I wanna display the Piss Christ. Ya think Pamela Gellerst will stand up for my 1st Amendment rights??
I’ve wondered something similar…if a bunch of atheists, for example, held a “draw hot Jesus” cartoon contest, would these same groups still be insisting that the cartoon contest was all about first amendment rights?
It’s possible they might not, but they won’t kill anyone over it. Although I’ve never gotten the impression that the anti-Islamist movement is even all that Religious Right. It seems more like an alliance of the secular right and non-PC left to me.
Then there’s the matter of federal money promoting blasphemy, which is a legitimate issue even if you’re a hardcore first amendment backer. Would the NEA fund a Muhammed painting? Don’t think so. That’s picking and choosing among religions then, which is a 1st amendment no-no.
“Hot Jesus”? The Onion published a cartoon of Jesus in the middle of a graphically explicit gay orgy and somehow people refrained from trying to murder them for it.
Has anyone gotten to read a more detailed account of the shootout itself?
The news media pictures show police with the heavy stuff - military style camouflage, plate carriers, and M4 style rifles.
But there’s also this story going around that none of those police were actually involved in the shootout, being elsewhere. Instead, the bad guys pull out their rifles and start shooting. The bad guys have initiative and the choice of where to stand.
Any bad guy with even basic training would probably know to pick a spot with some cover (behind the engine block of a car is about the best you can do if you *have *to fight from a parking lot), and not to display their weapons until they are ready to fire, and to aim and get a clear sight picture of the target before pulling the trigger, and to squeeze the trigger carefully…
At across the parking lot range, with 2 bad guys with rifles, I literally cannot see any possible way they could not have shot at least 2 people in the chest (assuming they coordinate minimally so that they don’t try to shoot the same guy) before the good guy defenders could have done anything.
Instead, they hit one guy in the foot and get shot in the head by a…traffic cop with a .45 caliber pistol?
The heck? How did the guy get 2 headshots in 15 seconds with a pistol? How did the bad guys not shoot him first? How did the cop handle the recoil?
Supposedly, the traffic cop wasn’t even wearing a plate carrier that would stop assault rifle rounds - he just had a regular vest on. It sounds like the cop was both an incredible shot with the pistol and insanely lucky he saw the guys before they shot him first.
Still, with terrorists like these… Why didn’t the bad guys scout the target, minimally, before they threw away their lives? Had they walked into the place, they would have seen heavily armed cops with plate carriers - they would have known they were asking for an immediate and swift death.
Thankfully, most of these guys are abysmally bad. Probably comes with the territory of being out of their damn minds in the first place.
Habeeb, this article with photos at bearingarms.com may answer some of your questions. I am uncertain whether all of the evidence markers that the article mentions correspond to shots the patrol officer fired, as distinct from the shots the following-on SWAT officers shot at one of the terrorists.
Simply put, the patrol officer was prepared, extremely proficient with his service pistol (I have read that the officer is a Master classed shooter in USPSA, and therefore used to shooting on the move) and was facing two schmucks. Albeit two schmucks armed with long guns—the Kel-Tec Sub-2000 carbine and the AK-74 variant—and at least one of whom was equipped with soft body armor. It is unlikely given their performance that the bad guys had any basic training that made an impression. IMHO, you are correct that two guys with even the basic training that professional armies give their infantrymen, would have done the things you suggest.
As to how the officer was able to shoot two guys with a pistol that fast, here’s an example of just how fast USPSA shooters can go with a .45 ‘regular’ pistol, as opposed to a dedicated “race gun.”
I have to think that the officer initially recognized that the assailants were armored, as most accounts of the shooting indicate that he went for head shots. It may be that he shot COM at first, saw some indication of armor, and then went for head shots instead. I just don’t know. Using a pistol against an armored opponent with a long gun can end very badly, as the very brave Mark Wilson found out.
Anyway, I hope the linked article at the top helps answer some of your questions.
(underline added)
Is Gellerst required to stand up for your 1st Amendment rights? You have the option of standing up for your free speech. How do you intend to force others to stand up for your free speech? It would still be their choice, wouldn’t it?
However, I don’t believe anyone should be rationalizing your attempted murder for drawing a cartoon.
The real question would be:
Would Gellerst claim that you should be murdered for promoting piss art? You’re entitled to your own “taste” in art, right? No matter how disgusting that “taste” may be. Free speech, an all.
If a babble of atheists held a cartoon contest, it would still fall under free speech. But I wouldn’t count on “these same groups” promoting your contest.
(post shortened)
Who’s side are you on? A couple of asshole terrorists decided to murder people because they drew cartoons. The assholes wanted to die for their ass-holey beliefs and a Garland, Texas, police officer help them achieve their goal.
A good guy with a gun stopped two bad guys with guns. Gun control means learning to hit your target.
Huh? “Forced” free speech? People certainly shouldn’t be forced to agree whole-heartedly with every little thing someone else says, writes, draws, or creates…I’m just wondering, in the case of people like Geller who claim to be champions of free speech, just where they might draw the line. Would she still denounce attacks on speech or art even if the topic being presented was offensive to her?
I have no idea what Geller’s position is on free speech (or which Geller you’re referring to). If you wish to know Gellerst’s position on piss, or poop, art, you could try asking Gellerst.
“Geller” was a typo.
Bosch the winner actually won $12,500.00. The event was live streamed, until the room was cleared.
He has a comic called the Infidel, featuring Pigman. He talks about it a little at the contest, thought given your name you might find that interesting.