Category Archives: onlyones

The Standing Army Jefferson Warned About

This Billy Beck post is exactly why I didn’t mention the “swatting” that Frey got. (Yes, my post was short, but I avoided writing about the swatting intentionally.) I might not go as far as Beck does in saying it was deserved. But I do hope it has changed his outlook, or will at least make him think. I don’t know of the case to which Beck refers where Frey initially defended the SWAT raid, but I do hope that if it is as he says it is (which I don’t doubt) that maybe Frey will have second thoughts about this standing army that we now call the police that Jefferson warned about.

Often when some of us complain about the police, there is the obligatory, “but there are some good cops” or even worse, in my opinion, “the vast majority of cops are good guys.” Don’t expect that here. Even the one cop I know who wants to do the right thing and joined up partly because he saw so many doing the wrong thing, isn’t doing what needs to be done. There was a time not too long ago that he wanted to give a homeless man a ride (where, I’m not sure, probably to a shelter). But instead, the department made him arrest the guy, for breaking no laws.

For anyone thinking of joining this threat to liberty, this standing army, for noble reasons, I do hope you have a backup plan. Because, in situations like that, freedom loving people expect you to quit. Publicly. Loudly.

This cop liked his job. If this nation keeps barreling towards socialism, for the sake of the potential victims of state violence, I do hope you will quit. State actors with guns are the tyrant’s only means of enforcing his edicts. Remove that, and he is powerless.

No matter how much good you think you do, or that you’ve really done, nothing makes up for the many innocent people killed by cops, and many cops and entire departments that will defend and stand side-by-side with fellow cops who do so. Cross that Thin Blue Line. You are not brothers. You have a job, and that’s it. If you must do it, follow Sir Robert Peel’s principles or you set yourself up as the enemy of the people. You should be ready to stand side by side with Regina Tasca rather than the unnamed tackling duo (and their complicit bosses) who beat down Kyle Sharp. “I don’t have all facts,” is a (pardon the pun) cop-out. For the sake of argument, assume that you do, and decide who you would side with.

Because if you cannot answer that you honestly will stand with the David Olofsons and the Davidians and the Vicky Weavers of the world and not with the BATFE, the Lon Horiuchis *spit*, the TSA gropers, and VIPR and other 4th amendment violators, then you are setting yourself up as an enemy of liberty. Choose this day whom you will serve.

Peel vs. Enforcement Training, Round 3

Here is my latest to response to Curtis, whom I’ve been having an exchange with lately here. Again, I’m making this a separate post, since it’s so long.

I may continue to engage Curtis if he responds, but mostly my job is done. I didn’t know he was a cop when I invited him over here after a short exchange at Uncle’s place. But when he stated that he was, I saw an opportunity to find out where at least one cop stood on a few things I felt were important in an Oath Keeping Peace Officer: a) OathKeepers, b) Mike Vanderboegh’s Open Letter to American Law Enforcement., c) citizens right to video record police action, d) elimination of the use of ‘disorderly conduct’, ‘resisting arrest’, and similar charges that are usually piled on when the thought is other charges won’t stick (i.e.: a trumped up charge as a pretext for an arrest).

In my opinion, Curtis failed in all but (c), with regard to understanding what a truly free country would look like. I think his view may be the majority view among law enforcement, but I could be wrong. I hope so.

Curtis, I do hope you will reflect on our exchange and consider changing your outlook. Civil society could depend on it.

Without further adieu, here’s my most recent response to Curtis’ comment on Peel or the Newer, Modern “Enforcement Training”.

===

Well, sure I invited you here, but it was certainly not for a private conversation. It was before I knew you were a cop, sure, but I do want others to see what at least one cop thinks of the issues I’ve brought up.

Please, if I missed responding to anything you asked that you’d like an answer to, let me know. I’m more than willing to stay engaged. I can go back and re-read what we’ve each posted, but the posts are getting long, so it’s hard to find the nuggets I might have missed. That said, it’s not my intent to drag this on. I think you’ve made yourself clear.

