Monday, May 4, 2015

Two Gunmen Shot and Killed by Police at Dallas Exhibit of Mohammad Caricatures


A police officer prevents attendees from leaving the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest after it was reported that shots were fired outside the venue and a man is down in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015.
Reuters/Mike Stone
 
 
Texas police shot dead two gunmen who opened fire at an exhibit near Dallas of caricatures of Islam's Prophet Mohammad organized by an anti-Islamic group, authorities said on Sunday.

The shooting echoed past attacks or threats in other Western countries against art depicting the Prophet. In January, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its cartoons.

Sunday's attack took place shortly before 7 p.m. in a parking lot of the Curtis Culwell Center, an indoor arena in the suburb of Garland, northeast of Dallas. Geert Wilders, a polarizing Dutch politician and anti-Islamic campaigner who is on a jihadist hit list, was among speakers at the event. 

44 comments:

  1. I imagine that it will take some time for evidence to be released regarding the motivation behind the attack, but the circumstantial evidence is certainly there. All in all though, when compared to a similar event in France,a fine example of how an armed populace results in casualties being minimized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit. The organizers hired militarized security, sort-of like a spider luring a fly into his web. This had nothing to do with an armed populace.

      Delete
    2. Are you seriously suggesting that the draw Muhammad people bear responsibility for the deaths of the attackers for luring them in like flies into a web?

      Delete
    3. "The organizers hired militarized security, sort-of like a spider luring a fly into his web. This had nothing to do with an armed populace."

      They hired off duty police officers, and for reasons I cant understand, unarmed security. And we saw how well unarmed security worked in France not too long ago.

      Delete
    4. ss, didn't you see those cops all tricked out like SWAT guys? That's not an armed populace.

      SJ, yes, exactly. Like any defensive killing, there's plenty of responsibility to go around. The criminals are 100% responsible for their part and the others are too.

      Delete
    5. "ss, didn't you see those cops all tricked out like SWAT guys? That's not an armed populace."

      From what I've been reading the level of security was determined by local law enforcement,

      "Security included security officers, uniformed officers, SWAT, FBI and ATF, Joe Harn of the Garland Police Department said at a news conference.
      Harn said the police told the AFDI what security they thought they needed, and "that's what they adhered to."

      http://news.yahoo.com/garland-shooting-american-freedom-defense-initiative-spent-10-154004586--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=AwrC0wyy.klV214AMB2amolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

      And it sounds like the SWAT guys arrived after the dance was over,

      "Harn said a SWAT team already at the back of the building responded "within seconds" to help secure the scene. A bomb unit responded, but no bomb was found in the suspects' car."

      This was, from what I've been reading a veteran traffic cop, even a bit older than me taking on two guys with a pistol. The guy has big brass ones.

      "A Garland police officer who was armed with only a handgun fatally shot the suspects, who were armed with assault rifles and body armor, outside of the Curtis Culwell Center."

      http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/28965628/shooting-outside-garland-ctr-after-muhammad-art-exhibit

      I seem to recall this being the kind of scenario often used to highlight a situation of how useless a handgun would be against someone equipped with heavier weapons.
      Bob Owens wrote an interesting piece including some pretty good photos of the crime scene showing the weapons.

      http://bearingarms.com/pushed-forward-brave-garland-police-officer-advanced-brought-garland-terrorists/

      Delete
    6. "ss, didn't you see those cops all tricked out like SWAT guys? That's not an armed populace."

      Here is a more succinct description from a source you'd consider to be less potentially biased,

      "According to a law enforcement source close to the investigation, the two men had six guns -- a mix of assault-style semiautomatic rifles and handguns -- that are being traced back to various parts of Arizona.
      Gunfire reverberated around the complex, from the two gunmen, and the armed officer.
      A short time later, four members of a nearby SWAT team came in firing their high-powered rifles, according to a source familiar with the officers involved. But by the time they did, the Garland traffic officer was the only one standing.
      The school district officer had been hit in the leg, according to Harn.
      And the two attackers were already down on the ground by their car, having been shot by the traffic officer."

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

      Makes me happy that my latest acquisition is a .45.

      Delete
    7. Oh yes, those poor, pitiful wannabe terrorists; drawn in to their death by the mean freedom of speech types.

      Sorry, but the unsuccessful martyrs are totally to blame for their own actions and death, in spite of all of the progressive attempts at victim blaming.

      Delete
    8. I didn't say anything about "poor terrorists." That's you lying about my position. What I said is the "The criminals are 100% responsible for their part."

      It's a different question about the rightness or wrongness of holding such a contest and calling it free speech.

      Delete
    9. I never said you used the words "poor terrorists." I just pointed out that you talked about how the terrorists were flies drawn into the web of the people holding this event--people you said were spiders and were also responsible for the terrorists' deaths. You're the one who inverted who was the victim in this case and is now backpedaling.

      Delete
    10. SJ, you mischaracterized my position. That's lying. When called ont for it, you deny what's in black and white.

      Delete
  2. "Islam Hate"

    And yet, it's the "hate group" that got shot at, not the target of their hate.

