Replies

"The government's bad behavior generally is not in any case cancelled by this guy's response.

It would be intellectually dishonest if, by the above, you were implying that the man's response (gunfire) were somehow mitigated by the government's bad behavior. Defending the indefensible is just as wrong for us as for the government. If I were trying to make a name for myself in the arena of father's rights and divorce reform, I'd damn well learn the details before I condemned LEOs and defended a man - father or otherwise - who opened fire on them.

As a men's and father's rights advocate myself, this is not a hill that I would chose to die on.

It would be intellectually dishonest if, by the above, you were implying that the man's response (gunfire) were somehow mitigated by the government's bad behavior. Defending the indefensible is just as wrong for us as for the government. If I were trying to make a name for myself in the arena of father's rights and divorce reform, I'd damn well learn the details before I condemned LEOs and defended a man - father or otherwise - who opened fire on them.

Worthy of a repeat.

Personally, I'm not a weak-kneed bogus politician. I don't accept leaving guys on the battlefield. The interferring problem is the same one I have every time I hear about a particular case. I don't know these particular guys. I don't know the circumstances. I can't make judgments in individual cases just from hearing a little about them. I've always refused opportunities to argue about individual cases. But the article is saying that the ultimate cause of this whole thing was that a guy was behind in child support payments. I don't have to reach a conclusion just from this case. I know what's going on generally, and it's wrong. The government is culpable because of their overall behavior toward fathers who owe child support. I'm not extracting that conclusion from the article alone. I already knew that the government's behavior was wrong before I read about this particular incident. My position is that the government is no less culpable when shots are fired. I think at least we can apply the logical fact that two wrongs do not make a right. The government's bad behavior generally is not in any case cancelled by this guy's response.

"It would be intellectually dishonest if, by the above, you were implying that the man's response (gunfire) were somehow mitigated by the government's bad behavior. Defending the indefensible is just as wrong for us as for the government. If I were trying to make a name for myself in the arena of father's rights and divorce reform, I'd damn well learn the details before I condemned LEOs and defended a man - father or otherwise - who opened fire on them.

"As a men's and father's rights advocate myself, this is not a hill that I would chose to die on."

I think it's possible to point out that the situation was clearly created by the vindictive income confiscation/redistribution scheme that's marketed as "child support", without defending the guy who went over the edge.

I would challenge anyone to argue the reverse, i.e., if the "child support" industry was reigned in, that these "postal events" would still happen with the same frequency. I'd love to see the "logic" they'd have to invoke to make their story fit together. "Men are inherently violent brutes", perhaps?