PDA

View Full Version : Cop rape case highlights life-endangering outrage of ‘Only Ones’ mentality




Cissy
06-26-2013, 10:22 PM
A West Sacramento police officer allegedly raped at least six women while on duty, the Police Thugs blog reported Monday, referencing a Huffington Post article from February. Officer Sergio Alvarez, a five year veteran of the force, was initially placed on administrative leave and then fired and arrested after an investigation into the allegations.

In fairness to former Officer Alvarez, he has not yet been convicted. Trial is set for September. He remains in custody with bail set at $26.3 million.

Dan Drummond, who was police chief at the time (he was replaced in May), said he and the department were “appalled,” and to keep it from happening again, they’re reviewing their policies.

“We are looking at our procedures and the way we are accountable to each other,” Drummond told the press.

What, the WSPD personnel department is going to write a "Don't Serial Rape the Public" policy? Maybe design a form the troops can sign acknowledging they received special training and know it's illegal and wrong...?

Some of us aren’t interested in how police are accountable to each other, we're interested in how they're accountable to us. So far, they're not -- and in "Four Stars/Number One in Gun Control" California, it looks like they won't be, at least until the final straw snaps things big time. They can do what they like to you, and if you’re "law-abiding," there’s not a damn thing you can do about it except hope to survive the encounter.

One of the proposed “solutions” is to not allow officers to patrol alone at night. What does that tell you, that they can’t let their guys loose on society alone because of what they might do if left to their own impulses? This, of course, will require even more tax dollars to be spent in order to protect us from our protectors -- assuming the partner of a violator would feel compelled to stop him in the act or report him afterward, as opposed to joining in and either clamming up or backing his story.

Gun Rights Examiner readers should spend some time on the Police Thugs website. Read some of the headlines. Click on some of the links. After spending a few minutes there, go over to William N. Grigg’s outstanding Pro Libertate/Freedom in Our Time website, taking time to absorb such entries as “The Protected Predator Class.”

Then look at this column’s “Only Ones” files, and at similar entries from The War on Guns blog. Apologists who insist there are only “a few bad apples” ought to define how many more it will take before they admit the whole barrel is tainted, especially considering all those career law enforcers who know there are thugs in their midst, but who remain silent -- fearing peer pressure and administrative retaliation -- and who go along to get along. Perhaps, aside from a handful of Oath Keepers and brave whistleblowers, the assumption should be there are a few good apples.

Yeah, these are the Only Ones we can trust with guns. And the state should retain a monopoly of violence.

Who but an oblivious fool or an enemy of humanity would advance that position?

These cases of defense-justifying abuse -- and as has been documented, they’re not all that rare -- raise another question that both citizens and law enforcement ought to be discussing if the objective really is public safety: We’re constantly reminded not to resist police, to comply with their orders, to not obstruct them, and to essentially resolve any complaints after the fact. In most encounters, that’s good advice, if for no other reason than your legal and physical well-being.

But at what point would physical resistance to officer abuse under color of authority become appropriate, from both a moral and legal standpoint? At what point would a citizen be able to engage in self-defense against an attacker with a badge, up to and including using lethal force to stop a threat?

Would it be any different than if the attacker didn’t wear a badge? Should it be?

As with private actor assailants, the mantra from the citizen disarmament crowd is to give attackers what they want. What if what they want is you?

If a citizen were forced to resort to escalation of force actions, and if he succeeded, what are the chances that police, prosecutors, judges and the media wouldn’t automatically treat the victim as just another criminal cop-killer, and go after him with a vengeance, with all the force, fury and resources at their disposal?

http://www.examiner.com/article/cop-rape-case-highlights-life-endangering-outrage-of-only-ones-mentality

http://www.examiner.com/article/cop-rape-case-highlights-life-endangering-outrage-of-only-ones-mentality

Christian Liberty
06-26-2013, 10:29 PM
But at what point would physical resistance to officer abuse under color of authority become appropriate, from both a moral and legal standpoint? At what point would a citizen be able to engage in self-defense against an attacker with a badge, up to and including using lethal force to stop a threat?

Morally?

I don't know. Honestly, if the cop is trying to kidnap you, you have the right to defend yourself, whether you should exercise that right or not being a question I won't even pretend to know the answer to without a specific situation.

In some cases it may be better to waive your right, but how often?

You can't really even try to answer the question without violating TOS, so I'll just leave it at that.

If a cop tries to use unjustified violence against you, and you defend yourself, you should be pardoned of any criminal responsibility. That doesn't necessarily mean you were morally right, but you didn't violate the NAP.

Cissy
06-26-2013, 11:49 PM
"If a cop tries to use unjustified violence against you, and you defend yourself, you should be pardoned of any criminal responsibility."

Should, sadly, being the operative word.

tod evans
06-27-2013, 03:33 AM
Morally?

I don't know. Honestly, if the cop is trying to kidnap you, you have the right to defend yourself, whether you should exercise that right or not being a question I won't even pretend to know the answer to without a specific situation.

In some cases it may be better to waive your right, but how often?

You can't really even try to answer the question without violating TOS, so I'll just leave it at that.

If a cop tries to use unjustified violence against you, and you defend yourself, you should be pardoned of any criminal responsibility. That doesn't necessarily mean you were morally right, but you didn't violate the NAP.

Never had an encounter with a roided up cop have you?

Now imagine a woman in those circumstances....