Dash cam video of deadly West Memphis police shooting released...

[Reason]

A new video has been released of the deadly shooting which claimed the lives of a father, a son and two police officers on May 20, 2010.

West Memphis police officers Bill Evans and Brandon Paudert were killed after Evans pulled over a minivan driven by 45-year-old Jerry Kane, who was traveling with his son Joseph. The video, shot from a police SUV, shows teenager Joseph firing an AK-47 before driving off with his father.

Police later shot and killed the Kanes. Prosecutors released the video Wednesday as part of a preliminary report clearing police of wrongdoing in the fatal shootings.

YouTube - Dash cam video of deadly West Memphis police shooting released (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSNLeoab8c)

[John Taylor]

A new video has been released of the deadly shooting which claimed the lives of a father, a son and two police officers on May 20, 2010.

West Memphis police officers Bill Evans and Brandon Paudert were killed after Evans pulled over a minivan driven by 45-year-old Jerry Kane, who was traveling with his son Joseph. The video, shot from a police SUV, shows teenager Joseph firing an AK-47 before driving off with his father.

Police later shot and killed the Kanes. Prosecutors released the video Wednesday as part of a preliminary report clearing police of wrongdoing in the fatal shootings.

YouTube - Dash cam video of deadly West Memphis police shooting released (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSNLeoab8c)

Too bad they weren't caught alive, they should have been put to death by electric chair.


http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105042&catid=2

Two West Memphis officers are dead, shot by two men during a traffic stop on Interstate 40. The suspects later died in a shootout with police in a Wal-Mart parking lot and two other members of law enforcement are injured.

We know the suspect's van is registered to the House of God in Ohio, but it is still unknown who the two men were who opened fire or why they did it.

A community has been devastated. Thursday, just before noon West Memphis Officer Bill Evans pulled over a white van with Ohio tags on Airport Road off I-40. Sgt. Brandon Paudert arrived for back up, but the traffic stop was far from routine.

Arkansas State Police public information officer Bill Sadler says, "It's our belief that Officer Evans was shoved to the ground by one of the suspects in the mini van and gun fire was directed at both officers."

Paudert died on the scene and Evans died at the hospital. They are the son and nephew of West Memphis Police Chief Bob Paudert.

Ninety-minutes later, the van was spotted at a Walmart, about a mile from the shooting.

Crittenden County Sheriff Dick Busby and Deputy W.A. Wren were met with gunfire in the parking lot as dozens of officers arrived.

Witnesses describe the scene as chaos: "First I heard gun shots and people started running in the store screaming saying their coming inside, their coming inside and we just ran to the back."

Both officers were critically wounded; the suspects who used a long rifle and hand gun were fatally shot.

There are more questions than answers at this time. The investigation is being lead by the State Police and FBI. Both suspects' bodies have been taken to the coroners' offices to be positively identified.

West Memphis Assistant Chief Mike Allen says, "These men were out there, protecting all of us and they did a damn good job of it. Our prayers are with their families and each one of you, if you would just say a prayer for their family tonight. I'd appreciate it."

Paudert was 39 and Evans was 38; they leave behind their wives and young children. Busby and Wren are in critical, but stable condition.

A memorial fund is being set up for the families.

Stay with Today's THV and todaysthv.com for developments in the ongoing investigation.

UPDATE:
Police tell Today's THV a wildlife officer assisted in apprehending the suspects at Walmart. Sadler explains, "A very brave young wildlife officer in his state truck rammed the suspects vehicle preventing an exit of the suspects. There was a continued exchange of gun fire involving law enforcement officers. Those suspects were armed with a long rifle and a hand gun."

[Danke]

It was not Jerry Kane. That is not how he deals with traffic stops. (note the paperwork he handed to the cop trespassing on his freedom of travel).

His young son Joesph freaked out, seeing that his father had been put in a cage before by uniformed government agents.

P.S. Highly edited and no sound.

[John Taylor]

It was not Jerry Kane. That is not how he deals with traffic stops. (note the paperwork he handed to the cop trespassing on his freedom of travel).

His young son Joesph freaked out, seeing that his father had been put in a cage before by uniformed government agents.

P.S. Highly edited and no sound.

This is Jerry Kane, and it is his son. The police officer isn't trespassing on anyone's freedom to travel, he's requesting identification in order to travel on public roads using a certain medium, an automobile.

The Kanes murdered two men with young families who did nothing wrong (according to this video).

Highly edited? Are you watching the same video that is posted here? It's almost completely UNCUT. These guys shot two police officers in cold blood. They deserve to be fried.

[Danke]

This is Jerry Kane, and it is his son. The police officer isn't trespassing on anyone's freedom to travel, he's requesting identification in order to travel on public roads using a certain medium, an automobile.

The Kanes murdered two men with young families who did nothing wrong (according to this video).

Highly edited? Are you watching the same video that is posted here? It's almost completely UNCUT. These guys shot two police officers in cold blood. They deserve to be fried.

His 16 year old son did the shooting. He should fry for his son's actions?

Yes, highly edited. Did you see what led up to the shooting, any sound?

Not going to bring up right to travel again with you, as you are clueless on that topic.

[John Taylor]

His 16 year old son did the shooting. He should fry for his son's actions?

Yes, highly edited. Did you see what led up to the shooting, any sound?

Not going to bring up right to travel again with you, as you are clueless on that topic.

His 17 year old son MURDERED at least one man. He made an adult decision, to murder someone.

The father was an accessory to murder at the very least. After the son shot the men, instead of staying there, he fled with his son and shot at the wildlife officer who rammed the murderer's van in the parking lot.

The admiralty and commercial law that the "sovereign" movement spews is bullshit. There is no legal way to avoid the leviathan state while living within the United States. It is that simple. These guys with their hand-made papers and writs are going to lose, every time. I run into them in court from time to time, and they lose without fail, often costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

Highly edited??? Most dashboard cams don't have sound buddy... spend some time in court watching evidence being utilized at trial. This tape doesn't appear to be "highly edited" at all.

I understand the right to travel, and I understand that if you don't like a state's requirement that you have a driver's license, you should get your fellow citizens to change the law---not ignore it. These guys murdered two men in cold blood, fathers of small and young children, husbands of young wives, cousins of one another...

[LibForestPaul]

Why no sound? I thought they had sound?

[John Taylor]

Why no sound? I thought they had sound?

None of the dashboard camera tapes I've ever reviewed for a case have had sound.

[newbitech]

tragic.

something just like this happened in Tampa. Two cops dead over an expired tag.

Not worth it, IMO.

[John Taylor]

tragic.

something just like this happened in Tampa. Two cops dead over an expired tag.

Not worth it, IMO.

Monsterous. These people should have been caught alive and sent to the electric chair.

[aGameOfThrones]

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

[puppetmaster]

limited freedom gets you this. I don't think cops should have the right to pull you over for a victimless crime...no detainment here leads to no deaths

[angelatc]

I don't grieve for the people who shot the cops in the slightest. But sheesh - an expired tag? Doesn't seem worth it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950)
2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105
3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952)
4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954)
5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711
6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305
7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523
8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513
9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943)
10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910)
11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)
12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331
13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)
14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947)
16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939
17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829)
18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874)
19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893)
20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899)
21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412
22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914)
23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931)
24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948)
25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935
26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309
27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
28. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405
29. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean, 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916)
30. Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis 1924)
31. Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871)
32. Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)
33. Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905)
34. Mullins v. State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943)
35. Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

http://www.constitutiondefender.com/natural_law_to_defend_yourself.htm


Might not save you when you are surrounded by tyrants asserting you were not born a human being and have no natural right to travel the planet of Natures Creator.

[michaelwise]

Push people too far and this kind of thing will happen more often. I'm just saying.
It is not time yet to go apeshit on the man as we still have time to set things right in our country the political way.
I do not condone the actions of the trigger happy child as he should have been taught more restraint and decided to live to fight another day. Fight another day we will when the time comes, and no one who is in the way will be safe. Too bad.

[aGameOfThrones]

Push people too far and this kind of thing will happen more often. I'm just saying.
It is not time yet to go apeshit on the man as we still have time to set things right in our country the political way.
I do not condone the actions of the trigger happy child as he should have been taught more restraint and decided to live to fight another day. Fight another day we will, when the time comes, and no one who is in the way will be safe. Too bad.

"Trigger happy?" As far as I can tell, the son reacted when the two "cops" seem to be assaulting his father.

[Kregisen]

Why are people defending these idiots? Even if you hate all police, what are you gonna do, just kill them all?

Seriously?

[idirtify]

His 17 year old son MURDERED at least one man. He made an adult decision, to murder someone.

The father was an accessory to murder at the very least. After the son shot the men, instead of staying there, he fled with his son and shot at the wildlife officer who rammed the murderer's van in the parking lot.

The admiralty and commercial law that the "sovereign" movement spews is bullshit. There is no legal way to avoid the leviathan state while living within the United States. It is that simple. These guys with their hand-made papers and writs are going to lose, every time. I run into them in court from time to time, and they lose without fail, often costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

Highly edited??? Most dashboard cams don't have sound buddy... spend some time in court watching evidence being utilized at trial. This tape doesn't appear to be "highly edited" at all.

I understand the right to travel, and I understand that if you don't like a state's requirement that you have a driver's license, you should get your fellow citizens to change the law---not ignore it. These guys murdered two men in cold blood, fathers of small and young children, husbands of young wives, cousins of one another...

Your two sentiments betray each other. If you truly feel that the state is such a huge leviathan that it is hopeless to win against them, why display such malice against those who try to fight them? Surely it’s not truly because they are “costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars”. In such a context, wouldn’t your malice be more appropriately directed against the state? HINT: That’s kinda what we do here on LF.

Now, regarding the shootings. If you truly think all murder suspects should fry in the electric chair, surely you are at least as passionately hateful of cops who murder suspects; since cops should certainly be held to a higher standard of conduct. But I noticed that you were completely absent from this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244713
7-year-old girl killed in Detroit police raid
But I’m sure you have posted equally malicious sentiments towards cops who kill people, and have balanced-out what would appear in this thread to be a pro-state mentality; and I have just not seen them. So could you be a Gent and direct us to where you have made such posts?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

OooOOooO, will be checking back on this thread someone just upped the ante!!!


Your two sentiments betray each other. If you truly feel that the state is such a huge leviathan that it is hopeless to win against them, why display such malice against those who try to fight them? Surely it’s not truly because they are “costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars”. In such a context, wouldn’t your malice be more appropriately directed against the state? HINT: That’s kinda what we do here on LF.

Now, regarding the shootings. If you truly think all murder suspects should fry in the electric chair, surely you are at least as passionately hateful of cops who murder suspects; since cops should certainly be held to a higher standard of conduct. But I noticed that you were completely absent from this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244713
7-year-old girl killed in Detroit police raid
But I’m sure you have posted equally malicious sentiments towards cops who kill people, and have balanced-out what would appear in this thread to be a pro-state mentality; and I have just not seen them. So could you be a Gent and direct us to where you have made such posts?

Thank AF and the BANHAMMER for dragging the thread out of the dungeon :D
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/archivist.jpg

[roho76]

Monsterous. These people should have been caught alive and sent to the electric chair.

Jeesh. Why do you keep saying this? Because you are a lawyer and you didn't get your fair share? I understand where your coming from about driving privilege and changing the law but I don't understand your need to tie up the court system and cost the taxpayer millions of dollars frying this guy in an electric chair. This is an open and shut case and the $20 bucks in ammo was good enough for them.

[Baptist]

I guess that Walmart: High Cost of Low Prices is correct-- Walmart parking lots are the most dangerous place to be.

[Icymudpuppy]

It was not Jerry Kane. That is not how he deals with traffic stops. (note the paperwork he handed to the cop trespassing on his freedom of travel).

His young son Joesph freaked out, seeing that his father had been put in a cage before by uniformed government agents.

P.S. Highly edited and no sound.

Freedom of travel applies to bicyclists, horseback riders, and pedestrians, not automobiles. Since the construction of paved roads suitable for highspeed automotive travel requires a lot of money, and automobiles damage the road surface significantly, it is legitimate practice to acquire funds from automobile users to repair the roadways via fuel taxes, registrations, and driver's licenses. Failure to pay as you go via those methods commonly results in an on the spot charge for automobile road use in the form of a ticket. These same guys would probably murder a tollbooth operator on a privately owned and operated roadway too asserting their "Freedom of Travel".

If you want your freedom of travel, get a horse and buggy, or a bicycle, or just walk. These guys were murderers, straight up.

[libertybrewcity]

there is no excuse for killing. no one has the right to take a life. i can't see this having any justification whatsoever.

[fisharmor]

But I’m sure you have posted equally malicious sentiments towards cops who kill people, and have balanced-out what would appear in this thread to be a pro-state mentality; and I have just not seen them. So could you be a Gent and direct us to where you have made such posts?

This.
Sure, they were in the wrong. I'd like to see the same standard applied to all humans, despite what four-hour training course they've taken or what shape their broach happens to be.

But just like the cops can kill a 7 year old girl and people will show up to defend them, I'll step up to the plate for the murderer. You don't have to be particularly unbalanced to get to the point of thinking that not one of the jackboots means you anything but harm.

[sratiug]

The video was cut for several seconds at least or else that car passing by drove into a black hole.

Where did George Washington go to get his drivers license and are there any copies?

Where's the other dashcam video?

Don't most police dashcams have a time clock that would show how much was cut out?

Yes, this looks very bad and I don't condone shooting anyone, I don't even own a gun. But if this is the only video released and it was released with cuts, that looks very bad for the cops too.

[Icymudpuppy]

Where did George Washington go to get his drivers license and are there any copies?


I know of no state which requires horse, bicycle, or foot travelers to have a license.

Automobiles require special expensive roads that need financial upkeep, and licensing is one of the methods those funds are received.

The registration of the vehicle is the method used to make sure the vehicle is safe for use on those expensive roads without causing extensive damage to the roadway, pollution to the atmosphere, or danger to the free travel folks walking, or riding bicycles, or horses.

The driver's license is how we make sure the people operating those high speed instruments of death actually have some training in the process.

If you don't want to abide by the rules of the road for automobiles, get a horse and buggy.

[TonySutton]

A lot happening off camera to make conclusions one way or the other. The son jumped out to defend his father, what was the catalyst for this? We do not see what was occurring between the officers and the father. The son may have been justified in defending his father from bodily harm. The father may have fled with his son knowing full well they would never get a fair trial.

Not saying this is what happened but without eye witnesses on record, there are a lot of unknowns.

[idirtify]

This.
Sure, they were in the wrong. I'd like to see the same standard applied to all humans, despite what four-hour training course they've taken or what shape their broach happens to be.

But just like the cops can kill a 7 year old girl and people will show up to defend them, I'll step up to the plate for the murderer. You don't have to be particularly unbalanced to get to the point of thinking that not one of the jackboots means you anything but harm.

Fisharmor,

That’s great, but I had originally addressed “John Taylor”.

[sratiug]

there is no excuse for killing. no one has the right to take a life. i can't see this having any justification whatsoever.

So you are saying the cops in the Walmart lot should be charged with murder?

[Dr.3D]

So you are saying the cops in the Walmart lot should be charged with murder?

LOL, they should be charged with self defense. :D

[idirtify]

The video is far from clear on who, cops or suspects, started shooting at Walmart. Any belief it was the suspects must be based on the official story, and must totally rule out the real possibility that it was the opposite. Often cop-murder suspects end up executed by a gang of avenging cops; of course the police report (“official story”) never admits it, but it’s pretty obvious to anyone with a brain.

[aGameOfThrones]

I know of no state which requires horse, bicycle, or foot travelers to have a license.

Automobiles require special expensive roads that need financial upkeep, and licensing is one of the methods those funds are received.

The registration of the vehicle is the method used to make sure the vehicle is safe for use on those expensive roads without causing extensive damage to the roadway, pollution to the atmosphere, or danger to the free travel folks walking, or riding bicycles, or horses.

The driver's license is how we make sure the people operating those high speed instruments of death actually have some training in the process.

If you don't want to abide by the rules of the road for automobiles, get a horse and buggy.

Everything you just said is stupid!