    Incidentally, when a group is put on a list of hate groups for saying ugly, generalized things about Muslims as a group, suggesting that they're violent and will attack people for silly things, and is then physically attacked, not for saying hateful things, but explicitly for drawing caricatures, that tends to support their position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These guys, the Westoboro idiots and the Rev. Terry Jones, are all in the same category - abusers of their 1st Amendment rights.

      Delete
    2. Let's clarify something here: by abusing 1st Amendment rights, are you saying that they're being dicks in how they choose to exercise their rights, or are you saying that they're going beyond what those rights allow?

      If the latter, where is the line that you are proposing?
      What about the South Park episode on Scientologists? Is that abuse of the first amendment because they went after a religion, telling what it teaches and insulting it for being silly?
      Is it against the rules to insult Koresh and others like him, calling them kiddie diddlers, etc. Or do they get the same pass as "prophets" of their religions whose members we should respect. Must we refrain from such insults because of how it will offend their followers?
      Finally, what about the Westboro people? Why are you insulting them and promoting things that will lead to their behavior? If we can't insult the violence of some Muslims because that may lead to violence then why can we insult the Westboro people when that will lead to their acting out?

      Delete
    3. What these idiots did with the Mohammed competition may have been legal but it was still wrong.

      Delete
  3. "1st amendment, abuse of the 1A, bigotry, islam hate"......Saw this on the new this morning and knew that you would try to make this the fault of the victims Mike...Thanks for at least being consistent with your hatred of freedom Mike ....By the way Your are supposed to capitalize the word Islam to not do so is showing disrespect to Mohamed and his violent followers you may want to fix that before someone calls you a bigot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "hatred of freedom?" What the fuck does that even mean? Calling people out for instigating violence on purpose and hiding behind their twisted version of the 1st Amendment, that's contrary to freedom?

      Delete
    2. Instigating violence:

      Packing guns into your car, driving 1100 miles, and opening fire on people for offending you.

      Directly encouraging up a mob to riot or lynch someone.


      Not instigating violence:

      Making art that offends others.

      Protesting a movement or religion you disagree with, even though doing so is offensive or forbidden by that movement.

      Delete
    3. "hatred of freedom?" What the fuck does that even mean?"...It means you Hate the fact that others who do not think in the liberal narrative as you, have a RIGHT to say things that offend you or others and that they have a RIGHT to peaceful protest or art exhibit of ANYTHING they want without having to take into consideration yours or anyone's FEELINGS or crazy extremist ideology's that contradict the very idea of freedom....Yet all the while you love that you can be so hateful of anything you deem conservative and speak your mind freely on such topics and exhibit on your blog hateful photos and videos with the logical expectation that no one will try to harm you for doing so...

      Delete
    4. No, George, I don't hate that, I just think it's wrong.

      You're probably achieving the worst comparison yet with that one - Muslim haters who stage a little get-together like this one compared to my blog.

      Delete
    5. The comparison is absolutely legitimate...you post and say things that some find offensive for you to say that what they are doing is somehow more offensive than what you do is only your biased opinion....non violent "Muslim haters" not near as much as the two dead scumbags were violent christian and jew haters or you are a conservative/republican hater...I admit I am a Islam hater as well as a Christianity hater and a Judaism hater..these made up fantasy's have done the people of this world no good but people are free to believe what ever fictional stories it is they want as long as they are not perpetrating violence on others in the name of their fantasy

      Delete
    6. George, your stupid comparison was comparing me to a hate group. What I do in advocating for gun control cannot be considered "hate."

      Delete
    7. What I do in advocating for gun control cannot be considered "hate."

      Wrong. That's exactly what I consider it. The only thing that stops you from being a hate group is that there is (thankfully) only one of you.

      Delete
    8. I suppose you might, or, perhaps you're just saying that to be consistently fanatical. Westboro is a hate group. My blog is not, unless, of course, you honestly believe it is. We all know how honest you are, Kurt.

      Delete
    9. Im not speaking just of your hatred for guns Mike but also your bigotry and prejudices toward all things you consider conservative/republican all the other non firearms related stuff you post and rail against on your firearms related blog....

      "What I do in advocating for gun control cannot be considered "hate."....The way you go about advocating ...it certainly can be considered hateful Mike

      "George, your stupid comparison was comparing me to a hate group"...Hate group as defined by you and your intolerance of anything you do not agree with?.....

      "We all know how honest you are, Kurt."...whats with the personal attack against Kurts integrity Mike???????????????? ......you freak out about others words you deem personal attacks but yet you do it yourself all the time...do you see the hypocrisy in that?????

      Delete
    10. Actually, George, I allow many personal attacks. I don't "freak out" untill it becomes excessive and petty. Besides, as you have noted yourself, it's my blog, right?

