Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:36AM   Printer-friendly

An unemployed motorcycle mechanic who gunned down airport screening officers at Los Angeles International Airport in a 2013 attack that sent passengers running for their lives pleaded guilty Tuesday to murder and 10 other charges.

Paul Ciancia agreed last week to plead guilty to all 11 charges in the rampage that killed one officer and wounded two others and a teacher who was headed for a flight.

Ciancia, 26, was spared the death penalty by entering the plea but faces a mandatory life term in prison.

[...] Ciancia, who was living in the Los Angeles area after growing up in Pennsville, New Jersey, said in the note that he wanted to kill at least one TSA officer but hoped to kill more.

"If you want to play that game where you pretend that every American is a terrorist, you're going to learn what a self-fulfilling prophecy is," his note said, according to court documents.

The note added, "I want to instill fear in your traitorous minds. I want it to always be in the back of your head just how easy it is to take a weapon to the beginning of your Nazi checkpoints."

Ciancia signed the note with his name, adding beneath it, "Pissed-off Patriot."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LA_AIRPORT_SHOOTING
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:26AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:26AM (#399099)

    Some of his ideas are valid but unfortunately he choose an ill-fated path to resolve this conflict. I don't claim to know his exact thoughts but I do know there are a growing number of people who have given up on the very notion of political reform, believing that violent revolt is the only solution and it seems like he may be one of those people. While the system may not change overnight, the system will be changed if the people want it to be changed by choosing an alternative. It's the inability to see that an alternative is even possible that lands people in a vicious cycle of ever growing anger and resentment.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Jiro on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:30PM

    by Jiro (3176) on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:30PM (#399138)

    Some of his ideas are valid but unfortunately he choose an ill-fated path to resolve this conflict.

    It's funny you never hear anyone say this about right-wing shooters (at least not in most of the media and Internet). Anyone who tries gets told he's a right-wing shitlord who's making excuses for violence and he must immediately and completely condemn the shooter.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:07PM (#399184)

      > It's funny you never hear anyone say this about right-wing shooters (at least not in most of the media and Internet)

      Hello? You never hear anyone say this about any terrorists.

      You know the Boston Bombers? They were pissed about US military involvement in muslim countries. The surviving brother literally wrote a confession while he was hiding in that boat that said, “Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop.”

    • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday September 10 2016, @11:57PM

      by Gravis (4596) on Saturday September 10 2016, @11:57PM (#400144)

      It's funny you never hear anyone say this about right-wing shooters

      how do you know anything about the political leaning of this person?

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:01PM (#399179)

    > I do know there are a growing number of people who have given up on the very notion of political reform,

    How do you know that?

    Radical and reactionary terrorism is nothing new.
    Here is a very incomplete list you might recognize:

    Timothy McVeigh
    Ted Kaczynski
    Symbionese Liberation Army
    Arthur Bremer
    John Hinckley Jr
    Sirhan Sirhan
    Lee Harvey Oswald

    There are hundreds more cases from just the 20th century alone.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:43PM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:43PM (#399228) Journal

    the system will be changed if the people want it to be changed by choosing an [non-violent] alternative

    A big barrier to this is that if you choose a non-violent alternative which you have the moral AND legal standing to do, it carries a significant risk of violence being brought to you. (Now, this shouldn't stop people from trying, but it needs to be kept in mind.) Another barrier is bystanding people who hold fast to the mistaken idea that just because government (i.e. law enforcement) takes action against someone, it means that someone did something wrong.

    One example is an article published by Oathkeepers, in which a woman was killed in her home during a confrontation with police after she pointed a shotgun in the cops' direction. Check your thought process now: was the woman deserving of the confrontation? A more complete version of the story starts with her first interaction with police: some time ago she was pulled over after a cop saw her car had a homemade placard instead of license plates. Everything else that resulted began at that seminal event: "government" initated the association; "government" refused to leave her alone; "government" tracked her down to her home and sent armed men to drag her out; therefore it is safe to say that Korryn Gaines was murdered because her car didn't have proper government-mandated ornamentation. [oathkeepers.org] If you describe yourself as someone who "supports the police", then in this case, you must also support killing people who object to being forced to pay for and display government identification (the license plates, in this case).

