Government incompetence brings more problems

Government incompetence brings more problems


More water mains have broken in Albuquerque. I know, this is nothing new. I love the way the KRQE story starts out with a sense of resignation. It's not just ABQ. This is happening in cities everywhere. If it isn't water mains, it is bridges.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Yes, the infrastructure in America is crumbling. Because government has been "in control" of it for far too long. Government doesn't do anything well. Not anything which is necessary, anyway. It steals, kills, molests, trespasses, and defrauds exceptionally well, but this isn't a good thing and benefits no one but goverment employees.

The infrastructure needs to be owned by those with an economic interest in keeping it operational and safe. Government's only contribution would be in staying out of the way. If something needs repairs, they could be done without time-wasting permits and red tape. If it fails, there would be consequences. And there needs to be competition for supplying the needs rather than a government-imposed monopoly. There would still be problems, I am sure. However, this way there would be individuals responsible and accountable. Government is not the solution to anything.
*

If you know a liberty lover (or a potential one) who needs a gift, please consider sending them one of my books. I have a book for almost any person. And your purchase would be about the best gift you could give me. Unless you want to spend more, of course. ;)

Enemy inside the gates

Enemy inside the gates


A gated community in Albuquerque needs better gates for keeping out the riff-raff. And its residents (and ethical people everywhere) probably need to shun at least one member of that riff-raff who lives among them. Too bad the bad guy's identity is withheld.

A busy-body "neighbor", too cowardly to stick a gun in his neighbor's face personally, called in the government to do his dirty work for him when he got upset over the neighbor's porch. Now government has violated the property rights of many of the individuals in the targeted community and is salivating over the money that will flow in from the 96 "violations" the government trespassers found. (Government assumes people will pay rather than sit in jail.)

As always, the nannies claim it is for "their own safety" that this extortion racket is established. "What it there is a fire and it spreads quickly because the houses are too close together?" Yeah, "what if"?

If you don't want a neighbor's porch to be built "too close" to your house, for fire safety or any other reason, keep your own house farther from your property line. Then if your neighbor builds right up to the property line you are still in no danger. You have no authority to control where on his property your neighbor builds. And neither does any government.

As I have written before, "codes" are nothing more or less than a violation of property rights. They have no place in a free society.

Is The State worth it?

Is The State worth it?

What is the goal of statism? The two excuses for having a State I've heard most often, even by people who don't think of themselves as statists while still promoting the notion that "some government is necessary", are to protect the rights of people and to keep people safe.

Is that really the goal of The State or a dishonest justification covering the true goal? Well, since I am not a statist I can only look at the actions and results. Since I see very few actions by The State that would seem to be working toward this goal, and a bunch of actions that seem to be actively fighting against the stated goal, I would have to say the stated goal is not the true goal. Let's pretend for a moment that the stated goal is the real goal, however.

Are those goals "good" or "bad"? Do they help or harm?

Is it good to protect the rights of people? Of course this requires an understanding of what rights are and what they are not. First of all, do rights exist? If not, that means no one has a right to do anything, not even to control the lives of others, so there is no right to Rule.

If, on the other hand, rights do exist, a right can not violate the equal and identical rights of others. The basic right is the right to say "no". So, no one has a right to do things to someone else that would violate their self-ownership, self determination, and property rights. Rights can not impose an obligation on others beyond the obligation to not violate rights. Protecting your own rights and the rights of other people would be a good thing to do.

Does The State's existence advance this goal?

No, it fails to even advance toward this goal a tiny bit. The State has become the only credible threat to the rights of people. My neighbor won't steal from me (without repercussions, anyway), nor will he attack me for disobeying his edicts about how I choose to live as long as I am not infringing on his life or property. If he tries to do so, The State would protect him from my defensive actions more than it would protect my right to defend myself from his depredations. Fail number one.

Moving along to the second excuse. Would "keeping people safe" be a good thing? Maybe. Safety is in the eye of the beholder. True safety can never exist, nor would it be a completely good thing with no drawbacks if it seemed to. Life is dangerous. There is a thin line between safety and meddling. You might be safer to stay in bed and eat only pureed food while you breathe filtered and sterilized air, although such safety would be dangerous in its own way. No sane person would choose that "life" for himself (although he would have the absolute right to do so), and only an evil person would dictate that "life" for others.

