NYPD Officer Brian Moore – Just Another Dead Gun Grabber

Apparently, it’s a crime to adjust your belt in Queens now, because that’s why NYPD Officer Brian Moore approached Demetrius Blackwell on Saturday. It was just after 6pm on 212th Street in Queens Village. Moore and his partner, Erik Jansen, both “anti-crime” officers, were in an unmarked car with Officer Moore at the wheel near 104th Avenue when they approached a man who was “walking and adjusting an object in his waistband”.

NYPD Officer Brian Moore - Just Another Dead Gun Grabber

NYPD Officer Brian Moore – Just Another Dead Gun Grabber

In New York City, there is a “stop & frisk” policy that basically allows police to search anyone, anytime, anywhere. Blackwell, having numerous run ins with law enforcement before, knew he didn’t have much time. If caught with a loaded handgun in New York City, he could be facing seven years in prison. So he quickly pulled out his gun, and shot Brian Moore in the face, before the gun grabbers had the chance to search, disarm, handcuff, and cage him.

Rightly fearing for his miserable worthless life, Officer Erik Jansen did not give chase or return fire. He cowered in their vehicle, clutching his dying partner, and called for help on the radio. A police cruiser arrived at the scene and rushed Moore to Jamaica Hospital in Queens. Moore underwent surgery, was put into a medically induced coma for two days, and today his family took him off life support. He will never disarm another New Yorker. Good riddance to him.

As NYPD officers initially heard about the shooting, it was eerily reminiscent of the Ismaaiyl Brinsley incident back in December. In that incident two cops, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were gunned down in an ambush by a black man who had posted to social media “I’m putting wings on pigs today”. Brinsley was apparently motivated by racial tensions following the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown at the hands of police.

A white cop, shot by a black suspect, while sitting in his vehicle. Given recent flare ups in Baltimore over the Freddie Gray murder, which led to race riots, and martial law, you can see how they might rush to such a conclusion. Cops reportedly exchanged a flurry of text messages from their cruisers and foot posts, fearing they might be next, as helicopters circled the scene of the shooting.

But as it turns out, Brian Moore was not sitting idly wasting taxpayer money doing nothing in his vehicle. He was out actively enforcing the sick and malicious gun control laws of New York City and State. He was in plain clothes, in an unmarked car, looking for someone to harass. He saw his opportunity when Demetrius Blackwell adjusted his belt, and this was all the suspicion required to forgo any concerns of search warrants or due process. Moore had found himself a gun owner, and he was determined to charge somebody with a felony that evening. Instead he got shot in the face, as well he should have.

I don’t want to make Demetrius Blackwell out to be a hero in all this. He’s a repeat violent felon who has served time in prison and reportedly carries the nickname “Hellraiser” on the street. I’m not sad to see him carted off to prison for what will likely be the rest of his sorry excuse for a life.

But the amount of damage Blackwell committed over the course of his criminal career is no doubt quite small in comparison to the damage done by New York’s oppressive gun control statutes. In fact, one might conclude that Blackwell’s life of crime might never have begun, had he lived in a place where the citizenry was legally able to own firearms, and defend themselves against his aggressions.

Instead, the Brian Moores of the world lay in wait, hiding among the general population in plain clothes, scanning the crowds for anyone who might dare defy the orders of his political masters. If he sees a bulge, an adjusted waistband, or anything he thinks might be a gun or any other contraband, he will “stop & frisk” the suspect without a warrant. If he finds a gun, he’ll charge them with a felony. If they refuse, or run away, he will use any level of force necessary to stop them, up to and including choke holds, tasers, mace, baton strikes, or ironically enough, bullets.

Both of these men were criminals, but only one of them was a gun grabber, and gun control has raised more hell than Demetrius Blackwell could ever hoped to have accomplished.

Do you think an essay appreciating the death of a cop makes me very popular? Do you think that my life is made easy or comfortable by posting this kind of thing? This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Hear my essays read aloud by me on on iTunes and Stitcher

  • Good riddance to the coproach

    • Eric C.

      How moronic is this comment. He was shot in the face and killed. Cops are deserving of that because of the careers they choose?

      • Oh boooo hoooo he died on the job. People die on the job regularlly, he wasn’t special. Oh and here is another thing what no one forced him to become a cop. He could’ve been an actual productive person and get a job in the private sector instead of the parasite sector.

        • Eric C.

          People die on the job regularly from being shot in the face? There’s nothing wrong with choosing to be a cop and be one of the good guys. There aren’t good cops out there that do good deeds?

          • Richard Chiu

            There weren’t any good Nazis out there doing good deeds?

      • Richard Chiu

        Short answer, yes.

        Of course, the same thing is true of Demetrius Blackwell. They both chose careers as violent criminals. One was a great deal more successful than the other, until the day the other shot him in the face.

        • Tammy Hough

          Not that it is any of your business but I’m 39 years old and I went all the way with my education. As a matter of fact I have a associate degree in economics and a masters degree in history..any further questions. Didn’t think so! Yes I’m putting Nazis and Police in the same category as they both murder innocent people on a daily basis, brutalize. Nazis and Police follow orders of Hitler or in Cops case their Political Leaders! If my car got stolen well under duress I would have to call the cops IF I couldn’t find out who done it on my own. The thought makes me sick because in a FREE Society like minded people like myself and many others would help me find the thief! If my purse got stolen, I wouldn’t call the cops, I’d handle that one on my own! If my life was being threatened, well a corner wouldbe called. I’m NOT a cop caller! If we are ALL MORONS on this page then, why are you on it?? Oh and to you saying ” there are good cop’s out there”, Germany said the same thing..look how well that worked out.

      • Tammy Hough

        If you consider being a cop a career then you must enjoy innocent people killed,brutalized,beaten everyday! Nazis had careers too and look how well they killed people too! COPS Nazis no difference…they both kill,trample the innocent and leave destruction in their wake. At lease some Nazis poisoned their selves, were hung, oh and firing squads!

        • Eric C.

          How dumb is this. How old are you and what level of education did you complete? You are putting together Nazi’s and police officers? There are many good cops out there and i’m sure you’ll be calling the cops if someone stole your car, personal possessions or you were getting threatened by someone. Give me a break. Morons all around this page.

          • Tammy Hough

            Not that it is any of your business but I’m 39 years old and I went all the way with my education. As a matter of fact I have a associate degree in economics and a masters degree in history..any further questions. Didn’t think so! Yes I’m putting Nazis and Police in the same category as they both murder innocent people on a daily basis, brutalize. Nazis and Police follow orders of Hitler or in Cops case their Political Leaders! If my car got stolen well under duress I would have to call the cops IF I couldn’t find out who done it on my own. The thought makes me sick because in a FREE Society like minded people like myself and many others would help me find the thief! If my purse got stolen, I wouldn’t call the cops, I’d handle that one on my own! If my life was being threatened, well a corner wouldbe called. I’m NOT a cop caller! If we are ALL MORONS on this page then, why are you on it?? Oh and to you saying ” there are good cop’s out there”, Germany said the same thing..look how well that worked out.

          • Richard Chiu

            If I call the cops, it’s because I’m bored and want to kill something more interesting than time.

            And, for what it’s worth, the Gestapo were…wait for it…police officers. So no, we don’t compare police to garden variety National Socialists, we compare them to the professional murderers who directly oversaw the very worst crimes of the National Socialist state.

          • Tammy Hough

            Richard very well put!

          • Ivy

            So dont bother Eric, these people have like a combined iq of like 58. These are the same group of people that say why arent the cops doing more when shit goes bad. Walk away my man, these people are shit on our shoes.

          • George MacEwen

            Eric then go suck cop prick you b***. Cops are Nazis we dont need those parasites

          • Mathieu Hubin

            If the best you can do is call people names and question someone’s education level and give absolutely no well thought out argument as to why they are wrong, you need to just give it up. Oh and all this “You would call the cops if….” You don’t know what another person would do. I personally am as likely to call cops as I am to call any other gang… Not at all.

      • George MacEwen

        Well yes. The point is b. moore was a asshole prick who was trying to get someone 7 years in prison for something constitutional. He deserved a worse death as the author says.

  • Ernest Ortiz

    Great article. Unfortunately, all the cop sucking policelivesmatter people will end up arguing how “honorable” this cop was. Not too long ago I was arguing with this “libertarian leaning” conservative who couldn’t take a cop donut joke.

    • L.j. Lee

      Honorable? No. By any means, whatsoever? No.

      This man abused his power to point out, stop, search and seize a citizen. This man, decided his life was about to change and lose his freedom forever so in the heat of the moment he shot the officer.

      There is nothing honorable about it.

      If he had no been out on the hunt for someone to label, felon, then he would not be dead right now. Officers just have to many human flaws to be judges of our future.

