AZ anti-immigration activist convicted of murder

[rareboy]

I'm sure all of her Teabagger friends over at Stormfront are going to be some upset.

 

[laikaNYC]

The Minutemen were wise to expell this psycho when they did. I can't imagine what she did or said to get the boot from them.

 

[rareboy]

Questions About Nativist Leader’s Story Continue

A recent story in The Daily Herald detailing the troubled past of border vigilante Shawna Forde has provoked yet another round of crossfire among leaders of rival Minuteman factions and other prominent nativists.

It all began when Forde, who heads Minutemen American Defense (MAD), reported several brutal attacks this winter and implied that she’d been targeted because of her anti-illegal immigration efforts. Although the incidents are still under investigation, The Herald published a revealing profile of Forde in late February that provided more fodder for both her critics and her supporters within the anti-immigration movement. The article described a difficult childhood — including a stint in foster care and allegations of physical and sexual abuse — a lengthy criminal record that began when she was 11, the loss of a baby to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and problems with mental illness. Forde also told The Herald that the perpetrators of the attacks might have been local criminals rather than Hispanic gang members.

http://www.democraticunderground.co...sg&forum=389&topic_id=5841079&mesg_id=5841079

Some pretty interesting insights into this nutcake's head.

The problem is, if you compare her to all the folks posting on the white supremacist sites like Stormfront.....she sounds like the sane one.

 

[jackoroe]

Maybe if the government took their obligation to secure our borders seriously, nutjobs like this wouldn't be trying to finance their own efforts to do so.

 

[Ninja108]

Maybe if the government took their obligation to secure our borders seriously, nutjobs like this wouldn't be trying to finance their own efforts to do so.

At the end of the day, she still chose to carry out the cold blooded murder of innocent people. That fact shouldn't be lost.

 

[jackoroe]

At the end of the day, she still chose to carry out the cold blooded murder of innocent people. That fact shouldn't be lost.

No you are absolutely right about that. She needs to pay the ultimate penalty for this heinous act. But people are becoming more and more frustrated with the government, and with both parties, failing to do what is one of their few enumerated responsibilities.

It certainly isn't an excuse. It is a contributing factor, however.

 

[rareboy]

No you are absolutely right about that. She needs to pay the ultimate penalty for this heinous act. But people are becoming more and more frustrated with the government, and with both parties, failing to do what is one of their few enumerated responsibilities.

It certainly isn't an excuse. It is a contributing factor, however.

I disagree.

You are using it to try to justify the unjustifiable.

This has nothing to do with white anger.

This has to do with the fact that a seriously disturbed woman became obsessed about something that pissed her off.

Being angry with government motivated Tim McVeigh. And Al Quaeda. And Hitler.

Don't try to excuse her action because she and/or you and others don't think that the government you all hate the size and reach of isn't doing enough.

To use the argument you are using is moral relativism.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Rareboy, you aren't Catholic, are you?

 

[pat grimshaw]

It helps me to understand your attitudes.

But did you say that Rareboy is Catholic?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I'm Catholic, and I agree with rareboy.

Why do you ask?

This should prove interesting....

RG

 

[pat grimshaw]

I don't know; I'm still learning the way you speak.

 

[pat grimshaw]

You're Catholic and I assume you agree with Rareboy's general princples

I'm a JUB newbie and I speak in an Australian form of the English language and I don't shout nor make pugnacious assumptions

 

[Kulindahr]

The Minutemen were wise to expell this psycho when they did. I can't imagine what she did or said to get the boot from them.

Wow -- you got that right.

I'm pretty sure Wayne LaPierre is jacking off to her picture right about now.

Then you know nothing at all about Wayne LaPierre.

No you are absolutely right about that. She needs to pay the ultimate penalty for this heinous act. But people are becoming more and more frustrated with the government, and with both parties, failing to do what is one of their few enumerated responsibilities.

It certainly isn't an excuse. It is a contributing factor, however.

Absolutely. Government not living up to its responsibilities gave us Egypt.

I disagree.

You are using it to try to justify the unjustifiable.

To use the argument you are using is moral relativism.

He's quite right -- and he's not trying to justify anything; read his words.

Nor is it moral relativism; he's pointing out a normal human reaction: government's get corrupt, sloppy, irresponsible, and people get pissed.

Remember that line, "When in the course of human events"? We just saw it played out in Egypt. The way the politicians have been moving the country, neglecting the safety of its citizens, the integrity of the borders, and the well-being of anyone not wealthy, is it any wonder some people are taking to armed action?

If parents treated their kids the way our government has been treating us, it would be called child abuse. Not infrequently, that results in irrational behavior from some of the children.

 

[rareboy]

Wow -- you got that right.



Then you know nothing at all about Wayne LaPierre.



Absolutely. Government not living up to its responsibilities gave us Egypt.



He's quite right -- and he's not trying to justify anything; read his words.

Nor is it moral relativism; he's pointing out a normal human reaction: government's get corrupt, sloppy, irresponsible, and people get pissed.

Remember that line, "When in the course of human events"? We just saw it played out in Egypt. The way the politicians have been moving the country, neglecting the safety of its citizens, the integrity of the borders, and the well-being of anyone not wealthy, is it any wonder some people are taking to armed action?

If parents treated their kids the way our government has been treating us, it would be called child abuse. Not infrequently, that results in irrational behavior from some of the children.

No. He's wrong and so are you.

To say that the failure of government is a contributing factor for a home invasion and the murder of a man and a little girl is wrong headed and is intended to somehow provide some justification for the act.

I am so very, very surprised that this fact is lost on you of all posters here.

