Showing posts with label Right to self-defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right to self-defense. Show all posts

Friday, December 26, 2014

The Right of Self-Defence, The American Way



This copy is reposted here specifically for the police and people of Humboldt County. Make your own comparisons, draw your own conclusions. Impunity is its own sin and brings its own sanctions. The empirical value of life or lack thereof speaks to the decadent moral character and to the truth of our dying society.
An Unaccountable Army
Police Violence and Violence Against the Police
by RON URIE

On March 31, 2004, one year after the launch of the U.S. war against Iraq, four U.S. military contractors, mercenaries, were ambushed and killed in the Iraqi city of Fallujah and their charred corpses were hung from a bridge. The indignation expressed by the American political leadership and senior military officials was that their imperial privilege had been challenged— how dare the people whose country they had illegally invaded and substantially destroyed and whose relatives, neighbors and friends they had murdered fight back? The city of Fallujah was surrounded; women and small children were told to leave and then the slaughter began. White phosphorus and depleted uranium shells were dropped until thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Iraqi boys and men in Fallujah had been murdered.

Left unsaid at the time was that most Americans subjected to an illegal war, invasion and occupation would respond largely as the citizens of Fallujah had done. Self-defense against invading hordes is as close to a natural right as the term could convey. The real crimes committed in / on Iraq were the war and occupation launched by the Americans and Brits. And the collective punishment visited upon the male citizens of Fallujah very closely resembled the acts that led to collective punishment being designated a war crime in the first place— the group slaughters regularly meted out by the Nazis in WWII for acts committed by unrelated individuals or groups. Today the Americans and Israelis (against Palestinians) are the main global keepers of the war crime tradition of collective punishment.
uriepix1
Picture (1) above: An NYPD motorcycle cop gratuitously rides his motorcycle over the leg of an NLG (National Lawyers Guild) legal observer at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. The role of the police as armed thugs protecting the privilege of connected kleptocrats on Wall Street is framed in the language of the radical right as protecting ‘the public’ from over-privileged, elitist kids disrupting the public order. When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who made his early career prosecuting Wall Street criminals, says that the police are concentrated in ‘high crime’ areas he fails to mention that any concentration of police in the financial districts of major U.S. cities is to protect financial criminals from being held accountable for their crimes. Source: Washington’s blog.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made explicit the military role of the police when he bragged that he had ‘the seventh biggest army in the world,’ the NYPD. Mr. Bloomberg claimed the NYPD to be ‘his’ army in 2011 as he was violently repressing the Occupy Wall Street movement. A short time after the comments were made the NYPD participated in a coordinated national assault against lawfully assembled protestors that included the total destruction of the Occupy library, kitchen and associated infrastructure. Through an ongoing campaign of violence, infiltration, disinformation, ‘pre-emptive’ kidnappings and legally dubious arrests the Occupy movement was effectively destroyed. Mr. Bloomberg made his fortune from Wall Street and he used ‘his’ army to prevent it from being held legally and socially accountable for its crimes.

When Ismaaiyl Brinsley murdered NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in self-proclaimed revenge killings for the murders of Mike Brown and Eric Garner spokespersons for the NYPD and the PBA (Police Benevolent Association) were quick to personalize the victims while using the language of belligerent militarism to politicize the broader context of growing public resistance to police violence. What wasn’t expressed by NYPD spokespersons was any regret for the unjustifiable murder of Eric Garner or any number of other black and brown youth, for participation in systematic racial repression like stop-question-and-frisk or for the acting as an occupying army in poor neighborhoods of color. What was affirmed through the words of spokespersons for the police was that black lives don’t matter but that cop lives do.
uriepix2
Picture (2) above: The NYPD applies an illegal choke hold in the murder of Eric Garner. The allegation against Mr. Garner was that he was selling ‘loosey’ cigarettes, individual cigarettes on which applicable taxes were not paid. In the run-up to the Great Recession Wall Street made dubious, in many cases fraudulent, mortgage loans of over one-trillion dollars. The economic calamity that resulted cost millions of families their homes and millions more their jobs and life savings. The everyday business of U.S. corporations is avoiding hundreds of billions per year in tax liabilities through sham transactions. Eric Garner could in theory have sold loosey cigarettes for the next 500,000 years and not neared the annual tax avoidance of Apple Computer or General Electric had the police not murdered him. Source: ABC News.

