It's a tragedy, but....

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rico567

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
559
Location
IL
This post is going to sound crass (I don't really care if it's "insentitive"), but after encountering an armed robber on the streets of Chicago in January, I hardly see all the flap over a Federal judge's family being murdered. Or, rather, the flap is not being directed at the corrupt administration of Duke Daley they Younger that makes it impossible for most people of that city to defend themselves.
It's all very well for the people who make the laws, since they have 24/7 protection. I had the pleasure of meeting the Governor of Illinois some months ago in a neighborhood restaurant on Chicago's North Side. The whole time we talked, a very large man with a wire running from his ear into his coat, and listing heavily to port, stood just to the right and three feet behind the Governor, while the rest of his security entourage took up other positions, while his limo idled at the curb. And yet it was less than a block from that same restaurant where my daughter and I, on another occasion, met Mr. Armed Robber. And I didn't even have the luxury of being able to carry protection for myself and my family.
Chicago city ordinaces that make the possession of a handgun a felony ensured that only the murderers of Judge Lefkow's family would be armed. The City of Chicago must therefore be considered liable in some sense for their deaths.
Res ipse loquitur
 
Chicago city ordinaces that make the possession of a handgun a felony ensured that only the murderers of Judge Lefkow's family would be armed. The City of Chicago must therefore be considered liable in some sense for their deaths.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the judge's family couldn't have guns and therefore the City is responsible for their deaths? As I understand it, only handguns are illegal (and are we sure the judge lived within the banned area?). A Beretta storm would have been perfectly legal, wouldn't it? The judge's family didn't arm themselves that we know of. That's their problem.

If you're saying the City has some moral debt to repay, that may be. However, any particular official or judge does not bear all, or even most, of the collective guilt for the government's harmful policies. Furthermore, it was not the judge who was killed, but rather two of her family members. The fact that the City's handgun ban disarms the law-abiding does not mean that they hand out guns to criminals. Any violent acts commited by criminals are not the City's fault; only the consequences are, and only if the victim(s) would have been better off had they been armed.
 
Federal Judges

Nobody should be ruthlessly murdered, a mother, a husband, whatever, over getting even with a Federal Judge.

Our country has a serious problem with Federal Judges from whose activism to the extreme cause them to sometimes erroniously believe that they are the US Legislature and issue edicts adversly effecting good decent citizens.

Killing Judges and/or their kin is not the answer to the problem. I pray that someone somewhere finds a legal method to remove them from office when needed in a legal, lawful method and not someday but right now! :mad:
 
Remarkable logic Rico567....with a display of this type of reasoning perhaps the public is well served and safer if you are not allowed to CCW.

-regards
 
The judge's mother was badly disabled. Her husband was on crutches because of a recent operation. Neither could have readily used a rifle or shotgun. But her husband, especially, could have used a handgun.

When the authorities deprive us of the means of self-protection, then ipso facto they must assume the responsibility of protecting us.

While it is almost certain that Matt Hale did NOT order the murders, it is equally certain they were carried out by one of his fanatical followers. These people are one of the best arguments for the continued relevancy of the Second Amendment and the individual exercise thereof.

Have no doubt about it -- Matt Hale and followers despise the basic principles upon which this nation was founded just as much as the most rabid Islamist follower of Osama Bin Laden. Their songs may have different words, but the meaning and the music are precisely the same. Both desire nothing more than the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

The best protection the United States has against terrorists of any stripe is a widely-armed civilian population. That's where Chicago and its Maximum Leader Daily goes so very, very wrong.
 
The Difference Between Terrorists and Americans

Terrorists kill those who disagree with them. Americans argue -- vehemently, strongly, and loudly, but physically harming our political opponents is directly contrary to our values. We just don't do it.

There were Republicans who absolutely hated and despised Bill Clinton. But their response was to vote in a Republican administration, not to attempt to kill him (or, more easily, his relatives who didn't live in the White House.) Those of us who believe the Second Amendment is part of the underlying structure of our nation despise the political posturing of people like Barbara Boxer, Teddy Kennedy, etc. But it is precisely because we stand FOR the Constitution of the United States of American that we would never DREAM of using violence against them.

That, you see, would itself be contrary to our own fundamental belief, the defense and protection of the Constitution.
 
" Beretta storm would have been perfectly legal, wouldn't it? "

No, as a matter of fact the Beretta storm is NOT legal in Chicago. Chicago is in Cook County which has a very strict AWB and normal capacity magazine ban. In Cook County the AWB is such that all they have to do is declare the gun illeagle and it is.

NukemJim
 
I agree with you Rico567. Although the people responsible should die a slow death, why should we get all worked up because a high profile citizen/citizens get murdered. I am sure their murders were not the only ones that happened that night.
 
