Police Officer: "Trust Me, Ferguson Changed Everything"

[Anti Federalist]

Police Officer: Trust Me, Ferguson Changed Everything

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/12/police-officer-trust-me-ferguson-changed-everything/

11:14 AM 10/12/2014

Deputy Matt

I’m a cop.

A few weeks ago, two of my beat partners and I were called to an apartment in a fairly nice complex to help a mother and father with their 16-year-old son.

The son had no criminal history, and by all accounts was a decent kid. But he was having some problems at home — breaking things and making threats with a knife — and the parents needed our help.

When we finally located the son, who is of mixed ethnicity (dad is white, mom is Hispanic), he instantly began cussing and yelling at us. He took a fighting stance and said he was not going to do anything we told him.

Luckily, we were able to calm him and get him into handcuffs without any blows being thrown.

We asked why he was so hostile towards us. His response? Ferguson. The cops could not be trusted because of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. He told us that he wanted to kill all white cops because of what “they” had done to Michael Brown.

His parents were mortified by his statements and they apologized profusely, telling us that is not how they raised their son.

I live and work more than 1900 miles west of Ferguson, but the effects of that case are still being felt here. Not a week goes by without someone I encounter mentioning it.

“Ferguson” has become the latest defense for committing crime, often invoked by people we arrest and their loved ones. Sadly, this feeling has not only infected the normal criminal element that I expect that behavior from, but even seems to be effecting middle class families as well.

While the effects can be felt far away, the localized effects are far more serious.

On Wednesday, a white officer in St. Louis, Missouri returned fire — in other words, he was shot at first — killing a black male suspect.

Normally, this event would barely garner back page news, because sadly, it is no longer newsworthy when a cop gets shot at. But, in the shadow of Ferguson, such an event is national news, and serves as fuel for more demonstrations, protests and vandalism.

According to accounts from Wednesday night’s “demonstrations,” the crowd was calling for Darren Wilson to be killed.

The same people who we used to count on for support, the good, law abiding general public, are now reluctant to trust us.

We, the local cops they have seen and contacted in the past, have not changed. We have done nothing different.

What has changed is the public’s perception of us, created by the reckless reporting by nearly every news outlet very early after the shooting of Michael Brown. The rush to be first with the story over the desire to be correct is having dire consequences nationwide, and quite honestly, has made my job more difficult and more dangerous.

Since the shooting of Mike Brown, and the month-plus long circus that followed, the number of law enforcement officers being shot in the line of duty has skyrocketed, but the average citizen has no idea this is happening.

(Statistically speaking, this is not true. - AF)

The national media jumps all over a story where an 18-year-old criminal punk, who shot at a cop, is shot and killed. That criminal is made out to be some sort of victim by many outlets. That story is front page news all over the country.

Did you know that in just three days this week (October 7-9), six cops were shot in the line of duty, one of whom was killed?

October 7: Chicago, IL – One officer, a captain, is shot twice — once in the face, once in the chest. Other officers at the scene take fire and are pinned down by the suspect.

October 8: North Las Vegas, NV – An officer is shot during a gunfight with a suspect.

October 8: Phoenix, AZ – An officer is shot in the face while on a traffic stop. The suspects flee and the officer calls for help. Two other officers arrive and start rendering aid, only to come under fire from the suspects who circle back and attack the responding officers.

October 8: Oklahoma City, OK – Two officers are shot by a suspect during the same event.

October 9: Midland County, TX – Sgt. Mike Naylor is shot and killed while responding to a report of a sexual assault.

Where are those stories in the national news? What does it say about the media who make a victim out of a criminal, and ignore the good guys being injured and killed trying to keep society safe?

People ask me if things are different for cops since Ferguson.

Yes, yes they are.

[phill4paul]

Trust me, it's not just about Ferguson. It's "a long train of abuses and usurpations."

[tod evans]

3247

[Deborah K]

3247

I'm ripping this off.

[jkr]

well?
did you expect a traitor to tell the TRUTH?

[Occam's Banana]

We, the local cops they have seen and contacted in the past, have not changed. We have done nothing different.

What has changed is the public’s perception of us, created by the reckless reporting by nearly every news outlet very early after the shooting of Michael Brown.

Yeah, that must be it. Things like cops grenading babies (and then disavowing even the slightest shred of responsibility for doing so) - or choking a man to death because he did your job for you (and helped people evade cigarette taxes to boot) - have got nothing to do with it.

It's all the fault of the "media" ... and of the people you allegedly "serve and protect." :rolleyes:


The rush to be first with the story over the desire to be correct is having dire consequences nationwide, and quite honestly, has made my job more difficult and more dangerous.

Fuck off, asshole. Go tell your safety sob-story bullshit to Kelly Thomas and Jose Guerena ...

[otherone]

"sure" it's "Ferguson"

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/10/26/97/fc/37520d3e0c6144ef965a9bb636512239-30b876d5219e4cfabf7e9ba7f1ad1338-6.jpg

[acptulsa]

We, the local cops they have seen and contacted in the past, have not changed. We have done nothing different.

Events like Ferguson don't ignite in a vacuum. Maybe it's time to do 'something different'.


What has changed is the public’s perception of us, created by...

Shut up and look in the mirror, pal. By the time a few people act up because they're sick of your shit, almost everyone affected is sick of your shit and looking for an excuse.


The national media jumps all over a story where an 18-year-old criminal punk, who shot at a cop...

Keep repeating that lie, bud. Maybe someone will be mentally deficient enough to believe your alternate reality.

Nobody is alleging that Brown shot anything at the cop but dirty looks and rude comments. Are we scared of those things now?

So, the title says, Police Officer: "Trust Me...", and said officer proceeds to tell one or more major and obvious lies. I think there's a lesson for us in that somewhere.

[Anti Federalist]

Events like Ferguson don't ignite in a vacuum. Maybe it's time to do 'something different'.

Shut up and look in the mirror, pal. By the time a few people act up because they're sick of your shit, almost everyone affected is sick of your shit and looking for an excuse.

Indeed...

[Brett85]

It seems like there's enough blame to go around on both sides, with people killing cops just because they hate cops, and cops going into people's homes and throwing a grenade and blowing a baby's face off. Both cops and the thuggish gangster types are out of control.

[NewRightLibertarian]

It seems like there's enough blame to go around on both sides, with people killing cops just because they hate cops, and cops going into people's homes and throwing a grenade and blowing a baby's face off. Both cops and the thuggish gangster types are out of control.

No, the blame goes just to the cops. Fuck those piles of garbage. If anything, the public is too subdued and subservient toward them.

