Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Thursday, July 15, 2010


From Billy Beck:

This is not good:

Back in February, Ithaca Police officers Tase and then shoot dead a "drug suspect" in a convenience store parking lot. This is an ugly case in Ithaca. All officers cleared of wrong in the matter. Some of the weed-level buzz among townies is that while the dead man was a known dealer, the operation was a goof: his van didn't start moving until they Tased him, which happened because it was in gear. Nobody is happy about any of this.

Early last Sunday morning, the house of one of the officers burns down. It's now ruled an arson.

I would not believe for a minute that anyone involved in this is politically sophisticated enough to think this through, and I'm just telling you: this is not what anyone needs.


Blogger Taylor H said...

Not good at all...

July 16, 2010 at 12:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well is it okay to gloat just a bit that someone has pushed back?

July 16, 2010 at 1:02 AM  
Anonymous Justin said...

Maybe it's not what anyone needs. Maybe it is a spark.

What I would say is that while many go around spouting "no free Wacos", Citizens are killed for little to no reason every day, and there are rarely consequences for their murderers.

No Free Wacos? Hah. What a joke. It happens on a very frequent basis. And they ,the "Only Ones", the state sponsored terrorists, walk away from it all the time.

Except, it would seem, in this case. So whether or not its a "spark", whether or not it's what anyone needs, if the two incidents are related, I can't feel bad about it at all.

Choices and actions have consequences. If there are never negative consequences, or at least incentives to improve one's behavior, the same choices and actions will be repeated over and over.

Of course, the "state" whether FedGov, local, or state, will not learn no matter what happens. But individuals may think twice. I do agree that this won't turn out positively. I just can't say I wouldn't react similarly were I in the same boat.

At any rate, it sounds like someone may have taken a little bit more action that just complaining. How "Sons of Liberty"-ish. No free Wacos indeed.

Or maybe it is coincidence. :-)

Call me off track if you will, but that's my $.02. Any thoughts?


July 16, 2010 at 1:57 AM  
Anonymous Justin said...

But, what do I know about Ithica? I'm just an outsider. The larger issue is that it happens far too often. And the consequences are rarely what you or I would face for an equivalent action of self defense comitted against another citizen or agent of the state.


July 16, 2010 at 2:20 AM  
Anonymous Dennis308 said...

I´m sorry BB but this is exactly what is needed. Martial Law will not be declared because One Little Pigs House Burt Down. But Maybe one or two of the ¨Only Ones¨might come to finally understand that They are NOT Untouchable.
I hope whoever did this is smart enough to get away with it. And that the ¨Only Ones¨insurance co. won´t pay for damages because the damage occurred in connection of a Crime, His for Murder.


July 16, 2010 at 4:42 AM  
Anonymous Dennis308 said...

Ferther more let the ¨Only One¨find out what it´s like to be on the other end of WROL


July 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM  
Blogger daniel said...

Looks like the cops were at least put in front of a grand jury. That's more than what happens in a lot of the other infamous police abuse cases. As long as they're put in front of some kind of jury, as opposed to just some "internal review," then the rule of law would still be in effect.

Oh well, blame the grand jury.

Because the rule of law appears to have been effect, by the fact that the cops were at least put in front of a grand jury, then I would not justify retaliatory action.

July 16, 2010 at 4:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I am saying is.....

"Let New York burn"


July 16, 2010 at 4:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two-Four doesn't seem to accept comments, so I'll ask here: Why is this 'not what anyone needs'? I'm not trolling - I'd really like a reasoned answer. Especially after reading the post right below this one on Two-Four.

July 16, 2010 at 9:27 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Remember, grand juries are generally rubber-stamps for prosecutors, reaching the conclusions sought by the state, rather than the bulwark against state impropriety as originally designed.

See generally

Proposed Grand Jury Reforms

July 16, 2010 at 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former 30-year cop, I agree with Concerned American. Grand Juries are, for the most part, rubber-stamps for prosecutors. Its a GIGO situation because they are not getting the complete story, only what the DA wants them to hear.
We went from being peace officers(protecting the public and preventing violations of law) to police officers(hey, I just do my job) in the 1980's(the start of the WAR ON DRUGS). When government agencies were given the green light to shred the Fourth Amendment via asset forfeiture laws, it all changed. Burning down one cop's house is not even a spark. But, for Ithaca PD, it will at least give them pause and let them know that they cannot just fuck with or execute anybody they want to. Just do a google search on the Hemet, CA police department and see about their ongoing troubles because they like to fuck with a certain biker gang.

July 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not in anyway condoning this.

However, having said that, why is anyone surprised?

The thing that has been amazing me over the last few years is that we have not been seeing the, either targeted or random, assassination of police officers after some of these controversial actions.

Eventually anger will overcome good sense.

