St. Louis Mayor and Police Officers Shot 2/7

Status
Not open for further replies.
The hyperbole in this thread verges on the lunatic at times justifying this madman's actions.

I live in an area where something like the imposition of new rules would change the way I live and have some suggest I just move.

I live on the property I grew up on surrounded by neighbors I grew up with. The only fences are around the fields to keep goats or the neighbors horses from roaming. The cock crows at the chicken yard in the morning. There's no municipal water or sewer so we're all on wells and have septic systems. The road is a narrow winding blacktop cut through the woods that used to be the old mail coach road in the 1800s. We shoot on the property. My sister is burried here.

Before some of you start to play "Deliverance" in your minds or envision some wide open farm country, this isolated rural pocket is also within 20 minutes of a major (20k+ students) university and several colleges and 45 minutes from a national laboratory. It's 15 minutes from an airport with direct flights to NY, Atlanta, DC, etc. and 5 minutes from some of the best restaurants and grocery in the region. It sits on the eastern shore of the largest lake in the area with a county park on the opposite shore that the sun sets over (no development). It is also in the fastest growing area of the county with track mansions springing up in the former cattle fields like weeds.

Friends that live in some of these tract mansion development tell me that their neighbors comment with concern about the shooting they hear going on "over there" (they don't really know where we are since they just know there's a big chunk of land without any subdivision on it). My friends laugh and tell them that they're safer with me shooting than they are in their own homes because "it's an Oak Ridge Safety Engineer" who's fanatical about safety.

As change has taken place I've seen more and more adjacent farms become subdivisions. Some day one of the properties that isolate my small 3 acres and the neighbors' larger property will be sold because the property will become too valuable our friend's living on it to resist the endless offers to buy. Some day "city water" and sewer will come close enough that the county will tell us they're putting lines in for us. Some day the county will decide to upgrade the road to a 2 lane road wide enough for 2 suvs to pass each other. Some day we'll get annexed or the county will start telling me I can't do X or I can't do Y. Some day they'll tell me I can't use my pistol range where I teach people to shoot for free.

Move? Go where "they" don't tell folks what to do? I'll consult my sister as the sun sets across the lake pointing a dagger of fire at my dock while the goats play in the pasture and the heron flies low across the water to its nest. I know this, she'd tell me not to do anything like that deranged madman in Kirkwood did.

Life is change and sometimes change is painful, but to walk into someplace and start shooting people (random and specific) over encroaching change from rural to suburban, and the rules that come with it, is the act of a lunatic who can't gauge the threat.
 
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.

Two policeman were killed, can you point to me how they wronged him? How about the guy from Suburban Journals? Committing a massacre against innocents was exactly what he did.
 
Not to mention shooting at the people who tried to make an accommodation with him by waiving the fees he thought were so onerous.
 
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.
__________________

Show me where the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution places an Individual's Property Rights above all other rights of the people (individually and collectively). If your premise is followed, then each property owner is lord and master of his own domain, and no person or group of people can resist the will of the property owner; the owner can summarily execute anyone on his property for any arbitrary reason. Then when he leaves his property and enters someone else's property, he is subject to the whim of that property owner.

Obviously, property rights are not the supreme law of the land. In order for society to function in a peaceful and profitable manner, people agree to limit their own rights for the common good of all. They give rights away, to the collective, so that individual rights can be enhanced for the majority. When people decide that they will not be bound by the limitations set in place by their fellow citizens, and that they are a law unto themselves, then conflict results.

The killer in this case was looking for conflict. He was unwilling to follow the rules that were lawfully put in place and enforced. He killed because he could not stand to obey the law.

There was nothing tyrannical about the enforcement of the law by Kirkwood, but the killers actions were certainly tyrannical. Kirkwood did not usurp his rights, but he usurped the right to life of those he killed. Kirkwood did not violate the law by enforcing zoning codes, or by removing him when he disturbed the council meetings; the killer violated the laws multiple times.

This persistence in attempting to justify a murderer, and shift blame to government in general, is foolish braggadocio. If you really believe what you are saying, then we should be reading the story of your death after committing mass murder of government officials, on the national news in a few hours. If you do not practice what you preach, then it is a worthless waste of time for you to post these ramblings, and for others to read your drivel.
 
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.

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.

This certainly puts a new light on my opinion.
 
Family's reaction

“The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life," Gerald Thornton, the gunman's brother, tells the CBS affiliate. "He has spoke on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue."

Officials are scheduled to brief reporters at 10 a.m. CT. The community will hold a prayer vigil at noon.

Update at 10:40 a.m. ET: The gunman's brother just spoke with MSNBC.
"Understand that this was an act of war by my brother," Thornton says. "He had an actual person that, or people that, he was in battle with, that this was not a random rampage, that he knew exactly who he had to associate this war effort with, he went and found those persons, he eliminated their defense and got to them and did what he he had to do as far as he was concerned
 
What I think some of the posters are not understanding is that we're not talking about Mayberry growing out past the city limits...

