“Bang-bang, you’re dead.” Death without counsel

[Josh]

Here's how he threatened the FBI:

Bootstrap,

Do you support capital punishment in response to this?

[Ken]

Nobody forced any government agents to go to the man’s house nor pull a trigger.

Actually yes, someone did force the police to go to this man's house. That someone was Craig Robertson who repeatedly broke the law by making threats to kill a wide variety of people. It was the job of those Federal agents to investigate any and all threats. That is what they do. You don't want police showing up at your door? don't threaten to execute the president and Federal prosecutors.

It is interesting when people think a violent criminal, such as a rapist and murderer, duly convicted of heinous crimes through a lawful judicial process should be spared execution, but an obviously mentally ill person posting crazy stuff on the Internet should have a hit squad show up at his house and conduct a summary execution.

Rapists and murders who draw weapons on the police are liable to get themselves shot too. That happens all the time. It happened just the other day here in the Vancouver area. A robbery suspect aimed a weapon at police and got himself shot: https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/jun ... ng-center/

Neither of these were executions. Words have meaning. They both chose to engage with police using firearms and lost the engagement. That is a course of action that THEY chose.

In point of fact, the police and Federal agents who were tasked with investigating his threats had no way of knowing whether he was mentally ill or not, or whether he was a real and present danger or not. That is why you INVESTIGATE threats and interview the people who make them.

The better question to ask is why our society allows someone who you claim is "obviously mentally ill" to amass an arsenal of military weaponry. Most civilized countries would not tolerate that. Do you think it was appropriate for Utah to allow him to amass such an arsenal if he was "obviously mentally ill" as you put it? Utah has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. There are no permit requirements at all for concealed carry, no permit requirements for private sale of weapons, no screening for mentally ill people, no red flag laws, NOTHING.

Do you think "obviously mentally ill" people should be allowed to amass arsenals of military weapons with no restrictions or questions asked?

I would suggest if we want police and Federal agents to operate with less of a hair trigger we need to deal with the tidal wave of firearms washing across this country. This is the world that conservatives have made by refusing to regulate firearms in any meaningful way. It is a world in which police are FORCED to shoot first and ask questions later. Because "obviously mentally ill" people are walking around with military weaponry of the sort seen in the picture you posted above.

We are living in a world created by the most lax gun laws in the western world. Policy choices have consequences, and this sort of event is the inevitable consequence of that policy choice.

[Josh]

It’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess or acquire firearms under federal law.

Anyway, I’ve been hearing for the past 3 years how important it is police deescalate, how unjust killings of convicted criminals like Floyd were, etc… but it’s obvious if the victim is someone liberals feel is a political foe, they’ll cheer when a gang of armed federal thugs show up and open fire.

[Ken]

It’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess or acquire firearms under federal law.

If, as you are trying to imply, it was illegal for this person to possess firearms, then how and why did he have them? How did he slip through the cracks?
Do you think Utah should have stripped him of his weapons long ago? Or do you think that the ATF should go around confiscating weapons from anyone they deem is unstable or mentally ill?

EXPLAIN to us how you think this Federal law you cite should be enforced?

Anyway, I’ve been hearing for the past 3 years how important it is police deescalate, how unjust killings of convicted criminals like Floyd were, etc… but it’s obvious if the victim is someone liberals feel is a political foe, they’ll cheer when a gang of armed federal thugs show up and open fire.

Do you even listen to yourself? "gang of armed federal thugs"

Do you actually know who any of those officers are? What training they have? How cautious they are? If they have wives and children that they want to return home to that night?

As I posted upstream, there have been over 200 law enforcement officers shot so far this year, many in ambush attacks just like this. This is the world we have created. And if people are too deranged to understand that if you aim firearms at the police you are going to get shot, then they are, by definition, to deranged to possess firearms in the first place. It is as simple as that.

[Josh]

It’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess or acquire firearms under federal law.

If, as you are trying to imply, it was illegal for this person to possess firearms, then how and why did he have them? How did he slip through the cracks?

People in Chicago illegally acquire and use firearms all the time. It is a good question why this keeps happening.

Do you think Utah should have stripped him of his weapons long ago? Or do you think that the ATF should go around confiscating weapons from anyone they deem is unstable or mentally ill?

I don’t know enough to speculate. I can say he never killed anybody unlike criminals in Chicago. Perhaps FBI enforcement should focus on Chicago instead since people keep getting shot there.

EXPLAIN to us how you think this Federal law you cite should be enforced?

Anyway, I’ve been hearing for the past 3 years how important it is police deescalate, how unjust killings of convicted criminals like Floyd were, etc… but it’s obvious if the victim is someone liberals feel is a political foe, they’ll cheer when a gang of armed federal thugs show up and open fire.

Do you even listen to yourself? "gang of armed federal thugs"

Do you actually know who any of those officers are? What training they have? How cautious they are? If they have wives and children that they want to return home to that night?

As I posted upstream, there have been over 200 law enforcement officers shot so far this year, many in ambush attacks just like this. This is the world we have created. And if people are too deranged to understand that if you aim firearms at the police you are going to get shot, then they are, by definition, to deranged to possess firearms in the first place. It is as simple as that.

As I said, I have heard for the last 3 years that the police need defunded. That the police shouldn’t ever kill anyone and “why couldn’t they just shoot him in the leg”. So I’m repeating these questions, which were mainstream liberal-Democratic positions for the last 3 years.

[Bootstrap]

Do you support capital punishment in response to this?

[Ken]

It’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess or acquire firearms under federal law.

If, as you are trying to imply, it was illegal for this person to possess firearms, then how and why did he have them? How did he slip through the cracks?

People in Chicago illegally acquire and use firearms all the time. It is a good question why this keeps happening.

Not really. There is no question. We know exactly where those firearms are coming from. It is mostly from states with much laxer gun laws. https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates ... g-problem/

And in any event this is about Utah not Chicago.

What do you think the police and Federal authorities should be doing to make sure that "obviously mentally ill" people in Utah do not amass an arsenal of weapons. Do you have an answer to that question? I'm guessing no.

[RZehr]

Do you support capital punishment in response to this?

Ol’ Honest Abe would have a field day with transgender, I suppose.

[Josh]

Do you support capital punishment in response to this?

I mean, boot, do you support government agents going to someone’s house and shooting them, or not?

If you don’t want to call it “capital punishment”, fine.

[Bootstrap]

I mean, boot, do you support government agents going to someone’s house and shooting them, or not?

If you don’t want to call it “capital punishment”, fine.

Josh, do you support assassinating presidents?

It's the same kind of question. Of course you don't. This is trolling. It turns the heat WAY up on a conversation and makes it harder to discuss what either of us actually believes. Or the evidence for our beliefs.

You could, for instance, simply say what your point of view is, and why you believe it is true. You seem to believe the agents went there to perform a summary execution, that they shot first and did not give him a chance to give himself up? Is that your view?

I don't think that's what happened. That's why I disagree with your conclusion. You know perfectly well that I would not support summary executions.