The loss of any life through violence is tragic, which makes the police practice of casual, consequence-free, assault, murder and harassment so worthy of public condemnation. The contention put forward by PBA spokesperson Patrick Lynch that those protesting police violence have ‘blood on their hands’ leaves unaddressed the reasons why protestors are protesting— around the country heavily armed, militarized police routinely assault and murder people, largely black and brown youth, with impunity and largely without conscience. Seventy-six unarmed black and brown youth have been murdered by the police since 1999 and it is only the murder of two cops that raises the moral outrage of the police. And here lies irony— the protestors by-and-large have great sympathy for the families of the slain cops whereas, as best can be determined by the words and actions of the police, courts and political leadership, the imperial privilege of police to murder with impunity remains intact.
uriepix3
Picture (3) above: it has been nearly fifteen years since unarmed Amadou Diallo was murdered by the NYPD in a hail of bullets. In the intervening years the police across the country have murdered seventy-six unarmed people of color (link above), have been increasingly militarized, given the right to rob people of their possessions at will, made immune from prosecution for crimes committed and dedicated to systematic race-based repression like stop-and-frisk. The failure of the political leadership and the judiciary to hold the police accountable at any level demonstrates the political role that the police fill— that of an army of the rich existing to protect the ruling class from social accountability. Source: Life Magazine.

The existence of a heavily armed, highly militarized, wholly unaccountable army to protect a class and race based social order is totalitarian by degree— those on the side being repressed bear the brunt leaving the illusion of justice for those not paying attention. The one-sided response of the political leadership and police spokespersons to the tragic murder of Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos is evidence of the social order being protected. Left entirely unaddressed is the historical role of the police in maintaining an unjust race and class based social order from slave patrols to convict leasing to mass incarceration and for-profit prisons to class and race-based enforcement of selectively repressive laws. And to be clear, it is the political leadership that has designated and so-armed the police to be the quasi-military force they now are.

The mainstream press is claiming that the murders of Messrs. Liu and Ramos have reframed the protests against police violence to be against violence. Without disarming the police and changing their role from militarized guardians of ruling class interests to servants of all of the public it is difficult to see how opposing violence without opposing the existing role of the police is politically coherent? And reduction of the idea of justice to the will of the police is to accept the role they have been given in protecting class and race interests by a political leadership that straightforwardly answers to economic interests. Put differently, if fealty to the law had anything to do with the current role of the police then areas with high levels of criminal activity could be found in the financial towers of lower Manhattan and on Park and Madison Avenues just north of Forty-Second Street. As of a few days ago the NYPD was nowhere to be found enforcing the law in these locations.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is forthcoming.

--Joe

Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Brownshirt Hypocrite Strikes Again

General Brownshirt Bigot Bans Another. Eric Kirk sets the precedent for raging bigotry, and justification for direct action discrimination against anyone that fails to toe his invisible line on blogs and in our community. Follow comments on local blogs and you find more and more intolerant, bigoted behavior hiding behind a pseudo-community oriented blog. What makes this serious for everyone is how this kind of conduct extrapolates into real life and dramatically affects our social community to its everlasting detriment.

Stumble into one of these blogs, make a comment of a differing point of view or even a factual observation and you find out in a hurry what it feels like to be a person of color or a woman in a backwater berg in the Jim Crow era. Make the mistake of trying to defend yourself or your point of view and you find out what mob rule is all about when you are summarily verbally beaten. If you didn't learn your lesson from these verbal bullies the first time or two and willingly shut up and mind your place like you were told, they permanently silence you.

Here is a verse from Maya Angelou's poem 'Still I Rise' that demonstrates the graphic reality of words followed by another example of such words from one of Eric Kirk's Brownshirts put into practice:
You can shoot me with your words,
You can cut me with your lies,
You can kill me with your hatefulness,
But just like life, I’ll rise.
[Emphasis mine.]