Pretending for a moment that you could create a "safe" situation with no downsides, then it might be OK to do so as long as you didn't force it on those who don't consent.

Does The State "keep us safe"?

It partially depends on who "us" is. If you are talking about people who choose to steal, rape, murder, kidnap, and boss people around, then the answer is "yes"- as long as those people join the ranks of government. The State keeps them pretty safe from the consequences of their actions. If, on the other hand, you are talking about ordinary people who are simply trying to go about their lives, The State fails to keep them safe. It may protect them from some freelance thieves, but only by the trade-off of sending its own officially-sanctioned thieves instead. This is not a net gain.

The same applies for all other dangers. On the rare occasions that a freelance aggressor is stopped by The State, he is replaced with one or more sent directly from The State- aggressors who have legal immunity for the harm they cause. If you fight back against agents or bureaucrats of The State you will face an escalation of force on a scale unavailable to the freelance thugs The State claims to be protecting you from.

The actions of The State also directly threaten you by creating and encouraging enemies around the globe. Enemies that will want to harm you and me simply because they don't realize that The State is not me, I am causing them no harm and have no wish to do so, and I do not support the aggressive acts that The State claims are done on my behalf.

The bureaucratic "safety measures", such as "gun control", drug "laws", traffic "laws", airport "security", food and drug standards (and testing), all have hidden costs, which if taken into account honestly would diminish any "benefit" to those burdensome regulations to the point that they would be seen to create no net gain in safety. Fail, fail, fail.

The State does not "keep us safe".

My conclusion is that since The State fails in its stated goals it is obsolete and not worth its cost to civilization.

Originally published here

The Julian Assange Welcome Pledge

From nostate.com and Knappster:

I, Kent McManigal, hereby pledge that if Julian Assange should call upon me in need of a place to stay, I will provide it to him with no questions asked, indefinitely, and with the highest degree of security and confidentiality I can provide. I’m easy to get a hold of.

Now it’s your turn. Simply replace your name with mine and publish. Link here if you wish, but publish.

No room for double standards

No room for double standards


(I had to almost fight to get this one published mostly intact. Here's the original version.)

The recent tragedy in which a Clovis police officer seems to have run a stop sign and caused an accident that killed a woman illustrates the difference between the way statists and libertarians see things.

Make no mistake: I don't believe for an instant the officer wanted to cause the accident. (Hence the word "accident".) I firmly believe he would do absolutely anything to be able to rewind time and avoid killing the woman were such a thing possible.

However, what is done is done and can never be undone. Accidents are a part of life and will continue to happen no matter what "laws" are passed or how careful you try to be. How you respond to an accident once it occurs shows what kind of person you are.

All I expect in a situation such as this is that the officer be treated exactly the same as any other person involved in the same circumstance. No double standards.

If the officer is to be given the benefit of the doubt, which I think he should be, I expect the same the next time a "commoner" is involved in a traffic accident that kills a police officer.

I expect the investigation to take a long time to conclude, perhaps allow the driver's family or friends to participate in the investigation of the accident, as Clovis police are investigating this case.

Employees of the state are not an elite class. They should not receive any special treatment.

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

Army of pots calling a mustard seed 'black'

The Albuquerque news laments that a serial property crimes offender has been arrested for the 127th time. Yet, there is a worse property crimes offender at large- one who violates the property rights of everyone who is forced to interact with one of its representatives- one who makes this freelance parasite look like an amateur by comparison.

The State, what most people are speaking of when they use the word "government", has no rivals where property rights violations are concerned. Either your property is held for ransom, or you are not allowed to use your property as you see fit, or your property is stolen outright by this offender. And it points the finger at this minor player in its own game to distract from the truth. People should stop being fooled.

People should also understand that The State, by its "laws", protects all bad guys, including property rights violators, from facing the realistic consequences of their actions. Consequences that would be sure and swift in a free society.
*
Donate?

Examiner.com- some advice

I long ago gave up on trying to communicate directly to the folks at Examiner.com.  At best, I would get some patronizing dismissal "showing" me why I was wrong and they were right.  Often I just got no response at all.  So I'm going to gamble that they do Google searches to see what people are saying about Examiner.com and will run across this.

