William Cooper Killed By Government Agents

[David Floyd]

DF - if you have an issue with "feds" that is your business. Advocating killing of law enforcement officers, or most anyone else (I think we make a general exception for OBL) is not acceptable on this site.

Do it again, and you'll get a week off.

Well in my defense I only advocated it in the event that they were violating someone's rights, or at least that was my intent...

But irregardless I do see your point. Consider the matter dropped

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


(I think we make a general exception for OBL)

Double standards anyone?

[David Floyd]

I'm not sure I see a problem with advocating the death of OBL - but I'm also pretty damn sure that various posters advocate the death of SOMEONE or some group all the time.

[Ted Striker]

Trying too hard tonight Horse?

[Alexander's Horse]

Not really - that was a classic Freudian slip. OBL is entitled to process of law just like everyone else.

[The Mad Monk]

Anyway, I am no longer a supporter of the Constitution, I didn't sign it, therefore it doesn't oblige me to act in it's defense.

You have renounced your citizenship?

[Berzerker]

Emporer -

Berserker, where did you see/hear this news?

I can't find it on any news source

There is a link near the end of the first page.

Ted Striker -

The reason why I requested a link is that often we take news items out of context and skew it towards our own viewpoints.

"We" do? My first post came from a short blurb I read earlier today and accurately conveys what the blurb said.

You said that the government officers murdered him because he owed the government money. Some things you LEFT OUT:

Spare me your accusations of deceit, all this other information comes from his website and the Az Republic article I linked after people wanted more information. The thread was started based on the blurb I read and was the only information I had until using a search engine for more after the thread was started. And the blurb did not say he was murdered, I did as a commentary in addition to the information from the blurb.

1. A national leader of the militia movement has been killed and an Apache County sheriff's deputy wounded in a shootout, authorities said.

He was not a militia leader, he was an author and radio broadcaster who was popular among many anti-government types.

2. Cooper refused to get a driver's license or pay federal income taxes

Neither of which were the reason for the arrest.

3. The deputy, whose name was being withheld by authorities, was shot twice in the head while trying to arrest Cooper, a state Department of Public Safety spokesman said today. Cooper was killed by another officer.

The initial article said he was killed in a confrontation with authorities, did I leave that out? No, I "left" out the part about a deputy being shot - because that information wasn't in the article. This may be relevant to even you if he didn't shoot first, or do you think he should not have defended himself?

4. Several deputies were attempting to arrest Cooper, who was armed with a handgun

I guess it wouldn't have been much of a confrontation had he not been armed.

5. Cooper was one of the most widely known prophets of the "patriot movement," railing at the federal government and talking of doomsday omens in his radio broadcast.

So free speech is now relevant?

6. [Timothy] McVeigh, who was executed in May for the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, listened to Cooper's broadcasts for inspiration, according to testimony by James Nichols

Many others did too, so what? If McVeigh received inspiration from the Bible, does Bible reading now become relevant when people have confrontations with authorities?

Sounds like a real great guy, Berzerker.

Far better than either you or me.

So, do you weep for the "murder" of the deputy who was trying to arrest him, and FORCED others to kill him?

For someone complaining about a lack of facts, you don't seem too concerned with them now. Where did the article say the deputy died? Where did the article say Mr Cooper forced the cops to kill him? If they shot first, they murdered him. If he shot first, they murdered him if they were there to rob him, and that does appear to be why they were there. And no, just because a law says they can rob him doesn't matter to me any more than a law says slaves must be returned to their "owners" and those who gave the slaves aid and comfort must be punished. I "weep" for the victim of armed robbery and murder, not those who commit armed robbery and murder. But I don't expect those who believe "government" magically transforms immoral acts into moral or morally neutral acts will understand that. You think legalizing armed robbery makes it something other than armed robbery, I don't agree. I have yet to decide if the misguided souls who believe as you and the cops are deserving of sympathy...

Pssst! Hey Berzerker, those excerpts I posted are from the article you posted!!!

WORD FOR WORD!!!

Pssst! Hey Ted. I know, I read the article I linked

Krazyhorse -

You are a very confused debater, Berzerker. I in no way implied that he walked around shooting random people.

Here is what you said:

No. Can you produce the contract in which he agreed not to shoot random people?

The implication is clear: you accused him of shooting random people (and I refuted your claim without resorting to self-serving accusations about you being confused).

What I said was that the police are justified in enforcing the laws of the country in which you live, whether or not the people they enforce them on agree to these laws.

Then the Nazis were justified.

If you think that it is morally wrong for you to have to pay taxes and that the extent of this infringement is sufficient to justify resisting taxation with deadly force, then we've come to the core of the matter.

I wouldn't kill someone over taxes, but I don't condemn Mr Cooper for resisting those who would take his property.

I simply disagree with you. Your moral code is self-consistent, but is in direct conflict with my own.

If you argue the Nazis were not justified, then your views are in conflict with your statements.

All I can say is "too bad".

And should I hear of your misfortune at the hands of your government, I will say the same.

You inhabit a country in which virtually everyone disagrees with you in such a manner that it is impossible for you to live under the same laws that they do. Either move, fight, or live with it.

I pay my taxes, but if you know of a country where people like you can't legally steal from others, let me know.

Asher -

I didn't say the context changed, I said it was lacking context.
Example:
- Who shot first?
- You did not mention it was a shootout (entirely different than just a 'killing')
- You did not mention he was armed
etc.