[Brett85]

No, the blame goes just to the cops. Fuck those piles of garbage. If anything, the public is too subdued and subservient toward them.

Yeah, no blame to the people who want to murder cops, and to the people who want to harm others. Only blame the cops. Got it.

[Christian Liberty]

It seems like there's enough blame to go around on both sides, with people killing cops just because they hate cops, and cops going into people's homes and throwing a grenade and blowing a baby's face off. Both cops and the thuggish gangster types are out of control.

I think killing an innocent child is far worse than killing a cop. Both are (generically) wrong yes. But there are rational reasons to hate cops, at least. An innocent child who's done nothing to anybody? No.

Really, its like a comparison between someone who wants to bomb ISIS with someone who wants to bomb a childcare center. Yes, both are wrong but one is more rational than the other.

[Brett85]

I think killing an innocent child is far worse than killing a cop. Both are (generically) wrong yes. But there are rational reasons to hate cops, at least. An innocent child who's done nothing to anybody? No.

Really, its like a comparison between someone who wants to bomb ISIS with someone who wants to bomb a childcare center. Yes, both are wrong but one is more rational than the other.

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

[bunklocoempire]

Trust me Deputy Matt, you obviously don't understand human nature.


A few weeks ago, two of my beat partners and I were called to an apartment in a fairly nice complex to help a mother and father with their 16-year-old son.

The son had no criminal history, and by all accounts was a decent kid. But he was having some problems at home — breaking things and making threats with a knife — and the parents needed our help. :rolleyes:

Like I said, you don't understand human nature -or the best way to deal with it.

[presence]

People ask me if things are different for cops since Ferguson.

Yes, yes they are.

Good! I hope you're shakin' in your jackboots. 'Bout time you learn a little respect.

[bunklocoempire]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.


Know your target and what's behind it/around it. If you don't understand this basic responsible use of deadly/potentially deadly force you'll never understand what you're trying to debate or what actions you are trying to defend.

[Christian Liberty]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

I'd have no problem with seeing the particular cops who grenaded that child die. I get what you are saying, but anyone who would throw grenades into a home in order to stop someone from smoking a plant is a scumbag. Frankly, if my Christianity didn't temper my libertarianism I'd probably want them all dead too. I hate to say it, but I do understand the mentality. They are all criminals. Some of them aren't capital criminals, but they are all criminals. When you come to terms with that... well... it definitely changes your views on everything else.

If a cop is just minding his own business, is not known to have engaged in some heinous crime in the past, and someone kills him, I would agree that that is murder. But I do think its somewhat mitigated by the fact that the person killed was working for a criminal organization. Not absolutely no guilt, mind you. But I certainly feel worse for a civilian who hasn't ever harmed anyone getting killed. Really, the best comparison to the "good cop" is a man who is a criminal but successfully presents an insanity charge... the fact that he genuinely did not realize that he was a criminal is a mitigating factor, but he's still a criminal. The same goes for well-meaning people in the military who fight foreign wars...

[presence]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

Oh bullshit. 1965 they would have knocked on the door and said:


"Come out with your hands up we have a warrant for your arrest."


The drug problem was no better or worse back then and possession was equally as "illegal".


Issuing an arrest warrant with a grenade is cruel and unusual. This is wanton abuse and torture of SUSPECTS.


Shake and bake... They're just druggies: No Humans Involved.

[Brett85]

Know your target and what's behind it/around it. If you don't understand this basic responsible use of deadly/potentially deadly force you'll never understand what you're trying to debate or what actions you are trying to defend.

Yeah, I agree. It's just ridiculous for the police to launch a grenade into a house because someone might be smoking a plant. But I was just making the point that the police officers didn't intentionally hurt that baby, but were extremely reckless by throwing the grenade into the house simply because they thought there might be drugs there. I said that both the police and those who hate the police are going too far and should be to blame; police officers who act like soldiers are becoming far too common and are completely out of control. But violent thugs who chant "the only good cop is a dead cop" and actually go around murdering police officers aren't any better and are to blame as well.

[Brett85]

Oh bullshit. 1965 they would have knocked on the door and said:


"Come out with your hands up we have a warrant for your arrest."


The drug problem was no better or worse back then and possession was equally as "illegal".


Issuing an arrest warrant with a grenade is cruel and unusual. This is wanton abuse and torture of SUSPECTS.


Shake and bake... They're just druggies: No Humans Involved.

The militarization of the police is another factor in why those kind of events keep happening, which has primarily occurred because of the federal program in which excess military equipment is donated to police departments across the country.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yeah, no blame to the people who want to murder cops, and to the people who want to harm others. Only blame the cops. Got it.

The people who want to harm others are the cops. Everyone else are the victims. People shouldn't be docile or taking these abuses lying down. If anything, there isn't enough resistance against these uniformed thugs. And your false equivalency isn't helping to combat this culture of bootlicking.

[Brett85]

The people who want to harm others are the cops. Everyone else are the victims. People shouldn't be docile or taking these abuses lying down. If anything, there isn't enough resistance against these uniformed thugs. And your false equivalency isn't helping to combat this culture of bootlicking.

Cops are the only people who harm others? There aren't private citizens who commit murder, rape, theft, etc?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Cops are the only people who harm others? There aren't private citizens who commit murder, rape, theft, etc?

Private citizens can't get away with murder, theft, rape, etc. without any repercussions because they wear a costume and a badge.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I agree. It's just ridiculous for the police to launch a grenade into a house because someone might be smoking a plant. But I was just making the point that the police officers didn't intentionally hurt that baby, but were extremely reckless by throwing the grenade into the house simply because they thought there might be drugs there.

No, they were not reckless...that would be grenading a home where you had no knowledge that there may be innocent people inside.

These cops had every reason to believe that there were infant children in the home, and they went ahead with the raid anyway.

Anybody else would be charged with aggravated manslaughter at the least.

[Brett85]

These cops had every reason to believe that there were infant children in the home, and they went ahead with the raid anyway.

Anybody else would be charged with aggravated manslaughter at the least.

I agree they should be charged with something like that and have to face prison time, but I don't think it would actually be premeditated first degree murder. (If the baby had died) In the situation that occurred they should've been fired and also charged with aggravated assault.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and "Line of Duty" deaths?

Exactly the same as they were at this time last year, which was lowest ever recorded.

82 total.

http://www.odmp.org/

36 by gunfire which is up 44% from last year, but still at decades low number.

[Anti Federalist]

Private citizens can't get away with murder, theft, rape, etc. without any repercussions because they wear a costume and a badge.

Well, actually they do, because when somebody kills one of us Mundanes, we don't get the privilege of a thousand man battalion hut hutting around for weeks on end looking for our killer.

