Silver Bullet
Member
Exactly right.
The point of my earlier post is that there are going to be leftys screaming for censorship of the internet while condoning the Ohio newspaper's publishing CCW holder names.
Family members of Federal Judge murdered.
- Thread starter LawDog
- Start date
- Status
The point of my earlier post is that there are going to be leftys screaming for censorship of the internet while condoning the Ohio newspaper's publishing CCW holder names.
Cosmoline
Member
Does anyone have more details on exactly how they pulled this off? I know the Marshals aren't the Secret Service, but surely the judge's family had at least some level of protection? The federal courts have turned into Ft. Knox since 9/11, but apparently nobody thought to lock the door of the judge's house.
Cosmoline
Member
True, but anything violent attack that challenges the ability of a judge to do his or her job is far more serious than it would otherwise be. This isn't because the judge is a demigod, but because the office of the judge must be protected if we're to have anything like a fair judicial system. As soon as the bench is vulnerable, it's not too far before we become like so many other nations in Latin America, Africa and even southern Europe. I'll gladly suffer a hundred arrogant left-wing Article III life termers over even one lacky who cowtows to some threat. I always want my judges to be able to tell me and everyone else to go to hell and stay there, with no fear of physical violence as a result.
rock jock
Member
Yes, yes. Your life is very valuable. In fact, you should have as much right to be protected by the Secret Service as the President. Afterall, your death and death of the President would have precisely the same effect on the world. 
Jeff Timm
Member
Rock Jock commented, "Yes, yes. Your life is very valuable. In fact, you should have as much right to be protected by the Secret Service as the President. Afterall, your death and death of the President would have precisely the same effect on the world."
Actually, his demise would have less effect, he has a highly compentent and well developed back up in place, I don't.
Now, if any politician wants protection beyond a call to 911 they should pay for it out of their own pocket. Instead we get city council cretins with full time police bodyguards, and the people have no protection at all, and are largely forbidden to defend themselves.
Geoff
Who places an extreamely low value on professional politicians.
Actually, his demise would have less effect, he has a highly compentent and well developed back up in place, I don't.
Now, if any politician wants protection beyond a call to 911 they should pay for it out of their own pocket. Instead we get city council cretins with full time police bodyguards, and the people have no protection at all, and are largely forbidden to defend themselves.
Geoff
Who places an extreamely low value on professional politicians.
While the President has people in place, his death would have effects far out of proportion to that of another citizen. He is the Constitutional and symbolic head of the United States, and should that head be injured, the body will necessarily be disrupted.
People who argue otherwise never studied history. The Reconstruction in the South was more severe and oppressive in large part because of Lincoln's assassination. Not only was there desire for revenge for his death, but his moderating influence was gone. He didn't want to beat down the South, he wanted to bring it back into the fold. Those who succeeded him had the opposite goals.
The aftermath of Kennedy's assassination brought Johnson into power (you said something about competent people, which I think Johnson disproves readily), helped keep us in Vietnam, and allowed passage of various laws in his honor (some good, some horrible).
People who argue otherwise never studied history. The Reconstruction in the South was more severe and oppressive in large part because of Lincoln's assassination. Not only was there desire for revenge for his death, but his moderating influence was gone. He didn't want to beat down the South, he wanted to bring it back into the fold. Those who succeeded him had the opposite goals.
The aftermath of Kennedy's assassination brought Johnson into power (you said something about competent people, which I think Johnson disproves readily), helped keep us in Vietnam, and allowed passage of various laws in his honor (some good, some horrible).
HankB
Member
Cold bloodedly murdering a judge or a judge's family is a heinous crime. It ought to be pursued vigorously and the perpetrators brought to justice. Capital punishment would be appropriate upon conviction.
Cold bloodedly murdering John Q. Public or John Q. Public's family is a heinous crime. It ought to be pursued just as vigorously and the perpetrators brought to justice. Capital punishment would be appropriate upon conviction.
Sadly, some peasants-at-heart seem to be comfortable with the idea of an American nobility (extending well beyond the head of state) which merits special protection and special privilege - an attitude that says "Government workers are more important than I am. Their families are more important than mine. And that's as it should be." (I hope they're honest enough to inform their own families of the "high" regard they hold them in.)
If we see this in a group like THR, one wonders about the concept of self-worth and self-image in the general population of sheeple.