Mitch
Thank you, Nutcase Anonymous, for being accurate in your quote. [Emphasis mine.]


The following action of bigoted discrimination justified by words of hateful lies on Eric Kirk's blog motivated this posting.
May 26, 2014 at 7:43 am  Eric Kirk  
I’m sure the rabbis are all quaking in their boots Steve. That will be your last post as your irrational anger with Jews really has no place here, or anywhere really. You can do this on your own blog. I’m sure your immense following will enjoy your thoughts. [Emphasis mine.]
Notice Kirk's reason for banning Steve from posting on his blog: "irrational anger with Jews." The question I ask is, do any of Steve's comments in this thread demonstrate "evidence" (Kirk's always demanding 'evidence') of "anger" or even "irrational anger" suggesting that Steve in MENTALLY deprived or STUPID? Or, did he simply speak a "truth"? Here is the definition of irrational:
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.
I've included below what I consider the pertinent comments to this issue of bigoted discrimination. There are other comments in this thread. The first comment by Dave Kirby is included because it is a perfect example of Eric Kirks discrimination and identifies one of his Brownshirts. It also starts the bigoted statements justifying Kirk's banning Steve for trying to defend himself.
It is perfectly okay for this guy, Dave Kirby, a retired real estate salesman living in Garberville, to personally assault Steve. And then turn right around and use this guys lies to justify banning him.

Here are Steve's two comments preceding Kirk's kinetic judgment.
And with that, Kirk summarily censors Steve for speaking an obvious truth or so he says. So, there it is, Brownshirt bigots doing their best to tell everyone what is acceptable and what is not.
--Joe

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Rise of the Blogging Brownshirts

[UPDATE Below] 

The deadly Brownshirt Trolls are hard at work spreading their lying filth and disease-ridden innuendo wherever someone will let them. Blogger Brownshirts are self-defined by their actions that equate to their predecessors' historical murderous conduct; THEY PERSONALLY ASSAULT PEOPLES' CREDIBILITY, INTEGRITY, HONESTY AND LEGITIMACY to shut them up permanently.  

On April  15, 2014, I included the following thoughts in another re-posted article. In view of the current situation manifesting in local blogs, it appears it needs to be reemphasized:

If you don't know, "Brownshirts are a collection of thugs who get quite annoyed at those who oppose" them, their judging, their propaganda, wanton personal hyperbolic attacks and their sick never-ending filthy lies they believe they have the god-given right to assault with anyone they want. In the real world of yesterday they were nothing more than a gang of bullying political murderers that paraded around in all their glorious self-righteous impunity. Today, none of them are of the 1% oligarchic plutocracy, but they serve them just the same as their modern-day "Brownshirts."

When you censor and block dissenting commenters you reveal yourself as a sponsor, enabler and protector of these vicious Brownshirt Trolls.

So far I've identified five of blogs providing a safe-haven for two chapters of Brownshirts.
One of these blogs I've already identified and written about. The others, not wanting at this time to provide easy access or advertise in their behalf, I won't post any links. Just know that when you see these pictures where you are.

If you read Eric Kirk and His Brownshirts - Called Out Again below, you can easily recognize the Brownshirt Trolls' method of operation as Eric Kirk provides a perfect demonstration. First, should you choose to make a dissenting comment about the blog article or any of it's affirming commentary, you will be challenged by the most personal and vilifying diatribe, hyperbole, innuendo, and out right lies such as: "Only an idiot or a crazy lunatic would say that or take that opinionated position." Those kinds of filthy personal accusations are directed at the credibility and integrity of the person making the comment and NOT at the substance of the comment. But not so in Eric Kirk's mind.

In his mind the opinion or idea - the position - is idiotic or crazy. But that is NOT what he said and wrote.

Should the hapless victim try to defend him or herself, they have just proved Kirk's assertion (accusation) that they are either an idiot, crazy or both. Who but such people would conflate themselves with their "position" or worthless opinions rattling around in their empty heads and be "personally" offended? Score another one for the Brownshirts.