You can say licensing is for the "upkeep" of the roads, yet the amount is quite little when they only collect it every 4 to 6 years. Now, you can say gasoline tax is for the "upkeep" of the roads as you can collect it year round. So what is the motive of licensing?... Oh yeah, horses pollute too. That's why they want to tax cow farts.

Registration has nothing to do with safety!!!

Motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers,passengers and property,or property and cargo; ...`Used for commercial purposes''means the carriage of persons or property for any fare,fee,rate,charge or other consideration,or directly or indirectly in connection with any business,or other undertaking intended for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C.31

"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884).

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 190

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty.We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment.-Kent v. Dulles, 35U.S. 116, 127.

Driver's License:

Actually, the government itself is exempt from any liabilities from those who the license. I could learn to use an automobile from my parents or a private school, you're assuming that if I don't have a DL from the Gov I'm a danger to others. Then you can say that a person who has a gun on their waist without permission from the Gov is the same. Also, a DL can be renewed over the internet... where is your safety? Walking and running are dangerous, too, want me to get a license for that?

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I know of no state which requires horse, bicycle, or foot travelers to have a license.

Automobiles require special expensive roads that need financial upkeep, and licensing is one of the methods those funds are received.

The registration of the vehicle is the method used to make sure the vehicle is safe for use on those expensive roads without causing extensive damage to the roadway, pollution to the atmosphere, or danger to the free travel folks walking, or riding bicycles, or horses.

The driver's license is how we make sure the people operating those high speed instruments of death actually have some training in the process.

If you don't want to abide by the rules of the road for automobiles, get a horse and buggy.

If I build my own or acquire a buggy and at a later point replace the horses with something else, would I be traveling the public right of way in a state privilege titled automobile or private property?

What is fuel tax for?

[CCTelander]

Why are people defending these idiots? Even if you hate all police, what are you gonna do, just kill them all?

Seriously?

I doubt anyone is saying that. But there are a few things people in this thread need to understand and keep in mind.

First, the police have NO DUTY to protect an innocent individual's rights and property. The courts in every jurisdiction throughout the US have universally upheld this position. Here's a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

Professional police forces do NOT exist to protect the rights and property of innocent individuals. They were NEVER intended for such a purpose. They exist solely and completely for the purpose of enforcing the will of the power elites, and protecting those power elites against YOU.

In other words they are, in effect, an occupational army whose sole purpose is to oppress YOU. Period.

They violate the rights of innocent individuals every day. They routinely taze, beat and kill innocent people. They destroy their property, bust down their doors, toss their premises and all this without even an apology. They throw innocent people in cages to be abused and raped. They regularly destroy the lives of innocents. They make false charges and then lie in court. The list of police abuses and usurpations goes on, and on, and on.

So, I ask you and the others defending them: How much abuse must innocents suffer at the hands of these thugs before you'd call them justified in using force to defend themselves and their rights and liberty? How many times must those innocents be beaten, tazed, raped or killed before you're willing to cut them some slack and at least view their attempts to defend themselves as understandable and even forgivable, if not completely justified?

Whose side are you really on? The side of the innocent, and justice? Or the side of their oppressors?

This isn't rocket science. Either you support liberty, peace and justice or you don't.

[puppetmaster]

I doubt anyone is saying that. But there are a few things people in this thread need to understand and keep in mind.

First, the police have NO DUTY to protect an innocent individual's rights and property. The courts in every jurisdiction throughout the US have universally upheld this position. Here's a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

Professional police forces do NOT exist to protect the rights and property of innocent individuals. They were NEVER intended for such a purpose. They exist solely and completely for the purpose of enforcing the will of the power elites, and protecting those power elites against YOU.

In other words they are, in effect, an occupational army whose sole purpose is to oppress YOU. Period.

They violate the rights of innocent individuals every day. They routinely taze, beat and kill innocent people. They destroy their property, bust down their doors, toss their premises and all this without even an apology. They throw innocent people in cages to be abused and raped. They regularly destroy the lives of innocents. They make false charges and then lie in court. The list of police abuses and usurpations goes on, and on, and on.

So, I ask you and the others defending them: How much abuse must innocents suffer at the hands of these thugs before you'd call them justified in using force to defend themselves and their rights and liberty? How many times must those innocents be beaten, tazed, raped or killed before you're willing to cut them some slack and at least view their attempts to defend themselves as understandable and even forgivable, if not completely justified?

Whose side are you really on? The side of the innocent, and justice? Or the side of their oppressors?

This isn't rocket science. Either you support liberty, peace and justice or you don't.

well said ...well said

[CCTelander]

well said ...well said

Thank you.

[Kregisen]

So, I ask you and the others defending them: How much abuse must innocents suffer at the hands of these thugs before you'd call them justified in using force to defend themselves and their rights and liberty? How many times must those innocents be beaten, tazed, raped or killed before you're willing to cut them some slack and at least view their attempts to defend themselves as understandable and even forgivable, if not completely justified?

Whose side are you really on? The side of the innocent, and justice? Or the side of their oppressors?

This isn't rocket science. Either you support liberty, peace and justice or you don't.

I'm not saying there aren't evil cops out there, and I guess this was an edited video so we may never know what really happened before the shots occured, but I don't see any excuses for shooting cops and running away.

Wish we could see the whole thing.

[fedup100]

I doubt anyone is saying that. But there are a few things people in this thread need to understand and keep in mind.

First, the police have NO DUTY to protect an innocent individual's rights and property. The courts in every jurisdiction throughout the US have universally upheld this position. Here's a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

[I]Professional police forces do NOT exist to protect the rights and property of innocent individuals. They were NEVER intended for such a purpose. They exist solely and completely for the purpose of enforcing the will of the power elites, and protecting those power elites against YOU.

In other words they are, in effect, an occupational army whose sole purpose is to oppress YOU. Period.


This^^^^!!

The police have edited this heavily, no sound, not all the video and no second dash cam as well as only 1/2 the video of the police executing the people without benefit of trail or jury.

Why did this happen? This happened because of the MIAC report!!! The good ole boy Sheriff had previously stopped, and incarcerated Mr. Kane and in that 6 day terrorization of Mr. Kane, the Sheriff got an education about freedom from Mr. Kane.

This unamerican traitorous Sheriff then decided HE would become judge, jury and executioner of Mr. Kane by adding his name to THE list. This would be THE LIST where the Department of Homeland security and the states have prepared a watch list for home grown terrorist. That is YOU my friend if they find out you do not approve of the current overthrow and agenda.

The Sheriff himself admitted all of this in one of the first interviews of this event. The same interview where this Sheriff told his "boys" to hold off shooting them till he got there, he wanted to take the "kill shot" of the boy as vengeance for his sons murder!!

The sheriff admitted to placing Mr. Kane on "the list" and listed him as a terrorist, unamerican and armed and dangerous. Mr. Kane had no knowledge of his fate as he drove back through this strong hold of police corruption. They ran his plates, stopped him with no probable cause and proceeded to "take out" one of the tea party terrorists with deadly force.

Both cops on the video I have seen display premeditation in the way they are dealing with this stop. The first one has called for emergency back up. The first one PURPOSELY took Mr. Kane off camera for they do there best work out of sight of the cameras. The second cop came roaring up and approached the back of the car as if the occupant was Billy the Kid. They were of course so cautions due to the labeling of these people years earlier.

This is just un(&^%believable that anyone with half a brain or half a clue as to what is going on in this country is cheering the murder of this patriot family that had been wronged in so many ways it is mind blowing.

What did the child see and hear that would cause him to react in such a manner? That is what the police do not want you to see.

The murder of those who have decided they will no longer "take it" any more is beginning to happen all over the country, many don't make the light of day because the media covers it up with the same shit cover they are trying to do to this murder.

Yes a free people have a GOD given right to travel by any means customary and necessary to survive. To prevent that is the last stage of total tyranny.

[B]I have read many threads here and elsewhere that speak to "what is a persons line in the sand". "When will people actually stand up and do something". "Is it time now" etc:

The Kane's knew the score. They knew exactly what was going on in the overthrow of our nation. This is what it looks like people in the beginning of a revolution, this family took a stand.

[puppetmaster]

Most people will be surprised that I was a LEO for a time. I joined for all the typical reasons but soon found out that the laws are written not to help society, but to drive society into criminal behavior. Many of these people would go on with normal lives but instead get criminal records and then this record is used against them for the remainder of their life. You always remember the feeling of when you actually save someones life or help someone in need.
But the truth of the matter is that it is that for every 1 person a LEO actually helps he has hurt 99 in either monetarily, psychically, or psychologically.

I am sure there is a back story to these people and odds are they were guided down this path by our oppressive laws. Nothing more dangerous than a caged animal. you reap what you sow....

I do not condone their behavior I just try to understand it.

[Icymudpuppy]

If I build my own or acquire a buggy and at a later point replace the horses with something else, would I be traveling the public right of way in a state privilege titled automobile or private property?

What is fuel tax for?

All the fees associated with automobiles are essentially for the upkeep of the roadways, and driver's licenses are primarily the requirement of insurance companies which has been written into law.

Contrary to CC's assertion above that automobiles are not essentially dangerous, why then were laws instituted in the early days that a person driving a motorcar through city streets must have a person with a flag during the day, and a lantern at night proclaiming their movement before coming through.

The reality is that Horses, while capable of running a man down, even if the driver is paying no attention, will usually avoid collisions because they can in fact think for themselves. A car, on the other hand, will run into things if the driver isn't paying attention. This resulted in huge damage liabilities in the early days of automobiles because drivers weren't paying attention to the task of driving. When people started placing bonds or buying insurance policies to protect themselves from said liability, the Insurance companies began demanding some proof that the driver had skills in operating the vehicle. Private licensing systems began to spring up, but eventually, the risk of uninsured and unlicensed drivers was great enough that laws were passed to require licenses, insurance, and/or a bond.

You may not agree with it on a public roadway, but if the roads were private, I can assure you that the private owners would require the same things that the government does now as they would need to protect themselves from liability should they be sued for letting an irresponsible driver on their roadway. They would also have private enforcers to check to make sure drivers were adhering to their policies. A professional road owners network would spring up with a national driver certification network. Just like licensing.

You would approve if a private company did it, but when the government establishes the same safety requirements, you bitch about it.

[fedup100]

All the fees associated with automobiles are essentially for the upkeep of the roadways, and driver's licenses are primarily the requirement of insurance companies which has been written into law.

Contrary to CC's assertion above that automobiles are not essentially dangerous, why then were laws instituted in the early days that a person driving a motorcar through city streets must have a person with a flag during the day, and a lantern at night proclaiming their movement before coming through.

The reality is that Horses, while capable of running a man down, even if the driver is paying no attention, will usually avoid collisions because they can in fact think for themselves. A car, on the other hand, will run into things if the driver isn't paying attention. This resulted in huge damage liabilities in the early days of automobiles because drivers weren't paying attention to the task of driving. When people started placing bonds or buying insurance policies to protect themselves from said liability, the Insurance companies began demanding some proof that the driver had skills in operating the vehicle. Private licensing systems began to spring up, but eventually, the risk of uninsured and unlicensed drivers was great enough that laws were passed to require licenses, insurance, and/or a bond.

You may not agree with it on a public roadway, but if the roads were private, I can assure you that the private owners would require the same things that the government does now as they would need to protect themselves from liability should they be sued for letting an irresponsible driver on their roadway. They would also have private enforcers to check to make sure drivers were adhering to their policies. A professional road owners network would spring up with a national driver certification network. Just like licensing.

You would approve if a private company did it, but when the government establishes the same safety requirements, you bitch about it.


Safety rules are common sense. Licensing to pay tribute in order to get on a road to travel is the offense. Wake Up!

[fedup100]

This is what happened for sure. Thank you for this.


“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

[Icymudpuppy]

Safety rules are common sense. Licensing to pay tribute in order to get on a road to travel is the offense. Wake Up!

You don't have to. Just don't use an motor vehicle. Use a horse, a bicycle, or walk.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

All the fees associated with automobiles are essentially for the upkeep of the roadways, and driver's licenses are primarily the requirement of insurance companies which has been written into law.

Contrary to CC's assertion above that automobiles are not essentially dangerous, why then were laws instituted in the early days that a person driving a motorcar through city streets must have a person with a flag during the day, and a lantern at night proclaiming their movement before coming through.

The reality is that Horses, while capable of running a man down, even if the driver is paying no attention, will usually avoid collisions because they can in fact think for themselves. A car, on the other hand, will run into things if the driver isn't paying attention. This resulted in huge damage liabilities in the early days of automobiles because drivers weren't paying attention to the task of driving. When people started placing bonds or buying insurance policies to protect themselves from said liability, the Insurance companies began demanding some proof that the driver had skills in operating the vehicle. Private licensing systems began to spring up, but eventually, the risk of uninsured and unlicensed drivers was great enough that laws were passed to require licenses, insurance, and/or a bond.

You may not agree with it on a public roadway, but if the roads were private, I can assure you that the private owners would require the same things that the government does now as they would need to protect themselves from liability should they be sued for letting an irresponsible driver on their roadway. They would also have private enforcers to check to make sure drivers were adhering to their policies. A professional road owners network would spring up with a national driver certification network. Just like licensing.

You would approve if a private company did it, but when the government establishes the same safety requirements, you bitch about it.

Before I respond to common law/statues, responsibility, liability, monopoly, and insurance... would you mind answering the first question previously posed?

[Jordan]

Why are people defending these idiots? Even if you hate all police, what are you gonna do, just kill them all?

Seriously?

Seriously.

This forum is crazy.

[Icymudpuppy]

Before I respond to common law/statues, responsibility, liability, monopoly, and insurance... would you mind answering the first question previously posed?

I thought the answer was in the explanation. When you convert your buggy into a motor vehicle, the vehicle no longer has the horse's brain keeping you from hitting things when you aren't paying attention, so yes, when you put a motor on your buggy, you will need insurance and licensing as it is now a motor vehicle.

[fedup100]

Seriously.

This forum is crazy.

No, YOU and your family are to slowly lay down when the godlike creatures with badges approach you for any reason. Should they decide to rape you or any member of your family, you are to lie quiet and be respectful. Should they beat your 4 year old senseless for any reason, take it like a man.

Should you be forced into one of their gulags wrongly, whimper a little may be O.K., but remember, you are here as a unit to be moved on that big chess board in the sky for the benefit of Satan and his minions and in no way are you to resist this evil. Amen

[teacherone]

No, YOU and your family are to slowly lay down when the godlike creatures with badges approach you for any reason. Should they decide to rape you or any member of your family, you are to lie quiet and be respectful. Should they beat your 4 year old senseless for any reason, take it like a man.

Should you be forced into one of their gulags wrongly, whimper a little may be O.K., but remember, you are here as a unit to be moved on that big chess board in the sky for the benefit of Satan and his minions and in no way are you to resist this evil. Amen



Originally Posted by Jordan

Seriously.

This forum is crazy.

proof positive...some of these folks are certifiable

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I thought the answer was in the explanation. When you convert your buggy into a motor vehicle, the vehicle no longer has the horse's brain keeping you from hitting things when you aren't paying attention, so yes, when you put a motor on your buggy, you will need insurance and licensing as it is now a motor vehicle.

Under your Republic what gives the state authority to nationalize private property into automobiles by force?

This is how I interpret your explanation...

If you kill someone while traveling under common law you can be put to death.
Therefore you would prefer to exercise government privileged travel and receive immunity and not be put to death for accidents killing others while traveling.

Why should I, as an individual under your Republic, who accepts responsibility for the actions of my travel, be persecuted for not exercising a privilege especially when I am not injuring anyone or damaging property?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

oops, dupe, editing previous post.

[unklejman]

The admiralty and commercial law that the "sovereign" movement spews is bullshit. There is no legal way to avoid the leviathan state while living within the United States. It is that simple. These guys with their hand-made papers and writs are going to lose, every time. I run into them in court from time to time, and they lose without fail, often costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

Tell that to Clint Moser, a recent candidate for AL. US Senator. He won court cases in every city between Gulf Shores and Mobile for driving without a tag and license.

