Okay, let's let at things from a slightly different angle:
First of all, it is presumed that innocence is the correct assessment until guilt is proven. Shooting someone is not a crime provided there's a damn good reason for it. Doesn't matter if the person who was shot is a cop, a bricklayer or the president. It depends solely on the circumstances, not the persons job description.
Now what we have is the statement of the man who shot the cop saying the cop was trying to illegally enter his house, versus the statements made by said cops department that this was a planned incident.
I find it more compelling on a number of levels to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual, rather than the state. So unless some conclusive evidence is brought forth that would indicate the cop was shot in cold blood with no acceptable justification, I gotta assume that the guy was merely defending himself.
As to the second cop, that seems a bit more convincing that it was not a simpel case of self defense. However I can see how a case could be made that it was in fact done out of a sense of self defense.
Here's how:
Assuming the first cop did in fact try to force his way into the home & was shot in self defense, what do you think will happen? The guy will call 911, the cops will come pick up the body & leave quietly until the DA determines if charges will be pressed or not?
Nope. The cops will show up & arrest the guy who shot their "brother officer". Odds are they'd do so as roughly as they think they could get away with. & it's nopt unquestionable that even if the guy wanted to go along peacefully he'd be shot resisting arrest.
So the guy figures he can either A: go along peacefully & end up in jail for a long time if he lives to make it to trial, B: let the cops set up for an effective & dangerous ambush of his house, or C: start shooting at anything in blue with a badge on or near his property.
He chose C.
Was it the wisest course of action to take? That depends totally upon your perspective. If you feel there's adequate redress in the courts & that even shooting an LEO in self defense will not result in any serious harm to you & yours, then it wasn't.
If you feel that cops are part of the problem & the courts will offer no help to you, then perhaps it was.
But if you put yourself in this guy's shoes I think you might at leats understand how he came to feel his actions were necessary, even if you don't agree with them.
He felt he had been screwed by courts before & this was gonna be no different. He felt the government was going to take away his land (rightly or wrongly) & the only way to stop it was by force. He felt that by shooting a cop (in assumed self defense) he had started something that would cause the full force of the local government to come down on him.
If you can, try to substitute the job descriptions of the people involved in this situation. Most of you are shocked that this would happen to LEO's here in America, but what if this story had been told in the context of a Jew fighting off the SS when they tried to take his property? Or a White Russian trying to fend off the Communists?
Yes, I know that these cops were not Nazi's or Communists (actually no discussion of their political leanings were made, so I don't know that, but will assume they were Republicans or Democrats that were close to center), but the point is that too much weight is placed upon their job descriptions & not enough on the circumstances.
A lot of people have already called for their condemnation as murderers. This would not be the case if the deceased were drug dealers, or Nazi's or Communists. It's solely because they were cops.
But despite their occupation, it is indeed possible that the people were acting in self defense as they perceived it.
Now as far as some of the other staements go...if I caught someone on my property trespassing I'd threaten them myself. I'd phrase it politely (on most days) & I'd think of it more as a warning, but I don't see anything overly suspicious about a person telling people to stay off his property.
I can also see some workers for the city over reacting, either intentionally or unintentionally. Warnings can be construed as threats, especially if you think you're justified in doing what you've been warned not to. So a guy tells a city worker to stay off his property, the guy gets pissed & tells his boss & when the call to the cops is made it's to tell the tale of a city employee being threatened in the course of his duties.
The cop being sent out to talk to the guy about the threat...all we have to go on is the word of the guy who shot the cop. He says the cops tried to bust in his house. Gieven the attitude of some LEO's I can see that happening. The cop tells the guy not to threaten city workers even if they come on his property, the guy tells the cop to go to hell, the cop gets pissed & when the door is closed in his face, the cop decides to make a more forceful point.
Then again its possible the cop was polite , asked a few questions & the guy just shot him & drug him in. But what we have to go on is the statement of the guy, who clearly says the cop tried to enter his house w/o his consent & he shot in self defense.
As far as SLED countering the statements of self defense, that's not surprising.
I spent a lot of time in SC. I was a musician & Myrtle Beach was responsible for a lot of work for those in my profession. I also got to know quite a few cops there & in other places in SC. (when you hang out in bars, you see cops in action & you get a chance to chat with them when its slow). It seems that in SC perhaps more than anyplace else I've ever been, the LEO's have the attitude that what they say is gospel & disobeying them in any way is not encouraged. If you're doing something legal but they think it's illegal, quoting the law to them only ticks them off (at least in my experiences). More or less it's not that they just pick bullies to be cops, but the training & conditioning they receive leans more towards that than being correct in theri duties.
Consequently, another one of the reasons for my skepticism concerning statements by SLED is that in any situation where a person takes forceful action against any government entity, that person will be demonified as much as possible with regards to hsi actions. If slave trading, coke dealing, child beating, puppy kicking government agents busted in your door in plain clothes & you shot one or more of them & lived to trial, every paper in the country that bothered to pick up on the story would tell how cops acting in their official capacity were fired upon by some anti-government militia member who had just recently aquired an aresnal in an attempt to ensure that goldfish Rights were respected as the Aliens from The Mothership had instructed. So again, SLED's statements & those of the press should be viewed with suspicion.
So that's a long way of saying that SLED is not going to say any SC officer did anything wrong unless you have non-refutable evidence to back up your claim. Even then they'll fight it as long as they can.
As for the "run ins" with the NH judge...sounds like she needs a few thousand more "run ins".
I now little about the Constitutional Revivalist movement that is referred to in the following quote from the judge in question:
"It was a scary proposition,' Griffin Dalianis said. 'These people were scary, and they all had guns, too."
But just making an off hand judgement, it would seem this is a group of people who wanted a return to Constitutional rule of law practices. Them having guns would seem to me to scare only those who would be oppossed to a Constitutional revival.
But not having all the facts I cannot say for sure whether this is material or not, just that the NH judge probably never saw a prior restraint based gun control law she didn't like. Based on that her fear is suspect as is her assessment. Again though I only know what I've read here about this situation.
As for the news story from which the following quote comes from:
"They died because, same as any other working day, they did two things that require more courage than most of us are ever called upon to show.
They pinned on badges.
And when they got to the place where trouble was, they opened their car doors and climbed out."
It sounds more like a SLED press release than a news story.
Pizza delivery is a more dangerous occupation than law enforcement.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3622
Not that LE is without risks but please. I was surprised I didn't find something alluding to, if not quoting verbatim, the "thin blue line" idealogy.
But it's emotionally appealing & will serve to further demonize (rightly or worngly) the person(s) who shot the cops in question.
& didn't any one notice how it's been changed from "anti-American" literature in an earlier story to "anti-government" literature in a later one? I think the latter probably would be more accurate, & is quite different than the former.
Now in all fairness it is entirely possible that the shootings of the cops was not justified. But then again it is possible that it was a justifiable shooting, at least in the first instance. All we have to go on for the first shooting is the word of the person who shot the cop. We have no statements concerning the second shooting except those of SLED &I believe an eye witness. ( eye witness testimony is extremely unreliable & often inaccurate - it's totally perceptual & subject to variance according to said person's perceptions) So until something substantive is made known, I feel we should give the people, not the state, the benefit of the doubt.