    • Andrew

      This is pathetic.

  • Jeremy Rhymes

    Pre-emptive strike! Thanks G.W. Bush.

    • Mathieu Hubin

      Haha nice one.

  • Lucaa4229

    The author of this article is a sorry piece of shit. Go choke on a fat cock.

    • Corpus DeMano

      lol You must be new.

    • L.j. Lee

      Read my comment to deldern as it could also respond to you.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      Judging by how offended you seem to be, you must have been choking on fat police cock all your life.

  • Rachel

    Wow I actually feel sick after reading this. Made me realize there really are more sick, crazy, evil people like the author of this blog, in this world then ever before. It just shows how little he really knows & how uneducated he really is in this matter. People like him that bash law enforcement do not have a clue, & 90% of these people wouldn’t have the balls to be a police officer. I’m not going to waste my time going into detail as to why some of the things written were way off base, wrong & made no sense bc anybody who actually entertains his ideas has already lost it. All I can say is something I have seen happen over & over, you may bash the police now & think your better then them but I can gurantee if the time comes that you or a family member need them to save your sorry life, you will be calling then like they are your best friends. Once they do save your life or a close loved one, you will realize you were wrong. Anybody who would willingly shoot an officer or any person for that fact for any other reason other then 100% self defense should not have a gun. Actually it doesn’t take a genius to realize if somebody is armed with a stolen gun then they 1.Shouldn’t have a gun 2.Are up to no good & 3.Are scumbags. Everyone is safer with people like that off the streets, & it’s because of the deceased officer he is off the streets. So I don’t know how anyone except for the scumbags of this earth, could say this officer is anything other then a hero. He is a hero & he died a hero protecting sorry ass people like this author.

    • L.j. Lee

      Read my comment to deldern, below. I’m not going to copy and paste here but it will also respond to your post.

      I would enjoy hearing your response.

  • I cannot believe people like you breath on this planet.

    • L.j. Lee

      What’s your reason for trolling the author?

      • At Odds

        Chris picked on one of his demigods. It’s his way of defending his religion by making threatening and/or vitriolic comments.

        • L.j. Lee

          Wow, you’re funny. Though I’m not sure where you get your info from? But hey, works for me.

          • At Odds

            What info is that?

            I say that stuff because people treat the state like a religion or a god. Such as taxes = tithing; blood sacrifice = young people going to war; monuments (eg.Washington Monument) = idols; D.C. = Vatican and so on. In the end, I’m being, not just taken for my money, but forced to participate in somebody else’s religion.

          • L.j. Lee

            Yeah I was just poking fun at you. Didn’t mean anything really not knowing where you got your info from.

            Yes, just about everything in life has religion tied to it in some way or another. I know this post is not about that so I’ll try to keep it to myself for now.

            Though I have some very strong opinions on the subject.

    • At Odds

      Hey, don’t worry your demigod is now a full-blown god. Might be burning…but, hey, at least reincarnated and elevated his soul. See you don’t need Jesus; you just need the state.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      Unfortunately, i CAN believe people like you do. If you didn’t, the sociopaths who sign up to become state enforcers would have found real jobs.

  • Jeff Posey

    Love this blog. Very intelligent, powerfully made point. It’s truly a tragic state of our world when we can be thankful for the end of an immoral cop, but there it is, reality, in our face. “Wings on pigs” indeed.

  • deldern

    Pure idiocy. “Without support, this site will cease to exist”…better this site and its author than that wonderful young officer. The wickedness of this evil post serves to highlight the goodness of officer Moore. He is a hero while you are worthless garbage and that is how you each will be remembered.

    • Joe Palooka

      Shaddup and wipe the crusted cop cum off the side of your mouth…

    • L.j. Lee

      I may not always agree with Mr Cantwell, however you miss the point of the article.

      It is not praising the death of a law enforcement officer. Rather I see the point being more towards the horrible gun laws as well as.laws allowing searching of pedestrians on site with no warrant.

      Now coming on here with absolutely nothing more than insults is not the way to go about this. Rather prove your point with an debate on the matter. Be civil here, we are not animals.

      In my opinion, this officer was by no means a hero. How do you come to this conclusion? Is it because he was killed in the line of duty? That does not make him a hero if so.

      In actuality, he was looking for someone to slap with a felony. He was using the law in a corrupt manner. He had no intention of stopping crime or being a hero. He wanted nothing more than a common criminal.

      • Brendan Primus

        it absolutely praises the death of Officer Moore by using phrases like “good riddance to him” and “Instead he got shot in the face, as well he should have” I am nauseous from this article, you would have felt a lot differently if Mr. Blackwell had used his illegal weapon to shoot you mother in the face during a robbery. Gun legislation is off for sure, I believe NY and every other state should be open carry. But this article celebrates the death of officer Moore because he was doing his job, and frankly id rather have to go through the arduous process of obtaining a gun permit than have an illegal weapon in the hands of a violent criminal with a proven propensity for violence. You political “rebels” are just as bad as race baiters, you dont want to help anybody, just cause controversy for attention.

        • L.j. Lee

          That’s my bad. I completely missed that when I was writing my comment. No I do not believe those were not the proper words top use, in fact it takes away from the point of the article.

          Just fyi, I’m not a political rebel. In fact I disagree with more of Mr Cantwell’s posts than l agree with.

          Hell, I do not believe the officer deserved to be shot in the face. My thought was that if the officer was not out there bullying citizens then he would still be alive.

          Yes this violent felon should never own a gun but stricter gun laws will never answer that problem. When have you ever known a criminal to obey the law when it’s inconvenient for them?

          • Ruth Meyer

            You could never live in Europe, especially Germany. Reasons: 1. Weapons are only allowed with license and not that easy to get to. Yes, there are crimes commited with shotguns but most of them are solved really fast. 2. Police officers are allowed to stop you for no reason at all. You don’t even have to look suspicious. They can stop your car and check your Registration & license as well as just come up to you on the street and ask for ID. 3. All of yours ignorance and loss of common sense is hillarious. None of us that has no relationship with any of the people involved can judge what happened there.

          • L.j. Lee

            Seriously? For one I do not live in Europe and would never do so. For two, all of that stuff is illegal where I live and I would have it no other way.

            Jumping into this conversation / discussion and stating I have no common sense and that I’m ignorant is no way to go about this.

            Sure I have no knowledge outside of this article as to what happened at the scene. But do not get me wrong, my points are 100% valid to what I’m trying to get across with what little information I do have. They are 100% valid across any situation that law enforcement is involved.

            Who are you to tell me this anyway?

            However, I refuse to stoop to your level and continue with the name calling.

            Good day, sir.

          • L.j. Lee

            Just couldn’t let this one be, I have some points / questions to make / ask.

            You know what it sounds like to me?

            You have absolutely no freedom. It may not be perfect in the US but one thing is certain, we’re not going to be ran over by anyone.

            Law enforcement does not need that kind of power, regardless of whether it decreases crime or not. In the wrong hands, that kind of power would lead to corrupt leaders doing whatever they wanted with it.

            In the US you may not need a license to own a firearm in most areas, my state included. But the thing is that you can only open carry in public areas, to conceal carry you DO have to have a permit.

            You have to think about this though, are criminals going to obey the firearm laws? I know one thing, I’m not going to find out myself. I will be carrying my handgun to keep from finding that one out.

            I do everything with my firearm by the books.

            I’m not ignorant in this matter by any means as well as have no common sense to the point of hilarity. I would like you to point out anything I’ve said and see if I cannot back it up?

            Now… I’m done.

          • Brendan Primus

            Ill waste a little more breath on this because I am a masochist.
            THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OFFICER MOORE WAS SHOT IN THE FACE WHILE SITTING IN HIS SQUADCAR, HE ASKED MR. BLACKWELL ABOUT AN OBJECT IN HIS WAIST BAND. MR BLACKWELL RESPONDED BY SHOOTING OFFICER MOORE IN THE FACE. TO SUGGEST THAT THE OFFICERS WERE “AGGRESSIVLEY ACCOSTING” MR BLACKWELL BY PULLING UP AND ASKING HIM A QUESTION IS FOOLISH. TO SUGGEST THAT BEING A POLICE OFFICER ENFORCING LAWS IS IN ANYWAY WHATSOVER REMOTELY SIMILAR TO BEING A NAZI IS AN IRRESPONSIBLE, IGNORANT, TIRED, AND JUST PLAIN STUPID ARGUMENT. KEEP TYING THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH YOUR BLEEDING HEART ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT NONSENSE AND DONT CRY FOR HELP WHEN OUR REALITY IS “THE PURGE” AND YOUR FAMILIES ARE RAPED, ROBBED, AND MURDERED BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ONE TO CALL FOR HELP.
            Now that I am done yelling, I acknowledge we have a flawed system, ALL society, government and any system whatsoever has flaws. But this nonsense is borderline ridiculous.

