron who was a nurse began performing CPR on the victim.
The man sitting next to the suspect happened to be an off-duty deputy from another county, and he grabbed the gun out of Reeves’ hand, and the suspect did not attempt to get away, Cummings said.
Oulson and his wife were taken by ambulance to a Tampa-area hospital, where Chad Oulson died, said Sheriff’s Office spokesman Doug Tobin. His wife’s injuries were not considered life-threatening.
Tampa Police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said in a news release that Reeves was a captain when he retired from the department in 1993. She added that he was instrumental in establishing the agency’s first tactical response team. After he retired, Reeves worked security for the Busch Gardens theme park and was on the board of a neighboring county’s Crime Stoppers organization. Reeves’ son also is a Tampa officer, police said.
Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal, 1896
Educated men—“civilized men,” tremble at the idea that society might some day be without judges, police, or jailers. But, frankly, do you need them?
If we can wander, without fear, not only in the streets of Paris, which bristle with police, but especially in rustic walks where you rarely meet passers-by, is it to the police that we owe this security?
Or rather to the absence of people who care to rob or murder us? I am evidently not speaking of the one who carries millions about him. That one—a recent trial tells us—is soon robbed, by preference in places where there are as many policemen as lampposts.
No, I speak of the man who fears for his life and not for his purse filled with ill-gotten sovereigns. Are his fears real? Besides, has not experience demonstrated quite recently that Jack the Ripper performed his exploits under the eye of the London police—a most active force—and that he only left off killing when the population of Whitechapel itself began to give chase to him?
And in our everyday relations with our fellow citizens, do you think that it is really judges, jailers, and police that hinder anti-social acts from multiplying?
The judge, ever ferocious, because he is a maniac of law, the accuser, the informer, the police spy, all those interlopers that live from hand to mouth around the law courts, do they not scatter demoralization far and wide into society?
Read the trials, glance behind the scenes, push your analysis further than the exterior facade of law courts, and you will come out sickened.
Have not prisons—which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe—always been universities of crime?
Is not the court of a tribunal a school of ferocity? And so on. When we ask for the abolition of the state and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality.
But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!
A German jurist summed up the scientific work of his life and wrote a treatise, in which he analyzed the factors that preserve social life in society. His work: Purpose in Law, enjoys a well-deserved reputation.
He made an elaborate plan of his treatise, and, with much erudition, discussed both coercive factors which are used to maintain society; wagedom and the different forms of coercion which are sanctioned by law.
At the end of his work he reserved two paragraphs only to mention the two non-coercive factors—the feeling of duty and the feeling of mutual sympathy—to which he attached little importance, as might be expected from a writer in law.
But what happened? As he went on analyzing the coercive factors he realized their insufficiency. He consecrated a whole volume to their analysis, and the result was to lessen their importance!
When he began the last two paragraphs, when he began to reflect upon the non-coercive factors of society, he perceived, on the contrary, their immense, outweighing importance; and, instead of two paragraphs, he found himself obliged to write a second volume, twice as large as the first, on these two factors: voluntary restraint and mutual help.
And yet, he analyzed but an infinitesimal part of these latter—those which result from personal sympathy—and hardly touched free agreement, which results from social institutions.
Leave off repeating the formulae which you have learned at school; meditate on this subject; and the same thing will happen to you: you will recognize the infinitesimal importance of coercion, as compared to the voluntary assent, in society.
On the other hand, if by following the very old advice given by Bentham you begin to think of the fatal consequences—direct, and especially indirect—of legal coercion, then, like Tolstoy, like us, you will begin to hate the use of coercion, and you will begin to say that society possesses a thousand other means for preventing anti-social acts.
If it neglects those means today, it is because, being educated by church and state, our cowardice and apathy of spirit hinder us seeing clearly on this point.
When a child has committed a fault, it is so easy to punish it; that puts an end to all discussions! It is so easy to hang a man—especially when there is an executioner who is paid so much for each execution—and it dispenses us from thinking of the cause of crimes.
– – – – –
Latest instances of American Decline
1 American state governments have been cut off from the usual suicide drugs, and are unable to competently kill people on death row.
“After being lethally injected, Dennis McGuire was still for almost five minutes, then emitted a loud snort, as if snoring, and continued to make that sound for several minutes. He opened and shut his mouth several times as his stomach rose and fell.
“Oh my God,” his daughter, Amber McGuire, said as she observed her father’s final moments. His adult children sobbed in a witness room as they watched him die. The process took nearly 25 minutes from the time of execution.
2 America’s spying has lost it 5 billion in weapon sales to Brazil.
3 America has been exposed as untrustworthy, and is unable to return the 700 tons of gold that Germany has requested. The central banks already knew this, but the people are just finding this out.
98% of the US Federal Reserve Gold belongs to other nations, and one can only assume it has been stolen. Probably this is the case in France and most other Western nations as well. The gold has been confiscated in order to keep the precious metal’s price down and to perpetuate the myth that paper currency still has value.
Good article on the gold owed the Germans.
For these 37.5 tons to be recast brings up the question: Where did it come from? Was this the original gold that was safe-kept? Or was the German gold leased out a hundred times over and is this gold being recast and returned from another source?
Is this like the bank employee or even retail cashier who stole from the register with the intent of replacing it before anyone found out?
This is what is known as a rhetorical question! Of course that is exactly what must have happened.
Check this out. Ties right into the German gold scandal.
Central banks and investment banks can say whatever they want. The fact is, each ounce of allegedly vaulted gold has been ponzified many times over such that there is some ratio like 100 owners per ounce, 1,000 owners per ounce or something like that.
It’s only logical that owners and controllers of public gold who need only give their word they have it, would actually keep it somewhere private for their personal benefit.
JP Morgan’s buillion vault building is owned by China’s Fosun
Top producer and user of energy: China
Top exporter and maker of tangible goods: China
Top owner of precious metals and luxury items: China
Top buyer of precious metals and luxury items: China
Top research and intellectual property producer: England
Top two producers of science and technical workers: India/China
US is the world leader in military, security, at the cost of all other leadership except virtual intangible goods like movies, software, and social media platforms. Most emerging technology co-emerges, even if originating technically in a US university or silicon valley company. Once the prototypes mature, the completed products emerge in China.