You must understand. I’m not seeking to “agree to disagree,” so to speak. That’s simplistic. Though it’s not the case with everything I’ve asked, you might consider viewing some of my questions as a winnowing fork. Perhaps someone knows you personally who also sees your responses. They may need to know where you stand. Perhaps they didn’t know what your views were until now. Though it’s fine if you wanted to talk about one thing in Vanderboegh’s letter, it would have been better if you also answered my question about it. “Whom will you serve,” in the context of that letter? Because if you cannot answer that you honestly will stand with the David Olofsons and the Davidians and the Vicky Weavers of the world and not with the BATFE, the Lon Horiuchis *spit*, the TSA gropers, and VIPR and other 4th amendment violators, then you are setting yourself up as an enemy of liberty. When I say I’m not seeking to “agree to disagree,” please understand that I am not saying that it’s my way or the highway. What I’m trying to say is that when those who think they have authority over us “disagree,” that can often mean innocent people die. And for that reason, free people should be wary of anyone with a badge, a uniform, and a gun who has specifically expressed that he “disagrees” about whether or not he should be treated specially.

On the extra measure of protection issue, it appears you didn’t read the links I provided on the whole Martha Boggs / Stacey Campfield debate. That’s apparent from this:

There are people out in the world that target certain people specifically because of their job and I think that is a separate crime unto itself similar the consideration that is given to people when they are singled out due to race, religion, sexual orientation and age.

If you go read what Linoge and Rich Hailey wrote regarding Boggs and Campfield, you’ll know where I stand on that. And I don’t think you’ll find many in the cause of liberty who support even the current regime of forced association and special penalties for ‘hate’ crimes based on the reason behind it (whether racist, sexist, or whatever).

You see, here’s the bottom line, that applies to the freedom of association issue as well. It’s none of anyone’s damn business why I might decide to not associate with anyone, no matter what the reason. Of course, attacking someone without provocation sort of nullifies the ‘none of your damn business’ assertion. Or maybe not. There is the 5th Amendment that basically does not allow you to force me to tell you. So if someone violently attacks a cop because he is a cop, yet never says anything about it, not you, the courts, nor anyone else has any legal or moral authority whatsoever to demand an answer to whether or not that was the reason.

[Sort of off topic, but this is why I consider the radical atheists and what I might call absolutist separationists as enemies of liberty. What if I run for office on a platform that includes my faith? At least partly as a result of my faith (but also for biological reasons), I believe that individual, human life begins at conception, and all that follows from that. Should I suffer accusations of violating the principle of separation of church and state, yet a pro-life atheist not? What if I had kept my mouth shut about my faith, but was just as ardent about when I believe life begins? To be blunt, I use the phrase again, it's none of your damn business how I am informed in forming my values and opinions. Judge them on their merits.]

You say, “However, we are directly put in harm’s way by our community due to the nature of our job. A different punishment is consideration of the nature of our jobs.”

I think there’s a name for this in debating skills, but I don’t remember what it is. It’s missing the middle piece. Sort of like, “1. Start a business, 2. [], 3. PROFIT!”

What I mean is that you being put in harm’s way does not justify additional punishment. The existing, available punishment suffices. Whether you realize it or not, you are implying that because you take additional risks that no one else does, that you do have more value. By the way, if we do a little research, I think we’ll find that delivering pizzas is riskier than being a cop. That’s not a put down, either, it’s simply based on some hearsay comments I’ve heard from various sources. I can think of no other reason what additional risk on your part justifies additional punishment on the part of a perp.

My state decided it was worth making a law concerning the issue and I don’t have a problem with it. You have the right to take issue with it but I don’t agree with you, and it’s not just because I’m a cop. Our country has a lot of other distinctions in this matter in respect to someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation and age. Should all of those be done away with also?

Yup, they should all be done away with. A fellow by the name of Kevin Baker has a blog called The Smallest Minority. The name comes from an Ayn Rand quote that can probably be agreed upon by most libertarians and others interested in liberty: “The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” It’s most definitely something I ascribe to. And that means NO special treatment due to an individual’s group membership. Including whatever profession you happen to be in.

Frankly, for anyone who has any understanding of our form of government as intended by our founding generation and founding documents, it is clear that those who are in the employ of our government have more restrictions placed on them in the execution of their duties than those who don’t.

And though you might not be trying to condescend, you must understand that calling this a mere difference of opinion and saying “cool,” means that maybe I’m not making myself clear. This has to do with where you stand on individual liberty and on our founding principles. Here’s an excellent summary of what I think of tolerance:

No one on God’s green earth has the right to expect that his opinion be respected. What everyone does have is the right to have his own opinion and to express it and to attempt to influence others with rational discussion.

