There is no such thing as winning a lawsuit. At a minimum it costs you time and money even if you’re the prevailing party. So when I saw this I though it another prime example of why you do not cower or negotiate.
Obviously the idiot has never heard of duress and it’s effects on the nullifying the terms of a contract. What is most interesting though is the following:
The armed individual intimidated the home owners into allowing his entrance and into hiding him. When they escape he sues for breach of contract!? Given the evidence provided by the Tuller Drill at that range lethal force is justified. It is also another lesson in not opening the door for stangers, talk through side glass or a peep hole. At minimum put a safety chain on the door. It may seem paranoid but it is nothing more than safety and preparedness.
Even if someone really wants in your house the safety chain isn’t going to stop them. It will buy you time though to create a safe engagement distance.
Some might expect this law suit to go nowhere, but there is no correlation between the law and justice. So I don’t hold my breath. Besides even if it’s thrown out, I doubt the defendants will ever actually recover their legal bills from the plaintiff.
It appears that rules and laws regarding the application and use of force have changed recently. I can see no reason someone who is handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser needs to be maced and beaten.
That explains the situation. A criminal shouldn’t move at all. Never mind the fact that being handcuffed alone is uncomfortable. Not to mention being stuffed in the back of a police cruiser with hard seats and pressure applied by the back on the cuffs and shoulders from sitting.
Couple this with the fact that he was a patrol supervisor and this happened within the plain view of other officers and emergency personal signals this man is a loose cannon.
State Sponsored Criminal Count: 134 – Christian D. Fow
Because it’s standard procedure to beat on someone in cuffs in a police car. The better to make sure the attacking officer isn’t injured.
For those who have never read it, Joe Huffman wrote this great page on civil disobedience. The lessons quoted from someone else at the end drive it home.
Lesson No. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you don’t want to go because of who you are or what you think– kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent them. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant’s executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants, or they will run out of it.
Lesson No. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms– kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.
Lesson No. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you may be more easily identified– tell him to go to hell. Registration of people and firearms is the required precursor to the tyranny which permits genocide. Bureaucrats cannot send soldiers to doors that aren’t on their list.
Lesson No. 4: Believe actions, not words. Tyrants are consummate liars. Just because a tyrant is “democratically elected” doesn’t mean that he believes in democracy. Reference Adolf Hitler, 1932. And just because a would-be tyrant mouths words of reverence to law and justice, or takes a solemn oath to uphold a constitution, doesn’t mean he believes such concepts apply to him. Reference Bill Clinton, among others. The language of the lie is just another tool of killers. A sign saying “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Makes You Free) posted above an execution camp gate doesn’t mean that anybody gets out of there alive, and a room labeled “Showers” doesn’t necessarily make you clean. Bill Clinton notwithstanding, the meaning of “is” is plain when such perverted language gets you killed. While all tyrants are liars, it is true that not all political liars are would-be tyrants– but they bear close watching. And keep your rifle handy.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
His statements on guns coupled with the above are greatly disturbing and certainly lesson 4 comes into play.
If I lived within a day’s driving distance round trip I would be patronizing your establishment as soon as possible. Instead I hope that some of my friends who live in Virginia can pay you a visit in my stead. I applaud you for standing up for yourself and not taking the cowards way out for cheap press and letting your convictions slide.
Though I will say you’re probably getting considerably more press and coverage by telling them no, than you would have by accepting their patronage.
If I have a business, I didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson:
He said, plain as day, “if I have a business I didn’t build that, someone else did”. But lets humor them for a second and say it just applied to “infrastructure”.
It wasn’t the government that built the roads, no, it was small independent contractors, aka small businesses that built that. They were paid from money collected by the federal government. That money was collected from businesses and their employees. They made that money by selling goods and services to other people. So really small businesses through inter-cooperation built roads and infrastructure with the government getting involved to take a cut of the costs.
So maybe what Obama was actually talking about was money. You see government prints the money and since it’s no longer standardized on anything they can print as much as they want. So it was the government that built a fiat currency to use to buy all this stuff and in the end screw businesses by devaluing the currency used for transactions. That is the only way that “If you have a business, you didn’t build that” can possibly make any sense. That statement can only hold true if you say that government is the creator and founder of using money in exchange for goods and services. Except you need not only use cash, you can barter or use precious metals in transactions as well.
