Claire Wolfe is credited with this “awkward time” quote:
America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
Mike Vanderboegh has said on many occasions, that there are times, particularly when targeted by the ATF, that all you can hope for is an unfair gunfight, because the deck is so obviously stacked against peaceable citizens.
Now comes this warning from another excellent piece by Drs. Gallant and Eisen:
How many believe that, in this firearm-hostile world, any of us would prevail in such a lawsuit?!
(Regarding our chances in the face of an international court system.)
Not me. And as is often pointed out, if there is no rule of law, that works both ways. If I have none of the protections that are recognized and codified in the US Constitution, then any jackbooted thug that comes to my door to cart me off to an international court will also have no protection of the rule of law.
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.
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.
While I wait to see if my fellow debater returns, I see this posted by Mike. And whadayaknow, there’s that good ol’ Disorder Conduct charge right there in the title.
Could this editorial be any more hypocritical? First you see this line:
This bill begs the question whether openly carrying a gun in a public place is, by itself, disorderly conduct. We think it is, for the simple reason that it will cause fear, if not panic, among many people who see this behavior.
and then you see this:
Rep. Paul Ray, the sponsor of HB49, doesn’t see it that way. He lives in an alternate reality in which Utah police officers use the disorderly conduct statute to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to openly carry firearms.
So in one instance the author is saying that openly carrying a gun in a public place is, by itself, disorderly conduct. In the next breath he’s accusing Rep. Paul Ray of being in an alternate universe in believing that police officers use the disorderly conduct statute to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to openly carry firearms.
So which is it, Mr. Nameless Author? Are cops abusing the disorderly conduct charge or are they not? So if they are not misapplying the charge of disorderly conduct, what harm is there in removing the ability to misapply it? You are clearly endorsing the abuse of the charge.
I just finished watching the entire mini-series called Amerika that aired on ABC 25 years ago. You can find the trailer here and the link to the first of 13 episodes on the right. After each episode, the link to the next one will be on the right, as well. I highly recommend watching it if you’ve never seen it, or if it’s been so long that you’ve forgotten many of the details. It’s remarkable how many of the characters easily map to real people I see today. Be ready to be roused to get prepared, and prepared FAST. It may be fiction, but it’s frightening that there are real people who think like the villains in the series.
There were two scenes that stuck in my mind, one of which I may cover later. But here’s what I transcribed from a scene where Colonel Andrei Denisov (played by Sam Neill) and First Lady of Heartland (formed from five central states, including Nebraska) are discussing an attack by Soviet troops on exiles/refugees in her home town of Milford:
pb – Governor General Peter Bradford (Robert Urich) ab – First Lady Amanda Bradford (Cindy Pickett) ad – Colonel Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill)
pb: Ah, colonel. ad: Peter. pb: Colonel Denisov, this is my wife, Amanda. ad: Mrs. Bradford, what a pleasure to see you. I am sorry about the trouble you had in Milford. ab: I was very impressed with how quickly you…you could help. I wondered about that. ad: Well, soon your husband will be able to accomplish much the same thing. ab: Forgive me for asking, but…If you had the power to stop what was going on, how did it happen in the first place? pb: Amanda. ad: No, no, no, it’s a fair question. I guess you could say that there are… there are some things that are set in motion in such a general way, that one has little control over the specifics…until something arises which can be dealt with. ab: So power, when it’s responsible for creating the circumstances for evil is no one’s fault. While power when it’s exercised against that same evil is to someone’s credit. ad: As Peter takes responsibility for the entire area, the less ability he will have to deal with some specific things that may be important to someone else. ab: I hope he can use that power for good. ad: Power for good, exists only with power. And power is not easy and it’s not always clear. And it is never cheap.
Colonel Denisov sounds a lot like Eric Holder, to me. He was not at all aware of the specifics, he claims, but, hey, look at me, I’m cleaning house, and you should be praising me for all the good work I’m doing.
Eric Holder is violating the rule of law and rubbing it in the faces of, up to this point, feckless, Congressmen. As Bob Owens said, he needs to be held in contempt of Congress, impeached, and face felony charges for what he has done. And follow that up with same for Obama.
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:
Abuse of ‘disorderly conduct,’ ‘resisting arrest,’ and other “piling on” types of charges.
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’splace, 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.
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.
Um. I mean, Uzis. Yup, I’m the proud owner of two new Uzis. Yes, they are real. Straight from Amazon.com, with no background check whatsoever, delivered straight to my door. Yes!
The black one has a glass breaker and the gun-metal one has a “DNA collector.” They were my first purchases with my trial Amazon Prime membership (which I believe could be my financial undoing — it’s just too easy to click my bank account down to zero before the next paycheck). The black one with the glass breaker is here and the gun-metal one with the DNA collector is here. Don’t know why I got two, but I guess it’s that whole “1 is 0, 2 is 1” thing.
They seem sturdy, and write well (nice gel pens that you can easily get refills for). It’s a bit hard to find something to test the glass breaker on, because, you know, I kind of value my car windows. The DNA collector would definitely collect some serious DNA if you had nothing else on you to defend yourself.
Like my 1 inch stainless steel balls, these pens, for the most part, pass as something innocuous. The SS balls are simply exercise balls, but could easily put a couple nasty dents in an assailant’s forehead. These are simply writing implements until called upon for more serious work.
So I wandered into Starbucks today to pick up a cup of coffee and a muffin, and I saw the Redneck wannabee below waving a gun around and…
Uh…
Oops…
Sorry, there. Had an attack of the Bradys.
Walked into Starbucks. Bought coffee. Had polite conversation with barista. Put half and half and sugar in coffee. Took picture. No one was hurt. No one ran out of the place screaming. Actually, I don’t think anyone even noticed, which is the way it usually is.
And it wasn’t my intent to draw attention to it, either. Not even for the sake of the buycott. This is to participate in offsetting, likely by at least a 10-fold ratio, any potential (unlikely) negative affect the anti-human-rights crowd’s boycott may have.
We outnumber them. By large margins.
A vigil for gun violence victims? We’ll participate, but for ALL victims of violence and encourage the survivors and others to end their victimhood by going armed.
A boycott? We buycott.
Twitter an anti-human-rights rally? We’ll drown you out simply by our sheer numbers. Sure, you have a right to speak, but you are in the infinitesimal minority, and we intend to show you that.
Update: Changed barrister to barista. As Sean says in the comments, small difference. :-/
Update 2: Also, I heard that the Brady Campaign itself is not actually participating in this boycott, though I don’t have a reference. Apparently, they are learning, and methinks there is a little bit of infighting in the anti-human-rights universe.
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.
So here I am, suffering from the constant drip-drip-drip water torture like chirp of either a dying batter or a dying smoke detector. Apparently, these things don’t last forever and have to be replaced every 7-10 years. Well, all the information I can find on these Kidde 1276 alarms indicate that they start chirping at seven years, but on the device itself it says to replace them after 10 years.
I’m still trying to find out if this is a Kidde-only thing, because I found at least one hate post on them. I figure if I’m going to replace all six of them, I want to pick a brand/model that’s going to last longer if there are any.
Scroll down in that post and you’ll find this gem:
What makes matter worse for me, I have an African Grey parrot that picked up the chirps and the test alarm perfectly, and loves to make the sound. I don’t know what I am hearing is the detector or the parrot. First Alert here I come.
Now that tickled my funny bone. I’m just glad my cat isn’t capable of mimicking the chirping sound.
Update: Another quote from another comment in that post: I’d be better off with a house full of canaries
Oh, and in my case, it doesn’t help that the one that’s chirping is about 20 feet above the floor, and I don’t have a 15ft ladder.
