Hatred for a "left wing Congress" ends in shootout in Oakland

Here is a classic example of how inflammatory rhetoric, fear mongering, and lies from the right makes the crazies snap.

I-580 shootout suspect mad at left-wing politics

(07-18) 17:59 PDT Oakland -- A 45-year-old parolee, described by his mother as angry at left-wing politicians, opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers on an Oakland freeway early Sunday and was hit by return fire while wearing body armor, authorities said.
Williams' mother, Janice Williams of Groveland, said her son had been living next door and taking care of her father's house and land.
"He hasn't been able to get a job because he's an ex-felon and nobody will hire him," she said.

Read more: link

Don't kid yourself into thinking that Sarah Palin's call for revolution, Sharon Angle's call for "Second Amendment remedies", or Michele Bachman's wanting people "armed and dangerous" hasn't been stoking the flames of the unhinged.
Is it coincidence that Glenn Beck had a 7-hour long call for "American revival" among right-wingers yesterday and today we have someone armed, armored, and dangerous taking pot shots at California Highway Patrol officers?

Sane people have been trying to warn them of this kind of talk, and the responsibility it carries. They are all like, "Wha...who me? Nah!" Well here ya go. This is the outcome. Once you let the crazy out of the inflamed population's bottles, it will be real hard to put it back.
I wonder why Williams was mad about his unemployment. Could it be the republicants keep voting against extending benefits?



MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

[edit on Tue Jul 27 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip...
I wonder why Williams was mad about his unemployment. Could it be the republicants keep voting against extending benefits?

And you realize the Democants have enough power to enable extending benefits... but aren't doing it, right?
... right?

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

Could it be the republicants keep voting against extending benefits?

Doesnt appear to be the case. She specifically said he was pissed at left-wing politicians. I am just guessing, but maybe it had to do with left-wing beliefs and laws they are passing. You know like:
1. Forcing us to buy healthcare from the very insurance companies they spent years telling us were evil, made too much money, etc... While at the same tme doing nothing AT ALL to bring down the cost of healthcare, which was what they kept preaching.
2. Trying to pass Cap and Trade (though under a much nicer sounding name) which will "necessarily skyrocket" the cost of energy in our country in the middle of a major recession.
3. Fighting to give amnesty to illegal aliens while at the same time fighting any attempts to protect the border by the states being negatively impacted by it.
4. Continue to grow a government that is well beyond its constitutional scope, and even the President says is unsustainable while he makes it bigger by the day.

And you wonder why people are calling for revolution, even if it is just metaphorically at this point.

Can you imagine being a conservative in Oakland? Or anywhere near San Fran?

Im sure they usually just commit suicide!

x2 post

[edit on 19-7-2010 by TreadUpon]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Could it be the republicants keep voting against extending benefits?

Maybe we should worry about creating jobs instead of just keeping the unemployed quiet.

reply to post by badgerprints

Maybe we should worry about creating jobs instead of just keeping the unemployed quiet.

Heck it would be a step in the right direction if they just quit killing jobs by creating a hostile environment for businesses and creating new taxes, which they dont call a tax but really are a tax.

Oh please. It's Oakland. They don't need a reason to have a shootout there. It's an Oakland pass time.

Just another nut the left will use to demonize those they don't agree with. And I'm sure the right will bring up Bill Ayers again.

Wake up. You're getting played and you don't even know it. Enjoy defending political scum.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


He got in a shoot out with police because he was facing the three strikes rule:

The Tuolumne County man who engaged in a gun battle with California Highway Patrol officers on an Oakland freeway was a paroled bank robber who could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted under the state's "three strikes and you're out" law, authorities said Monday.

Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2010/07/19/BAJJ1EGJSC.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0uBs7pV7A

His shoot out had nothing to do with "revolution" and everything to do with retarded laws.

Laws created by democrats to keep minorities enslaved forever.

The CA legislator could have prevented this shoot out by allowing judges and juries to decide proper punishments for crimes, instead of circumventing the Constitution and declaring a life sentence for anything the third time.

This violent shoot out is a perfect example of unintended consequences.

When the legislator takes power from the courts, bad things happen.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

oksie doksie 12GaugePermissionSlip...
it's time, do defend your opinion or concede the loss

[edit on 7/19/2010 by abecedarian]

reply to post by abecedarian


12 Gauge is right this was about the left wing congress.

The left wing CA state congress that instituted the three strikes rule.

As Gerald Celente says, when a man has nothing left to lose, he loses it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by abecedarian

 

12 Gauge is right this was about the left wing congress.

The left wing CA state congress that instituted the three strikes rule.

As Gerald Celente says, when a man has nothing left to lose, he loses it.

okay, how so?
3 strikes rule, how does that affect things?
and how would you, mnemeth1 resolve that with the 'republicant' comment made by 12G?

[edit on 7/19/2010 by abecedarian]

reply to post by mnemeth1

He got in a shoot out with police because he was facing the three strikes rule:

Oh yea, that was it. Was he facing three strikes for sitting at home watching tv, or because he was armed with a pistol, shotgun and a rifle, as well as wearing bullet proof armor, driving recklessly through Oakland?

reply to post by mnemeth1

The left wing CA state congress that instituted the three strikes rule.

California passed its own in 1994, when that state voters passed Proposition 184 by an overwhelming majority. 72% in favor and 28% against.
en.wikipedia.org...

Nice try, but you fail.

His response is the norm for those who still possess their sanity.

Gee wonder why the hundreds of other shoot outs in Oakland never make the news...Just more reinforcing by media of the right vs left paradigm that keeps people divided, controlled, and poor... Sigh!

reply to post by angrysniper


You must be talking about my response, thanks! I do still have my sanity.

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The left wing CA state congress that instituted the three strikes rule.

California passed its own in 1994, when that state voters passed Proposition 184 by an overwhelming majority. 72% in favor and 28% against.
en.wikipedia.org...

Nice try, but you fail.

The legislature can overturn a statue if they want to.

The democrats have chosen not to.

Further, the Supreme Court upheld the statute as not violating the 8th amendment of the US Constitution (which it clearly does), so we can pin part of the blame for this shooting on them as well.

These mandatory sentencing laws not only violate the 8th amendment, they result in life sentences for people like this woman who forced a 13 year old boy to touch her breast:



Bad? Sure.

Worthy of life in prison, paid for by my tax dollars?

I think not.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1


He got in a shoot out with police because he was facing the three strikes rule:

The Tuolumne County man who engaged in a gun battle with California Highway Patrol officers on an Oakland freeway was a paroled bank robber who could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted under the state's "three strikes and you're out" law, authorities said Monday.

Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2010/07/19/BAJJ1EGJSC.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0uBs7pV7A

Wow. Circular logic anyone?

He has two strikes on his record, meaning he could face a possible prison term of 25 years to life if convicted of a third strike in connection with the shootout, said CHP Officer Sam Morgan.

From your source ^

He is facing the "three strikes" law because he decided to go out and shoot up a few police officers. He was in no danger of arrest before he chose to don a bullet proof vest, drive onto public roadways with a suspended license, and open fire on innocent people.

And you blame "Laws created by democrats to keep minorities enslaved forever." Absolutely imbecilic.

Sorry, but I haven't read something this laughable on ATS in quite some time. A twice-convicted felon goes out and shoots people, and you somehow find a way to blame the Democrats for it. Well done.

My apologies.

Double Post.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by drwizardphd]