The US is incapable of producing most advanced technical goods, beyond a single high cost oversized prototype .
The US enjoys only brute force social hegemony for a few more years. China will overtake it soon even in these last few categories. The point is moot, since UK has superior diversification and enjoys world low-cost producer status in pharmaceutical, spirits, tobacco, and most other high end goods.
All the while, the UK has a larger/more stable social system in money, economy diversification, and almost all other categories, irrespective of the US and China. China knows it’s main competition is the UK/CW, specifically India.
China sees the US as a valuable supplier of virtual and intangible intellectual property, it’s only fear is that US warmongers will chimp out and go African against it.
Whatever you do, don’t overlook this guy, Michael Maloney. He explains hard money, fiat currency, and the fed/treasury shell game better than anyone I’ve ever encountered in decades.
He explains the “Ponzification” you mentioned with the same clarity that Larkin Rose explains rights violations.
Be sure to watch his five part series,
“Hidden Secrets Of Money”
I meant to also endorse the video you posted elsewhere which I had seen before, but watched yet again. As I will this one.
Econ Collapse Blog
Here he is listed along with many other kindred gurus. (dent,faber,celente,maloney,rogers) You have an excellent point, that Maloney is probably the most accessible of them all.
My personal favorite is Hugo Salinas Price and his throwback Athenian philosophizing.
When Reality overthrows imagination
The Upstairs and the Downstairs
An excerpt from Maloney’s videos.
James Rickards speaking, voice over
One of the things I do is, uh, just a way to get the audience’s attention is I have a slide and there are three pictures on the slide.
One is a pile of Monopoly money. The other one is a pile of Federal Reserve notes.
Uh, what Americans would call paper money.
Uh, the other one is a solid gold, uh, American Eagle, uh, one ounce coin.
And the title of this slide is which of these is not like the other.
And if you know the show Sesame Street or if you have children who watch it, it’s one of the favorite vignettes in Sesame Street.
And what it really is is a kind of IQ test for five year olds.
They’re supposed to look at the three things and look at characteristics and find the one that’s not like the other.
Well, I’ve shown this slide to, um, groups of, you know, Ivy League university professors, and I’ve also shown it to, uh, you know, uh, children.
You know, kind of find results in my nieces and newphews and so forth.
Uh, and when the, uh, professors look at it they say well, um, clearly the, uh, the dollars are not like the others –
’cause gold has no role as money and Monopoly money is junk and the American dollar is a store of value.
So that’s not like the other. But the children look at it and they say well, the gold coin is not like the other –
because the other two are just piles of paper, and the gold coin is clearly something different.
So my question to the audience is who’s smarter? A five year old or an Ivy League professor?
Pure gold! Pun intended.
Mike Maloney Interviews Ron Paul
Mike Maloney on Drutter’s Divergence
Quickly scanned the article you mentioned. Yup! 2014 could well be the year when the S finally hits the F. Many of the gurus cited in the article think so.
It’s NOT a lock of course. The “what” of prophecy is easy. The “when” of prophecy is hard. I remember Harry Browne and others in the 70s predicting the debacle back then. As we know now, they were right about “what” but several decades of about “when.”
That said, we can be sure it’s coming. It’s a case of Stein’s Law.
Stein was the formulator of “Herbert Stein’s Law,” which he expressed as “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,” by which he meant that if a trend (balance of payments deficits in his example) cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord. It is often rephrased as: “Trends that can’t continue, won’t.”
This is why the economic decline of Amerika that you mentioned in an earlier comment is 100% certain.
Maloney explains how fractional reserve banking makes fiscal responsibility impossible. I used to think the reason governments couldn’t stop inflating was political. Maloney made me realize it was also simple math, as well.
Maloney apparently explains things better than others because he had to overcome dyslexia. As a result, he has a greater than usual concern for comprehensibility.
I like that, a lot. I spent several years learning Plain English writing methods. I had to unlearn a lot of bad habits. It was a lot of work. But it was worth it.
Heroes in their own words.
I go to the movies almost weekly in the Villages Florida, there are plenty of retired cops, NYPD, FBI you name it, I shoot with many of them annually. With that said I just saw this same movie Saturday evening and a man in front of my wife jumped up because she accidentally touched the back of his reclining seat. He was in his mid seventies, I could have told him to go f himself or call a manager, but within a second he sat down realizing he was being foolish.
We both were carrying and will continue to do so. We don’t look for trouble, we don’t call managers, report people talking, texting, bumping our seats. Many people are drinking and things can heat up quickly when emotions run high. My gun is there for an active shooter or an immediate need to prevent death to myself or my wife.
Heroes discuss FL movie theater hero
These guys were out of control and a disgrace. I hope they never wear a badge again. What else can be said, a vagrant didn’t need to die for “resisting”. A very poor job was done taking him into custody, there were 6 plus officers on top of him and he died.
His family will get a multi million dollar settlement, and then it will be done.
End of story.
Heroes discuss 6 heroes who murdered a homeless guy
—- —- —- —-
The reality is we are greatly restricted by the rule-making class, and rule enforcement agents. The heroes we’ve come to hate operate above the realm of exchanging value for value. At least we recognize our condition and refuse to passively accept our fate.
The only thing worth considering is the value producers. Movie theaters, movie seats, actors, films, popcorn, guns, bullets, these are made by entities that engage in specie payments. Who exchange value for value.
Our enemy is governments, religions(from a political power standpoint), political associations, revolutionary associations, non-profits, state banks, large banks. and state industries.
That means Exxon, Walmart by default are the largest entities that can be considered legitimate, or nearly legitimate.
They provide value, they transact in specie payment. Except to the extent that they are crony corporations, which is problematic to discern. Is BP, Shell, Toyota, state-owned or controlled? The cure for that is to work toward the elimination of all corporate shielding and state interference whatsoever.
It is possible to make observations about value producers and other specie payers, and make rational decisions by spending our money on going to the movies or choosing not to spend our money. That is the extent of our true freedom.