          • Brendan Primus

            PS the police can search me anytime, because I know I have nothing to hide, I am well aware I have the right to say no, but I extend that courtesy to the officer for his and my safety and guess what? Ive never been harmed or harassed by police, interesting.

          • Tammy Hough

            The only person that has the right to grope me is my husband.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            There is nothing interesting about being a sheep, and not being harrassed because your overlords are satisfied with your total obedience and foot licking respect of their power. Unfortunately, not all of us like the taste of ass and actually desire liberty that is real rather than imagined.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though shouting them makes them less not more credible.

            A policeman pulling over his car and stopping you on the street to ask you what the bulge in your waistband is could only be considered a non-threatening act if you are free to answer, “It’s nothing” and walk away from the officer who would then leave you alone and go about his business. Are you seriously claiming this was a viable option for Blackwell and are you seriously suggesting those officers would have accepted that response and just let him walk away from them?

            You may not have much experience interacting with police officers in general, much less in a stop-and-frisk environment where an officer needs no pretext whatsoever to forcibly detain and search you, so I hope you’ll either trust me on this or talk to some actual police officers to get enlightened. When an officer stops to ask you a question, he’s simply fucking with you and trying to fluster you into spilling even more incriminating information. He’s going to presume every single thing coming out of your mouth is a lie – for obvious reasons.

            If he asks what the bulge in your waistband is, it’s not rocket science to understand that regardless of what you say next, nothing will change the fact that you are about to get involuntarily held up against the wall while being forcibly frisked while the other officer stands back with his hand on his gun covering you before that bulge in your waistband is exposed as a gun and your life incarceration becomes fait accompli.

            Blackwell had plenty of experience with police and understood the above facts all too well. He knew refusal to respond was not an option. He knew demanding they provide probable cause was not an option. He knew manufacturing a story that it was a candy bar and refusing to show it to them was not an option. He knew denying them permission to search him was not an option. He realized the die was cast the minute two cops stopped him and asked him what the bulge in his waistband was. He knew sooner in this process rather than later presented him the better chance to have any hope of successfully resisting.

            I suspect you are savvy enough to understand the above which is all common sense, so please don’t act naive.

          • Tammy Hough

            I wouldn’t call the police for anything. I would handle things myself and then call for corner. I’m so sick of cop loving people. Makes me sick!! Until they have affected or infected your family you have no idea. I’ve never been arrested but my Husband has for a pot charge 11 years ago and the way he was treated you would of thought he committed murder. Oh wait murderous have more rights.

        • Adam Hoisington

          ” I am nauseous from this article, you would have felt a lot differently if Mr. Blackwell had used his illegal weapon to shoot you mother in the face during a robbery.”

          Certainly he would feel differently then. Mainly because in that situation, his mother is the victim on a robbery and murder. The officer, however, was initiating force against Blackwell. So, yes, one will feel differently about apples than they do oranges.

          “Gun legislation is off for sure, I believe NY and every other state should be open carry. But this article celebrates the death of officer Moore because he was doing his job, and frankly id rather have to go through the arduous process of obtaining a gun permit than have an illegal weapon in the hands of a violent criminal with a proven propensity for violence.”

          Rudolf Höss was just doing his job, too. Of course, being a cop on the street is certainly different in degree from being a concentration camp commandant. But it is no different in kind. Violating rights is wrong no matter who is doing it and no matter to what degree. “Befehl ist Befehl” is no excuse.
          As for the gun laws? Fat lot of good they did. Some of the most oppressive gun laws in the country didn’t stop the scumbag Blackwell from having one anyway.

          • L.j. Lee

            Yes, in that situation you are correct, If my mother ran into the “repeat violent felon” on this occasion then they would have smiled at each other and walked right on past each other. Because neither would have been aggressive as my mother is not going to be aggressive and from the article the “repeat violent felon” is not being aggressive either.

            You can create the strictest gun law legislation in the land and it still will not stop criminals from acquiring guns for their own use. Apparently it is easy to do, laws or no laws.

            I have no desire for scum like this repeat violent felon to acquire guns but it happens and no gun law is going to stop that. He is a felon, so obviously he is not able to purchase a gun on his own. So think about it, how the hell did he get a gun? Well I can tell you one thing, it wasn’t in any legal manner.

            So in the case of violent felons buying guns, Gun laws will not fix that.

            The best possible solution is open carry for normal law abiding citizens. It has worked in my state of Mississippi so far for the year or two that it has been in effect.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          “…if Mr. Blackwell had used his illegal weapon to shoot you mother in the
          face during a robbery.”

          Yes, if that was the case Blackwell would be the loathsome aggressor because the mother is peaceful. He who initiates force against the peaceful person is the aggressor. It’s as simple as that.

          If a victim in reaction employs force, that is self-defense, not aggression. Blackwell was peaceful and threatening no one when he was forcibly accosted by the officers. The officers were not peacefully engaging Blackwell in voluntary conversation. They were aggressively moving to forcibly search and seize Blackwell.

          If a person who is a career criminal, a police officer, a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker does not initiate force, that person is innocent of aggression and may not be harmed. If any of those people do initiate force, he is guilty of aggression and victims may morally defend themselves.

          The occupation of the agent does not determine the morality of his actions. His occupation does not grant him rights other human beings don’t have. Police are not above morality.

          “…because he was doing his job”

          Saying ‘just doing my job’ does not grant automatic absolution to what one does. One voluntarily chooses to do that job with full knowledge of what acts that job entails and can quit at any time. If I choose to take a job as a mafia enforcer, I do not get moral absolution from any aggressive acts I commit upon innocents by claiming ‘I was just doing my job.’

          • L.j. Lee

            I could never have said that better myself. You are 100% correct, as the law enforcement officer(s) in this case were definitely the aggressors. I don’t know what this man was doing but I do not take it from the article that he was doing anything that warranted being searched and seized.

            The officer received the response that many of us would have done or wished they could do. I don’t care if you say otherwise, because in a life altering situation, you don’t truly know what you will do. Think about it, your life could turn upside down in an instance, lose your job, your spouse, your home, money, etc. It would all be gone, especially your Freedom.

            Lastly, you are correct as he was doing his job is never the right response for an aggressor.

        • Murray Roodbaard

          “you would have felt a lot differently if Mr. Blackwell had used his
          illegal weapon to shoot you mother in the face during a robbery.”

          And YOU wouldn’t be saying any of this, if the cop ended up shooting your mother in the face during a botched midnight drug raid.

          The point being, what could have happened, and what DID happen, are two different things. And cops work for the most violent institution in the world and enforce its dictates against innocent and peaceful people as much as they do against criminals. So if we discuss the *initiation of violence” and in whose hands guns are far more lethal, your entire argument becomes an exercise in stupidity.

          The only difference is that you have blind, propaganda based faith in the goodness of state employees despite mountains of empirical evidence that says you shouldn’t have.

      • Kevin

        I believe this must be the first time I’ve been to this site, because I’m pretty sure I would have remembered reading something as inflammatory as this if this is the standard.

        “Instead he got shot in the face, as well he should have.” I don’t know how else to describe that sentence other than praising the death of a law enforcement officer. I don’t even know how that thought comes into someone’s brain much less the audacity to put it into an article about the shooting. Admittedly I don’t know much about it other than what I’ve read here and heard on the news.

        I agree though that the term hero is thrown around a lot in places it shouldn’t be. Is being a cop a tough job? Of course it is but I don’t know anything about this guy. He could be the most honest guy on the force or he could be totally off the reservation for all I know(or anyone else that doesn’t personally know him) I do know that no one, not even the author of this story, deserves to be shot in the face for doing the job that they’re getting paid to do. Regardless of the standards they’re required to uphold.

        I don’t even know what the personal gain argument means.

        I’m personally a supporter of concealed carry and do not support any law that would allow an officer to search someone without consent or reasonable cause(arrest). The officer however was shot by a “repeat violent felon who has served time in prison and reportedly carries the nickname “Hellraiser” on the street.” That guy knew he wasn’t allowed to have a gun regardless of the stop and frisk law.

        And I suppose you are technically right that the officer did bring it upon himself when he got out of the car to frisk the felon. They take that risk every time they get out of that car. And sometimes even when they’re still in it. When you are bringing consequences to those who are breaking the law there is inherent danger in that job. The officer in my opinion (as much as I know about the event) didn’t do anything to aggravate the situation, but because the guy knew he was wrong felt that taking the officer’s life was a justifiable means of getting away with doing it.

        Anyway just my 2 cents

        • L.j. Lee

          It can be quiet inflammatory on this site as you have seem from this post. I have read a couple articles from here and they are all set in the same tone.

          Off topic: he called Timothy McVeigh a hero and brave. I was quiet upset about that post.

