Category Archives: ahumanright

Peel or the Newer, Modern “Enforcement Training”

Posted on by
6

It looks like I’ve attracted a cop starting with this post at Unc’s place. We’ve been going back and forth in the comments of my last post. He’s posting as “Unknown,” but I’m taking an educated guess that it’s “Curtis” from that post on SaysUncle.

The comments are getting a bit long and I figured this deserved another post. Some of this is a bit of rambling, but I appreciate the exchange and wanted to expound on a few other somewhat related topics. Read those comments in the last post for context.

Most recently, among other things, I asked Curtis/Unknown what he thought of four items. You can read the details in the comments of Institutional Thuggery, but here’s the summary of the four things on which I would like every cop to express his opinion:

Curtis/Unknown (I’ll call him Curtis from here on out) obliged and actually gave his opinion which I do sincerely appreciate. We need to know where cops stand on these things (and I’m sure that there are others) in the event that things go completely sideways.

In Curtis’ most recent response, he asked this question:

If someone decides they don’t like cops and attacks me specifically for that reason shouldn’t they be held accountable for that?

Absolutely not. He should be held accountable for attacking you. Period. Whatever his motive, even if it is specifically because you are a cop, there should be no more severe punishment because of it. I concede that if there is a warrant for an arrest or there is otherwise probable cause that a crime has been committed, then, and only then, if he resists arrest by assaulting the officer, then he should be charged with assault and resisting arrest in addition to the original crime. But as far as additional penalties for assaulting an officer that do not exist for assaulting non-LEOs, absolutely not. You’ve already got the original crime, assault, and resisting arrest. There’s absolutely no need for an ‘assault on a officer’ charge, and in fact it perpetuates the false belief that people have that the life of a police officer is more valuable that someone who is not.

If cops don’t get any extra measure of protection under the law should anyone?

No, no one should. Go back and take a look at the whole Martha Boggs / Stacey Campfield discussion. You can read it at Unc’s place, Linoge’s place, and Rich Hailey’s. I think it was Rich who said, somewhere in that discussion, that if anyone gets extra protection that means that someone gets less protection. You can’t have it both ways. Equal protection and extra protection cannot coexist.

No one deserves special protection. You may be missing my point. If you don’t think you are, please explain what you think “equal treatment under the law” means.

I realize that this may be an assault on everything Curtis and other cops have been taught or conditioned to believe. I note that Curtis includes a pretty long list of people who are specially protected in his state. And that is the problem. We have a protected class, and then everyone else. Some are more equal than others. As long as attitudes exist that are expressed in this article on Enforcer Training, particular this gem:

“…what I see when [enforcers] ‘re-group’ with their peers is a profound change in the way they act and see the world. The first thing that stands out is something that you can only describe as a sigh of relief – relief to be back among ‘those who understand you’ – and from that point on it’s blatantly obvious that they exist in a world of their own – a world which is at odds with the world in which the rest of us live. The world of enforcers is different to that of non-enforcers – something which we really need to understand.”

then the institution of law enforcement will continue to degenerate and become delegitimized. This is the epitome of an anti-Peelian law enforcement mentality.

Protection of Assault or Battery due to the nature of the job? That can mean at least a couple of things. First, it could mean the same protection anyone else gets, meaning criminal charges can be filed against the perp.

Or, second, it could possibly mean that you think that the penalty for assaulting an officer should be higher than for assaulting someone who is not.

It’s that second one I take issue with. Take the case of Maryanne Godboldo of Detroit. Welfare workers were medicating her daughter unnecessarily, or at a minimum, against the will of Maryanne. So the cops were trying to remove her daughter (i.e.: state sanctioned kidnapping), and she allegedly shot at them. At a minimum, there was a gun involved and standoff. Also, see here. There were criminal charges filed against her for her resistance of the illegal force (judge ruled warrant was bogus) used in abducting her daughter.

Both the Indiana and the US Supreme Courts have decided that the 4th Amendment doesn’t actually protect us against what it says it protects us against and decided that if we are illegally invaded by law enforcement, then we have no right whatsoever to defend ourselves. We must let the courts work it out, or, as most definitely happens in some cases, just sit back and let them kill us. There are some who believe that what the Supreme Court says is final. I don’t ascribe to that. The black robed tyrants have just put yet another nail in the coffin of their legitimacy.

I can’t find the exact quote right now, but there was one libertarian writer who summarized the 2nd Amendment along the lines of Mike Vanderboegh’s “If you try to take our guns we will kill you.” I believe he said something to the effect of, as hard as it is for some to swallow, my right to keep and bear arms exists so that when some government bureaucrat comes to take my child because he or his bosses have a problem with some aspect of how I’m raising him, then I can kill him right there. If cops engage in illegal activity (or even legal, but unconstitutional/tyrannical) to take me or mine into custody, I would like to know: do you think I should just comply and let the courts work things out? Destroying my reputation and finances while they’re at it? Or maybe even injure, maim, or kill me or mine in the process?