First of all, there is an optimal amount of advertising.  You left that in the dust long ago.  My readers have been complaining for months about Examiner having so many ads that they have trouble getting to read the content.  This drives away readers.  But, now your ads are even making it hard for me to post columns.  It's one thing to clog the site with ads, but it's insanity to clog the publishing tool with so many ads and pop-ups that writers can't post easily.  Why have ads on the publishing tool at all? 

I have tried to post a column twice today, only to have the site freeze up due to the flood of ads.  Added to the fact that you got rid of the "auto-save" feature, this means I have to go back and re-write the whole thing (fortunately I have a saved copy), and add all the links back in again.  This is extremely frustrating.

Why did you get rid of useful features while clogging the site with garbage?  You got rid of the auto-save, as I mentioned before, and you got rid of the spell check.  My keyboard tends to skip "h" a lot.  This means I have to copy and paste my article somewhere else to try to catch the skipped letters.  PUT THE SPELL CHECK BACK!

Then there is the money.  You keep cutting back on the pay per page view.  Yes, you added a dollar per published column "up to 5 per week" (as long as I include the word "Albuquerque" in the column somewhere), but the per view pay keeps dwindling.  It evaporates.  It makes it pointless to strive for good content rather than to just post some "Blah blah Albuquerque blah" to get the dollar.  Yet, for my own self-respect I refuse to do that.  I'd rather just walk away from your sandbox and let you use it as your personal kitty box if that's what you want.

It is really getting to the point that the problems are not worth the pittance you pay.  I also feel that the pay situation on your part is dishonest.  Sure you hedge your bets by saying:

...your pay is based on a rating that considers a number of factors, including advertising revenue and the quality of your audience. This includes things like frequency of publishing, subscriptions, page view traffic and session length. Pay may fluctuate depending on any of these and other factors. Examiner.com makes no guarantees as to minimum payment.

Weasel words?  Affirmative!

I am tired of the nonsense.

Flag not 'vandalized', simply upside down

A flag at an Albuquerque McDonald's was rehung "upside down" by persons unknown. It is being called "vandalism" by the wronged party.

Flag not 'vandalized', simply upside down


Trespassing was obviously committed. That was wrong. But "vandalism"? No.

Vandalism involves damaging property. Nothing was damaged in this case except a false "patriotism" that revolves around the worship of the US federal flag.

An upside down flag is a sign of emergency or severe distress. America is definitely in an emergency situation and denial of that fact won't make it go away. It isn't harmful or disrespectful to hang the federal flag upside down, and it certainly doesn't damage the flag.

People would be wise to educate themselves before they start pounding their chests and bellowing about some trivial act "disgracing our country". If you want to see who is truly a disgrace to America, look at the actions of the federal government, not flag rearrangers.

Free parking? At what cost?

Free parking?  At what cost?

There ain't no such thing as a free (parking) space. The city of Albuquerque has "graciously" made parking free in some parts of the city. While it may seem nice, it is a trick.

The city is only doing this because the politicians believe they can get more money from you in the long run if you feel good about the free parking and buy things they can tax.

If the city really owns the streets (a debate I've covered before), then they would have the authority to charge for parking along those streets. However, the city never has any legitimate authority to tax your purchases and force the stores to be their "Sheriff of Nottingham" for them.

Don't be fooled, and adjust your behavior accordingly.
*
Donate?

APD's 'tactical plan' for the holidays

APD's 'tactical plan' for the holidays


The Albuquerque Police Department is using a variety of scams to catch thieves this holiday season. This is probably one of the least offensive things the APD does with its time, other than eating donuts.

Yet, the reliance on cops causes crime. It is your duty to protect your own life and property. You can not delegate that responsibility to anyone else, no matter who they are, what they promise, or what they threaten you with if you refuse.

I am reminded of the "abandoned backpack" scam the APD was pulling recently. A scam that could have easily netted innocent people who sensibly didn't trust cops to return lost items to the rightful owners. The scams the cops are pulling this time do seem less likely to entrap innocents.

However, never forget that they are paying for this "tactical plan" with stolen money that could be put to better defensive uses by individuals- had they been allowed to keep it. It is not "better" for The State and its agents to be stealing your money to "protect" you from freelance thieves. This substitution sleight-of-hand gains you nothing. Socialism always fails, no matter what you call it or how you dress it up.
*
Donate?