And I am not talking about 3pers or others who have been watching, but pi$$ed off family and friends.

There are still enough folks around who have old country-boy ideas about vendetta that I am sure we will see more and more of this.

-Old Fart Hill Billy

July 16, 2010 at 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not saying that it is good but it would be helpful if someone explained exactly why this is "not good".

Is it because the dead guy was a criminal? So were the people at Waco, welfare fraud and gun violations, and Ruby Ridge, gun violation. Is it because the fire was probably started by other bad guys as an act of revenge not as a political act of defiance? Is it because the attack on a cop will only harden the "us against them police mentality"? Or is it because it makes Beck and most other "No Free Wacos" people look like impotent posers?

I generally agree with Beck and he may have very good reasons for his position but until he provides them, he appears to be all hat no cattle.

July 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Billy Beck said...

"Why is this 'not what anyone needs'?"

Let me start like this:

If anyone here thinks this is a good thing, then why haven't they done something like it already?

July 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

A rapidly-fading hope, fully detached from reason and experience, that really ugly things will not be necessary.

To me, the biggest argument against such action is the same reason one does not trifle with a bull.

Operative term being "trifle".

July 16, 2010 at 6:20 PM  
Anonymous Billy Beck said...

C.A. -- we agree.

"Never whistle while you're pissing."

Or: "What you find to fill your hand, do it with all your heart and soul."

And think it all the way through before you do it.

July 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Justin said...


Hmmm. Another freebie for the police.

She got it for not answering questions. Retaliation for this stuff won't come from necessarily 3%ers, but from affected individuals and those who know them.

Where is the line? When is a population justified in retaliating on principle on behalf of strangers? This is why I am tempted to laugh at the idea, however noble, of "no free Wacos". As I said before, it happens every week on a smaller scale.

I would really appreciate B.B. and C.A.'s feedback on this, maybe even Dutchman if he's reading... When have they crossed the line?

When does "no free Wacos" become real?


July 16, 2010 at 10:50 PM  
Blogger GunRights4US said...

BB says:

"If anyone here thinks this is a good thing, then why haven't they done something like it already?"

I sure think it's a good thing!

And when I push back (at a time and place of MY choosing), I damn sure won't tell anyone about it other than my dead mother.

July 17, 2010 at 1:33 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Free men and women, with free will and accepting responsibility for their deeds and omissions, act freely at the time and place of their choosing.

July 17, 2010 at 2:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point. As many others have said, this should be happening a lot more frequently against those vermin that act like judge and jury because they wear a badge.
We all read these blogs faithfully with the hope that America will find itself again, a place of honor and ethics, with the people and especially with LEOs. When they cross the line and attack, shoot, rape, steal, taser, mace, etc, etc, than it is only fair that the people also strike back. Yes, this could be the beginning of open war on the LEO community, but it's not like they haven't earned retaliation.
So what's the problem with a little old attic fire?

July 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some things not mentioned:
1. the subject had a history of fleeing and high speed chase.
2. Two officers attempted to hit the subject with Tasers and failed, therefore you cannot claim that the minivan was moving because the driver was incapacitated by Tasers.

Whether it was a good shoot may be open to debate, but it was not a case of Tasering a subject and then murdering him because he was not capable of following orders.

July 18, 2010 at 3:46 AM  
Anonymous Defender said...

Waco: SUSPICION of possession of a Class III full-auto without permission. None found in the debris.
Ruby Ridge: Randy Weaver, gunsmith, entrapped when a federal agent order work that left a rifle a fraction of an inch below minimum legal overall length. They offered him a deal: spy on the Aryan Brotherhood, or go to jail. He refused, they changed his court date without telling him, and the FBI assaulted his home.
A high price for paperwork issues.

July 18, 2010 at 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Defender said...

Every incident of police abuse makes it hard for me to have sympathy for officers who suffer bad things. Basic decency and respect for individuals is required. Cops are all gung-ho to enforce laws that shouldn't even exist, and use extreme, liberty-destroying measures. It's our modern version of the Intolerable Acts that spurred the Founders to write their Declaration. When the corruption and aversion to respecting one's constitutents reaches from street cop to mayor to state legislator to Congress, where can we look for justice? I believe in karma, but the karmic process can be very slow and invisible. No wonder people get medieval.
Burning down the house was a feudal landlord's way of getting rid of tenants he no longer wanted. It's where the expression "to be fired" comes from. The Powers That Be at the time thought it was perfectly OK.

July 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for every action there is a reaction

July 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CA, while what you're saying about grand juries being rubber stamps may be true, at least in this case the Only Ones were put in front of a jury of Non-Only Ones. I was using the grand jury as a criteria for determining whether the rule of law was at least in effect, and, therefore as a criteria for determining whether retaliation "outside the system," such as arson or sniping, would be the justified and appropriate course of action.