[John Taylor]

Your two sentiments betray each other. If you truly feel that the state is such a huge leviathan that it is hopeless to win against them, why display such malice against those who try to fight them? Surely it’s not truly because they are “costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars”. In such a context, wouldn’t your malice be more appropriately directed against the state? HINT: That’s kinda what we do here on LF.

Now, regarding the shootings. If you truly think all murder suspects should fry in the electric chair, surely you are at least as passionately hateful of cops who murder suspects; since cops should certainly be held to a higher standard of conduct. But I noticed that you were completely absent from this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=244713
7-year-old girl killed in Detroit police raid
But I’m sure you have posted equally malicious sentiments towards cops who kill people, and have balanced-out what would appear in this thread to be a pro-state mentality; and I have just not seen them. So could you be a Gent and direct us to where you have made such posts?

My sentiments are perfectly compatible with one another. Actually, if you look at the guiding purpose of this forum, it is to advocate for the restoration of the original federal republic, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a laissez faire economic system.

No, to answer your allegations: I have NEVER advocated "frying" murder suspects. I advocate frying murderers---be they private citizens who have committed murder, or police officers who have committed murder.

Police should be held to a high standard, that is true, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that these two murdered police officers did anything whatsoever to violate the rights of these twin murderers.

As for the thread on the 7 year old girl: I haven't seen the thread until just now. Unfortunately I have to work for a living, and must have missed that one... can you send me a private message everytime you see such a thread in the future, and I'll be glad to contribute to it! Thanks!

I don't direct malice towards people who kill others, I direct malice towards those who commit murder or otherwise violate the rights of others.

[sratiug]

Seriously.

This forum is crazy.

No. Officers at road blocks habitually threaten parents that their children will be removed from their custody IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN THAT ARE WITH THEM IN THEIR CARS AT THE TIME. Now THAT is seriously crazy.

[John Taylor]

Tell that to Clint Moser, a recent candidate for AL. US Senator. He won court cases in every city between Gulf Shores and Mobile for driving without a tag and license.

I will. If he's "won" in court, I highly doubt he's won on the merits, but rather has prevailed on a legal technicality.

[Dreamofunity]

Even if the licenses and tags violate some freedom to travel, that doesn't justify murder.

[CCTelander]

Safety rules are common sense. Licensing to pay tribute in order to get on a road to travel is the offense. Wake Up!

Licensing and registration do not exist to promote public safety. They exist to track and control individuals and their vehicles, and to generate revenue for the state.

In fact, many so-called "public safety" measures which regulate the use of automobiles were originally implimentaed in a vain effort to protect the profits of buggy manufactuerers back when automobiles began to be a serious competitor. Much like anti-trust laws, it was just more corporatism. They were maintained after the demise of those corporate interests as a further means of controling the general population and as a means of generating revenue. In other words, they exist to control your movements and steal from you.

The fact that none of this has anything to do with "public safety" is pretty much self-evident if you actually look into the matter.

If they REALLY wanted to promote public safety on the roads, and reduce traffic fatalities to almost nill, they could easily follow the example of several larger cities in Europe and eliminate most of the regulations, signage, and even lines on the roads, and redesign the streets a bit.

Red light cameras are another good example. Virtually every study ever conducted on them, regardless of who funded it, reveals that they make the roads significantly LESS safe and increase fatal accidents. Yet they are ALWAYS sold to the public as a safety measure. What they really do is control people and generate revenue, at the expense of more lives lost.

Then there's the situation with small, private aircraft. Private individuals can own and fly ultra-lights, kit planes, and smaller experimental aircraft, up to and including fixed-wing jet aircraft, completely legally and without any kind of license at all. Thousands of private individuals accross the country do, in fact. There is even a small, two occupant helicopter called the Scorpion that can be purchased and flown by anyone without any kind of license or even flying experience.

One almost never hears of any of these private unlicensed pilots causing any major harm.

The "public safety" argument is a lie. It's just another form of pro-state propaganda. Licensing and registration, along with many other regulations have never been shown to significantly increase public safety. In fact, they probably reduce it while there are real, proven methods to significantly increase it, without police or onerous regulations available. They aren't being used simply because they DECREASE the amount of control the elites have over the general public, and reduce their ability to steal from you.

Furthermore, the whole "public safety" argument in favor of licensing and registration rests completely on the EXACT SAME REASONING used by the anti-self-defense crowd to support licensing and registration of firearms. Firearms, clearly, CAN be exceedingly dangerous. That does not justify treating the overwhelming majority of safe responsible gun owners as criminals because of the actions of a minute few.

The EXACT SAME THING applies to driving your car.

[puppetmaster]

Even if the licenses and tags violate some freedom to travel, that doesn't justify murder.

This is a reaction to an action or more likely actions. I seriously doubt that these individuals were at this level of anger based on the expired tag issue...think BIG PICTURE.

Since you brought it up....What DOES justify murder?

It is tragic in any case

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Tags, titles, and licenses are evidence of exercising a privilege.

[Icymudpuppy]

Under your Republic what gives the state authority to nationalize private property into automobiles by force?
Why should I, as an individual under your Republic, who accepts responsibility for the actions of my travel, be persecuted for not exercising a privilege especially when I am not injuring anyone or damaging property?

1: No. I recognize that the corporation that built the roads has the right to restrict the people who use them to those who have met their use requirements. This corporation is most often the incorporated city, county, or state which funded that road being built.

2: Because the builders of the road have set a common guideline for road usage, and having not met those guidelines you are restricted from said use of that roadway. Violation of the rules comes with penalties. Up to taking away your toy, and/or putting you in timeout. If you continue to cause a problem, you are asking for a spanking.

I bet you got pissy about being kicked out of the privately owned pool at the RV resort for running on slippery concrete, or diving in the shallow end. Yep, you could take responsibility for yourself, but they built the pool, and they can say what the pool rules are.

Don't like the pool/road rules, don't use the pool/road. Nobody is restricting your right to travel. We even went so far as to build sidewalks and bike lanes so you could use the roads without needing a license or a vehicle registration. Nice of us, wasn't it?

If you don't want to pay the usage fees, and follow the rules. Don't use the service. I see that as Voluntarism. Nobody is forcing you to drive a car.

[aGameOfThrones]

Licensing and registration do not exist to promote public safety. They exist to track and control individuals and their vehicles, and to generate revenue for the state.

In fact, many so-called "public safety" measures which regulate the use of automobiles were originally implimentaed in a vain effort to protect the profits of buggy manufactuerers back when automobiles began to be a serious competitor. Much like anti-trust laws, it was just more corporatism. They were maintained after the demise of those corporate interests as a further means of controling the general population and as a means of generating revenue. In other words, they exist to control your movements and steal from you.

The fact that none of this has anything to do with "public safety" is pretty much self-evident if you actually look into the matter.

If they REALLY wanted to promote public safety on the roads, and reduce traffic fatalities to almost nill, they could easily follow the example of several larger cities in Europe and eliminate most of the regulations, signage, and even lines on the roads, and redesign the streets a bit.

Red light cameras are another good example. Virtually every study ever conducted on them, regardless of who funded it, reveals that they make the roads significantly LESS safe and increase fatal accidents. Yet they are ALWAYS sold to the public as a safety measure. What they really do is control people and generate revenue, at the expense of more lives lost.

Then there's the situation with small, private aircraft. Private individuals can own and fly ultra-lights, kit planes, and smaller experimental aircraft, up to and including fixed-wing jet aircraft, completely legally and without any kind of license at all. Thousands of private individuals accross the country do, in fact. There is even a small, two occupant helicopter called the Scorpion that can be purchased and flown by anyone without any kind of license or even flying experience.

One almost never hears of any of these private unlicensed pilots causing any major harm.

The "public safety" argument is a lie. It's just another form of pro-state propaganda. Licensing and registration, along with many other regulations have never been shown to significantly increase public safety. In fact, they probably reduce it while there are real, proven methods to significantly increase it, without police or onerous regulations available. They aren't being used simply because they DECREASE the amount of control the elites have over the general public, and reduce their ability to steal from you.

Furthermore, the whole "public safety" argument in favor of licensing and registration rests completely on the EXACT SAME REASONING used by the anti-self-defense crowd to support licensing and registration of firearms. Firearms, clearly, CAN be exceedingly dangerous. That does not justify treating the overwhelming majority of safe responsible gun owners as criminals because of the actions of a minute few.

The EXACT SAME THING applies to driving your car.

I can honestly say that I have never once looked at a billboard sign, poster, or anything similar while travelling :D. Also, since I have never looked at one, I have never bother to read all the information and promotional material that accompanies said signs, too much stuff to read while "driving".

[aGameOfThrones]

Even if the licenses and tags violate some freedom to travel, that doesn't justify murder.

People all the time die fighting for their liberties, rights, and property, as those who like to restrict, tread, and usurp them.

[CCTelander]

1: No. I recognize that the corporation that built the roads has the right to restrict the people who use them to those who have met their use requirements. This corporation is most often the incorporated city, county, or state which funded that road being built.

2: Because the builders of the road have set a common guideline for road usage, and having not met those guidelines you are restricted from said use of that roadway. Violation of the rules comes with penalties. Up to taking away your toy, and/or putting you in timeout. If you continue to cause a problem, you are asking for a spanking.

I bet you got pissy about being kicked out of the privately owned pool at the RV resort for running on slippery concrete, or diving in the shallow end. Yep, you could take responsibility for yourself, but they built the pool, and they can say what the pool rules are.

Don't like the pool/road rules, don't use the pool/road. Nobody is restricting your right to travel. We even went so far as to build sidewalks and bike lanes so you could use the roads without needing a license or a vehicle registration. Nice of us, wasn't it?

If you don't want to pay the usage fees, and follow the rules. Don't use the service. I see that as Voluntarism. Nobody is forcing you to drive a car.

Only through the most contorted form of reasoning could one possibly equate the current model with "Voluntarism."

Even if I decide never to drive my automobile on public roads, and to only drive it on my own property, which virtually everyone agrees is my absolute right, I am forced to pay for the upkeep of those public roads through taxes imposed upon fuel and other commodities and services. I also have my property extracted from me at gun point to pay for the police to enforce the regulations imposed upon the use of those roads.

Voluntary? More like violent theft.

[TNforPaul45]

This is further evidence that there are a few people on both sides (Citizens, Law Enforcement) that are ruining it for all the rest in each group.

How very sad.

TN

[constituent]

I doubt anyone is saying that. But there are a few things people in this thread need to understand and keep in mind.

First, the police have NO DUTY to protect an innocent individual's rights and property. The courts in every jurisdiction throughout the US have universally upheld this position. Here's a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

[B][I]Professional police forces do NOT exist to protect the rights and property of innocent individuals.

This post was great until the following.



They were NEVER intended for such a purpose. They exist solely and completely for the purpose of enforcing the will of the power elites, and protecting those power elites against YOU.

Specifically they exist to protect and enforce the laws of the municipalities they contract their services out to. Skip the whole "power elites" thing. Your city council members, mayor, city manager, they aren't the "power elite," but they do have power. More important is the fact that they are real people who can be pointed to, pressured, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, you won't find any of these folks attending back room bilderberg meetings.

The "power elite" and other such constructions, imo, make it too easy for people to overlook the very simple solutions that exist everyday right in front of them.

Anyway, just something to think about. :)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You did not answer the previous question. Under what authority can the state nationalize private property into automobiles? You did a Kagan confirmation hearing Potomic two step around the question.


1: No. I recognize that the corporation that built the roads has the right to restrict the people who use them to those who have met their use requirements. This corporation is most often the incorporated city, county, or state which funded that road being built.

1. A corporation is not a Republic entrusted by the people to govern over the land.

2. How does a corporation inherit more rights than the stockholders/investors who paid for the roads... uhhhhh... see next question...

3. Even better (and I'd love to see FrankRep chime in on this question with all of his we are a Republic nonsense), how does a Republic by the people, for the people, of the people, working for the people become a corporation where the people who pay all of the taxation are corporate citizens or taxpayers not stockholders or investors? The relationship between We The People and incorporated government seems kind of $%*#ed up.

I find your position regarding the power of the corporation who built the roads using We The Peoples money... flawed... to say the least.



2: Because the builders of the road have set a common guideline for road usage, and having not met those guidelines you are restricted from said use of that roadway. Violation of the rules comes with penalties. Up to taking away your toy, and/or putting you in timeout. If you continue to cause a problem, you are asking for a spanking.

In a Republic are the builders you refer to the owners of a road?



I bet you got pissy about being kicked out of the privately owned pool at the RV resort for running on slippery concrete, or diving in the shallow end. Yep, you could take responsibility for yourself, but they built the pool, and they can say what the pool rules are.

Since you have absolutely no evidence or citations to back that up how about we just dismiss it and I pretend I am not an asshole for a minute, forgive you, don't retaliate, and we move the discussion forward?



Don't like the pool/road rules, don't use the pool/road. Nobody is restricting your right to travel.

Your use of pool = private ownership concept
Your use of road = public ownership concept

pool != road

Under your Republic what authority does the state have to nationalize private pools by force and set the rules property owners must follow when they have a pool in their yard?



We even went so far as to build sidewalks and bike lanes so you could use the roads without needing a license or a vehicle registration. Nice of us, wasn't it?

Who is we? How come tractors do not have operator licenses and registrations?
My hypocrite spidey sense is tingling...



If you don't want to pay the usage fees, and follow the rules. Don't use the service. I see that as Voluntarism. Nobody is forcing you to drive a car.

The public right of way has usage fees? Can you back up that assertion with anything? With 230+ years of historical record it shouldn't be all that difficult to back it up with something if there is any truth to it.

If I am purchasing fuel for a lawn mower that only operates on my private property do I get a usage fee deduction at the pump?

[CCTelander]

This post was great until the following.



Specifically they exist to protect and enforce the laws of the municipalities they contract their services out to. Skip the whole "power elites" thing. Your city council members, mayor, city manager, they aren't the "power elite," but they do have power. More important is the fact that they are real people who can be pointed to, pressured, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, you won't find any of these folks attending back room bilderberg meetings.

The "power elite" and other such constructions, imo, make it too easy for people to overlook the very simple solutions that exist everyday right in front of them.

Anyway, just something to think about. :)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, however when one considers the militarization and nationalization of "local" police forces that has occurred and continues to occur, citing ONLY those municipalities amounts to oversimplifying the problem.

After all, those "local" police do, in fact, enforce all kinds of federal and federally mandated "laws." Gun "laws," drug "laws," tax "laws," the list goes on and on.

So it's not just as simple as pointing to local city councils and mayors.

Overall though, your point is well taken.

EDIT: Also, I tend to use terms like "power elite" to include those corporate and otherwise private interests who all too often act to influence governmental entities to act for their benefit.

[Icymudpuppy]

You did not answer the previous question. Under what authority can the state nationalize private property into automobiles? You did a Kagan confirmation hearing Potomic two step around the question.



1. A corporation is not a Republic entrusted by the people to govern over the land.

2. How does a corporation inherit more rights than the stockholders/investors who paid for the roads... uhhhhh... see next question...

3. Even better (and I'd love to see FrankRep chime in on this question with all of his we are a Republic nonsense), how does a Republic by the people, for the people, of the people, working for the people become a corporation where the people who pay all of the taxation are corporate citizens or taxpayers not stockholders or investors? The relationship between We The People and incorporated government seems kind of $%*#ed up.

I find your position regarding the power of the corporation who built the roads using We The Peoples money... flawed... to say the least.



In a Republic are the builders you refer to the owners of a road?



Since you have absolutely no evidence or citations to back that up how about we just dismiss it and I pretend I am not an asshole for a minute, forgive you, don't retaliate, and we move the discussion forward?



Your use of pool = private ownership concept
Your use of road = public ownership concept

pool != road

Under your Republic what authority does the state have to nationalize private pools by force and set the rules property owners must follow when they have a pool in their yard?



Who is we? How come tractors do not have operator licenses and registrations?
My hypocrite spidey sense is tingling...



The public right of way has usage fees? Can you back up that assertion with anything? With 230+ years of historical record it shouldn't be all that difficult to back it up with something if there is any truth to it.

