Something is going on at Error's apartment!

[kola]

The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.

IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.

ie..you watch someone shoot your 5 yr old daughter. You come to her aid (but too late) but in the process you fight with the killer and choke him to death.  

Was killing the killer wrong? AND are you now a VIOLENT criminal?

Kola

[OnGard4Liberty]

The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.

IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.

Ok, but that kind of conversation is pointless.  It doesn't get us anywhere.  We all know we'll protect ourselves.  Talking about killing people is NOT HELPFUL. 

[dan_sayers]

The problem is there are people who take the position that the income tax (or <your least favorite gov't program here>) is already "violence" of a sort. So these fucktards are saying "we did't start it.. but we'll finish it!" 

I haven't seen anybody speaking of force against governement policies. I've seen people speak of COUNTERforce against unprovoked force leveled upon them. There's a difference.

If you are a member of the free state project, then you have agreed not to initiate force.

Wouldn't somebody have to be talking about INITIATING force for your comment to at all be relevant? I think I've been both clear and consistent that I'm not talking about INITIATING force. In fact, I've been effortfully trying to help others understand the difference so that we're not pushing our brothers aside without reason.

As far as self-defense goes, unless you're using a firearm in direct defense of your life, such as someone with a gun shooting at you or others, there are non-lethal/non-violent ways to protect yourself.  In most cases, where you have someone shooting at you, that reality has only come to pass because you have allowed it to reach that point.

Your first sentence is not unlike saying a rapist has to have his penis inside a girl before she can legitimately fight back. Your second sentence is not unlike saying it was her fault for wearing a short skirt. Having been a victim of traumatic violence and forced to sit and watch the very people I thought I could count on treat me, the victim, as if I was guilty, I find that highly offensive.

Those who advocate violence blind themselves and create those very realities they advocate as inevitable.

Not a single person has yet advocated violence. Just the same, i'd like to countpoint by stating that those who advocate giving the assailant what he wants without resistance create those very realities where even more people are forced to make that choice because attackers survey the landscape and find that many more and softer targets.

Factoring OnGard4Liberty's input into the above analogy, we are also expected to believe that if your rapist is a federal agent, it is against wrong to defend yourself.

I offer my apology. Perhaps it was in bad taste to try and have such a debate during a time when so many are actively being shaken up by the very people who are using force to force docility and compliance. I never know how to respond when people see things in my words that aren't even there. I just know that no matter what we're talking about, being divided is never a path to achieving our goals. I will perpetually attempt to join people together, particularly when they really are marching to the same drummer and the march is one as fabulous as the freedom movement.

[Kat Kanning]

The job of these feds is not to protect us, it's to protect the government.

[OnGard4Liberty]

Factoring OnGard4Liberty's input into the above analogy, we are also expected to believe that if your rapist is a federal agent, it is against wrong to defend yourself.

That's not what I was saying.  Let me clarify.  You should protect yourself when you face imminent danger...but thinking that you're going to change the system through violence is absurd.  Unless and until there's an active revolution in this country (which would be a-ok with me), violence is useless.  Further, although there is violence inherent in the system, I would view it as morally wrong to use deadly force against gov't agents at this point.

If any person was raping a family member, or threatening to, (what the law calls "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury"), I would use deadly force in defense.  That goes for anyone, no matter if they work for the gov't or not.  That's far different than going around and saying, "Federal agents rape women.  We should start mowing them down." 

[EthanAllen]

Someone posts about killing/shooting anybody, kick them off the boards immediately.

Someone shows up to a meeting or social gathering talking about killing/shooting anyone, you turn away from them and exclude them from discussion.

Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?

[Russell Kanning]

It is just so unprofessional...you know? Is he a person of interest, or not?

This is what they do.
They have revealed themselves to the manchester gang ... it really makes you think about not paying their salaries... doesn't it.

Isn't there any real crime out there for you to be concerned with?? I'll tell you what, while you're in Manchester doing nothing, why don't you look into the gang shootings that have been going on in my neighborhood?

It is all a game for them. They bully people ... they get money. People complain.
Fredrick Douglass said that people get the amount of tyranny they will put up with.
We are turning it around. They can sense a tremor in the walls of the empire.
It is fun watching you guys in Manchester shake them up and rally together.