Their very modus operandi of stealing from people in order to fight illegal immigration and to raise funds in order to purchase land goes so far beyond vigilante justice that it separates this bitch and the dogs that followed her completely from any possibility of the moral high ground.

And by the way Grimshaw, my religion is of no relevance whatsoever to any argument that I make.

 

[rareboy]

....

Absolutely. Government not living up to its responsibilities gave us Egypt.

One further note.

This is disingenuous.

There is no equivalence between what a stable, democratically elected government in the US does or doesn't do versus a thirty year corrupt regime by a US sponsored dictator who came to and held onto power through the power of the military.

While the FOX news pundits may wish to hold the threat of 'what happened in Egypt' over the heads of their uninformed viewers to now frame everything they don't like about government policy, please stop trying to explain away senseless murder and robbery using this analogy.

It somehow insults the intelligence of everyone.

 

[jackoroe]

I disagree.

You are using it to try to justify the unjustifiable.

This has nothing to do with white anger.

This has to do with the fact that a seriously disturbed woman became obsessed about something that pissed her off.

Being angry with government motivated Tim McVeigh. And Al Quaeda. And Hitler.

Don't try to excuse her action because she and/or you and others don't think that the government you all hate the size and reach of isn't doing enough.

To use the argument you are using is moral relativism.

No, I didn't justify her behavior. There is no justification for cold blooded murder. I gave what I thought to be the cause of it. The finding of the court was that she was angry about illegal immigration. No one here is going to make a credible argument on behalf of the government doing a good job on the border. It is not an insurmountable situation, but one that the government purposely fails to address as they should. They are purposely allowing our borders to be over run. If the borders were secure, as they should be, these people wouldn't have been killed to finance this misguided plan. And speculation that this woman would have killed for other reasons, is just speculation.

You bring up McVeigh who is also another example of an over reaction to government criminality. He was angry about Ruby Ridge and Waco. The US government murdered an innocent woman and child at Ruby Ridge. Lon Horiuchi, a government sharpshooter shot Vicki Weaver in the head while unarmed and carrying her child, killing her instantly. Horiuchi was never charged with murder, because he was protected by the US government. He was not so much as disciplined, but in fact promoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi I fully understand McVeigh's anger with the government. I do not agree that killing women and children is the way you deal with it. There is a special place in hell for people who kill innocent children.

And you mention Hitler. One of the proximate causes of the rise of the Third Reich, was the oppressive reparations placed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The French wanted their pound of flesh and they got it and World War II.

So, the point here is that the government frequently causes it's own problems by acting in ways contrary to the will of the people and even sometimes the contrary to the law itself. Just look at the bedlam the government has caused in Arizona and much of the West by their failure to do their job. Secure the borders and the crazies will have to find a new hobby.

 

[laikaNYC]

It helps me to understand your attitudes.

But did you say that Rareboy is Catholic?

I'm Catholic, and I don't agree with him.

 

[Kulindahr]

Rareboy, you're demonstrating a quite facile ability to refuse to keep distinct things apart.

Let's make a comparison: if I say that unsealed heat ducting in a house contributed to the destruction of a house in a fire, am I justifying the fire? like somehow it becomes okay that the house burned down, because there was faulty ducting?

No -- nor am I even saying that the ducting caused the fire; in fact such a claim would be ridiculous. But faulty ducting in a structure, when there's a fire, can funnel that fire throughout the structure rapidly, thus generating a much more devastating conflagration.

That's parallel to this situation: no one is justifying the "fire", merely pointing out that given government irresponsibility and corruption, such actions are to be expected. That makes no judgment whatsoever about the action itself.

It's as ridiculous in reasoning as the accusation against Wayne LaPierre: anyone who really knows anything about him would know he'd most likely be pushing for the death penalty and lamenting a clunky, slow legal system that will postpone justice for years while lawyers play their games.

 

[rareboy]

No. Re-read what you and Jack are writing.

We have the motivation for vigilante murder being laid at the feet of government and the revolution in Egypt garbled up in this as well.

Don't lecture me on keeping things distinct things separate.

It is what I'm arguing for.

You and Jack have made up your minds that somehow if the government functioned the way you think it should in this instance, there would have been no need for this woman to have shot and killed these people.

I am saying that it doesn't fucking matter whether the government at any level has or hasn't done its job.

There is no room for minutemen vigilantism in a healthy democratic society and there was certainly no room to rob and murder for the cause.

Everytime I hear 'Well what they did was wrong but I understand what drove the to it', I recoil in distaste. It is a bankrupt rationalization of terrorist acts and extended far enough, makes everything from holding up a 7/11 to 9/11 acceptable as a means of resolving problems outside of the realm of acceptability.

You don't need to agree with me. I actually ran this thread by a Jesuit and a rabbi this morning and they agree with my reading of the responses and the rationalization being offered up.

That is good enough for me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your rabbi and Jesuit are full of crap, then.

Stating facts is not justification. You're mixing two things together.

If a husband won't stop begging his wife for sex, won't shut up about it, follows her around everywhere, and she hits him, and someone points out that his nagging provided a motive for her action, that's merely a fact. It doesn't justify the action. And just as in this case, if he hadn't done it, neither would she.

To flip your version of argument around, governments can do anything they want and it should never provoke citizens to anger or action. Thus, by your method of reasoning, the protesters in Egypt shouldn't have taken to the streets, and were probably wrong to do so, Martin Luther King had no motive for his crusade, and neither should anyone march for gay rights. After all, the actions of government provide no motivation for any actions on the part of citizens.

You're doing a basic A => B, therefore C. But C is not part of the equation.