          Mr Cantwell apparently has a deep rooted hatred for authority figures, especially law enforcement officers.

          You are right about what he made the article about. I forgot about those instances in the article when I wrote my original comment. I do apologize about that.

          Yes, he was shot by a repeat violent felon that had no right to be carrying a gun. However, how did this office learn that he was? Definitely not from seeing him moving his belt around.

          This officer was no hero. But neither is this criminal. No one deserved to be shot in the face either.

          Like I previously stated, I may not always agree with Mr Cantwell but he definitely knows how to start a debate.

          Lastly, thank you for keeping it civil.

        • Murray Roodbaard

          Coming into this website, or its philosophies, afresh all of this may be too shocking for you. In order to fully digest articles such as the one above, and know where it’s coming from, you must first get fully acquainted with the radical philosophy underpinning it (that of free market anarchism). There is a whole philosophical branch within this, dedicated to things like history (of the state), and libertarian class analysis. The ultimate conclusions will lead to the article above.

      • At Odds

        Good point. It is a threat on somebody’s well being or life when the danger is that you could be sent to prison and loss of incredible amount of money and time away from family and personal life.

        • L.j. Lee

          Yes, I could only imagine being taken away and knowing that my freedom was being taken from me at that very moment.

          I would possibly snap…

      • Daniel Mosco

        @l_j_lee:disqus I would like to respectfully debate this. In theory a democracy is supposed to elect officials that represent the people. Although, not perfect by any means (sometimes corrupt), do New Yorker’s not have the right to choose their own laws?

        Wouldn’t our society be much better if we all migrated to places where we shared common goals, ideals and social norms? So why defend someone who violated a NYC social norms and mores? He could have easily left to a state that shares his ideals and saved a few bucks in the process as NYC has one of the highest costs of living.

        In most cases states are larger then a lot of countries, so we should respect them as such. If people are so unhappy with the current laws/elected officials why not just leave? Sticking it to a States pockets in lost income tax revenue will hurt and create change far more then violently disobeying a law.

        Although I am pro gun, “horrible gun laws” are your opinion. Trust me, I have and I am sure you have read almost every debate on guns and based on the evidence I choose to remain neutral. There are too many variables, bias, and opinions from experts & laymen to prove otherwise.

        By NY standard he is a hero because he was courageously enforcing a law that the officials we elected created. He chose to enforce a law he felt passionate about, one that could get him killed due to the penalty and was granted official powers as a public servant to do so.

        People may also disagree with your opinion of searching without a warrant. If laws are not made ambiguous and police do not have “discretion” criminals will be able to learn the law and stay one step ahead. Although this could lead to abuse no legal system is perfect.

        There are already so many bail skipper, fugitives and people who are on the run. How would criminals ever be caught if an officer can’t run his information?

        Also, how do you get a warrant without personal information? To get a warrant you need to know at least the persons name and address to bring to a judge. Would the outcome of changed if the officer stated wait here while I get a judge on the line?

        Also since NY has very strict gun laws, open carry is not permitted and concealed technically means unseen, depending on his demeanor or other factors the cop may have had probable cause to stop the suspect if he saw a bulge. Obviously his hunch was correct. Since yours, mine and anyone else definition of probable cause is subjective it is up to a court to decide. Again if NY case law is not in your favor, you are not obligated to stay. If US judicial system is not to your liking there are 100’s of other countries.

        Can you personally attest to the officer trying to get an arrest in a corrupt manor or for personal gain? Unless I see previous arrest records, civil complaints or talk to family, friends & neighbors, how can you comment on his character? There are always two sides of an ie. drugs, prostitution, immigration, alcohol, abortion etc. that seem to go unnoticed to people who don’t research both sides. Maybe gun violence is real personal to him.

        Also most people are hypocritical and do not practice what they preach. Everyone says warrant, probable cause, excessive force but rarely do they follow that logic when something happens to them.

        • Murray Roodbaard

          You do not understand the true meaning of morality. This means that something is either just or it isn’t, and it CANNOT be dependent and factors such as “whom”, “where”, or “how”. If an ordinary man cannot do something morally, then neither can another man, wearing badge or not, getting the okay from a “majority” or not. Furthermore, no amount of people can delegate powers that they themselves do not have. Such powers do not come into existence by magical spell, only castable by a certain percentage. Does a majority have a “right” to choose laws that impose rules on unwilling individuals? No, because a majority is simple a collection of individuals who themselves have no such rights either. As i said, moral powers do not come into being by numbers. Moral powers either exist or they don’t. They don’t become “moral” when only enough people support them. That doesnt make it moral; it simply makes it a popularity contest. And in that sense, democracy would be just as “moral” if a majority decided to exterminate a minority.

          Furthermore, if you live in a neighborhood, and your neighbors all want you to stop buying at a certain store, or else move away, would you do it? Or would you say you have a right to shop anywhere you damn well please and stay in the house where you live? What happened to “democracy” there?

          As i mentioned before, you must be a hypocrite, and use euphemisms, to ignore the logical and moral inconsistencies of democracy. What a majority wants does not make it right. There should not be such a thing as a “right” to determine the rules under which others should live. Individual rights cannot be morally broken by anyone, in a costume or without.

          • Daniel Mosco

            Actually you have no clue of the definition of morality. According to Websters dictionary morality is “a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.”

            You see the key word SOCIETY!!!! Unless you live miles away from others in your compound, morality is what society deems moral. Go to the Middle East, certain European countries or Asia and their definition of moral is different than of the USA. You would never go to those places because unlike America who tolerates, you would be silenced pretty quick. You logic is one of a parasite. Come in to a happy place and destroy it with your views against the accepted norm.

            You are hilarious. All you can do is criticize others who innovate but you have no resolve. You are the type of person that will find flaws with everything but have no solution to the problems you pose.

            PRETTY PLEASE give me an example of any country in the world that you approve of. Why do I have a feeling you will say none!!! Because the entire world is wrong except you.

            Unless you have the answer to a Utopian society and evidence to back up your claim, you are just all bark.

            So let me ask you this; instead of leaving and being with people who share your views, ideals and social norms, you want to be the outcast and impose yours on others? What if I like the way society is run, what gives you the right to disrupt it? When my State or neighborhood fails above my tolerance threshold I will leave.

            You are just arguing to argue and I bet in real life you are exactly the opposite of what you preach. Open a crowd fund and buy a abandoned town on EBAY and see if you can do better. I bet your idea of a great society is North Korea. Your town would be poor, have unhappy residences and your GDP would be non existent because your own rules would defy your logic. Prove us wrong!!

            And to your question yes “if the NEIGHBORHOOD (key word there ) signs a petition that asks me to kindly stop doing something” I would most likely comply. If something so simple will make others happy why should I rebel? It is utterly pointless and disrespectful. If it is something I love that I can’t give up, I would leave. Why would I subject myself to unnecessary hardships, problems and hatred by others when I can find somewhere I am appreciated.

            FYI, communities with HOA’s are actually starting to become very popular in a lot of states. Why do you think that is? Maybe because people like living next to people who share their definition of fair and moral. If you don’t like the HOA contract, don’t move there. If you don’t like the board members, don’t live there. If you lose the election on the board, the majority don’t like you; start your own board with your own bylaws.

          • Daniel Mosco

            And to even further crush your argument. You keep contradicting yourself.

            @murrayroodbaard:disqus states “You do not understand the true meaning of morality. This means that something is either just or it isn’t, and it CANNOT be dependent and factors such as “whom”, “where”, or “how”.

            But you contradicts yourself by saying” No. Nobody has the right to choose laws that VIOLATE individual rights of those that don’t agree.”

            Who decides what is just? You? Do we take a vote? Do we base it on religion? If so who’s religion? Do we base it on tradition? What if we disagree because you believe laws can’t restrict my rights.

            Lets use intercourse as an example. Reproduction is just because it is how the human race survives. So that means you encourage pedophilia since you state factors of “who” don’t matter? You would also not stop your 9 year old daughter if she wants to reproduce? What about someone who mentality can’t consent but still says yes? You approve that? What is I have aids, I should not disclose it because it is immoral to judge me by my disease?

            Since reproduction is moral but premarital sex is against religion which most deem moral what do we do? Do we all stand our ground?

            What about religion. Many people would say a book that is holy should be followed and is deemed moral. Should we allow everyone to take the bible literal since it is moral? A lot of psychopaths have justified their will with the bible. Should we let them loose?

            Survival is moral but stealing is not. Does that mean I can break into your house to sleep. Steal your food and not work since you got that covered?

            Free speech is moral too and no law can “restrict it based on who or how right?” So I can yell fire in a burning building if there was only a spark? I can say I am a doctor since I read some books on it and operate on you? I can call you or knock on your door and all hours of the day to chat right because how or when I call you does not matter.