Cold bloodedly murdering John Q. Public or John Q. Public's family is a heinous crime. It ought to be pursued just as vigorously and the perpetrators brought to justice. Capital punishment would be appropriate upon conviction.
Sadly, some peasants-at-heart seem to be comfortable with the idea of an American nobility (extending well beyond the head of state) which merits special protection and special privilege - an attitude that says "Government workers are more important than I am. Their families are more important than mine. And that's as it should be." (I hope they're honest enough to inform their own families of the "high" regard they hold them in.)
If we see this in a group like THR, one wonders about the concept of self-worth and self-image in the general population of sheeple.
Great. Now those who understand why the system tends to be concerned about the intentional targetting of certain individuals are "peasants-at-heart."
By the way, I don't think anyone has argued that there is an American nobility. But when people decide to effect legal/political change via violent means, some of us are a wee bit concerned because history shows that such action invariable leads to consequences disproportionate to what would otherwise be the case for an "ordinary" crime.
Notice how I was able to deal with your argument without resorting to an insult?
By the way, I don't think anyone has argued that there is an American nobility. But when people decide to effect legal/political change via violent means, some of us are a wee bit concerned because history shows that such action invariable leads to consequences disproportionate to what would otherwise be the case for an "ordinary" crime.
Notice how I was able to deal with your argument without resorting to an insult?
At Saturday's funeral for Mike Lefkow, many of the federal judges walked by themselves the 4 or 5 blocks from where they parked their own cars and then waited in line like everyone else. Of course the Little King pulled up in front with his private army (paid for by his subjects). (The same Little Richie Daley who has proposed lots of "new" gun control legislation.)
p35
Member
The one time I got to have lunch with a Federal judge, he showed up driving an old VW Bug! If a lawyer is talented and connected enough to make it to the Federal bench, he/she could be making a lot more money doing something else, without the political aggravation of getting through the Senate. They generally aren't pretentious and do it because they care about the job.
HankB
Sadly, some peasants-at-heart seem to be comfortable with the idea of an American nobility (extending well beyond the head of state) which merits special protection and special privilege - an attitude that says "Government workers are more important than I am. Their families are more important than mine. And that's as it should be." (I hope they're honest enough to inform their own families of the "high" regard they hold them in.)
If we see this in a group like THR, one wonders about the concept of self-worth and self-image in the general population of sheeple.
Maybe they don't see public employees as "nobility" so much as they see them as their employees and worry about someone being killed, or having their family killed, because they are doing a job for them.
You lists your job as an engineer. How concerned would you be if you found that one of your construction employees, or his family, was killed because someone wanted to stop a building you were working on? Would you feel some extra responsibility for the worker or would you just say, "that's his tough luck" and "better him or his family than mine"?
Go look at other countries, like Colombia, where the judiciary was not treated better because of the responsibilities they had agreed to take on. Almost everyone agrees that the most damaging thing done to turn Colombia into a narco-terrorist state, was slow reaction to the problem of judicial genocide resulting in a terrified judiciary.
Some people just don't realize how fragile civilization can be (along with romaticizing how great life would be with all unpleasant order gone). It may not be popular to say, but people willing to place their lives at risk to do important things may very well be more valuable to society than those who won't.
Sadly, some peasants-at-heart seem to be comfortable with the idea of an American nobility (extending well beyond the head of state) which merits special protection and special privilege - an attitude that says "Government workers are more important than I am. Their families are more important than mine. And that's as it should be." (I hope they're honest enough to inform their own families of the "high" regard they hold them in.)
If we see this in a group like THR, one wonders about the concept of self-worth and self-image in the general population of sheeple.
Maybe they don't see public employees as "nobility" so much as they see them as their employees and worry about someone being killed, or having their family killed, because they are doing a job for them.
You lists your job as an engineer. How concerned would you be if you found that one of your construction employees, or his family, was killed because someone wanted to stop a building you were working on? Would you feel some extra responsibility for the worker or would you just say, "that's his tough luck" and "better him or his family than mine"?
Go look at other countries, like Colombia, where the judiciary was not treated better because of the responsibilities they had agreed to take on. Almost everyone agrees that the most damaging thing done to turn Colombia into a narco-terrorist state, was slow reaction to the problem of judicial genocide resulting in a terrified judiciary.