The problem when entering one of the Brownshirt Havens is you are stepping into a maze of quicksand totally in the dark. Most of the blogs never post any kind of guidelines or rules for making comments on their blogs. Those that do post something use them to discriminate against anyone they don't like. Clearly, in the example above, Kirk's personal accusation deviates from the blog article or it's theme no matter what it might be. Yet, it is the defender that the rule, oftentime unspoken "rule," is used against should that person dare object to the personal off-theme attack.

In the world of blogging I would consider these thug, bullying Brownshirt's antics incidental and irrelevant. Between the gossip-mongering, hatemongering, ridiculing, and lying about what people say, most of these blogs are nothing more than Troll Dens serving as home-bases for a Brownshirt Chapter. They possess NO credibility whatsoever.  I've learned over a lifetime that when these kinds of people raised their viperous heads and began spewing their dishonest vitriol and it was generally passed off by the decent folk as a fad -- well lets just say, they lived to regret their amorphous judgments. Taken literally, the original Brownshirts, their political and general philosophy for existence; what guided and justified their actions as compared to these local Brownshirts, is a mere bullet.

Everything, all creation, starts with an idea. Once that idea becomes accepted commonplace it materializes into reality. These Blogger Brownshirts are only one bullet away from that reality.


[UPDATE :: Friday, May 23, 2014]

I've identified another Haven. This comment is another good example that the blog owner affirms and lets go unchallenged for blatant bald-faced lying. Brownshirts' purpose is to SILENCE all dissenters – people that don't bow down and worship the Plutocratic Oligarchy they support, empower and defend. I, frankly do NOT give a rat's ass who agrees or does NOT agree with me. 
MOLA42
May 22, 2014 at 12:13 
I wonder….

There’s some guy out there who lately has taken to calling everyone who disagrees with him “Brown Shirts.” It would be very disappointing to find out Mr. Berg and this other fellow were one and the same.

For the record, no one is “evil” (except puppy abusers) and no one is a saint. We are just a bunch of folks trying to figure out the best way through this mess called life.

(Who made this scummy bastard God? "For the record" that statement is just his worthless opinion, and I do mean worthless. The fact that he presumes to speak for everyone belies his wannabe truth - what makes him illegitimate.)
When someone disagrees with us (Progressive, Regressive, Conservative, Liberal) it does not mean someone wants to get the trains going so they can ship their opponents to the Death Camps. It’s supposed to be a civil discussion, where consensus is reached and we make policy for ourselves we can all live with.

(No, in his case, they just put a bullet in your head - they censor you, they block you the moment you reject their lying false accusations and disease-ridden innuendo - see above. In that he mirrors his true father, and He is truly the Evil Father of the Lie. "Civility" died with the first lie. The Browshirts turned it all into war.)
It starts with listening. [Emphasis Mine.]
--Joe

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Resist AND Die – Why?

[UPDATE II :: March 30, 2012 :: Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]


[UPDATE below - Court ruling offers new details on EPD excessive force case or so says Thadeus Greenson about the murder of Martin Cotton]

Violent exchange culminates in death of a felon – Thadeus Greenson's take on the police shooting of a 26 year old man for doing nothing, but being a felon.

[This is an UPDATE on the posting below: Self-Defense Is a Bitch]

A good explanation for WHY is contained in today's Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Times-Standard: Fortuna shooting investigation continuesDetails surface in police deadly force incident, written by Thadeus Greenson.
[A “deadly force incident” means someone got shot and killed by the Fortuna police, okay?]
What kind of an “incident” occurred in Fortuna? According to Greenson, Fortuna Police Chief William Dobberstein said officers were dispatched to a woman's report of a “crazed person banging on the door and yelling and screaming in her front yard.” A scary situation, to be sure, BUT nothing life threatening happening. The question I ask is, did this guy actually commit a crime here? Anything to justify his death? When the police get there the “suspect” is gone.  Nothing more than a little door banging and some hollering from the front yard. But, then notice what happens. The police identify the guy and find out he's “had numerous prior contacts with” the Fortuna police. So now they know who the guy doing all the “door banging and hollering is, (their favorite trashy troublemaking scumbag) Jacob Newmaker.

