"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
D.C. Police Execute Unarmed Dental Hygienist for Traffic Mishap -- to Congressional Applause
Am I the only one who finds it barbaric that a uniformed donut-grazer (thanks, Becky Akers for the technical term) automatically shot to death a woman who was guilty of nothing more than reckless driving when nobody had been seriously injured as a result? The victim, Miriam Carey, was unarmed, completely surrounded by police, was never capable of harming the Sanctified One in the heavily barricaded White House, and apparently she was suffering from post-partum depression. Is an automatic death sentence without trial the new treatment protocol for this sad condition under ObamaCare? Now her one-year-old daughter has no mother. And will Obama now claim that the death was the result of the so-called government shutdown?
Print- Login to post comments
- Lawrence M. Ludlow's blog
User Login
Search This Site
Related Columns
- Ed Schultz and His Alleged Middle Class Heroes
- Had Enough Government 'Regulation' Yet?
- 'Jupiter Ascending' Versus the Power Elite and the Rise of Automated AI Trolling Attacks, and More
- Warrantless Searches and Criminal Government Bureaucrats (But I Repeat Myself)
- The Orwellian Paradigm--Killing You, For Your Own Safety
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
You nailed it, Lawrence. A bit more than a "mishap", maybe, but it does appear it's police SOP to kill first and check the facts later. They could not of course tell her mental state, but just by looking at her they could see she had a baby with her and was handling no gun. Two good reasons to holster their own. Or at most, just to shoot out her tires.
At the terrible cost of her own life, Miriam Carey did lock down the entire US Congress for a while. That achievement would make a pretty fair epitaph.
Yes, Jim. Both of us are old enough to remember a time when such events were not an automatic death sentence. I hope her family members connect some of the dots and appreciate the canary-in-a-coal-mine aspect of this event. And her daughter when she grows up.
It is disgusting how cowardly "law enforcement officers" have become, especially the Feds. Officer safety has become priority no. 1 and serving the public is just a PR slogan. One unarmed woman driving crazy with a baby in the car gets executed on the spot as the Capitol gets locked down. Crazy.
Mark, I agree with you. The police actions were cowardly. There they were, gangs of them, armed to the teeth, outnumbering and surrounding this woman, and they kill her because the only thing that matters is their fear and anger and hyped-up sense of domination over the proles. I consider all bullies to be cowards. Her car was already riddled with bullet holes before she stopped. The so-called "injured" secret service agent is said to have been unhurt by her car according to bystanders--"popping right back up" with no damage. Check out what Kelley Vlahos wrote here on the antiwar.com blog. She, too, is disgusted along with us. Scott Horton interviewed Kelley on his show as well -- scotthorton.org
Cowardly--no. Self-centered, egoistical, self-aggrandizing psychopathic morons. But. is that true for all LEO's Probably not. Many officers are just not properly vetted for the job. They are like politicians. Besides, police officers have absolutely no obligation to protect the public. There is no "Protect and Serve". It is a delusional device created to blind the sheep into a false belief. Their job is to clean up after a crime, not prevent a crime. I have read far too many sickening stories wherein police officers have actually stood around and watched a crime being committed and did absolutely nothing about it. Despite all that, I feel what you are saying Mark.
Whenever an armed individual -- state costume or no -- aims a deadly weapon toward an unarmed person, that armed individual is a coward.
Challenge that.
Don't support "troops". Abstain from beans.
Sam
Sam, you got it. See my response to Glock below.
Pointing a loaded firearm at an unarmed citizen is not a cowardly act--it is an act of stupidity, it is a police force out of control, it is historical. A firearm possesses power and the cops know it, and for some reason they have the right to draw the weapon on an unarmed citizen. The cop attitude is one of "I am better than you and you damned well better do what I say or I'll shoot your fquing ass" Now who's going to argue with that. Cops are not cowards they are licensed storm troopers.
Given all the new legislative laws passed cops can do pretty much what they desire and fqu the law. They are an intriguing group of legitimized gang bangers, banging the public.
The Supreme Court has clearly separated the police from any wrong doing in that they have absolutely no legal basis to prevent a crime, they are not even required to respond to a crime and they will be one of the first on the line to confiscate firearms from a legitimate public.
A coward is an individual whom is afraid to do something. Ergo, pulling a firearm on an unarmed citizen and shooting them is not something they are afraid of doing--that has been made evident in this article among the hundreds that exist.