It’s quaint that you keep putting the blame on the people for corruption/bad behavior of government officials. And it’s completely out of line. I have to wonder if you have any clue what’s going on beyond your immediate surroundings. Have you heard the phrase among gun blogs and other freedom oriented blogs that, “we are not voting are way out of this.” One related problem at the federal level is the 17th Amendment. We seem to be functioning a lot like, or at least moving in the direction of a direct democracy, which is nowhere near what our founders envisioned. In fact some expressed disdain for democracy. One of its biggest evil is the tyranny of the majority. How dare you blame the citizens of New Orleans for the criminal police department in operation there, as if the police are not to blame for their own behavior. Every individual cop who participated in disarming a peaceable citizen, every individual cop who abandoned his post, every individual cop who looted abandoned stores was, all by himself, responsible for his own behavior.

As far as waiting to get the whole story, well, cops have something else to worry about these days that they never had to before and that they cannot and should not be able to do anything about. And that is one of the questions I asked: Citizens recording them. You see, we have the raw evidence, and in many of the cases, no additional context is necessary. Some incidents might merit getting more information, but many more every day, it seems, require no additional explanation. Exhibit A, B, and C are the videos of Officer Harless. And there are many more.

What I thought you were saying when you referred to “equal treatment under the law” was if we are off duty we get no special considerations. We should still get speeding tickets or DUI’s. We should be arrested for domestic battery or theft or anything else a civilian would.

Off duty, or on duty, there should be the same consequences for cops and non-cops for speeding, DUI, domestic battery, theft, or anything else. By the way, please shed the notion that I am a civilian, but you are not. Unless you are still an active duty Marine, then you are also a civilian. Terms matter. You use terms that separate you from the people, well, then the more we know about what you think of us. Most certainly, in your role as cop, you are a civilian.

If the people in Indiana have a problem with the way their state/local government is doing something it is their responsibility to fix it.

Again, you’re deflecting blame. This wound up in the Indiana Supreme Court due to disgusting behavior by cops. Yes, the people can try to remove one or more of the idiot justices who voted against enumerated constitutional rights, but that’s a large hurdle. And it’s not hard to see what a Rube Goldberg machine this has become. One of the justices targeted was appointed by the Republican Governor. There are a number of layers separating and protecting the criminal cops who behaved as they did from the individual(s) whom they violated.

You said “Sorry, but “articulable safety concern” doesn’t cut it.” Ok what does cut it? Anything? You are right that it does leave it to officer discretion to deprive someone of their civil rights. Yes that is part of our job and that is why we get training in various areas concerning this issue. Sometimes the lawful performance our duty requires us to deprive a person of their civil rights “if we have probable cause”. An articulable safety concern can be probable cause. If you don’t think it is, what would probable cause be to you?

I think I made clear that if there is probable cause for arrest then that is the only probable cause for disarming a citizen. And mere possession of a firearm can never be considered as the sole probable cause. Otherwise, I guess I’m always subject to being disarmed if I happen to be in the vicinity of a crime and a cop addresses me.

If we abuse that responsibility we are held accountable for it.

I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for proof of that statement.

Maybe not it the manner you would like but we are.

There’s that “more equal than others” equal treatment under the law, again.

“The mere possession of a firearm is not probable cause for anything.” Under most circumstances it isn’t. If that person was found guilty a crime, violent felony only where I am, and had their right to keep and bear arms revoked, then it is. You might not agree with that law, fine, change it. Until then people are still accountable for it.

Well, then, it’s not “mere possession,” is it. Oh, and sure, I’ll just grab a pen and cross out the laws I don’t like and write in ones I do.

Snark aside, as we continue the arduous, multi-decade process of tearing down what the regressives have done to our predecessors over the past century, many cops continue to violate their oaths to constitution by enforcing unconstitutional edicts. That is what OathKeepers is about. Should a law be passed forcing the confiscation of all handguns, will you stand down or will execute the unconstitutional edict.

On the opaqueness of the investigative process when the one being investigated is a cop:

That is a standard all employers, public or private sector, are required to follow. Any public employee still has the right to privacy and due process.

And that is what needs to change regarding government employees. Due process, sure. Privacy, no. Not on anything related to your job, anyhow. I think all legislators, for example, should be forced to wear cameras 24 hours a day. With possible exceptions from bathroom and conjugal visits. ;-)

Even if the officer is under investigation for a criminal offence the information surrounding that investigation is not part of the public record until after they are found guilty or not guilty, just like if a civilian was on trial.