[jjdoyle]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

It's not just one, and yes, they INTENTIONALLY went into that house using WEAPONS. They were not forced to go into that house, they went on their own.
And yes, they were WILLFULLY ignorant of the toys in the yard and the van in the driveway. THEY INTENTIONALLY went to that house, looking for action. And got it. Not only that, but then their superior says they were "just following SoP", and he would do it again? (Maybe that was a different one?)

But, yes, the cops WILLFULLY threw that grenade into a house, and WILLFULLY ignored the child play toys outside, the van with a car seat, and the FACT THE OTHER CAR WASN'T AT THE HOUSE.
The cop in South Carolina WILLFULLY fired and hit the guy he pulled over for supposedly not wearing a seatbelt, and CONTINUED TO FIRE AFTER THE GUY'S HANDS WERE UP!

So yes, it is accurate to say the cops threw the grenade at the baby, because they willfully ignored the obvious in their pursuit of action.

[Anti Federalist]

The same people who we used to count on for support, the good, law abiding general public, are now reluctant to trust us.

http://www.stopcopabuse.com/images/patient1a.gif

http://tribktla.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kelly-thomas-hospital.jpeg

And on and on and on and on...

[bunklocoempire]

Yeah, I agree. It's just ridiculous for the police to launch a grenade into a house because someone might be smoking a plant. But I was just making the point that the police officers didn't intentionally hurt that baby, but were extremely reckless by throwing the grenade into the house simply because they thought there might be drugs there. I said that both the police and those who hate the police are going too far and should be to blame; police officers who act like soldiers are becoming far too common and are completely out of control. But violent thugs who chant "the only good cop is a dead cop" and actually go around murdering police officers aren't any better and are to blame as well.

Do you understand deadly force?

Again:

Know your target and what is behind it/around it.

Let me try to explain.
When unleashing deadly force you cannot take it back, therefore, when that deadly force was used it was intentional. There are no backsies or do-overs with deadly force.

If one does not subscribe to the notion that deadly force is to be respected at all cost, how can one even debate it's use?


But violent thugs who chant "the only good cop is a dead cop" and actually go around murdering police officers aren't any better and are to blame as well.

How about if those folks unintentionally end an officer?:rolleyes:;)

The respect of deadly force is where this debate begins. Understand that one and then you can debate it's use.

Not trying to bust your chops on this TC but you've got to understand the nature of deadly force first and the respect it must be shown. I haven't seen any evidence that you really understand it.

[Brett85]

I just love how I'm not ever "extreme enough" on these issues for people here, even though I've advocated legalizing all drugs on this thread, advocated demilitarizing the police, and advocated firing and prosecuting the police officers who launched the grenade that almost killed a baby.

Good night everyone.

[Christian Liberty]

I just love how I'm not ever "extreme enough" on these issues for people here, even though I've advocated legalizing all drugs on this thread, advocated demilitarizing the police, and advocated firing and prosecuting the police officers who launched the grenade that almost killed a baby.

Good night everyone.

Its awesome:)

[NewRightLibertarian]

I just love how I'm not ever "extreme enough" on these issues for people here, even though I've advocated legalizing all drugs on this thread, advocated demilitarizing the police, and advocated firing and prosecuting the police officers who launched the grenade that almost killed a baby.

Good night everyone.

Welcome to the Ron Paul movement. Ain't it grand?

[specsaregood]

I just love how I'm not ever "extreme enough" on these issues for people here, even though I've advocated legalizing all drugs on this thread, advocated demilitarizing the police, and advocated firing and prosecuting the police officers who launched the grenade that almost killed a baby.

Good night everyone.

Well since I used a Sen. Paul quote on you the other day, I might as well do it again:


“If I try to be a pretty good libertarian I get attacked by the left, by the right, and by the libertarians.” --Sen. Paul
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/27/my-coffee-klatch-with-rand-paul.html

[Mani]

Do you like how he lists the 3 or 4 incidents of cops getting shot at to show how dangerous their line of work is?


And yet if you tried to list all the incidents of cops raping, shooting, killing, beating, people and family pets, the list would probably go on and on and on and never end.




Like seriously? You are going to pull out your cry me a river, see how dangerous it is to be a cop list? Are you really going to go with that?

Can we list every dog killed during that time span? Every mundane beaten, killed or roughed up? Every person pulled over for no reason to be harassed and abused and dragged out of their car? Every person tased for noncompliance because your commands are like the word of God and must be followed or get whats deserved. And every woman who is raped, assaulted, threatened, or have her skirt felt up because of supposed drugs? Or every girl tackled for not listening and running away from perverted power tripping cops? Every mundane executed for "fear of your safety" and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.


I'd like to compare the two lists and see how it looks afterwards.


Give me a fucking break.

[tod evans]

The militarization of the police is another factor in why those kind of events keep happening, which has primarily occurred because of the federal program in which excess military equipment is donated to police departments across the country.

"Militarization" commonly refers to the gear used...

The attitude taught to, and the behaviors fostered by the street cops superiors are what I blame out of control kops on..

The kops are at fault, no doubt, but I do not absolve their superiors or the media......

[Spikender]

I'm glad to see that Ferguson continues to wake people up to the Police State.

It's sad that incidents such as Kelly Thomas, the Wiimote kid getting shot, the walking cane guy getting shot, Dorner, and others didn't do it sooner, but I'll excuse John and Jane Doe is they're usually pretty slow.

[torchbearer]

Trust me, it's not just about Ferguson. It's "a long train of abuses and usurpations."


/thread

[fisharmor]

And yet if you tried to list all the incidents of cops raping, shooting, killing, beating, people and family pets, the list would probably go on and on and on and never end.

Then add one or two.
Get on the comments of the article and say something.

My addition:


Listen, genius, the "reckless reporting by nearly every news outlet" has done nothing for cops but FAVORS. Because baby Bou-Bou getting his face melted off by your fellow stormtroopers in Georgia, and your fellow stormtroopers refusing any culpability and refusing to pay his nearly million dollars in medical bills - none of that was reported on a national level.Because 7-year-old Aiyana Jones getting shot in the head in front of her grandmother by your fellow stormtroopers in Detroit, and your fellow stormtroopers actually using the Nuremberg defense TWICE in trial now (I know you don't know this, but that defense was deemed void by international law in 1947)... that's not being reported on a national level, either.
Because every time your fellow stormtroopers gun down a special needs child or a Sunday School teacher or a deaf guy - these aren't wild accusations, they're all people with names - again, that's not being reported on a national level.
No, they're focusing on punk kids who were stepping out of line, like Michael Brown and Trayvon. They're giving you the wiggle room you need to claim the moral high ground and continue to murder women and children with impugnity.
If Americans knew about all of these other cases, they wouldn't doubt you, they'd FIRE YOU. And all your fellow stormtroopers as well. If YOU knew about all these other cases, maybe you wouldn't be so tempted to defend yourself in print. And if Americans knew you didn't know of these other cases - or worse, that you do know and don't care - they wouldn't be after your job, they'd be after your head.

