Since when is “fleeing� considered threatening behavior?

When you’ve caught that one loose thread and as you run you unravel someone else’s clothing leaving them naked unless they shoot you in time?

Gee, by Corsi’s “logic” you’d think the officers had been confronting an angry bear.

Maybe the suspect’s buttocks are front-side, like Jerome’s.

It’s not the fleeing that’s threatening to Corsi, it’s the un-WASPishness of the flee-or that’s threatening. A guy pees himself too many times, he could get a deadly rash.

Typical leftists. All systems of government, including our Great Republic, are predicated on the rule of law. When we start deciding what laws we can and cannot follow, we end up with nothing but raw Hobbesean anarchy, obviously a lamentable state of affairs. The law states that you must obey the police when they tell you to do something, and this vile drug runner chose to forfit his rights under that law. To expect the police to uphold the law when all those around them do not is hardly a reasonable position to take. And granting police certain license is hardly unheard of. Indeed we grant the police powers above and beyond those of ordinary civillians precisely to defend the restriction of those powers.

Thus, when the man decided to run, he was violating the laws, and the police were forced into a situation where the law didn’t apply. The man’s flagrant disobedience of the law was an act that threatened the state, and as the state is democratic, threatened democracy.

And certainly, had that marijuana been going to a shiftless relative of yours, keeping them from steady employment, you would indeed be singing a different tune.

[Any similarity between the above satire and the views espoused by Edward Norton’s neo-nazi character in American History X is purely coincidental.]

Hey, how were those cops supposed to know he wasn’t about to sprout an extra arm out of his neck, pull a gun out of his ass and start shooting?

Just annother example of what The Clash said years ago:

“Murder is a crime!
…unless it was done by a policeman.”

James Cape said,

Typical leftists. All systems of government, including our Great Republic, are predicated on the rule of law. When we start deciding what laws we can and cannot follow, we end up with nothing but raw Hobbesean anarchy, obviously a lamentable state of affairs.

I fell off my chair when I read those words. Does this guy know who is residing in the White House? The decider decides which laws to follow (signing statements) and Bush has created the Hobbsean situation you write about. Doesn’t the intense irony of your words – and Mr Bush’s deeds – make you pause for a moment. We have an administration running roughshod over all of our ‘god given inalienable’ rights and you post something like that? Why do you expect certain people to follow the law, and then allow your president to ignore them?

The pumping adrenalin that Sutton admits impaired the aim of agent Compean should be prima facie evidence that agent Compean was experiencing an emotional response that could reasonably be associated with fear that the fleeing suspect yet possessed a weapon.

Clearly, this is evidence the suspect was hiding threatening-behavior-related program activities.

From U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s 1/17/07 press release (pdf):

Agent Compean failed to arrest Aldrete when he attempted to surrender; instead, Compean tried to hit Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun, at which time Aldrete began to run towards the border. The agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once, knocking Aldrete to the ground. Compean and Ramos chose not to walk over to the wounded Aldrete and arrest him; rather, they re-holstered their guns, turned around and left the scene.

[…]

Testimony further revealed that Agents Compean and Ramos never took cover nor did they ever warn the other agents to take cover. This action demonstrates that they did not perceive a threat. In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to surrender with both hands open and in the air.

Had Agents Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, they would not have abandoned him after the shooting and they would have warned their fellow agents who arrived at the scene to stay out of the open while an armed suspect was on the loose. If the agents had believed that the shooting was justified then they would have left the crime scene undisturbed and let the investigation absolve them. The agents knew that Aldrete did not have a weapon and they knew he posed no threat to them as he fled. Agent Juarez also testified that Aldrete was surrendering to Compean with his hands open and empty palms turned to Compean.

Uhm, does anybody know what happened to teh pot?

I fell off my chair when I read those words.

