Yes, I have comments, but you aren't going to like them. I carry in Tennessee, but only in my locale, and I don't flaunt it. I carry loaded, since I know everyone here... I would NEVER try to travel the length of my state that way!
Jason is a problem child. Tell me that he doesn't hate authority, and cops in general. Having been a cop, I know his type.
I think he is wrong, and just might pay the price for it.
And why did he pull the initial post??? Something in there that might make others wonder about his ability to be rational? I've searched him through Google...the boy ain't quite right.
Im not quite sure what you found on Google besides some useless stuff. The truth is, a lot of people despise or fear cops. Long gone is the day that the friendly police officer walked down the street happily chatting with children, when people welcomed the site of the men in blue. Of course many cops are now dressed in black, almost a paramilitary force. Now they call citizens of their own communities "civilians" like the miltary started doing a while back. There is currently a mentality of hatred of the police among many, deserved or not. Now I dont know Jason, but Im not gonna criticize because I dont know him.
Thanks, Jordan...
Input welcome. Being a former cop, I can tell you that 99% are fine people. Who else do you call when shit hits the fan? Who else would walk into the face of death to save your wimpy little ass when you don't have the balls?? Go ahead, have a good cry now...I understand.
Jason reacted in the wrong way to this, as he has other incidents in his life.
I have lots of guns, but I won't support an idiot.
Wayne, Jason is not a problem child. In fact, he has done everything possible to comply with the laws of the state of Washington.
See the fact that Jason unloaded his firearm per the instructions in state law while he was carrying openly in his vehicle in Spokane. Spokane basically decided that the bullets and the ammunition were too close and apparently arrested him on a 9.41.050 charge, even though the law (read RCW 9.41.050 and 9.41.010 for the definition of "loaded") is extraordinarily clear that if that if your firearm is not "loaded", you are not in violation of the law. Spokane apparently thinks that the laws of California are in effect here, which is ridiculous.
Who are the problem children here, the man who complies with the law, or the Spokane law enforcement who make up California style firearm laws on people they traffic stop on the spot?
This is why if I openly carry in a car, I'm going to have both laws highlighted. Then again, I have a CPL, so I can in
a car carry loaded.
The Ellensburg situation is a completely different issue. My read of the situation is that the law is preempted by 9.41.290 insofar as he is concerned. Ellensburg is on thin ice, and I will help Jason however I can to beat the Ellensburg charge.
Knock yourself out, Lonnie. I am not one of you guys that sits around and tries to interpret law. Jason is an idiot, and has asked for trouble before. Well, you little pansy asses, he finally found it.
I have LOTS of guns, fully support the 2nd...among the things I don't support are fools. I have noticed that none of the major gun organizations want to have anything to do with him. Tell you anything?
Jordan,
"A lot of people despise or fear cops." While this might be true for a significant percentage of people on the FRINGES of society, I haven't seen much of it in the general population, at least over the age of, say, 25.
Look, cops have a job to do, one that YOU -- the People -- insist must be done. So, we do it. And we try to get it done as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.
I know all about the 2nd Amendment. I support it. The day I'm told to go to a law-abiding citizen's home and take their guns is the day I resign on the spot, and plead with my (former) brother officers not to come to MY house for that purpose, for their own safety.
But MOST people do not routinely go armed with a pistol on their hip, and it tends to scare the horses (sheep?). Then they call us. So, we go and contact the individual to make sure they're not up to no good. With any luck, that'll be about a 2-minute conversation and then we'll both be getting on with
continued
our day.
.....unless, of course, you're AFTER a confrontation. In that case, you can count on your wish being granted, because we will not back down. You -- the People -- would never tolerate that.
Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.
Wayne, you are a smacktard, and a decidedly accurate representation of the majority of cops I have dealt and worked with. Arrogant, dismissive, and insulting. Cops walk into the face of death to save us? Kind of like those cops milling around outside of Columbine for over half an hour before trying to find the shooters? Yeah, they were hurrying to go face that danger. Or maybe you mean the big brave cops that push down old blind women, knock their glass eyes out and mace them for daring to touch the sleeve of a cop as he assists in the theft of her property? Or maybe you mean the cops that routinely enforce unconstitutional laws disarming the law abiding citizens? Yeah, I bet those are the cops you were talking about.
You ask who we call when the shit hits the fan? I can tell you who I wont call: You or your Jack Boot buddies. And not just because you are untrustworthy thugs that would be more inclined to throw charges at me for daring to defend myself than scoop up the body
Yep. I've noticed that. Cops will not back down. Unless forced. Soon...
Jason, you did good, brother. None of the cops who arrested you without cause and hassled you mercilessly deserve to draw another breath. THEY are the criminals in this case, and you are their victim.
This always happens when cops misbehave. A bunch of other cops appear and support them. Even some non-cops support them. Don't listen to them. He who defends evil is evil.
We do not need cops. Never did. Never will. We can defend ourselves or contract for our defense with people who will actually be on our side, or be fired.
The monopoly on force enjoyed by our governments and their minions behind the blue wall has done what absolute power always does, corrupted everyone involved, absolutely. The only cure is to take away their power. Soon...
of the dead criminal, or find him if he isn't dead. And not just because you would impound my guns and scratch your filthy initials on them so you could try and get them at a later time. I wouldn't call you because you would get there 20 minutes too late to do a damn thing anyway, and you would still most likely steal my guns.
Sgt. Mac, you simply aren't paying enough attention. There is a strong undercurrent of animosity towards the police, especially in the Black and Latino communities. And it is growing in the White communities. And you can look at dear old Wayne to see why. Self aggrandizing, self important,and antagonistic towards all non-cops. Ignore it if you want, but if the good cops do not eject the bad cops from their midst, it will only get worse, and in the end, everybody will suffer for it.
Now you say that if someone was packing openly, minding his own business, you would just go make sure he isn't up to no good. But would you? If I were packing somewher
somewhere that had an unConstututional law saying I couldn't carry openly, but I was threatening no one and being polite to everyone, in other words, not being up to no good, would you simply talk to me and wish me a good day, or would you blindly enforce a law against someone that was doing nothing morally wrong? I bet a box of high end 9mm that you would revert to stormtrooper mode, and probably draw your gun on me. If not, you would be a very rare cop indeed.
Thank you, Sergeant Mac. I got a bit carried away there. Reading what some people have to say about law enforcement makes me wonder why anyone would want the job. I did it from a desire to help, since there are those out there that either won't or can't help themselves.
