All the information I referred to or copied was from the link to the CNN article in the link the sifter provided above.

Crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery, are violent crimes. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. He robbed a store, committed arson on an occupied structure, committed breaking and entering upon a private home, stole the car at said home which is GTA, then committed another robbery at the walmart when he took the gun.

CNN stated that the person was also accused of pointing the rifle at the police, firing it in the air, and then later pointing it at himself. The man clearly has some mental issues, but he was a threat to society in the condition he was in. His rights do not trump the rights of his fellow citizens to be protected from his mental illness.

There are lots of ways that this could have been handled differently, but there are also lots of ways this could have went worse. We could be discussing why the police didn't do more before this guy shot an innocent bystander.

From the interview that I saw on CNN of the police chief, lethal force had been authorized if needed. I think this officer saw an opportunity and took it, perhaps over zealously, to end the situation without harm to innocents.

Sorry, the guy had been involved in violent crimes, was armed with a high powered rifle, fired the rifle in the air, pointed it at police, and one of the officers took a chance in taking him down before he hurt himself or others.

People don't understand that they could have simply shot him as soon as he pointed the gun at a cop, with just cause. The fact that the guy lived, and will most likely use this to sue the city and make out like a bandit, is pretty much a win win for him. His lawyer is just blowing it up to make more bank in the lawsuit.

Copy pasta of salient facts, remember, these are in addition to shooting the rifle and pointing it at a cop.

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

It would be more correct to consider religion one of many paths leading away from enlightenment than secularism as one leading toward it. That would usefully sidestep the sophistry involved in the rebranding of oppressive but secular ideologies as a special kind of religion. Secularists don't need to account for the actions of other secularists any more than people who aren't thieves need to answer for arsons committed by other non-thieves. Muslims, conversely, have signed up for a particular club with a particular set of club rules and practices; they are accountable.

Islam is a homogeneous whole, as much as a global movement can be. Its foundational text is intact and whole, not arbitrarily selected from masses of contradictory documents of dubious provenance. That text explicitly rejects the possibility of interpretation or allegory and there's an established, foolproof mechanism for resolving contradictions. It has a single author, really a single author rather than the fiction of the will of god being channelled through the accounts of various liars, a single founder, and a single exemplar.

The popular view of islam as "a religion that is as varied as any other in the world" is unarguably born from ignorance. It's about as variable as scientology, and substantially less reputable.

One of the downsides of jury nullification not mentioned in the video is that it doesn't afford higher courts the opportunity to correct defects in the law.

In the UK an eleven and a twelve year old boy set fire to some newspapers, which unknown to them spread to a wheelie bin, which spread to another wheelie bin, which spread to a shop and eventually caused ~£1 million damage. They were convicted of arson despite an extremely reluctant jury and even judge, because while it was acknowledged that the boys didn't foresee the risk of the fire spreading the standard of recklessness at the time (which had persisted for around two decades) was an objective one referring to the judgement of a hypothetical reasonable adult.

It took their conviction, and the Court of Appeals upholding that conviction, for the House of Lords to reexamine the bad precedent they'd set in an earlier case and finally revert the standard to a subjective one of the defendant's actual capacity.

It may take thousands of nullifications before legislators even notice that their terrible laws aren't being enforced, while one unsound conviction can make a difference. So your strategy as a juror may be to convict in obviously stupid cases (unconstitutional ones in the US, say), but nullify where the law appears to be functioning as intended but conflicts with your conscience.

I wonder how much though. If you point a laser at the moon then the beam will cover much of its surface. Wouldn't make much of an arson target anyway, although an aspiring tag artist with a powerful, precise enough laser (probably an array of lasers high up in the mountains tbh) with enough time could make a mark.

Anyway, I think your right. The laser wouldn't spread much but I figure you wouldn't have to go that far before the laser beam isnt concentrated enough to produce a flame. Still, point it somewhere with flammable fumes in the air, say a gas station and focus it on something matt, black with a low flash point and you could make it a very bad day for somebody.