If I am purchasing fuel for a lawn mower that only operates on my private property do I get a usage fee deduction at the pump?

You've never seen a private road? I drive on them all the time, and on some, no license/registration is required, yet on others, the owners expect you to have state licenses.

Public roads are not usually private roads which have been forcibly nationalized. Most are built by public funds, managed with public funds, and have rules set by public organizations.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You've never seen a private road? I drive on them all the time, and on some, no license/registration is required, yet on others, the owners expect you to have state licenses.

Public roads are not usually private roads which have been forcibly nationalized. Most are built by public funds, managed with public funds, and have rules set by public organizations.

I have been on several private roads but the whole conversation about roads thus far has been about public roads. Seriously, how can there be any kind of discussion if we are going to jump all over the place and ignore questions or points made by the other?

Why are you shifting gears to private roads? What relevance do private roads have to the public roads?

You are making another assertion public roads are built with public funds when in reality under incorporated government We The People are debtors not creditors. The creditors (investors/stockholders) are the people, companies, or other governments who purchase the bonds. But that question and point was raised in my last post which you pretty much skipped in its entirety and shifted gears to private roads.

People talk about Republic nonsense all the time. You want to know when the Republic died? It's very simple. When We The People who allegedly delegated power to fund government with powers of taxation were no longer the creditors and became debtors. It happened with one stroke of the pen:

Article 1 - Section 8:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

[idirtify]

My sentiments are perfectly compatible with one another. Actually, if you look at the guiding purpose of this forum, it is to advocate for the restoration of the original federal republic, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a laissez faire economic system.

No, to answer your allegations: I have NEVER advocated "frying" murder suspects. I advocate frying murderers---be they private citizens who have committed murder, or police officers who have committed murder.

Police should be held to a high standard, that is true, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that these two murdered police officers did anything whatsoever to violate the rights of these twin murderers.

As for the thread on the 7 year old girl: I haven't seen the thread until just now. Unfortunately I have to work for a living, and must have missed that one... can you send me a private message everytime you see such a thread in the future, and I'll be glad to contribute to it! Thanks!

I don't direct malice towards people who kill others, I direct malice towards those who commit murder or otherwise violate the rights of others.

Yesterday 05:23 PM, you wrote:
“Too bad they weren't caught alive, they should have been put to death by electric chair.”

Yesterday 05:42 PM, you wrote:
“These guys shot two police officers in cold blood. They deserve to be fried.”

Yesterday 06:17 PM, you wrote:
“These people should have been caught alive and sent to the electric chair.”

TODAY you claimed:
“I have NEVER advocated ‘frying’ murder suspects.”

Few posts LIE more blatantly than your current claim; but given the clarity of your three previous statements, one would be hard pressed to find a better characterization. It’s the size of lie that automatically casts doubt on all else you had to say.

Now wait… Before you try to claim that you didn’t consider the suspects as “suspects”, don’t forget that the article YOU used to support your advocacy called them that no less than nine times.

And your claim that you didn’t “see” any evidence incriminating the cops is just as dishonest, considering the footage of the CO’s big diesel pickup intentionally ramming the driver’s side door of the minivan at high speed.

Do you not care about your credibility?

[Stoli]

I have been on several private roads but the whole conversation about roads thus far has been about public roads. Seriously, how can there be any kind of discussion if we are going to jump all over the place and ignore questions or points made by the other?

Why are you shifting gears to private roads? What relevance do private roads have to the public roads?

You are making another assertion public roads are built with public funds when in reality under incorporated government We The People are debtors not creditors. The creditors (investors/stockholders) are the people, companies, or other governments who purchase the bonds. But that question and point was raised in my last post which you pretty much skipped in its entirety and shifted gears to private roads.

People talk about Republic nonsense all the time. You want to know when the Republic died? It's very simple. When We The People who allegedly delegated power to fund government with powers of taxation were no longer the creditors and became debtors. It happened with one stroke of the pen:

Article 1 - Section 8:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

All I can say is WOW. This has been a great thread!!

Live_Free_Or_Die hands down is the guy I would want to break bread with!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Everyone here defending the police needs to read Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or at least pay more attention to Thomas Jefferson (Yes, yes, we all know the quote).

The only reason people even have the slight bit of sympathy towards their oppressors is because they have been brainwashed to believe that the police actually protect their freedoms, or liberties. They don't. Never have, never can. Of course, you will be safe (for a time being) if you stay in your nice neat little cage and don't exercise any of your Natural Rights. That's not freedom folks, thats slavery and guess who enforces this upon you? There should be a designated liberty tree in every town.

[John Taylor]

Everyone here defending the police needs to read Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or at least pay more attention to Thomas Jefferson (Yes, yes, we all know the quote).

The only reason people even have the slight bit of sympathy towards their oppressors is because they have been brainwashed to believe that the police actually protect their freedoms, or liberties. They don't. Never have, never can. Of course, you will be safe (for a time being) if you stay in your nice neat little cage and don't exercise any of your Natural Rights. That's not freedom folks, thats slavery and guess who enforces this upon you? There should be a designated liberty tree in every town.

I knew Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I've played chess with him, and I've read the Gulag. You don't know what you're talking about. Solzhenitsyn strongly favored the constitutional federalism our founders envisioned, not whatever anarchist wet-dream you are talking about.

"sympathy towards their oppressors"---how exactly were these two police officers oppressing anyone again when they were savagely murdered?

[John Taylor]

Yesterday 05:23 PM, you wrote:
“Too bad they weren't caught alive, they should have been put to death by electric chair.”

Yesterday 05:42 PM, you wrote:
“These guys shot two police officers in cold blood. They deserve to be fried.”

Yesterday 06:17 PM, you wrote:
“These people should have been caught alive and sent to the electric chair.”

TODAY you claimed:
“I have NEVER advocated ‘frying’ murder suspects.”

Few posts LIE more blatantly than your current claim; but given the clarity of your three previous statements, one would be hard pressed to find a better characterization. It’s the size of lie that automatically casts doubt on all else you had to say.

Now wait… Before you try to claim that you didn’t consider the suspects as “suspects”, don’t forget that the article YOU used to support your advocacy called them that no less than nine times.

And your claim that you didn’t “see” any evidence incriminating the cops is just as dishonest, considering the footage of the CO’s big diesel pickup intentionally ramming the driver’s side door of the minivan at high speed.

Do you not care about your credibility?

These two men clearly murdered these two other men. The evidence demonstrates that these guys murdered the police officers in cold blood. Sure, they deserve a trial, if apprehended, but once found guilty, they should have been taken out and shot, or fried. However, that was unnecessary because they resisted being arrested for first degree murder, itself a capital offense, by attempting to kill additional police officers.

The truck ramming the murderers is not "incriminating evidence", it is evidence of valor and heroism on the part of a fish and game officer who didn't even have to enter the situation, but who did so in an attempt to save innocent lives and prevent these murderers from getting away.

You have no credibility.

[John Taylor]

All I can say is WOW. This has been a great thread!!

Live_Free_Or_Die hands down is the guy I would want to break bread with!

When you drive over to see him, make sure you borrow a friend's vehicle... one without cardboard license-plates.

[puppetmaster]

These two men clearly murdered these two other men. The evidence demonstrates that these guys murdered the police officers in cold blood. Sure, they deserve a trial, if apprehended, but once found guilty, they should have been taken out and shot, or fried. However, that was unnecessary because they resisted being arrested for first degree murder, itself a capital offense, by attempting to kill additional police officers.

The truck ramming the murderers is not "incriminating evidence", it is evidence of valor and heroism on the part of a fish and game officer who didn't even have to enter the situation, but who did so in an attempt to save innocent lives and prevent these murderers from getting away.

You have no credibility.

classic---the pot calling the kettle black....:eek:

[CCTelander]

Threads like this serve to reinforce a long-held belief of mine, based upon many years of personal experience, that being:

If the day ever does come when they're rounding up true liberty advocates and activists and herding them into gulags for "re-education" or extermination, there will be MANY conservatives, perhaps even the majority who will be cheering such actions on as a restoration of "law and order."

There were, after all, plenty of conservatives cheering the cops on as they busted "hippies' " and other anti-war demonstrators' heads back in the 60s. As I recall, turning the water cannons, and setting the dogs loose, on civil rights protestors was also quite popular in conservative circles.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

When you drive over to see him, make sure you borrow a friend's vehicle... one without cardboard license-plates.

If I ever change religions to statism and apply for some cool poverty benefits, your state is at the top of the list. I hear the lines and wait times are expected to get shorter. :D

[idirtify]

These two men clearly murdered these two other men. The evidence demonstrates that these guys murdered the police officers in cold blood. Sure, they deserve a trial, if apprehended, but once found guilty, they should have been taken out and shot, or fried. However, that was unnecessary because they resisted being arrested for first degree murder, itself a capital offense, by attempting to kill additional police officers.

The truck ramming the murderers is not "incriminating evidence", it is evidence of valor and heroism on the part of a fish and game officer who didn't even have to enter the situation, but who did so in an attempt to save innocent lives and prevent these murderers from getting away.

You have no credibility.

NOW you say the murder suspects deserved a trial, but you previously left out that detail when you advocated frying them.

And you maintain that you saw no evidence incriminating the cops, but rather that the truck ramming was “evidence of valor and heroism”; even though you did not see the minivan initiate any shooting at Walmart, and the first deadly violence you saw there was the truck ramming.

Now please explain what is wrong with my credibility.

[fedup100]

Threads like this serve to reinforce a long-held belief of mine, based upon many years of personal experience, that being:

If the day ever does come when they're rounding up true liberty advocates and activists and herding them into gulags for "re-education" or extermination, there will be MANY conservatives, perhaps even the majority who will be cheering such actions on as a restoration of "law and order."

There were, after all, plenty of conservatives cheering the cops on as they busted "hippies' " and other anti-war demonstrators' heads back in the 60s. As I recall, turning the water cannons, and setting the dogs loose, on civil rights protestors was also quite popular in conservative circles.

This^

This forum and several others that I attend have proven one thing for me, your statements above are true.

After reading most of the posts on this thread, most of the posters are on the wrong forum according to their view points.

Should a true revolution ever come here to our shores, the mass brainwashing and the watering down of true patriots with the strange flesh of non americans will cause the greatest amount of blood shed the world has ever seen, for no one will be able to discern who the true enemy is.

[idirtify]

Threads like this serve to reinforce a long-held belief of mine, based upon many years of personal experience, that being:

If the day ever does come when they're rounding up true liberty advocates and activists and herding them into gulags for "re-education" or extermination, there will be MANY conservatives, perhaps even the majority who will be cheering such actions on as a restoration of "law and order."

There were, after all, plenty of conservatives cheering the cops on as they busted "hippies' " and other anti-war demonstrators' heads back in the 60s. As I recall, turning the water cannons, and setting the dogs loose, on civil rights protestors was also quite popular in conservative circles.

Good observation. Let’s discuss the psychology behind this sad-but-common social behavior.

It seems there is a particular “might-is-right” mentality that not only ridicules David for fighting Goliath (because David is “stupid” for even trying to fight the all-powerful Goliath) but extends that rationale to overtly BLAME David and DEFEND Goliath. I equate the mentality with your standard macho-bully stereotype that tends to see these things like team-sports and cheers power and boos weakness; where being the weaker is shameful, and where discussing things like right and wrong and individual liberty is a sign of weakness (for wimps only).

With that psychological profile in mind, analyze John Taylor’s comments. Note how his comment that the leviathan is POWERFUL quickly changes into comments that the leviathan is RIGHT. The whole mentality is actually based on a logical fallacy (like most illegitimate outlooks are). It actually believes the non-sequitur, “since you can’t win, you are wrong for trying”; or another version – “since they are more powerful than you, they are RIGHT for oppressing you”.

Now hopefully, through information and better understanding, in the face of teeny-tiny truths the big bad bullying has once again been revealed to be the real weakness.

Regarding why so many show such a psychological profile, that would generally be off-limits to discussion forums; since it would have to encroach into speculations about personal problems of the poster(s).

[0zzy]

why are people defending these idiots? Even if you hate all police, what are you gonna do, just kill them all?

Seriously?


even if the licenses and tags violate some freedom to travel, that doesn't justify murder.

+1776

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Too bad they weren't caught alive, they should have been put to death by electric chair.


http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105042&catid=2

Two West Memphis officers are dead, shot by two men during a traffic stop on Interstate 40. The suspects later died in a shootout with police in a Wal-Mart parking lot and two other members of law enforcement are injured.

We know the suspect's van is registered to the House of God in Ohio, but it is still unknown who the two men were who opened fire or why they did it.

A community has been devastated. Thursday, just before noon West Memphis Officer Bill Evans pulled over a white van with Ohio tags on Airport Road off I-40. Sgt. Brandon Paudert arrived for back up, but the traffic stop was far from routine.

Arkansas State Police public information officer Bill Sadler says, "It's our belief that Officer Evans was shoved to the ground by one of the suspects in the mini van and gun fire was directed at both officers."

Paudert died on the scene and Evans died at the hospital. They are the son and nephew of West Memphis Police Chief Bob Paudert.

Ninety-minutes later, the van was spotted at a Walmart, about a mile from the shooting.

Crittenden County Sheriff Dick Busby and Deputy W.A. Wren were met with gunfire in the parking lot as dozens of officers arrived.

Witnesses describe the scene as chaos: "First I heard gun shots and people started running in the store screaming saying their coming inside, their coming inside and we just ran to the back."

Both officers were critically wounded; the suspects who used a long rifle and hand gun were fatally shot.

There are more questions than answers at this time. The investigation is being lead by the State Police and FBI. Both suspects' bodies have been taken to the coroners' offices to be positively identified.

West Memphis Assistant Chief Mike Allen says, "These men were out there, protecting all of us and they did a damn good job of it. Our prayers are with their families and each one of you, if you would just say a prayer for their family tonight. I'd appreciate it."

Paudert was 39 and Evans was 38; they leave behind their wives and young children. Busby and Wren are in critical, but stable condition.

A memorial fund is being set up for the families.

Stay with Today's THV and todaysthv.com for developments in the ongoing investigation.

UPDATE:
Police tell Today's THV a wildlife officer assisted in apprehending the suspects at Walmart. Sadler explains, "A very brave young wildlife officer in his state truck rammed the suspects vehicle preventing an exit of the suspects. There was a continued exchange of gun fire involving law enforcement officers. Those suspects were armed with a long rifle and a hand gun."

Is this video posted for our personal enrichment, for our enjoyment, or for our education? How can anyone say that this isn't a tragedy? And posting such a terrible happening certainly doesn't make the poster conservative or a Ron Paul supporter. As this is just current affair material, I don't see any political view expressed in it as valid or invalid.

[.Tom]

If someone approaches your car that will kidnap you and put you in a cage for smoking a plant, you have every right to defend yourself against that person.

Just think about the hundreds of peaceful individuals those cops have probably kidnapped and put in cages for victimless "crimes".

If your average citizen would go around kidnapping peaceful people and putting them in cages they would be given the death penalty or multiple life sentences.

These are the same pigs who will kidnap you and put you in a cage and kill you for using drugs, resisting taxes, paying for sex, gambling, and other peaceful activities.

They are the agents of the State that make tyranny possible. I'm glad they're off the street.

[sratiug]

Why would the police release this edited video? Surely they didn't really do that and the full video is on the web somewhere?

[tremendoustie]

Violence leads to nothing good. Peace is the way to more liberty.

[steve005]

The video was cut for several seconds at least or else that car passing by drove into a black hole.

Where did George Washington go to get his drivers license and are there any copies?

Where's the other dashcam video?

Don't most police dashcams have a time clock that would show how much was cut out?

Yes, this looks very bad and I don't condone shooting anyone, I don't even own a gun. But if this is the only video released and it was released with cuts, that looks very bad for the cops too.
[QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing

[QUOTE]Why would the police release this edited video? Surely they didn't really do that and the full video is on the web somewhere?


lol

[steve005]

video was cut at 20 sec, and at 34 sec, prolly more too, they always have sound too so this is very peculiar

[Legend1104]

If someone approaches your car that will kidnap you and put you in a cage for smoking a plant, you have every right to defend yourself against that person.