[CaptUSA]

Perhaps it is time if we pull a Frank Luntz and start referring to these people and those that defend them as "loyalists".

That word developed a negative connotation at one point in our history, perhaps it is time for a revival.

[SeanTX]

Here's an example of how Ferguson has changed things. I don't know what made them target this particular state trooper, if it was just random or what -- but there are plenty of them who should be fearing a visit ...

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Police-concerned-about-safety-after-protests-outside-officers-home-279487402.html



Concerns linger for officers as protesters show up trooper's home

by KMOV.com Staff

Posted on October 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Updated today at 7:14 AM


HAZELWOOD, Mo. (KMOV.com) – Officers told News 4 they are concerned about their safety after several people protested outside the home of an officer with the Missouri Highway Patrol Tuesday.

At the Ferguson City Council Tuesday, several protesters said they would start protesting at homes of police and government officials. Several demonstrators later showed up at the home of an MHP officer in Hazelwood. Authorities said the officer was not home at the time and the protesters left before police arrived.

“These things are real, these things happen, so it’s a legitimate concern,” said Sgt. Brian Schellman with St. Louis County Police.

Schellman said some officers fear retaliation by protesters against themselves or their family. Schellman said officers did not initially wear name tags during the protests in Ferguson because of a fear that someone would hack their email, or that violent protesters would come to their homes.

“Regardless of civil unrest or any protests, it’s something that’s always in the back of police officers’ minds,” Schellman said. “The majority of protesters are peaceful and want people to know we do know that, but it doesn’t take many, it takes one. That’s all it takes is one who has bad intentions.

snip

[Occam's Banana]

Here's an example of how Ferguson has changed things. I don't know what made them target this particular state trooper, if it was just random or what -- but there are plenty of them who should be fearing a visit ...

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Police-concerned-about-safety-after-protests-outside-officers-home-279487402.html


Concerns linger for officers as protesters show up trooper's home

[...]

HAZELWOOD, Mo. (KMOV.com) – Officers told News 4 they are concerned about their safety after several people protested outside the home of an officer with the Missouri Highway Patrol Tuesday.

At the Ferguson City Council Tuesday, several protesters said they would start protesting at homes of police and government officials. Several demonstrators later showed up at the home of an MHP officer in Hazelwood. Authorities said the officer was not home at the time and the protesters left before police arrived.

“These things are real, these things happen, so it’s a legitimate concern,” said Sgt. Brian Schellman with St. Louis County Police.

Schellman said some officers fear retaliation by protesters against themselves or their family. Schellman said officers did not initially wear name tags during the protests in Ferguson because of a fear that someone would hack their email, or that violent protesters would come to their homes.

“Regardless of civil unrest or any protests, it’s something that’s always in the back of police officers’ minds,” Schellman said. “The majority of protesters are peaceful and want people to know we do know that, but it doesn’t take many, it takes one. That’s all it takes is one who has bad intentions.

Oh, buck up and quit whining, Officer Friendly!

After all ... if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about ... isn't that right?

(♪♫ "Bad boys, bad boys, what'cha gonna do ..." ♫♪)

[osan]

Police Officer: Trust Me, Ferguson Changed Everything

<BLURF>... Oh, you were serious...


I’m a cop.

And proud.

'Mrka!


His parents were mortified by his statements and they apologized profusely, telling us that is not how they raised their son.

Well, what can one expect from people stupid enough as human beings and inept enough as parents call the police because they were incapable of handling their own child?


Not a week goes by without someone I encounter mentioning [Ferguson].

So that would be what... five or six times?


“Ferguson” has become the latest defense for committing crime, often invoked by people we arrest and their loved ones. Sadly, this feeling has not only infected the normal criminal element that I expect that behavior from, but even seems to be effecting middle class families as well.


Equating law abiding people with criminals. How typical of the pig class of subhuman lapdog tool.


According to accounts from Wednesday night’s “demonstrations,” the crowd was calling for Darren Wilson to be killed.

The "crowd" is just about fed up with the likes of you. Good on them.


The same people who we used to count on for support, the good, law abiding general public, are now reluctant to trust us.

And of course this could not possibly be the result of any wrongdoing you and your ilk have committed. Nosir... never.


We, the local cops they have seen and contacted in the past, have not changed. We have done nothing different.


Pathological liars be lying pathologically.


What has changed is the public’s perception of us, created by the reckless reporting by nearly every news outlet very early after the shooting of Michael Brown. The rush to be first with the story over the desire to be correct is having dire consequences nationwide, and quite honestly, has made my job more difficult and more dangerous.

And here we get an inside view into the problem: rank, raving psychosis.


Since the shooting of Mike Brown, and the month-plus long circus that followed, the number of law enforcement officers being shot in the line of duty has skyrocketed, but the average citizen has no idea this is happening.


If only...


The national media jumps all over a story where an 18-year-old criminal punk, who shot at a cop, is shot and killed. That criminal is made out to be some sort of victim by many outlets. That story is front page news all over the country.

And let us never forget that cops are always perfect angels.


Did you know that in just three days this week (October 7-9), six cops were shot in the line of duty, one of whom was killed?


Cry me a river, deputy Whiny Candyass.

[acptulsa]

A mirror would change everything.

Assuming they aren't too candy-assed to take a good, hard look at it.

[Cissy]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

The favorite excuse of every school child who has ever been caught.

"I didn't mean to (hit/punch/kick) Johnny. My (punch/hit/kick) just happened to land in his solar plexus/back. And, besides, Johnny deserved it because X. And it was an accident."

Cop/Sherriff: "I didn't mean to grenade the baby. My grenade just happened to land in the baby's crib. Besides, if Alleged Criminal didn't make us invade the house, this never would have happened. It was a terrible accident that wasn't supposed to happen."

The difference being: libertarian parents don't accept those excuses for their offspring; they expect them to take responsibility for their actions. The same way we need to tell the Magically-Costumed Ones: "I don't care what your excuse is. This is absolutely unacceptable. You will shape up immediately, or your behavior will have immediate consequences."

[ChristianAnarchist]

I could make a comment on how we have every right to treat the cops with distrust, but it's all been said already...