      Delete
  4. The bigger question is, why do you not see other religions behaving the same way? And to MikeB would you consider things like "piss Christ" and anti Christian drawings as art or abuses of the first amendment? The reality is that we are now in a society in which we put more responsibility and fault on the speaker than we do on the one reacting to the speech. As far as SJ, it does appear, and correct me if I'm wrong that you are implying that those in Texas had it coming. It's a sad state of affairs when explicit clearly written writes are ignored in the name of feelings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MikeZ,

      Sorry if I wasn't clear. No, I wasn't suggesting that the group in Texas had it coming--guess I should have waited til I had more time to compose a clearer comment.

      First, I was trying to note that the supposed hate group was the one being attacked rather than doing the attacking, leaving unstated the implication that the Muslims in this case are the ones with a closer resemblance to the KKK.

      My other comment was trying to point out not that they had the attack coming, but that this attack provides support for what they've been saying about Muslims--that is, they've been labeled a hate group for saying that Islam is violent and leads its followers to attack people for stupid reasons such as drawing the prophet, and then they were attacked by Muslims for drawing the prophet. The Muslims, in their zeal to defend Islam, proved that these people aren't completely nuts as the media would have us believe.

      Delete
    2. SJ, thanks for the civility and clarification, It is sadly true that those who have been describing how Muslims behave are the ones labeled a hate group while the Muslims, behaving exactly as feared and described are given a pass. Much as we see with a number of other situations.

      Delete
    3. Yes, MikeZ, images of the Virgin Mary having sex or Jesus sucking cock would be exactly the same thing - a gross abuse of the 1A.

      Delete
    4. "Yes, MikeZ, images of the Virgin Mary having sex or Jesus sucking cock would be exactly the same thing - a gross abuse of the 1A"......please define abuse of the 1st amendment Mike?

      Delete
    5. I already clarified that I think something can be legal but still qualify for what I call abuse of the 1A. Another example: burning the American flag.

      Delete
  5. abuse of the 1A

    How is it "abuse"? Because some people find it offensive? That's what the First Amendment is for. There's no need to protect the right to say things that don't offend anyone, because no one will try to prevent such things being said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kurt,

      Remember, he's drank the Kool-Aid and follows Laci's jurisprudential theories. The idea that the First Amendment protects inoffensive speech fits nicely with the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of the government's armed forces to be armed.

      Delete
    2. As for the phrase "abuse of the First Amendment", anytime I see that I feel like throwing things. In context here, Mike's coming dangerously close to joining dog gone and Lindsey Graham on the side of changing our understanding of the First Amendment to bring it in line with the weaker protections of speech in Europe.

      Delete
    3. The idea that the First Amendment protects inoffensive speech fits nicely with the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of the government's armed forces to be armed.

      Yeah--I should know better than to be surprised.

      Delete
    4. How about flag burners?

      Delete
    5. What about flag burners? How did you go from Kurt and my comments to that little non sequitur?

      Delete
    6. How about flag burners?

      How about 'em?

      I don't consider speech that I find offensive, stupid, and wrong to be "an abuse of the First Amendment." As I've said before, protecting offensive speech is the point of the First Amendment.

      Delete
    7. SJ, Just because you couldn't follow, or are pretending no to, doesn't make it a non-sequitur. The discussion is about abuses of the 1A. Kurt's ok with flag burners. Are you?

      Delete
    8. Kurt summed it up nicely--as he said, even offensive speech is protected--in fact, there's no point in having the First Amendment except to protect speech that some might want banned.

      The Supreme Court also agrees with us on flag burners.

      Now, where are you going with this? Are you going to answer Kurt's initial question? Were you hoping to call one of us hypocrites if we took a different position on flag burning?

      Delete
    9. I know what the Supreme Court ruled on flag burning and I know the Westboro folks have also been deemed within the limits of their 1A rights. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying some of these things are offensive, wrong and what I would call abuses of those right.

      I think you guys are being stubborn about this in refusing to agree with what I said. You often have a knee-jerk reaction to anything I say, even stuff that you really can accept or actually agree with.

      Delete
    10. I think you guys are being stubborn about this in refusing to agree with what I said.

      I think we're using the word "abuse" differently. To me, that word implies behavior that should not be permitted--think child abuse, or prisoner abuse, or sexual abuse, or abuse of power. Granted, the dictionary defines it more broadly, but I still think the implication is behavior that is, or should be, illegal.

      Also, the fact that on a blog purported to exist to decry "gun violence," your post in response to an attack with dreaded "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, in which the victim was shot in fully 50% of his ankles, none of your four tags even mention guns or shooting. In fact, all four seem to place the blame on the intended victims.

      Delete
  6. So . . . Mikeb, the Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, partially on First Amendment grounds, for the State Department's heavy-handed restrictions on Defense Distributed's (the folks behind the "Ghost Gunner" CNC milling machine optimized for home gun makers, and drivers of much of the innovation in 3-D printing of firearms) public release of the CAD files for home manufacture of firearms.

    If the courts find the First Amendment arguments persuasive, would you call that an "abuse of the First Amendment"?

    In other words, does that apply only to those who offend practitioners of centuries-old religions, or is pissing off the fanatical worshipers at the blood-spattered altar of "gun control" enough to qualify?

    ReplyDelete