St. Louis Mayor and Police Officers Shot 2/7

[DKSuddeth]

Everyone that is vehemently denouncing this shooters actions have all had a common theme, that i've seen. Every single one of you are talking about how this individuals actions, BEFORE the shooting, affected the neighbors property values by his parking actions. Therefore, you are all worried about how his actions affected MONEY. This places you in the same category of everybody else who sold out their fellow americans by promoting the declaration of condemned property to allow the seizure or sales of private property for private development for crap like this new cowboys stadium.

figure out where your priorities are and what you truly believe in.

 

[One of Many]

Meacham Park was an unincorporated part of St. Louis County before it was annexed by Kirkwood. It was ungoverned (and some might say ungovernable), with minimal police presence by the county police patrol. It sat next to Kirkwood, and it was in the Kirkwood school district. It had a reputation as being a dangerous and violent place long before it was annexed by Kirkwood.

It was annexed by Kirkwood, because the area was growing by leaps and bounds, with commercial and business entities developing on the major roads in the area surrounding Meacham Park. Those business needed services that could only be provided by a city, and the Meacham Park residents stood to gain by also receiving those services, as well as jobs in the new businesses moving into the area. The residents had a choice on approving the annexation. The zoning laws came into effect when the annexation occurred, so that what had been commonly practiced for years was suddenly a violation of new zoning for Meacham Park.

The killer made a choice to continue doing what he had been doing all along, with the blessing of his neighbors. The city was required to enforce the zoning laws, and started writing tickets for the infractions. Rather than comply with the zoning laws, the killer decided to fight city hall. He lost the legal battle, and decided to take vengeance on those he deemed responsible for his trouble, rather than acknowledge his own role in this conflict.

There was nothing unjust or tyrannical in the way the city of Kirkwood dealt with the Killer. There was no usurpation of authority by the Kirkwood city council. The laws were passed by properly elected officials, following standard legal procedures. There is no mention of the killer ever attempting to obtain any variance from the zoning regulations.

It amazes me that so many people posting in this thread seem to have a desire to justify the killer, by blaming the victims of his murderous rage for their own demise. It is almost as though you think that all government is bad and is to be opposed by lethal force if you disagree with the law. Grow up and quit talking like spoiled brats, boasting about how you intend to teach "them" a lesson for "messing with you".

 

[bogie]

Nothing but a tantrum with a gun.

Guys, your gun is not an all-purpose-tool.

 

[JWarren]

Been doing some work around the house. I'll respond quickly while I have a moment.

YOU were not the one being victimized.

You don't think I've had things happen that I didn't think was right? Somehow, I have avoided killing people over traffic tickets.

YOU were not the one facing numerous issues with this particular council, nor were YOU the one who had your last attempt at petitioning for redress of grievance thrown out by a man in a black robe who said the governments interests were more important than any of your rights.

They waived the fee. It seems that he got consideration. And I don't think this was about "the government's interest." It was the neighborhood's.

YOU are not the one to say whether this action was in any way justifiable or not. Just me academically speaking.

uhm... yes I am. One of the WORST problems with our society today is that it is considered taboo to actually make a judgement. I frankly get sick of the statements like "Who are you to judge" as if I was not reared to know right and wrong.

I'm willing to go out on a limb here... killing a bunch of people over parking tickets.... yeah, I am comfortable making a judgment. And I am saddened that you DON'T feel comfortable to.

What would YOU do if YOU were in that situation?

Probably make a GREAT profit from the sale of my home-- if the neighborhood has appreciated like I suspect it has. Then I'd laugh my way into a nice home -- likely without a mortgage-- in an unincorporated area. The city may have encroached on him, but it likey brought the gift of property appreciation.

Let me guess, YOU would never be in that situation because you'd be a good subject and do what the overlords tell you to do?

Oh my god... that is too funny. No, I'd never be in that situation because I'd have the common sense, business sense, and inicitive to CREATE a situation conducive to my wants, needs, and desires. Overlords... that is funny.

Please note this transpired over the course of nearly 20 years. He was also there before "Kirkwood" moved in. They came in and annexed Meachum Park. In my view that means the town encroached upon him, not him upon the town. I don't care what you say about "the citizens" having voice about the ordinances. He was there first, they moved in. It isn't right when people get to move in and tell you how to run your life.

I can sympathize with that point. We've seen a lot of influx post-Katrina here. At the same time, one has to ask what rights of those other property owners are. Does THEIR investment have NO say at all?

