The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely on the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.
The Wife and I decided on this film for our movie night viewing. I knew of the Killdozer story from the growing internet folktale of the event. I was curious to see how it was portrayed.
The documentary uses audio tapes made by Marv Heemeyer in the months leading up to the Killdozer event and interviews with his friends in the first act to bring Marv to life. The filmmakers use this time to help Marv build his case against the authorities in the town of Grady.
Then, the second act feeds in the counter narrative with interviews from members of the local government and parts of Marv’s tapes that were more, shall we say, ranting. By the end of the second act, I was a bit more ambivalent on whether Marv was fucked over by the town or Marv just had a persecution complex.
The third act was the Killdozer rampage. I learned a lot of details about how Marv built, armed, and drove the Killdozer. The last act is going to be shaded by how you come out of the previous two acts. Since I was feeling more ambivalent already, the rampaging done made me more ambivalent.
Summary – I thought this was a well-done documentary. I think anyone who champions the Killdozer as a myth of the common man against corrupt government should watch this. Then, after seeing this, do you think if the folktale holds, or should we discard this?
Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory – both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
If the constitution were meant to be interpreted, if it were meant to change and be fluid with the times, why would the founders have made an amendment process in the first place? Furthermore, if it was meant to be interpreted and a “living constitution” that changes, why would the amendment process be so stringent?
I was listening to the Free Thoughts podcast last Friday, and they were discussing criminal justice reform. One of the speakers (honestly can’t remember if it was one of the hosts or guests) talked about ways of reforming the disparity between the prosecutors and public defenders offices. He talked about semi-privatizing it by selecting each side from a pool of available attorneys. I liked the concept.
Derek’s State Attorney’s Office Proposal:
- abolish both the prosecutor’s and public defender’s office
- Establish a pool of attorneys. I’m thinking of either volunteers or perhaps as a condition of being a part of the bar.
- All attorneys in the pool agree to a flat rate per hour for doing state service.
- No attorneys will have qualified immunity for unreasonable prosecution.
- Trial costs would be managed by judges
Here’s my idea of the flow:
- Police investigate crime, develop evidence, and arrest suspect
- State Attorney or Deputy State Attorney will decide if the case should be brought forward
- If the case is going forward, two attorneys from the pool are chosen randomly – one prosecutor and one defender
- Attorney selected for prosecution can decline if case is unsound. Since the attorney will be liable for bad prosecutions, they will have incentives to take the strong cases.
- Defendant may accept pool attorney or hire their own attorney.
- Attorneys will be paid going rate per hour for their time on the case.
- If additional funds are needed for prosecution or defense, that will be up to the judge.
Are there big, gaping holes in the plan? Heck, yeah. That’s what happens when Derek gets one of his wild idea plans. Yet, I find the framework fascinating.
Time for another round of unpopular opinions:
- If that police officer isn’t guilty of at least manslaughter, then that was some weird deep-fake shit.
- If after watching that, you can’t understand why Black Lives Matter exists, you are too far up your own team’s ass to see clearly.
- If after watching that video, you don’t understand why the current qualified immunity standard leads to a horrific “only ones” attitude, then you’re too far up either Blue Lives Matter or the police union bullshit.
- If after watching that video, you don’t see how horrific it is for police unions to protect bad officers, then you are also too far up your own ass to see clearly.
- There’s part of me that wishes someone had been able to forcibly stopped the cop, but I know that person would have been crucified. I think it’s high time that there should be a doctrine and cultural practice that if the populace witness the police performing an illegal act, we should be able to stop them. With all applicable force ladders.
- I understand and condone people gathering and protesting unjust actions to call attention to their plight. I may not agree with their assessment or opinion, but I fully sympathize.
- I can sympathize, *but not condone,* with attacks on government buildings by people outraged by atrocities committed by government agents.
- I will not sympathize or condone attacks on private businesses and homes. It don’t care if someone looting a store, throwing a fire bomb, committing arson, or even smashing a window *during the course of a riot* catches a bullet. Or multiple bullets. Or however many bullets it takes to stop them.
- It has been terrifying to watch how fast the narrative that the violence was mostly caused by white supremacist and fascist instigators and provocateurs spread across the inter webs. For fuck’s sake, if you’re correctly calling out the other side for their bullshit, at least have the common decency or consistency to call out the assholes on your own.
- If after watching how fast the riots – not the protests, the violent riots – spread to other cities, you do not understand why it should be normal for every willing citizen to have an AR-15 with a thirty-round magazine, then either you are too far up your team’s ass, or you do not want to get shot when you’re busy causing property damage.
The “private sector” of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the “public sector” is, in fact, the coercive sector.
Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual.
My podcast feeds have been going over the issue of the sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade against Joe Biden. More particularly, how the major media outlets have been responding. The more and more I hear the chattering class jabber on, the more I’m leaning to Jonah Goldberg’s position.
- The press has actually been doing their job on these allegations by working to investigate the claims to determine if there’s substantiation or holes. The commentaries are ludicrous on both sides, but that’s just the chatter class.
- There is a stark difference by how the major outlets are treating this episode compared to the Kavanaugh allegations. The ombudsmen or spokespeople for the major outlets should be stating clearly “We screwed up then, but we’re going to do a better job with this one and all episodes going forward.” By not doing that, it just looks like their only willing to do good journalism if it will hurt those they don’t like and help those they do like. At that point, they are no better than the chattering class.
- For those who want the press to treat Biden like they did Kavanaugh, are you out of your fucking mind? What was done to Justice Kavanaugh was a tragedy. Why under all that’s sacred would you want to mainstream that?
- Now, let’s through a stick of dynamite on the wood pile. Jonah Goldberg’s made the observation that many of the people who are demanding that Biden receive the Kavanaugh treatment are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye on the far more serious and more substantiated allegations against Trump. Now, I know expecting consistency out of people who are swept up in party politics games is a lot these days, but for fuck’s sake.
Let’s examine the case of Ahmaud Arbery.
These two asshats killed a man on February 23rd. Since the elder is a former cop, the original prosecutor recused herself. The second prosecutor also recused, but gave a lengthy, if bullshit, memo as to why they shouldn’t be charged. The third is finally taking this to the grand jury after two months.
Let’s dispense with the citizens arrest bullshit. They did not witness a crime, nor did they have reason to believe a crime was in progress. That latter is proved by them asking Ahmaud to stop so they “can talk with him.” This also wasn’t anywhere near self-defense. If anyone had a justifiable claim of self-defense if was Ahmaud.
Yet, it took three prosecutors before they were arrested and charged?
Was it racism? Most likely. Was it a former cop getting preferential treatment? Fuck yes.
So, why should a community historically treated poorly by cops, look at this and not feel threatened?