Just think about the hundreds of peaceful individuals those cops have probably kidnapped and put in cages for victimless "crimes".

If your average citizen would go around kidnapping peaceful people and putting them in cages they would be given the death penalty or multiple life sentences.

These are the same pigs who will kidnap you and put you in a cage and kill you for using drugs, resisting taxes, paying for sex, gambling, and other peaceful activities.

They are the agents of the State that make tyranny possible. I'm glad they're off the street.

Wow. How far off the course has this forum gotten. Try to stripe away the badge for a minute and just focus on something. No one has the right to take someone elses life unless it is justified. What exactly justifies it? A direct threat to your life (i.e. your death). If someone tries to kill me they are infringing on my right to life, so I have the right to take theirs, but if they are infringing on some other right then I am not justified in killing that person. These cops showed no signs of trying to take these peoples lives. I saw no threat of murder. If they were trying to kill that man off the screen then that is another case, but until that is proven we can only assume that they were not. I am sorry but I do not share the same cop hating sentiments as many here, and the debate about whether licensing infringes on our rights or not is beside the point in this case because it is about murder. I understand some of the distrust and anger, but the truth is that most cops are doing it truely to protect us and, in many cases, if they violate a right of ours it is probably because they do not know that they did or were taught that they can do that, but to insist that you are "...glad they're off the street," is just sick. You do not know these people. Who they were, what kind of people they were. They had families and people that loved them. They should not have had their life taken from them for this.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

They should not have had their life taken from them for this.

My sympathies are with the very, very, very long list of people who never hurt anyone or damaged any property that have been killed or incarcerated. Not the oppressors. Ignorance is not an excuse for tyranny.

Because of a very, very, very long list of government abuse, it has reached a point where resisting known oppressors is defense. People can pretend like this very, very, very long list does not exist in their little genie lamps but many people are wide awake. Abuse of power has reached so far and wide most people know someone personally who has been dicked by government.

[idirtify]

These cops showed no signs of trying to take these peoples lives. I saw no threat of murder.

Really!? And thugs who “ask” you for protection money are really protecting you. HA!

Or if you require, here’s the analogy elaborated:

Two armed members of the biggest and most powerful and most notorious gang in the history of the world stop you on the road and start ordering you around. Now you tell me: About how many actions of resistance to their orders will result in physical force applied against you? AND about how many actions of resistance to their physical force will result in your imprisonment and/or beating and or DEATH?
A: Many
B: Not many

[Legend1104]

Your statements hold no water. You cannot pick incidents from individuals that happen to be part of the same group as these people and then apply to these people as if they are guilty of that same crime. That sir is the same as racism and I won't stand for it when you using to justify murder.

One last point. There are many different forms of resistance. I am not against resistance to tyranical authority, but killing someone that is not threating your life is not resistance, it is murder.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wow. How far off the course has this forum gotten. Try to stripe away the badge for a minute and just focus on something. No one has the right to take someone elses life unless it is justified. What exactly justifies it? A direct threat to your life (i.e. your death). If someone tries to kill me they are infringing on my right to life, so I have the right to take theirs, but if they are infringing on some other right then I am not justified in killing that person. These cops showed no signs of trying to take these peoples lives. I saw no threat of murder. If they were trying to kill that man off the screen then that is another case, but until that is proven we can only assume that they were not. I am sorry but I do not share the same cop hating sentiments as many here, and the debate about whether licensing infringes on our rights or not is beside the point in this case because it is about murder. I understand some of the distrust and anger, but the truth is that most cops are doing it truely to protect us and, in many cases, if they violate a right of ours it is probably because they do not know that they did or were taught that they can do that, but to insist that you are "...glad they're off the street," is just sick. You do not know these people. Who they were, what kind of people they were. They had families and people that loved them. They should not have had their life taken from them for this.

Then don't become a cop. They are the enforcement of our oppression. They should be well aware that the mass of people will no longer tolerate their chains. So if they value their life, they won't become police in the first place. This is the essence of the argument Solzhenitsyn, puts forward (And is quite true). It is no different than the Sons of Liberty going after Government Tax officials. Just by being a part of that organization you have violated anothers liberty, and a response to that threat to the liberties of the individual are just. I wish more people would not join the domestic occupiers, and when the people start to fight back, you will bet that people won't be joining the Police.

Does this mean I think we should go out there and confront them? Nope. I am in favor of defending ones-self from that force of oppression. I have no sympathy for my oppressors (Isn't there a psych. condition named for that....). Sorry, but I care more about the non-Government person whos liberties are destroyed everyday, than Government employees (And I am well aware that I am fair game when it comes down to it as long as I stay in the CG and finish my contract).

The bolded selection is wrong. Have you ever talked to any ex-cop libertarians? I have. Quite a few. There are very very few police who join because of altruistic reasons, and those that do don't last long. The same argument that breeds corruption and violence in politicians is the same force through the police. Most people who become police do it because of power, or because they want to enforce their beliefs onto others (Drugs are bad, I want to fight drugs, etc.). Besides, haven't you seen any of the activist videos out there? The police do not protect you, they protect the Government, like the British redcoats protected the Crown.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your statements hold no water. You cannot pick incidents from individuals that happen to be part of the same group as these people and then apply to these people as if they are guilty of that same crime. That sir is the same as racism and I won't stand for it when you using to justify murder.

One last point. There are many different forms of resistance. I am not against resistance to tyranical authority, but killing someone that is not threating your life is not resistance, it is murder.

What about someone threatening to put you in a cage for being peaceful? They drew the line in the sand. They didn't fold. Will you when you are thrown in jail for peaceful activities?

There are two ways to try and fight right now. That is either the tact these persons took, which is fully justified (although I think Civ. Dis. will ultimately be more effective at routing the present course), or non-violent Civil Disobedience. I favor the latter, but do condone the former. I am just dovish at heart I suppose :p

Why do people sympathize with their oppressors?! This is the same institution that destroys untold families, kills thousands, enforces the whims of DC and their state Governments, and do this all at your expense through no consent of your own.

You know shit is bad when people no longer view the police as Officers of the Peace, and instead call them Law Enforcement (That should give you a hint right there).

[mrsat_98]

I will. If he's "won" in court, I highly doubt he's won on the merits, but rather has prevailed on a legal technicality.

I won it, didn't even have to appear in court and got my truck back without plates, registration, inspection, driver's license or insurance.

Now if you would so kindly explain just exactly how you get you piece of machinery out of your drive way without muscular power I will silently sit by and eat mine one bolt at a time.

You would not know what a motor vehicle was if one ran over you.

[idirtify]

Your statements hold no water. You cannot pick incidents from individuals that happen to be part of the same group as these people and then apply to these people as if they are guilty of that same crime. That sir is the same as racism and I won't stand for it when you using to justify murder.

One last point. There are many different forms of resistance. I am not against resistance to tyranical authority, but killing someone that is not threating your life is not resistance, it is murder.

I see. So if I associate members of an authority group with that authority group (as these members are on the job and representing said authority group), I am being prejudiced. Correct?

Obviously, I disagree.

Having said that, you DO have somewhat of a point. But here’s the better question. If two gang members stop you on the road and start demanding things because you are on their turf, is your life in danger at that moment? If so, is your life in enough imminent danger to warrant lethal self-defense? (Of course it’s a given that if you comply, your life is in no danger. But is that a legitimate factor on this forum?)

Although you are totally dismissing the real danger, acknowledging it still raises good questions about justified defense - definitely worth discussing.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I see. So if I associate members of an authority group with that authority group (as these members are on the job and representing said authority group), I am being prejudiced. Correct?

Obviously, I disagree.

Having said that, you DO have somewhat of a point. But here’s the better question. If two gang members stop you on the road and start demanding things because you are on their turf, is your life in danger at that moment? If so, is your life in enough imminent danger to warrant lethal self-defense? (Of course it’s a given that if you comply, your life is in no danger. But is that a legitimate factor on this forum?)

Although you are totally dismissing the real danger, acknowledging it still raises good questions about justified defense - definitely worth discussing.

But how was the young man justified in pumping AK-47 bullets over and over into the officer after he had already shot him? You submit to authority and you obey rules, regulations, and the law. Civil disobedience at one time was a good measure to use, but that method has become a legal precedent. The next course of action is total legal abstinence. Just don't use the government. Refuse its counterfeit.

[puppetmaster]

But how was the young man justified in pumping AK-47 bullets over and over into the officer after he had already shot him? You submit to authority and you obey rules, regulations, and the law. Civil disobedience at one time was a good measure to use, but that method has become a legal precedent. The next course of action is total legal abstinence. Just don't use the government. Refuse its counterfeit.

nullification!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I won it, didn't even have to appear in court and got my truck back without plates, registration, inspection, driver's license or insurance.

Now if you would so kindly explain just exactly how you get you piece of machinery out of your drive way without muscular power I will silently sit by and eat mine one bolt at a time.

You would not know what a motor vehicle was if one ran over you.

You have to excuse our attorney friends. They view the legal system only through a lens of adjudicated cases.

[CCTelander]

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
— Benjamin Franklin

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the cops for the actual VICTIMS.

EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY'RE ON THE JOB, every cop violates somebody's rights. Period.

They routinely enforce "laws" that are clearly and unequivocally tyrannical in nature, and have the nerve to rely on the Nuremburg Defense in justifying it. The best any innocent whose rights they're violating will get from a cop on the street is "Tell it to the judge," as if they have no responsibility for their own actions, and can just pass the buck up the line to wash themselves clean of any wrongdoing.

They routinely throw innocent people in cages to be beaten, raped, and otherwise abused for non-crimes. They ruin innocent people's lives, financially and otherwise. They knowingly bring false charges and lie under oath on a regular basis. They hound and harass innocent people with bullshit beefs until such a point that those innocents react, then they beat, taze, or kill them. If those innocents are lucky enough to survive the initial encounter, they have bogus charges like "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" added to the already bogus charges the whole thing began with. Then, as almost everyone knows, prosecutors will pile on even MORE bogus charges in an effort to sway any possible jury into believing they must have done SOMETHING wrong or there wouldn't be so many charges.

Cops are, in fact, the very instruments of tyranny and oppression. They deliver innocent people up to all of this and more every damned day.

Yet their victims, who now number in the tens of millions, get almost no consideration. They get labeled "murderers" for the simple and completely understandable act of responding in kind to these thugs.

I suggest that some people around here need to take that Ben Franklin quote I opened with to heart. One day YOU'LL be the guy on the receiving end. Then, maybe, you'll finally get it.

[CCTelander]

By the way, just to be perfectly clear, I DO NOT advocate or advise that anyone actually respond to these thugs in kind. Under current circumstances all that gets you is further abuse or death.

Always be respectful and polite. Submit to whatever it is they demand and take your chances in court. Above all, NEVER say anything to the cops. Nothing you say is going to change anything for the better anyway. Other than a polite "yes sir" or "no sir," or a demand to see a lawyer or refusal to allow a search, etc., just keep your mouth shut and go along to get along.

My point isn't that everyone should be responding to these thugs in kind, it's that the TRUE VICTIMS should be recognized and appreciated for what they are, not disparged as psychopaths and murderers for what, in truth, is an understandable and perfectly justified if ill-advised response to tyranny.

[Legend1104]

Let me give you an example. Say you have a man that hates black people because he thinks they are lazy because he once knew a lazy black guy. Then he hears a story about this black guy Ted that does not have a job. Therefore, he just assumes he is lazy. He does not know this man. He could be a very hard worker that lost his job recently due to budget cuts. It is unfair to say that Ted is lazy simply because he is black.

The same argument holds here. Do you personally know these men? Did you follow them around and personally witness them comitting these attrocities that you are railing against? Even if 90% of cops are what you say, it still unfair to make such claims about someone you know nothing about. I personally value every life. I even value the lives of those that do horrible things because that is the way God feels toward them. This guilt-by association crap is sick when you try to use it to justify the murder of someone you don't even know. They may be cops but In the end they are also people that have the same rights we have. Until you can show me where these particular cops murdered someone take you prejudice hatred somewhere else. There is no room for it in the love revolution of Dr. Paul.

[CCTelander]

Let me give you an example. Say you have a man that hates black people because he thinks they are lazy because he once knew a lazy black guy. Then he hears a story about this black guy Ted that does not have a job. Therefore, he just assumes he is lazy. He does not know this man. He could be a very hard worker that lost his job recently due to budget cuts. It is unfair to say that Ted is lazy simply because he is black.

The same argument holds here. Do you personally know these men? Did you follow them around and personally witness them comitting these attrocities that you are railing against? Even if 90% of cops are what you say, it still unfair to make such claims about someone you know nothing about. I personally value every life. I even value the lives of those that do horrible things because that is the way God feels toward them. This guilt-by association crap is sick when you try to use it to justify the murder of someone you don't even know. They may be cops but In the end they are also people that have the same rights we have. Until you can show me where these particular cops murdered someone take you prejudice hatred somewhere else. There is no room for it in the love revolution of Dr. Paul.


100% of cops receive their pay in the form of stolen money. 100% of cops enforce "laws" that are clearly and unquestionably tyrannical in nature every single day, including hundreds of "laws" that are mere malum prohibitum dictates.

Nobody forced them to pick up a badge and a gun and do this. They CHOSE to do so. But with that power comes a GREAT DEAL of responsibility. I can cut LOTS of people who are merely ignorant some slack due to their ignorance. But those people aren't out prowling with guns, ruining the lives of innocents, beating, tazing and murdering them in the name of the state.

If one chooses to do such a thing, one damned well better be absolutely sure that EVERYTHING one does is consistent with simple justice. I've never yet even heard of a cop who gives this responsibility even a second thought, let alone the very serious consideration it deserves.

If they choose to be the tool of tyrants, even unknowingly, they get no sympathy from me.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let me give you an example. Say you have a man that hates black people because he thinks they are lazy because he once knew a lazy black guy. Then he hears a story about this black guy Ted that does not have a job. Therefore, he just assumes he is lazy. He does not know this man. He could be a very hard worker that lost his job recently due to budget cuts. It is unfair to say that Ted is lazy simply because he is black.

The same argument holds here. Do you personally know these men? Did you follow them around and personally witness them comitting these attrocities that you are railing against? Even if 90% of cops are what you say, it still unfair to make such claims about someone you know nothing about. I personally value every life. I even value the lives of those that do horrible things because that is the way God feels toward them. This guilt-by association crap is sick when you try to use it to justify the murder of someone you don't even know. They may be cops but In the end they are also people that have the same rights we have. Until you can show me where these particular cops murdered someone take you prejudice hatred somewhere else. There is no room for it in the love revolution of Dr. Paul.

No one has the right to initiate force against another. What do you think the police do?

[CCTelander]

Furthermore, as Anti Federalist often puts it, "there are no good cops. If there were, there wouldn't be any bad cops."

[fedup100]

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
— Benjamin Franklin

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the cops for the actual VICTIMS.

EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY'RE ON THE JOB, every cop violates somebody's rights. Period.

They routinely enforce "laws" that are clearly and unequivocally tyrannical in nature, and have the nerve to rely on the Nuremburg Defense in justifying it. The best any innocent whose rights they're violating will get from a cop on the street is "Tell it to the judge," as if they have no responsibility for their own actions, and can just pass the buck up the line to wash themselves clean of any wrongdoing.

They routinely throw innocent people in cages to be beaten, raped, and otherwise abused for non-crimes. They ruin innocent people's lives, financially and otherwise. They knowingly bring false charges and lie under oath on a regular basis. They hound and harass innocent people with bullshit beefs until such a point that those innocents react, then they beat, taze, or kill them. If those innocents are lucky enough to survive the initial encounter, they have bogus charges like "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" added to the already bogus charges the whole thing began with. Then, as almost everyone knows, prosecutors will pile on even MORE bogus charges in an effort to sway any possible jury into believing they must have done SOMETHING wrong or there wouldn't be so many charges.

Cops are, in fact, the very instruments of tyranny and oppression. They deliver innocent people up to all of this and more every damned day.

Yet their victims, who now number in the tens of millions, get almost no consideration. They get labeled "murderers" for the simple and completely understandable act of responding in kind to these thugs.

