Amazingly stupid shootout

[rjohnson4405]

^ And let them pile up so the next guy (who's sharing the cell with the dead) knows what's going to happen to him.

 

[GBExpat]

Quite frankly, this is just another instance (of many) that makes me think, "Too bad they took that miscreant alive." ... o'course, the guy driving that cruiser gave it his best shot, kudos to him!

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

"sans authoritas" translates to "without authority".

The guy is pretty clearly an anarchist and never passes up an opportinity to tell the world that cops should all die.

Don't take my word for it, read his previous posts.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Masterof Malice wrote:

and never passes up an opportinity to tell the world that cops should all die.

Don't take my word for it, read his previous posts.

MasterofMalice, let anyone search through all of my posts and see if they can find anything of the sort. Or, how about stopping your attempted slander, and instead, find and post one of these alleged posts yourself?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Truly. This man has stereoscopic vision and doesn't bleat. That's why they're going after him.

Translation: The government sucks and we're all victims.

Because predators always go after the one that is standing apart from the herd?

Translation: The government sucks and we're all victims.

What was he charged with that landed him 11 life sentences? Was that determined by how many shots he fired? Bizzare. You'd never see a sentence like that if he had "only" opened fire on a family of 5 in a minivan.
I guess some people's lives are more important.

Translation: The government sucks and we're all victims.

Click, I did research it, as a matter of fact. Regardless, he never would have gotten 11 life sentences if he had only opened fire on non-police.

Translation: The government sucks and we're all victims.

The absence of a militarized police force justifying its existence by no-knock raids and kicking down doors for voluntarily-consumed chemicals would be all the "bluebirds fluttering about" I need.

Translation: The government sucks and we're all vicitms. There should be no laws which effect me.

Excellent!

Translation: Excellent!

I mean that I have just as much authority as every other person. Meaning, mostly, "No one has the alleged authority to rule over others without their individual and express consent."

Translation: Laws I don't like do not apply to me.

"Someone in authority" will use violence against you without blinking, as long as it is the law according to their god of legal positivism. And even for them, sometimes upholding the "law" is less important than the enjoyment they derive from the fact that they possess and can use force.

Translation: The government sucks, laws suck, cops suck, cops are masochists.

There, that's going back 6 days. Are my translations exaggerated? Not much but there's not much room here and it's getting late. Night night.

 

[Nate C.]

An excellent response, Master of Malice, but you are just taking the bait...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Master, you're free to incorrectly interpret and insert your own take on my statements, if you like.

As I have said before, I absolutely am an anarchist. You might consider an "anarchist" to be one of the sulky, black-clad goth teenagers throwing molotov cocktails at WTO meetings. That is not what an anarchist is. You might think "anarchy" is synonymous with "chaos." It is not. Even J.R.R. Tolkien said in a letter to his son, "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood to mean abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."

In reality, where we live, anarchy does not mean libertinism, or "everyone should be able to do whatever they want." Nor does it mean, "there can be no such thing as laws that protect the actual life, liberty and property of individuals, and people who enforce the laws." It means, "No one has any right to initiate aggression against any other person, even with the presence a majority vote." Philosophical anarchy also espouses the idea that no adult has any right to rule over any other adult unless it is individually and contractually agreed upon. (Gasp! Chaos!)

Anarchy is the idea that if there is really a legitimate need and demand, the free market can supply it.

Anarchy is the idea that God can protect his rights, and men should stick to protecting their own.

Anarchy is the idea that by nature, men are still mostly good, and can not continue to exist in a state of chaos, but rather, will naturally come to a basic agreement upon what rules they should live by (no murder, theft, rape, etc.) And that there is no need, and indeed, it is counterproductive to create and empower a coercively-funded entity to try to preserve the lives and individual rights of men.

But if you still believe that any market-funded individual, group of individuals, or corporation could have possibly had the means (forcible taxation and conscription) or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 human beings in the span of a single century, as governments did in the 20th century, feel free to remain a supporter of tax-based government. As for me? I choose the less deadly road.

If you like, read this article. It summarizes my own "conversion" to anarchism quite well. "The Reluctant Anarchist." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sobran-j1.html

Who knows. You may find some common threads, if you are a seeker of truth.

Master, have you mastered malice yet? I am still without authority.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[akodo]

I find the police comments in that video very concerning

The first time the officer talks about shooting, he says he wants the guy 'to experience the feeling of bullets flying by him'

I interpret this as "I was shooting to scare him into surrender"
To me, this is not an acceptable reason to be shooting

"I wanted to kill him"
That to me is the officer admitting something very dangerous. He isn't judge and jury. This shouldn't be about vengance.


"I wanted to get him stopped before he killed me or someone else"
Luckily he made this statement right after. This to me is an acceptable explination of the use of deadly force. Murder in the name of vengance isn't. Neither is 'scaring him'

The thing is, I could understand making those statements immediately after the incident, but to still be stating 'I wanted to kill him' months and years after in a TV interview, that is MUCH different than minutes or hours after the incident.

 

[GBExpat]

It simply sounds to me like he was honestly relating what he felt at that moment.

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Akodo, I have to agree with you. “I wanted to kill him” was an alarming response. The desire to kill someone isn’t a trait that I would want my police having, even if they were angry. Their job is to establish peace and order and not to administer justice….
The taking of someone’s life should be avoided and only went if no other options are available. Anyway, that’s my only critique…
That aside, the bad guy got what he deserved

The video was rather incredible.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

*sigh* Only in Montana, home of the freemen, unibomber and now this.

And now this? It happened 5 years ago, FCOL!

 

[mindwip]

I dont know about others, but if a guy is pointing a gun at me and shooting at me and wants to kill me, then is it not ok to want him died too, i think i would take that a bit personal??

Also, i wanted him to feel bullets going by him, perhaps means "Well i shot at the guy that was hiding behind his car so that he would not feel that i would let him kill me." So shooting was to say hay this will not be a easy cop to kill.

OR

Well he missed him, and thats the best response he could think of.

I see these as what he was thinking just not the PC version cops normally give

 

[TallPine]

I vaguely remember the bar shooting incident, but never heard about the chase. We had just moved from town out into the hills and I must have had more important things on my mind.

Weird though ... we were over in western MT about a week after that - probably on some of the same roads Davis used from Ennis to Lolo pass

 

[Ninja42]

9/10!

Excellent takedown, and I especially like the ramming at the end.

Now, wht havent anyone IDed the BGs gun yet?

 

[ants]

Sans Authoritas is correct that there is a wide disparity.
So we should give 11 consecutive life sentences to EVERY violent felon who shoots at anyone.
You think I'm joking? I mean it.



Gives gun owners a bad name? No, it gives ranch-hands-who-kill-one-guy-outside-a-bar-and-shoot-9-others-then-run-from-the-police-and-shoot-at-two-deputies-before-finally-getting-caught a bad name.

 

[leathermanwave]

Yep ...Montana is a crazy dangerous state. Everyone from California ...be sure to tell all your friends of the dangers of MT.

Please tell everyone.