A tale of two scam artists

A tale of two scam artists

There is a scam artist at work in Albuquerque who is targeting small businesses; talking people out of money for fake advertising for nonexistent events.

Yet, there is a much more serious scam artist targeting those same small businesses, and the larger ones as well, in addition to every resident. And this scam doesn't rely on smooth talk, but on the threat of violence to those who don't fork it over. The police will never look for this particular scam artist, since he collects the money that they get to take home.

The freelance scam artist is being sought, though. The State just doesn't like the competition.
*
Donate?

Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."

Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."


Property rights collide in Albuquerque again. A dad is upset that the trailer park manager suggests that resident kids cross a street and play beside a ditch rather than on the trailer park's streets or around other people's trailers.

I can see both sides. If kids are trespassing on the other resident's properties, or blocking traffic by playing in the streets, I can see that the other residents would get upset and demand that the manager "do something". On the other hand, to suggest that the kids cross a busier street to play in a ditch is just absurd. I wonder if he got permission from the ditch-property owner before making that suggestion.

The trailer park owner has a right to restrict use of the property that is not rented to a specific individual, and has an obligation to defend the property rights of those who rent from him. The renters have a right to defend their own rented property from trespassers of any age. Not every right you possess should necessarily be exercised in every situation. Probably this wouldn't have become an issue had the kids respected property rights to begin with, so the parents should emphasize that lesson, too. Of course, that means teaching the parents about property rights first.

I suggest a solution: Let the parents of the kids make an agreement among themselves as to letting the kids play in their respective yards and any other yards that might be offered for the purpose. Maybe there are some adjacent yards that could be used, with the owners' permission, for team sports. Then try to get the kids to agree to stay off other property and off the streets as much as possible, and inform them of the consequences if they don't.
*
Donate?

Libertarianism true love of freedom

Libertarianism true love of freedom

(My first column in the Clovis News Journal)

How does a kid grow up in a deeply conservative background, and become libertarian? Probably by taking those teachings to heart and realizing there can be no double standards without compromising the principles he was taught.

By internalizing the lesson that if someone is doing something you believe they shouldn't be doing- unless they are attacking, stealing, defrauding, or possibly trespassing- you have no right to do more than point out that you think they are doing wrong, ask them to reconsider their actions, and then let them make their own mistakes. You can't fix a minor wrong by committing a major wrong.

By realizing that there is no one else to blame when you choose to do the wrong thing and it goes badly.

By coming to the knowledge that if it is wrong to attack, kidnap, steal, and murder, it changes nothing if the acts are committed by people who work for The State and who call the acts "airport security", "arrest", "taxation", and "war".

By realizing you can't protect individual rights and property rights, the only legitimate justifications for any government, by violating those same rights in any way.

I was libertarian, with conservative tendencies, long before I knew what the word "libertarian" meant. I was called an "individualist". Once I began to really consider my beliefs, I began to eliminate the "conservative" inconsistencies that I had held on to. Like dominoes, they fell and toppled others as they went. Down went the racism; the nationalism; the hunger for punitive, false justice. Down went the support for The War on Drugs. I'm not saying that every non-libertarian has these same flaws, but these were mine. Other people have their own.

I came to see that you can't love liberty if you allow these things to persist in your life. Liberty is not a buffet where you can pick the parts you like for yourself, but toss away the rest to deny others their choice. That was a hard thing to learn.

So, when a jail inmate is said to be accidentally released from the county jail (or maybe not), or when the military wants to buzz regional private property, I try to dig below the emotion and rhetoric to get to the foundation. Such as, why was the shoplifter in jail rather than working to pay restitution? And, why does the military need even more land over which to train for a military occupation (or two, or ...?) which should never have begun? See, getting to the root clears up a lot of things.

*
Donate?

Be thankful and back it with action!

(This is my latest State Line Tribune column)

That time of the year is upon us where we are reminded to be thankful for the good things in our lives. Along with those things we normally think of, like family, friends, and health, do you think of the liberty that permits you to more fully enjoy those meaningful things?

Liberty is simply the freedom to exercise your rights. Without that freedom your rights would be meaningless. The State, at all levels, seeks to destroy your liberty, but it can not do so without your help, or at least without you doing it a favor by excusing or turning a blind eye toward its abuses. The only credible threat to liberty for the past couple hundred years has been, and still is, externally-imposed government- The State- no matter what phantom menace The State tries to promote for its own purposes and as a distraction.