I suggest that some people around here need to take that Ben Franklin quote I opened with to heart. One day YOU'LL be the guy on the receiving end. Then, maybe, you'll finally get it.

I couldn't have said it better. I grew up in awe of the police. After my brother became one, I started to see things in a different light. He was corrupt to the core and was in good company with the NJ State Police. His employment was the end of our relationship as family.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
— Benjamin Franklin

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the cops for the actual VICTIMS.

EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY'RE ON THE JOB, every cop violates somebody's rights. Period.

They routinely enforce "laws" that are clearly and unequivocally tyrannical in nature, and have the nerve to rely on the Nuremburg Defense in justifying it. The best any innocent whose rights they're violating will get from a cop on the street is "Tell it to the judge," as if they have no responsibility for their own actions, and can just pass the buck up the line to wash themselves clean of any wrongdoing.

They routinely throw innocent people in cages to be beaten, raped, and otherwise abused for non-crimes. They ruin innocent people's lives, financially and otherwise. They knowingly bring false charges and lie under oath on a regular basis. They hound and harass innocent people with bullshit beefs until such a point that those innocents react, then they beat, taze, or kill them. If those innocents are lucky enough to survive the initial encounter, they have bogus charges like "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" added to the already bogus charges the whole thing began with. Then, as almost everyone knows, prosecutors will pile on even MORE bogus charges in an effort to sway any possible jury into believing they must have done SOMETHING wrong or there wouldn't be so many charges.

Cops are, in fact, the very instruments of tyranny and oppression. They deliver innocent people up to all of this and more every damned day.

Yet their victims, who now number in the tens of millions, get almost no consideration. They get labeled "murderers" for the simple and completely understandable act of responding in kind to these thugs.

I suggest that some people around here need to take that Ben Franklin quote I opened with to heart. One day YOU'LL be the guy on the receiving end. Then, maybe, you'll finally get it.

Well stated.

[Danke]

I couldn't have said it better. I grew up in awe of the police. After my brother became one, I started to see things in a different light. He was corrupt to the core and was in good company with the NJ State Police. His employment was the end of our relationship as family.

Ya, I've lost a couple of cousins that are cops as friends.

[CCTelander]

No one has the right to initiate force against another. What do you think the police do?


Absolutely.

And, as far as the whole "their life wasn't in any danger so they weren't justified in using lethal force" claim goes, what the hell do they think those guns cops carry are there for?!? They're a constant, implicit threat, "Do what you're told or be shot."

But no, that doesn't qualify as a threat to life and limb in the minds of some, apparently.

[Legend1104]

"
Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
— Benjamin Franklin

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the cops for the actual VICTIMS.

EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY'RE ON THE JOB, every cop violates somebody's rights. Period.

They routinely enforce "laws" that are clearly and unequivocally tyrannical in nature, and have the nerve to rely on the Nuremburg Defense in justifying it. The best any innocent whose rights they're violating will get from a cop on the street is "Tell it to the judge," as if they have no responsibility for their own actions, and can just pass the buck up the line to wash themselves clean of any wrongdoing.

They routinely throw innocent people in cages to be beaten, raped, and otherwise abused for non-crimes. They ruin innocent people's lives, financially and otherwise. They knowingly bring false charges and lie under oath on a regular basis. They hound and harass innocent people with bullshit beefs until such a point that those innocents react, then they beat, taze, or kill them. If those innocents are lucky enough to survive the initial encounter, they have bogus charges like "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" added to the already bogus charges the whole thing began with. Then, as almost everyone knows, prosecutors will pile on even MORE bogus charges in an effort to sway any possible jury into believing they must have done SOMETHING wrong or there wouldn't be so many charges.

Cops are, in fact, the very instruments of tyranny and oppression. They deliver innocent people up to all of this and more every damned day.

Yet their victims, who now number in the tens of millions, get almost no consideration. They get labeled "murderers" for the simple and completely understandable act of responding in kind to these thugs.

I suggest that some people around here need to take that Ben Franklin quote I opened with to heart. One day YOU'LL be the guy on the receiving end. Then, maybe, you'll finally get it.
Your not talking about justice, your talking about revenge and murder. How is it justice when you escalate the violence. If someone locks you up, gives you a ticket, or shoots your dog; that does not give you the right to murder them. Sure you have recourse for reprisal, but not in the form of murder.

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the criminals for the actual VICTIMS in this case, the cops.

If yor attitudes are as clear as you make them then why don't you just start blowing up police stations and shot cops on the streets.

This is the last post I will make on this subject. Whether your hate cops or not, that should not led someone to want all cops to die. I will pray that you develop a heart.

[CCTelander]

"
Your not talking about justice, your talking about revenge and murder. How is it justice when you escalate the violence. If someone locks you up, gives you a ticket, or shoots your dog; that does not give you the right to murder them. Sure you have recourse for reprisal, but not in the form of murder.

What strikes me the most viscerally about this thread, and others like it, is the near total lack of empathy expressed by those defending the criminals for the actual VICTIMS in this case, the cops.

If yor attitudes are as clear as you make them then why don't you just start blowing up police stations and shot cops on the streets.

This is the last post I will make on this subject. Whether your hate cops or not, that should not led someone to want all cops to die. I will pray that you develop a heart.


Cops are the VICTIMIZERS, not the victims. Your inability to see that doesn't change it's factual nature in the slightest.

[.Tom]

One last point. There are many different forms of resistance. I am not against resistance to tyranical authority, but killing someone that is not threating your life is not resistance, it is murder.

So let me get this straight.

Someone kidnaps me and won't let me go, but they won't kill me, so I have no right to kill them to escape because that would be murder?

Give me a fucking break.

[sratiug]

http://www.uslaw.com/library/Bad_Cops_&_Prosecutors/Shelby_County_Deputy_Sheriff_Chris_Jones_Charged_D J8217s_Beating_Death.php?item=90861
MEMPHIS, TN ? A deputy charged with a fatal shooting at a Memphis restaurant was involved in a brutal arrest 17 years ago that left a man in a vegetative state. Shelby County deputy Chris Jones has been charged in the death of disc jockey Donald Munsey earlier this month. In 1991, Jones was one of four [.

[sratiug]

http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/28420809.html
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) -- A former Shelby County sheriff's deputy has been indicted on reckless homicide charges in the death of a driver who crashed on an Interstate-240 exit ramp.

According to a news release from the Shelby County district attorney's office, Alvin Dortch was taken into custody on Monday and is being held on $5,000 bond.

Dortch is accused of shooting at a pickup truck and then lying about a subsequent traffic crash that killed 23-year-old driver Ignacio Arcos in June.

Shelby County Sheriff Mark Luttrell has said video from the deputy's cruiser showed the 47-year-old Dortch pulled Arcos over and then fired at the truck as Arcos sped off.

Dortch was fired following an administrative hearing on July 15.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[sratiug]

Same as one above, but shows he shot two people, not just the one he killed.http://community.myeyewitnessnews.com/blogs/speakup/archive/2008/03/14/2758568.aspx
Memphis, TN - An off-duty Shelby County Sheriff's deputy was involved in the shooting of two men at an East Memphis restaurant.

Eyewitness News Everywhere has confirmed that the off-duty deputy involved in the shooting at Wind Jammer Restaurant & Lounge, is Chris Jones, the son of former Memphis City Councilman E.C. Jones.

The shooting happened just before 1:00 a.m., Friday, March 14, 2008 at the restaurant located at 786 East Brookhaven Circle.

Investigators say the shooting started as an argument, but would not say why the men were arguing. A 42 year-old man was killed when he was shot in the upper body. The other man, who is 22, is in critical condition.


A comment from the article.


palmerk1112 said:
Chris Jones should have been taken off the force thirteen years ago when he injured my son. I knew he would some day kill some one innocent. I hope the Judge this time will not be like the Judge thirteen years ago and justice will be served and no strings pulled. My prayers go out to Mr Munsey's family and the other person's family who is still in critical condition.
Kathryn Palmer

[sratiug]

http://www.wbir.com/print.aspx?storyid=37689
Shelby County jailer charged in murder of Memphis officer
Laura Headlee 4 years ago
Police today charged a deputy jailer with the Shelby County Sheriff's Department in the shooting death of a Memphis police officer who went missing earlier this week.

The body of 37-year-old Officer Tony Hayes was found Thursday in the trunk of his car in a parking lot of an East Memphis apartment complex. His wife filed a missing-person report on Monday. Monique Nicole Johnson, also 37, has been charged with first degree murder, and her 16-year-old son has been charged as an accessory. Johnson has been relieved of duty with pay. The Shelby County Sheriff's Department says she had no disciplinary record other than a suspension in 2003 for missing work.

Police described the motive as "domestic in nature." Hayes had been involved in a domestic disturbance in the past, according to police reports, but officials don't know if it's connected to his murder. Hayes, a former Marine, had been with the department since 1997 and maintained a clean record, police said.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

[sratiug]

http://trevc.net/alc/news/6jailnu.htm
Deputy shoots, kills rape suspect in booking melee

By Chris Conley
...

Memphis police had arrested Pate Saturday morning on a warrant following a grand jury indictment for child rape.

At about 10 a.m., as deputies in the fugitive office were verifying the warrant and identifying Pate through fingerprints, he lunged for the gun in a last-ditch effort to avoid jail.

The fugitive office has one main room, about 20-by-20 feet, which is surrounded by smaller offices. The shooting took place in the main office.

After Pate pulled the deputy's gun and holster free, he pointed the gun at a female deputy's head, Wright said.

While he tried to grab a second weapon, three deputies fought to restrain him.

During the struggle, the second gun accidentally discharged, but the bullet did not strike anyone.

Essary, one of four deputies in the room, pointed his gun at Pate and ordered him to drop the gun and lie on the floor.

When Pate refused, Essary, a 10-year veteran, shot him from a distance of 10 to 15 feet, Wright said.

Essary was routinely relieved of duty with pay pending an investigation of the shooting.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright, © 1998, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN. 38103. Used with permission.

[KenInMontiMN]

When you carry arms that comes with the risk that others who carry arms may engage you with those arms should they feel threatened. And vice-versa. One very large reason the founders felt it was so important that citizens be armed was to discourage government intrusion into peoples lives regardless of what sort of legislative foolishness may have been enacted.

The obvious way to make sure little of this happens is to restrict police to responding to victimization and offering aid to those who appear to have need of it and affirmatively choose it.

The best thing the citizenry could ever do to address all of the licensure and registration garbage in place is to choose a date and as of that date absolutely everybody removes their license plates and quits carrying drivers licenses, and makes up any identity that comes to mind in response to forcible requests for ID.

[fedup100]

When you carry arms that comes with the risk that others who carry arms may engage you with those arms should they feel threatened. And vice-versa. One very large reason the founders felt it was so important that citizens be armed was to discourage government intrusion into peoples lives regardless of what sort of legislative foolishness may have been enacted.

The obvious way to make sure little of this happens is to restrict police to responding to victimization and offering aid to those who appear to have need of it and affirmatively choose it.

The best thing the citizenry could ever do to address all of the licensure and registration garbage in place is to choose a date and as of that date absolutely everybody removes their license plates and quits carrying drivers licenses, and makes up any identity that comes to mind in response to forcible requests for ID.

I like that idea, sadly the brainwashed leo's would kill many and then IT would be ON.

[Danke]

From his wife:

"Here's my statement. Please read it and get this out to everyone,
thank you.

Jerry and Joe Kane were Sovereigns. Not that moron Mark Potok from the
SLPC version of a Sovereign Citizen, those don't exist, it's a stupid
made up label. Like calling yourself a free slave. Jerry had served in
the Military and he and Joseph have been called everything but white!
Jerry and Joe Kane loved people of all colors. What kind of an Aryan
Nation member or a White Supremacist would complain about the Nazi
checkpoint in New Mexico? They wouldn't! They were both Sovereigns,
very similar to a Diplomat. Jerry had what is called an A-1 Priority
Notice, notarized, recorded, certified and Apostilled by the Secretary
of State over 7 years prior to this unlawful stop. He was firmly and
unequivocally in Common Law. Jerry was pulled over by City cops. It is
not only illegal for City cops to be on the Interstate, it is
unlawful. That is State Trooper domain. Jerry was profiled simply
because he had an out of state tag. That's it and that's all. The stop
was on May 20th, 2010. The registration on the van did not expire
until June 30th, 2010. There was no probable cause, there was no
reasonable suspicion, there was nothing. Jerry was unlawfully pulled
over, unlawfully detained, unlawfully frisked, I believe he was being
unlawfully arrested. He may have been unlawfully tasered too. See Hale
v Henkel, that says it all.

In the dash cam video we see Paudert walking from the left front of
the Tahoe across the back corner of the passenger side of the van. We
see Jerry putting his A-1 Priority Notice in Pauderts left hand then
Paudert points with his right hand for Jerry to put his hands on the
hood of the Tahoe. Jerry walks over and does. Then Paudert walks over
to the Tahoe by Jerry. You can see a man frisking him while Paudert
points at Jerry. Paudert does what looks like a look around, almost
looks like he's looking to see if there's any witnesses....meanwhile
the guy frisking Jerry is still frisking him. Then frisk cop moves out
of view, off of screen out of view to the right. Jerry's hand goes up
and his hand moves straight backward (hardly the position to push a
cop 30 feet down a slope with your back, also to right of screen and
off screen as if he's being tasered. THAT seems to be what set Joe
off. Cops are all gung ho about tasering. Cops just tasered an 86 year
old bedridden grandma then deliberately stepped on her oxygen tube
until she lost consciousness. If I saw my mother or father being tased
I'd use any and all force necessary! Very interesting how THERE'S NO
AUDIO! We still don't see Joe shooting any cops. Explain when Joe got
back in the van, why did only one puff of smoke come with only the
first shot? Why wasn't there any puffs of smoke with shot 2, shot 3,
shot 4, Why???? Also very interesting how A) When Joe gets back in the
van and it looks like he's shooting beteen the 3 - 4 o clock direction
but one cop is at 2 o clock in a ditch, the other cop is at 8 o clock!
Explain that! I believe either Jerry was tasered and it set Joe off OR
the possibility that all 4 were ambushed. That would explain Joe's 3-4
o clock shooting configuration when one cop was at 2 o clock and the
other cop was at 8 o clock. Maybe Joe heard a shot and came out to
defend his dad. The fact is, we don't see Joe shooting anybody. 41
days we waited for this? To see more of nothing?

Who could have ambushed them? This West Memphis, Arkansas town is a
racist hotbed of activity. In a town of only 30,000 population this
town has an incredible amount of police brutality cases. Look up West
Memphis Three. These cops also killed a 12 year old boy with a toy
gun. In 2007 the cops pulled over a man named Rickard and his
girlfriend for a traffic stop. The man drove away and these cops
followed the man to a parking lot, pinned his car, and shot the
UNARMED man at least 17 times. Shot the mans unarmed girlfriend once.
They both died. All on video. Another man named Chatt was in 'Police
custody' when the police pepper sprayed him, choked him, beat him and
tasered him to death. He hadn't resisted at all. This is on video too.
Then they killed the Kanes. 150+ shell casings found at the Walmart
parking lot. No calls for surrender. These cops are cowardly cowardly
animals. Guess what, all these killings were found justified, cops
cleared of any wrongdoing except the Rickard case. Something called
deferment. One cop had to stay out of trouble for a set amount of
time. That's it. City counsel members and NAACP had called for Chief
Pauderts resignation 3 times in public Press Conferences calling for
the Police Chiefs immediate resignation citing the Chief as being a
hypocrite, racist and brutal policing. The last Public Conference call
for the Chiefs resignation was May 6th, 2010, only 14 days before
Jerry was pulled over. As despised as the Chief was, what better
payback than to target and kill his son and nephew? It could have been
someone very upset at the 13-18 kilos of drugs these same 2 cops
confiscated less than 6 weeks prior, on April 8th, 2010. It could have
been someone very mad that these same 2 cops in March 2010 took 1.8
million dollars at a Drug Interdiction stop. It could have been that
the Top US Spy Chief Quits after Obama Orders 2 Americans
Assassinated. It could have been Crittenden county doing payback for
the West Memphis Police Department being investigated by the Arkansas
State Police for allegation that the West Memphis Police Department
has stolen from the Crittenden County drug task force...The fact
remains, we don't see Joe shooting anyone!