These are the same people that would be screaming bloody murder if every cop in this country suddenly quit and went home. You and I would be quite safe, because we know how. Some here would strap a gun on, wander outside and become an instant target.
Let's just wait for the conclusion to this. All you have heard is Jason's side. Sure, there are bad cops, but if you think the rest of us form a protective wall around them, you are woefully ignorant. We police our own, much harsher than you would.
As to Columbine...dropping the 82nd Airborne in would not have made much difference in that situation. The cops were guided (hampered???) by "civilian" authority. 'Nuff said.
Wayne
Garrum...
An officer has more to fear from a traffic stop than you do. He will most likely approach you respectfully. If you return that respect, it might surprise you how smoothly things will flow. An officer has wide latitude in enforcing most laws, as he is the point man in deciding whether or not you are a threat. If you are perceived as no threat to society, he will probably wish you a good day and you can resume your trip.
In Jason's case, all the cop knew at the moment was that Jason had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. When the cop walked up to his car and noticed the pistol, he had a right to be apprehensive. From all I have read, Jason didn't help matters by having an attitude problem.
To Mr. St. Clair: Cops are proscribed by law from being proactive. What the cops usually have to deal with are the results of criminal activity, not the causes. It's people like you who call, because you are suddenly confronted with something you have no idea how to handle. Mo
I would finish the above, but it isn't worth the effort.
Sleep well, Mr. St. Clair, knowing there are those out there doing their dead-level best to keep you safe and secure, protecting your right to call us jack-booted stormtroopers. Sometimes they die trying to do that. To you it is a headline in the local paper, and forgotten tomorrow.
Merry Christmas.
Jason and Sierra,
It's nice to see a 'bright spot' in all this just in time for Christmas. I hope you two can enjoy some much needed rest and enjoy the holiday together. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
TO all the other readers of FISHorMAN:
It is always so very easy to read a few words someone types and form an opinion. I suppose it is natural for us to 'chime in' and give our 2 cents worth regardless of how it will impact the object of our opinion, after all that is what the blogs are all about. Jason may not have always acted as 'a model citizen', but who amoung us has. The underlying fact is, regardless of his motivation, he has lived his life in a 'good faith' effort that he was abiding by and practicing in perfectly lawful persuits. He has also been kind enough to allow us to follow his life vicariously through this blog. If, at times, he has seemed bitter or enraged at the Police officers who may/may not have been fair...who amoung us has not. I, for one, w
I, for one, will withhold my judgement of Jason because I have not walked that mile in his shoes.
It is odd, how we shun those who behave in ways that we would not, even if their actions are perfectly legal. Although it remains to be seen whether or not 'the state' determines his actions were 'perfectly legal'.
If you don't think this whole issue is importent, that Jason is just being 'an idiot'... Think about this: Just how much of an issue would this have been 20 years ago..or 50? Just where do you think we WILL BE in 20 or 50 years without the excersise of our legal rights routinely. If you don't think WE THE PEOPLE are incrementally allowing our freedoms and liberties to be replaced by PROTECTIONS and PROHIBITIONS, then you have been asleep at the wheel.
QUOTE:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games play
QUOTE:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Unlike Wayne, my estimation of "good people" who are LEOs is closer to 40-60%. 99% is just not a serious estimation. And most of those 40-60%, if ordered to line folks up and shoot them, will either go along or only hesitate to ask if the civilians need to be shot by age, height, or just left to right.
Bottom line, IMHO and experience: percentage of refusal of an obvious illegal order or activity by police leadership: single digils.
I'll be the first to admit that there are some knuckleheads wearing badges. In my experience, in the places I've worked, they're sharply in the minority, and the good cops turn on them like you wouldn't believe. I'll acknowledge that your mileage may vary.
But I've noticed that there's a sector of folks like Jason and Mr. St. Clair who just espouse this open HATRED of everything government. News flash: cops aren't the biggest fans of everything government does. But those things that affect us, we're stuck with.
Garrum: you'd lose that bet, except for the drawing down part if your hand went close to the gun. I want to go home at the end of my shift. And IS there even such a thing as "high end" 9mm? 
Wayne wrote:
"Being a former cop, I can tell you that 99% are fine people."
Cops always say that. My experience indicates that about 25% may be fine people, but even some of them are suspect.
Then Wayne wrote:
"Who else would walk into the face of death to save your wimpy little ass when you don't have the balls?? Go ahead, have a good cry now...I understand."
and...
"Jason is an idiot, and has asked for trouble before. Well, you little pansy asses, he finally found it."
[emphasis added]
That attitude that he displays with disrespectful comments such as these put him firmly in the "bad cop" category that everyone has been discussing. I doubt very much that anyone here is a "pansy ass" but I'm quite certain that someday a "pansy ass" is going to show Wayne just what a fucktard he is.
Wayne, you are either woefully unobservant, or simply lying. Cops absolutely look away from other cop's wrongdoing, and they most certainly shield each other. I know because I was the victim of such BS.
Cops A and B that I worked with were considered friends. Cop A said,"Man you really ought to be carrying your Glock. It's not that hard to keep it hidden, you know." Cop B agrees with him. Seeing the wisdom in it, I follow Cop A's advice, even though it is against the company's policy. Three months later Cop A and B get their ass in a sling because they basically refuse to obey the contract they agree to to work there, and are off the property 70 percent of the time. My supervisor catches them, confronts them, and schedules a meeting with the Captain the next day. First words out of the Captains mouth: "Garrum carries a gun." He ignored any statements about his cops taking trips to the firing range while on our time, making trips to go shopping several miles up the road, goin
going to eat several miles away. Everything was centered on me, who the meeting was not about. He deflected everything away from the cops by repeatedly bringing me up.
Now, before you even try to, I am not complaining about losing my job. I knew when I started carrying that if I got caught, I would lose my job, and I was willing to risk that. I am pointing out that the cops sold me out to cover their own wrongdoing. Both of those cops were basically stealing our money, because they were on the clock but never there to help. But to keep their work free side jobs, they sacrificed me to save themselves.
There were a number of smaller incidents of wrongdoing by the cops, where they covered for each other, but that was the big one for me.
Garrum...I'm confused. Were you a real cop, or a rent-a-cop?? Were you a trained, bonded, licensed law enforcement officer? I think not.
I ask, simply because my department REQUIRED that I carry 24/7. There is no such thing as an off-duty cop. Remember that. If you ain't been there, don't pretend to know. It just makes you look foolish.