            One thing I learned from College is look at everything from both all angels before you form an opinion. The grass is not always greener and you really need to grow up.

            Your bias and agendas are so clear by your incomplete thoughts, analogies that don’t apply and contradictions its not even funny. You might fool some by your search engine optimizing style of repetition but those people deserve you.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “Who decides what is just? You? Do we take a vote? Do we base it on religion? If so who’s religion?”

            Under freedom there is no monolithic view of justice. Right, now you are the one claiming there is only one view of justice and you’re saying it must be your religion – the religion of the state. This view holds there can be one and only one monolithic, uniform set of laws violently imposed on everyone by an incorporeal deity above morality called “government.”

            Yet at the same time you understand the concept of different countries living in peace and harmony geographically along side each other despite having different laws. You understand what is illegal and unacceptable in the U.S. may be legal and acceptable a few yards away after crossing the border into Canada, and the world doesn’t stop spinning from the co-existence of different rules on adjacent plots of land. You understand the concept that the ground you stand on determines the rules you must follow.

            This view is correct. Your former view that “there can be only one way” for everyone is not. Simply allow yourself to consider that a country need not be thousands of square miles large to be a legitimate country (indeed, many modern countries are small). Now let countries shrink to the point of land owned by individuals. Boom, you are there, you have arrived at freedom. If you choose to visit your neighbor’s property, you pre-negotiate the rules you will be held to and vice versa. For the sake of expediency and profitable trade there will be numerous large associations of property owners that negotiate uniform rules and mutually agreeable penalties. Where agreements are not reached, you simply do not go onto that property the same way in the modern world you would not visit Saudi Arabia if you insisted on being free to publicly drink alcohol. The difference under freedom is no one claims to rule anyone else. No one claims to have authority over anyone else. No one claims they have a “right to use aggression,” on others as government agents now do.

            The fact you are questioning the practicality of a free system is good. Questions of practicality we can answer. Blind, unthinking faith in the state we can’t answer. Keep asking questions.

          • Daniel Mosco

            @coralynherenschrict:disqus please kindly quote where I ever said there should be one set of rules for the entire world. If I did it was entirely by accident, out of context or you misread.

            I am actually in favor of voluntary segregation based on beliefs, mores and norms. I was defending NYC as a community. The cop was a hero because he was defending his communities law and norm. NYC is notoriously anti Gun, most people in the City are anti gun and everyone knows NYC is anti gun and the strictest.

            NYC is like any community and its laws should be respected or you can move to another County or State. If this happened in a state where open carry and CCW permits are a shall issue, my answer would be entirely different.

            This fool Murray was pretty much saying he will go where he wants and do what he wants and morality is one set standard for everyone.

            Now this is a very simplistic answer and since the world wide web and international big business, there will always be commingling of laws.

            I am all for a Utopian society and less government intervention but that is impossible due to human nature. Everyone wants to be on top one way or another and will do anything to get their weather consciously or sub consciously.

            Take small claims courts for example. A lot of people who sue their are family members, neighbors and friends who share common beliefs. Civil law goes on for miles because two people or corporations disagree and believe they are doing the right thing. That is why all citizens should study both Statute law and common law before they move to a specific state or community.

            And I was criticizing your book quote because most of the examples are not people like you and me. They were doing stuff that was intrastate, interstate & international and that is where it gets tricky.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “…please kindly quote where I ever said there should be one set of rules for the entire world”

            You did that when you claimed New York State’s laws against gun possession imposed on millions of unconsenting New York State residents were just. If that principle holds for New York State, it must hold for the rest of the world too.

            Either different rules on different lands can morally co-exist or they cannot. You can’t claim both that they can and that they cannot at the same time. If you don’t believe peaceful secession is legitimate, you must believe in one world government because you must condemn as illegitimate the United States secession from the British Empire for the same reasons you would condemn as illegitimate New York State attempting to secede from the United States or New York City attempting to secede from New York State or an individual property owner attempting to secede from New York City.

            If you do attempt to claim secession is sometimes legitimate but sometimes not, what is your criteria? When will you permit others self-governance by peacefully letting them separate vs. when will you not permit others self-governance by having your government attack them for attempting to do so? More importantly why do you or anyone else get to decide when other people get to govern themselves and when they do not? Why do they need your permission or the permission of the ordinary men you claim have superhuman powers as government agents?

            In reality, no government allows for peaceful secession. Governments are solely about increasing their control and power, not decreasing them. So please don’t act as if the institution of government ever allows any person or group of people in any size territory within its borders to peacefully opt-out of its domination.

            “I was defending NYC as a community.”

            Not every person in NYC agrees with anti-gun laws. You can’t wave your hand at an entire city and declare that “the community” wants X or wants Y. That’s collectivist thinking that says a group of people somehow has a will apart from and beyond the wills of individuals comprising it. If an individual is to be said to be choosing his own rules, he must be actually doing so. That is, he must as an uncoerced individual voluntarily grant his agreement to those specific rules. People living in NYC no different than anyone living anywhere.

            “…that is impossible due to human nature. Everyone wants to be on top one way or another”

            This is the classic attempt to defend government by claiming freedom is utopian and state domination is necessary because men are bad. It’s the same propaganda line black slaves were told in the south – that the plantation owners dominating them were their benefactors because the blacks were incapable of managing their own affairs and even feeding themselves because of their ignorant and base nature.

            If men are bad, having a single monopoly on force, a centralized point of violent control over the entire population, a single leash around the neck of everybody is exactly what you don’t want to exist. Because the bad men that are out there can and do seize control of that leash. You can bet on it. And it’s no surprise given the unholy enormity of incentive provided by the unearthly presence of a means of violently ruling other men without any moral blame or consequences for doing so. Absent government, bad men can’t accumulate that kind of power nor control over those kinds of resources, and they suffer full moral blame and blowback consequences for all their aggressive actions.

            It is precisely because people want to be on top that absent a government to co-opt, people will turn to peaceful production and trade not because they are selfless but because they are greedy and voluntary trade is the only path to come out on top in a stateless society.

            “…most of the examples are not people like you and me. They were doing stuff that was intrastate, interstate & international.”

            You’re still quite naively thinking about how and where the government chooses to interpret its own laws and broadly apply its laws. For example, the constitution only allows the congress a few dozen enumerated powers but funny, the federal code has enough volumes to fill multiple rooms and you’ll go jail just the same for breaking any one of them. If a farmer growing wheat on his own land for consumption by himself on his own land can be declared to be participating in Interstate Commerce and thus regulated by the federal government (Wickard v. Filburn), you can be sure you are not safe sitting in your home watching TV. Something as innocent as the conversation we are having now could be considered by the same courts to be, say, aiding and abetting terrorism. I could provide you endless pages of such outlandish interpretations of government laws by government courts that would turn your stomach and better help you appreciate how the government cannot act as a disinterested party to interpreting the law, prosecuting the law, and judging guilt as an all-powerful violent monopoly with its leaders pursuing their own vested interests.

            I like your thought process and hope you continue digging into these ideas.

          • Daniel Mosco

            @Coralyn Herenschrict You state: “You did that when you claimed New York State’s laws against gun possession imposed on millions of unconsenting New York State residents were just.”

            Why are you judging a place by its size? Again I was comparing NY to a community. To live in prosperous NY and share in its amenities, I am willing to abide by their rules. If not, I am free to start my own community or find another of any size of my choosing . By disobeying NY law you are trespassing on land you do not own. Just like you ISP providing your internet, it is not yours, you must comply with their TOS unless you become your own carrier.

            And your slavery argument is weak. Slaves were considered property at that time and were not allowed to leave. You are not restricted by any such laws.

            We were almost in agreement here “This view is correct. Simply allow yourself to consider that a country need not be thousands of square miles large to be a legitimate country (indeed, many modern countries are small). Now let countries shrink to the point of land owned by individuals. Boom, you are there, you have arrived at freedom.”

            I believe that bigger + unified + more people + diversity equals a more prosperous way of life. This is the 21st century. Everyone says they can live simply but once again it is just talk. Small tribes, towns and city’s realized that united and one set of rules avoided complexities. People already have a hard time adjusting to state laws, you think they will adjust to different laws every 2 square miles?

            Take for example a Cable company. To operate they must abide by Local, State and Federal law and that is a pain. You think cable and internet would exist if they needed consent and a contact with every property owner.

            You are hypocritically thinking like Thoreau living simply in the woods but are behind a computer probably living in luxury. I dare you to ask any NYC dweller to live a month in the woods with no technology, I bet they will happily comply with NYS law.

            I feel like you are so naive and take for granted all of our progress: technology, education, transportation, pharmaceuticals, running water, electricity, internet and think that magically appeared.Without a set of laws, treaties and cooperation they would not exist.