That's my challenge Sam. A coward could never draw his or her firearm because they are afraid to do so. Those who do so are by your definition psychopaths of which I would strongly agree--the blue wall will protect these kind of sick morons, ones the forces should be getting rid of, but to replace them with what, more Shock troop mentality.
Love you Sam
Glock: Mark, Samarami, and I have simply gone deeper into the meaning of the cop's action--to the motive behind it. One can make a powerful argument that all bullies are -- beneath the skin --cowards. Their fear of others drives them to destroy all that is not them. They are in mortal fear of "the other" and must thus control all that surrounds them to feel at peace. Connect wifh the truth in that, and you will understand.
LAWRENCE: You just demonstrated that no two minds think alike. Every coward I have ever seen or heard of always runs away. Re-defining words seems to always lead to confusion until everyone is mixed up. In some cases wherein the word coward would be used can be confused also for common sense of not becoming involved into something that will ultimately lead to disastrous outcomes. I grasp your construct, but I cannot leap over the term for what "I" know it to mean. I deeply appreciate your kindness and patients to enlighten me and I see how you come to your conclusion. but for me I cannot come to the same conclusion. Given what I know about research on SWAT teams and their love for making a raid, righteous or not, its the love of power they have and the adrenaline rush they gain, addiction to body chemistry. I believe nearly every cop is fitted with this DNA flaw and with all the SCOTUS decisions to relieve the police of any liability regarding their actions only enforces their self delusion that they can do whatever they desire to do. The two young men Manning and the other I cannot recollect of hand are called cowards for having exposed the governments monster's acts. Here I believe is an example of confusion of the term coward. It took conviction of truth and bravery to do what they did and I could not be more proud of two men capable of having such a high degree of integrity to risk their lives to expose the government morons.
Again, I wish to thank you for your kind and gentle manner of explaining your position.
P.S. In conclusion with the "Coward" issue here I must confess that then I too am a "Coward" for since I have had my concealed carry permit I have brought forth my firearm on four separate occasions against apparently unarmed citizens. I say so because they quickly apologized and intended no harm but were confused and lost. Hmm! Were they unarmed? I will never know because they never made an attempt to draw a firearm and they have never returned to seek vengeance. Given this I have to assume they were unarmed and I am now a "Coward", or at least that's the way it looks to me from the definition being provided.
As long as people continue to intrude on my private space at ungodly hours I will always be a coward and have my firearm at the ready to avoid conflict. Note also that one of these 2:00a.m. intruders was a sheriff deputy. And of course I holstered my firearm in his presence because I did not desire for him to do something stupid.
Please note this is an observation I have come up with and not a criticism, but a realization of what I must be.
Supplied with all due respect.
Hello, Glock. I have to admit you have a point. Words have meaning--and very specific meaning. And as you point out, yes, there are times when we are cowards and later on are not. The reason I tend to look upon soldiers and law enforcement personnel with such skepticism is that they -- like all gangs -- so frequently hide behind their large numbers. They like to hide in a crowd. This is most evident with military people. They live in a cloistered, thought-controlled, pet-like scenario only to be unleashed (at least in America) when they so outnumber or can technologically overwhelm their foes that they bear little personal risk of injury. Take a look at the most dangerous jobs--things like ocean fishing boats and offshore oil well work. I have always taken gangs to be the quintessential admission of cowardice as a result. They never stand on their own, and they always single out those who are alone or outnumbered or out-propagandized. That is the reason. So I see cowards hiding behind the mask of a uniform. I hope that explains why I am not sticking to my definitions in a way I normally would here. And you made good points!
Lawrence--your new presentation convinces me now and I can see clearly. I guess I would have to concede to your perspective. I do believe though that many will act on their own without the assistance of the group, but when groups are unleashed they appear to follow to regime in play at the moment. I enjoy STR and some of the minds that are here, however I believe reality is going to dictate that freedom and liberty are not going to come from simply words. There are so many points of view here that seriously need a wider audience, an education forum that plunges into the unwashed masses. It is often said the pen is mightier than the sword, but my observations of the world just do not seem to fit that saying. For me, not paying taxes would be one of the most powerful methods of saying no to the government. I see advertisements on T.V. where people have lots of back taxes they owe the government and they hire one of these professional consultants who manages to negotiate his taxes down to mere thousands rather than hundreds of thousand.
How do you convince 50% of the population to not pay taxes?
Thanks for your patients as I can now understand the usage better than before. Sometimes it just takes patient people to get ideas through. Thanks Lawrence. I really appreciate your efforts.