I draw on years of experience, and Jason's story smells to high heaven. There are things he isn't telling you...notice his initial post has been removed.
Sorry, Jason...too late to remove the post...it's archived out there in cyber-space. Want me to get a copy for you???
Wayne, you dont know me, I dont know you. But you display that snobbish attitude Ive become so familiar with. I didnt even comment about Jasons situation. You think you are so damn much better than I am. Some of you cops are just fine, some are a bunch of foul bastards. What pisses me off is the attitude and militarization of some cops. At the court house in a local small town, they got a guy who frisks and runs a metal detector over everyone like its some kind of big city. He wears his big combat boots and his "Multi-County Task Force" badge, he thinks hes hot stuff. I see that kind of thing with a lot of cops. Now I know there are good cops, I see them on a daily basis. But there are some dirty SOBs with a major feeling of superiority.
And about who I call when the SHTF, Ive made my own preparations for any possible SHTF situation. Im not gonna leech off the damn government for my safety, I call it personal responsibility.
Wayne wrote:
> Sorry, Jason...too late to remove the post...it's archived out there in cyber-space. Want me to get a copy for you???
If you honestly believe it proves your insinuations of Jason's irrationality/prevarication/whatever, then post a link to it, and we'll see for ourselves.
Cops are a scourage to society-- notice them chiming in here as if they are authorities on right and wrong--- their morality is based on "might makes right" and thus they back the criminals in spokane who committed crimes against Jason.
I often hear cops say that "%99 of them" are good people-- the fact is, you cannot be a cop without abiding criminal activity- whether its a drug arrest, an illegal search, or enforcing other unconstitutional laws, or just lying to back other cops-- you simply cannot be a cop in this country without being a criminal.
And since they have the immunity of government, and no review, the laws do not apply to them, and they have financial and other incentives to break them.
Thus its no wonder that most crimes committed in this country are committed by cops. Course they aren't recognized-- but that's because in the justice system the cops, the prosecutors and the judges all work for the government, and all have an incentive to protect each ot
-- to protect each other.
When you have such a system, you cannot have justice. The "justice" system will never prosecute one of its own, unless the crime is so spectacular that the public knows about it.
Every cop is a criminal. Look at this "second ammendment supporter" in wayne who endorses criminal activity against someone he PRESUMES is an idiot.
Notice that waynes positions is based on his assumptions-- about jason and about the cops involved.
This shows how much regard for facts (or the law, for that mater) cops have.
Wayne, I was talking about how corrupt cops are in that they will protect each other over wrongdoing, and in my example, they did not protect me. Do you think I was a cop?
My carrying was simply me excersizing my rights, though at the time, I didn't fully grasp that. I just saw the truth in the cop's advice, and figured that if he said breaking company policy was worth the ability to defend myself, it was worth it. At that time, before the sell out, I was actually a blind supporter of Jack Boots and their thuggish tactics. I made what I considered to be pretty good friends with a number of the cops that worked there, and loved listening to their stories of what amounted to them jacking people up and stealing from them. I thought that was the coolest thing in the world. Beat people up, steal their money and drugs, point guns at people, be rude as fuck to everyone you meet, lord your power over everyone. That was the life.
Until they pointed their attitudes and tactics at
Until they pointed their attitudes and tactics at me. Then I got to really see what they were doing to people. It wasn't nearly so cool anymore. The stories, on reflection, didn't seem entertaining so much as bone chilling. The cop who showed me the .25 Lorcin he kept strapped to his ankle "for emergencies, but not for backup" suddenly didn't seem like a big funny guy anymore. He seemed more like someone ready to murder someone and play it off as defense.
Wayne,
After you've posted your link to the full original post, by all means feel free to critique it sentence by sentence, telling us exactly what you think are the "things he isn't telling" in his version of events, based on your vaunted "years of experience".
I've already found a source for the full original post; but since you made the insinuations of prevarication:
> And why did he pull the initial post??? Something in there that might make others wonder about his ability to be rational?
....you would bear the burden of proof.
Real American --
How is a drug arrest a criminal act?
Just because YOU don't agree with laws enacted by your elected representatives?
Do the MAJORITY of the viewers of this blog agree with Real American's assessment of American law enforcement? Because, if so, I'll just back on out of here. No sense in trying to reason with fruit loops.
Garrum --
If your stories are true, that's REALLY messed up.
On the one hand, I'm very skeptical of stories like that, because they bear absolutely no resemblance to my own experiences.
On the other hand, I consider the possibility that they might actually be true, and thank the Lord above that I've been so fortunate as to not ever have had to work beside the sorts of miscreants you've described.
If that cop is carrying a gun as a throw-down, he's a moron. 30 years ago, that might have worked. But not now, with forensics being the way they are....
No Sergent Mac, I can't say that I share the assessment of Law Enforcement that 'Real American' has. I mean, if he wants to 'gag-at-a-gnat' and say "we are all criminals" because we all (including police) exceed the speed limit, or something like that... but that is a moot point. I believe he is infering that all cops are 'dirty'. I don't believe that. I am sure there is a percentage that are, and it is probably different in different areas of the country. I have no way to know, that's completly a guess. I do NOT presume a police officer to be 'dirty' no matter where he is from. I would presume him to be VERY CAUTIOUS however, and probably quite suspicious of me if I were 'open carrying'. WHY? because it's just not PRACTICED very much anymore. I like what Jason was/is doing. It will help highten the awareness of everyone, including Law Enforcement, of just what IS lawful for Joe Public to do with his gun. I fully intend to 'do the research' and find out what State/Loc
law on 'open carry' apply to me where I live, and then determine what/when the appropriate place/time is, and DO IT. I know the potiential exists for a confrontation with Law Enforcement, but I hope that I can keep my cool and come out alright. This is not to be 'looking for a fight' but again, to heighten the awareness of everyone on what can legally be done where gun ownership and carry are concerned.
BTW, to Sarg. Mac and the rest of you PD's that are reading this blog. Thanks for your service. Regardless of the various opinions expressed here, there is one thing I know. You guys DO face real dangers as part of your job DAILY, and I appreciate your sacrifice.
If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment, it'd be best to do it en masse, and be willing to take it all the way through the courts.
That's the whole point of civil disobedience -- to stress the system to the point where those running the show seriously question whether the issue is worth the bother.
Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court.....
See what I mean?
Look, folks, I am NOT your enemy.....unless you choose that by trying to hurt me.