There is no equivalent process for dealing with rule makers and law enforcers. They take out a piece of paper and proclaim “let there be law” and it is made so. They instruct their central banks to print more currency. There is no end to what this swarm of destructive devils can pervert or destroy through the power of their words.
The answer is to stop believing in all their paper empires. To focus on the underlying value for value exchanges, and to deny legitimacy to paper transactions of all sorts.
Tor, XOM, Chevron, BP, Walmart, etc. all make “govt.” policy. I don’t consider that as laissez faire.
Laissez faire seems to briefly exist in frontier areas for a limited time. Central banks and governments work endlessly to eliminate it as they follow the productive and pioneering into their new lands and ventures.
Central authority is hard at work destroying the parts of the internet that are independent. They force facebook and craigslist to censor and bow to their authority. Laissez faire is indeed extremely fragile and short lived.
I agree that in some small way the companies you list affect govt policy, and at their size, do not operate with a laissez faire mentality. Their operations are better described as zombie faire.
As do most people, you leave out the ringleaders, which I am sure is by design. I wish it was true that the value providers you list were in charge. That would mean oil companies, retailers, and auto manufacturers call the shots. What a relative paradise that would be.
However, the top most powerful economic entities in the world are banks. I think about 16 in total. Next most powerful entities are nations. There are about 192 of them. Upon brief examination, we discover the modern nation’s power also mainly arises from its central bank.
Nations themselves are irrational central banks. They take as much wealth as they can into their vaults, waste most of it, and use a small amount to actually create and do things. They declare other types of banks and wealth-pooling systems crime, and confiscate wealth outside their system at will.
Nation/banks enjoy the competitive advantage of unlimited asymmetrical violence. Pedophile priests. Malpracticing doctors. Dangerous and unfair manufacturers.
Any potential rivals to nations and central banks are demonized and beset with hordes of regulatory and official locusts, until they too use the corrupt national monetary systems.
Then there are the industries banks+industries have a greater than 50% ownership stake in. This includes law, safety, insurance, welfare, warfare, redistribution, public construction, proscriptive tax and regulation. The only value that comes of this is physical buildings and public infrastructure.
The banks, nations, and controlled industries are far larger and more powerful than anything else. Most of what we do is a part of the world martial economy, and not part of free enterprise or social enterprise.
It is important to understand Walmart. Walmart is an economy larger than Sweden. Remember that Sweden’s power comes from it’s ability to print money and command a martial economy. Walmart lacks those things. It must provide value to someone.
I think rather there is a corporate size threshold, and also an individual size threshold beyond which, you can be a free man or organization. Walmart is the biggest, and hence the relatively freest. A billionaire like Elon Musk is also free, in that he can creatively use his wealth to do whatever he wants. Rather than curse Walmart and Elon, I want to lower the threshold and make more people and organizations free.
I think a new scientific and philosophical investigation should be undertaken. It should start from square one. Nothing taken for granted. No principles grandfathered in.
The oil companies have to get the oil out of the ground. They have to do so with minimal errors or visible damage. It requires scientific skill. It is prohibitively expensive to only play politics here. Banks and nations have captured much of this market as well. The Saudis, Mexicans, Iranians, Venezuelans and others are extracting resources on a central bank/national level. Exxon has to compete with that.
I think British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell are closer to Saudi Arabia than to Exxon, but I am unsure.
Automakers have to make vehicles. These vehicles have to be safe, reliable, durable, and with few defects. Nations and banks are indeed the most important customers here. They dictate over 50% of what cars are made, whereas consumers determine less than 50%.
Walmart has to get manufacturers to stock its floors with merchandise. It has to keep track of everything and keep it all in salable condition. It needs individual to voluntarily spend their money.
Everything we take for granted, shouldn’t be. Without nations and banks, there maybe wouldn’t be paychecks. Personal identification. Addresses. Brands. Coloring and styling.
What kind of monkey cares what color his car is, or what styling it has? No one would care about their official reputations the way they do now. Credit scores, legal histories. All paper based lunacy I think.
We could choose a new name for ourselves at anytime, and completely delete any past documentation. We could call ourselves what ever we want. Choose your own name and address. No one would no your history or what you do for a living. Imagine the return of true freedom.
Consider the IP of this site. Maybe the owners want to rename it Fuck Off and Die Clover, and that would be the name the name servers use to resolve it to the IP. Of course, they can change the IP anytime as well, such that FOADC and EPAUTOS would have no proof of connection.
Each of us allowed as much anarchy or order as we care for. Voluntarily maintained order is extremely valuable. Societal order, as we’ve all learned, has been proven worthless, and sometime detrimental.
“Everything we take for granted, shouldn’t be. Without nations and banks, there maybe wouldn’t be… ”
Among the most repugnant things that we take for granted but which would not exist, is PASSPORTS and such entities as ICE.
The entire planet should be free market anarchist, i.e., privatized.
The problems with clovers on the road would be among the many problems automatically solved by privatization of road systems. All the bullshit about “traffic safety” as a pretext for ever tightening controls would be totally bypassed.
Dear Tor, 8sm,
Stop! You’re both right.
Google started out as a model of free market competition. Gmail was so much better than Yahoo mail.
But the mixed economy, the state sector, inevitably intruded and took over. Now of course, Google is sort of like a trustee in a concentration camp. It does the bidding of the PTB, even though it was not necessarily a willing accomplice.
You’re right of course, Bevin. I become so contrarian, I become an absurdist contrarian even against other contrarians.
Whatever Google is, it is the alpha dog of the ruling pack of our world. If it be more evil than good, I pray Baidu or Bing/Yahoo are able to eat the lead dog and take its place.
The internet is a force of enlightenment and oppression at the same time. Perhaps it will become 100 times more powerful than it is now. I’ll be able to live as a millionaire. Perhaps it will be dismantled and I’ll end up out in the Mojave highlands with only a solar/gravity powered SSB radio. I try to prepare for either case.
Things went bad, to worse, to intolerable so quickly. They could probably reverse just as quickly. Cops, soldiers, fireman, bureaucrats, they could all privatize America in a single night. Just pick their command posts clean and never look back.
