Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Shot in the 'War on Youth'

This overnight from Libertarians in the States

Derek Copp was shot in his upper right chest. The bullet traveled down, hitting his lung and liver, and lodging in his back.

One of the event organizers and Copp's friend, Greg Hatt, said enough was enough.

"This was kind of the breaking point," Hatt said. "It finally gave people the push they needed to get off their butts and come out and take initiative and do something about it."

Hatt calls the recent actions of the police "a war on the youth."

So to protect unarmed Copp and society from the evils of drugs, he was shot, excuse me if I ask who is the greater danger to society here ?

The State does not own your body, if you want to fill your body with weed, alcohol or doughnuts in the privacy of your own home, thats your choice. Not run the risk of some goon bursting into your house in the dark, shining a torch in your face - then shooting you.

Spot the difference- which is CO19, which is SWAT


electro-kevin said...

Actually what people do to their bodies at home IS important - especially if they demand that the State pays for their care afterwards.

We now have people signed off work because they're too fat - claiming the full range of benefits plus the subsidy of their supersized meals.

I was incensed to see a benefit chav on TV given an allowance to buy alchohol in bulk at the supermarket.

Cut state benefit, make sure that they commit no crime as a result of that cut in benefit, and I'll agree with you.

Guthrum said...

I think you know that I am all for ending the benefit and dependency culture.

But E-K are you suggesting cops bursting into your house in the dark and shooting you is proportionate to the crime 'being committed' ?

Anonymous said...

Churchill was a fat drunk but he muddled through somehow. Stop buying into this meme that anything other than Hitchensesque piety and prayer makes people society ruining chavs. The whole point of what you saw on TV was to make you incensed, to turn you into a moralising prick. It seems to be working.

Shoot first ask questions later usually produces few answers. said...

Swat top,CO19 bottom.

Guthrum said...

On what basis ?

Anonymous said...

Stop buying into this meme that anything other than Hitchensesque piety and prayer makes people society ruining chavs.

Hitchens - Libertarian or authoritarian? He seems to think that liberty is important, and wrote a pretty good book about it, but he also believes in a rigid moral code and blames problems on a "lack of morals" and a rubbish police force/judiciary. Whereas it seems that Libertarian Party supporters blame problems on welfareism.. any comment on this?

Guthrum said...

Hitchens is Authoritarian- Libertarians do not seek to impose any form of quasi religious code on anybody else.

You should be free to do whatever you you want, as long as it causes no harm to anybody else. This involves personal responsiblity.

Libertarians as minarchists, believe in the Peelian view of Policing, that they are just ordinary citizens do the job of law enforcement full time. Not a para military force with no accountability.

All policies are on

Gareth said...

Police are usually well trained. But like any type of training it conditions them just as much as Pavlov's dogs. If they are trained to expect two things - compliance or violence - and you don't immediately do one or the other, they panic. The raised hand may have been enough to trigger the wrong response.

Guthrum - the image filenames provide an instant answer to your question but that would be cheating.

Guthrum said...

G- Thats cheating !

I think the point is they have indentical kit, Peelian principles require all police to be identifiable, wearing ski masks, and hiding your badge number under your flak jacket, and not being able to photograph them is hardly in line with these principles.

Anonymous said...

Hitchens is an MI5 plant. anyone familiar with his books and articles can see that he is clearly an intelligent man who knows how to do research and is familiar with the methods of scientific reasoning. But on the subject of cannabis he 'looses' all perspective, slandering all who smoke weed as evil and calling for the most draconian punishments. Any (and there are many) prominant studies by serious medical proffesionals are rubbished as sixtiesliberalpermisivness or some other maningless catchphrase, whilst the most spurious links between cannabis and whatever is this weeks Daily Mail horror story is held up as irrefutable proof of the drugs society wrecking power.
Remember this is a man who spent his youth in a puffed up state of self rightious leftwing entitlement and either a) converted to a state of puffed up self rightious conservative entitlement. or
b) was recruited into the system like all the other marxist cunts he called friends, and now works as cointelpro for the Mail.
Alternatively I could be full of shit and he may as right about everything as he so often claims.

Guthrum said...

Alcohol related deaths/abuse far outstrips cannibis related deaths/abuse. One is 'allowed' and taxed- the other is 'not allowed' and we are taxed by paying thousands of policemen to carry out raids- half of the cabinet including the Home secretary have inhaled.

It is all irrational.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree about Hitchens. His ideas about justice seem to be "right on" (putting his support for capital punishment to one side). As are the "Peelian" ideas about the police. This is his libertarian side.

