Several hours before the shooting, a man believed to be the gunman wrote, "I'm putting wings on pigs today" on his Instagram page, the Post reported. The images showed a silver handgun with a wooden handle and a pair of camouflage pants and blue tennis shoes that appear to match those worn by the suspect as he was circulated by the media that show him being transported to the hospital. The photos use hashtags for Michael Brown and Eric Garner and appear to indicate that the shootings were an act of revenge.
"They Take 1 Of Ours ... Let's Take 2 of Theirs," the post said, before adding, "This May Be My Final Post."
The people who have been waging a non-stop hate campaign against the police will of course disclaim any responsibility. And it appears to be true that the assassin was unbalanced. But we all know there are unbalanced people out there, and that hate can set them off.
I see just now in his news conference that Mayor De Blasio is doing his best to fake mourning, but not quite making it.
As usual with your comments, I am confused by the position that you have taken here in comparison with positions that you usually take. On the main page of C&C blog it states: "Why "Crime and Consequences"? The name reflects the underlying philosophy about crime. People have free will. People make choices. Those choices have consequences. When people choose to commit crimes, there are consequences for the victims, for the perpetrators, and for society. When society chooses how to punish crime, those choices also have consequences. Exploring these choices and their consequences is what this blog is about."
Your comments when it comes to people who choose to commit crimes thus focus on the victim, and you usually go to great lengths in appealing to the emotions of the reader by highlighting the details of the criminal conduct and the effect it had on the victim. Here however, you seem to have decided to focus on outside circumstances and the effects that these circumstances may have had on the criminal. Does this mean you have changed your view of free-will and now recognize that people who commit crimes may be influenced by societal factors? furthermore, if this criminal would not have killed himself, would you be in favor of lowering his criminal sentence due to the mitigating circumstances of the hate that set him off? This seems like an amazing change of perspective for you if you now view the actions of people in society, actions that are not criminal, as being the causal factor that leads people to commit crimes. Will this view hold true next time you comment on a double homicide and the victims are not police officers?
I'm just really confused on how you can seriously write this post and place responsibility on "the people who have been waging a non-stop hate campaign against the police" and the hate that can set off unbalanced people. You seem so eager to place the blame on everyone but the actual person who walked up to the police officers and shot them point blank. Where are the graphic details of the killer's actions that you usually post or link to? Where is the discussion of free-will on the part of criminals? Where is the focus on the victims and the effects of the killer's actions on the victims family? Where is the talk about how the whining defense bar will come out and claim this killer is innocent and is a victim of society? In other words, where are the principles that I thought made this blog different from others?
Whoops, forgot to take credit for my writing.
-Sean
First, let me reiterate that on the very page you cite, it says in bold face, "The opinions expressed by outside authors reflect their individual opinion and are not necessarily those of CJLF."
That said, I do not see any inconsistency between the overall viewpoint of the blog and noting the "outside factors" that may have played a role in this mentally disturbed person's choice to attack police officers. We have never said that such factors are not important and should not be considered in a wide variety of choices we make as a society. Indeed, we have an issue category devoted to posts on Social Factors.
But these outside factors do not negate free will, except in cases of actual insanity, and rarely even amount to circumstances in mitigation. If the perpetrator were alive and being prosecuted for this crime, then yes, we would likely take the position that the media storm against the police is not an excuse or even mitigation.
Those issues are moot in this case, though, because the perpetrator self-executed. That mootness is a good reason why there is no "talk about how the whining defense bar will come out and claim this killer is innocent and is a victim of society?"
"I'm just really confused on how you can seriously write this post and place responsibility on 'the people who have been waging a non-stop hate campaign against the police' and the hate that can set off unbalanced people.'"
You're not confused one little bit, as was clear even before Kent explained it.
Nor am I confused -- now that we're on the subject of confusion -- about your nonchalant acceptance, if not half-guilty mirth, about the two policemen getting assassinated in part because of the campaign of hate that -- correct me if I'm wrong here -- you wrote not one word to criticize. And still don't.
Kent,
I am aware of the disclaimer you have put on the page I referenced, and you will notice that I quoted a section of the C & C Blog from the About C & C Blog page without once mentioning CJLF. I am aware that CJLF sponsors the blog, and that the blog has on its About Page the distinct point of view that the blog approaches criminal law issues from. The blog also has Bill Otis as a regular author, who while listed as a guest author, the posts are mostly written by the two of you. It is my assumption that those who are regular writers on the blog will share in the overall perspective of the blog.
In reality I usually enjoy reading your postings as I think you do a very good job at approaching issues from a well-reasoned and clearly articulated perspective. Even your response to me is straightforward, simply stated and to the point. You write about criminal law and criminal issues in a serious manner and I find your arguments to be devoid of childish sarcasm, emotional appeals, and Nazi references; and instead focused more on logical argumentation. In other words, you approach serious issues like an educated, intelligent, and informed adult.