Keep your guns, fire trucks, computers, vehicles, and everything else. Don’t expect any more paychecks, pensions, or banquets. Don’t consent to returning any of the stolen common property you’ve appropriated for your own survival. Simple.
There is a war on the commons right now. Perhaps the aggressor is the internet aka Skynet. It’s owners want to make natural and social commons obsolete, so that they have a completely monopoly on the new electronic commons.
As a kid, public highways, parks, and lands were blessings and shared commons. It was easy to blank out how exactly it was they became commons.
Now they’re all curses and shared plunder gauntlets. It’s hard to overstate just how blighted and treacherous the commons have become.
It might be time for the dogs of the commons to break out of the pack and start minding their own litters. If they don’t, they’ll end up replaced by robot dogs anyway.
Not to worry.
We all get so frustrated with the Kafkaesque status quo that sometimes it’s all we can do not to go postal.
Recent “active shooter incidents” that weren’t false flag ops, were probably just that.
It’s just a shame that even the good things that the market introduces get corrupted and become tools of the PTB.
This is why the slightest vestige of statism must be rooted out. The core premise, the “Myth of Authority” must be totally discredited. Otherwise what we have today will be the result.
As Larkin Rose put it
Minarchism: Great Start, Horrible Finish
I’m sure Google wants to use our info to make money hand over fist. It may even resort to dubious means to do just that.
But that said, I really doubt Google actually wants to spy on us for the gubmint. What’s the percentage in that?
This is a typical case of what in Chinese is referred to as
guan guan xiang hu
literally translated as:
“official/official mutual protection”
or in English vernacular,
“Officials cover for each other.”
It’s not “our government.” It’s THEIR government. Always has been. Always will be.
The belief that any government could ever be OUR government is the biggest long con ever pulled off.
These disgusting pigs have arrogated total power to themselves; they’re absolved of the law, they’re above it.
Will Grigg has written a scathing article about the Kelly Thomas case. I could not believe they were acquitted! I’ve heard of no clearer case of murder.
Yet they’re free–and may well get their jobs back.
WHAT was the jury thinking? Were they threatened?
And how is the Universe going to balance the score–because it is far, far out of kilter after that case.
Notice how this case was handled so very differently than the Zimmerman case?
1. The shooter was “authoritay” or at least semi-authoritay.
2. No race card to play. No “If I had a son… “
Well, in all fairness, nothing happened in the Zimmerman affair until about a month after the shooting. So I’m sure President Barrold is warming up his crocodile tears right now!
Oh, wait, no. What I mean to say is: I’m sure he’s still pissed that his transparent attempt to start race riots his “heroes” could then protect us from flopped so badly.
Yes indeed. Truly mind-boggling.
When the fuck will the worm finally turn?
How much longer can this go on? Are Murcans really going to shuffle into FEMA camps the way many Jews shuffled into Auschwitz and Buchenwald?
I’m not talking about suicidal Waco style resistance. I’m not saying anyone needs to shoot it out with the “authoritays.”
I’m merely talking about mentally liberating oneself, the way Larken Rose explains it:
Larken Rose on the Belief in Authority mp4
That alone will do the trick. It’s not necessary to overthrow “them.” It’s only necessary to wake up inside one’s own head.
This is unbelievable. It is happening with increasing frequency across the U.S. This officer will have a corrupt lawyer and it will be heard in front of a corrupt judge. The officer will maybe get a year in jail. That’s it, maybe. Maybe he will get off. They will scream about “officer safety” or some straw man argument and they will get off.
Swamprat the guy was in his 70s and not a policeman for decades. This is all about concealed carry and how everyone here says everyone needs to carry a gun. Why? It was surely not to protect himself. As usual carrying a gun for your own protection does the opposite and hurts the innocent.
Then it also brings up as you and others say here that the guy had the right to interrupt others with a cell phone or whatever. In this case his right to do whatever he felt like killed him. The same thing as driving recklessly down the highway does.
Editor’s Note: This message is brought to you by the authoritarians for a more enforceable tomorrow.
Poor ol’ troll!
You know, of course (being a government troll) that ex cops get to carry a gun anywhere they like without a permit? And that CHP holders (who are not cops) are almost never involved in the criminal misuse of a firearm?
And of course, you fly right over the salient fact that – once again – it’s a “hero” going berserk (lethally) over a minor thing. Which is all too typical of cops, current and former. An affront to their authoritah is unendurable.
As usual carrying a gun for your own protection does the opposite and hurts the innocent.
As usual, idiots spout off nonsense with no factual backing and pretend it’s fact, then argue from that stance.
Concealed-carrying people commit fewer crimes than police–and hit their targets three times as often. Police miss 82% of their shots. Not as in “miss the center of mass”…but as in entirely fucking miss the whole thing.
Sort of like you, clover. Missed the target entirely.
What do they pay you people anyway? You’d think with the Fed pumping out money they could afford to get some literate shills. Or is this a work of charity?
methylamine the fact here is that they guy would not be dead if there was no concealed carry. A theater like that could go hundreds of years without a killing but when someone carries in a weapon the death happened. What are you missing here?
Go do your facts search. I bet for every bad guy that is shot by concealed carry that dozens are shot that should not have been. As Eric says, people who carry usually do not kill innocent people. I say that none of them kill the innocent if they do not carry. There are tens of thousands of people out there that can not control their anger. None of them should be carrying handguns. If you can test these people before they get a license for their anger management then it would not be as bad as it is. I would not want a road rage driver like Brent carrying a weapon in public. I have seen his driving around other vehicles. A gun in those hands would be a bad thing.
Editor’s Note: This message is brought to you by the authoritarians for a more enforceable tomorrow.
Clover, retired cops, political office holders (and probably retired political office holders) are often given special dispensation when it comes to carrying fire arms.
As to your libel, go back under your bridge. You already lost millions in bets you refuse to pay on, are you trying to work your way to a lawsuit?
Fun fact: I’m carrying a concealed firearm *right now.* Look out, Clover! I’m a dangerous maniac!
” There are tens of thousands of people out there that can not control their anger. None of them should be carrying handguns.”