[Weston White]

...the normal criminal element that I expect that behavior from, but even seems to be effecting middle class families as well.

And therein lays the ultimate truth: We have found job security in increasing poverty.

[osan]

HAZELWOOD, Mo. (KMOV.com) – ...several people protested outside the home of an officer...

Anyone willing to take bets that this will be one of the next moves, i.e., to render all officers anonymous at all times? No names. No Badge numbers. Subtext: officer safety is too important to trust the proles with the identities of our finest and bravest. It takes only ONE.


At the Ferguson City Council Tuesday, several protesters said they would start protesting at homes of police and government officials. Several demonstrators later showed up at the home of an MHP officer in Hazelwood. Authorities said the officer was not home at the time and the protesters left before police arrived.


And one can at this time but speculate as to what might have happened, had the protesters been there when cops arrived.


“These things are real, these things happen, so it’s a legitimate concern,” said Sgt. Brian Schellman with St. Louis County Police.


So much innuendo. So much fear. Theye are actually terrified of us. Good. They ought to be. Let us not disappoint.


Schellman said some officers fear retaliation by protesters against themselves or their family. Schellman said officers did not initially wear name tags during the protests in Ferguson because of a fear that someone would hack their email, or that violent protesters would come to their homes.


See what I mean? So much subtext. It is amazing how these peoples' minds operate their mouths. They almost never say precisely what they mean, but rather rely on massive bodies of subtext to lead the dopey boobus to draw the inferences and conclusions they want him to make. It is a circus macabre of the grandest proportions and ever more dangerous nature.


“Regardless of civil unrest or any protests, it’s something that’s always in the back of police officers’ minds,”

Note the not-so-oblique trivialization of "civil unrest" and "protest". Never do these bastards say, "well, maybe the people have a point - perhaps we have lost our way and need to make amends and reform the ways in which we think and act." Nosir. Theye are always right. Theye are always "just doing our jobs." Theye are always just following orders. Well, you raft of stinking chum, we once put a whole bunch of men at the ends of ropes for "just following orders" and it is time once again to revisit the values that lead us to those acts.

Note also the further implication of "always in the back of [cops] minds,": civilians must be further controlled to spare the noble cop from wetting his panties. After all, is it not the fundamental human right of all police to be springtime fresh at all times while on duty? Newsflash: nobody is forcing you to be a cop. You have no fundamental right to be one. If the job leads you to stain your clothing, then go find a job better suited to the timbre of your bravery and the nature of your intellect. Try pushing a broom or cleaning toilets. Yes, those will pose terrible challenges to all of you on the fronts I mention, but you must be willing to stretch yourselves, even if the goals seem impossible to you. And if you never achieve them, do not feel badly, for they are much to expect from those such as yourselves.


Schellman said. “The majority of protesters are peaceful and want people to know we do know that, but it doesn’t take many, it takes one. That’s all it takes is one who has bad intentions.


If it saves even one cop, tyranny is worth it.

[tod evans]

Kops hiding........:D


Good!

[osan]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib.

To be more accurate about what happened, their intentions are IMMATERIAL. The only thing that counts is what they DID, and that was to maim a small child. For that, I would so very literally see those men drawn and quartered and feel they got off with naught more than a slap on the wrist.


They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib.

That is where you should have stopped because it is the only thing that is relevant. Their reasons for doing so mean nothing. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate act that resulted in the maiming injury of another human being; in this case a child, which is a grossly aggravating factor.


Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened

Do you mean to trivialize the event, or is it just that you need to tune your expressive style a bit?

Seriously, you should re-read that statement - several tens of thousands of times if necessary - until the subtle obscenity it carries becomes apparent to you. You may not have meant it that way, but that is the way it comes across to me.


, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end.

It illustrates so much more than that. It illustrates why the existence of police is the most profound danger of them all and why their very existence is invalid in a free land. It illustrates that this brand of behavior must be met with the most harshly unequivocal responses, most especially when the acts are committed by anyone claiming the imprimatur of "government" and who, in so committing their acts, have violated the sacred trust of their fellow human beings. It illustrates the need to strike literal terror into the hearts of all men who assume the mantle of the public trust such that they quake in their boots at the very possibility that they might violate those to whom they swear an oath of faith and loyalty. It illustrates that we, the so-called "people" need to get our stupid, lazy, greedy, candy asses squared away by assuming the proper attitude of free men. It illustrates that Theye don't give a tinker's damn about human rights and that we'd better rethink this "tolerance" deal very carefully before it is too late. It illustrates that the mass has fallen into all of the worst possible habits of thought and regard with respect to so-called "government" and that Theye have cowed us as monumentally as any have been in the past. It illustrates that tyranny is alive, well, and growing like an aggressive cancer in this land.

The war on drugs is but a symptom of the deeper disease. To focus on that is to miss the real point entirely.


The war on drugs Tyranny is literally killing people all across America...

Fixed that fer'y.


But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate.

You seem fixated on this irrelevancy.


So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop.

This is arguable.


The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

You cannot be serious.

[tod evans]

those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.


I had to jump on this too...:mad:

Are you fucking serious? Kops are the foot soldiers in the war(s) waged on the citizenry.

Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?

Shameful!

[Pericles]

And therein lays the ultimate truth: We have found job security in increasing poverty.

Democrats care about poor people. That is why they create as many poor people as they can.

[Christian Liberty]

I had to jump on this too...:mad:

Are you fucking serious? Kops are the foot soldiers in the war(s) waged on the citizenry.

Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?

Shameful!

There is some space between "Licking the boots of your oppressor" and "supporting cop killing whenever and wherever it occurs."

[Pericles]

@osan What a series of epic rep worthy posts.

[tod evans]

There is some space between "Licking the boots of your oppressor" and "supporting cop killing whenever and wherever it occurs."

Not in my world.

[osan]

A mirror would change everything.

There'd have to be some crazy magic in that mirror. The regular variety only result in cops stropping like wildfire.

Perhaps that is the solution: wall your entire dwelling with mirrors so that the moment they enter, they start masturbating. Of course, after killing them all you would be pretty much compelled to burn the house down for the sake of humanity's future.

[osan]

There is some space between "Licking the boots of your oppressor" and "supporting cop killing whenever and wherever it occurs."

Not on Earth. But please, describe this space, where it exists and under what conditions; how we recognize it and what we do when we are in it.

Would you say there is "some space" between shooting an attacker dead and laying down to let him slit your throat and rape you as you slowly bleed out?