And I'm not your enemy, unless YOU choose so by trying to hurt ME. Attempting to arrest me for behavior that is not criminal is an attack, initiated by you. I have the right and duty to defend myself, with extreme prejudice.
And why should those hundred submit to arrest and go through the courts? Arresting someone for lawful activity is kidnapping. The arresting cops are the ones who should go through the courts. Kidnapping is a capital offense...
I happen to believe that the so-called "laws" forbidding drug sale or possession by adults have no authority to be. I do not recognize the authority of the legislatures to criminalize everything they please, no matter how large the majority. Gun ownership and possession is obvious, since that right is specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution. Drug use is not specifically stated, but our Republican system gives the government enumerated powers. They may not legally pass any "laws" about anything for which the federal or state co
constitution does not explicitly grant them authority. That makes federal drug "laws" all illegal. I haven't studied it, but I'd wager that very few states have the authority to criminalize drug possession.
Given that I believe these "laws" are illegal, I also believe that arresting an adult for possessing drugs or selling them to another adult is also kidnapping, still a capital offense.
I actually go further than this. I don't recognize the authority of the various constitutions over people who have not explicitly sworn to follow them. That means they apply only to sworn public servants, not to me or to any natural citizen. So the legislatures have no authority to criminalize ANYTHING, though I still believe the common law definition of crime, behavior that directly harms another person or their property, still holds.
But I would be happy to settle for the various constitutions, if they were narrowly interpreted and rabidly enforced, meaning that 90% of the current U
U.S. Congress, and likely a similar percentage of every state legislature, should be rotting in jail, assuming they aren't hanged for treason.
So, Mr. St. Clair, you're saying that YOU, and you alone, get to decide whether or not your own behavior is criminal, and whether or not others' behavior is criminal as well?
That the only authority you recognize is YOURSELF? And that you expect others to also recognize your "authority"? But you don't recognize theirs, no matter what MAJORITY of your fellow citizens have chosen to give them that authority (which you don't recognize)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't common law the normal order of business in pre-colonial England? Wasn't it highly subjective and therefore ripe for abuse? Wasn't that corruption the reason we (the USA) opted for CODIFIED laws?
Tell me, Mr. St. Clair, other than the U.S. Constitution itself, are there ANY laws you believe to be valid? I'm just wondering which laws you'll allow me to enforce without the expectation that you'll try to kill me.....
> Look, cops have a job to do,
Does the phrase "Nuremberg Defense" convey any meaning to you?
> one that YOU -- the People -- insist must be done.
I don't recall ever insisting that malum prohibitum laws--which are 99+% of all laws--be enforced.
To be more accurate: your government masters insist that it must be done.
> So, we do it. And we try to get it done as quickly, efficiently, and painlessly as possible.
Painlessly for your masters, that is.
> I know all about the 2nd Amendment. I support it.
Let's test that claim, shall we?
> The day I'm told to go to a law-abiding citizen's home and take their guns is the day I resign on the spot,
With your police pension safely vested, secured, and guaranteed, or without it?
> and plead with my (former) brother officers not to come to MY house for that purpose, for their own safety.
If your friendly neighborhood SWAT team can be deployed to anyone else's house for that purpose, then why
Real crimes: assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, all the common law crimes recognized by everybody. Intentional behavior that harms another person or their property.
Non-crimes: ingesting anything, gambling, prostitution, any interation of consenting adults. Vice. Accident. Non-payment of taxes. Refusal to register.
(I'm not talking about tort law here, only criminal law).
These are NOT subjective. Real crimes cause direct physical harm. Non-crimes hurt somebody's feelings or cause some unspecified harm to "society".
The big difference is that after a REAL crime, there's either a dead body or a victim screaming for justice. After a legislated crime, somebody's moral sense is harmed, or some legislator's flow of plunder (tax or fee) is threatened.
The big difference from your perspective is that if you find a dead body or somebody calls you complaining about real harm done to them or their property, then I will have no problem with you seeking the perpetrat
(continued...)
then why do you assume it can't be deployed to yours, and with a similar "cover story" for the viewing public?
Now, overall, you seem to have grasped the meaning of the word "keep" . . .
> But MOST people do not routinely go armed with a pistol on their hip, and it tends to scare the horses (sheep?). Then they call us. So, we go and contact the individual to make sure they're not up to no good. With any luck, that'll be about a 2-minute conversation and then we'll both be getting on with our day.
. . . but you appear to have a reading-comprehension problem with the words "and bear". Does this help at all to clarify their meaning for you?
> .....unless, of course, you're AFTER a confrontation.
On the evidence, the confrontation you describe above is initiated by you, seemingly because you want to enforce what you think the laws should say.
> In that case, you can count
perpetrator (except that your job is funded with stolen, aka tax, money). If you walk down the street looking for law-breakers, especially if you do what drug warriors and BATF troops do, entrap people into breaking one of those illegal "laws", then you're a criminal, not a peace officer. If I am your target, though it is usually not practical for me to defend myself, since cops are well armed, well trained, and travel in gangs, it is my absolute right to do so.
Constitutions are supposed to establish a tiny domain in which law-making is allowed. Anything outside of that domain is off-limits, no matter how many people want it. They no longer work that way. It turns out that one tyrant 3000 miles away is prefereable to 3000 tyrants one mile away.
But these kind of discussions never go anywhere. I have yet to meet a cop who realized that 90% of what he does blatantly violates his oath. People who realize that stop being cops.
It helps to realize that taxation is theft, and th
It helps to realize that taxation is theft, and that initiation of force is crime, no matter how many people vote for it, and no matter which fancy uniform, funny hat, or shiny badge the perp is wearing.
And I never said I thought the Constitution was valid. Only that I would be willing to give you that, if the penalty for government agents were severe for stepping even a millimeter outside of that Constitutional cage.
I finally have some energy back, so I feel up to stepping into this debate.
Sgt. Mac, you said,
=============
"Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court..."
=============
I like this line of political action. It has made worlds of difference in other movements. The problem I see is that, here in washington state there is no law saying open carrying is anything that should be subject to arrest. Therefore, any Washington officer that decides to go that far is only usurping power that was never given to him. Making him a tyrant not only to the constitution but to the codified laws he also gave an oath to uphold.
(continued...)
> In that case, you can count on your wish being granted, because we will not back down. You -- the People -- would never tolerate that.
Nice try at shifting the blame for your actions onto somebody else, but no sale.
> But I've noticed that there's a sector of folks like Jason and Mr. St. Clair who just espouse this open HATRED of everything government.