And most of them are morbidly obese and waddle around in blue costumes sporting shiny nickel plated badges.
I’m back, so here’s an update on my concealed-carry-fueled rampage through downtown Wasilla: I only shot two people, and one of them looked kind of like a criminal to me, so I’m pretty sure he doesn’t count. That’s what I’ve learned from watching my heroes in blue, anyway!
Then on the way home I went one mile per hour over the posted speed limit, and every child in a six-mile radius spontaneously combusted. What a fool I’ve been!
@Darien–in your FACE dude I totally beat you!–I used my concealed carry and waxed three just on the way home from work.
Yeah, guns definitely shoot by themselves. And they make you crazy.
My criminal-defense-lawyer uber-libertarian friend sent me this link with the title “World’s Worst Hoplophobe” this weekend. Read it, and we can all discuss what it reveals about clover’s (and liberals’ in general) psychology:
@meth- I’ll call and raise you…
Ex cops are entitled by law to carry without a permit. It is ordinary citizens who (usually) must obtain a legal permission slip in order to carry concealed – and unlike cops (current and ex) citizen concealed carry permit holders very rarely use their weapons recklessly or criminally.
As always, there is a double standard (a lesser standard) for cops.
To truly understand “gun control,” sovereign individuals must clear their minds of accumulated Myth of Authority emotional baggage and go “back to basics.”
The following sums up the essence of gun control.
“Some of us have organized a group. Our group is going to tell you what kind of weapons you may or may not own. If you defy our group, we will cage you or kill you. You are of course not obligated to obey every group that gives you orders. But our group is different. Our group is special. What makes our group different? What makes our group special? We call our group ‘The Government.’ That makes our group different from all other groups. That makes our group special. That’s why you must obey us. See?”
Until one understands that this is the essence of gun control, one really doesn’t know how to defy it.
The bottom line? Sovereign individuals must realize that no other human being or group of human beings has any right whatsoever to tell you what guns you may or may not own.
@Garysco–LOL and yet…why not? If I want an RPG, I’m unclear what in the 2nd A forbids it.
Here’s what’s coming to Amerika…and why the DHS brownshirts have 2 billion rounds of ammo and MRAP’s already distributed around the country:
Clover – Your circular logic and confirmation bias is almost legendary! Bravo! But your facts are wrong: As John Lott proves; more guns equal less crime. The fact is after Kennesaw, Georgia passed their 1982 ordinance requiring gun ownership, their crime rate dropped 89% compared to a 10% drop overall in Georgia for the same time period (http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm). As Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently pointed out, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” If I am armed and you attempt to push me around, as you and your ilk are wont to do, I may very well change your mind for you. That’s why you abhor the idea of private firearms ownership and concealed carry: you and your tax-fed porcine minions have to be much more careful who they bully.
If everyone is close to equally armed Clover, they all have to be nice to each other or else. If only one party is armed and especially if their “caste” is legally and by fraternally, in any confrontation you will probably see the kind of abusive behavior that currently runs rampant nationwide with Amerikan police. The cops will be better behaved if they think they will be treated the same as any other citizen when they infringe our rights. The state of Indiana gets it. They passed a law allowing citizens to shoot back if the police are doing something unlawful to them. The cops hate it, because it scares them. They’ll have to be more careful kicking doors in the future, now won’t they? (http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5321745-Right-to-resist-police-signed-into-law-by-Ind-governor/). That is the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment; to make the agents of the states rightfully afraid of an armed populace. That’s the real reason you don’t like it, isn’t it?
And as others here have already pointed out, the individual that did the shooting was a retired LEO. But not just a rank and file grunt. No sir. He was a Captain for Tampa PD and set up their SWAT team. After he retired from police work, he continued to work in private security. So don’t give us this line that it was so long since he’d been a cop he didn’t remember his training. I call that bovine hyperbole. I’ve been out of nuclear power now for fifteen years and I can assure you that I still remember the bulk of my training, the procedures and applicable regulations. Reeves very probably became a cop so he could lord it over his fellow Floridians and play soldier, because SWAT is militarization of the police. But after retirement, he probably felt a little touch of impotence. When his fellow theater goers wouldn’t “follow the rules” he turned them in and apparently ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html ) had a history of “enforcing the rules” (i.e. pushing people around that were doing things he found offensive) instead of taking his money elsewhere.
When a mere mundane (i.e. a non-porcine citizen) dared to challenge him for being an officious prick, by throwing popcorn in his face, he responded as cops all too often do; with gun fire. It wouldn’t have mattered whether there was a concealed carry law in place, or him having a free pass as a former member of the swine brigade or not; being the kind of ass he was, he probably would have been “illegally” armed (not that there’s really any such thing under the Second Amendment) and shot his “assailant” anyway, figuring his fellow pigs would cover for him. But you can rest assured that if he had believed his “assailant” would have shot back, he wouldn’t have done it. Your problem Clover, is that you fail to comprehend that prohibition never works, “gun free zones” become free fire zones (as evidenced by the Aurora, CO theater and numerous school shootings) and criminals will always have guns if they want them; all your gun free utopian fantasies notwithstanding. We, in America, are a gun culture; if you don’t like that move to Australia or Great Britain. As far as I’m concerned, any able bodied adult American male who lives where firearms are not prohibited and has not trained in marksmanship, hasn’t appropriately armed himself and is not prepared to defend hearth and home is irresponsible and lazy at best. But those like you that expect the rest of us to pony up the bucks for more restrictions on our rights, more laws, more cops and more prisons so you can feel some false sense safety are nothing less than a treasonous and treacherous enemy to me and my fellow countrymen. Deportation, for simpering pantywaists like you, would be the best you could hope for if I had my way buster!
” The state of Indiana gets it. They passed a law allowing citizens to shoot back if the police are doing something unlawful to them. The cops hate it, because it scares them. They’ll have to be more careful kicking doors in the future, now won’t they?”
This of course, is how it should have been all along. Hasn’t “American Exceptionalism” been rooted in the fairy tale notion that “America is exceptional because the people are the masters, and the government is the servant?”