I'm in the school of thought that if you REALLY want to do things your way with no interference, you have to get a rural tract of land, and build where you have no neighbors. Listen, I've lived in New Orleans, Houston, New York City, and Orlando. I've got a pretty good idea of how it is when you have to co-exist with neighbors. I've been frustrated out of my mind before. What did I do?

I found a way to get out of there and let them live in their little Hells. Now, I have NO neighbors and am surrounded by thick woods. My quality of life increased exponentially. I don't consider that bowing down to ... hehe.. Overlords. Sounds so Flash Gordon....

How is he going to have a place to put them when you're taxing him in fines?

It was my understanding that he didn't pay the fines. Otherwise, how would they have any fines to waive? I'd call it poor money management.

It wasn't just him either. The reports I have found from people who live there is that they would sometimes receive multiple tickets on their one vehicle by the same cop just in a single afternoon.

Then why wasn't there more community outrage? I'm not disputing you, but if there is wide-spread anger, it can be fixed more easily.

This guy tried non-violent avenues and was thwarted. He's black, and his life and family are tied up into this town. And he's been dealing with this since the early 90's. I'm sure he's tired.

PLEASE tell me we are not using being "Black" as a justification. If we are making race a factor, this discussion needs to end.

Everyone that is vehemently denouncing this shooters actions have all had a common theme, that i've seen. Every single one of you are talking about how this individuals actions, BEFORE the shooting, affected the neighbors property values by his parking actions. Therefore, you are all worried about how his actions affected MONEY.

No... I have stated that money is options. The growth of the area gave this person options that he did not have before. My father-in-law's home is in a desirable location. Because of the influx of people from Katrina, it has appreciated over $40K in the last year. That creates ability to consider other avenues. Avenues that allow more control over one's life.


-- John

 

[bogie]

Actually, John, I think that race did play a factor. The vibe I'm getting here is that he and his family thought he was targeted because he was black, so they feel there is justification to the "black rage."

I think he was targeted for parking asphalt trucks on a suburban street.

He was looking for an excuse, and he was looking for a lawsuit. When that didn't happen, he behaved like a four year old with a gun.

I'm also getting the vibe that the family is going to continue pushing the "black rage" bit - Wouldn't be surprised if THEY sue the city. Or the victims...

Sigh...

 

[JWarren]

Oh, I understand what you are saying, bogie. And I don't disagree.

But I AM saying that if we are entertaining the notion that being "black" is an extenuating circumstance, then we have not only lost our moral center in this society-- but we have also suspended intelligence.

If I were a black man, I would be outraged that being black would be considered a factor. The extension of this line of reasoning would be that "black" persons are more likely to choose this course of action and thus are a danger to our society. I don't know many black people that would like that characterization.

Another course of that reasoning would be that black people need to have a special set of rules because they are somehow unable to function in society without such treatment. Again, I don't know too many responsible black persons that would care for such categorization.

If his family wants to push for a "Black Rage" bit, you'll notice that above I used the qualifer "responsible."


But remember... everyone is a victim in our society today....


I'll join you in your sigh, bogie...


-- John

 

[DKSuddeth]

uhm... yes I am. One of the WORST problems with our society today is that it is considered taboo to actually make a judgement. I frankly get sick of the statements like "Who are you to judge" as if I was not reared to know right and wrong.

no, you're not. One of the founders stated that if we are not able to govern ourselves, what gives men ability to govern over others, or something to that effect. That is exactly what you are doing, putting your morality over that of others who made a different decision. If you are that much better than everyone else, then maybe you should join the clinton or obama campaign.

Quote:
What would YOU do if YOU were in that situation?

Probably make a GREAT profit from the sale of my home

and my next quote rings so very true.

Therefore, you are all worried about how his actions affected MONEY.

A democracy is dead the moment that the citizens discover they can vote themselves money. The same applies for people that can get themselves extra money at the expense of their fellow citizens plight. You are not any different.

 

[JWarren]

no, you're not. One of the founders stated that if we are not able to govern ourselves, what gives men ability to govern over others, or something to that effect. That is exactly what you are doing, putting your morality over that of others who made a different decision. If you are that much better than everyone else, then maybe you should join the clinton or obama campaign.

I do hope you realize the implications of your statement.

You are espousing anarchy. You are essentially stating that no man has the right to judge another. Shall we apply that to pedophiles? How about rapists? Murders... yeah, those, too.

I am afraid that you are living in an ideological bubble. Sure the founding fathers sought freedom... but then then they went about passing laws by which a peaceful and FREE society agrees to operate within to maintain that society. No society has ever succeeded without a certain framework of standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwarren
Probably make a GREAT profit from the sale of my home

and my next quote rings so very true.