I assumed it was satire. Holding individuals in power to account when they break the laws they enforce was one of the major differences between our “Great Republic” and Totalitarian police states. I figured the blindness in viewing that statement was an ironic jab at apologists for state-sponsoired brutality and lawlessness right now.

Then again, considering the blooming desire in conservatives for just such a totalitarian state to protect them from liberals, mexicans and muslims, perhaps he’s just an ignorant twit hiding behind philosophical systems he fails to understand.

It’s getting harder and harder to tell irony from idiocy these days.

What crime is committed when two Border Patrol agents* shoot in the buttocks a fleeing drug smuggler who has abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana?

the crime of abandoning 400 POUNDS OF POT . The guy must have absolutely no frineds.

Where he really loses all touch with reality is when he claims that Compean’s hypothetical adrenalized state (and resultant poor aim) should be prima facie evidence that he was in fear for his life. Because there’s really no other reason for his adrenaline to be flowing, right? It’s not like he was doing anything exciting, just hangin’ out in the desert with his pals, some grass, a smuggler or two, and a few shotguns and assorted other weapons. Yawn. I’m sure if it weren’t for all that nasty, threatening running-away going on, he’d have been as cool and deadly as Rambo.

Here’s the part I find pretty telling:

Dipshit says Jones notes that 18 U.S.C. Section 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) has only been applied to law enforcement officers who themselves commit heinous crimes, such as sexual assault…. So I guess in HIS world shooting someone in the ass is not a heinous crime. Oh sure, as pranks go it’s a fairly nasty one, and I’m sure he would definately support a reprimand for real world ass-shooting. As always, I am compelled to wonder if it was HIS ass that was shot, would he feel that was a more heinous crime than the shooting in the ass of a Mexican guy?

mikey

It’s not the fleeing that’s threatening to Corsi, it’s the un-WASPishness of the flee-or that’s threatening.

Exactly… “fleeing while Brown” has been declared the new “driving while Black”. As a side note, remember that the C-Plus Augustus got his first news headline (in the Yale paper) defending the arse-branding of fraternity pledges with a red-hot coathanger. Ergo, the use of non-lethal force in the gluteal region is grandfathered into the law under the ancient precept “It’s okay if you’re a Republican” (IOIYAR)…

And speaking of ancient law-enforcement-cum-Republican traditions, how long before it is announced that 740 pounds of marijuana has a street value of $9,867,458,347.37 — thereby making this heinous smuggler single-handedly responsible for the U.S. trade deficit over a period of at least a month?

Guys, the first clue for me was when James Cape ended his post with a reference to the “above satire.” Reading through to the end helps.

Flying Rodent, I swear I saw the exact same thing happen just last week. You can’t trust those limb-sprouting, ass-holster-toting bastards.

And mikey, I think maybe it was more of a hiney-ous crime, y’know?

James Cape, where I come from it’s illegal to use deadly force on a suspect who is not considered a threat. Shooting a suspect in the back isn’t lawful.

Take Texas, for example. (You like Texas don’t you? It’s where your beloved leader hails from.)

Parameters for Use of Deadly Force:

1. Officers may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
2. Officers are not authorized to fire their weapons in order to subdue an escaping suspect who presents no immediate threat of death or serious injury.
3. System Police policy C-3 requires an arresting officer to identify themselves as a police officer and to state their purpose before effecting an arrest. The officer should communicate this in a clear, audible voice.
4. When possible, before using a firearm, officers shall identify themselves and their intent to fire.
5. An officer may also use a firearm under the following circumstances:
1. During range practice and qualification or competitive sporting events.
2. To destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety, or as a humanitarian measure where the animal is seriously injured. The officer will obtain a supervisor’s permission before taking such action.
6. Officers shall adhere to the following restrictions when their weapon is exhibited:
1. Except for maintenance or during training, officers shall not draw or exhibit their firearm unless circumstances create reasonable cause to believe that it may be necessary to use the weapon in conformance with this policy.
2. Warning shots are prohibited. Officers shall not fire their weapons at or from a moving vehicle except in defense of life.
3. Firearms shall not be discharged when it appears that an innocent person may be injured.