You might ponder the true origin of this "hatred" (it didn't just spring forth fully-formed out of nowhere, and it's not what you may have been told), and on that basis also consider lobbying your masters to take fewer actions (and take fewer yourselves: "wide latitude in enforcing most laws", remember?) to provoke &/or reinforce it.
> News flash: cops aren't the biggest fans of everything government does. But those things that affect us, we're stuck with.
To be more accurate: those things that affect you, you
(continued...)
To be more accurate: those things that affect you, you choose to tolerate. Fine; then take responsibility for your choice, and for your actions that result. "I was just doing my job/following orders" didn't wash as an excuse at the Nuremberg trials, and it won't wash today.
> Garrum: you'd lose that bet, except for the drawing down part if your hand went close to the gun.
You didn't answer Garrum's question; instead you tried (and trying is it) once again to shift the blame for your actions onto somebody else.
On second thought, perhaps you did answer it.
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Real American --
>
> How is a drug arrest a criminal act?
>
> Just because YOU don't agree with laws enacted by your elected representatives?
How is what Jason did a criminal act?
Just because the arresting officer(s)--and apparently YOU--don't agree with open-carry laws enacted by Jason's elected representatives?
To answer your question: The drug possession doesn't have a victim, whereas the drug arrest does.
Are these alleged "representatives" from me to the government, or to me from the government? Are you sure?
Does the mere fact of "election" automatically sanctify any and all laws they may enact? If so, how? Does it confer some omniscient power of justice on them? If so, what is it? What evidence do you adduce for the existence of such magic powers of virtue? How do you explain any contradictions between the real-world results of the
How do you explain any contradictions between the real-world results of their laws on one hand, and justice OTOH?
My disagreement with them is not the issue; the reasons--facts, logic, and principle--for my disagreement are the issue. (Nice try at a red herring, though.)
> Do the MAJORITY of the viewers of this blog agree with Real American's assessment of American law enforcement?
Viewers of this blog, or posters to it? If the former, then how do you propose to find out?
> Because, if so, I'll just back on out of here. No sense in trying to reason with fruit loops.
Or superior debaters. Perceptions vary.
Way to refute your opponents' arguments with an ad hominem, too.
> If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendmen
(continued...)
> If we (meaning citizens of these United States, INCLUDING "jackbooted thugs" like me...) want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment, it'd be best to do it en masse, and be willing to take it all the way through the courts.
If "jackbooted thugs" like you want to get the point across about the 2nd Amendment which you personally claim to support, it'd be best for you to start to read the law and then follow that, instead of enforcing inferior laws repugnant to the Constitution, and thereby set an example of principled law enforcement. That way, there'd be nothing to involve the courts ("don't borrow trouble").
> That's the whole point of civil disobedience -- to stress the system to the point where those running the show seriously question whether the issue is worth the bother.
Except that in Jason's case, apparently no law exists to which he was civilly-disobedient.
> Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered p
(continued...)
> Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED?
Instead of SEVERAL COPS accosting ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about ALL COPS reading what the laws actually say, instead of what cops think the laws should say?
> And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far,
On what charge? What law are they violating? What law did Jason violate during his traffic stop? ("Contempt of cop" is not law that's written down anywhere AFAIK.)
> and relishing their day in court.....
Why, so that the arresting officer(s) can "testilie" before a corrupted &/or easily-deceived government court, which also doesn't care what the laws actually say? Why do you assume that there remains any necessary correlation between the soundness of a legal argument and its acceptance by a magistrate?
See what I m
(continued...)
See what I mean?
> Look, folks, I am NOT your enemy.....unless you choose that by trying to hurt me.
You are not my enemy.....unless you choose to self-appoint by trying to enforce on me inferior laws repugnant to the Constitution (in violation of your oath, please note). You CAN choose not to do that, you know.
Sargent Mac said "Instead of ONE MAN going to town wearing an openly holstered pistol, how about a HUNDRED? And all of them passively submitting to arrest if it goes that far, and relishing their day in court....."
I believe this is what Jason has inspired to begin. Any thing like what you describe usually starts with a couple of individuals. Then others are inspired to do the same.
BTW, Mark..Bill..Jason..others: I must agree with the Sarge. YES IT SUCKS, but if it takes arrest, and then VINDICATION through the courts (which, um...is what Jason is going through) then all the better. Then the precedent is established...the LAW UPHELD. Sure we would all hope for a lovely walk through town, toting our weapon of choice with no crowds running scared calling 911. But, carry long enough to enough locations, and by law of averages you WILL be confronted by a PO at some point.
When THAT happens, you also would hope that the PO will be very aware of the current laws for open carry (as you should be) and give you a fair shake. Surely you MUST agree the PO is more likely to do that with a cooperative individual. I'm not saying be 'sheep', just know your rights...stay within your rights...and be a good scout (polite, kind, thoughtful). If the PD are dead set on a 'takedown', and it is found to be a bad arrest...all the better that you were a gentleman. THIS IS HOW WE WILL RAISE AWARENESS OF EVERYONE ON WHAT IS LEGAL.
Good to hear from you again Jason. Real nice to see ya post and 'jump in' to this discussion.
What I find most interesting is that "Wayne" and "Sergeant Mac", by the fact that they're commenting here, are very likely among the closest that their kind gets to being in favor of human freedom.
Mr. Lopez, thank you for that....I think.
Mr. Odell, I'm just not sure how to go about debating you. Now, I'm quite sure that you would see that as definitive proof that you're right and I'm wrong, but I'm merely suggesting that no amount of reason would nudge you from your cherished (though rare) beliefs.
Which is more likely: that American government is wholly, 100% corrupt, in every branch, at every level, and has been since before the Civil War?
Or that the specific form of government you imagine has never existed outside the minds of you and your ilk?
The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings, consider this:
If I were to, absent probable cause or warrant, search your car (finding no contraband and departing thereafter), you would say that I violated my oath and th
(continued)
therefore deserve to be hung like the Nuremberg Nazi war criminals. And don't tell me you wouldn't, because you and/or others here already have.
Now, tell me: where is the physical or fiscal harm?
Why would you seek the DEATH PENALTY for something which, by your own logic, is not even a "real" crime?
Please understand that I do NOT knowingly or intentionally act outside the law as it is understood in our courts.
And, if the incident Jason was arrested for transpired as he described in his now-redacted narrative, I would agree that he committed no actual crime. But, as I understand it, the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law. And it may surprise some of you to know that (on EXTREMELY rare occasions, of course....) people OTHER THAN police officers have been known to lie, even on such a reliable media as (gasp!) the INTERNET.....