Quote:
Therefore, you are all worried about how his actions affected MONEY.

A democracy is dead the moment that the citizens discover they can vote themselves money. The same applies for people that can get themselves extra money at the expense of their fellow citizens plight. You are not any different.

Actually if you had read my words, you'd see that I was advocating HIM making a profit and finding a workable situation. I used ME because you asked what *I* would do.

I am no different? Please elaborate.... My friend, you have NO idea of my principles. I find it fascinating that an attempt would be made to paint ME immoral by pointing out that the man could have reallocated his personal equity to his own benefit... especially by a person who more and more seems to be justifying the actions of a mass murderer who did so over parking tickets.

From what I see, that didn't work out so well.

Consider this... you incinuate that *I* am immoral for pointing out the monetary options... and yet you seem to defend a person who KILLED people over the cost of parking tickets. I would suggest that perhaps HE was a tad more concerned about money that I.

-- John

 

[Baba Louie]

http://www.stltoday.com/

For those of us not in and around the greater St Louis area, read the STL Post Dispatch continued updates on the aftermath. Many many entries and related links within.

Wrong, right, good or bad, he snapped, he killed, he died. Thornton obviously did not agree with the social contract and may very well have made himself a target by fighting authority (authority always wins... sometimes at great cost). Represented himself in court, lost and became... a little angry??? Well... yeah, there's that.

Prayers to those deserving. Some of the stories are grim. (hell, all of them are)

More fuel on the fire. Here at THR, in STl and you can bet, nationwide during the political campaigning.

I expect Sundays coverage in the STL DJ to be extensive.

 

[Risasi]

When I mentioned he was black, it is not to imply that he was being targeted because of his race. Rather that if he intended to move out of town (personally what I think would have been his best option), he would have had a more difficult time pulling up roots and simply leaving town, as a non-white person.
I am merely putting myself in his shoes. From what I can gather, he had lived in that unincorporated town all his life. He became a successful businessman (mind you I didn't say honest). Then a bigger fish came along. That fish being Kirkwood. Now they are enforcing new laws on people. That's the problem with laws. They never award the keeper of the law. Merely condemn the breaker of the law.


Also, I have no problem with him turning a profit. He was either unwilling, unable to move. Or was not given the option to be recompensed for a change of residence. It appears Kirkwood tried to move people into new housing, which wouldn't help this fellow. He still has his business.


And Bogie,

You keep mentioning him parking his vehicles on the street. He was breaking an apparently new law. What of it? I can find NO evidence that his neighbors had a problem with him. In fact I only find him being eulogized by his neighbors. This wasn't a just law. There are many such laws on the books now. Are you trying to tell me ALL laws should be followed?

-----

Look,

I don't think this guy was some sort of martyr. He was a guy who killed a bunch of people. But this isn't some random, senseless act of violence. He was prodded. They drew first blood. That doesn't make him right, likewise that doesn't make them right. Just a whole bunch of wrong. I am guessing he killed people who didn't deserve it, and I'm sure there are some who probably did deserve it and escaped unscathed. That isn't justice.

Yeah, he probably should have moved. Yeah, sometimes you get a raw deal and just move on. But when people meddle in the affairs of others and they receive an explosive situation I am left wondering why many are so surprised.
Clearly this was a volatile situation that went on for nearly two decades.

My conclusion is people need to leave others alone. Including dot-gov. If they don't we will see more of these kinds of situations. Doesn't make it right, but it's going to happen.

When you leave a person in a state where they feel they have no other options, and are cornered, well...it's not going to be pretty.

 

[bogie]

Guys, money DOES matter... If you work half your life buying a nice house in the 'burbs, and then some guy decides he's going to park his heavy equipment in front, rather than at a business location, and lowers your property values by doing so, that guy is essentially STEALING the value of your home, as sure as if he walked up and mugged you at gunpoint.

The shooter somehow never figured out that you can't fight city hall.

Because city hall is comprised of your neighbors. You can argue for change, but need to graciously accept defeat when you cannot change something. Because what are we without community?

 

[JWarren]

When I mentioned he was black, it is not to imply that he was being targeted because of his race. Rather that if he intended to move out of town (personally what I think would have been his best option), he would have had a more difficult time pulling up roots and simply leaving town, as a non-white person.

Would you care to explain why it is different? A black family just moved into the house next to my Father-in-Law. He didn't seem to have any difficulty moving.

I know... I am surprised, too. Somehow the roads worked for him-- just like everyone else.

And I should point out that he moved into an all-white neighborhood-- and he moved from California to Louisiana. His neigbors respect and like him.