There you go with that ‘civilian’ distinction again. You are civilian. Live it. I’ll concede that only if all investigations are done by a prosecutor to determine if the law was broken rather than Internal Affairs to just determine if any rules were broken.

Which oath, the Law enforcement oath or the oathkeepers oath?

Oathkeepers doesn’t have a separate oath. They are calling on those who join to keep the oaths they original took, and add the “10 orders we will not obey” just to clarify a bit of what that oath means.

Ultimately I see it as people patting themselves on the back for doing something that they should have been doing all along. I am the first one hold myself accountable for my integrity and professionalism. Someone on a web page I don’t know and probably never will has no bearing on how I conduct myself. My principals and character do.

Wow. First you dis Vanderboegh’s letter, then OathKeepers as “back patters.” I don’t think you’ve taken much time at all to really understand what either of them are saying. If you did that with OathKeepers, it would be clear to you that this is about making a statement non-cops that you are on their side. Good God, what use is you holding yourself accountable to the rest of us. Some people on a web page that you don’t know and never will? Well, they’re much more than a web page, and you never knowing them is a choice you have made. Many more have chosen to participate. People like me would like to know why you haven’t.

I think you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of Peel’s “the police are the public and the public are the police.” Where the hell do you get that we need you from that? Peel’s statement is simply saying that you only get your legitimacy from the people, and additionally, you are simply hired full time to do what every free man still retains as a right to do himself.

I really hoped I could find the quote, but haven’t yet, but I do remember a recent comment from a blogger that went something like this: “We hire peace officers so that we don’t have to squat at the entrance to our property all day with a spear ready to defend our women and our stuff. But that in no way means we give up the right to squat at the entrance to our property all day with a spear ready to defend our women and our stuff.

Regarding the NOPD Katrina confiscations:

There were also cases of officers and military personnel refusing to disarm people there as it being an unlawful order. Why didn’t Vanderboegh bring that up in his letter also?

I had never heard that. I assume you have sources for that information. Please provide them if you are so inclined. I am truly interested.

If they didn’t vote they can’t use that as an excuse for not having any responsibility in the actions of their own government.

That’s got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. So your presented, for example, with what we might be stuck with at the federal level for President. An incumbent obvious fascist, and an obvious fascist. I chose neither. Let’s say, if Romney wins the nomination and, in my fantasy world, Obama wins the general,
but with only 0.55% to Romney’s 0.45% and the rest of the 99% of voters not voting for any president at all. He will have zero legitimacy if more voters were smart enough for such a coup. Who knows what would happen next, but I refuse to accept responsibility for anything Obama does simply because I refused to vote for the White Obama with an R next to his name.

You can point fingers all day long but that community as a whole is responsible from what happened there.

What collectivist tripe. The individuals who were violated were the victims.

I believe you have a bias against law enforcement in general and when you see something about LE in the news you only see what you want to.

I have a bias against “Law Enforcement” when it seems that the institution isn’t all that concerned about making damn sure they’re officers know the law they are attempting to enforce. Heck, there was even a case recently, I believe, where a judge ruled that cops don’t have to know the law. I don’t have the reference, but I will try to dig it up if you are interested.

In some places, they are still called “Peace Officers.” Why the change to “Law Enforcement” in most places? There was a time, that police officers would actively participate in and encourage the training of children in the use of firearms. How many local sheriffs’ offices or police departments would put together a posse today, composed of citizens using their own guns? And don’t forget the case of the Texas A&M shooter where citizens got their hunting rifles out and forced the scum to take cover…with the endorsement of the cops on the scene. Things like that are how it used to be. And that’s what I mean when I say there was a time when we did just fine without law enforcement as it exists today. It wasn’t that long ago that the cops considered each of us an equal and legitimate force against evil.

Seems not so much, anymore.

Change: Fixed a rather bad double negative mistake. Oops.

Addendum: Speeding in hot pursuit is an obvious exception that I left out.

Peel or the Newer, Modern “Enforcement Training”

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.

Institutional Thuggery

Over at Unc’s, there was this regarding the madness of the town of Keene, NH getting a tank (actually, a Lenco Bearcat).