The Chief said no drugs were found in the van and he made it very
clear on video that his son was NOT on the Drug Interdiction unit,
that his son was on the Crime Interdiction unit. 41 days later they're
saying drugs were found in the van. Now his son is back being on the
Drug Interdiction unit? What a surprise. The chief said his son, a
sergeant over the criminal interdiction unit, took cover Thursday
behind his vehicle as teenager Joseph Kane opened fire with an AK-47.
He said bullets pierced the engine and the car and shattered glass.
Brandon was riddled with bullets before being shot in the back of the
head, Paudert said. Hold up here Chief. First off, no officer worth
his salt would turn his back on anybody. Secondly, you don't get the
back of your head shot off by being shot in the back of the head. You
get the back of your head shot off by being shot in the front of the
head. The explosive force of the exiting bullet is what creates the
catastrophic exit wound. Why is the Chief lying? Now they're saying
there were a dozen guns in the van. That is a bald faced lie! They
still can't come up with a decent story as to why the van was pulled
over in the first place. They can't. Because profiling is illegal and
unlawful. These people have so many stories they can't keep them
straight. This will be their undoing.

BOMBSHELL: In viewing the dashcam at the stop we can see why they
waited 41 days to release it, WITHOUT audio. The cops were looking for
a 3rd suspect, remember? The audio is the key here! I'll walk you
through this. Let's agree that the video starts when Paudert initially
comes on the scene and into our view. And remember, Pauderts dashcam
AND audio was on because you can hear Rush Limbaugh in Pauderts
cruiser in the background as he's pulling up to the scene, We also
hear a woman talking about someone with a Felony warrant. The Felony
warrant wasn't about Jerry. So it is clear that Pauderts dashcam video
and audio was working just fine thank you...

0:00 Paudert walks into view from left of Tahoe and crosses over to
the right rear of the
minivan.
0:03 Paudert looks down the off ramp.
0:06 Paudert points to the hood of the Tahoe with his left hand
directing Jerry to the Tahoe
hood
0:08 Paudert snatches the A-1 Priority Notice from
Jerry. 0:09 Jerry
complies while Brandon is walking over to the hood of the Tahoe.
0:14 We see Evans start frisking Jerry and Paudert points at Jerry or
Evans
0:17 We see Paudert turn and look in the back window of Jerry's
van
0:20 Jerry is showing Paudert and Evans something.
0:31 One of the dogs in the front seat pushes the already ajar door
more ajar, you can see his snout poke out then back in, he's reacting
to something he either sees or hears.
0:32 Jerry's hand pulls straight up and back, quickly, not a turning
around going to push someone down a hill movement, Jerry's hand went
straight back. Note: Jerry had an armed man in front of him and an
armed man in back of him or to the side of him. You don't 'Push'
someone down a hill 30 feet with your back to the cops behind you that
you're alleging pushing down a slope! What a stupid story!

0:33 Paudert is almost off screen, Joe's passenger door is open.
0:34 Joe is out of the van facing us at 6 o clock, he first quickly
looked to his left, our 3 o clock position and you can see the dogs
head moving back from the passenger window. 0:35 Paudert has been off
screen running quickly from our view in our 3 o clock vantage point
for 2 seconds from our view.
0:35 Joe appears to fire a shot or two at our 6 o clock position. Ok
Let's stop right here. How far can you run in 2 seconds when there's
danger and you already have a running start? 10 feet? 12 feet? Joe
would never have fired anywhere near the direction of his father,
ever! Paudert had obviously cleared the 6 o clock position that Joe
appears to have fired at, within the 2 seconds. The police were
looking for a THIRD suspect remember? This is what makes me believe
that when we get the audio, we will hear a gunshot or gunshots which
made the dog react due to his or her superior hearing then it made
everybody else react. If you had a cop right behind you armed with a
gun, taser and nightstick and you heard a gunshot, wouldn't you
flinch? Hell yeah you would. Jerry's arm came straight up, not in a
curve. A curved arc would indicate Jerry turned , but his arm didn't
turn or curve. Again, you don't 'push' someone down a slope when
you're back is to them, that is physically impossible. The cover story
is completely bogus. There were shots fired before Joe got out of the
van, hence the third suspect cops put out on the APB. Someone who
despised the Chief, a victim of the Chiefs hypocrisy, racism and
brutal vicious policing that City Counsel members and NAACP kept
complaining about in 3 different Public Press Conferences , the drug
cartel where Brandon and Bill confiscated 13-18 Kilos of drugs,
someone mad that they got ripped off for 1.5 million to 1.8 million,
it could have been someone in a Dodge Caravan with an orange roof that
appeared to be mexican as described in their APB that hated cops. it
could have been anybody. But it wasn't Jerry or Joe. I belive Joe was
trying to protect all of them when he got out of the van, when all 4
of them were ambushed. I believe this is why the FBI wanted all the
ammo for the 2 weapons (Not the dozen weapons they now allege after 41
days, they only had 2 weapons, that is ridiculous) because the ammo in
the cops didn't match the ammo Joe and Jerry had! Remember, Bill
Sadler the Public Information Officer from the Arkansas State Police
said they had a long gun and a handgun. Now they're alleging the Kanes
had a dozen weapons in their van? What BS! Maybe they are now alleging
a dozen weapons so it would explain why the Kanes ammo wasn't the same
ammo in the cops bodies. Further, the first cop Evans would have seen
the weapons. He obviously didn't. Also, the video tapes have already
been altered twice. Let me explain: The video is obviously spliced
already as it cuts over from the initial Evans stop over to the
dashcam view of Pauderts approaching from Pauderts dashcam then they
spliced it back over to the initial stop by Evans. How can you trust a
video that's already been altered and spliced twice? The integrity of
the video is lost because once they cut it once, or twice as they did
in this situation already, how can it be trusted? It can't! All we see
is that Joe and Jerry were there then 2 cops are dead. What happened
in between? Joe and his father ended up dead for that DUE TO the
Chiefs hypocrisy, racism and brutal vicious policing that City Counsel
members and NAACP kept complaining about in 3 different Public Press
Conferences. Stating they were just following orders didn't cut it at
the Nuremburg trials. No, that didn't cut it at all. Police are paid
to take people into CUSTODY, not murder them outright. You can see the
van at Walmart was trying to go the other way to AVOID problems. How
can that possibly be misconstrued as self-defense to pump out over 150
shell casings and ram a vehicle when the people are trying to go the
other way? It can't. Again, it's called LIABILITY. Now cops are trying
to say that Joes hand was on the trigger. How is that humanly possible
when we can clearly see his right hand resting and SPLAYED on the
dashboard? You can clearly see that nothing is in Joe's hand and you
cannot have splayed fingers WITH your finger on the trigger of a
weapon, get real! The Belvedere apartment witness Teresa Davis says
the boy never took his eyes off of her. Well, how would she know that
unless she never took her eyes off of him?

Ok, let's take a scenario relying on the dashcam video. You can see
Paudert coming upon the scene, turning wide so you get a view of
everything in back (oncoming vehicles from the 275 off ramp). We see
no oncoming Fedex semi truck. We do see a small truck which passes the
vehicles shortly. But no Fedex semi truck at all. Vincent Brown is the
Fedex semi truck driver who purports to see the goings on at the
offramp scene. It was reported that: from the cab of his Fedex truck,
Vincent Brown had a birds eye view of the shooting that killed 2 West
Memphis police officers on May 20th. The front cab of the Fedex truck
was at least 150-160 feet away, over half a football field away, in
back of the 3 vehicles. There's no way he'd have a birds eye view that
he is alleging of anything unless he was sitting in a tree looking at
a bird. Secondly, he would obviously be sitting in the drivers seat of
the Fedex semi truck, further obstructing his 'birds eye view' that he
didn't have. Police state the traffic stop is at 11:36am and the call
for 'Officer down' comes at 11:50am. Ok. So does anybody care to
explain how an alleged witness would watch the 39 seconds of Joe
allegedly shooting cops, then this alleged witness would wait another
2 minutes and 39 seconds BEFORE CALLING 911? 911 answers immediately!
Imagine sitting there watching a scene like this for 39 seconds then
sitting there for almost another 3 minutes before you call to report
officer down. What did he do, read his morning paper and finish his
coffee before calling the scene in? This is a crock, it's a planted
witness. Remember on Chief Pauderts May 25th, 2010 Commercial Appeal
video Interview Part 2 when:

0:58 Reporter says: Mr Sadler says they pushed Bill Evans down
(intelligable).

01:02 Chief Paudert says: Well, uh there's some indication and I don't
know how they know but he did say that that, they uh, Bill was on his
left and he uh Bill was on his left or right. Anyway they he pushed
Bill and there's a slope and he pushed Bill down the hill and he threw
him off balance. And when he when he got him away that's when that
young man opened fire.

Jerry didn't push anybody! Also, what's up with 'Well, uh there's some
indication and I don't know how they know but he did say that'....If
they had an eyewitness AT THAT POINT, they would have said so! This
alleged witness is a FAKE. The Fedex driver is supposedly on the scene
and 5 days later they say 'Well, uh there's some indication and I
don't know how they know but he did say that'. That's a lie. If a
witness had seen this, they would have come out and said we have an
eyewitness. They didn't! 'Oh...and incidentally the fake witness
claims his engine was on so lo and behold he couldn't hear any
gunshots....same as we can't because they didn't provide the AUDIO!
How utterly convenient. No wonder the cops said they pieced together a
chilling scene. They pieced one together alright, complete with a
plant. I wonder if this Fedex semi driver has a criminal background or
pending court cases. I wonder if this Fedex semi driver came into some
money very recently...I wonder what this drivers cell phone records
show and where his cell phone will ping from. I wonder what the GPS in
his Fedex truck would show...I wonder what the motivation was for an
african-american man would give a story like this to an obviously in
your face racist against african-americans police department. I find
it interesting that the african-american cops go to the scene and they
don't appear to be upset at all, just the white cops seem distraught.
And the Chief said where Brandon was, the pavement was full of blood.
Where?? The Chief also said that police were holding Evans face out of
the water in the ditch that was filled with blood. We can clearly see
on the RAW video, first responders that they don't hold Evans face out
of anything, they don't touch him at all for more than a minute and 19
seconds and we still don't see them touching him or holding his face
out of anything. Then there's the Stacey Gilchrist video interview
where she talks on how the Chiefs wife drives up behind her, gets out.
Says her son and nephew is out there on the road. Stacey makes it
clear it was the Chiefs wife. Stacey and her try to go to the bodies
on the road and they're blocked by a fence so they go back to the car
and Stacey says her and a fireman didn't want her to drive so the
fireman drives the Chiefs wife to the hospital. But Chief Paudert said
in his interview that HE WAS DRIVING his wife to another state.
There's more holes in this story than a swiss cheese factory.

The Prosecutor said to let the dash cam speak for itself. Ok. Let it
SPEAK then Mike Walden. Where's the Unaltered AUDIO so we can HEAR it?
We KNOW it was working. They must think people are stupid sheep to not
question their BS cover story. What are you hiding? Why didn't you
release the audios? Why did you splice the video, twice? Why didn't
you show the time and date stamps? Suddenly your videos don't have
time and date stamps? Oh that's right, you spliced the video, twice!!
Why are you concealing evidence?

Too many Criminal Investigators have contacted me, telling me that
this story stinks, that everything that has been put out thus far is
deceptive. Joe was only 16. A teen. What happened to make a boy come
out and fire? Something really catastrophic must have been happening
to make Joe feel his dad or the cops were in danger of life and limb!
We want all the recordings, all the audios. What are you hiding? This
is RICO. Release the full story with full audio!

Refresh yourselves on Hale v. Henkel. Due to the Full faith and
Credit clause, the cases below apply in ALL STATES!

“...an...officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to
represent the government.” Brookfield Co. v
Stuart, (1964) 234 F. Supp 94, 99 (U.S.D.C.. Wash. D.C.)

"Courts are not at liberty to extend application of law to subjects
not included within it. Spreckeles v. Graham (1924) 194 C. 516, 228P.
1040.

"The freedom to refuse to obey a patently unlawful arrest is essential
to the integrity of a government which purports to be one of laws, and
not of men. Unless it is desirable to kill the impulse to resist
arbitrary authority, the rule that such an arrest is a provocation to
resist must remain fundamental." Id. At 1147.

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with
freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in
suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the
courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal, App. 34D 667 (1971)

Smith v. Holeman , 441 S.E.2d 487, 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)(a person
has the right to resist unlawful arrest with all force necessary)

White v. Morris , 345 So.2d 461, 465 (La. 1977)(every person has a
right use such force as may be necessary under the circumstances to
resist unlawful arrest.

Jerry always said to read the white on the page. To read what is not
there. He also said to believe nothing you hear and only half of what
you see. Jerry would have never rested had this happened to any of us,
he would have asked questions, gotten to the bottom of what happened.
That is what we all need to do. For ourselves and for each other.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" – Benjamin
Franklin "A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of
Pennsylvania,"

The blue wall of silence has broken. Youtube NYPD Police Officer
Admits to arrest quotas and corruption.

Those who have information that know this is a bad coverup and that
the wrong innocent people were killed, please contact me ASAP at 727
449-9419."

[BoutTreeFiddy]

LOL @ crazy people

Man and boy murder two cops = justified because, "what about all those other incidents of police brutality and abuse?" Nothing having to do with the incident in the video though.

Two dead police officers who we know nothing about other than some short footage = deserve to be dead

Okay, so getting pulled over for expired tags is bogus, but is that really a justification for shooting those cops? Really?

REALLY?

[starless]

This thread indicates just how crazy some of the people on this forum are. It's pretty pathetic that liberty minded individuals are going to all be lumped together and judged based on the actions of the craziest among us. All this event did was make liberty minded folks look bad and give the anti-gun crowd more ammunition ("assault" rifle!!).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This thread indicates just how crazy some of the people on this forum are. It's pretty pathetic that liberty minded individuals are going to all be lumped together and judged based on the actions of the craziest among us. All this event did was make liberty minded folks look bad and give the anti-gun crowd more ammunition ("assault" rifle!!).

I am just wondering, do you believe the Sons of Liberty were crazy and pathetic? That the Sons of Liberty were bad? That we should fear our enemies? I think not.

No one is denying that there are alternative ways to achieve our goals, that would more than likely work as good as what we did in 1776, but we also recognize that the defense against aggression is not unjust, and that the response to the tyranny in this country is not disproportional, as clearly evidenced in the last page, and among a myriad of sources easily readible on this site, and many others. The police are the domestic tyrants, enforcing the edicts of DC, and the various states. They are your oppressors, not your protectors.

How many hundreds and thousands, and untold more thousands of cases every year must we endure as a people to the violent brutal deaths at the hands of these so-called protectors all in the name of coercively and violently stopping you from persuing happiness in all its peaceful embodiments?

[CCTelander]

This thread indicates just how crazy some of the people on this forum are. It's pretty pathetic that liberty minded individuals are going to all be lumped together and judged based on the actions of the craziest among us. All this event did was make liberty minded folks look bad and give the anti-gun crowd more ammunition ("assault" rifle!!).


I agree that this incident will be used to make all liberty advocates look like crazies.

I also agree that resisting the police with force is ill-advised. I certainly don't advocate that anyone do so, nor do I desire that "all cops should be shot" as so many have disingenuously asserted those of us who are not defending the cops do.

Once again, in any encounter with the police, always be respectful and polite. Do whatever it is they demand, keep your mouth shut, and take your chances in court.

The argument isn't that everyone should be out there shooting cops, it's that the empathy of those defending cops is in entirely the wrong place. In almost every case it is the cops who are the victimizers, and the individual who is the victim.

Methinks there are all too many in this country suffering from a form of the Stockholm Syndrome.

[CCTelander]

Review
"'The Ballad of Carl Drega' is, in my opinion, even better than 'Send in the Waco Killers.'" -- Jon Ford, Editorial Director, Paladin Press, Boulder, Colo.

