Bob Owens welcomes our new police state overlords

And he’s perfectly happy with cops violating property rights and due process, joining the “If it just saves one life” club.

Screen Shot 2013-02-12 at 10.55.32 PM

This LAPD fiasco is revealing a lot of interesting true natures all over the Internet.

This is why I worry (one of the reasons anyway) about the future of civil rights in the US. Too many self proclaimed defenders of the 2nd Amendment are ready to become police state bootickers at the drop of a hat.

UPDATE: Bob has doubled down his police state bootlicking.

How can you expect people to support and defend the 2nd Amendment when you aren’t willing to support and defend the rest of them?

This entry was posted in Police State. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Bob Owens welcomes our new police state overlords

  1. The argument is invalid because it is not one or the other. The value of the home vs the value of a human life is not even a choice in this matter. Besides, LAPD created this bully with a badge they need to deal with the aftermath.

    That having been said, was the fire something the coward Bstard did himself so he couldn’t be taken alive or did the surrounding officers Waco him? Killing himself would be the norm for a coward POS bully like this. He threw his temper tantrum and when he still didn’t get what he wanted he went out in a blaze of gory. (No that was not a typo, just a bad pun.)

  2. Lazy Bike Commuter says:

    God forbid they barricade him and wait for him to run out of food or something.

  3. Pingback: Apropo of nothing in particular… | The Ultimate Answer to Kings

  4. Jake says:

    To repeat my comment at Bob Owens’ site (including the portion of the preceding comment I quoted):

    If they had him surrounded and contained then it was not the right thing to do. Obviously police have the duty and right to self defense but in the absence of that they have a duty to see every suspect has their day in court.

    This. 1000 times this. He was contained in a rural structure with no hostages involved. Starve him out. If he comes out shooting, then the police are justified in shooting back. If he’s shooting out of the building, then the police are justified in shooting back. Otherwise, he has the Right to surrender peacefully at any time, to submit himself to due process.

    There’s a very specific term for setting fire to a structure when someone is inside. It’s called murder.

    But let’s face it, we all know they never intended to take him alive, and were quite willing to murder him if he didn’t give them a legitimate excuse. LAPD proved that quite well when they started shooting at random pickups.

  5. And Jake nailed it on the head so hard I think the nail just shot through the board.

    My heart sank twice in the past week. The first time when they said Dorner could be taken out by a drone strike. The second when I heard the building was on fire.

    We will probably never know who was actually responsible for the fire, it is certainly possible Dorner set the fire. At the same time the LAPD was tossing enough tear gas I could have sworn it was 1993 in Waco Texas. The fire did not surprise me and it honestly wouldn’t surprise me that the amount of tear gas being used was done in an effort to spark a fire.

    If the suspect was surrounded with no place to go, time was on the side of the police. Impatience and wanting resulted in this fiasco and trampling of the constitution.*

    *Don’t get me wrong, by all accounts and evidence thus far Dorner was a scumbag, but to side with the police and deny him his day in court is wrong. Tell me, they denied him due process, what’s to say they wouldn’t do that to me now?

  6. Ken O says:

    WTF happened to due process? Regardless of the crimes committed by Dorner, he was an American citizen, and as such has certain guaranteed rights; the LAPDs actions amount to a summary execution and violation of those rights.

  7. Jake says:

    @ Barron: Apparently, a couple of the commenters at Bob Owens’ post were listening to the San Bernandino Sheriff’s Office on the police scanner while it happened, and the radio traffic indicated pretty clearly that the police set the fire deliberately, “to smoke him out” (I thought that’s what tear gas was for?).

  8. velcro8ball says:

    I was flipping around the radio last night and heard Mark Levin say paraphrased “if they’ve got him in the cabin they should burn him up”. My first thought was due process, scratch that. I thought up to that moment that Levin had a clue, now not so much.

  9. Pingback: how… disappointing | walls of the city

  10. Pingback: Sharp as a Marble - There was nobody to root for

  11. Cormac says:

    Levin, like so many others, is a hypocrite.

    He rails every day about “statists” and the expanding government.
    He wants just as much government interference in our lives, but he wants it in a way that doesn’t impact *his* beliefs (in that moment, anyway).

    Just a statist of a different flavor.

  12. Marcus says:

    Not surprising. Owens was aggressively pro-statist when London cops murdered Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician, in a tube station.

  13. Marcus says:

    And that’s why I dropped his feed in 2005.

  14. LMB says:

    Yeah, I watched this go down on the news here in cali, and I was struck by how inept the cops were at generating sympathy for the position.
    Could it have something to do with their handling of this entire farce?


  15. bob r says:

    As I posted at Bob Owen’s:

    This debate is not new:
    A Man for All Seasons. The saddens me how many have not learned the lesson.

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man’s laws, not God’s– and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    Yeah, name redacted (appears to have) violated Man’s law and needed to be brought to account for same. But the LAPD and the SBSO are supposed to be subject to Man’s law also. I won’t go so far as to say they did commit murder but the available evidence suggests they may have — and there is little doubt that some of the LAPD did commit other crimes during this fiasco. Too bad I have absolutely no confidence that a proper investigation will be done.

  16. Unix-Jedi says:

    In case anybody wonders (looking at US history) “How could *anybody*, much less *lots of people* justify and relish in lynching”…

    It’s really, really easy.

  17. alan says:

    That’s why we have to be especially vigilant about keeping it from happening. Even if the bad guy gets away.

  18. BobG says:

    I have to go with Alan on this.

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
    – H. L. Mencken

  19. scottw says:

    Reading that post from Bob and the supporters of the same idea — the end justified the means — is disturbing…. I take from those that back him that it was within tolerance and justifiable to basically “attack and assault” with out warning two vehicles that just happened to look like the suspects – without even a warning? Would they still be rooting for for it if he was tracked, attacked, and killed by a Drone? Yes – dorner was crazy and dangerous and a threat……But they had him pinned down with no where to go……We are still a Nation of laws, no matter if you wear the badge or not….

Comments are closed.