What happens next? He's spotted by the police “about three-quarters of a mile from the residence where the 911 call originated. No serious threat to anyone there – he's running away. The police chase him on his bicycle, “right behind him with his lights and sirens going.” In the melee he crashes his bicycle and the “officer confront[s] him.” Notice what happens next. Clearly the officer knows he's got a scared and agitated guy trying to stay away. What followed? “An altercation.” What does the officer do to control the situation, where at this point nothing's been done that is life threatening or even a crime? This guy was clearly “confronted” by the police officer. The police officer caused whatever “altercation” that occurred. He used his Taser to “shock” and already agitated individual that "hurts like hell." This is exactly what this agitated person REALLY needed right then, “a pain compliance technique” that "hurts like hell" used on a clearly agitated, or even“highly motivated” suspect.

Was Jacob Robert Newmaker threatening anyone? NO. He was motivated to run, to try to get away from the threatening police officer causing him pain. And that's all they did was cause him MORE pain, “Dobberstein said the officers then tried to get Newmaker into handcuffs, using pepper spray and batons strikes to the legs to try to gain compliance.” “Gain compliance” is just a fancy way of saying, “do what you're told.” That's usually what rapist say to their victims too.  Once the victim complies and submits to the rape, the rapist is justified and exonerated from any crime or criminal act because to victim willingly yielded or went along; complied.

And this is the real problem that caused this man his life. The police clearly using “pain compliance techniques” to effectively torture a person into submitting or yielding – doing what they are ordered to do establishes the lack of legitimate authority to enforce the law and effect a safe and sane arrest. When this country was governed by people that enforced the law, police  officers simple effected the arrest and that was that. Now that they ARE the law they use torture devices to force compliance with their dictates. Resist or question their legitimacy and you most often end up dead.

The most compelling statement in this newspaper report is by Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt: “He was armed with a deadly weapon.” Greenson elaborates: “Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” If this statement is true, then these police officers ARMED him and then used that situation to shoot him down like a dog. No different situation then what those two CHP officers did to Felix Omai in Garberville. They initiate a violent attack (what they call an arrest for some crime) then use their attack to justify why they made the attack or so-called arrest.
More importantly, look at yet another descrepency in Thadeus Greenson's reporting. Please note: “At this point, dobberstein said, the initial officer on scene attempted to use his baton to gain control of Newmaker's uncuffed hand, but the suspect was able to grab the weapon. (Note: “grab the weapon” the police officer was using on Newmaker) Quote Dobberstein: “Then, there was a tug-of-war for the baton, and he was able to wrestle it free.” Now note what Greenson says further along in the article: Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” Did he wrestle the “weapon” or a “baton” from the officer or did he pick it up off the ground?

This idea that a baton is NOT a weapon in the hands of a “trained” police officer and therefore becomes something “less than a lethal weapon” does not pass the smell test. If a 9mm handgun is a lethal weapon regardless of who is holding it so is a baton. If the police are justified using deadly force against someone holding a baton then anyone legally defending themselves is justified using deadly force. This idea as expressed in Greenson's somewhat propagandized article continuing to soft-pedal another police killing that there is a difference depending upon who is holding the weapon is a classic example of how the Rule of men enforce their law to defend and protect their criminal conduct and special privilege.

Thadeus Greenson, to his credit, did produce a rather all encompassing article. Or, to his discredit slanted and biased the report in his normal fashion. Even so, the part he included from Robert Feliciano, a former training sergeant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who now serves as a qualified expert witness on police us of force is well worth reading and considering. I've included that excerpt at the end of this article.

What's the over reaching message in this, yet another tragedy? I'd start with the general premise issued by the Eureka Chief Murl Harpham when he said we need "tough cops." A general definition of his kind of tough cop was illustrated in the Joseph Cotten murder. Where once again the police crime of murder is passed off as a passé, non responsible act of "excessive force." Then I would go to the heart of how local police officers are trained and how that training engenders a racist, bully-type attitude that is demonstrated in their conduct. In the Robert Newmaker situation that probably starts with Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt. Bottom line, this guy, Jacob Newmaker was vulnerable, the police officers knew that and took full advantage, to this man's death.


[UPDATE II Link to The Joe Blow Report - Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]
--Joe

Saturday, February 18, 2012

SICK!