[osan]

"sure" it's "Ferguson"

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/10/26/97/fc/37520d3e0c6144ef965a9bb636512239-30b876d5219e4cfabf7e9ba7f1ad1338-6.jpg

If a cop did this to me, you can be sure I'd be noting his name and badge number because this is the sort of act I would not soon forget. If I did not know better, and I do, I would have to assess this image as having been staged.

[Christian Liberty]

Not in my world.


Not on Earth. But please, describe this space, where it exists and under what conditions; how we recognize it and what we do when we are in it.

Would you say there is "some space" between shooting an attacker dead and laying down to let him slit your throat and rape you as you slowly bleed out?

Perhaps that is the solution: wall your entire dwelling with mirrors so that the moment they enter, they start masturbating. Of course, after killing them all you would be pretty much compelled to burn the house down for the sake of humanity's future.

Whatever. Best of luck, I guess. Even I'm not this radical...

[tod evans]

Whatever. Best of luck, I guess. Even I'm not this radical...

"Radical" is believing that the people who have openly declared war on you are your enemy huh?

Maybe you consider yourself one of the "warriors" instead of one who has had war waged against him?

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you're not subjected to the very ugly reality of which we speak....

[Spikender]

LMAO at officers fearing of retaliation.

It's been a long time coming, bastard ass bustas.

[Christian Liberty]

"Radical" is believing that the people who have openly declared war on you are your enemy huh?

Maybe you consider yourself one of the "warriors" instead of one who has had war waged against him?

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you're not subjected to the very ugly reality of which we speak....

I'm no warrior. But this is definitely reminding me of Bush's whole "you are either with me or against me" spiel.

My mentality is really similar to yours but my Christianity tempers it a bit. Love your enemies and all that. I struggle with that a lot. But I do feel bad for those cops who think they are doing a good thing.

[Spikender]

But I do feel bad for those cops who think they are doing a good thing.

Assuming that they don't take part in the horrible things other cops do themselves, they are still guilty of not coming forward and outing their rotten peers.

Regardless, the position of law enforcement itself is a bad profession in the first place and we already know the position of cop attracts people who are honestly worst than gang members because they essentially can murder you, cook up any story, and then walk.

Hard to have sympathy when a "good" cop gets popped, no matter how deluded he is into thinking he's a hero.

[tod evans]

I'm no warrior. But this is definitely reminding me of Bush's whole "you are either with me or against me" spiel.

My mentality is really similar to yours but my Christianity tempers it a bit. Love your enemies and all that. I struggle with that a lot. But I do feel bad for those cops who think they are doing a good thing.

Mental frailty isn't an excuse I accept from countrymen who have declared war on me and mine.

I too consider myself a Christian, one who freely outs the Judas's in our midsts, one who despises the money lenders and tries to do the right thing..

To me the right thing in the case of "Just-Us" department employees who have declared open warfare on the rest of us is to pray for their putrid souls as I fight them with every weapon I can muster.

Do not make excuses for evil.

[osan]

Whatever. Best of luck, I guess. Even I'm not this radical...

Whatever? Whatever?! Forgive me, but that is not much of an answer. The fact that this is a boilerplate colloquialism of dismissal, albeit a weak one, I am left wondering whether you are having a bad day. You made an assertion and were challenged on it in a polite and forthright manner. If you have no answer, you should simply remain silent or at most admit you are at a loss and leave it at that. I see no need to attempt to disparage with such language. If perchance that was not your intention, you may take a lesson in usage from this example. Words count and should be used with some care. We all make this error, but that does not mean the instances of it should go unchallenged. Most of us need to be reminded of these sorts of thing every now and again.

I will reiterate the original question, albeit more simply: can you characterize this space and give your opinion on how one should proceed when finding himself in it?

[Christian Liberty]

Assuming that they don't take part in the horrible things other cops do themselves, they are still guilty of not coming forward and outing their rotten peers.


I agree, and that's a bad thing. But is that a capital offense? I don't think that it is.


Regardless, the position of law enforcement itself is a bad profession in the first place and we already know the position of cop attracts people who are honestly worst than gang members because they essentially can murder you, cook up any story, and then walk.

Hard to have sympathy when a "good" cop gets popped, no matter how deluded he is into thinking he's a hero.

There are no cops that qualify as heroes. There are many who aren't quite at the level of capital criminal (and yes, there are some who are.)


Mental frailty isn't an excuse I accept from countrymen who have declared war on me and mine.

I too consider myself a Christian, one who freely outs the Judas's in our midsts, one who despises the money lenders and tries to do the right thing..

To me the right thing in the case of "Just-Us" department employees who have declared open warfare on the rest of us is to pray for their putrid souls as I fight them with every weapon I can muster.

Do not make excuses for evil.

I'm not making excuses, tod. I just don't think that its right to shoot someone just because he is a cop. They're all on the wrong team, but that doesn't mean they are all capital criminals. Some are and some are not.

Whatever? Whatever?! Forgive me, but that is not much of an answer. The fact that this is a boilerplate colloquialism of dismissal, albeit a weak one, I am left wondering whether you are having a bad day. You made an assertion and were challenged on it in a polite and forthright manner. If you have no answer, you should simply remain silent or at most admit you are at a loss and leave it at that. I see no need to attempt to disparage with such language. If perchance that was not your intention, you may take a lesson in usage from this example. Words count and should be used with some care. We all make this error, but that does not mean the instances of it should go unchallenged. Most of us need to be reminded of these sorts of thing every now and again.

I will reiterate the original question, albeit more simply: can you characterize this space and give your opinion on how one should proceed when finding himself in it?

Fair enough. I'll try to give a better answer.

I think that it is perfectly possible to refrain from licking their boots without killing them. Challenge the rightfulness of their authority. Engage in civil disobedience. If need be, use violence to defend yourself, but don't preempt it just because they are gang members. All of these things are things that one could do that would be in between the two options. Speaking for me, I primarily focus on education. I don't like police and I have no problem sharing with people that I don't approve of the occupation and why. I also don't have a problem with saying that certain cops have done things awful enough to warrant execution, but not all. Its funny, I often get called "bloodthirsty" on here, but you and tod evans are much quicker to support a violent option than I am. Not saying that's an argument, just something interesting to note.

Admittedly, I am somewhat speechless, but I'm not sure if there's any point in debating people who are more radical than I am. I'm not sure what it would help. At my school I'm well-known for being the radical anarcho-capitalist extremist. At home I am regularly told I have a "problem with governmental authority" and so forth. Here even I'm not radical enough for some of you. I do dislike Cantwellian logic in part because I think it makes us look bad for no real reason. Yes, cops are bad and yes they are part of a gang, but they are still human beings. I'm not sure exactly where the balance is. In real life I generally gravitate toward extreme anti-cop stances in part because the people I am surrounded with are far, FAR too apologetic toward police. In those situations I don't really have to ask myself where the line is, because I know what I'm arguing with is way too far on the apologetic side of the line. I don't know exactly where the balance is. But I think there has to be something in between. Or at the least, it would be downright horiffic if there was not. If there isn't, I guess I'll die if I have to and kill if I have to, but not until someone attacks me first.