After one commenter posted something I pretty much agree with, but prefaced it with this:

Look, 99 percent of the cops are good guys, but all this ninja stuff is not needed.

I took issue with it and posted this:

I just can’t agree with the “99 percent of the cops are good guys” statement anymore.

For all of Baron Barnett’s State Sponsored Criminal Count posts, and David Codrea’s Only One’s post, and a host of other sources, it seems there are far too many police chiefs and sheriffs willing to cover for their underlings and partners who don’t speak up.

There are at least three criminals in the Harless case in Canton: Harless, his partner for doing nothing during Harless’ criminal behavior, and the police chief for covering for him (including all his previous incidents) before he was left with no choice but to fire him.

I’m trying real hard not to hate cops in general, but with so many incidents and so much endorsement of it, I don’t think I’ll *ever* trust cops with this kind of equipment.

Another commenter responded, stopping short of actually accusing me of not doing anything to improve the situation. But, it read, in part:

I can understand your frustration and anger in watching something like the Canton incident but that kind of person is a minority in the law enforcement community, believe it or not. What about the Cop in California that buys a kid lunch in Burger King, or someplace like that, then a few minutes later has someone walk up and shoot him in the head? Was he a bad Cop? Did he deserve to get shot in the head just because he was a cop?
It is frustrating when you see a person in that position of trust doing things like that but in this day and age, even with overt evidence like the video, it can be a drawn out process to get rid of a guy like that.

To say it’s frustration and anger is almost condescending. A better word would be motivated. Harless should not have only been fired. He should be in jail. You think not? Would I be if I made those kinds of threats?

It seems qualified immunity has become unqualified immunity in almost all cases. And when that wall is finally, justifiably breached, you have 50 cops saluting the cop guilty of causing Otto Zehm’s death as he’s escorted out by federal marshals.

And then you have the NYPD ticket fixing scandal, where 16 officers were found guilty, yet approximately 100 officers clapped in support of them. Patrick Lynch, the police union president declared, “These officers should not be facing criminal charges for a something that has been a long standing practice at all levels of the department.”

All levels of the department.

Okay, now.

Can you see why it’s so hard to believe they are in the minority as more cases like this surface?

I have zero sympathy for departments who don’t want to risk getting sued over firing criminal cops. Innocent people die as a result. Like Otto Zehm. And then there are the “economic Wacos” where innocent people are harassed and have their substances eaten out when there is no case against them, but they are nevertheless financially ruined, as well as having their reputations destroyed (i.e.: employment prospects become grim).

And don’t even get me started on those who assert that a cop’s life is worth more than a non-cop’s.

Nowhere in my comment on Uncle’s post did I specifically implicate my own local law enforcement, though for all I know, many of them may be guilty, too. I’ll be watching.

As far as “what did I do?” goes, I directly addressed my County Commissioners, along with a representative from the Sheriff’s office (I live outside any town, out in the county) during a working group meeting about an Orwellian named “Good Neighbor” Firearms ordinance and then later at the hearing with the full Board.

I made the statement that, with all due respect to law enforcement, no law should enacted if there is any negative affect whatsoever on individual rights, but yet the only justification is to make the job of law enforcement easier. (I said more, but my previous posts have most of those details.) The point is that I didn’t just attend, but I spoke at these hearings and without sugar coating anything. More than most gun owners would do, or even those in the liberty movement.

But the fix was in and the ordinance passed. But I don’t give up. So your questions are not answered the way you might think. Of course I vote in local elections. And more.

And if you re-read my post you’ll see that I’m not saying they are all clones of Harless. But at least in the case of Seattle and NYC, they are corrupt to the core for supporting the corrupt cops in their midst.

“It doesn’t matter who was behind you”

Say what?

Another couple of Only Ones, but even better, they’re Booze Only Ones:

“It doesn’t matter who was behind you,” the judge said, while explaining that Almon was guilty of the charge for placing another person in fear of bodily injury.

So let me get this straight. Two people walking behind him at midnight and he takes out his pocket knife and asks why they are following him. And puts it away when they say they are cops. And he’s guilty of “criminal threathening?”

Sounds like one from Across the Pond in Sarah Brady’s Paradise, but no, it’s New Hampshire.

And what does this judge suggest we do if being followed by two unknown people with unknown intentions at midnight.

Credit goes to David, of course, for the Only Ones and Sarah Brady’s Paradise memes.