US citizen kills ecoprotesters in Panama

[Ron]

https://nypost.com/2023/11/08/news/gunman-seen-shooting-dead-eco-protesters-in-panama/

American lawyer, 77, busted in Panama after gunning down two eco-protesters blocking highway in shocking video

Can anyone identify what weapon he was using?

This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?

[WLJ]

Glock 26 would be my guess

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12728101/kenneth-darlington-panama-climate-change-protesters-shoot-dead.html

[charby]

This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?

I'll take mental health issues for a $1000, Alex.

[Brad Johnson]

This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?

"I'm old, I'm pissed, and since no one is doing anything about this *expletive deleted*it I guess I'll have to."

Brad

[WLJ]

I just edited my above guess to Glock 26 after I noticed there's no front rail

[Pb]

This is a weird story, what could he possibly have been thinking?

Not very far ahead, is my guess. 

[HankB]

Much better to steer clear of these things, ESPECIALLY in a foreign country. (Story said he had dual citizenship, but still . . .  ) I wager that had this 77 year old done the same here, he'd spend the rest of his life in MUCH nicer prison conditions than he'll find down in Panama.

Hmmm . . . couldn't an argument be made that by arresting the shooter and not arresting the people blocking the highway, the police have joined with the criminals and are functioning as their security detail?

[Brad Johnson]

...arresting the shooter and not arresting the people blocking the highway, the police have joined with the criminals and are functioning as their security detail?

That's a big part of the problem all over. The freedom to protest is a sacrosanct right but it's been been weaponized to the point where actions which deprive others of their rights - or even puts them in danger - aren't just tolerated, they're protected by law enforcement. Protestors have been allowed to run roughshod, with full police protection, over pretty much every part of society. That's bred an "anything goes" attitude and needs to stop. Want to stand on the side of the road, hold a sign, and scream your lungs out? Fine by me. That's your right. Want to blockade a road because you're pissy about something? You're a criminal. Go to jail.

I can't recall which, but haven't some states enacted legal protections for drivers who run over barriers, and protestors, because they're being attacked by a mob in the street and are in fear for their lives?

Brad

[MechAg94]

I haven't heard any final results, but I think in most cases people who run over people to escape have been okay.  I don't know about people who plow through protests injuring people. 

I recall a new law was proposed in one state.  I don't know if it passed.

[Angel Eyes]

[WLJ]

Doesn't take long for the memes to get started

[WLJ]

[WLJ]

Crap ton more at this link

https://twitter.com/Alphafox78/status/1722477901579440512

[dogmush]

That's a big part of the problem all over. The freedom to protest is a sacrosanct right but it's been been weaponized to the point where actions which deprive others of their rights - or even puts them in danger - aren't just tolerated, they're protected by law enforcement. Protestors have been allowed to run roughshod, with full police protection, over pretty much every part of society. That's bred an "anything goes" attitude and needs to stop. Want to stand on the side of the road, hold a sign, and scream your lungs out? Fine by me. That's your right. Want to blockade a road because you're pissy about something? You're a criminal. Go to jail.

I can't recall which, but haven't some states enacted legal protections for drivers who run over barriers, and protestors, because they're being attacked by a mob in the street and are in fear for their lives?

Brad

So who get's to decide when a cause is OK to block a road for?  Because I'm pretty sure there were a lot of pissed off drivers for this one:



I'm not going to say that global warming whining is on the same level as Dr. King's push to get people to be allowed to vote, but that is a danger when you start saying "people can protest, but..."  If the cause was popular they wouldn't need to protest.

In the cases where mobs attack drivers like we saw last week in MN? Sure, go weapons free.  *expletive deleted*ck those guys.  But the superglue to the road dipshits are pretty non-violent. 

[Angel Eyes]

So who get's to decide when a cause is OK to block a road for?  Because I'm pretty sure there were a lot of pissed off drivers for this one:

Didn't they have a permit for that?

[Brad Johnson]

but that is a danger when you start saying "people can protest, but..."  If the cause was popular they wouldn't need to protest.

If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.

Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.

Brad

[WLJ]

Getting stuck in traffic cause by a protest is no reason to start shooting people however inconvenient it may be.
Having your car surrounded by a violent mob threatening to pull you out of the car and kill you is.

[Pb]

Nobody should be allowed to block the road for a protest... except maybe if it is cleared so there are cops to re-direct traffic.  Maybe?

People shouldn't shoot anyone just for blocking the road either.

[AZRedhawk44]

The violence came during the third week of protests over a large mining contract that allows Canada-based First Quantum Minerals to operate the region’s largest pit copper mine for at least 20 more years.

Senor D'Anconia could not be reached for comment.

As he was loaded into the police transport, Mr. Darlington was heard muttering "Who is John Galt?" under his breath.

[AZRedhawk44]

That's a hell of an action photo.  The bokeh, the lighting, the spent case at eyebrow level.  Someone with some serious equipment took that photo.  That's a major telephoto lens with a large aperture to get enough light for that shutter speed to get the brass not to smear in motion.  And that much subject separation from the background.

[dogmush]

Didn't they have a permit for that?

Considering the State Police attacked and beat them, I'm going to assume they did not.  At least not for the whole 50 or so miles.

If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.

Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.

Brad

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here:  Your position is that freedom to use a road trumps any cause for protest, and that the Selma marchers should have been punished up to the legal limit for blocking the road between Selma and Montgomery?

I'm not sure I'd go that far even if, as I said, the eco protestors are not IMHO as righteous as MLK was.

[Brad Johnson]

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here:  Your position is that freedom to use a road trumps any cause for protest, and that the Selma marchers should have been punished up to the legal limit for blocking the road between Selma and Montgomery?

If they weren't permitted to block a motorway? Yes.

Just because history looks favorably on the act now doesn't take away from it being a malicious imposition on others then. Again, it's an "ends justify the means" argument, a very dangerous and quite slippery slope.

Also, it's not "freedom to use a road" we're talking about, it's "malicious imposition of your feelings/position/cause" upon others. Using the former excuses the blocking actor's actions by implying it's the motorists' fault for wanting to properly use an unimpeded public roadway.

Brad

[dogmush]

Isn't any effective protest an "imposition of your feelings/position/cause" upon others?

[Ron]

I'm opposed to protests blocking major thoroughfares 100%. If you want me to have empathy for your cause don't act in a borderline anarchist manner, flaunting the law, punishing innocent people by disrupting their lives. Not to mention the reallocation of emergency service personal AND as is typically seen, the disruption of their fastest routes to real emergencies.   

Haul the protesters all away, ticket them and call it good. If they resist, even passively, charge them with resisting arrest, trespassing etc.

I'm opposed to running over or shooting non-violent protesters.

 

[230RN]

If you want to protect the abuse and weaponization of a right to the detriment of others, go ahead. That's the "ends justify the means" argument. Me, I'm different. I think wrong is wrong, and that actively weaponizing a right to the point it knowingly deprives others of their possessions or freedoms should be punishable up to whatever legal limit applies.

Protection of inalienable rights is the most valiant of causes and due every effort possible. Intentional abuse of rights for malevolent means, no matter how noble the intent or end result, is abhorrent.

Brad

Agreed and kudos.

"But the superglue to the road dipshits are pretty non-violent."

I see that as committing a false arrest.

A crime is a a crime.  And a crime for a "good cause" demeans the value of the word "good."  (Besides still being a crime.)