This is what happens when you give the police the right to brutalize peaceful protesters.

Of course, in places like Syria, in Palestine's Gaza, and West Bank, and Egypt they just shoot you dead, but this is America. They see peaceful people that dare want what is rightfully theirs in an altogther different way. They teach you lessons you'll remember and suffer with the rest of your miserable lives.

What I'd like to know is where are the REAL MEN protecting this girl? As long as the so-called men are cowing around wringing their hands, shaking in their sneakers, of course, these bullies are going to brutalize and then blame the victim. That's why they're handcuffing her before giving her help.

Only a stupid fool would buy into this game. The only good I can see that comes from something like this picture is a wakeup call. To those would-be demonstraters and protesters, take a good look and ask yourselves, is it worth it? If you are standing up for your legal rights and what you are doing is totally legal, then you have the legal right to defend yourself against the criminal agressor. In other words, you have the moral, ethical and legal responsibility to defend yourselves. Failure to do so is a defacto admission justifying the accusations and consequential actions of the police. The government and their police know this and is why and how they co-opt and justifiably brutalize anyone that would ask them for their permission or legal right to exist or be an equal citizen.

If you're not prepared to take these steps then simply stop cooperating and hold the people that support this kind of police brutality, or "tough cop" mentality accountable. In Eureka that starts with the current crop of City Coucil people and the Eurekan's that voted them in.
[Picture was taken from Facebook]

This incident took place on August 11, 2007. An update three years later, Judge orders new trial for Alexandra Svoboda, is the reason I wrote this article. The kind of support the community employs to justify using the justice system as a further weapon of assault is demonstrated here. This is the reason why accountability starts with these people who find the police are attacked when they physically atetack someone and call it an arrest. There is only one word that describes such people - SICK!
--Joe

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion

[UPDATE Below]

The latest in the Sunday Times-Standard on the killing of a man simply trying to defend himself is offered “below the fold” and shows more police justification for their actions. One thing is for sure, there is NO counter information or argument coming from the dead guy. The headline reads: “Two officers fired weapons in fatal Eureka shooting.” Then quotes, “Chief: There was no alternative to using deadly force.”

“No alternative”? I would guess not when police policy, if not city government policy is to use overwhelming force to protect themselves at all times. Of course Chief Garr Nielsen is going to defend his personal policy within his department. The tragedy in this incident is that everyone of these individuals involved, including the Chief, HAD alternatives. History proves that whenever there is even the suspicion of some sort of weapon involved, the first proven “alternative” is “deadly force.”

This is what's really disturbing about this whole matter, the assumption that the guy supposedly with the gun was the “aggressor.” To quote: “The officers didn't initially know who was the aggressor and who was the victim in the situation.” Notice how quick they concluded who the aggressor was: “He says, (one of the officers says) 'gun, he's got a gun,' and the officers started making verbal demands for Sequoia to drop the gun.” At that point who is to say that the aggressor wasn't Kris Coon and that the gun belonged to him and that Sequoia was simply defending himself from Coon's assault? Who knew that Sequoia hadn't initially gotten the gun away from Coon? What was obvious is that both men were fighting over possession of the gun BEFORE the officers got involved. Based upon what Coon has already said and the Times-Standard has repeatedly reported, the only person actually defending himself was David Sequoia. Notice what happened to him: “'The officer took his gun, put it at the base of Sequoia's head, and fired a round into Sequoia's head,' he said, adding that the second shot ended the struggle and likely killed Sequoia instantly.” That is exactly how you execute someone.

If what Nielsen says was the truth, then no one has the right to defend themselves regardless the weapon, but especially with a gun. “On Saturday, Nielsen reiterated his belief that his officers acted appropriately in the face of a grave threat.” The question remains, Who caused the “grave threat”? Who placed these officers “in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident”? It certainly was not the guy that got killed.

Nielsen continue, “I think the officers were placed in a position where they really had no alternatives other than to use deadly force in this incident,” he said, adding that the officers issued verbal commands and tried to physically take the weapon from Sequoia, who simply refused to comply. That left them with no other option than deadly force because they really felt like their lives were in danger, as was the life of Mr. Coon.” If the police officer's lives were really in danger it was because they put themselves there by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions the Sequoia was the "aggressor" threatening Coon. Nielsen substantiates his bogus argument when he tells Thadeus Greenson, reporting for the Times-Standard, that Sequoia had “fired the two shots at an acquaintance from whom Sequoia had allegedly stolen more than $1,500.” So what? At the time of the incident no one knew who had fired those shots, certainly not any of those police officers. It could have been Kris Coon for all any of them knew. Nielsen says, “he believes they were en route to the shots-fired call on California Street and just happened to come across Coon and Sequoia.” By going down an alley? Yet, the shooting is justified in his mind because his officer's promptly determined that Sequoia was the “aggressor” because he had the gun, actually he and Coon “had” the gun and they both refused to let go. Coon says he had hold of the barrel with all the leverage, but Sequoia was moving the barrel around threatening everyone. More like Coon was moving the barrel around.

The reason I wrote the above commentary is because from the very first day I was forced confront a bully I became a believer in my inherent right to self-defense. I own property and a nice home in Eureka, am married and we have family that lives and works here as well. I am a retired logger that worked in the woods during the time men physically fought first and talked later. I worked out in the mountains where there wasn't a police officer within two hours. Many times I was forced to defend myself and my family. I always reserved the right to call in the police whenever there was a personal threat to me, my family or my property. They rarely ever let me or my wife down. So, I don't want anyone to get some idea I am anti-police. I am not. I support the police and their legitimate right to exist within our society when they support all the people and that includes me. Their assumed right to use “deadly force” is our same right to self-defense. Sometimes that requires using deadly force. Tragically, the only one threatened here was the poor bastard that got killed for getting too close to Kris Coon.

The real problem here, consequently, is if the Eureka Police Department and the District Attorney leave this matter with Kris Coon unanswered, just to defend what he and the police officer's did in shooting that man, they put everyone one of us, everyone that lives in Eureka, in physical jeopardy to the Kris Coon's and aggressive officers with quick trigger fingers that jump to conclusions when someone doesn't just drop dead when they tell them to.

[Picture source]

[UPDATE :: Monday, March 22, 2010]

I just spent some time reading the 129 comments on “Slain suspect acquitted of murder in 2008” on the Humboldt Herald. [http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/slain-suspect-acquitted-of-murder-in-2008/]


If you want to see what a sick, pathetic city we live, go there to become enlightened. To start with you don't have to go any further than Heraldo's headline: “Slain suspect.” “Slain” to be sure. More like “executed.” But what made him a “suspect” worthy of being killed? The fact that he was fighting for possession of a gun? For all any of those officers knew that gun could have been the other guy's and the poor bastard that got executed had just got it away from him and was simply trying to defend himself. So, what does the fact that he was “acquitted” of a murder charge got to do with anything?

It's easy to see, when you read most of these comments, how the newspaper coverage of Chief Garr Nielsen in particular, along with such innocent sounding headlines and other comments prejudices and vilifies unjustly. David Sequoia or Barger may have been all the things everyone seems to think he is just because he packed a gun and a jury saw fit to exonerate him of a serious accusation. None of that was prescient or relevant to the decision made to execute him.

During all the years that I logged out in the mountains, every pickup on the road had a handgun under the seat or in the glove box. Do you think that the police, game wardens and the Sheriff's deputies didn't know that? They knew they were dealing with a potential weapon every time they stopped someone. Even so, they didn't make it a matter of policy to shoot on sight for want of personal threat! Of course that was not the police policy for all those pot growing hippies. I guess it paid to be a logger – better class of people, probably. Or, at least, that's what the police officers thought.

Did I have a gun in my pickup all those years? For me, I had a twelve-gauge shotgun prominently displayed in my back window for all to see. When I stopped logging I didn't think I needed it anymore so I got rid of it, that was over 20 years ago. Probably a good thing too. The way policing is done in Eureka, I don't know why I would need or want one again either.

Much safe is a cellphone with the speed dial set to 911. Does anyone think there's the slightest possibility it would be mistaken for a weapon?


--Joe