Here's a bit of irony: I consider myself to be a libertarian. I happen to believe that drugs shoul
(continued)
should be decriminalized. I don't believe that government should EVER take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason OTHER than as payment for goods or services. I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm, unless they have proved themselves to be criminally irresponsible with firearms.
But I also believe that, if we are to change laws, we must do so WITHIN THE SYSTEM. And if there are not enough of us to accomplish that, that fact alone should tell us something. Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy. But your constant talk of killing us doesn't particularly endear you to us.....
You... consider yourself to be a libertarian. How rich.
A few reasons why cops aren't so well liked these days:
Whack 'Em & Stack 'Em
Fuck cops, right out loud. There is not a single cop in this country that I trust, and there is nothing they can do about it. Understand: I say it's a rotten idea to start shooting them, and anyone who thinks differently is no more a friend of mine than any of these ignorant presumptive shitbags in blue. The fact is that there is a far better way of dealing with them.
The far more principal fact, however, is that no decent person would want to be a cop in this political culture. That "job" is positively attracting exactly the wrong sort of person, and they can all go to hell with my earnest compliments.
"Sergeant Mac":
Understand that what I said was no compliment at all to you, you can click on my "Homepage" link and see a little more. Maybe I can clear things up for you:
This... "As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy."... is such utter and complete bullshit that I don't even know where to begin with it, except to point out the simple fact that the final penalty is death for stepping outside the arbitrary boundaries that you and your cohorts enforce.
You wouldn't hesitate for a millisecond to kick down my door and shoot me dead over any one of ten-thousand matters that anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" ought to be ashamed to give even verbal support to, and you have the audacity to sit there and say that you aren't my enemy?
You're either lying or delusional, and whichever the case is, there's no
(cont):
You're either lying or delusional, and whichever the case is, there's no way that you ought to be trusted with the amount of power you that this government has seen fit to give you.
And just so there's no misunderstanding: I'm not going to go shooting at you and your ilk any time soon, it's a bad idea. But don't think that I don't hate and fear every last one of you.
Seargent Mac,
Responding to your hypothetical car search. In so doing, you would have violated your oath, since the fourth amendment prohibits search without a proper warrant (yes, the courts have ruled otherwise, but they're badly wrong). I would be within my rights to demand that you cease trespassing on my property.
But no Nuremberg trial should ensue if you left it at that, since you have committed no capital crime. If you found a roach in my car, and arrested me for it, however, then you would be guilty of kidnapping. False arrest is kidnapping. As far as I know, I am the originator of this meme, and I am attempting to spread it far and wide.
I am glad to hear that you think that currently illegal drugs should be decriminalized. I wish you luck in getting those laws changed.
I wouldn't say that 100% of all government on every level has been corrupt since before the civil war. Probably more like 90%. This is why I don't attempt to change things from within the system
Don't think that I have the idea that the USA is a perfect place. But I do think it's workable, even as is.
There's the way things ARE, and the way I think things SHOULD be.
I recognize the difference, and, having no viable alternative, accept the way things are.
If you wish to bluster and rage on, working yourself and others into a frenzy, then by all means knock yourself out.
But don't think for a minute that most rational people don't see right through you. You talk about injustices, some real but most imagined, and talk about the extreme, lethal measures you would employ to right these "wrongs". And about how that's your right, and even your DUTY. And you have these rants in your own little echo chambers, where you're shocked and amazed when someone disagrees.
If you're really SERIOUS about all of this, and have the courage of your convictions, why aren't "thugs" and "patriots" dying by the droves in daily confrontations?
Answer: because, while
(continued)
Answer: because, while you TALK a good game, that's all you've got. You CAN'T make your case in court, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on, and you lack both the moral and the physical courage to fight your battle on the streets, a la your little "hang 'em high" fantasies.
I come in here and try to reveal some common ground, and moonbats come out of the woodwork to abuse me.....
I appreciate those of you who are willing to engage in civil discourse. As for the frothing lunatics, since there's certainly no love lost between us anyhow, kiss my rosy red, Royal Irish ass!
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't common law the normal order of business in pre-colonial England? Wasn't it highly subjective and therefore ripe for abuse? Wasn't that corruption the reason we (the USA) opted for CODIFIED laws?"
Consider yourself corrected.
"Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation."
United States law is based in common law, as are all but a few of the states (Louisiana uses civil law;New York and California use a mixture of both).
Codification is an refinement to common law, not a replacement. As such, corruption occurs when common law is codified into things it was never meant to address.
One more thing:
You know, if you'd slide just a little bit toward the center, I think you'd find yourself amongst sufficient company that WE could actually WIN at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts.
I believe that there are more so-called "moderates" leaning slightly to the right than to the left. (And, yes, I know that a lot of you are on a different political plane entirely....)
And I believe that, for many of those middle-of-the-roaders, the only thing keeping them from taking the plunge in one direction or another is the lunatic fringe at either end....
Hmmm...
My link went to the wrong place.
Feel free to cut and paste it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Mr. Odell, I'm just not sure how to go about debating you.
I recommend you try:
- reading what I actually wrote, instead of what you think I wrote;
- quoting accurately what I wrote;
- answering my on-point questions (FYI it's called "Socratic inquiry");
- asking for clarifications of anything unclear or possibly-misunderstood;
- responding directly to my specific remarks and suggestions;
- preparing (at least) to support your assertions with facts and logic.
> Now, I'm quite sure that you would see that as definitive proof that you're right and I'm wrong,
About which surety you would be wrong. (Add to the above list "not reasoning ahead of the facts".)
> but I'm merely suggesting that no amount of reason would nudge you from your cherished (though rare) beliefs.
Since you haven't yet tried it, how do you know? (See recommendation above.)
Did you mean to imply that a belief which (you think) is "rare" is thereby invalidated, o
(continued)
or am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
> Which is more likely: that American government is wholly, 100% corrupt, in every branch, at every level, and has been since before the Civil War?
>
> Or that the specific form of government you imagine has never existed outside the minds of you and your ilk?
I honestly have no idea which one of your two false alternatives is "more likely". What then?
Why do you couch your question in terms of likelihood? How is that relevant?
("Ilk"? I have an "ilk" now?
> The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
What's your point?
> As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings,
I've never heard the latter part of that "notion" put that way. Who has ever put it that way? Are you sure it's
not a straw man?
