Huh. A man accused of killing 4 cops was gunned down by cops after 'refusing to obey orders'. Who would have guessed? Maybe it was justified. Maybe not. I'm just saying that if you had asked me to bet my left testicle (being sheared off with a rusty hedge clipper by a serial killer who then ate it in front of me) on how this would end, I would have guessed right. GASP!

Comments

Yeah, that's a freaking shocker. My surprise is that your readers haven't said something justifying vigilante justice where cops are victims.
I just can't stir em up like I used to. Did all the whack jobs find another blog to read?
Anonymous said…
:Shrug:

I don't find it particularly shocking that someone accused of the premeditated killing of four police officers might not give up without a fight.

Prove vigilante justice and I might care.

As it is, I won't be losing any sleep over this guy.
Ben, I friend of mine posted on FB that he was happy about this. I posted a short paragraph abpout how we don't know that he was guilty and the the guy who shot him shoudn't get to be judge, jury and executioner. And finally, according to his family, the gentleman was sick. Is that what our society does; kills people who are sick? It makes me ill.
Anonymous said…
Hear, hear! Well said, bill. It's scary that these "shrugging" Americans who assume one's guilt before trial is no longer surprising to me. This is who we are these days.
Anonymous said…
"It's scary that these 'shrugging' Americans who assume one's guilt before trial is no longer surprising to me."

Do you mean the guilt of the individual who left his blood at the location of the police officer's murders or the guilt of the police officer some seem to be assuming killed the suspect without proof of vigilantism?
Anonymous said…
Acts committed on behalf of government ought to be viewed with a heightened degree of skepticism. If I need to say why, then keep on shruggin'.
Anonymous said…
Sure. But until some evidence that the police shooting was "vigilantism" is shown, I'll continue to give him as much benefit of the doubt as you seem to want to give the guy who left his blood at the scene of four murders.
Evidence smedivence. The point is, there was a 0% chance he would NOT be shot by the cops. Maybe it was justified. But there was a 100% chance of it happening. 100%.
Anonymous said…
"Evidence smedivence."

Right. Just to be sure I have this straight, it's cool to accuse someone of murder without any proof?

Interesting.

What is it you say you guys do for a living again?
Anonymous said…
"Sure. But until some evidence that the police shooting was "vigilantism" is shown, I'll continue to give him as much benefit of the doubt as you seem to want to give the guy who left his blood at the scene of four murders."

Refer to the above skepticism of government. That means you don't give the same benefit of the doubt. In case you were wonderin'. Moron.
Anonymous said…
"Refer to the above skepticism of government. That means you don't give the same benefit of the doubt. In case you were wonderin'. Moron."

Skepticism, sure.

Calling the police murderers without any proof?

Responding to requests for proof of "vigilantism" by police with statements like "evidence smedivence" and "Moron"?

No.

Calling government officials "murderers" without proof, denying the need for proof and then tossing insults at anyone who disagrees is the stuff of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy cranks.

I had thought the defense bar -- and public defenders in particular, -- were a little better than that.

Maybe not.
Anonymous said…
Prior to being a cop killer, this guy was chargerd with child rape. Ben's past posts vow that if his child was raped that no one could stop him from killing the child rapist. Go figure, I enjoy the logic that if the crime involves Ben then the rules do not matter. Now if the cop that killed the cop killer was charged with murder, and became Ben's client, how fucking outraged would Ben be about this.
Anonymous said…
Um. Yeah but. Sure. Uh, but nobody called any cops murderers, did they? I think, and go ahead and correct me, um, here, but the only thing that was said was that it was a suspicious and unsurprising outcome. Um yeah um moron.
Now this is what I am talking about. For those who think I am bending the rules for myself, be cautious. I didn't say that the police were not justified. Simply that the outcome was never in doubt how this guy would go down. Such is the nature of the police.

Popular posts from this blog