With that said, it surprises me that the blog (sponsored by CJLF) has chosen as its other primary writer an ideological pundit, rather than someone who approaches criminal law and issues of crime from the point of view of the victim and then discuss these issues seriously and intelligently.
Bill,
Going off that, you're right about the fact that I am not confused one little bit; that was sarcasm. It is just so hard responding seriously to a man of your age and credentials when your writing style is so childish. I cannot help but lower my own writing to try and speak at your level. Your posts are simply funny because they are made on this blog, which is sponsored by CJLF (which disclaims responsibility for what you write), yet they reflect nothing more than the traditional talking points of a basic conservative ideologue. Even though you graduated from Stanford law, worked in the Justice Department, and currently teach at a law school, you write about criminal law on an equal level as those partisan talking heads who go on CNN, Fox News, and any other 24 news network to bicker over whose side is to blame.
If there is a double homicide and the victims are not police officers than I would clearly expect you to write some sarcastic sophomoric post about how the person who committed the criminal act needs to be held responsible for his actions. Then you'd go off on some diatribe about how groups like "the Left," "the defense bar," and the "give police flowers instead of guns libertarians" are ruining the culture of the country. Basically all of the stereotyped groups that you've conjured up in your head and placed people in are at fault...well except for the groups you put yourself in.
So no, it doesn't surprise me one bit that when police officers are the victims you fall in-line with the conservative talking point and write a post with the distinct point of view not of the victims, but of the groups (You'll have to tell me if it’s the Left, but I bet it is) who are promoting some cop-hatred campaign that makes people lose control of themselves and kill other people because of their profession. If you think that because I do not quickly run to your blog to criticize something that I must therefore condone it (Bill Otis logic at its finest) … you must assume I condone just about everything since I my comments here just criticize your writing and argumentation abilities.
But wait, if the post is about terrorism and a Sony movie then you'll write from the point of view of free speech, freedom, and how in Amerika (I don't know why you spell it with a k but I assume it’s some snark thing) we don't surrender freedom and free speech based on the actions of others. But wait again, free speech cannot be the proper context to frame this issue in because that's the Left's talking point, so here it has to be hatred to cops because the free speech is promoting that, so the speech must be bad, and bad speech should be blamed, but the issue should be framed as something other than speech. It gets difficult trying to follow a man who utterly lacks the ability of viewing issues from a holistic perspective, which includes being able to see the generally detrimental infatuation that simple Americans seem to have with placing themselves in one of two opposing groups and then applying stereotypes and pointing blame at the other. Rather than use your experience, education, and legal training to try and be part of a solution, you choose to be nothing more than a cog in the problem; spinning clockwise and blaming the cogs that spin counter-clockwise. From this small perspective you miss the bigger picture that can be seen when stepping back and viewing the outcome that results from the multitude of different cogs.
So, all sarcasm aside, you're not inconsistent or contradictory in your views. You are consistently ideological and you consistently write with the perspective of a basic partisan hack – the Left or the Right, they’re both hacks. It is my own fault for holding a man of your experience and education to a higher level when it comes to discussing serious issues of criminal justice that we as a country regularly face. For this, I apologize.
-S….it doesn't matter, I’m done here.
Your original position was absurd and got the response, both from Kent and from me, it earned.
The position, just so we'll all remember, was that it is hypocritical for me to maintain (1) that individuals make their own choices about how they behave and (2) that those who have been waging the hate campaign against the police (which you STILL decline to disavow) also bear some responsibility for the murders.
No serious person could think those two propositions are inconsistent. To say that behavior is chosen is scarcely to say it's unmotivated. Brinsley chose his behavior; he chose it for a reason; the reason, in large part, was hatred of the police; and the Left (sorry if you don't like the term) has been whipping up that hatred at record decibels at least since the Ferguson shooting.
This is so obvious it's impossible to believe you didn't know it. The reason you pretend not to is also obvious: You want to take a few shots at me as a hypocrite and, in your last post, as an ideological hack trolling beneath his education.
You also use your run-on sentence as what you'd like us to take as a show of your complex, nimble and discerning thought. It's actually a filibuster impersonating refinement. Were we supposed to fall for that?
Meanwhile, you can quit with the pretense that you're some neutral observer Seeking Nuanced Analysis. You're anything but neutral, and you're pushing your point of view.
In itself, that's fine. It's the above-the-battle pretense that's juvenile and irritating. (The personal stuff is just what other conservatives and I have come to expect).
As to your being "done here": You make your own choices, of course -- motivated by what you hear.
Sound familiar?