You have to have rules of engagement and well-defined triggers for determining
1) whether the rule of law is in effect, and
2) whether retaliatory action is justified.

I am saying that a prosecutor's "one or the other" decision to put a case in front of a grand jury is a trigger point that IS EASY TO IDENTIFY AND COMMUNICATE TO OTHERS, and, therefore useful for identifying what the situation is and taking steps to restore the rule of law.

Let's say, hypothetically, that in this case, the DA decided NOT to prosecute at all. Lets also say the arsonist made some kind of anonymous claim of responsibility saying that the fire was retaliation for the cops' shooting AND that the decision to commit arson against the target WAS ONLY made after the DA decided not to prosecute. That is, the decision to commit arson, a crime, was made only when a clearly defined and easily communicable trigger event had occurred and the situation was (easily and communicably) identified as WROL.

Would you agree that a DA's decision not to put an obviously legitimate case of police abuse in front of a grand jury does constitute a WROL situation?

While not perfect, a DA's "yes or no" decision to prosecute, IMO makes a pretty useful "go-no go" trigger for determining ROL vs. WROL and, therefore, determining the effectiveness and justification of some types of otherwise "criminal" retaliatory action.

The alternative of simply justifying retaliation on a case-by case basis seems too susceptible to chaos.

The alternative of having a highly complex series of ROE's that lead from police abuse to arson through a serpentine flow chart of decision points would seem to be too complex to communicate quickly and efficiently and would not lead to any meaningful and constructive violent action.

After all, violent action, if taken, ought to be meaningful and constructive.

July 22, 2010 at 11:23 PM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

The alternative of simply justifying retaliation on a case-by case basis seems too susceptible to chaos.

The alternative of having a highly complex series of ROE's that lead from police abuse to arson through a serpentine flow chart of decision points would seem to be too complex to communicate quickly and efficiently and would not lead to any meaningful and constructive violent action.

Agree completely with statements above.

My point re the grand jury process is that grand jury proceedings are secret, and unless a defendant to charges brought via one, the ability for others to learn what instructions were given to the grand jury and what facts were presented is extremely limited.

Prosecutors know these facts and take advantage of same.

Assume the following hypothetical:

Cop A, a union steward of the politically-poerful local police union, is offduty in a bar drinking with his girlfriend. The cop takes offense at a fellow customer's smile in the direction of his girlfriend, and proceeds to assault the patron, beating him senseless.

The local police are called, and the assailant cop avoids immediate arrest due to "professional courtesy". The patron is hospitalized in a coma, dies two days later, and the press gets involved. The next day's paper features a story containing interviews with other patrons, indicating that the assaulted customer only smiled at the girl, and that the cop had no facts that would legally justify the use of any force, let alone deadly force.

The DA, facing a tough reelection and needing the political support of the police union, recognizes that he must get involved, and puts the case before a grand jury. Only the girl is called as a witness, and she says that although the victim only smiled at her, her cop boyfriend thought the patron was an ex-boyfriend of hers and "just lost it."

The DA then instructs the grand jury that a police officer is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes that an individual is using or reasonably might use deadly force against the officer or another person. The grand jury, being pro-police and having heard only one witness, votes not to bring any charges against the cop.

Now, I simply can't believe that because some facially-appropriate process was employed, the actions by the police officer (and now the DA) are thus excused from any further political consequences of their acts.

What if the victim was your father/brother/son?

What if the victim was black, and the cop, girlfriend, grand jury, and DA were white?

July 22, 2010 at 11:42 PM  
Blogger daniel said...

CA- I'm in agreement that the DA in your example, as well as the cop, would be deserving of "consequences," if it were in fact the case that the DA was intentionally neglectful in doing his job. But, so far as endorsing a violent retaliatory action, such as sniper attack, arson, kidnapping, beheading, dismemberment, vitriolage, etc in your example, I think it would have to be an individual level thing only, and not something that could be sold to a wider group as part of a wider cause. Too many details to sell, especially given that, in your example, the juries are naiive, and the populace is supportive of the DA.

If the victim were someone close to me, I'd say no tactic would be off the table, but I would not try to videotape or photograph the action as it would not be useful propaganda.

In the here and now, however, the good news is that there are plenty of lower hanging fruit, i.e., situations in which the DA's don't even pretend to make an attempt at prosecution. Take the Columbia Mo dog shooting SWAT team or the recent 12 TIMES tazering of a woman in Georgia.

Really low hanging fruit.

I mean, right there.

The bad news is that with all this low hanging fruit out there begging to get picked, no one has taken any such action.

Did I mention this fruit is like, really low hanging, really ripe and juicy?

Perhaps it is just a matter of time before someone who IS politically savvy takes justified retaliatory action against a legitimate target and can sell his message. Those stars have yet to align.

July 23, 2010 at 5:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home