But when it comes to drugs, he won't budge at all; some personal freedoms are just too free for his liking. Perhaps this is a reaction to the "Left's" promotion of drug culture as a way to demoralise society, rather than a particular dislike of freedom. Indeed, "Lefty" ideas like decriminalisation are setups for failure, certain to increase crime by their very nature. But instead of criticising decriminalisation, he extrapolates it as evidence that legalisation would also be disastrous. This is lazy thinking.

He also argues that legalisation would be impossible because of international "free trade" agreements. This is his explanation for why the "Lefties" haven't simply legalised everything, as they allegedly wish to. Weirdly, he approves of this foreign influence on our laws. Laws that come from America are fine, but laws that come from the European Union are totally unacceptable.

electro-kevin said...

A sense of proportion please, Guthrum.

Murderous crime is endemic in many areas - so much of it drug induced that here in Britain it is being cited in mitigation during sentencing. It's not simply about preserving the right to free will - narcotics are lethal and at the very least to be a neighbour of an addict means to be tortured by noise, unkempt gardens and delapidation. These losers can bring down whole neighbourhoods as I can attest from a user a few doors down.

A cock-up by police in trying to keep a lid on the situation does not make a police state.

Anonymousish said...

Some twat in your street can't keep his shit clean so I can't smoke dope. I'll make a deal with you. You tell me where the prick lives, I'll go get him to clean up, then you let me smoke dope in peace?

Guthrum said...

My sympathies on having to live near an addict But

"narcotics are lethal and at the very least to be a neighbour of an addict means to be tortured by noise, unkempt gardens and delapidation".

Alcholics have much the same effect on neighbours, but we do not burst in and shoot them in their homes, it is the dependency not the choice of drug that is the problem.

If they are that dependent on the drug of choice, they are funding their habit from either independent wealth/crime/the State.

If it is the former there is little to be done, if it is the latter the funding should be withdrawn. If they are funding it though crime. They should be dealt with by Law effectively, not slapped on the wrists

Anonymous said...

What about dependency on sobriety and pious waffle. Or dependecy on Jesus and other assorted fictional chracters. Have any of you ever sat in a room with a bornagainchristian? Must one yet again site the sober 'restraint' of the Muzzie? For all their faults at least skagheads are quite once given thier drugs.

cesars wife said...

whilst shooting the unarmed is bad , i cant quite go along with letting people off drug use .

say person takes some sith strength cannabis in home , then decides they need some food , drives car , kills innocent person as he was alert enough .

if libertarian means being you can be guiltless for stupid actions that could other wise been avoided , it doesnt quite work for me .

Guthrum said...

"letting people off drug use "

Quite agree,exactly the same if he/she was pissed out of their head on Alcohol driving. Its about personal responsibilty- THE other side to being a Libertarian.

But he was not out driving he was at home, when he was shot.

Try to concentrate on the point being made, not an unthinking kneejerk reaction to the word 'drug'

Gareth said...

"say person takes some sith strength cannabis in home ..."

The glories of the free market have led producers and consumers of cannabis towards stronger and stronger stuff at cheaper and cheaper prices. The Government is keen to suggest that cannabis can cause permanent mental impairment.

If it were legalised, perhaps standardised or graded in some way and taxed accordingly the dangers the Government use to support prohibition could be mitigated. The same laws that apply to people causing trouble when drunk could apply to those causing trouble while high as a kite. All it'd need is a photocopier, lots of Tippex and some lackies to replace 'drunk' with 'spliffy'.

Hospitals and GP surgeries could sell it and keep the proceeds. Operate the same licencing laws as drink in that you can't sell it to people already off their face and do it by appointment only or something like that. It's ideal nanny state and tax grasping territory, you'd think they would jump at the chance.

Antipholus Papps said...

Unkempt gardens now constitute torture? Is that the next level of pain after the comfy chair?

Chop Blair's Ugly Fat Head Off said...

I'm a great fan of the Victorian model of around 1870. You could do what the hell you pleased, provided it didn't impact adversly on anyone else. You could buy coke and opium and strychnine and arsenic over the counter at a chemist's. Okay, so you had to sign the poisons book in the case of the latter two (big deal). You could carry a loaded revolver for personal defence; no permit required. All fine and no questions asked.
But if you FUCKED UP and misused that freedom, it meant the rope. With freedom came great responsibility in those heady, far-off days of glory. We were far stronger then, as a people and as a nation.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails