13 thoughts on “Billy Beck On The Brooks Shooting”

  1. Hahahahahaha. This guy needs to have his family raped with a reciprocating saw with a 12 inch demo blade while he watches.

      1. Some folks don’t know the meaning of empathy.
        And it’s only going to get worse.

  2. What about writing while Reality Impaired? Mr. Beck has a very high minded view of the constitutional underpinnings of “criminality”, but that horse left the barn before he was born. It’s a minefield between what was intended or should be, and what is. At the end of the day, this conflict will be a major fuse…many may finally cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war fueled by apoplectic frustration. I ponder…does Mr.Beck thrive on reactions to provocative positions to which he expects energetic disagreement, or is he just bored today?

  3. CA, despite my proclivity to fly off the handle when I’m full of crap, I’m beginning to think that the average IQ even in ‘Murka might be closer to nighttime ambient temperature than not. Either that or you appeared at the top of the list for Boogaloo Gargle searches.

  4. Mr. Beck is SPOT ON (“presuming” harm before the fact). To wit, replace the idea of driving “drunk” (subjective) with driving while/with: eating food; screaming children in the backseat; looking for sunglasses on the passenger seat; depression; anxiety; being a CLOVER (h/t to Eric Peters); amped up on Mountain Dew; etc, etc, etc. It’s all around us, all the time, all day, and……………there are really very FEW accidents at all, let alone *serious* accidents. Just another way for the PTB to use Feeeeeeeeeelings to manipulate the non-thinking (of which I used to include myself!).

  5. Many of the laws on the books and how they’re enforced are nonsense, but in my experience those that are willing to bend themselves into pretzels to justify tolerating drunk drivers are usually working backwards from the position of “dammit I want my drink and I want it now, and fuck everybody else”.

    If this is really about principle and existing laws aren’t an effective deterrent, how about we scrap the laws about being drunk and instead put the death penalty on the table for the assholes that actually kill people as a result.

    That proposal tends to result in a lot of frantic what-if-isms from those fundamentally incapable of making it home from work without a beer or three along the way.

  6. Drunk driving is one hell of a threat to other people. Do we have to wait for him to kill someone with his vehicle before it’s okay to take him into custody?

    Libertarians are pathetic. They are the “this is fine” meme personified.

    1. “What if the child consents?” is the literal outcome of Libertarian argument.

    2. There’s a whole lot of talk about the guy resisting arrest but what was he truly being arrested for…. He was not on the road, the cops couldn’t prove he drove to that Wendy’s so legally he was trespassing, a civil violation, and hadn’t caused any damage to anything. So instead of causing the problems they did why not actually do their job, to protect and serve, and call this guy a ride home. When you’re a hammer everything else becomes a nail and the job becomes about getting the arrests at the expense of all else……

  7. I’ve wanted to know why a cop in GA has cause to order someone to do a breathalyzer test when they weren’t actively operating the vehicle. Sleeping in the vehicle isn’t a crime.

  8. If there can be no crime without a victim, then why is it illegal for me to set up a firing range for my AR-15 in the middle of a residential neighborhood and fire 300 meters down the middle of a residential street?
    Why is it illegal for me to own a machine gun? A nuclear weapon?
    Why then is it illegal for me to refuse to pay my taxes?

    This line of argument is the main reason why I cannot support Libertarians. Their ideas can’t work any more than Socialism because they are both predicated upon the goodwill and sense of fair play of their fellow man.

Comments are closed.