Sorry, but “articulable safety concern” doesn’t cut it. That leaves it to the discretion of an officer to deprive someone of his civil rights. Giving discretion to those charged with administering the law turns us into a nation under the rule of men rather than the rule of law. By the book (and not the Second Set of Books), and nothing else. Every time there is LEO misbehavior, I am utterly disgusted when the inevitable statement comes: “We are investigating the matter internally to determine if any department policies were violated and cannot comment on internal personnel matters.” That’s a perversion of justice. Frankly, nothing should be an internal personnel matter. You are a public employee. Deal with it. And I really don’t give a rodent’s posterior if any rules were broken. I want to know if any laws were broken or any rights were violated. And if they were, the officer needs to be fired and banned from ever being in any kind of law enforcement again and prosecuted as any non-LEO would be prosecuted. The only “articulable safety concern” is if there is probably cause for an arrest. And the mere possession of a firearm is not probable cause for anything.

For the items I asked about, thanks for answering.

A) Oathkeepers – are you saying that I should implicitly trust those who have taken the oath? Even with the rampant oath breaking? There would be no need for an organization like Oathkeepers if there wasn’t a systemic problem of oath breaking. Do I trust those who join? A little more, yes, due to the risk they potentially incur from their superiors and possibly a few other reasons.

B) Mike Vanderboegh’s “Choose this day whom you will serv.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement. –
Wow, you sure honed in on something that makes clear you took it personally. He was not at all making a generalization. He was merely making an ancillary point. And that is that you need us. And that you best figure that out and how to capitalize on that now before it gets so nasty out there that it’s too late. It’s essentially getting back to the Peelian Principles of Policing.

If the people in that city didn’t like how they were treated they should have thought about it ahead of time when they were shrugging their shoulders and letting things slide by as business as usual.

So now the people are to blame for the negligent and criminal behavior of NOPD? Gotcha.

I know he talked about more than that but that’s what got stuck in my mind.

Which makes me wonder where you stand on the salient points of the letter, since you chose to focus on one point you assumed he was making, but clearly was not.

C) Citizen video recording of police activity — Good to know. It would be nice to know that your department has that as an official position and has disseminated that policy to all of its officers.

D) You missed the point again. It seems that so many LEOs think they are an authority of the people in general. Anything they command that is not blatantly illegal, is a “lawful order.” And we are to obey. LEOs are not in authority of peaceable citizens. If there is no law being broken, and we are not contaminating a crime scene or directly interfering with a lawful arrest (i.e.: video recording in and of itself is not interfering), and you, for example, ask me to stop filming, or even stop flipping you the bird (if that’s my inclination), and I refuse, then “disorderly conduct,” or “disobeying a lawful order” is nothing but a trumped up charge because someone showed contempt by not respecting your “authority”. And, no, it’s not just up to the local leadership to fix. If any of the scenarios I’ve described occur, you have the option of letting it go. Nice if the law is stricter what LEOs can do, but you have the option of not misapplying those charges.

I think it’s important to discuss these issues, too, but there is no mystery in my mind. As long as attitudes exist like in that Enforcement Training article, it’s fair to ask, are you relieved when you are around those in LE as opposed to those who aren’t? Because they understand you? Any LEO who fits that description is a long way off from following Peel.

Common ground, by the way, isn’t the goal here. It’s a nicety, but it is not essential. I only seek to gain intel on which side cops see themselves on in the event of things getting worse, as Vanderboegh describes.

Finding common ground sounds too much like what those in the current administration thought when they saw so much public opposition to the health control bill. They thought that they needed to communicate what they were trying to do better, when the real problem was a policy disagreement. We knew precisely what they were trying to do and that was taking another major step in converting this nation into their utopian workers’ paradise where they only need to kill a few million right wingers to perfect it.

That’s not to say that’s what you are trying to do. But let’s be clear that I am not, ultimately, interested in the perspective of a someone who works in law enforcement. Certainly, I’m interested in what you have to say. That way I know what we’ll have to deal with should there be some sort of breakdown of law and order. I am only concerned with perspectives in the interest of liberty. If there is a tradeoff that involves liberty or making law enforcement easier or safer, but has no other measurable benefits, I will always side with liberty.

On the idea of going on a ride along with one of my local agencies, I think there may be a problem, there. You see, I’m not willing to do so unarmed. And as a FREE MAN, I would demand that that be respected. So I doubt it’s going to happen. Any disarmament is always about control and never about safety.