[tod evans]

I'm not making excuses, tod. I just don't think that its right to shoot someone just because he is a cop. They're all on the wrong team, but that doesn't mean they are all capital criminals. Some are and some are not.
[snip]
I also don't have a problem with saying that certain cops have done things awful enough to warrant execution, but not all. Its funny, I often get called "bloodthirsty" on here, but you and tod evans are much quicker to support a violent option than I am. Not saying that's an argument, just something interesting to note.
.

I strongly advocate every man stand against those who declare war on us "with every weapon he can muster"....In your case that may be your mouth and intellect, in anothers case it may be with a .308, while others may choose to run the offenders out of town...

Advocating that one "shoot cops" would run afoul of the TOS here on RPF but that doesn't mean that I can't point out the obvious or even state that I understand righteous anger.

Were I asked to stand in judgement of Mr. Frein I would entertain a defense of "He needed killin' " in relation to the dead kop...

Unlike society at large I view members of the "Just-Us" department as sub-human, on par with rabid dogs and other feral creatures that have no place in polite society....

[Brett85]

I had to jump on this too...:mad:

Are you fucking serious? Kops are the foot soldiers in the war(s) waged on the citizenry.

Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?

Shameful!

Wow. I never thought that saying that maybe it's not a good idea to murder cops would be so controversial here.

[osan]

But I do feel bad for those cops who think they are doing a good thing.

Why do you feel badly for them? Are they not adults? Have they not made their choices consciously?

I see no basis for pity. The fundamental knowledge necessary for living properly among our fellows is born into us. We don't need a Bible, Torah, Quran, Rig Veda, or any other human contrivance to tell us how to behave correctly. All one need do is "stop the world" as one Don Juan Matus used to put it. That world is the one in your mind, replete with all the assumptions you hold about truth and falsehood, right and wrong. That the vast majority of people appear never to seek truth beyond the timid borders defined by the ends of their noses mitigates none of one's personal responsibilities as a free man to educate himself properly in the correct ways of cohabitation.

In ages past the common man knew this well because the reality of human relations was often very different from what it is today. At other times and in other cultures, the brands of mindlessly rude and stupid behaviors in which people today engage with no thought whatsoever was most often met with unpleasant consequences and often death. The contemporary culture that worships and jealously protects stupidity and poor manners has cobbled an environment where stupidity is more often met with reward than anything else.

That said, I have no sympathy for police for the choices they make or on those rare occasions when justice comes visiting. Either they are responsible for their choices or they are imbecile children, in which case they have no business carrying a gun and making as if they were the bosses.

[Brett85]

There is some space between "Licking the boots of your oppressor" and "supporting cop killing whenever and wherever it occurs."


Not on Earth. But please, describe this space, where it exists and under what conditions; how we recognize it and what we do when we are in it.

Would you say there is "some space" between shooting an attacker dead and laying down to let him slit your throat and rape you as you slowly bleed out?


"Radical" is believing that the people who have openly declared war on you are your enemy huh?

Maybe you consider yourself one of the "warriors" instead of one who has had war waged against him?

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you're not subjected to the very ugly reality of which we speak....


Assuming that they don't take part in the horrible things other cops do themselves, they are still guilty of not coming forward and outing their rotten peers.

Regardless, the position of law enforcement itself is a bad profession in the first place and we already know the position of cop attracts people who are honestly worst than gang members because they essentially can murder you, cook up any story, and then walk.

Hard to have sympathy when a "good" cop gets popped, no matter how deluded he is into thinking he's a hero.


I strongly advocate every man stand against those who declare war on us "with every weapon he can muster"....In your case that may be your mouth and intellect, in anothers case it may be with a .308, while others may choose to run the offenders out of town...

Advocating that one "shoot cops" would run afoul of the TOS here on RPF but that doesn't mean that I can't point out the obvious or even state that I understand righteous anger.

Were I asked to stand in judgement of Mr. Frein I would entertain a defense of "He needed killin' " in relation to the dead kop...

Unlike society at large I view members of the "Just-Us" department as sub-human, on par with rabid dogs and other feral creatures that have no place in polite society....

Wow. This place has just gone completely nuts.

[tod evans]

Wow. I never thought that saying that maybe it's not a good idea to murder cops would be so controversial here.


those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

Quit embellishing!

"Using violence" and "murder" are two distinctly different things...

Here's your original sentiment in it's entirety;


To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

I fully understand folks who would seek retribution for maimed children, hell I understand folks who seek retribution for detention and/or imprisonment for victimless crime.

But DO NOT paint me with the brush of promoting murder on the internet!

Understanding and forgiving those who opt to murder the offending "Just-Us" department employees would be an accurate portrayal...

[osan]

Fair enough. I'll try to give a better answer.

I think that it is perfectly possible to refrain from licking their boots without killing them. Challenge the rightfulness of their authority. Engage in civil disobedience. If need be, use violence to defend yourself, but don't preempt it just because they are gang members. All of these things are things that one could do that would be in between the two options. Speaking for me, I primarily focus on education. I don't like police and I have no problem sharing with people that I don't approve of the occupation and why. I also don't have a problem with saying that certain cops have done things awful enough to warrant execution, but not all. Its funny, I often get called "bloodthirsty" on here, but you and tod evans are much quicker to support a violent option than I am. Not saying that's an argument, just something interesting to note.

OK, now that is more of an answer and I cannot disagree with too much you write here. One thing, however: I do not consider myself "bloodthirsty" at all, whatever the term actually means in any given case of usage... which is an important point because it is one of those hot button terms, not unlike "whatever" in that it carries with it all manner of implicit meaning, different for every person perhaps but very often the element of dismissal or marginalization and discredit is front and center. That aside, being unwilling to abide deliberate violation of the rights of myself or others and believing that the penalties for unrepentant trespass should be severe does not make me or anyone else "bloodthirsty". It only means that we stand firmly upon the most fundamental and thereby broadly applicable principles of proper human relations. Those principles call for holding to account individuals who so trespass.


Admittedly, I am somewhat speechless, but I'm not sure if there's any point in debating people who are more radical than I am.

More radical? More fundamental? Or are you using the term in its incorrect vernacular sense meaning "extreme"? I suspect the latter, but without certainty we are unable to proceed intelligently.