The bottom line is the President let us look under the veil on that one. Under that veil we saw what many of us already knew, a hard-core socialist that wants to drive private independent businesses into the ground and have a central government-run it all. Because in that case no one would build that, it would all be “owned” by the government. No thanks Mr. President, keep the change.
The real icing on the cake is that some of the incidents occurred while he was on duty. State side many monsters have gone in to law enforcement to allow them to hide in plain sight. Since this was outside the states, I’m hesitant to give him a number though I really want to. I run the count to predominantly show corruption in the American system, if I included foreign governments I could just call it a day with Iran, China, and North Korea.
The fact this is an honorable mention has nothing to do with the incident itself, but merely the fact it occurred outside the US. There have been other’s that have made the count in similar circumstances and this man deserves as much scorn as his countrymen can throw at him.
International State Sponsored Criminal: John Doe**
Because being a cop means that you have a huge amount of trust merely by having a badge.
*I had to put something in there to cheer me up because this sucker is just depressing.
**As always if you get his name, please let me know.
Another officer who not only found another victim while on the job, but used his position to intimidate the victim into compliance. Given the fact that citizens have to just endure illegal searches and mistreatment by the police under protection of law it’s no wonder this type of behavior exists.
This man is a full count no matter his punishment short of death. The department and the legal system acted to provide him the protections he needed to be invulnerable to his prey. Are all cops like this? No, but there are cops like this out there so why is the law protecting them while violating the citizenry. While a cop has every right to go home at the end of his shift, the law abiding citizen has more of a right to remain unmolested and unventilated.
State Sponsored Criminal Count #215: William Martinez
Because the real reason for all those LEO protections is to make sure the criminals can hide in plain sight with impunity.
This was posted on their “Kid Shootings” blog. A blog they use to dance in the blood of children who die because someone shot them. Here’s a question though, who really killed that kid? I’m of the strong opinion he killed himself. Now someone else actually ran the instrument that caused his death, but it was the child’s decisions that resulted in his death.
Please note, we often hear about “suicide by cop” so how is this really different? Yeah the person may not be intending to die, but that is the risk that is carried by their actions.
That child was ready to kill the owner of that car. The owner did what he had to in order to survive. The kid had a choice though. He could have stayed home and played video games. He could have attempted to steal a different car. I already talked about this previously.
This post by our dear friends in the criminal occupational hazard reduction organization though shows us exactly what their attitudes are. They do not support the law abiding. They do not support and defend the innocent. They do not support and defend those who are forced to defend their life or declare it forfeit and arrive at the gates of heaven.
This post is further evidence of the statements I wrote in my Open Letter To Joan Peterson, who has never responded by the way. The facts are plain and clear though and we are obtaining more data points to support our conclusions. Our opponents hate and despise the law abiding and those who are honest within our society. They rise up and defend robbers, rapists, murders, and anyone who would do harm to another person.
Joan defended the assailant in the Kroger’s incident. Here Baldr Odinson (Jason Kilgore) defends a teenager who took a loaded firearm and threatened someone with it. The teenager was a mere 4 or 6lbs from taking someone’s life. They had done everything else necessary to do the deed other than apply another 4 or 6 lbs. to the trigger. How does one say their intent is anything but possibly fatal to your well being at that point?
*As a side note I actually left a comment on their blog. I am posting it here as well as linking to this post. Just because they can control the signal on their site doesn’t mean they can block it from the internet.
I guess car jacking and assault with a deadly weapon isn’t a crime if you’re under 18 in your book.
Do law abiding citizens need to ask for id now when being assaulted and threatened with a deadly weapon before defending themselves?
It’s good to see that you’re abusing the victim in this case and dancing in the blood of the aggressor to push your political agenda. We can’t have honest law abiding folks fight back against someone who had a loaded and cocked firearm pointed at them and threatening them.
Tell me, would a cop ask for ID in that instance prior to shooting them?
That was a reasonable use of force no matter how you cut it. The solution to this problem is simple. Educate your children that there are consequences to your actions. Sometimes those consequences are dire and if you point a loaded firearm at someone attempting to rob them, they’re liable to take you seriously. So seriously infact that they will defend themselves which may result in your recidivism rate being effectively reduced to zero.
I look at this as a parenting failure and thank god the victim had a firearm and was able to protect his life. Unlike you, I don’t defend people who abuse the good in society. I care about the good and if someone would rather be bad, that’s their choice and there’s consequences to your choices good or bad.