Some say that no rights are absolute. I believe that is bunk. My Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute. Some will scream, “how can I claim the right to gun down anyone I choose?” or some other similar nonsense. My claim is to keep (own, possess) my arms and bear (carry) them. And that no government interference (i.e.: infringement) at any level of government is either or moral or constitutional. I believe that manufacture, ownership, trade, sale, purchase, carry (in any safe mode, anywhere, anytime), safe practice, and storage of any weapon, ammunition, accessories should be completely out of the reach of any government control, from the Federal level down to Homeowners’ Associations. That said, I may be fine with a regime of training certifications that would reduce my insurance should I need to deploy a weapon in defense. I’m good with the Pittman Robertson Trust Fund, as well, but I’d much rather see it done at the state level without the involvement of the Feds at all.

To be clear, I don’t hate all cops. But law enforcement as a whole is committing institutional suicide with its constant circling of the wagons. It seems as if Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy is alive and well. And I would also add another corollary to that law. Even for that first group of people, those dedicated to the goals of the organization, they need to be cognizant of the fact that there may, indeed come a time when the goals are no longer relevant, necessary, or laudatory. There may come a time when disbanding the organization makes the most sense and those who are part of that organization/institution should be more than willing to move onto some other, more productive and valued task. I’m not saying that that time has come, but there was a time when we did just fine without “law enforcement” in its current incarnation.

Reason 53 Why I Am Not a Big “L” Libertarian

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t really know if all (Big L) Libertarians have this view, but it seems when it comes to so-called “guns in parking lots” bills like this one (h/t Unc) they invariable frame it as one right competing against another.

It’s not.

So here’s what I posted at Uncle’s link, with a few edits:

How about this. For those crying “property rights,” let’s try an experiment. You come over my house for coffee and I’m going to demand access to your vehicle to search it for Bibles and porno mags.

And let’s [add] another variable. I’m going to post my property “no Bibles or porno mags,” as well, and if I find any of those prohibited items in your car, I’m going to call the cops, have them arrest you, and you will [spend time in jail and] lose … [your] right to read *anything* for the rest of your life.

That’s [the] situation here in NC with the 2nd amendment. Not so appealing when you apply the same standard to the 1st, is it?

My car is my property no matter where it is parked, notwithstanding Paul Stam’s (RINO weenie in the NC legislator) bizzaro claim that my car become[s] his property when it’s parked on his property.

How about a newspaper or political literature I disagree with? Ready to turn over your right to have those items in your car whenever you park it on someone else’s property. WHICH, by the way, you ALWAYS do, unless you leave it parked on your own property at all times, making it pointless to have it.

No matter what magical properities the hoplophobes want to paint guns with, it’s time they face two facts.

First, it’s property like any other property, and if you want the right to prohibit any specific items I carry in my car, then I demand the same right to ensure your car is clean of any items I find offensive while parked on my property.

Second, it’s NOT property like any other property. It is SPECIALLY protected as a pre-existing, fundamental, natural, human right, codified in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Deal with it.

So, They’re Coming to Take You Away, You Say?

Posted on by
Reply

“I am not your serf”

That’s how I signed a farewell note to some fellow employees at a former rather oppressive employer. In that case, I had the choice available to me to leave. With the bill just passed in the House with its criminal penalties for not participating, we’re not being given a choice. The moronic comparison to auto insurance doesn’t even come close. Even in that case, I can choose not to drive, and some people in fact can’t drive for one reason or another, so don’t have auto insurance. There is no penalty. By simply living and breathing we are being required to pay for something most of us don’t want. Or at least we don’t want government approved insurance.

Mike at Sipsey Street posts his latest to reiterate that we are not to fire first.

I’ve had no confusion about this since he first starting writing about Fort Sumter.

However, I think the question in many of our minds is, “how will we know?”

What I mean is, the FedGov and the complicit state run media will most certainly distort or outright lie about the reason for the standoff with those ‘anti-government oath-whatever-amajigs’.

How can we be sure that if a standoff takes place due to the sequential events listed below, that the truth will get out?

a) bills pass both houses and result is signed into law
b) citizen oath keeper unenrolls from existing health insurance as a protest
c) tax time comes and, against the advice of citizen’s tax adviser, citizen refuses to submit to $15,000 fine
d) citizen is contacted by FedGov informing them that he must pay the fine and asking why it wasn’t paid
e) citizen informs FedGov of his refusal to submit to this affront to his God given liberty
f) FedGov officials arrive on the ‘compound’ (state run media word for ‘more than 2 acres’) to take citizen to jail to await show trial
g) citizen tells two FedGov officials at his door to go pound sand and slams the door
h) FedGov breaks down door with drawn weapons and one of them fires at ‘armed individual’ who only had a gun in a holster. He misses and citizen draws and fires, killing both officials
i) a perimeter is established, and media is called to the scene to witness federal officials’ show of force in apprehending ‘anti-government gunman who has holed himself up at his compound.’

All wildly hypothetical, of course, but the point is, I think we all need to be thinking about media contact. And new media will be essential.