The baffling thing is not this “innovation.” The baffling thing is that sovereign individuals allowed matters to degenerate so far before finally saying “Enough!”
Eric I used to have hay fever a long time ago. I could sneeze 2 or 3 times out of nowhere. Sure glad the people around were not carrying at the time or they would have blown me away. Eric you say that people who carry rarely use them when they should not. You get a few million people out there that rarely kill someone when they shouldn’t and you have thousands of people killed. I feel a hell of a lot safer if the guy in the grocery store is not carrying when he gets upset when I put the apple in my cart that he was going to grab.
Editor’s Note: This message is brought to you by the authoritarians for a more enforceable tomorrow.
Apply your idiot reasoning to the cops you love so much, Clover. Cops sometimes use their firearms recklessly – murderously (much more often than civilian CC permit holders, in fact). Do you therefore support taking away all cops’ guns? It would absolutely mean fewer innocent people harmed.
And to pursue this a little farther:
Why should anyone – you included – be allowed to drive a car given the thousands of motor vehicle deaths that occur every year? The fact that you haven’t had an accident is irrelevant. You might. How can that risk be justified?
According to your imbecile standard, no one should be permitted to operate a dangerous motor vehicle under any circumstances because some people will – through incompetence or recklessness – use their vehicle to cause harm to others.
Knives, baseballs, lengths of wood, heavy objects – all should be forbidden since someone might get hurt. No one should be “allowed” to use chainsaws or power equipment or skate on a pond or ride a bicycle, either. Safety!
I understand that, due to intellectual laziness or simply lack of intellect, the above logical chain of thought is beyond your ken. But I continue to try, if only because I know there are millions of dullards out there just like you. Perhaps a few can be reached.
I suspect most cannot be.
@ Bevin, January 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm , RE: “Enough!”
“… and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Declaration of Independence, Preamble; Thomas Jefferson 😉
Clover – You say you had allergies and “could sneeze 2 or 3 times out of nowhere” (we’ll overlook the glaring idiocy of that statement since one sneezes “out of” one’s mouth and nose, not “out of nowhere”). And you say you were glad no one around you was carrying at the time. How do you know they weren’t? Just because no one shot you for spraying them with whatever potentially infectious and lethal pathogens you may have expelled from your body does not prove that “the people around were not carrying.” All it proves is that they in no wise threatened you with lethal force or otherwise indicated that they were even armed.
Since most ladies and gentlemen carry discretely and do not brandish a weapon merely because their neighbor sneezes, passes gas or coughs, you would never know if they were armed. As you should know, a sneeze is potentially far more deadly to innocent bystanders than thrown popcorn. So had there been someone in your presence that you sneezed on, as ridiculous as it sounds, they would have arguably been more justified in snuffing you over possibly spreading a lethal infection (and maybe even affecting multiple bystanders, so using cloverian logic, the good of the many would outweigh the good of the one) than Reeves was over texting and thrown popcorn. Since you clearly indicate you are firm believer in the importance of the collective over the individual, maybe you should reconsider your position on bearing arms: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
Putting that little exercise aside, the fact remains that you are in America. This is, always has been, and most likely always will be, a gun culture; get used to it, get over it or get out. The “right” is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land whether you like it or not Mr. Law & Order! And it states that the right shall not be infringed, so one would think, you, being so legalistic, would be 100% behind everyone being armed that wants to be. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that more guns in the hands of law abiding civilians make our society safer (http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm). While more guns in the hands of law enforcement in the presence of an unarmed populace tend to make any society considerably more dangerous. The holocaust wouldn’t happened if the “Juden” had all (or even half) been armed. The Gestapo and the SS would have found other jobs if they thought they wouldn’t be going home after their shift. And remember clover, rounding up Jews and other “undesirables” was enforcement of “the law” by the cops! If you can’t put it together that totalitarian regimes have invariably disarmed their victims prior to engaging in genocide / democide, then you are in complete denial of historical facts.
Never mind that you are eight times more likely to be a shooting victim of the police than you are to be a victim of a “terrorist attack” according to the National Safety Council (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090221100148tsop.nb/topstory.html). And only 2% of civilian shootings result in an innocent person being shot (not killed, just shot) by a civilian, versus an 11% error rate for the cops. You are eleven times more likely to be “accidentally” shot by police than you are an armed citizen. Educate yourself: http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml Estimates that privately held firearms are used to thwart crimes run as high as 2 to 2.5 million times a year, but even the Federal government grudgingly acknowledges 100,000 defensive civilian firearms incidents each year. Only a fraction of those result in shootings and even fewer in homicides. So your staunch opposition to bearing arms in public and more importantly, private firearms ownership in general, gives away your real agenda: A disarmed populace. Why would you want that? So you and your ilk can push the rest of us around without fear of meaningful reprisal? If the shoe fits…
Let’s face it; you’re not afraid of a concealed carry holder shooting you anymore than you are afraid of Eric or me passing you on one of our motorcycles. You’re not afraid of speeders or drunk drivers, since you admit you’ve had friends that drank and drove (birds of a feather) and that you routinely exceed the speed limit (but only by the amount you arbitrarily consider acceptable). No clover, like the ex-cop Reeves, you hate people that violate “the rules” (at least the rules you agree with) even if they’ve done you no harm. You hate individual Liberty and you and your demented kind want to control the rest of us; to make us do as you say. It doesn’t matter to you what the truth is, even if it comes from a study conducted by your beloved government: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KesslerReview4.html So if you think we are going to stand by and let your ilk disarm us, as the wise guys would say, fuggedaboudit! We will keep our guns, we will keep our bikes, we will keep being hoons if we feel like it, and we will keep running circles around nosy-busybody control-freak trolls like you! Oh yeah and we will keep getting away with it! Doesn’t that just chap your ass? Well get used to it.
@Boothe – Awesome post mang!
Clover, no matter how miserable you are we won’t lower ourselves to your level.
” I could sneeze 2 or 3 times out of nowhere. Sure glad the people around were not carrying at the time or they would have blown me away. ”
Do you realize every one here went: “WTF???”
Do you realize that was a psychological confession of your own violent impulses?