Is anyone else thinking this is the perfect arson tool? You don't even have to go inside the building you want to torch, just shine the laser through a window at a cardboard box or something.

Scary implications indeed.

You're simple, vapid, and shallow. Are we having a dialog yet?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.
Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.
The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...
Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?
That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

Here's a quick quiz... Two activist groups are accused of being "astroturf". One is the Tea Party - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the right. The other is Occupy Wall Street - which is accused of being a bought & paid for astroturf campaign of the left.

Occupy Wall Street is guilty of documented cases of arson, assault, drug use, drug dealing, fraud, murder, public disturbance, rape, sexual assault, sedition, suicide, theft, vandalism, property destruction, bigotry, police harassment, and various other felonies and misdemeanors. The Tea Party is guilty of ZERO documented cases of any crime. Sounds like OWS is far more similar to the Taliban than the Tea Party.

The simple fact is that neolibs want a bad guy to demonize. Neolibs and leftists in general are simple, shallow, and vapid - very much like Sorkin and his on-air wet dream that he calls a 'show'. To these narrow-minded creatures, it is unacceptable to see honest, well-intentioned, reasonable everyday citizens opposing their radical agenda items. The Tea Party as a whole has been inoffensive and has as simple, basic message: cut spending. They aren't racists, or violent. They aren't anything close to the Taliban. But truth and reality don't matter to blinkered neolibs who NEED... who desperately CRAVE a man in a cloak with a twirling moustache to hate...

Can't these 20 million disenfranchised voters just pay 10 bucks or so to go get a photo ID that would allow them to vote?

That's not the point. A large portion of the so-called 'disenfranchised' are illegal aliens who should not be allowed to vote. Voter ID laws prevent illegal aliens from voting. Such a simple, common-sense law cannot be allowed by the liberal left as they'd lose out on literally millions of illegal alien votes. Protesting voter ID laws has nothing to do with "disenfranchisement". It has everything to do with preventing illegal voting activity - which all civilized nations do rigorously. I have to have a voter ID card to vote, and display an ID. It in no way disenfranchises ANYONE except those who shouldn't be voting in the first place. Everyone who should legally be allowed to vote already has all the ID that any ID law requires.

someone should send this in to the local fire and/or police department. clear act of arson.

>> ^ReverendTed:

Something tells me it reflects incredibly poor judgement to videotape this act of arson and post it to YouTube.


I know. That's the best part.

Something tells me it reflects incredibly poor judgement to videotape this act of arson and post it to YouTube.

"Arson of an Occupied Structure... a potential sentence of up to 5 years in prison."
http://www.myarizonadefenselawyer.com/arizona-criminal-charges/criminal-damage/

So if he was going to be near 60 years old by the time he got out, his life as a productive person in charge of his full mental faculties would be coming to a close anyway, and he would have had to start from scratch financially.

He just saved society $250k. ($50k per year.) Maybe an appeal would have added another $100k to the costs.

Given these details, his actions appear to have been in the best interest of society.

I know what you mean. I was hesitant.

The only reason I did it was because of the nature of the crime (arson to avoid paying a mortgage) which is cowardly, followed by suicide ONLY when he was found guilty. If he had gotten away with it, presumably he would still be alive.

A perverse posting garnering perverse upvotes. Makes sense to me.


>> ^deathcow:

too snuffy for me
perversely upvoted but not something i want en masse on the sift

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Suddenly the sanctity of law matters? Since when does the left give a shit about laws? Since never. Just like the end run around voters over gay "marriage". Mob rule.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
One day the left will call anti-pedophiles "bigots". It's inevitable.

Yeah, 'cos sex between consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia.



The rape of fish is a terrible thing, as is the arson of whiteboards.

Do I win the "response is nonsensical and irrelevant" game yet?