It is hard, but not impossible, to fully enjoy family and friends, and to hold onto good health, when liberty is violated beyond a certain level. You'll probably never know where that line lies until it has been crossed. Don't permit even one more infringement on liberty for any reason or under any excuse. No justification is "good enough".

Thankfulness without action is empty. If you are truly thankful for liberty do something to prove it and don't assist its enemies, wherever they may dwell.

So be thankful for the liberty you have, grab onto even more, and be vigilant against its enemies so that next year at this special time you will still have liberty, and maybe even more liberty, to be thankful for.
*

Happy Communism-Repudiation Day!  Enjoy your harvest feast!

*
Donate?

Opt-out for decency and liberty

Opt-out for decency and liberty


The Albuquerque Sunport is trying to hint that National Opt-Out Day will be a failure. Prove the Sunport managers, and their filthy co-conspirators of the Terrorist Support Agency (TSA), wrong. Better yet, boycott flying until security theater is scrapped and ONLY real security, armed passengers and crew, becomes the norm. Of course, this means kicking The State out of the airports completely, which sooner or later will be done anyway.

The Sunport claims to have "contingency plans" to deal with people standing up against tyranny. Well, I personally hope their "contingency plans" turn out to be as successful as a decision to use a six-foot step ladder to reach the moon after the only rocket on earth rusts away and is forgotten, due to "public education".

The TSA, and the very idea of security, is completely evil and wrong. They need to fail and be crushed, along with any business which supports them. Use the freedom you have left to choose to boycott flying. Bankrupt the airlines. Put the airports out of business. Use your right of association and shun anyone who has anything to do with the TSA or "airport security".

It is time to stand up. Will you be counted with the sniveling collectivists, or will you make the mature, self-responsible choice and defend this clearly visible line in the sand? Your liberty and the very lives of your kids is at stake. Don't blow it this time; you may never get another chance in your lifetime if you comply now.
*
Donate?

When is a gift not a gift?

When is a gift not a gift?
 
How can it be a gift if your money is stolen to pay for it, and a molester (or his familiar) gives it to you after violating you? Yet, this is just a part of what the state police and the Albuquerque badge-vermin are doing during their new checkpoint [sic] blitzkrieg.


The gift bags were actually handed out by those harpies of "Mothers" Morons Against Drunk Driving. (They are not just against "drunk driving" but any driving freedom at all, and against all alcohol consumption, or they wouldn't condone and advocate these "checkpoints" and wouldn't have advocated lowering the blood-alcohol levels to the point of meaninglessness.) The MADD cows may have handed out the bags, but DOT "bought" the bags with money taken from you.

Don't believe the lie: these "checkpoints" are not about "drunk driving" at all, and if alcohol (and every other intoxicant or relaxant) were to vanish overnight, The State would still find some bogus excuse to violate your right to travel without being robbed and molested. This is about asserting control over your life; nothing else.

These "gift" bags make me wonder- What's next? Wine and roses after a TSA "security" rape?


*
Donate?

TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil

TSA scanners: helping kill the Empire with idiocy and evil

It seems as though the TSA may just be a tipping point in bringing tyranny to the attention of some of the less-aware among us. Whether that awareness will last more than a week or two, or bring any return to sanity is anyone's guess.

The TSA's new invasive and dangerous scanners have become widely known as "porno-scanners" which indicates some people are waking up (although I still prefer my own terms of "pedophile-o-vision" and "molest-o-vision" since "porn" is consensual, but molestation isn't). And, if you choose to "opt out" of being photographed naked (a choice that may be denied to you soon), and not in a flattering pose to be sent to your sexting friends, you will be subject to a groping that would be illegal in any other non-consensual situation. Make no mistake, there is nothing consensual about the TSA's procedures.

Of course, some people claim that they "must" fly due to their job or situation. That's ridiculous. Would you claim you "must" allow yourself to be raped "for your job" in any other circumstance? If you value yourself and your family so little that you'll not stand up for yourself I pity you.

