Posted on 11/07/2001 10:37:51 PM PST by TaZ
William Cooper, decorated Vietnam Veteran, Patriot Broadcaster and Father apparently went "over-the edge" over the past couple of years. At first, I was speculative regarding the initial press releases issued by the Apache County Sheriff's Office. We have seen the evil NWO media dog's spin before regarding the Ruby Ridge and the Waco Texas massacres, which were inititiated under the color of law.
But, from the lips of one of Mr. Cooper's friends, as well as Alex Jones, Mr. Cooper had underwent some troubling changes over the past couple of years. Alex Jones theorized that Mr. Cooper had fought the evil forces of the NWO for too long, and became embittered and morose concerning the future of America. Of course Alex Jones, true to his rebellious and billigerent nature, discounted even the damning testimony brought forth by Mr. Cooper's friend, who also personally knows the Doctor that the frothing Cooper chased off of "his" mountain (actually it is a mesa that Cooper doesn't own, he owns only two lots on it, and has threatened at gun point anyone who attempts to enter the public lands). The Doctor is a local man who grew up in Eagar, and returned to establish a practice following medical school. Cooper was so enraged at the Doctor trespassing "on his mountain" that he walked down off from the mesa and put a gun in the doctor's face when he answered the door, saying "If you ever come up on my mountain again, I'll kill you."
Well, the Sheriff's office had no choice but to respond to the Doctor's filing of aggravated assault charges and device a plan to take Cooper alive. Cooper it seems, had made it known to all that he would never be taken alive. It seems that the Apache Sheriff's officers actually liked Cooper, and had kept the Feds at bay who had issued a warrant for his arrest over three years ago, saying that they wouldn't allow Cooper to be made into a Martyr as was his fatal wish.
Alex Jones interview of William Cooper's friend.
It appears that although William Cooper had fought the good fight over the years concerning our out-of-control government, in the end he was just another nut who misused his Right to bear Arms to threaten and hurt other law abiding Americans.
IMO the "shills" are the ones who try and lump anyone who challenges government with the Coopers of the world.
And he came out with a loaded firearm to put the teenager out of her pain, a common occurance in "Christian nature"./s
This situation OBVIOUSLY was not a case of a nut running onto other property shooting people.
Cooper had been harassed repeatedly by liberal NWO covert types. People who physically caused him to loose his leg.
He had to send his family out of the country to protect them.
He was dedicated to the basics behind the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
He merely established for himself a safehaven, known by most people as his home.
Why do others insist upon invading his home?
He wasn't seeking glory for himself. He had identified a major conspiracy involving the occult in US government.
He had been threatened physically and harmed physically in the past. He took responsible measures to defend himself and still use his freedom of speech to discuss what he had investigated and believed was a threat to the Constitution.
Anybody believing this killing by the "police" was justifiable is pennywise and pound foolish.
I'd encourage some others here to study property rights a bit more. Apparantly, there is no such thing as private property except 'their' private property in some people's minds.
According to the post, he did not own all of the land he had staked out for his "security". I believe it is public land and that kind of diminishes his right to be king-of-the-hill.
Oh, really? How did he know they were LEOs?
http://www.williamcooper.com/
But this specific incident did NOT involve trespass upon Cooper's property.
Even after warnings and communications not to threaten Cooper's security area, they still insisted upon approaching him, then charged him with aggravated assault when he warned them that he would next use deadly force to defend himself.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with someone as mentally ill as Cooper apparently was.
If Cooper had the right to order that person off of property that Cooper did not own to enforce a "security area," then I have the right to order you out of MY security area.
Which I happen to deem to be the entire Earth. Get movin', sonny-boy.
A group of wusses that can't take on an old cripple honestly aren't exactly constitutional.
Do you need some help wiping that NWO brown stuff off of your nose?
In the real estate appraisal business, I must go on other people's property all the time. They have no idea I am coming, they go through the bank, and the bank places the order with us. Most homeowners don't realize that someone actually will come to their house when it is a drive-by. When I drive onto these people's property and they are there, they usually walk out and inquire what I am doing in a very polite manner. "
Oh where to begin??
I believe I now understand your position, point of view, and approach. Please bear with me, I'm not a lawyer, but it appears we both have performed some similar work.
I'd recommend some good legal anthologies on Property Law. Man, you've been lucky, if nobody has shot you yet by trespassing the way you imply, and yes, they may have many very good reasons and rights to do just that. It might not matter what you intend. It is their land. A litany of common law, regulatory law, case law, and criminal law may give real property owners benefit of the doubt in using deadly force to defend their interests.
Especially in the case of Cooper, who is by no means typical. He's closer to a modern day Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, than an old geezer in the gutter.
No suggestion is being made that colloquially, a property owner should place a barrell of a gun in the mouth of somebody who sets foot on their parcel. In counterexample, If you climbed over a teller's window at a bank with a water pistol and started placing dollar bills from an open till in your pocket, I'm sure some reasonable arguments could be made wherein deadly force isn't justified, but common sensically, deadly force will probably be employed by bank guards.
If I may be so bold, let me suggest a different approach by the officers in Cooper's case. One officer park his car off Cooper's property, on the public street. Walk up to Cooper's house after giving him a telephone call letting him know he was approaching. Discuss the accusation with Cooper. Calmly communicate to Cooper the limits of Cooper's power to use deadly force and how he might still be able to defend himself without encroaching upon others. Walk away from the scene as a friend of Cooper's. Go back and arrest the trespasser who filed the inital complaint after repetitive encroachments for purjury.