Do you realize it was all about you, and nobody else? You talked about “getting some therapy.” Good advice. Take it.
But emotionally speaking, it’s still baffling.
Dom – Thanks mang! My proof reading wasn’t 100%, but unlike clove, at least I try . 😉
Thanks Boothe. I did some research on Kennesaw, Georgia and their mandatory gun ownership. The first thing I read was that before the law was put into place crime was pretty non-existent at the time. One of the authors of the law said that a decrease in crime was not attributed to the new law in the small town. When you have a low crime rate all you have to do is put one criminal in jail and crime drops drastically. Then there is the fact that the law is not enforced and even if it was all you would have to do to not own a gun is say you do not believe in guns. Hardly a backing of your beliefs that gun ownership drops crime. The law also is a requirement to have a gun in your house and not carry it in public. I have no problems with your having a gun in your house if it is secured if you have kids in the house.
The fact is that countries that outlaw all guns have a far better record than anything in the USA.
This story of a guy killing another person by shooting him in a movie theater would never have resulted in any deaths if he was not carrying a gun. Guys like that are far more aggressive against someone else if they are backed by a gun. How many shots and people killed if more people were carrying during the incident?
Clover – Of course the mandatory gun ownership in Kennesaw, Ga. law is not really binding. Forcing people to buy any product is un-Constitutional…hmmm…the Patient Protection and Affordable Care comes to mind here. But I digress, the law was largely symbolic and in direct response to the Morton Grove, Illinois handgun ban. Even USA Today, hardly a bastion of sympathy for gun ownership, acknowledged an 89% percent reduction in Kennesaw’s crime rate after the law passed (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/02/georgia-town-not-alone-in-using-gun-law-as-deterrent/2048059/) USA Today said what? Their crime rate “plummeted.” And the population of Kennesaw has grown form around 5,200 citizens to well over 28,000 and their crime rate remains low.
But the nasty little truth you and your victim disarmament ilk really love to ignore is what happened in Morton Grove, IL after the gun ban. Immediately the crime rate jumped 15.7% even though the overall crime rate in Cook County only increase by 3%. Oh and one more thing, Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta. And like any other major city, Atlanta has an ample supply of crime as you well know. Here’s what one of Kennesaw’s police officers, Police Lt. Craig Graydon had to say about the gun law: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Did you catch that clover? That tidbit, “in the metro area”? We aren’t talking about a Mayberry style country town, where everyone knows each other and Otis the town drunk checks into the jail on his own. This is part of the Atlanta metro area.
But that’s not the point is it? You don’t like not knowing who’s armed and who isn’t, because it forces you to be polite doesn’t it? That’s the real point. And that’s the reason we will ensure there is no Australio-British gun ban here; people treat each other better when they may have to back up the things they do with their life. Since you think it’s such a good idea to ban guns, why don’t you do us all a favor and move to England? The results are in from their firearms prohibition fiasco. Explain this: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
Boothe you can not read. I said nothing about banning guns. You want me to move to England? Fine. You and the others move to Germany where you say the road traffic laws are so much better. I would guess that since Kennesaw population increased so much that their police force has also increased? What do you think if they increase police force? You think that may have dropped the crime rate? Statistics often mean nothing without all the facts. Crime rate is determined by a percentage of the population. Maybe the crime rate did not increase with the population. From what I read Kennesaw’s major population is college students. Guns are banned on campus. What does that say? Criminals do all they can do to stay away from people when they do their crime. They break into an empty house far far more often than they would try to break into a house with people in it. In that case gun ownership means nothing except the burglar would have guns to steal if guns are mandatory.
So if England has banned guns then from your assertions their crime rate would be thousands of times higher than the USA. Would that not be true? You can bring up all your stats that you want but without analysis of why the number is what it is then your numbers are worthless. If the city counsel says that the law made no difference then how the hell can you have more facts than they have about their city?
If there is an accident on my local street on average once per year and one year there are two accidents would that say that the accident rate is getting twice as bad as it used to? I would say not. Statistical analysis needs a lot larger amount of data to calculate from to come to a real conclusion.
Clover – I read very well, thank you very much; especially between the lines. When you call for restrictions on carrying arms in public, you know full well that they will not work. The theater in Aurora, CO prohibited carrying firearms. The shooter did not care. Students were prohibited from carrying weapons on the Virginia Tech campus. The shooter did not care. The Sandy Hook school was a gun free zone. The shooter did not care. So when you say you wish to restrict allowing private citizens to carry firearms in public…you know,,,sensible “gun control”, what you really mean is that you wish to remove all guns from private hands. It’s the foot in the door, the camel’s nose under the tent. You’re not fooling anyone with your assertion that you’re good with people having guns in the privacy of their own homes. You know very well that they “can’t be trusted” not to sneak them out when they go to a restaurant, or theater, or the mall. So the only way to ensure that they won’t break the law is “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in.” Then the whole country becomes a gun free crime zone; a free fire zone for criminals.
You even bring up the fact the majority of burglaries occur when the occupants are away in the United States. But you ignore the reason why; they may get shot! The Wright – Rossi survey proved that handgun and shotgun predatory felons are considerably more fearful of encountering an armed citizen than they are of the police. In 1987 a serial rapist broke into my home. My (now ex-) wife shot him. He did not commit the crime. Nearly an hour later the police arrived. He obviously wasn’t worried about the cops catching and he obviously didn’t think he’d encounter a woman with a gun. His criminal endeavors ended right then because of a privately held gun. His previous victims weren’t so fortunate.
Since England and Australia have disarmed the law abiding, home invasions are at an all time high. And their police are wondering what to do about it. Duh. Rearm the populace and they will see a net decrease in violent crime. I realize that is counter-intuitive for you, but try for once to think critically. I did notice that you chose not to respond in kind about the link I provided showing that gun crime has gone up in England post gun ban. I wonder why? Having a little bout of confirmation bias are we?