Some people just don't realize how fragile civilization can be (along with romaticizing how great life would be with all unpleasant order gone). It may not be popular to say, but people willing to place their lives at risk to do important things may very well be more valuable to society than those who won't.
HankB
Member
Group9,
To quote myself:
Clear enough? Or do you have a problem with my desire to see the same effort to bring the perps to justice no matter who is murdered?
As for Columbia where you say judges were treated no better than anyone else - well, just exactly how did Columbian authorities react to murders of a "nobody" like Juan Q. Publico? It looks to me like Columbia has a LOT more trouble than failing to protect judges - they've pretty much failed to protect anybody for a long time.
Do you have a family? Have you discussed your apparent viewpoint that if a judge's family is murdered, you're comfortable with the system going after the perps in that case with more vigor than if one of your own family were to be the victim? What do they think about your view that a judge's family is more important than your own and merits a higher degree of protection than they do? This may be a topic for a frank discussion. Maybe you can convince them that they ought to regard you as being less than a government employee.
I guess some people are comfortable with the Orwellian concept that "All animals are equal . . . but some are more equal than others."
I'm not.
If you disagree with me, fine. If you don't understand my viewpoint, try harder. In either case, I'm through with this thread.
To quote myself:
Did you actually read that first part of my post? If so, I just don't see where you figure from this I'd say "tough luck . . . " or shrug it off if an employee of mine were murdered. I'd expect the crime " . . . to be pursued vigorously and the perpetrators brought to justice. Capital punishment would be appropriate upon conviction."
Clear enough? Or do you have a problem with my desire to see the same effort to bring the perps to justice no matter who is murdered?
As for Columbia where you say judges were treated no better than anyone else - well, just exactly how did Columbian authorities react to murders of a "nobody" like Juan Q. Publico? It looks to me like Columbia has a LOT more trouble than failing to protect judges - they've pretty much failed to protect anybody for a long time.
Do you have a family? Have you discussed your apparent viewpoint that if a judge's family is murdered, you're comfortable with the system going after the perps in that case with more vigor than if one of your own family were to be the victim? What do they think about your view that a judge's family is more important than your own and merits a higher degree of protection than they do? This may be a topic for a frank discussion. Maybe you can convince them that they ought to regard you as being less than a government employee.
I guess some people are comfortable with the Orwellian concept that "All animals are equal . . . but some are more equal than others."
I'm not.
If you disagree with me, fine. If you don't understand my viewpoint, try harder. In either case, I'm through with this thread.
HankB, let's put a question to you. You suggest that Colombia has major problems outside of the assassinations of its judicial officials. Has it possibly dawned on you that the existing problem were aggravated to the current problem by the assassinations of law enforcement officials and judges? You're using the aftermath to minimize one of the causes of the aftermath.
If you want to ignore facts and history to support your position, that's your perogative. But much like your tendency to insult those who disagree with you, it's intellectually dishonest.
If you want to ignore facts and history to support your position, that's your perogative. But much like your tendency to insult those who disagree with you, it's intellectually dishonest.
TheOtherOne
Member
So it wasn't White Supremacists
Police tie suicide to murders of judge's relatives
Man does not appear connected to white supremacists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137455/
I just saw a guy being interviewed on NBC and he said they found THREE HUNDRED .22 caliber shells in his minivan. Yes, he did emphasize three hundred! Stop the investigation, no need to read a suicide note, no need to do forensics -- anyone with 300 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition is obviously guilty!
Police tie suicide to murders of judge's relatives
Man does not appear connected to white supremacists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137455/
I just saw a guy being interviewed on NBC and he said they found THREE HUNDRED .22 caliber shells in his minivan. Yes, he did emphasize three hundred! Stop the investigation, no need to read a suicide note, no need to do forensics -- anyone with 300 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition is obviously guilty!
Actually, if you suggested to a founding father that he'd murder a judge for these activities, you'd find yourself on the field of honor facing that person. Those people created the impeachment process to deal with judges like that, rather than via murder.
If you have a problem with an out of line judge, have you requested your Congresscritter to initiate an impeachment process? No? Then perhaps you should, before suggesting that the people who created the process would resort to murder.
If you have a problem with an out of line judge, have you requested your Congresscritter to initiate an impeachment process? No? Then perhaps you should, before suggesting that the people who created the process would resort to murder.