> If I were to, absent probable cause or warrant, search your car (finding no contraband and departing thereafter), you would say that I violated my oath
I would -- because you did (what part of your oath to uphold this fundamental law don't you understand?).
> and therefore deserve to be hung like the Nuremberg Nazi war criminals.
I don't know how you arrived at "therefore".
My purpose in referring to the Nuremberg trials was not to advocate convening latter-day such trials, but rather to reinforce (using a cultural reference with which most people are familiar) the idea that personal responsibility for action is paramount; and that, since then, the excuse that individual agents of the state get a free pass because they were "just following order
(continued)
orders" won't wash with thinking people. I intended it as a wake-up call to moral men and women out there (you know who you are). FWIW.
> And don't tell me you wouldn't, because you and/or others here already have.
I do tell you I wouldn't, because I just explained my meaning.
"you and/or others here"? You didn't read what I wrote. QED.
> Please understand that I do NOT knowingly or intentionally act outside the law as it is understood in our courts.
What about the law as it is understood in your own mind (once again, I suggest reading it for yourself and learning what it actually says)? Or are you in the habit of giving over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something?
> And, if the incident Jason was arrested for transpired as he described in his now-redacted narrative, I would agree that he committed no actual crime.
And, if you had simply admitted this at the outset of your comments
(continued)
, I'm morally certain you would have scored major points with this blog's viewers, and spared yourself most of the excoriation you received.
> But, as I understand it, the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law.
Are they indeed? (Better your understanding.)
> And it may surprise some of you to know that (on EXTREMELY rare occasions, of course....) people OTHER THAN police officers have been known to lie, even on such a reliable media as (gasp!) the INTERNET.....
I presume that this remark is intended to insinuate the possibility that Jason is lying, by either commission or omission. Point granted: the possibility exists. However, thus far, Jason's version of events is consistent, plausible, and rings true. So what's your point?
> Here's a bit of irony: I consider myself to be a libertarian.
Irony, or self-deception?
> I happen to believe that drug
(continued)
drugs should be decriminalized.
The word "decriminalized" presupposes that the status quo (their "criminal" status) was ever legitimate.
> I don't believe that government should EVER take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason OTHER than as payment for goods or services.
Are you referring to e.g. enforcement of contracts?
> I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm,
Why the qualifying adjective?
> unless they have proved themselves to be criminally irresponsible with firearms.
That criterion alone excludes every government in the world (see: "democide").
> But I also believe that, if we are to change laws, we must do so WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
Since on the evidence "the system" is the problem, and treating with it grants it validity (see: "jurisdiction") which it
(continued)
doesn't necessarily merit (by temperament or training), I might still be willing to try; but I strongly doubt that.
> And if there are not enough of us to accomplish that, that fact alone should tell us something.
It tells us nothing we don't already know: that the state believes (erroneously) that might makes right, regardless of what the laws actually say.
How about you? Do you believe that might makes right? If so, why?
> Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
What "majority" ever voted for this (so-far-hypothetical) law? I submit that "tyranny of the majority" is less the problem here than "tyranny of the state".
> As I stated before: I (and, believe it or not, at least half of my co-workers) are NOT your enemy. But your constant talk of killing us doesn't particularly endear you to us.....
If by "your" you mean me, then you didn't read what I wrote. Try again.
(continued)
> Don't think that I have the idea that the USA is a perfect place. But I do think it's workable, even as is.
I've never denied that "the system" works very well -- for those in power.
> There's the way things ARE, and the way I think things SHOULD be.
>
> I recognize the difference, and, having no viable alternative, accept the way things are.
"no viable alternative"? Do you consider upholding your oath of office not to be "viable"? If so, why?
The old saying applies: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
[snippage of addressed-to-others potkettleblack rant]
>
> If you're really SERIOUS about all of this, and have the courage of your convictions, why aren't "thugs" and "patriots" dying by the droves in daily confrontations?
>
> Answer: because, while you TALK a good game, that's all you've got.
Answer: because, unlike "thugs", we "patriots" are not perfect idiots.
> You CAN'T make your case
(continued)
in court, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on,
I ask you again: Why do you assume that there remains any necessary correlation between the soundness of a legal argument and its acceptance by a magistrate?
> I come in here and try to reveal some common ground,
I fear there is not as much "common ground" between us as you seemingly would wish there to be.
> and moonbats come out of the woodwork to abuse me.....
We are perfectly capable of evaluating for ourselves whether or not those whom you deem "moonbats" really are, without your help. If you honestly think they're such "moonbats", then I suggest you ignore them, and concentrate your efforts on making the case for your position . . . if you can.
> You know, if you'd slide just a little bit toward the center,
What exactly does that mean? Is that anything like getting "just a little bit" pregnant?
(continued)
> I think you'd find yourself amongst sufficient company that WE could actually WIN at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts.
Who is "WE"? Of what exactly does "WE" consist?
"WIN" what?
The ballot box and the legislature I could perhaps see; but exactly how do you think this will help us "WIN" in the courts (which are supposedly "above" the "vagaries" of popular sentiment)?
> I believe that there are more so-called "moderates" leaning slightly to the right than to the left.
Yes, "leaning slightly" is the problem.
> And I believe that, for many of those middle-of-the-roaders, the only thing keeping them from taking the plunge in one direction or another is the lunatic fringe at either end....
The middle of the road is where you get run over. Their loss.
(Damn and blast frickin' cheapjack Haloscan's 1000-character limit!!!)
>>Why do you couch your question in terms of likelihood? How is that relevant?
As it is impossible to ever prove which OPINION is more valid than the other, I fall back upon which is more likely, and therefore more realistic.
> The Constitution may be amended. Were that not so, the Bill of Rights would not even exist.
>>What's your point?
That point was about taxation, and the amendment which instituted the income tax. (If you don't consider that to be valid, how can you consider any OTHER amendments, such as the BOR, to be valid?)
> As for the notion that "real" crimes involve provable physical or fiscal injury, but "legislated" crimes merely hurt someone's feelings,
>>I've never heard the latter part of that "notion" put that way. Who has ever put it that way?
Bill St. Clair, above.
>>the excuse that individual agents of the state get a free pass because they were "just following orders" won't wash with thinking people.
Not just "following
Not just "following orders", but acting within guidelines established, upheld, and continually monitored by the courts. Why do you believe that your viewpoint is superior to that of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to Constitutional law?