This municipality is completely inside the I-270 St. Louis beltway. I think the only "rural" area inside it is some vanity farms in Ladue. Or maybe they're outside... I dismember.

Anyway, the area is suburban/urban in character. When it was annexed, the government didn't take over farmland. Sheesh.
 
Oh yeah - most cities and counties have land use regulations. To the point where they say what kind of farming is allowed in some areas - i.e., Farmer Brown can't just up and start a pig farm next too the grade school...

For that matter, I'm guessing that most of you would be up in arms if someone was trying to open a liquor store or x-rated novelty/movie store across from your church. Hey, same sort of laws...
 
City or country makes no real difference-permits, property taxes, zoning, etc. are all infringements on property rights. Property being in a city in no way justifies these infringements. If someone wishes to justify in their own mind such things, feel free to, to paraphrase a famous person "may your chains rest lightly." You no longer own that land you merely rent it. I don't think many people truly understand this reality. As far as I'm concerned, and the founders of this country would argue the same thing, you have a right to do whatever you wish until it infringes on others' rights. So: having an ugly house, having the grass higher than 2 inches, vehicles parked on lawn, etc., are rights of the owner. Now if he was dumping sewage on your land, etc., that's another story. But 99.9 percent of these laws/ordinances/etc., are pure BS to please the control freaks of society. If you don't like your neighbors ugly house or yard, put up a fence, and so on. Inch by inch these sorts of laws strip us of our liberty. We'll be a communist society within a century at the current rate, though one could argue we've already become one seeing as how it's nearly impossible to actually own land. I do suspect though these types of incidents will increase in the future as more people get fed up with this stuff unless people wake up and reverse the trend towards tyranny by other means--it's exactly how our revolution began, slowly over time as people got sick of things.

As for me: my plan is to get to my land in Alaska, it's nice and remote, with no property taxes and such--and woe to the tyrant who tries to bring this socialist crap to me there. I'm all for peaceful solutions first.;)
 
For that matter, I'm guessing that most of you would be up in arms if someone was trying to open a liquor store or x-rated novelty/movie store across from your church. Hey, same sort of laws...

I couldn't care less. I have no interest in controlling others.
 
Unless the stuff spills over to me go for it...actually I'd enjoy the control freak neighbors I have going crazy over that one.:D
 
Show me where the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution places an Individual's Property Rights above all other rights of the people (individually and collectively). If your premise is followed, then each property owner is lord and master of his own domain, and no person or group of people can resist the will of the property owner; the owner can summarily execute anyone on his property for any arbitrary reason. Then when he leaves his property and enters someone else's property, he is subject to the whim of that property owner.

Obviously, property rights are not the supreme law of the land. In order for society to function in a peaceful and profitable manner, people agree to limit their own rights for the common good of all. They give rights away, to the collective, so that individual rights can be enhanced for the majority. When people decide that they will not be bound by the limitations set in place by their fellow citizens, and that they are a law unto themselves, then conflict results.

The killer in this case was looking for conflict. He was unwilling to follow the rules that were lawfully put in place and enforced. He killed because he could not stand to obey the law.

There was nothing tyrannical about the enforcement of the law by Kirkwood, but the killers actions were certainly tyrannical. Kirkwood did not usurp his rights, but he usurped the right to life of those he killed. Kirkwood did not violate the law by enforcing zoning codes, or by removing him when he disturbed the council meetings; the killer violated the laws multiple times.

This persistence in attempting to justify a murderer, and shift blame to government in general, is foolish braggadocio. If you really believe what you are saying, then we should be reading the story of your death after committing mass murder of government officials, on the national news in a few hours. If you do not practice what you preach, then it is a worthless waste of time for you to post these ramblings, and for others to read your drivel.

Strawman. But, just the same, some interesting tidbits from the Declaration:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance."

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

They didn't seem to like strict controls on land and other matters either...and their solution for a government that infringes on rights was quite clearly to be rid of it.
 
They didn't seem to like strict controls on land and other matters either...and their solution for a government that infringes on rights was quite clearly to be rid of it.

And you miss the forest for the trees. When "the people's" rights are infringed there is a problem. This is one guy. Apparently no one else in town had a problem with their government hence the phrase:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,

If everyone consents but one, is there still a misuse of power?

If you're gonna use the Second Amendment and the Declaration of Independence to justify killing, the rights violated better be more than those of a single person.
 
Probably less than 10% in the 1770's actually supported and took part in the revolution, maybe more later as it got momentum. The majority were content with having their rights infringed upon. And the term of course is "tyranny of the majority" which is a reason why the founders despised true democracy in which the majority could infringe on an individual's rights.

And rights are individual not collective, so "right of the people" applies to all individuals not the group as a whole.
 
Guys. You don't get it.