I think the real issue here is that you impute your lack of self control to others around you. You believe that since you would have a hard time resisting the urge to pull a gun on someone over a minor transgression, that everyone else must be just like you. Unfortunately, altogether too many cops, active and retired, are like you these days. Worse yet, they know that their badge will usually give them a free pass to do whatever they want. Years ago (back in the 60’s) a cop that frequented my dad’s gun shop told us “There’s not cop so stupid, that if he shoots someone, he can’t find a brick or a bottle or something to put in his hand.” You can bet dollars to doughnuts that situation hasn’t improved in the last five decades. Power corrupts and without having the thought in the back of their minds that if they go far enough the citizens will retaliate, then there are no limits on what the state’s agents will do; history bears this out.
The real issue clover is personal accountability and self discipline. You apparently lack self discipline and want to impose restrictions on the rest of us because of that. It’s the age old “Johnny talked in class, so everyone has to stay in for recess.” Punishing everyone for the transgressions of the few is ludicrous. If you can’t handle your temper, then don’t buy a gun. If you think a country with strict limits on firearms ownership is Utopia, then move there. But don’t try to put us on the slippery slope of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Ukraine because you claim to fear your armed fellow countrymen. What you’d better fear is the day that you don’t have the protection of armed citizens all around you. At that point clover, you could easily be the one marching off to the camp…or the ditch. Think long and hard about that.
Boothe you are so brainwashed. You came up with a study that people are afraid to enter a home because they may get shot. Boothe criminals want to stay away from people no matter if they have guns or not. For one they will be identified if they come across someone in a robbery. For two if they want to kill someone so there is no witness their chance of being caught and going to jail forever goes up hundreds of times. Police may spend a couple of hours on a home robbery. Police spend hundreds of hours on a person shot by a criminal.
The stats that I have seen from England compared to the USA show the USA has 50 times the number of homicides that England has per 100,000 people. What does that say?
Boothe you do not need to read what I say and then change it to what you think I mean. I said what I meant. If that is not good enough for you then drop dead.,
I can’t help myself. I’ve been watching this thread grow over email; reading Boothe’s (and others’) fine, erudite, logical, and well-researched comments.
And then reading possibly the stupidest comments I’ve ever seen on the intarwebz by this Clover.
I resisted; but finally I determinedly found the root “Reply” button so I could add to this discussion.
Clover: you are without a doubt the dumbest commenter ever to soil these pages. “…USA has 50 times the number of homicides that England has…”–it’s not even remotely right. Even the biggest idiot could look at that number and see it couldn’t be so; it just wouldn’t make sense. And it doesn’t; because it’s what we in intellectual circles like to call flat fucking wrong.
And YOU are what we in intellectual circles–and that’s circles anywhere outside circles of retarded monkeys in a zoo–like to call a complete fucking moron.
Nobody likes you. You’re a coward; you’re dumb, but not charmingly dumb like Lenny in Of Mice and Men. You’re the kind of aggressive dumb that speaks out of turn; too dumb to know you’re dumb and keep your mouth shut so you might learn from your betters.
Nobody likes you. You talk loudly and certainly about things you know not at all while everyone around you cringes at the idiocy of your grating voice; you try to surround yourself with people as dumb as you, but even THEY get sick of you because, well, you’re unlikeable.
Let that sink in: Nobody likes you. They have good REASONS not to like you. Feel it. Let it hurt you. Because only if you stop; stop talking, stop pushing, be still for a moment and feel that hurt–THEN perhaps you can start the healing process.
And then, maybe one day, people might like you–because you’ll be genuine again. Because you’ll listen. Because you’ll seek improvement from your betters.
But until then–nobody likes you.
Clover – Once again, you are imputing to me what has actually happened to you; brainwashing. You have consumed the Flavorade that gun laws reduce violent crime. You can’t see anything else, because that’s the way you want things to be. If you put on your ruby slippers, close your eyes, click your heels together and say “No more guns” three times…then the world becomes a peaceful place, right? Wrong! And folks like me that understand there will always be those around that wish to take what we’ve worked for, violate our wives and daughters, injure and even kill us, also know that even if the police were required by law to defend us as individuals (and they most certainly are not), they probably won’t be around when the crime goes down. Even using your logic, that criminals avoid people in general armed or not since they are potential witnesses, one may surmise that criminals would be that much more fastidious about avoiding the police (never mind that the cops walk around heavily armed). At what point does common sense even begin to influence your thought patterns?
As far as your assertions go as to how much more violent the armed US is in comparison to the UK, I must call bovine excrement on that too.
Here are the figures: “In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. The UK is more violent than South Africa!” (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d40_1344630622)
Here’s the crime victim chart: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
Worse yet, (tongue firmly in cheek) now that gun control has worked ever sooo well, the Brits are going after knives. Guess what? That is ratcheting the violence up even more. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=384_1248278473)
Clover you are undoubtedly one of the most obtuse and unreachable trolls I’ve ever encountered. What could it possibly take for you to understand that criminals of any stripe much prefer unarmed victims? Even in this case, where a former police captain and SWAT team founder turned criminal “defended himself” against a popcorn assault with lethal force, I’m sure he was relatively confident his victim had no capacity for meaningful retaliation. You can bet your bottom dollar if Mr. Ex-cop had thought for one minute his victim or his wife would have returned fire, he’d have kept his gun in the holster. You can also bet the even if there were a law prohibiting him from carrying he’d have done it anyway. After all, there was already a law in place to prohibit the shooting of unarmed victims. Seems as though Mr. Ex-cop didn’t pay any attention to that one either; criminals never do. That’s what makes them criminals. But they do like gun control laws, because it makes the criminal’s job that much easier. You certainly can’t be so dense that you don’t understand that. I must thank you though; you really do give us plenty of fodder for discussion and we may be able to reach others with the truth because of you. So you’re aren’t totally useless. But I am inclined to agree with what Methylamine said… 😉
Methylamine – I’m fairly confident that clover is a psychopath. He is devoid of normal human feelings and the fact that he is unlikeable doesn’t even faze him. Much in the same way the facts and statistics that clearly disprove his assertions bounce off of him as well. Interesting specimen, our clover…
A thug and bully. The gun didn’t make him a thug or a bully, of course. Hopefully, he wasn’t born that way either. The myth of legitimate power and superior rights are the corrupting force here, most likely. What a darn shame.