I’m not sure what “being armed does go to intent with some objects” is supposed to mean.

In any case, your unpersuasive, and unsupported legal conclusions aside, your claim was that it was “disingenuous” to say that Bell was “unarmed.” In fact, even if your claim that being “armed” is a result of the intent of the driver is meritorious (and I don’t think it is), then that’s still no evidence that the claim is “disingenuous” – it simply reflects a JUDGMENT about the facts of the case and the likelihood of the various stories told by the police, the victims, and the bystanders.

If Mr. Bell was in fact accelerating toward one of the officers and nearly hit him, as the offer has reported, then the vehicle is by law a deadly weapon, and thus Mr. Bell was armed, and lethal force can be used. Now, that is a big if, and is at the very heart of this case. If he were accelerating away from everyone, or sitting in his parked car, then the vehicle could not be construed as a weapon, and we have a very different fact pattern.

First, a motor vehicle may obviously be used as a deadly weapon (justifiably or not), but simply being a motor vehicle driver has never been understood to make a person “armed” in any conventional sense. “Arms” actually has a particular meaning, and “driving a car” is not included within it. Does the right to “keep and bear arms” safeguard the right to drive a car? Seems a stretch.

Second, buttressing the point above, your appeals to “intent” (of the driver) and “belief” (of the officers) are irrelevant. Being “armed” is simply being in the appropriate type of possession of the appropriate type of thing. A person is “armed” with a gun _regardless of whether they intend to hurt anyone with it_ and _regardless of whether the police think they intend to hurt anyone with it_. Being armed does not rely on anybody’s internal mental state.

I do not claim Bell intended to run anyone down, and I do not claim the officers believed Bell intended to do so. I was not there, and I am not a mind reader. I am merely pointing out in our discussion of the matter that it is misleading and extremely one-sided to deny that Bell had very credible means at hand to kill or gravely injure those officers or any bystander. He was, in fact, NOT unarmed.

The fact that he was not unarmed needs to be considered when evaluating the officers’ actions, though it is not sufficient in and of itself to clear them.

On a personal note, other than my one post here (and my post on the Oberwetter case), you don’t know me, and your ad hominem attacks are completely inappropriate. Calm down, re-read my post, and put some thought into your replies.

The round counts from the individual officers do seem a little disparate. Three of the four officers fired only a few rounds each. The fourth fired 31 rounds, which seems odd to me. But that’s only one magazine change, and it is possible that a skilled handgunner can put that many rounds on a target in the course of a gunfight. (I’ve seem similarly impressive feats at some pistol matches I’ve attended.)

We have had to do all our own investigating…and will be updating our site soon…with all that has taken place in these last thirteen months…which is when we last posted.

At the moment we are waiting on the judge for her written opinion…to our motion asking her to alter and amend…her decision that dismissed…the county…police chief…and the officer who put together and executed the plan…from our suit.

Everything in the legal system moves slowly…and we have no intention…of abandoning our promise to our son.

Sal was a terrific human being…very loved….and respected…by all of us…who had the privilege to know him…and with God’s help… our hope for justice…is continuing forward.

We owe it to my son…and the residents of our county.

Again…thank you for your thoughts and condolences…it helps to know that others care.

God bless you.

He was SWAT…which should make him more accountable for his actions but regardless, dealing with garden variety, non-violent, no swat, or weapons needed matters.

-bear

I followed your family’s saga as it occurred, and feel privledged to offer my belated condolences now. I hope you to know that I and many others also felt grief at the situation and it’s follow up. You were not alone ma’am, and still have the gratitude of a greatful many for your struggles.

It has been a long time since the last up date. Has the pursuit of legal accountability stopped? Have you ever spoken to the police officer in question? Legal or otherwise this is the man ultimately accountable….I’ll remind the board that he was not a SWAT officer, and was dealing exclusively with decidedly non violent matters.

Mrs. C, I think about your son and family occasionally, and it’s always a good thought.

-bear

I am disheartened however…whenever I read…about other families…who have also…lost their loved ones…for no good reason…at the hands of leo’s…who either get caught up in bad departmental policies…perhaps are poorly trained…or are overly aggressive…just because…and if there is no public outcry…to challenge and hold accountable…those who are in positions of power…regretably these avoidable events…will continue to happen.

it hasn’t occurred
I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it is no more likely (and for Caplan’s reasons, less) to lead to neo-liberalism than the opposite.

Asian, and now Middle-Eastern countries
Which ones specifically?

I might add that it seems to have occurred as if neo-liberalism has sought crises to impose itself
Seems to who? That’s a subjective impression that counts for little.

The problem with the Rothbard is not that its too theoretical, but that its only theoretical.
So if you wanted something less than 100% theoretical, it was too theoretical. What did you think of Comparing Apples?

Oddly enough, Kevin Carson, the self-described anti-capitalist whose praise for Klein’s book I linked to, is a big Rothbard fan and favorably cites the piece I linked to in his review of The Shock Doctrine.

The VA man whose name you sadly cannot recall…is my son…and I understand the heartache the Bell family is left with…and I offer my condolences to them and and my prayers for their son and their family.

http://www.justiceforsal.com

The problem with the Rothbard is not that its too theoretical, but that its only theoretical.

Well, it isn’t. But of course, one bullet is a lot less likely to result in the guy winding up dead. And further, two of the charges in this case were for reckless endangerment, not the death of Bell, and that is an important issue too.

One of the cases I can first remember reading here was about a Virginia man (whose name I sadly cannot recall) who was killed in Virginia on his front lawn by a supposedly “accidental” discharge from a SWAT team member’s weapon. That’s an avoidable event.

Larping some Counterstrike for a weekend does not improve the quality of a community service based organization.

Citing to the Merriam-Webster dictionary – which gives a brief, layman’s snapshot of conventional modern usage, doesn’t tell you anything about the long, storied, contested history of the term. For a very brief outline, you could look at the wikipedia capitalism page, which gives you a hint at the historical context of the debate. But even that leaves a lot out – the periods of supposed greatest laissez-faire movement, in industrializing Britain, were actually pushed along by an interventionist British state which stole peasant land through the Enclosure laws and outlawed the production of goods at home through various legal pretexts – all o the advantage of industrial capitalists. Similarly, in the US, industrial capitalism was predicated on enormous State intervention, particularly in the realm of infrastructure (roads, railroads, etc), and the artificial scarcity of land through governments claiming all the good stuff and then parceling it out via sweetheart deals to large industrialists.

http://www.mutualist.org/id63.html