I propose:

As much surveillance as you can afford at your place of residence, including audio and outside cameras if possible. There are many possible ways to set this up, but the key here will be collecting the video on a computer where it can be processed, cut into smaller manageable chunks and archived. Be sure to have remotely hosted servers (virtual servers like Amazon’s cloud offering can be acceptable) and have video copied to it automatically on regular (or continuous) intervals. Security including encryption is essential.

At regular intervals, unless you intervene before the interval is up, the remotely hosted server should be set up to post video to Youtube, but also other on-line video services and sent to friends and family, or someone else, possibly, if you don’t want to unwittingly implicate someone who doesn’t want to be involved.

What I’m talking about here is sort of a dead man switch. If you are not able to prevent the posting, emailing, etc. of your surveillance video, then it will get posted.

That’s just a rough idea. I plan on doing something like this myself and will work out the details. I may have to suggest a less public forum for discussions of the details.

Update: I should also add that it would be a good idea to record yourself, Youtube style, explaining at each step of the way what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I.e.: first one might be recorded when you first unenroll from your insurance. That way, anybody viewing the surveillance of a FedGov attack will have the full context.

1A can mitigate the need to exercise 2A

Posted on by
Reply

Well, at least some of the time.

To most free men, the right to speak freely is as important as the right to keep and bear arms. If that describes you, you should be following the case of Ezra Levant closely. Yes, I know, this is up in the land of our nothern neighbor, and we don’t have national or state (ironically named) “Human Rights Commissions” here in the US. But browse Ezra’s archives and you’ll see definite rumblings of it happening here in the good ole USA.

A recent example that sticks out is the case of Joey Vento of Geno’s Steak in Philadelphia. He has a sign posted in his store telling customers “This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING ‘PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH.’” Someone, or many someones complained, and his case was referred to the city’s Commission on Human Relations, previously unknown to this author, at least.

And then, of course, there are the Islamic supremacists fighting in the Underworld of the Nazgûl for strategically misnamed defamation laws across the globe which are really nothing more than blasphemy laws. You can find plenty on that in Ezra’s archives, as well.

Start out by checking the archives from the very beginning of his blog around the beginning of this year. Look for the eight or nine part video of his hearing with the Alberta Human Rights Commission “Investigator.”

It’s been a while since I watched that interrogation, but I remember Ezra making an excellent point regarding just how important the right to free speech is. He pointed to some war torn areas of the world that got that way at least in part because citizens believed they had no other recourse. In the USA, we at least have a strong foundation for the redress of grievances. A process by which we can influence government and stop abuses of power and infringements on our rights. When citizens believe that speaking out has no effect, or carries with it the risk of imprisonment or violent suppression, then there is little else left to do but either submit and become enslaved, or resist using force.

So, although the right to keep and bear arms protected by our second amendment is extremely important, were it not for the right of free speech (and the like) protected by our first amendment, then we most certainly would, eventually, be exercising one of the rights implied by the second amendment: to fight against tyranny.

This is why that no matter who occupies the White House for the next four years, one of our most important fights is going to be to get campaign finance reform — or as others have more correctly termed it, the Incumbent Protection Act — repealed. It is a slippery slope that we have already stepped onto.

But getting back to Ezra Levant, I want to refer you to a particular post from August:

…I’m not really interested in trying to “convince” Moon — or anyone else at the CHRC — that censorship is wrong and freedom is right. I don’t need to convince them, because those are my natural rights, and I don’t need their permission. I think it’s a moral mistake to even grant the CHRC and its contractors the legitimacy as arbiters of right and wrong

Some months before reading that, I had an encounter with a foreigner who is here on a green card, and whose country of origin shall remain nameless, at least for the time being. He’s an admitted statist and believes the government should run everything. We were having a conversation about the right to keep and bear arms and he chimed in with “it’s a privilege, not a right.”

I walked away from the argument a little flustered. Not because I couldn’t defend my position of it being a right. I could. But because he stated it in a way I hadn’t heard before. Usually we hear either that it is a) a right, b) a right with some allowed limitations, or c) not at a right at all.

I hadn’t heard anyone say it was a privilege before and wasn’t prepared for how annoyed I was by it. I felt a little righteous indignation about the comment. And I found myself rehearsing in my mind what I might say to him should the topic come up again. It went something like this:

So, you think it’s privilege. Well, you smarmy little *blank*, I don’t care if you think it’s a privilege, I claim it as my natural, God-given right. And you, personally, cannot take that away from me. Not even the Brady Bunch can. Nor can my legislators, nor law enforcement officers, nor judges. Sure, they can oppress me by passing unjust laws, arresting and charging me when I exercise the right, or convicting me when I’m innocent of any wrongdoing, but nothing on God’s Green Earth will ever change the fact that it is my right. My final authority is not the opinions of men; it is the fact of God’s gift.