Nobody would have been killed. Peace would have been maintained. And the fellow provoking the contrived argument would have suffered the risk of false testimony and his initial unwanted encroachment.
BTW, just because a bank has an interest or a title on a parcel, doesn't insure they have authority to ingress/egress without notice to the landowner or possessor of the deed. his might vary, state to state, but Cooper wasn't just out shooting at bypassers from his property. On the initial complaint, he followed the trespasser off his property. Cooper also may have a decent case for some legal interest in the land surrounding his deeded to others. In the case of the fellow claining to have been a victim of aggravated assault because Cooper was carrying a weapon when he was escorted off the land, Cooper might have been defending the public interest in the BLM property as one defense.
I strongly believe that the initiating events surrounding these deaths were not mere happenstance. Had they simply been a case of mistaken identity, the Sheriff's could have handled the situation entirely differently and peacefully.
Huh? Would you mind explaining, in detail, what the point of this statement is?
In case you didn't notice, this was the county sheriff attempting to ARREST Mr. Cooper on a charge of aggravated assault. Now, are you trying to argue that they should have just gone up to his house, guns blazing? Or are you trying to argue that they should have walked up like clay pigeons and let him shot them, as he had threatened to do on two previous occasions?
In either event, Mr. Cooper would be guaranteed to be dead. They were TRYING to arrest him alive so that they could give him that "due process" thingie mentioned in the Fifth Amendment. Unfortunately, Mr. Cooper didn't want "due process."
Do you need some help wiping that NWO brown stuff off of your nose?
Wow, that was SUCH a fine rebuttal of the point I made. Your intellectual prowess is truly amazing, as is your grasp of issues of Constitutional law. I am honored that you would deign to speak to me, sir.
The "friend" of Cooper who was on the Jones show, at least the first night (I can't recall his name), had been repudiated by Cooper as someone who betrayed him, which a caller pointed out to Alex near the end of the show. His assertions should be seen in that light.
And Alex's "theorizing" on what happened to Mr. Cooper is just that.
My position is that the initial complainant has a story which is highly suspicious. Cooper wasn't hiding his concern for his security and probably had good justifiable cause for concern.
Even if every point here has been satiated, Cooper probably invited an attack from every Satanist, Luciferian, many FreeMasons, and even UFO extremists. He had good reason to defend his home and surrounding area from any perceived threat. Doesn't seem like the Sheriff helped to protect Cooper when such threats exist, regardless if they were active or inactive in this case.
The allegation is that the man Cooper went after NEVER WENT ON COOPER'S PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Second, Cooper DID NOT have the authority to chase the man down AFTER he left the BLM land and stick a gun in his face.
Right there, we have two serious violations alleged, and Cooper was charged. Now, if he were a true patriot and friend of the Constitution, he could demand a trial by a jury of his peers. Instead, he THREATENED TO SHOOT the sheriff's deputies IN TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS prior to this one.
Face it: your hero was a very sick man, and he CHOSE to go out this way.
I find however that in this case, the uniquely overwhelming characteristic is the identity of one of the victims.
I have no intention of labeling Cooper a saint. I suspect there were lots of things about which he was grossly mistaken and he was probably very abrasive to the point of bordering on violating interpretations of criminal or common law somewhere.
With that said, I sortof like the old geezer's writings and Conspiracy Theories. I suspect a lot of them were hogwash or at least the actual linkages he made probably weren't the modus operendi of the actual persons he discusses.
But his theories were very well studied, provided some incredible connections which if not real by man's hand, probably tip the hand of fallen angels.
Substantial cause existed for many third parties to cause Cooper's silence or death. Cooper was aware of this, yet still exhibited a desire to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights within the US.
Labeling Cooper as a 'militia' type fails to correctly identify his significance. Conspiracy theorist is a better label and considering his background, probably had some insights not commonly derived by others in the public or junior levels of government.
Considering we are fighting a 'War on Terror', Cooper probably could have provided some significant intel on describing actual threats. Others could place appropriate value on his effort, but few had many of his insights.
From an intel point of view, his death might be considered by some to be just as controversial as that of Colby or Boorda.
I don't know to what extent Cooper threatened the man or if it simply was the case that Cooper displayed he was armed initially and had the man turn around and followed him off the land.
My initial impressions from other reports were that the 'doctor' didn't drop the issue and pursued it via placing charges on Cooper or accusing Cooper of aggrevated assault.
Again, I'll point out that Cooper would likely have been a target of many a less than desirable figure and criminal deploying deceptive methods to decisively engage and defeat Cooper.
I would say Cooper's case isn't the norm and he wasn't an enemy but a friend,...albeit isolated and perhaps overly cautious.
With that said, "luring" him out under false pretenses sure doesn't do much to eliminate a healthy paranoia if the Sheriff's officers were well intentioned.
Since this was Cooper as a victim, it would be well to investigate all the officers involved in case this was a Satanic/Luciferian/occultic group conspiracy to murder Cooper, then kill an innocent officer and blame the entire affair on the dead man. Less plausible plots have been performed. (pardon the alliteration_).
For the record, there was no warrant -- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case ( June 2001) says that the U.S. Marshals were on the property for surveillance to serve a warrant "at a later time."
The U.S. Marshals also claimed immunity in court for making a false report, for lying to the grand jury, and for lying in court.
But some appear to be Sarah Brady moles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.