            And I can’t even believe you agree with a property owner legal system. The Amish country is as small as it gets and they are set back 100s of years. Why doesn’t everyone follow the Amish country way of life. Because they won’t and will sacrifice freedom for amenities.

            . Good luck trying to start trading, rail systems, building real estate, a fresh water system etc. I bet you won’t because you want your cake and eat it too. You think that running a small society or one person society is for everyone. I can’t even get people to get off their smart phones to enjoy the quiet yet you think they will live the simple life.

            So you are very into micro communities. In that case, instead of making laws, should Glock, S&W & Ruger rent guns and make you sign a contract on how & when you can use it. Should they start discriminating on who they can sell it too?

            What if you had no water on your property and I made you do awful things to share some of mine? What would you do?

            If stores owners did not have laws, what if they discriminated and the next store was a 100 miles away? What is I price gouged?

            If I invented a new drug, the patent system would not exist, so you would have no protection for my work. There would be less access to medicine and I can pick and choose who gets to use it.

            What happens if we agree to barter and you botch on the deal? Since you are on my property can I jail you without trial? Again my land my rules.

            I can go on and on. Please read civil case law. Case law was created because regular human beings like you and me, interpreted simple English differently. Without legal authority what would happen during that dispute? I say Chaos

            Now you state: “When will you permit others self-governance by peacefully letting them separate vs. when will you not permit others self-governance by having your government attack them for attempting to do so?”

            A government is not cheap to run. If you and your people believe you can do better then as I stated before leave and make your own. There are many private islands you can buy under no laws..Also police don’t patrol 1000 sq acre compounds in the middle of nowhere. Bigamy compounds exist and they are against the law. They don’t get caught because there is no reason for police to go in an unincorporated area.

            Meth labs are illegal but nobody gets caught when they are brewing on there 100 acre property in the back country. They are caught when going to the cities and selling it.

            Again my stance remains unchanged. If you want to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labor, you live by their rules. If not nobody is stopping you from creating your own.People would rather complain on the internet than make it happen. Creativity is easy, innovation is not. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, I’m sorry.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “Why are you judging a place by its size? Again I was comparing NY to a community”

            I’m not judging by size. I’m pointing out that you are (assuming you would forbid individual property owners to secede).

            “By disobeying NY law you are trespassing on land you do not own….Just like you ISP providing your internet, it is not yours, you must comply with their TOS”

            NYC is collection of individual, autonomous private property owners with no land use agreements among each other. Geographical proximity alone unites them. That’s no basis for forcing unified values onto those landowners. Of course I have no right to carry a gun on property where the landowner forbids it, because that’s his private property. But we are talking here about NYC private property where a landowner would welcome visitors to carry, but currently the government criminalizes anyone so doing everywhere on all land regardless of ownership.

            NYC is not one large condominium or one large developer community whereby a single property owner of the whole thing subdivided and sold property to individuals conditional to their voluntarily contractually agreeing to certain behaviors. NY land owners signed no such contracts. You are comparing two different animals.

            Unless you consider the government the true owner of all property, and deny the very principle that individuals can own land. In that case your argument holds.

            “Slaves were considered property at that time and were not allowed to leave. You are not restricted by any such laws.”

            On the contrary, if I am forced to give two thirds of my income and most of my liberty to a master (the state) in this country and various other fractions of wealth and liberty in other countries, I am in very large degree but the property of one slave master or another. Yes, I have the freedom to change masters of my own accord, that is true. But no, there is nowhere I can go to not have a master.

            “I believe that bigger + unified + more people + diversity equals a more prosperous way of life.”

            Cool, I have no problem with that. You are free to voluntarily join up with as many people as you like and subject your behavior to the will of as many others as much as you like. But, you are not free to impose your choice on others. That’s when I have a problem, when you forcibly impose your choices on me.

            “People already have a hard time adjusting to state laws, you think they will adjust to different laws every 2 square miles?”

            Yes, I do. As I explained before, for the sake of expediency and profitable trade people would choose to form large associations providing uniform standards and compatible practices to simplify their ease of movement and interactions. Roaming agreements would be negotiated across different associations governing adjoining plots of land, like cell phone companies negotiate with each other to ensure seamless travel through different networks. In a free society every social organization pain point such the one you highlight would be a market opportunity for entrepreneurs to provide services to solve and they would.

            “You think cable and internet would exist if they needed consent and a contact with every property owner.”

            Yes. The government has promoted the false belief that only by using its force of eminent domain and its legal monopolization of services can infrastructure be built. This is propaganda. The road system in America through the 1800’s was substantially privately owned. Prior to the progressive movement in the early 1900’s multiple competing gas and even the newly invented electric companies and telephone companies ran multiple parallel competing systems across private property providing fierce competition and associated good service and low prices. If you don’t believe me, research it. Start by reading “The Myth of Natural Monopoly” by Thomas DiLorenzo and Walter Block’s book or articles on roads, all available for free at the Mises Institute.

            “I feel like you are so naive and take for granted all of our progress: technology, education, transportation, pharmaceuticals, running water, electricity, internet and think that magically appeared. Without a set of laws, treaties and cooperation they would not exist.”

            This is outright false. You have bought into the government’s propaganda that the government is essential for all human progress. The opposite is the case. Government laws destroy free markets and destroy the incentives for creativity and productivity that would otherwise constitute the sole means of getting ahead in the world. Mutually negotiated agreements, voluntary cooperation, and adverse consequences to breaking agreements are all that’s needed for thriving commerce and these practices have no dependency on a violent leviathan government whatsoever.

            “What if you had no water on your property and I made you do awful things to share some of mine? What would you do? If stores owners did not have laws, what if they discriminated and the next store was a 100 miles away? What is I price gouged? If I invented a new drug, the patent system would not exist, so you would have no protection for my work. There would be less access to medicine and I can pick and choose who gets to use it.”

            These questions may feel reassuring to you because they attempt to press emotionally inflammatory hot buttons you presume freedom has no answer for. The state loves to throw around such pseudo-justification for its rule. But I assure you the premises embedded in your questions are false, the issues you think are issues are not issues. It would take me many more pages than I have space for here to carefully walk you back to those false premises.

            To get to the truth, you’ll have to examine below surface emotionality, examine the unseen rather than just the seen. You’ll have to understand what property is and why it is so important to respect. You’ll have to understand how competition solves problems. I encourage you to read prominent libertarian and anarcho-capitalist literature to get thorough answers to such questions. Read Murray Rothbard. Read Stefan Molyneux.

            “What happens if we agree to barter and you botch on the deal? Since you are on my property can I jail you without trial? Again my land my rules….. Without legal authority what would happen during that dispute? I say Chaos”

            I would not enter your property unless a comprehensive framework of rules governing my presence and our barter were already established including redundant mutually agreed upon neutral third party dispute resolution services standing at hand to deal with botched situations. I would also have a paid security service standing by to use force to enforce the terms of the deal in case you disregard your agreement and just try to throw me in a cage.

            I’m guessing to your ears this arrangement may sound like violent chaos where might makes right. That is how the government has taught you to regard it. Rather than take its word for it, try reading David Friedman, “The Machinery of Freedom,” to learn how private systems of rulemaking and enforcement would work vastly more efficiently, morally, and justly than any government systems. I sincerely ask you to read the book. You can’t condemn something unless you first understand it.

            “If you and your people believe you can do better then as I stated before; leave and make your community. There are many private islands you can buy under no laws…Police don’t patrol 1000 sq acre compounds or farms in the middle of nowhere. Bigamy compounds exist and they are against the law. They don’t get caught because there is no reason for police to go in an unincorporated area.”

            Oh but for I wish what you said were true. All private islands fall under dominion of one government or another. There is no land on the planet unclaimed by some government. None. Police are more than happy to enter compounds in the middle of nowhere the minute they suspect any illegal activity whatsoever is occurring there. Including simply not paying taxes. Much less lack of full compliance with gun laws, drug laws, financial laws, building laws, commerce laws, etc., etc. etc.

            I’ll say it again, the government you wholeheartedly support will violently assert its domination over me if I try to peacefully remove myself from its laws and its enforcement of them. It will dub me a lawbreaker and lock me up regardless of what private property I stand on. This is common knowledge. It is naïve to suggest otherwise.

            I think the comment system is about to explode from the size of our conversation so why don’t we wrap it up. I think if you read the books I’ve pointed you to, you may find many of your current ways of thinking debunked and some profound new truths revealed. Rather than just double down on your current views because these alternative views sound completely foreign, I earnestly encourage you to investigate further. Peace.

          • C7

            I can’t seem to post this on that other NH discussion so….

            You need to try again.

            District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
            McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010

            And even if it was just the federal govt that further supports things like the NFA and 1994 AWB to be unconstitutional.