The Metro section headlines of EVERY American newspaper are FULL of news reports of man's inhumanity to man. Send me your email adress Standing Wolf and I'll send you only about a couple thousand ! The reason this case has gotten such a national spotlight is because it goes straight to the heart of lawlessness..... judicial intimidation and vigilate retribution.

-regards
 
Last edited:
Don't kid yourselves. If the husband of a federal judge wanted to carry a handgun, it wouldn't be a problem. Ole Daley would probably come and issue a special permit himself. It's a shame what happened, but I feel sure that it was not Illinois horrible handgun policy that was involved in any of this.

These were some of the "special people" and the laws don't apply to them.

So, if he had wanted to defend himself he could have.
 
Terrorists kill those who disagree with them. Americans argue -- vehemently, strongly, and loudly, but physically harming our political opponents is directly contrary to our values. We just don't do it.
Click to expand...

We have had and will have more then our share of domestic terrorists.
 
This post along with LawDog's, "Family members of Federal Judge murdered" raise important issues, but for me this crime is personal. Joan Lefkow is one of the most gentle and decent people I have ever met. She is bright, considerate and above all, unlike many others in her position, respectful of all who have appeared before her and all who know her. Soft-spoken and articulate with a spine of steel, she is willing to stand up for what she believes in and she believes in many of the same values we all hold dear. Mike was diminutive in size, but large in heart, always ready and willing to help wherever it was needed. He dressed the part of a nineteenth century gentleman, with his slightly oversize, always rumpled linen suits, and ever present hat. He had the manners and temperment to go along with it. I miss him and do not look forward to attending his funeral on Saturday.
That being said, I have changed my routine because of this attack. I always assumed that with my S.E.A.L. training, etc., I was doing enough to keep myself and my family safe. I'd get to the office and slip the artillery into a drawer, I'd come in the door at night and do the same. Not anymore. Just when you are least expecting it and most likely to be casual about things, the goblins can strike. I used to think that people who were armed at the office or at home were paranoid. Once again I have been shown the error of my ways.
 
Don't kid yourselves. If the husband of a federal judge wanted to carry a handgun, it wouldn't be a problem. Ole Daley would probably come and issue a special permit himself. It's a shame what happened, but I feel sure that it was not Illinois horrible handgun policy that was involved in any of this.

These were some of the "special people" and the laws don't apply to them.

So, if he had wanted to defend himself he could have.
Click to expand...

TexSigman,
You are probably right.

What I suspect may have done this guy and this woman in was their indoctrination to, "do whatever the nice Armed Man tells you to do."

I read today that they were forced to lie down face-down and were shot in the head with .22 ammunition (two spent casings were found). Now, we don't know how many people may have been there surrounding them, coulda been one, coulda been seven, for all I know. More would complicate things in a way that fewer would not. But if it were one guy, and he told me to lie on the floor face-down, THAT WOULD BE THE LAST THING I WOULD EVER DO -- IT IS VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO BE FOLLOWED BY GUNSHOTS TO MY HEAD!

Only sheeple believe that someone so "honorable" as to point a gun at them unprovoked would be kind enough to not kill them. Why anyone would believe that the guy who would pull a gun on them will surely not kill them if they just cooperate is beyond me. I wonder if that is what happened here.

You know how they tell women, "If a guy in a parking lot tells you to get into the vehicle with him, you do everything you can to NOT get into that vehicle!"? Well, I think the same sort of caveat should be shouted from the mountaintops regarding "kneel facing the wall," or "lie on your stomach."

-Jeffrey
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ordinary people who are equally savagely murdered never rate newspaper headlines.
Click to expand...

Really? We must get different papes, mine is stuffed to the gills with stories of horrible things happening to ordinary people.
 
"Ya'll want to try to justify that one? "

WildwaitinferthisoneAlaska

While I don't condone such heinous acts of violence, IF the killings were, in fact, a direct result of anger because of the judge's ruling(s), the phrase would seem to apply, at least in the mind of the killer. Can't beat the judge in her court, take her on in the killer's venue. The judge was the "tyrant," in the killer's perspective.

Far more extreme, but no different in concept than the police officers I once worked with advising a particularly "anti-cop" judge that he might wanna exercise extreme care when driving through the city. Use turn signals when changing lanes, etc. (even though I'd alsmost swear there's a state law prohibiting use of turn signals . . . :rolleyes: ). Any defective lights or equipment, questionable tires, etc., would also be sure to be taken into consideration. Poor devil eventually started hitching rides to and from court with family & friends. :D We just took the battle from his "court" to ours!

Let me repeat: I DO NOT AGREE WITH OR CONDONE THIS!
Well, not the murders, but the eternal vigilence of the city cops was certainly justified!

Bigger issue with your post, Wild:

It's "Y'all," NOT "Ya'll." If yer gonna try to "sound" Southern on the monitor, put the apostrophe in the right place! ;)

SCIcanspellSouthernBair
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GunsNRovers: Yes, we do have our share of domestic terrorists. (Didn't I just mention Matt Hale & Kompany?) But I am expliciting stating that these people are essentially as ANTI-American as the most radical Islamist.