[kola]

The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.

IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.

Ok, but that kind of conversation is pointless.  It doesn't get us anywhere.  We all know we'll protect ourselves.  Talking about killing people is NOT HELPFUL. 

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about "killing people", you did. But since YOU brought it up and for the records, IMO justifiable killing is acceptable when personal life is threatened.

I was speaking in regards to the "violence" (not your term "killing people") that the feds used by shooting at Mr Riley and later when firing around the house. As far as your quote; "we all know we''ll protect ourselves", that could or could not involve "killing people".  Fatass Monier made a quote that the Browns case is NOW "more than just a tax issue" because of Ed's actions but Ol Fatass and others tend to forget that he and his band of goons provoked the whole shabang. Ed was protecting his family, his home and his property.

Lets not forget... Ed and Elaine have harmed no one. I think the most aggressive thing Ed has done towards the goons is yelled at them with a bullhorn and the possibility that he sent some traps. To my knowledge, bullhorns and animal traps to not KILL people. 

Kola

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

All the below, cut and pasted from http://whatreallyhappened.com/ this evening.

Feds seek Brown sympathizers http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds%20seek%20Brown%20sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583
Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.
Posted Oct 10, 2007 03:49 PM PST
Category: DICTATORSHIP


"Suspected of plotting?"

Since when is it a crime to THINK about violence?

[OnGard4Liberty]

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about "killing people", you did. But since YOU brought it up and for the records, IMO justifiable killing is acceptable when personal life is threatened.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth...I was speaking generally, using your quote as a spring board.  We're agreed on force being justified in defense of your life. 

[ArcRiley]

Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?

First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.

So everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project.  Ever.  To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?

The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.

Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them.  They had many more non free staters supporting them.  When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.

So - reality check - it was.  When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.

[alohamonkey]

If you haven't yet checked the UL article, or refreshed the page to see all the comments, you should. There are some idjits throwing rocks in our general direction, but there are also natives speaking up in support.

One of the advantages of being a night owl is that I often get the first comment on news articles. (Lancaster is "home", even while I'm in Texas.  )

Nice comment KB.  Is it just me or does it seem weird that all of the derogatory statements about free staters are posted by people who are unwilling to provide their last name?  hmmm

[Dan]

First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.

So everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project.  Ever.  To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?

The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.

Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them.  They had many more non free staters supporting them.  When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.

So - reality check - it was.  When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.

I think they fully understand this point.  They do not even associate (verbally) those that are currently under surveillance with the FSP.  They state they are only investigating individuals, no more.  It was repeated in the Monier interview still available on wmur.com.

The media lies to mention the FSP, and of course we are.  The inference is there, hanging in the air.

But it is to our advantage as I just wrote to my local meetup group who keep asking for updates:
It is likely the only common thread amongst the vast diversty of free state project participants that the initiation of violence is seen as particularly abhorrent.

First it works to disarm those investigating members.  Our hope is that the message starts to sink in: initiation of violence is everywhere nowadays, and deserves constant reflection.

[SethCohn]

The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.

Chris was searching on some very old threads and mentioned she'd found a thread, way pre-trial, where Kat was going to invite Ed and Elaine to come to a meeting of Concord Porcs.  I don't think that ever happened, nor do I think they were ever at any of the other Porc meetings (Keene?)

Associating them with the FSP would be like saying Governor Benson was an FSPer: a pretty big stretch no matter how you slice it.

[EthanAllen]

Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?

First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.

So everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project.  Ever.  To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?

The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.

Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them.  They had many more non free staters supporting them.  When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.

So - reality check - it was.  When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.

Let's be specific. Many people here still believe that the Brown's would be justified in using force in self-defense because they believe the income tax is theft.

A few people here still supported the Brown's after he and some of their supporters said that they would avenge any violence perpetrated upon them by possibly going after family members of federal employees in revenge.

Many people here don't believe there is a law requiring the payment of income taxes.

I believe there is a law but income taxes are immoral because they violate the absolute right of self-ownership - but not all types of "taxes" do. The only morally defensible position is non-violent, civil disobedience like Lauren is engaging in were you willingly suffer the consequences of an immoral law in order to raise public awareness to somehow change it. Anyone who resists the detainment by violence after violating the law is acting immorally themselves.