Waitone
Member
<Clap, clap, clap>
Hear, Hear! Bellyachin' about judges is pointless. Each and every single judge in the federal courts below SCOTUS is a creature of the United States Legislature. You gotta a beef with judges? Call your congressional vermin. Congress created the problem and only congress can fix the problem.
We do the gun rights wars no good by advocating stupid actions as a solution to a problem. Congress just loves it when stupid sheep blame some one or some thing for a problem it created.
Hear, Hear! Bellyachin' about judges is pointless. Each and every single judge in the federal courts below SCOTUS is a creature of the United States Legislature. You gotta a beef with judges? Call your congressional vermin. Congress created the problem and only congress can fix the problem.
We do the gun rights wars no good by advocating stupid actions as a solution to a problem. Congress just loves it when stupid sheep blame some one or some thing for a problem it created.
rock jock
Member
Finally, a voice of reason. This country is based on the rule of law, or maybe "cross" would rather we lived as one of the 3rd-world type cesspools where chaos and the rule of force prevails. Just in case you don't know, justice and liberty are far more suppressed in these type societies than in our own.
p35
Member
FWIW, the guy apparently left a suicide note admitting he did the murders, and had a grudge against the judge because she ruled against him on some civil case. Still needs to be confirmed, but it sure looks good for a solution.
Not surprised that it wasn't white supremacists- they love to blow hot air but generally are either too dumb or too cowardly to pull something like this.
Not surprised that it wasn't white supremacists- they love to blow hot air but generally are either too dumb or too cowardly to pull something like this.
cuchulainn
Member
I really wish that people would stop insulting the honor of the Founding Fathers by using them as justification for violent fantasies. As buzz has pointed out, although the FFs were obviously willing to use violence, they would not have approved of the modern calls to vigilante murder because of disagreements over court decisions.
And I also wish that those people would actually do something besides fantasize before they start considering themselves anywhere near -- much less in the same league -- as the FFs.
And I also wish that those people would actually do something besides fantasize before they start considering themselves anywhere near -- much less in the same league -- as the FFs.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
At the risk of sounding cliche, it looks too good for a solution. "Suicides" have been known to be faked with confession notes to deflect suspicion from the guilty. Wondering this does not require the use of tinfoil.
I think the problem comes because too many people base their views of how this nation started and the Constitution itself not on their own study of the situation, but on what they pick up here and there. For example, too many times people say "well, Jefferson talked about refreshing the tree of liberty with blood" without understanding both the context of that statement, and the fact that it represents a break with Jefferson's prior thinking, indicative of something going on behind the scenes. Similarly, the knowledge that the founding fathers revolted against the British somehow obscures or eliminates the fact that many of those same individuals were loyal British subjects who only turned to violence when years of efforts at peaceful resolution within the system failed.
cuchulainn
Member
Buzz,
Yeah, it's amazing how many of them forget Jefferson's warning in the DoI:
"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Yeah, it's amazing how many of them forget Jefferson's warning in the DoI:
"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Buzz,
Jefferson was one of a distinct minority of the Founding Fathers who supported the French Revolution to the hilt. I've read several Jefferson biographies. I've never gotten the sense that the quote about the tree of liberty requiring frequent fertiliization with the blood of patriots and tyrants was a departure from either his past viewpoint or from his future viewpoint. He was much more redical at heart than most of his colleagues. Consider his indictments against King George III in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence...the ones that were expurgated by Congress.
Jefferson was one of a distinct minority of the Founding Fathers who supported the French Revolution to the hilt. I've read several Jefferson biographies. I've never gotten the sense that the quote about the tree of liberty requiring frequent fertiliization with the blood of patriots and tyrants was a departure from either his past viewpoint or from his future viewpoint. He was much more redical at heart than most of his colleagues. Consider his indictments against King George III in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence...the ones that were expurgated by Congress.
Byron, you are correct. But his statements about America being overdue for a revolution came at a time when the only "negative" from his view was that his political opponents were in power. The government was still newly formed, and there weren't anything approaching the abuses that led to the initial revolution.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Of course the level of abuse was nowhere near that level. Jefferson didin't think it should get anywhere near that level, either
"What are you rebelling against?"
"Whattya got?"
Jefferson seemed to believe in revolution as a prophylactic measure. Revolt early and often to keep them cut down to size.
- Status