          • Daniel Mosco

            There is no need to try again. My point Is still 100 percent valid. I said that the second amendment does not automatically make state gun laws unconstitutional and I am correct. This is why the Supreme Court did not not say ” second amendment is absolute right, do what you want, no charges no licenses,no restrictions.” Each argument is a case by case basis which means it’s a not an absolute right.

            If you read the second amendment and the case law I posted carefully, you will see that it was written so congress can’t disarm the state. It does not say a state can’t Disarm or restrict its citizens.

            So your argument of guns being an absolute right to citizens is false. In all actuality, the Supreme Court is extending you privledges by striking down some states laws.

          • C7

            No your point isn’t. Not according to the rulings in those two cases. 1) the 2nd amendment is for the individual, not the state. 2) the 2nd amendment applies to the state level as well.

            Plus you never answered how can we have gun control at the federal level then?

            It’s all unconstitutional.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      Consider context before rushing to judgement based on appearances.

      Research shows that all of us, including you, commit an average of three
      felonies a day just by living our ordinary lives employing no force nor fraud. You might not commit Blackwell’s particular victimless “crime” of peacefully carrying a gun. But in the eyes of the law, you are just as guilty a felon for the multitude of different other types of victimless “crimes” you are committing.

      What if on Saturday that same
      “wonderful young officer” you praise had chosen to dutifully enforce the law not with Blackwell but with you. What if as you were walking on the street he had pulled over his car to forcibly apprehend
      you.

      That would necessarily result in you locked in a filthy hell-hole cage for the rest of your life. All your goals, dreams, aspirations ended. Your career, friends, activities, pleasures all gone. Your wife and family stripped from you. Your children rendered fatherless and without means of support.

      Would you still consider this officer heroic for apprehending you? Would you think of yourself as
      garbage if you made a decision to resist that fate rather than resign yourself to it? If you chose to resist, I would not blame you.

      • L.j. Lee

        Well put. I would definitely resist having my life being taken away from me.

        I couldn’t even begin to comprehend how horrible that situation would feel. Yes I would probably act out too, maybe not shoot someone but definitely act out in that situation.

        Could you blame me?

        I don’t want my life stripped away from me just when one day I decided to take a walk, not even doing anything wrong, at that time.

        This “criminal” was not at that moment instigating a reason to be searched or arrested but an officer came up by chance already looking for trouble.

      • Daniel Mosco

        @coralynherenschrict:disqus please reply with references to support your felony argument. I can believe quality of life or administrative code violations but I find 3 felonies a day on average a little far fetched. Please cite your sources.

        The term hero is used because he was bravely enforcing laws that were created by the people for the people. In theory a democracy is supposed to elect officials that represent the people. Although, not perfect by any means, do New Yorker’s not have the right to choose their own laws?

        If people are unhappy about the laws, why not find a state or country where you feel the laws align with your ideologies?

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          Sure, check out the book “Three Felonies A Day” by Harvey Silverglate.

          Thanks for your taking up this whole issue in a considered way. Respectfully, there are some widely promoted fallacies embedded in your statements that are taking you down a false path. There is no magical “the people” that has any supernatural powers you or I don’t have. You and I and our neighbors are “the people.” We may not morally use aggression against each other. End of story.

          Now if _some_ of us individuals chose a group of 100 men to go to the state capitol to write down their opinions as “laws” then hire enforcers to violently compel _all_ of us to abide by those opinions, there is no justification for that. No, New Yorkers do not get to write their own laws – the New York political apparatus writes the laws – a very small number of people who can with impunity completely disregard the rights of everyone else who disagrees. Such violent, involuntary rule of some men by other men is just as wrong as if you or I tried to do it without the fancy costumes, titles, and ceremonies of government agents.

          You’ve accepted as forgone conclusion “government” is some ethereal, magical, entity that cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or smelled but conveys super-human status that is above morality, i.e. can morally employ aggression to force the opinions of some people onto other unconsenting peaceful people. I’m afraid sir, no such supernatural entity exists. It’s a myth. For an exhasutive scholarly treatment debunking silly attempts at rationalization of government authority like “consent of the governed,” “social contract,” “will of the majority,” etc., read “The Problem of Political Authority – An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the duty to Obey” by Michael Huemer.

          And I thank you for your support to peacefully allow me and others who don’t wish to live by aggression or under aggression to have a country or state or territory of any kind unmolested by authoritarian rulers and their enforcers…pray tell where would that be?

          • Daniel Mosco

            LOL my reply is so long it needs to get approved. Hopefully it all shows since I made a lot of edits

        • Murray Roodbaard

          No. Nobody has the right to choose laws that VIOLATE individual rights of those that don’t agree, any more than a group of rapists have a democratic right to vote for rape of the one woman. And then to declare: well, she can simply leave, is not only morally rediculous because it doesn’t address the immorality of imposing personal subjective wishes on unwilling people, also because there can be no MORAL right to tell people to leave when they don’t agree.
          If a German majority voted to exterminate Jews, would Nazi’s be “heroes” because they “bravely” enforced laws of the people by the people? Or would all this be reprehensible because it violates the rights of the individual against domination by the herd?
          Your religious belief in the logical and moral abomination called “democracy” is not making dents here. You must be and remain a hypocrite to overlook its moral inconsistencies, and use euphemisms to make yourself feel better.

          • Daniel Mosco

            Once again you are so far off. Who determines if someones rights were violated. That’s right society!! Or are you a deity manifesting yourself as human??? If so I am so sorry my lord. You believe everything is black and white but humans in their very nature look for the grey. As I said before all you quote is problems but have no solution. Anyone can argue for a Utopian society but nobody can deliver.

            You are a huge hypocrite. Leaving means everything. You are supporting society with your contributions, your ideas and paying your tax dollars. So you are supporting what you despise. Do you even need the Websters definition.

            Your example of the Nazi regime is also flawed. You are just throwing out random arguments thinking nobody will notice.

            Hitler DID NOT allow the Jews or those who opposed him to just leave.That is all the Jews wanted to do but Hitler wanted to exterminate. If he allowed all those who opposed him to leave, change would have been inevitable.

      • Tammy Hough

        You said it perfectly. Learn the matter,subject, law, before judging. That’s what the cops do and that is exactly why people are fed up..literally “fed up”

    • Murray Roodbaard

      I can only hope that you and your family will encounter some of your finest heroes in the middle of the night as they administer a “drug raid” on the basis of some subjective and biased knowledge. The law is the law, after all, and cops are just heroes doing their jobs.

    • Tammy Hough

      I’d would rather be remembered as anything,than a closed minded individual who loves seeing people murdered,beaten,sodomized,…you go ahead love your badge wearing Nazi’s.

  • At Odds

    Dude, you really ought to stop picking on their demigods. It hurts people’s feelings when you pick on their religion and their holy of holies.

  • Jeremy Rhymes

    Cantwell embodies in his writings outrage, one of the rational responses to today’s hostile legal environment. The emotion most folks embrace is despair, because what can be done to change things? Another sensation we choose is apathy, disconnecting from events we have no influence over, no matter how tragic. All these are understandable. Prejudice against victims of cop brutality is a ridiculous internal reaction, but it happens too of course.

  • Matthew Reece

    Have you ever watched a sports game between two teams that are rivals of the team you pull for? Maybe you would not admit it aloud, but you probably wanted to see both teams exhaust themselves and lose players to injuries so that the team you like will have a better chance of beating both of them when the time comes. For an anti-statist, events like this are that sort of game.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      I wouldn’t say the police state got weaker from this incident. I’d say it got stronger.

      Events like this are gobbled up by the media and trumpeted far and wide for a reason. An event like this feeds straight into the propaganda storyline of the state that guns are a public menace that must be banned and that the heroic police are here to protect us from dangerous criminals.

      Such pernicious misbeliefs in the minds of men are the root enemy that must be undermined more importantly than any particular bunch of thuggish schmoes donning blue costumes.

      Otherwise events like this just increase the common man’s sanction of more draconian laws, more invasive treatment, and more cops on the streets wielding heavier weapons and scarier technology. The state makes out bigtime from incidents like this.

      • Tammy Hough

        Absolutely!!

  • Potatoeater

    Its cute how the “author” peppered his fiction w/ fragments of fact.

  • Tammy Hough

    I was reading through the comments and how some say Christopher Cantwell is extreme so on so on. I can from a personal view tell you. When your world is turned upside down because of egotistical,evil, badge wearing Nazi’s come after you or in my case my Husband over a half ounce of pot. Throw him on the ground,handcuff him and then for good measure pepper spray him in the back of the head for no other reason other than “I have a badge” ! My Husband didn’t resist. These cops that so many praise, it makes me sick! I will never ever FORGET that day not to mention the thousands of dollars that we had to pay for bond,lawyer,court cost and the year of probation and what’s worse is we didn’t have the money his beloved Dad who was fighting cancer and passed away paid for it all. So Dont Start With Cop Loving Crap That They Are Doing Their Jobs.

