OHP shooting.

[dennishoddy]

We desperately need to replace the current system with something much more protective of individual liberty.

How do we do this?

 

[tRidiot]

I'm not opposed to that at all... if it comes with a requirement for personal responsibility or die or do without, I'm 1000% for it. Too many lazy fiskers in this country need to get off their arses and quit milking this system and expecting everyone else to pay for it.

A little social/moral cleansing - not ethnic, SOCIAL/MORAL - would do this world a lot of good. Getting dangerously close to the "fend for your own" mentality up in my mind.

 

[GlockCop]

Creating disregard for lawful authority is exactly what I am trying to encourage. The only thing people should have regard for is good old fashioned morality, including the Non-Aggression Principle... and they should not be afraid to defy a law when it comes into conflict therewith.

Break down the system and replace it? That is absolutely my goal. We desperately need to replace the current system with something much more protective of individual liberty.

Brilliant. I'm curious which laws do we need to disregard first to create your utopian anarchist world?

 

[henschman]

How do we do this?

I'm not taking anything off the table, and I'm open to ideas... but I submit that the best starting point is to spread the mindset that laws are nothing but threats of force, and are not due any more reverence or respect than any other such threat. We need to break the tie that binds law and morality in so many people's minds, and get people to realize that threats of force are only justified if made against someone who first started the use or threat thereof; that there is nothing special about a threat of force when it is made by a majority vote of a bunch of suit-wearing sociopaths, or anybody else; that, as one member recently put it (sorry, I forget who) that malium prohibitum is malium in se.

In the longer run, we can start removing the laws that most egregiously violate the non-aggression principle, or disregarding them in great enough numbers that they become moot; and advocating for more legal protection for individual liberty. Taking a look at the hyper-regulatory state around us, I think it is clear that the Constitution didn't go nearly far enough toward protecting liberty.

Brilliant. I'm curious which laws do we need to disregard first to create your utopian anarchist world?

I think I'll start today by leaving my driveway without putting my seat belt on... we'll see where it goes from there. Actually on second thought, I'm pretty sure this shitter I'm sitting on isn't EPA-compliant, so maybe the revolution has already begun.

 

[Poke78]

I think I'll start today by leaving my driveway without putting my seat belt on... we'll see where it goes from there. Actually on second thought, I'm pretty sure this shitter I'm sitting on isn't EPA-compliant, so maybe the revolution has already begun.

Now that's what I call living on the edge with your tender parts dangling over a non-compliant commode...fight the power, brother!!!

 

[SMS]

Now that's what I call living on the edge with your tender parts dangling over a non-compliant commode...fight the power, brother!!!

I believe he was just using those as simple examples to illustrate the point.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I'm not taking anything off the table, and I'm open to ideas... but I submit that the best starting point is to spread the mindset that laws are nothing but threats of force, and are not due any more reverence or respect than any other such threat. We need to break the tie that binds law and morality in so many people's minds, and get people to realize that threats of force are only justified if made against someone who first started the use or threat thereof; that there is nothing special about a threat of force when it is made by a majority vote of a bunch of suit-wearing sociopaths, or anybody else; that, as one member recently put it (sorry, I forget who) that malium prohibitum is malium in se.

In the longer run, we can start removing the laws that most egregiously violate the non-aggression principle, or disregarding them in great enough numbers that they become moot; and advocating for more legal protection for individual liberty. Taking a look at the hyper-regulatory state around us, I think it is clear that the Constitution didn't go nearly far enough toward protecting liberty.


I think I'll start today by leaving my driveway without putting my seat belt on... we'll see where it goes from there. Actually on second thought, I'm pretty sure this shitter I'm sitting on isn't EPA-compliant, so maybe the revolution has already begun.

So what you're saying is that the purpose of many laws is to force us peasants to comply with the wishes of our elected representatives and their favorite lobbyists? I don't care for those laws, but I really like the ones that protect me from myself.

 

[sh00ter]

This was probably a case where the guy had open-carry and when he argued with the cops they had their "justification" to use deadly force. Imagine two 35-40yr old grown men, no children in danger or anything, and they want to take care of their own business and the State uses deadly force to force them to let their property get damaged. Seems like there have been some shootings and tazings of men who wanted to rush in and save a pet or a child in a house fire too...this is a police state if grown men can't make their own decisions about trying to save their truck. Even if they guy was drunk and became aggressive, this would not have happened if the police were not so militant about forcing grown men to do what they say...of course, if the guy pulled a gun on the police, then I'd say the police have every right to defend themselves but this whole thing should never have happened.

 

[TedKennedy]

Never mind in this day and age even "ordinary" folks feel like they don't have to do what any nice police officer asks them even if it is for their own safety.

Asks? How many cops roll up on someone or some situation and ask anything? Command would be a better choice of words. I can only speak of personal experience with TPD, TCSO, OHP, Sapulpa PD, Creek County SO.
Last November, during a search for a boy, I came upon about 5 Sapulpa PD guys - I ask them if they were looking for @@@? I was met with questions about who I was, etc... why did I want to know....a bunch of hateful crap spewed from one cop's mouth.
The other cops were cool as anything, but his idiotic response, and those 4's silent approval of it is what I'll remember.

 

[SMS]

We don't have anywhere near enough information to make any judgements on either side, yet, but I'm getting a kick out of the "he was a good boy" and "he respected authority" stuff coming out, as well as the reaction to it. If it's a black kid in the inner city, everyone rolls their eyes and says "yeah, right. He was a good boy my a$$". Now it's a white dude and everyone is piling on with "The pigs shot a preacher man!".

Maybe the cops were overbearing power hungry a-holes, or just maybe the dead guy was a drunk ignorant a-hole who picked a fight with a cop who was responding to a call. Hopefully we'll find out.