I defend this by first claiming that ANY and ALL loyal Americans are willing to support, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. (After all, what ELSE could the phrase "a loyal American" mean?) Contrarily, anyone who is striving to destroy the Constitution or change it by any means other than the lawful amendment process, is for that reason alone an ANTI-American. Moreover, this remains true regardless of the person's legal citizenship (although I think it far more despicable for a person BORN in the United States to hold such an attitude as compared to someone born, say, in the slums of Pakistan).

Ever since 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of equality under the law has been part and parcel of Amercan jurisprudence. That is true, even though our history -- especially prior to 1965 -- shows that the principle was honored more in the breach than in the application. Nonetheless, it is part of our Constitution and until the Fourteenth Amendment is annulled by a future lawful amendment, anyone who promotes using violence to deny any American citizen equality under the law is for that reason alone ANTI-American.

Here I stand; I am unable to believe differently.
 
While it is almost certain that Matt Hale did NOT order the murders, it is equally certain they were carried out by one of his fanatical followers.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily . . . while Hale's "followers" ought to be high on the suspect list, it MIGHT be some nut unconnected to Hale who had a prior grudge against either the judge or her family, (Wasn't her husband a lawyer? They meet nice people every day. :rolleyes: ) and decided that the publicity surrounding Hale might serve to throw the authorities off-track.
 
HankB does have a point. We don't know the full story yet, so it might be premature to jump to the conclusion that it was these white power idiots. That said, I fear for America and the justice system when criminals start taking revenge on judges for making decisions in the cases that come before them.
 
Chris -- you're right. In Columbia the assassination of judges by drug lords has paralyzed the legal system. In the West Bank and Gaza, terrorists have prevented the establishment of any sort of real justice system.

We cannot have "a nation under law" when judges fear for the lives of their families should a ruling upset someone. That is even more true of the United States than of other nations, for here most court proceeding are required to be open to the public. (My wife, who was born in Israel, was astounded to learn that as long as there was room, she had the guaranteed right to enter and sit in on any court in session in Houston -- local, state, or federal. As far as I know, the only exceptions are Grand Jury proceedings and child custody cases where the judge rules publicity would be harmful to the children.)

Anyone attempting to terrorize judges is striking at the heart of America even more assuredly than did the 9/11 attackers.
 
LynnKcircle beat me to it. The reason why assasinations of political figures, judges, police officers, or the families of any of the above are given special attention is because they represent essential portions of the legal/political system that we exist within. If you attack them, you are undermining that system. You will also note that if a party to a proceeding or a witness to said proceeding is injured/harassed/etc., that gets special attention as well. This act of insanity doesn't just strike at individual members of society, it strikes at society itself by having a chilling effect on the willingness of individuals to serve.

As for the comments about sic semper tyrannis, that was simply . . . well, I don't think Art's grandmother would allow the only appropriate response to that comment. Even if someone considered the judge a tyrant, killing her family fell completely outside the concept expressed by that phrase.
 
Sic Temper Tyrannis

My first comment is that I really wish that those of you with all of the advanced knowledge that allows you to throw around these latin terms and other such things would include the simple english translation for those of us who have an understanding of the limits of our knowledge.

One purpose in reading these missives is to expand my knowledge and I would like to think that others are of the same persuasion.

While, like others, I deplore the attacks on the judges family and I wish sure, swift justice on the perpatrators it can be argued that the denial by Federal Judges of the validity of the Second Admendment has put them in a position where a number of people view the Judges as part of the problem and not the solution.

When you take a position in society, like a judge/lawyer, you must realize that your only authority lies in the people as a whole accepting that authority. When you do not care for and tend the rules that the society is operating under you set yourself up as either a god or a tyrant. God's being few and far between, if you know different let us know, most likely you will be percieved as a tyrant.

When you consider that the attacks on the Second Admendment have their basis in trying to support the denial of all rights to certain racial, economic subgroups I would like to know where the judge stands.
 
LoneStranger asked the question:
Sic Temper Tyrannis

My first comment is that I really wish that those of you with all of the advanced knowledge that allows you to throw around these latin terms and other such things would include the simple english translation for those of us who have an understanding of the limits of our knowledge.

The literal translation is "Thus to all tyrants" and implies that tyrants must die or be overthrown. (It is also the motto for the State of Virginia). In my world view the phrase would apply only to the tyrant. And the judge and her family are not tyrants.

We have had a growing number of witness killings over the past years, usually for drug related cases and now it looks like the threat level is being raised. As an American I am less than thrilled that certain people dislike our social and legal institutions to such a degree that they see nothing wrong with killing the "enemy". Those people need to be extirpated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top