Not even the Az Republic article addressed who shot first. We'll just have to wait for the "government" to tell us. And I had limited information about the nature of the confrontation, only that Mr Cooper had been killed in a confrontation.

[Berzerker]

Mad Monk -

You have renounced your citizenship?

No, have you? Don't tell me you respect the Constitution. I'm willing to admit the Constitution is irrelevant while those liberals and conservatives (and all those so-called centrists) who pay it lip service simply distort it. If we still respected the Constitution, this incident would not have happened. Mr Cooper was a strong proponent of the Constitution and would have been quite happy to pay taxes if it was in effect.

[The Mad Monk]

For good or ill, the constitution is the contract by which the people in this nation have agreed be part of the United States, support it, and follow its laws. That's what the preamble is about.

By refusing to support it you are in effect tearing up the contract that links you to this nation--how else does one interpret 'I didn't sign it'?

In doing so, you are renouncing your citizenship.

[KrazyHorse]

For the last frigging time:

You said:

Can you produce the contract upon which he agreed to owe us this money?

I responded:

No. Can you produce the contract in which he agreed not to shoot random people? They're both prices of living under the protection of your government from foreign enemies and domestic criminals

The implication is not that I accused him of shooting random people; rather, the implication was that I was demonstrating that your defense of his actions (tax evasion) applied equally well to other actions (shooting random people) which he had not committed and which I assumed you would find indefensible. Simply stating that he had not agreed to pay the government that money is not an adequate defense, since it applies to all laws of the country. I have not agreed to not perform illegal acts in any contract I've signed till now, so why isn't that adequate defense for for illegal actions?

Furthermore, using deadly force to defend my ability to break a certain law is only justifiable if in addition to believing that the law is wrong I believe it so wrong that the only solution is said deadly force. Otherwise I could decide that the speed limit on my street is 10km/hr too slow and shoot the first cop who tried to ticket me for it.

I pay my taxes, but if you know of a country where people like you can't legally steal from others, let me know

Go start one if it's important enough to kill for.

[Berzerker]

My apologies everyone, especially the Arizona cops involved in the incident. I did some research over at Free Republic and learned more details not in the two articles. Cooper acted beyond the pale and did get what he deserved.

Mad Monk -

For good or ill, the constitution is the contract by which the people in this nation have agreed be part of the United States, support it, and follow its laws. That's what the preamble is about.

Where in the preamble does it say you and I are obliged to obey the Constitution?

By refusing to support it you are in effect tearing up the contract that links you to this nation--how else does one interpret 'I didn't sign it'?

No contract ever existed. Neither you nor I signed it.

In doing so, you are renouncing your citizenship.

No, it's admitting we are not bound by a contract we never signed. Where in the Constitution have you found Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, welfare for the poor, welfare for farmers, welfare for corporations, the DEA, BATF,
FDA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies for which there is no constitutional justification? More than half of all federal expenditures are for unconstitutional programs so don't tell me this BS about how "we" are respecting the Constitution. If and when I renounce my citizenship, it won't be with the admission that you, me, and nearly everyone else is already ignoring the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

edited to leave this thread on a nicer note:

[Tolls]

Oh dear...such a loss.

The guy was a complete nut.

Have you ever read any of his stuff, especially on JFK (the driver did it with a back firing gun by the way), or AIDs (that dreadful book you just mentioned)...

As for were the government lot justified in shooting him, I think that article you linked to showed that they were. From the article:

"The deputy, whose name was being withheld by authorities, was shot twice in the head while trying to arrest Cooper, a state Department of Public Safety spokesman said today. Cooper was killed by another officer."

Which implies he fired first at arresting deputy, before being shot by the other officer...

Of course now he becomes a martyr for the other nuts out there...

[The Mad Monk]

No contract ever existed. Neither you nor I signed it.

Representatives sent by the recognized governments of our ancestors signed it. It was then sent back to those governments, and those governments ratified it. As citizens, we signed it by proxy, and affirm it by living here.

Where in the preamble does it say you and I are obliged to obey the Constitution?

"We The People...do ordain and establish this Constitution"

The Preamble shows that the Constitution is a contract by which the people have agreed to be ruled in the manner described by that contract; we became obliged when it was ratified by the States.

As for the rest...it was put into effect by the government based on that contract through means described by that contract, and can be removed in the same manner.

[Berzerker]

Mad Monk -

Representatives sent by the recognized governments of our ancestors signed it. It was then sent back to those governments, and those governments ratified it. As citizens, we signed it by proxy, and affirm it by living here.

So if your father sold you into slavery, that would be a contract you must abide by because your "proxy" agreed to it?

Where in the preamble does it say you and I are obliged to obey the Constitution?

"We The People...do ordain and establish this Constitution"

Hmm...strange, it says nothing about us, just them.

The Preamble shows that the Constitution is a contract by which the people have agreed to be ruled in the manner described by that contract; we became obliged when it was ratified by the States.

So one group of people can oblige another group of people to obey their dictates as long as the former signs a piece of paper? So I guess you would abide by a contract enslaving you even though it was signed by others.

As for the rest...

You mean all those unconstitutional government programs?

it was put into effect by the government based on that contract through means described by that contract, and can be removed in the same manner.

You dodged my question. Where in that "contract" have you found the programs I listed? They were not put into effect based on that contract because that contract does not contain authorization for whatever government programs the Republicrats want. I'll start a new thread just for this debate on the Constitution.