This was not the first shot fired in your revolution. This was a guy who couldn't figure out that you just don't do some things. And he likely bought into the whole "I'm entitled to special treatment" bit too. And when he didn't get special treatment, he threw a tantrum with a gun.

He threw a tantrum with a gun.

Is _that_ what you are advocating?
 
Anyway, the area is suburban/urban in character. When it was annexed, the government didn't take over farmland. Sheesh.

Completely irrelevant.

Oh yeah - most cities and counties have land use regulations. To the point where they say what kind of farming is allowed in some areas - i.e., Farmer Brown can't just up and start a pig farm next too the grade school...

We aren't talking about that either, in this case. What we're talking about is if you have your pig farm and then a city council comes over one day and says, "we're now the boss of this land and you can't have your pigs here because we have a rule against it."

For that matter, I'm guessing that most of you would be up in arms if someone was trying to open a liquor store or x-rated novelty/movie store across from your church. Hey, same sort of laws...

Yeah, and zoning laws have been used for decades to try and keep certain businesses from being around "the good people." I guess that makes it okay. Again, apples to apples, it's as if you started a church near a porn shop and then declared that the porn shop must move because it's a bad influence on your poor innocent christians/muslims/buddists/whatever.

You know, there are a bunch of people in this thread who seem to think that understanding this guy is the same as condoning what he did and it just isn't true. I know no one will read this post, or they'll just gloss over it as usual, but that is my ultimate point in this thread. Understanding why he did what he did isn't inherently a bad thing.

Also, he didn't just get "a few parking tickets" when we're talking tens of thousands of dollars. HOWEVER, saying that, I see that he had a habit of not paying things like child support and was in debt to the tune of around a half million dollars, so really this just tells me that he overall had no idea how to problem solve or do the right thing by either selling his home or renting a space to park his gear.

I'm guessing that he and his neighbors saw themselves as victims of society and the government in general and probably supported him in his efforts at lawsuits and "standing up for his (read: their) rights."

Finally, my belief is that when a person feels helpless or powerless to do certain things in their life, it becomes virtually impossible for them to even recognize other choices that they can make. Maybe early on he saw no other choice but to keep his home and business and so therefore selling out was never a viable option for him. Not because it really wasn't an option, but that he couldn't see it as an option for him to take. It isn't the fault of anyone but himself and his family and friends for not seeing those options, but it is ONLY his fault for killing other human beings.
 
Guys. You don't get it.

This was not the first shot fired in your revolution. This was a guy who couldn't figure out that you just don't do some things. And he likely bought into the whole "I'm entitled to special treatment" bit too. And when he didn't get special treatment, he threw a tantrum with a gun.

He threw a tantrum with a gun.

Is _that_ what you are advocating?

There were many, many random acts of violence committed against the British in the time leading up to the revolution.
 
Sage gets it.

I'm not condoning what he did. I'm merely trying to understand. I see most just want to label him a nut and call it good. Way to sweep the problem under the rug. If we don't learn from this history it is bound to repeat again and again.

Hero / Villain / Monster ?

I say he's a little of all three.

He was initially provoked, they then ran roughshod over the guy. As for the items he was found guilty of, big whoop. When people decide to destroy a man they have already decide his fate, now they are merely looking for an excuse to hang him. Which is what happened here. [EDIT] (Still doesn't necessarily mean he was justified in killing people, but I would think that would go without saying. Now I'm not so sure about this crowd here)

Toward the end he couldn't move, he owed too much. They weren't flexible in helping him fix his problems. Nope just started slapping him with fines. Again, that's what law gets you. It doesn't award you for upholding it, it beats you down when you break it, or fail to uphold it. It grinds you to a powder. His only option was to die. He decided to take people with him. IMO he carried it too far. But any one of us could be pushed beyond our breaking point. If you say "nuh-huh, not me" you are lying to yourself and others.


Here is a fairly long list of local news:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=11880
 
Well, it seems to me that some of the folks here would shoot a cop over a speed trap ticket, and feel that they were justified...

He didn't go -completely- nuts until his frivolous lawsuit, that he thought was going to make him millions, was tossed out.
 
He didn't go -completely- nuts until his frivolous lawsuit, that he thought was going to make him millions, was tossed out.

I agree. For years, I'll bet good money that his friends and neighbors probably egged him on, as well. "You're a successful business man! How can they treat you like this? Why don't you go do something about it? Boy, wouldn't it be great if you won a big settlement -- then you could really fix up the place! And you'd show them a thing or two!"

A tragedy that the police and councilmembers were killed. And frankly, I see Thornton as a misguided coward. Misguided in that he chose to make his last stand how he did, and a coward because he killed people for no reason, thus bringing shame on his family. He doesn't have to live with his decisions, but his children do.
 
Most city government are 3-9 man elected dictatorships bent solely on revenue generation. They make, break and interpret their city ordinances however way it will enrich them and their ilk using the police departments as their enforcers/human shields.

While I regret 2 good officers lost their lives good riddance to the city council.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top