I've moved a few times, and somehow, I never found that my skin color made it any easier.

Seriously... I would LOVE to hear more about why we keep making these distinctions.


-- John

 

[DKSuddeth]

Consider this... you incinuate that *I* am immoral for pointing out the monetary options... and yet you seem to defend a person who KILLED people over the cost of parking tickets. I would suggest that perhaps HE was a tad more concerned about money that I.

I am not saying YOU are immoral because you focus on money. I'm saying that he is NOT immoral because his focus is not on money.
or I should say his focus is on keeping his money away from the city, not on making more of it.

 

[JWarren]

I am not saying YOU are immoral because you focus on money. I'm saying that he is NOT immoral because his focus is not on money.

But let's not forget the small matter of gunning down a few people over this disagreement that-- among other things-- was presumably... ahem... money?

I really don't think I have to worry about who is on the moral side here.

If it were the money soley, I-- and others-- have shown a number of options open to this person that were financially adventageous to the man. I remain in my position that he was selfishly attempting to assert his position over that of his community. The man acted from self-interest, pride, and anger.

I have no issue with a person acting on his or her own self-interest. Nor do I think pride is necessarily a bad thing. And I've been angry about numerous things in the past.

But...

I didn't freakin' gun down the city counsel.

There are things I'll fight for, and there are things that I would die for. And there are things that I'd walk away from if there were adventageous and more equitable options open to me. We've demonstrated that there likely was. Every way it is spun, it ends the same... the man was wrong for it.


-- John

 

[auschip]

I'm saying that he is NOT immoral because his focus is not on money.
or I should say his focus is on keeping his money away from the city, not on making more of it.

How about the morality of a man who commits murder in the name of money?

 

[DKSuddeth]

How about the morality of a man who commits murder in the name of money?

or the morality of a man who refuses to let a government body use their power against him simply because they can?

we can look at this any number of ways and some will agree, some will not. It really doesn't matter and not too many people on here are going to change their minds on it.

Personally, at least this individual exacted revenge on those that wronged him and not committed some massacre against innocents that had nothing to do with his struggle.

 

[pbearperry]

Blah BlahBlah Blah If you kill someone who is not trying to kill you it is wrong period.No ifs or buts about if.Get it? If you don't,maybe it's time to see a shrink.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Blah BlahBlah Blah If you kill someone who is not trying to kill you it is wrong period.No ifs or buts about if.Get it? If you don't,maybe it's time to see a shrink.

it's a great thing that the founders of this nation didn't have that mentality, or we'd still be subjects, wouldn't we?

 

[Eleven Mike]

This is why I don't show up much, anymore. There is no way Thomas Jefferson could be used as a defense of Charles Thornton. Thornton is a murderer. A shooting spree is not a principled political revolution. It's just a mass murder. I must also add that the Boston Tea Party involved no loss of life. I can't believe someone actually thought they could get away with that comparison.

JWarren, you're a better man than I. I'm going to go burn some incense in praise of The Overlords.

 

[Jdude]

This thread is starting to get a bit low road.

From what I understand, there has been a long record of tickets and law violaions. Abuse? Possibly. The guy went through several legal channels and lost. More than likely, he was in the wrong. But the city council offered to waive the fees. This guy seems to have thought it was not good enough. I suspect he was in the wrong. If he was not, it will come out in a few weeks.

From my perspective, I agree with the people who said:
"Temper tantrum with a gun."

 

[Baba Louie]

Thornton snapped a long time ago. I posted this over at TFL as well.

Charles Thornton: The legal battles
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/09/2008

A look back at some of the civil and criminal cases involving Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, 52.

Dec. 17, 1999: Thornton files for bankruptcy, showing debts of $488,430.80. Parties making claims include the state Department of Revenue, Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. and the IRS, as well as $10,425 from state child support services.

May 2001: Thornton is convicted of 19 city violations in Kirkwood. He is fined $12,250.

June 23, 2001: Thornton is charged with assaulting Ken Yost, Kirkwood's public works director.

May 13, 2002: Thornton is convicted of the assault charge against Yost. He is also convicted of 26 ordinance violations, which include parking violations and improper storage of equipment. He is fined a total of $6,200.

Sept. 25, 2003: Thornton sues Kirkwood for malicious prosecution, arguing the city should pay him $12 million. A judge dismisses the case. He appeals to the state Supreme Court, which refuses to take the case and sends it to an appeals court.

Jan. 5, 2004: Thornton files a federal lawsuit against the Missouri Supreme Court for not taking his case. It is dismissed.