    • LookAtTheseRetards

      Break Law > Get in trouble.
      “Oh LAWD mai HAWSBIND had haafff ounce pot on HEEEEEM, n DEY RRESTED HEEEEEEEEEEEEEM”

      • Tammy Hough

        Perfect name for you!

      • Murray Roodbaard

        You would make a good Nazi. Don’t follow Hitlers orders > Get in trouble.

  • Paul Costanzo

    Great article? If you think this is a great article then get the hell out of the United States, this guy condoning the shooting of an innocent officer will never get respect by any rational human being. All he’s good for is riling up some small group of people, who are full of hate and not looking for any constructional ways to make changes.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      Fortunately, the likes of you have done great jobs making constructive changes. One only has to see the riots to see how things have improved.
      Hey pal, seriously, when dainty police hugging commies like you manage to at least make the change where cops will get FIRED after police brutality, much less criminally charged, rather than sent on paid vacations and protected by their unions, come back and spout off your easy bullshit. The likes of you couldn’t even get THAT done because you don’t get that democracy is a sham; a pacifier plopped into the mouth of those easily duped into thinking they have a say, and that the state has the power to tell you to go fuck yourself, and that you better get used to bending over for the nightstick.
      So go ahead and rail at those who have long been woken up to the reality of the nature of the monopoly of violence. We know you pansies are neutered sheep with wishful thinking about “reform” (one of the most disgusting words today).

  • Andrew

    This is the most disgusting and unintelligent article I have ever read. You spread your ignorance across the media just to gain some popularity for some senseless blog that nobody knowledgeable reads. Normally when I stumble upon a simpleminded article such as this one I stop reading. However, I wanted to see just how unenlightened you really are. I hope everyone who reads this article does not share it. Foolishness does not deserve attention.

  • AvGas

    I couldn’t get past the first couple of paragraphs in this article because it was sickening how misinformed and misguided this author is, but I will address 2 points I saw in the beginning of the article. First, it’s not a “crime” to adjust your waistband. It’s a known behavior of people who are carrying guns tucked in their waistband. Typically people who carry guns in their waistband, not in a holster, aren’t people who carry guns for honorable reasons. I won’t get into NYC gun laws or any gun laws in general, I’m pro 2A and I think the less laws regarding firearms, the better. We all know that criminals don’t follow laws, and the reason this guy was carrying the gun wasn’t for any reason other than to use it to commit a crime.

    Second, it was mentioned that there is a policy in NYC that says you can stop and frisk anyone for any reason. False. It’s actually a US Supreme Court ruling, Terry V. Ohio, that allows officers anywhere in the United States to stop and question someone if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has, is it the process of, or is about to commit a misdemeanor or felony, and they an only be frosted in certain situations, and searched in even fewer situations. The fact that the NYPD has attached a name and a piece of paper to this tactic doesn’t make it an NYPD only tactic.

    I can agree with you that maybe Blackwell never would have started a life of crime if NYS didn’t have oppressive gun laws, and there was a real chance that the people he chose to commit crimes against were carrying guns. The number don’t lie, States with less gun restrictions have less violent crime, it’s true, I support this, but the fact of the matter is that there still is crime. Not as much, but also not zero, and some of the crime is shooting related, so to make it seem unreasonable that the police would stop someone with a gun is a little rediculous, especially when the circumstances of stopping that person all point to the person possibly committing a criminal act. I’m not advocating stopping the guy walking down the street with a holstered firearm, who’s open carrying, going about his business. I’m talking about stopping the guy who I a known felon with a violent history (including attempted mirder) who is acting in a manner consistent with criminal activity.

    So in closing, fuck you, this officer is more of an American, more of a patriot and more helpful to fellow man than you or any of you other sovereign lunatics will ever be.

    • Sam Cru

      I couldn’t get past the first couple sentences of this reply because it was sickening how misguided and misinformed the author is.

      Fuck you.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      You are a fucking idiot.
      First of all, nothing you said has changed ANY of Chris’ points about the matter of violence by the police. It should not be up to you or anybody whether someone holds a gun in a holster or in his belt. Second, if he was to be stopped, it should have been with a warrant, or at least for perpetrating a REAL crime right then and there, and not because of completely subjective “suspicious behavior”.
      It is no more for a New York cop to stop someone for adjusting his belt, than for a Nazi to stop a man who may be Jewish. There is either a crime that is supposed to be a crime, or there isn’t. Period.

      Third, cops, ALL COPS, are still worse simply because they are following orders of the state, the single most aggressive and murderous institution in the world, a fact which is – surprise surprise – conveniently overlooked or ignored by the likes of you, because you still don’t know or care who the bigger threat and the bigger aggressors are in society. Which accounts for your apologetics. Cops victimize drug offenders, do they not? They would victimize tax resisters, would they not? They would get away with such aggression toward innocent, non-violent people, would they not? So fuck you and your friends the cops.
      Fourth, who gives a FUCK who is a better “patriot”, a better “American”, or a better any cocksuckers of nationalistic terminology. Freedom and non-violence have no nationality. Only collectivistic imbeciles care for that.

  • Tony Friz

    I’m going to assume this entire blog is either very crude satire or written by a 16 year old who just discovered r/atheism.

  • LookAtTheseRetards

    All you did was read the newspaper headline and elaborated on it with a bunch of false fillers. Where did you get all these specifics? How’d you fail to note that the gunner STOLE THE GUN. It wasn’t his own gun, it wasn’t registered and he wasn’t licensed. You seem to support the right to bear arms as well as steal them. Is this the “free America” you invision? Where everybody has the right to take what they want and do what they want with it? Wait… there’s a word for that, Communism. This scumbag was walking around with a loaded gun on him and he shot the first person who approached him right in the face. That was a 25 year old kid with parents who will have to wake up every morning knowing that their son is dead because some scumbag, and I quote, “quickly pulled out his gun, and shot Brian Moore in the face, before the gun grabbers had the chance to search, disarm, handcuff, and cage him”. Are you fucking kidding me? He wouldn’t have been facing 7+ years if he wasn’t carrying a loaded, stolen gun in the first place. What if you’re father approached someone for help one day and was shot in the head? You’d have a completely different article here.

  • Alexis Musolino

    All I have to say is your the biggest piece of shit to condone the shooting of a cop. A cop is still a person and all lives matter. That is someone’s brother, son and friend. It’s sad that someone can think like this. A person’s race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or occupation doesn’t matter. Killing a person is wrong.

    • Murray Roodbaard

      “Killing a person is wrong.”
      Which is precisely why you should be against government and its employees. The most lethal institution in mankind’s history is government. It has a monopoly on the initiation of violence. It doesn’t have to follow its own laws on gun control et cetera.

      Yet it’s obvious you’re not an anarchist.

      Therefore all your yapping about killing being wrong is like pissing in the wind. They are angered words of someone without a clue outside of the bubble they live in.

  • Angel Martinez

    The author here is a sick man with sick thoughts, These police officers whether we agree with or not were only doing their job, The man they approached was a convicted felon. That felon killed a man trying to protect us from him. This felon may have killed you or one of your family members. instead today we mourn his death and hid family feels the pain. The pain of the sacrifice he made to try and protect us!! Disgraceful Article No excuse for such poor judgement.

  • Marsta

    God bless Chris Cantwell. May he be blessed with every good gift.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    Give ’em wings!

  • WeRMany UR1

    WE FIND THIS POST IGNORANT AND OFFENSIVE.

    • Tammy Hough

      WeRMany UR1 you’re right WE ARE MANY AND YOU ARE 1!! We the many have had it with the COPS who think it’s ok to destroy innocent civilians on a hour by hour, daily basis! WE ARE MANY Refuse to stand by and take it anymore! By your privacy settings I can see you are 1 and can make a comment but to frightened to back them up because as you say YOU ARE 1!!

      • WeRMany UR1

        DO YOU MEAN TO CHALLENGE US, HUMAN?

        • Tammy Hough

          I needed something to laugh at.thank you! You definitely succeeded!!

  • Ya Mo

    ‘Good riddance’ re the cop, and you’re ‘not sad’ to see the other guy sent to prison for ever.

    Overall good news, then?

  • Ivy

    i know that you spew this ignorance to enrage people, and i promise you, i won’t give you pleasure. in fact in advance, i will tell you, to not even waste your time responding to my opinion of you, because I will not read it.Number 1, my friend Det Moore, was doing his job, following the laws issued by the state that he serves, and POS Blackwelll was doing his job, being a thug- so let us get down down to brass tacks here, I did want you to know, more than anything else in the world, that you sir are a worthless little cunt.