Well, that’s a "fine title," after mulling over various alternatives all afternoon of what to call this latest apparent outrage.
Daniel Castillo Sr. said his son, Daniel Jr., was awakened by pleas
from the teen’s sister asking officers not to shoot her in the Tuesday
morning incident, during which law enforcement agencies were executing
a narcotics search warrant. […]
The elder Castillo said his son was awakened by the pleas of his
20-year-old sister, Ashley. When the younger Castillo turned toward
Falks, he said, the officer shot him in the face.
"My son heard her say, ‘Don’t shoot.’ He got up to see what was going on," the elder Castillo said.
The teen’s sister was with her 1-year-old when Falks burst into the bedroom, the elder Castillo said.
Updates here, here, here, and here.
I am immediately reminded of a simple, cut-to-the-bone truth from a different case, but with clear application here.
The most important fact in the thing from where I sit is that Miss Johnston is dead, and she shouldn’t be.
What’s left to say? Even if Castillo had drugs, or even if he had a gun at the ready, ought he be dead? Is that what you would judge; is that what you would conclude? Imagine waking up to your sister’s cry for help, and before you can even get a grip on waking reality, you’re gone.
I don’t know what it’s going to take to end this institutionalized insanity; I just know that it will end. How many more supertankers of innocent blood it’ll take to wash it away is a question for which I have no answer.
Damn them to hell.
Update: Billy says all that I was too tired to say. And better than I would have, anyhow.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
This will end when there is a viable alternative for individuals. Even then, it remains to be seen if what replaces it will be better, or worse.
Beck's analysis has at least two glaring holes.
First, circumstances today are quite different from those of the American colonies. The English were mostly across the world's second biggest ocean and were mostly tied down with bigger concerns (Ireland and France, for starters). A noticeably large minority of the populance of the colonies saw them as "foreign", and a noticeable portion of that minority was radicalized in their opposition. Contrast that with today: this government is right next door to you. Zero percent of the populance is willing to stipulate that the crimes they commit are even crimes at all. Nobody but anarchists are willing to lay the charge of murder.
Second, Beck doesn't bother to mention that that glorious revolution of centuries past gave us not only what we have here today, but turned malignant enough soon after its success. Does anyone honestly think that something brought about by "freedom loving" Americans today would turn out better?
It's fine to expose them for what they are, but it's plain foolish to expect exhortation of the masses to produce anything good. The incentives are simply stacked too highly against it.
"The English were mostly across the world's second biggest ocean…"
Tell it to the survivors of the retreat from Brooklyn, or the attack on Valley Forge.
(sigh) I'm talking about the ideas underpinning liberty, and you instantly start cringing in the corner.
"Beck doesn't bother to mention that that glorious revolution of centuries past gave us not only what we have here today,…"
That is not what I'm talking about, and I think you know it. In any case, I can distinguish between the Revolution and the constitution, even if you cannot.
It boils down to the police having absolute athority over your life in a hair trigger situation that at best should only demand the arrest of the subject of the arrest/search warrant in a normal manner rather than a late night/early morning tactical assault.
"I don't know what it's going to take to end this institutionalized insanity…"
I do, removal of the ability to assault homes/persons in the dead of night and having the firepower of a militia while doing it under the guise of law.
"I'm talking about the ideas underpinning liberty, and you instantly start cringing in the corner."
Did you miss the part where I stated that only the anarchists are willing to accept the logical implications of those ideas? You didn't miss it, it's just that you don't have an answer for it and it's easier to brush it off with a sneer than it is to address the matter. You're trying to imply that we have some fundamental difference in principle about this matter, and you know as well as I do that we don't.
What I'm pointing out are the flaws in your strategy. You can call me a coward if you like, but that isn't a refutation, and the inlookers here are smart enough to realize it.
"In any case, I can distinguish between the Revolution and the constitution, even if you cannot."
You understand the reasons why the ideas put forth in the Declaration were so quickly discarded, right?
Given my first point above, that essentially nobody agrees with us on principle, how do you suppose some mass action is going to turn out in the end, this time? Answer is that it'll either fail, or it'll turn malignant as fast as the American revolution did, and for the same reasons.
"I do, removal of the ability to assault homes/persons in the dead of night and having the firepower of a militia while doing it under the guise of law."
Sure, that would cut way down on these specific sorts of murders by the police. A much more fundamental problem though is that the for defying the government is death.
This government will always have the ability to murder individuals at will, you're proposing that the government set rules on itself so that the murdering is done in a less efficient manner.
I can distinguish between the Revolution and the constitution
Which of the founding fathers intended to live without government after evicting the British? How many of the survivors of the retreat from Brooklyn, or the attack on Valley Forge intended to live without government?
The Revolutionary War was fought for taxation with representation, and that's what America won.
"I was a policeman under the Kaiser, I was a policeman under the Republic and I'll be a policeman under Thaelmann (the Communist Party leader) if he comes to power." – Heinrich "Gestapo" Muller, attrib. to Walter Schellenburg.
All policemen are the same.
It'd be, like, totally different with stalwart individualists such as McQuain, Florack, McPhillips, and DuToit in charge.