    Since when do free people need government licenses to work (e-verify), travel (RealID [papersplease.org], literal passports), build domiciles (Carl Drega, Adam Kokesh [youtube.com]), or conduct mutually-voluntary trade (Roger Bean [lewrockwell.com])? I assert that free people do not require government licensing, and that all attempts to force compliance is literally criminal. [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:25PM (#399263)

      exactly. the armchair quarterbacks who say that non violent means would have been better have not actually tried to live free. they will quickly find that the government doesn't condone freedom of association, religion, the 2nd amendment, etc. just look at Waco. want to live with like minded people and raise your kids while preparing for government intervention and maybe a rapture or two? Janet Reno's got a cheap rental car to run over your kids charred carcass with! Or ruby ridge where they shoot your wife in the head while she's holding a baby and kill your kids dog then spray him up the back with an mp5. these traitors only understand power. nothing else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:41PM (#399275)

        > who say that non violent means would have been better have not actually tried to live free.

        And how have those violent means worked out so far? We've had well over two centuries in which violence has never achieved the intended results.

        In fact, every social milestone in this country was achieved through non-violence. Just because non-violence frequently fails doesn't make violence successful.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:49PM (#399350)

          And how have those violent means worked out so far? We've had well over two centuries in which violence has never achieved the intended results.

          Political power IS violence. Don't just take an AC's word for it: "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Chairman Mao Zedong

          Violence itself is a tool, much like a knife - it has an essential place in human life. It is morally (and legally) used only in defense. This is why political power is so insidious: its use is initiated against people and this is largely perceived as proper. Violence created the United States of America. Violence conquered the Confederate States of America. Violence wrested power away from corrupt law enforcement in Athens, Tennessee. Violence caused the USA to greviously wound its own self in late 2001. The threat of violence and the means to use it prevented a slaughter at the Bundy family's Nevada ranch in ~2014.

          The use of violence has accomplished much more than you want to give credit for. I don't advocate for the use of violence except as a last resort in response to another's violence, but to damn violence wholesale is to invite your own violent death... and the deaths of many others [jpfo.org].

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:49PM (#399349)

      She shouldn't have been driving on roads that my tax dollars pay for maintaining. Yes, you do need to display government ornamentation or however you want to put it if you want to drive on those roads. Build your own roads and knock yourself out if you want to drive without government ornamentation.

      This is the ultimate problem with the "taxes are theft!" crowd. You want all the benefits of civilization without paying for them. Basically, you want free shit.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:03PM (#399355)

        She shouldn't have been driving on roads that my tax dollars pay for maintaining

        So, you are of the opinion that it was good that Korryn Gaines was killed - killed because she did not display identification government agents demanded? Not much I can say to this mindset other than point it out in plain terms. Here's the kicker: Korryn Gaines was not a freeloader - she paid for her use of the roads just as you do: via the gasoline tax.

        You also are likely woefully wrong about the supposed benefits of civilization that you think you are getting. To start you off with just one: the police are not responsible for your safety [jpfo.org]. In fact, you can be a woman who called the police because rapists are in your house right now, raping your friends downstairs, and if the cops decide to never show up, they can't be held responsible even if their station is right down the street. If that sounds incredulous, look at the court case of Warren vs D.C. [wikipedia.org] and discover to your horror that this actually happened.

        Civilization is the thinnest of veneers, and it's best to figure this out before you are confronted with harsh reality and the inevitable consequences for supporting, even indirectly, the murder of people you don't like.

    • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday September 10 2016, @07:09PM

      by Gravis (4596) on Saturday September 10 2016, @07:09PM (#400069)

      I assert that free people do not require government licensing, and that all attempts to force compliance is literally criminal.

      Government licensing is only needed when your actions (or lack thereof) could impact other members of society. If you have no interface with society then you are free to do as you please. The rules are a way to avoid conflict which paradoxically means violating the rules causes conflict. The real question is, how many people's freedom are you willing to violate in the name of your own freedom?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @09:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @09:40AM (#400243)

        Government licensing is only needed when your actions (or lack thereof) could impact other members of society

        You are presumably a male and thus presumably have a penis. Thus you have the equipment and a potential motive to rape someone else. Please report to your nearest federal government center to apply for your penis-possession license.

        More plainly: it doesn't matter how unsafe you feel regarding other people doing things you are afraid of, because you have zero authority to make them take any action so long as they am not actually harming you or your property. Because you have no such authority, you therefore cannot delegate something you don't have to a government. If you choose to live in a sardine box with other fish that possess teeth, you have no authority to demand the other fishes' teeth be pulled because you're nervous about the possibility of being bitten. If you want to feel safer from other people, try moving your own self away from the people you're scared of - you DO have THAT authority.