April 26, 2005: Missouri appeals court dismisses Thornton's lawsuit against Kirkwood.

May 18, 2006: Thornton interrupts a Kirkwood City Council meeting. He is arrested for disorderly conduct when he refuses to leave.

June 15, 2006: Thornton sets up a poster on an easel with a drawing of a donkey. He leads off with the words "jackass, jackass, jackass." He is arrested for disorderly conducted and is later fined $2,000 for the disorderly conduct citations.

Jan. 16, 2007: Thornton sues Kirkwood in St. Louis County court, accusing the city of "willfully and wrongfully" denying his right to speak at a public meeting. He seeks $15 million and asks the city not be notified before a court decision. He calls it, "Preliminary Injunction Without Notice." Two days later, he files a similar suit in federal court.

June 24, 2007: Thornton pickets outside PJ's Restaurant in Kirkwood. He struggles with owner Paul Cartier. Cartier falls and Thornton stamps on Cartier's leg until bystanders subdue him. Thornton is charged with misdemeanor assault. The criminal case was pending.

Oct. 10, 2007: A St. Louis County judge dismisses Thornton's free speech lawsuit.

Jan. 28, 2008: Thornton's federal lawsuit is dismissed.

Compiled by William C. Lhotka, Joe Mahr, David Hunn and Robert Patrick of the Post-Dispatch

Clearly, the man had issues. Certainly if I were sitting on any local gov't board, I would want a CCW as long as it was legal for all good citizens, even in such places. Disarmed Victim Zones have proven time and time again to be target rich environments for the criminally insane.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

There was nothing unjust or tyrannical in the way the city of Kirkwood dealt with the Killer. There was no usurpation of authority by the Kirkwood city council. The laws were passed by properly elected officials, following standard legal procedures. There is no mention of the killer ever attempting to obtain any variance from the zoning regulations.

It amazes me that so many people posting in this thread seem to have a desire to justify the killer, by blaming the victims of his murderous rage for their own demise. It is almost as though you think that all government is bad and is to be opposed by lethal force if you disagree with the law. Grow up and quit talking like spoiled brats, boasting about how you intend to teach "them" a lesson for "messing with you".

Zoning laws, building permits, property taxes, etc., are all a usurpation of property rights. Think about it: when the govt. can tell you what you can and can't do, and you must get its permission, you do not own that property.

In regards to your other point, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens a way to resist government tyranny. It has been my observation that people often advocate for the real purpose of the Second Amendment, until someone uses it for that purpose.

 

[crazed_ss]

1 I can't believe I'm seeing what I'm seeing here. There is NO justification for what this nutjob did.

At first I couldnt believe people were trying to justify this guy, but I seen people here offer justification McVeigh's murders, so this really isnt that suprising.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Coming in at the end here, I'll just state that I'm really very comfortable with putting my morality above the morality of murdering people over parking tickets. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Therefore, you are all worried about how his actions affected MONEY.

Actually, he's the one who shot people over his dispute over, as you put it so eloquently, "MONEY." I find it telling that you think you've defused the case against mass murder by accusing people of thinking about money. Money is just a fungible marker standing in for property, and if we accept your view that the guy who shot a bunch of unarmed people is the guy who had the understandable point of view in this, then it was clearly all about money and property. He wasn't upset because anyone had tried to harm him physically, he wasn't defending himself. He was taking revenge on people who had cost him money and hurt his business by being unreasonable about parking issues.
By murdering them in cold blood.
And some people are still arguing after five pages because they think that's understandable at it's not our place to judge whether it was truly right or wrong.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Zoning laws, building permits, property taxes, etc., are all a usurpation of property rights. Think about it: when the govt. can tell you what you can and can't do, and you must get its permission, you do not own that property.

In regards to your other point, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens a way to resist government tyranny. It has been my observation that people often advocate for the real purpose of the Second Amendment, until someone uses it for that purpose.

You seem to have misunderstood. Those things can be used to assert government control over private property, which is a misuse, but when two property owners each want to do something with their property which conflicts with the rights of other property owners, someone has to mediate that dispute.

This guy wasn't being ticketed, as I understand it, for the way he was using his property. He was ticketed for using the property of others and the property of the community (streets, for instance) in ways that the community's elected representatives had made illegal. He had every opportunity to get redress from a bunch of courts, and to make his fellow citizens aware of what was going on. Apparently the people in all those courts, plus the people in Meacham Park, more or less agreed that he was in the wrong. He decided he couldn't handle that, got his gun and went out and killed several people in revenge, ending his tantrum with suicide by cop.