I suggest you Boycott Flying, and proclaim "We Won't Fly!". If you aren't willing to make a real stand, at least muck up the plans of those in TSA "authority" by participating in Opt Out Day. Or if that isn't your style and you had no plans to be flying anytime soon anyway, let a major business know why you can't take your children to their theme parks anymore, if that means subjecting them to the hands and eyes of the federal perverts, by writing a letter to just one targeted company.

I don't know, nor do I care, if Albuquerque's airport has the molest-o-vision machines. If not now; soon. (If you do know, feel free to leave a comment with the information in case someone does care.) Either way, I WILL NOT FLY until the idiots in government (redundancy alert) stop meddling with air transportation so that REAL security and safety can be implemented by everyone being able to carry the gun of their choice on board with no obstacles at all, other than (perhaps) type of ammo.  Anything less is "security theater".

*
Donate?

Swastika branding not a good idea

Swastika branding not a good idea

Aggression is aggression, and whether it fits The State's definition of "hate" or not is irrelevant.

The Albuquerque news brings word of three "men" in Farmington who are charged with a "hate crime" for burning a swastika into the flesh of a supposedly "mentally disabled" victim.

It wouldn't make any difference if they had branded him with a happy face rather than with the pattern commonly known as a "swastika". That symbol has a very long history before the German "progressives" known as Nazis adopted it as their own. Nazis are a temporary cancer on the history of the world and you shouldn't let them define anything for the rest of us. The swastika is a sacred symbol to many Native Americans and others around the globe. If you automatically despise that symbol, you should also automatically hate the US flag since it has been adopted by the world's largest terrorist group and is flown over all occupied territories world-wide.

Anyone with any decency isn't going to brand another human being with anything, especially if there is any question as to whether the person understands the implications. If he wants to be branded, let him do it himself or ask to have it done. In that case, you'd better have a lot of witnesses around who can see for themselves that the man actually, really wants the brand and understands the pain it will cause, and the social implications of having it burned into his flesh for all to see from now on. If there is any question as to the person's ability to consent, then you had better be doubly sure before you agree to perform the procedure.

In any case, I sense coercion and I don't care whether "hatred" (as defined by The State) was a part of it or not. It seems obvious to me that hatred is at the core of all acts of coercion, whether committed by The State or by freelance individuals. Even if I am wrong there, hatred doesn't make any harm worse, nor would doing it in "love" make it any better.

The fact that the branders also shaved the symbol into the back of his hair and used a marker to write on his body shows me that their intent was to make the man an object of ridicule. This shows me that they are acting out of evil intent. But it is the reality of their actions, not their intentions, that form the basis of the harm they committed.  They owe restitution on a grand scale.
*
Donate?

The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism

The tragedy of pumpkin vigilantism

OK, so there is really no tragedy here. Unless you are the humiliated and sore burglar in question.

An Albuquerque man used an "assault pumpkin" to defeat a burglar. He is being called a "vigilante" and the LEOs (that perpetual burglar support crew) are busy saying people should just "give 'em what they want" rather than standing up for yourself when robbed. These cops say you should never take "the law" into your own hands. I agree in a way since "the law" is nothing but putrid fecal matter and it is shameful to be associated with it in any way, but that's the fault of "the law", not the fault of those who refuse to be victimized.

I do have one small suggestion for the "Punkin Chunker": He should probably offer to pay for the pumpkin he used, since he apparently trespassed and then took and used the pumpkin without permission. If it had been my pumpkin, however, I'd refuse payment; feeling the result was well worth the loss.


*
Donate?

Robber-officer suicide

Robber-officer suicide

Albuquerque's most recent bank robber killed himself when it became obvious he was caught. It would have been slightly more satisfying had an armed bank customer or employee fired the fatal shot. However, justice sometimes comes from strange directions.

The revelation that the dead robber had been working for The State as a prison guard at Los Lunas until his death shouldn't surprise anyone who recognizes the flawed personality traits that lead a person to seek unlimited power and control over others, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy or ethics that are essential in either "career choice".

There's also a disturbing admission from the cops who surrounded the robber: "According to police, the suspect was driving out of control which justified the shooting of the truck's tires." Because we all know the solution to out-of-control driving is to have a sudden, violent blow-out. Right? Well, according to "cop-think" it is.
 
(I can't help but wonder, since the robber turned out to be an "Only One", what would have been the penalty for shooting him during his robbery?)

*
Donate?