"Buy this book in bulk and carpet bomb your friends. Do the country and your kids a large favor." -- Bill Branon, author of "Let Us Prey" (a New York Times Notable Book of the Year), Devil's Hole, Timesong, and Spider Snatch

"I screamed, I cried, and at times I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes." -- Edward A., Monkton, Maryland

Product Description

In a free country, individuals have almost limitless rights -- to travel as they please, carry private arms, consume any plant or drug, keep what they earn, raise their kids as they see fit ... all without showing any license or permit. Bureaucrats have few powers, specifically listed.

But that hardly describes America today, where the default settings fast approach those of a slave state. Bureaucrats claim expansive power and privilege; the rights of the individual are crushed. Carl Drega fought back ... and died. Peter McWilliams fought back ... and died. Garry Watson fought back ... and died. Donald Scott fought back ... and died. ...

Not all their desperate acts were wise or admirable. But Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz insists we should at least start cataloguing and honoring the names of those who have given their lives in this War on Freedom, being waged against us from the lowliest government classroon and "code-enforcement office" to the loftiest temples of Washington. Because we're next. Eight died on that bridge at Concord, back in 1775. How many will it take this time?

http://www.amazon.com/Ballad-Carl-Drega-Vin-Suprynowicz/dp/0967025923

[sratiug]

LOL @ crazy people

Man and boy murder two cops = justified because, "what about all those other incidents of police brutality and abuse?" Nothing having to do with the incident in the video though.

Two dead police officers who we know nothing about other than some short footage = deserve to be dead

Okay, so getting pulled over for expired tags is bogus, but is that really a justification for shooting those cops? Really?

REALLY?


Jerry was profiled simply
because he had an out of state tag. That's it and that's all. The stop
was on May 20th, 2010. The registration on the van did not expire
until June 30th, 2010. There was no probable cause, there was no
reasonable suspicion, there was nothing. Jerry was unlawfully pulled
over, unlawfully detained, unlawfully frisked, I believe he was being
unlawfully arrested. He may have been unlawfully tasered too. See Hale
v Henkel, that says it all.

Do you KNOW he wasn't being tazed?

[Legend1104]

I agree that this incident will be used to make all liberty advocates look like crazies.

I also agree that resisting the police with force is ill-advised. I certainly don't advocate that anyone do so, nor do I desire that "all cops should be shot" as so many have disingenuously asserted those of us who are not defending the cops do.

Once again, in any encounter with the police, always be respectful and polite. Do whatever it is they demand, keep your mouth shut, and take your chances in court.

The argument isn't that everyone should be out there shooting cops, it's that the empathy of those defending cops is in entirely the wrong place. In almost every case it is the cops who are the victimizers, and the individual who is the victim.

Methinks there are all too many in this country suffering from a form of the Stockholm Syndrome.


I know I said that I would not post on here again, but I thought this was a good chance to clear the air.

Glad to hear, and I also think that there is certainly a lot of police injustice and much of what they do is a direct violation of our natural rights. I certainly do not think that we should just lay down and take it, but I just feel for their families, being a father myself. I do not want children to grow up without fathers and want lethal force to always be a last resort.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Do you KNOW he wasn't being tazed?

Whose story should I believe? The guy didn't look stunned when he ran to his vehicle.

[starless]

I am just wondering, do you believe the Sons of Liberty were crazy and pathetic? That the Sons of Liberty were bad? That we should fear our enemies? I think not.


Comparing two murderous cop killers to the Sons of Liberty is absolutely ridiculous. You're flattering yourselves if you think your average internet neopatriot burning his driver's license and writing frothing rants on RPF from his mom's basement has much in common with the founders.

Doing shit like this does more hard than good. What we should be focusing on is educating the populace, not raging against the machine. When more people around the country start to wake up, greater change will occur throughout the country. It's already beginning to happen. Idiots who shoot cops with AK47s shut down tons of people to the liberty message by painting us all as extremists.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Comparing two murderous cop killers to the Sons of Liberty is absolutely ridiculous. You're flattering yourselves if you think your average internet neopatriot burning his driver's license and writing frothing rants on RPF from his mom's basement has much in common with the founders.

Doing shit like this does more hard than good. What we should be focusing on is educating the populace, not raging against the machine. When more people around the country start to wake up, greater change will occr throughout the country. It's already beginning to happen. Idiots who shoot cops with AK47s shut down tons of people to the liberty message by painting us all as extremists.

Do some of us a favor and spare us. I hope big government injustice finds you sooner than later. Waco or whatever event you pick I have heard your ill before and your tune never changes because you are to busy cheerleading for the tyrants.

[sratiug]

Whose story should I believe? The guy didn't look stunned when he ran to his vehicle.

You are saying tazering leaves you unable to run after it ceases?

Why was he pulled over? Why was he searched?

[pcosmar]

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

[jmdrake]

Freedom of travel applies to bicyclists, horseback riders, and pedestrians, not automobiles. Since the construction of paved roads suitable for highspeed automotive travel requires a lot of money, and automobiles damage the road surface significantly, it is legitimate practice to acquire funds from automobile users to repair the roadways via fuel taxes, registrations, and driver's licenses. Failure to pay as you go via those methods commonly results in an on the spot charge for automobile road use in the form of a ticket. These same guys would probably murder a tollbooth operator on a privately owned and operated roadway too asserting their "Freedom of Travel".

If you want your freedom of travel, get a horse and buggy, or a bicycle, or just walk. These guys were murderers, straight up.

Actually it was the bicycle lobby that led to roads being paved.

http://www.history-magazine.com/bicycles.html

The popularity of bicycling in the 1890s meant that the time was ripe for a group of enthusiasts to formally band together to promote riding. The League of American Wheelmen was formed in 1880, as a powerful voice for bicycling. The League was successful in lobbying to improve and pave roads to make them passable and smooth in all weather. They scheduled races, published a magazine and set suggested standards for dress and conduct. By the 1890s the League had more than 100,000 members. With the exception of two dormant periods in the 1930s and 1950s, the League has been a bicycle advocate for 121 years. The League of American Wheelmen exists today, now called The League of American Bicyclists. Currently the League has 28,000 members and 475 affiliated bicycle clubs. By working with affiliated organizations the League represents more than 150,000 bicyclists in the US.

[starless]

Do some of us a favor and spare us. I hope big government injustice finds you sooner than later. Waco or whatever event you pick I have heard your ill before and your tune never changes because you are to busy cheerleading for the tyrants.

Big government injustice is part of our every day lives at this point, but murdering others isn't the solution to the problem. The fact that you seem to think it is is utterly disgusting and disturbing. You bring shame and discredit upon our entire movement.

[idirtify]

murdering others isn't the solution to the problem.

Of course that’s true, as you word it. But since the debate is whether the original shooting was actually “murder” (or self-defense), your use of the term is an unproven premise.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Big government injustice is part of our every day lives at this point, but murdering others isn't the solution to the problem. The fact that you seem to think it is is utterly disgusting and disturbing. You bring shame and discredit upon our entire movement.

I don't advocate murdering people. I advocate self defense. Until a full uncut video is released I am not going to condemn this person for murder. If the state is innocent why would a cut version be released?

What is disturbing is the fact you condemn people without having full access to the evidence. It is not I who brings the shame. It is you.

[fedup100]

OMG, look at this! Look at the latest spin on the Kane murder.

I believe the banks that have overthrown our government were not happy with the Kane's seminars, I was right.

http://www.mefeedia.com/tv/31865858

[fedup100]

This thread indicates just how crazy some of the people on this forum are. It's pretty pathetic that liberty minded individuals are going to all be lumped together and judged based on the actions of the craziest among us. All this event did was make liberty minded folks look bad and give the anti-gun crowd more ammunition ("assault" rifle!!).

Yeah, those guys at the Alamo would be in that same class to you, right?

[RM918]

All the theory bantered about here is great and all, but I don't think a cop deserves a bunch of 7.62 rounds just because you disagree about the lawful nature of your parking tickets. If a cop shooting someone 'resisting arrest' is murder over that sort of absurd mindset, then so is this. I see no difference. The sort of society where someone doing their job is gunned down by an AK-47 because of laws he didn't even write are disagreed with is no civil society, sovereignty or none. There has to be a better way.

[fedup100]

Review
"'The Ballad of Carl Drega' is, in my opinion, even better than 'Send in the Waco Killers.'" -- Jon Ford, Editorial Director, Paladin Press, Boulder, Colo.

"Buy this book in bulk and carpet bomb your friends. Do the country and your kids a large favor." -- Bill Branon, author of "Let Us Prey" (a New York Times Notable Book of the Year), Devil's Hole, Timesong, and Spider Snatch

"I screamed, I cried, and at times I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes." -- Edward A., Monkton, Maryland

Product Description

In a free country, individuals have almost limitless rights -- to travel as they please, carry private arms, consume any plant or drug, keep what they earn, raise their kids as they see fit ... all without showing any license or permit. Bureaucrats have few powers, specifically listed.

But that hardly describes America today, where the default settings fast approach those of a slave state. Bureaucrats claim expansive power and privilege; the rights of the individual are crushed. Carl Drega fought back ... and died. Peter McWilliams fought back ... and died. Garry Watson fought back ... and died. Donald Scott fought back ... and died. ...

Not all their desperate acts were wise or admirable. But Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz insists we should at least start cataloguing and honoring the names of those who have given their lives in this War on Freedom, being waged against us from the lowliest government classroon and "code-enforcement office" to the loftiest temples of Washington. Because we're next. Eight died on that bridge at Concord, back in 1775. How many will it take this time?
http://www.amazon.com/Ballad-Carl-Dr.../dp/0967025923
__________________



WOW, this is great thanks. We can add Jerry and Joe Kane and their two freedom dogs to this list.

Just heard that uber patriot Kurt Russel is making the movie "Waco", his character will be the evil cop. The man that made Waco rules of in engagement is joining him as a consultant on the film. Maybe some truth will come out.

Sadly the survivors of this brutality are still rotting in prison for daring to resist the police state.

[Vessol]

Violence never results in anything good.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

WOW, this is great thanks. We can add Jerry and Joe Kane and their two freedom dogs to this list.

Just heard that uber patriot Kurt Russel is making the movie "Waco", his character will be the evil cop. The man that made Waco rules of in engagement is joining him as a consultant on the film. Maybe some truth will come out.

Sadly the survivors of this brutality are still rotting in prison for daring to resist the police state.

Kurt Russel is the fucking man. <3 Snake Plisskin.

[fedup100]

I know!! I would love to be a fly on the wall they day the cops taze Snake.

Where are all the Snake Plisskins when we need them!

[starless]

Yeah, those guys at the Alamo would be in that same class to you, right?

You're seriously equating this situation to the Alamo? If you are that delusional there is no point in conversing any further.

[CCTelander]

You're seriously equating this situation to the Alamo? If you are that delusional there is no point in conversing any further.


Are you even capable of debating the merits of a psoition without insulting your opposition? Just wondering.

[Anti Federalist]

bump

[idirtify]

Violence never results in anything good.

Correction:

“INITIATED violence never results in anything good.”

[John Taylor]

Correction:

“INITIATED violence never results in anything good.”

Especially against those with an overwelming supremacy in force, reinforcements, communication, firepower, and popular opinion.

It is far far better to make one's point peacefully, and communicate the freedom philosophy to new generations, than to suicidally shoot a police-officer who had nothing to do with setting up the system.

[J. Croft]

You want to drive without licensing?

This is how you do it-change the law.

Abolish the state laws requiring drivers licensing, vehicle registration, auto insurance.

How to do that? Take over the elected offices.

How do you do that? Build a political machine, a party capable of this. To do that you will need local grassroots offices-that means winning local elections.

How-if most people think your nuts? Start with one town. Emulate the GI's of Athens TN 1946. They put together a FULL PARTY TICKET of candidates to SWEEP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLEAN. They organized and won a campaign.

Do likewise. Fortunately, maybe 5 out of every hundred eligible voters actually vote in a local campaign. There are enough Patriots in every state to do this in just one or two towns if they got together. Doing it in your own town where you're considered the kook will never, ever work. So concentrate your efforts, concentrate on the incumbents many faults, get people to register as living in that town(even if they don't) so you can sweep the polls. Have cameras on election day, independently register your votes and if electronic voting machines are used compare results. If there's vote fraud committed by the board of elections you now wage a campaign in the courts.

Then when you take that town over: stop enforcement of laws on license plates, insurance, etc. along with other reforms-you know what they are. Advertise the results and how they were accomplished and you can peel back tyranny.

[Anti Federalist]

Threads like this serve to reinforce a long-held belief of mine, based upon many years of personal experience, that being:

If the day ever does come when they're rounding up true liberty advocates and activists and herding them into gulags for "re-education" or extermination, there will be MANY conservatives, perhaps even the majority who will be cheering such actions on as a restoration of "law and order."

There were, after all, plenty of conservatives cheering the cops on as they busted "hippies' " and other anti-war demonstrators' heads back in the 60s. As I recall, turning the water cannons, and setting the dogs loose, on civil rights protestors was also quite popular in conservative circles.

I missed this post.

Glad I re-read this thread.

That is truth right there, writ large.

[Anti Federalist]

I couldn't have said it better. I grew up in awe of the police. After my brother became one, I started to see things in a different light. He was corrupt to the core and was in good company with the NJ State Police. His employment was the end of our relationship as family.

Ugh, I've noticed that many times, citizens of a police state live in a Stockholm Syndrome state of mind, showering slavish praise on their oppressors.

NJ is one of the worst, having grown up and lived there, cops are regarded almost at a sainthood level.

Disgusting, once you get away from it.

[Anti Federalist]

Always ready to post this, once again.

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

[aGameOfThrones]

You want to drive without licensing?

This is how you do it-change the law.

Abolish the state laws requiring drivers licensing, vehicle registration, auto insurance.

How to do that? Take over the elected offices.

How do you do that? Build a political machine, a party capable of this. To do that you will need local grassroots offices-that means winning local elections.

How-if most people think your nuts? Start with one town. Emulate the GI's of Athens TN 1946. They put together a FULL PARTY TICKET of candidates to SWEEP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLEAN. They organized and won a campaign.

Do likewise. Fortunately, maybe 5 out of every hundred eligible voters actually vote in a local campaign. There are enough Patriots in every state to do this in just one or two towns if they got together. Doing it in your own town where you're considered the kook will never, ever work. So concentrate your efforts, concentrate on the incumbents many faults, get people to register as living in that town(even if they don't) so you can sweep the polls. Have cameras on election day, independently register your votes and if electronic voting machines are used compare results. If there's vote fraud committed by the board of elections you now wage a campaign in the courts.

Then when you take that town over: stop enforcement of laws on license plates, insurance, etc. along with other reforms-you know what they are. Advertise the results and how they were accomplished and you can peel back tyranny.

I don't think people question the "legality" of a driver's license, but on who it's applied to.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You want to drive without licensing?

This is how you do it-change the law.

Abolish the state laws requiring drivers licensing, vehicle registration, auto insurance.

How to do that? Take over the elected offices.

How do you do that? Build a political machine, a party capable of this. To do that you will need local grassroots offices-that means winning local elections.

How-if most people think your nuts? Start with one town. Emulate the GI's of Athens TN 1946. They put together a FULL PARTY TICKET of candidates to SWEEP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLEAN. They organized and won a campaign.

Do likewise. Fortunately, maybe 5 out of every hundred eligible voters actually vote in a local campaign. There are enough Patriots in every state to do this in just one or two towns if they got together. Doing it in your own town where you're considered the kook will never, ever work. So concentrate your efforts, concentrate on the incumbents many faults, get people to register as living in that town(even if they don't) so you can sweep the polls. Have cameras on election day, independently register your votes and if electronic voting machines are used compare results. If there's vote fraud committed by the board of elections you now wage a campaign in the courts.

Then when you take that town over: stop enforcement of laws on license plates, insurance, etc. along with other reforms-you know what they are. Advertise the results and how they were accomplished and you can peel back tyranny.

Uber lurker ;)

[CCTelander]

I missed this post.

Glad I re-read this thread.

That is truth right there, writ large.


Wow, I forgot I'd even written that!

But I DO stand behind it. Based upon my own experience.