I don’t know where you live. Zimbabwe perhaps?

Take Texas, for example. (You like Texas don’t you? It’s where your beloved leader hails from.)

Folks, allow me to give you a little friendly advice.

Step 1: When you come across a trollish comment, like the one left by James, the first thing you should do is check to see if that commenter has a link to his/her home page. In this case, James’ name functions as link to said homepage.

Step 2: When reaching that page, poke around a bit. Read a few posts. Just what side does it appear this person is on? Now, in my case, I don’t really ever blog about politics. So what to do?

Step 3: Feel free to use this as step 2 if you choose. But anyway, I always find checking the sidebar helpful. Let’s see who James links to. Jumping right out are:
Sadly, No!
Noam Chomsky
Crooks and Liars
Jesus’ General
Red State Son
Orcinus

Looks like a lot of lefties. But wait! There’s that Red State Son blog. Maybe James just likes to link to a little from column A, and a little from column B. So let’s check that one out:
Against the War on Terror
Iraq Vets Against the War
Juan Cole
Antiwar.com
Margaret Cho

Nope, looks like he/she’s a lefty too. I think the evidence is pretty clear that our friend James is not a troll, but rather is having a little fun playing right-wing nutjob. It’s sarcasm.

Now, that took me all of about 45 seconds, and it kept me from writing a post where I may have taken him seriously, thereby making myself look like an idiot. Please, use this advice in the future, and think before you write things like:
(You like Texas don’t you? It’s where your beloved leader hails from.)

Also, the part where he calls his own post satire is a pretty good clue as well.

Thus, when the man decided to run, he was violating the laws, and the police were forced into a situation where the law didn’t apply. The man’s flagrant disobedience of the law was an act that threatened the state, and as the state is democratic, threatened democracy.

James, this is hysterical. Are you sure you didn’t go to college with me? This is classic “philosophical ponderings in the true Classical symposia tradition” (e.g. drunk off your ass and scouting out all the possible sex partners: if their brains don’t explode at your premise, they get a check in the “doable” column).

Friends. Seriously. When did you all stop having the ability to read? James Cape provided a satirical comment. It was quite obviously satirical, but just in case we didn’t get it, he TOLD US it was satirical. I’m bummed because I can only assume that y’all aren’t reading anyone’s comments through to the end . . . even (gasp!) mine.

Sure, SM, but how were we supposed to KNOW it was satirical?

Sorry, Smilin’ Mort, what were you saying? I kinda trailed off there at the end…

OK. I’m over my snit. Isn’t snit a great word?

Smiling mortician and seitz have the Biggest Balls on this blog.

Smiling Mortician said,

OK. I’m over my snit. Isn’t snit a great word?

aw, I was working on a killer “Smiling Mortsnitian” joke….

Yay the first instinct was correct!

Good satire is getting harder to write ’cause crazy idiots are taking it as gospel.

To expect the police to uphold the law when all those around them do not is hardly a reasonable position to take.

Brilliant!

This is such a great blog full of wonderful people. I enjoy coming here everyday!
(This is satire. You won’t know because you never read to the end of the post)

Maybe the suspect’s buttocks are front-side, like Jerome’s.

Lesley, I think you’re confused. Just because Jerome talks out of his ass doesn’t mean it’s located on the front side.

“Since when is “fleeingâ€? considered threatening behavior?”

In NYC…nevermind.

“The agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once, knocking Aldrete to the ground.”

I guess we should be thankful these idiots couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn…

“I guess we should be thankful these idiots couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn…”

Shooting straight is never easy when you’re all adrenalized up. The agent shoulda taken a couple hits on the readily available pot; would’ve steadied his aim right up.

ALL YOUR SATIRE ARE BELONG TO US