>>What about the law as it is understood in your own mind (once again, I suggest reading it for yourself and learning what it actually says)? Or are you in the habit of giving over your ability to reason as soon as "our courts" profess to purport to "understand" something?
No, but it is in "our courts" that I will be judged if I run afoul of their "understanding". It therefore behooves me to lend a little credence to the opinions of those officials who, under certain circumstances, can order my imprisonment or the confiscation of my property.
For instance, if I have a complaint from a citizen regarding the actions of another citizen, who violated a state statute, and despite having established probable cause to believe
that citizen B did commit the offense, I REFUSE to arrest or cite citizen B because I don't agree with that particular law, then *I* have violated yet another state statute, a misdemeanor, and may even be imprisoned upon conviction. Will you then pay my bills? I think not.
>the offenses he was charged with ARE crimes under state law.
>>Are they indeed?
I was referring to the Spokane incident. And I'm passing judgment on neither Jason's actions nor the law, just pointing out that the two were believed to be in conflict.
>>Are you referring to e.g. enforcement of contracts?
No, I'm saying that I disagree with Welfare, Social Security, college grants, etc., etc., ....every instance in which Uncle Sam spends tax money on INDIVIDUALS without obtaining any goods or services in return.
> I believe that people should be legally and practically able to purchase, possess and carry any non-crew-served firearm,
>>Why the qualifying adjective?
Because without it, we
Because without it, we invariably bump into the "family nuke" question...
> Yes, yes, I know: the "tyranny of the majority".... but how would you beat that, even were it so?
>>What "majority" ever voted for this (so-far-hypothetical) law? I submit that "tyranny of the majority" is less the problem here than "tyranny of the state".
Again, Sir: how would you beat that?
Or are we just pondering theories here, pure science as opposed to applied?
>>Who is "WE"? Of what exactly does "WE" consist?
In this instance, I'm talking about YOU and your friends, and I and my friends, and the right-leaning moderates, if we can just focus for the time being upon those things about which we are in agreement, and try to CIVILLY work out the differences that remain.
>>The middle of the road is where you get run over. Their loss.
And on the shoulder, you get pelted with McDonald's bags, and eventually mowed down....
I'm suggesting neither the yellow line in
I'm suggesting neither the yellow line in the middle of the road nor the ditch on the far right, but rather that we band together and drive in the RIGHT LANE.
Wayne: An officer has wide latitude in enforcing most laws, as he is the point man in deciding whether or not you are a threat.
A threat to whom? There's the rub. A threat to other &ldquot;civilians&rdquot;? No. A threat to the power of the cop, as an agent of government, to wield power? You got it.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When
there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to
live without breaking laws. …"
—Ayn Rand,
Atlas Shrugged
Wayne, you're so full of shit it's coming out your pores. My dad was a police chief and he looked with disdain upon people like you--people he called supercops. The only thing more morally despicable than a cop on a power trip is a prison guard. Are you sure you're not a warder?
Wayne,
As for cops policing themselves, I'm wondering how terms like “rat squad” became a part of the lexicon of cop shows and movies. The sick part is that reality is far worse than these dramas.
>As for cops policing themselves, I'm wondering how terms like “rat squad” became a part of the lexicon of cop shows and movies. The sick part is that reality is far worse than these dramas.
The REAL (proven, and thus undeniably real) stories I've heard have indeed tended to be very, very bad. Worse, even, than what the entertainment industry feeds us constantly.
But nowhere near as prevalent....
All cops are Thieves, of which there are two sub-sets: Bullies and Dumbasses.
All cops are thieves because they are paid by taxes; taxes being defined as assets stolen by government under threat of duress. THE OVERRIDING PRIORITY of ALL police-officers, everywhere, is protection of the source of their paycheck, and, more importantly, the *means* by which that paycheck is collected.
Moral hypocrisy is thus a *requirement* for engagement of the profession -- the cop is hired (with your stolen property) to "defend" you. Either a given cop possesses the rudimentary intelligence to understand the ethical incongruity of this and doesn't care (which makes him *evil*), or he doesn't (in which case he's a moron).
The bullies are, simply put, Baathist Nazi scum; they are cops expressly for the reason that the avocation enables them to legally steal other peoples' property and boss them around. Dumbass cops are the typical jocks, cops' sons, and Army one-hitchers who make up the b
....the bulk of every country's police forces; distinguishing characteristic is exceptionally marginal intelligence -- barely more sentient than a parrot; they receive orders from their superiors and carry them out without the briefest contemplation of ethics.
Every single cop is the sworn enemy of every single free man, and any particular cop accomplishes good only via irony, happenstance, and that fact that a legitimate market exists for "protection" regardless of the government nationalizing the industry.
I note that Wayne is, for some as-yet-unexplained reason, conspicuous by his absence from this discussion ever since I challenged him to post the link to Jason's full original post, and then support his insinuations about it with facts and logic.
Coincidentally, I also note that, when one mounts an effective challenge to what they believe (erroneously) is their unquestioned authority, bullies tend to pull in their horns.
Mr. Schneider, how do you sleep at night, knowing that you drive on "stolen" roads every day?
Are soldiers also thieves?
Sergeant Mac: "...and try to CIVILLY work out the differences that remain."
Given that the "differences" consist largely of what Mike Schneider pointed out above, how on God's green earth can anyone expect you and your fellow bandits to ever "civilly work things out"?
How, Mac?
Sergeant Mac wrote:
> Mr. Schneider, how do you sleep at night, knowing that you drive on "stolen" roads every day?
Perhaps it's because he knows full well that he is not the thief, but rather your masters are? Perhaps it's because the realities of government coercion leave him no other choice, but (unlike you) he does not approve and he is not resigned?
> Are soldiers also thieves?
'Fraid so.
Thieves respect property.
OK, then, since this is obviously an intolerable situation to you.....
What are you going to do about it?
Just keep bitching and whining, and ridiculing people for voting?
You talk about "having no other choice." Well, it seems to me that the circumstances were no more dire in the days just before the American Revolution......
Seriously, folks, I've heard all of you complain about what you see as the PROBLEM. I've explored your websites, and related ones, and have found no dearth of complaints about the PROBLEM.
I have yet to see any proposed long-term SOLUTION. Oh, sure, you have the knee-jerk instant gratification "abolish all government and hang every government official" plan, but WHAT THEN?
On several sites I read, the authors even admitted to not having any solution in mind, pointing out that solutions were not their specialty.....basically, that it was all about the bitching.
Has anyone here either contrived or even HEARD OF a workable solution for