At home I am regularly told I have a "problem with governmental authority" and so forth.

You are thereby honored in your home.


Here even I'm not radical enough for some of you.

Can't please everyone, so please yourself. However, I do not recommend you do what the young man did at Walmart when he pleased himself with a stuffed horse before store security cameras. :)


Yes, cops are bad and yes they are part of a gang, but they are still human beings.

So was Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, Ted bundy, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, and so on down a disturbingly long line.


I'm not sure exactly where the balance is.

Credit to you for recognizing this. I'm not sure any of us can say with perfect certainty where it the balance point is for all occasions. But there is nothing amiss in stating a generalized position that asserts police may be removed from the book of the living any time they violate the rights of their fellow human beings. And yes, it is more greatly justified against them than others for any of several reasons including their general mental posture, what with all their idiotic belief in their unassailable authority to command YOU. This mindset renders them considerably more dangerous than the average boob. For one thing, they are not likely to ever see when they are wrong, much less to admit it. Given that, they will ALWAYS call for backup and the result will not be good for you precisely because they are always right, their power is absolute, and their rage will be vast when you dare to challenge them, regardless of how timidly and politely. They are bred and trained to be dangerously psychopathological lunatics. Think about it awhile and you will see that it must be so because no decent man would enforce the brands of statutory restrictions and compulsions that cops regularly insist upon at the implicit threat of their guns.


In real life I generally gravitate toward extreme anti-cop stances in part because the people I am surrounded with are far, FAR too apologetic toward police. In those situations I don't really have to ask myself where the line is, because I know what I'm arguing with is way too far on the apologetic side of the line. I don't know exactly where the balance is. But I think there has to be something in between. Or at the least, it would be downright horiffic if there was not. If there isn't, I guess I'll die if I have to and kill if I have to, but not until someone attacks me first.

What is more horrific is the reality with which you and I are daily forced to cope through no fault of our own. Think on that awhile. We did not offend police. They have offended us. We are, therefore, at the center of our individual and sacred rights to take those measures we deem necessary to set things to rights. Theye, of course, will rail wildly, arms all aflail against such a notion, not because it is wrong in any broadly defensible manner, but narrowly because it threatens the assumptions of position over and above those of you and me. There is no rocket surgery here, my young friend. Theire agenda in this regard is ever so childishly transparent.

Consider the deal with Eric Frein. Assuming he is indeed the person who plugged those two PA cops, do you not find it endlessly curious that (to my limited knowledge) in the network media has seriously and neutrally raised the question of why Frein would have done such a thing? The presumptions, tacit and otherwise, have been that Frein is an evil bloodthirsty monster. That subtext alone is considered sufficient to halt all further discussion on the issue. By that standard, Frein is sub-human, must be hunted, and when he is murdered the world will ask no questions. That is one reason I hope Theye never find him. Would it not be a hoot were it to come to light that he was in fact NOT the shooter? What, pray tell, would Theye do? Theye would spin it for all they were worth and in the end the message would be that the cops did what they had to do and that it was all justified, horrible results notwithstanding.

ETA: Who is Cantwell? Are you referring to John Cantwell and expressive logic?

[osan]

Wow. This place has just gone completely nuts.

That is not much of a response. Opinion, however, is noted.

[Christian Liberty]

I strongly advocate every man stand against those who declare war on us "with every weapon he can muster"....In your case that may be your mouth and intellect, in anothers case it may be with a .308, while others may choose to run the offenders out of town...

Advocating that one "shoot cops" would run afoul of the TOS here on RPF but that doesn't mean that I can't point out the obvious or even state that I understand righteous anger.

Were I asked to stand in judgement of Mr. Frein I would entertain a defense of "He needed killin' " in relation to the dead kop...

Unlike society at large I view members of the "Just-Us" department as sub-human, on par with rabid dogs and other feral creatures that have no place in polite society....

I can understand why someone would want to kill a cop. But, assuming (note that I am saying this as a hypothetical, not specifically WRT Frein's specific situation) the cop is simply minding his own business, and has yet to do something absolutely horiffic so as to justify such, I would still consider killing such a cop to be murder.

I recongize the right that people have to defend themselves against aggression of any kind, or to use vigilante justice in cases where cops have done something particularly horrible either to you or to someone close to you in the past. I do not always approve of doing so, but I would vote to acquit in such cases. For instance, say a cop breaks into someone's home on a drug raid. I won't necessarily say it would be "right" to kill them, but I would certainly vote to acquit someone who did. I don't see any justification, however, for shooting a cop while he's peacefully walking down the street.

Cops are still humans. Criminals, sure, but still humans.


Why do you feel badly for them? Are they not adults? Have they not made their choices consciously?

Consider this, TC is more libertarian than 95% of Americans, and he isn't even really close to seeing this the way I am (let alone the way you are.) Only a hardcore (and largely correct) minority has any clue just how bad cops are. I consider that widespread ignorance, combined with the brainwashing that cops have experienced since childhood, a mitigating factor. Not an excuse, but a mitigating factor. That restrains me from calling for their blood as such.


I see no basis for pity. The fundamental knowledge necessary for living properly among our fellows is born into us. We don't need a Bible, Torah, Quran, Rig Veda, or any other human contrivance to tell us how to behave correctly. All one need do is "stop the world" as one Don Juan Matus used to put it. That world is the one in your mind, replete with all the assumptions you hold about truth and falsehood, right and wrong. That the vast majority of people appear never to seek truth beyond the timid borders defined by the ends of their noses mitigates none of one's personal responsibilities as a free man to educate himself properly in the correct ways of cohabitation.


For one thing, I disagree with you on epistemology. I don't not think our autonomous interpretations of what is right or wrong have any actual basis. That would be part of our disagreement here.

In ages past the common man knew this well because the reality of human relations was often very different from what it is today. At other times and in other cultures, the brands of mindlessly rude and stupid behaviors in which people today engage with no thought whatsoever was most often met with unpleasant consequences and often death. The contemporary culture that worships and jealously protects stupidity and poor manners has cobbled an environment where stupidity is more often met with reward than anything else.


There is a fine line (not so fine actually) between rewarding stupidity and killing people for it.

That said, I have no sympathy for police for the choices they make or on those rare occasions when justice comes visiting. Either they are responsible for their choices or they are imbecile children, in which case they have no business carrying a gun and making as if they were the bosses.


They were brainwashed by the society that they live in. I'm fine with disarming them. I'm completely against them acting like they are bosses. But again, there is a fine line (again, not so fine) between that and saying that all cops should die.

There's a point at which I lose all compassion for them, but just becomming a cop and handing out traffic tickets isn't that time. Grenading a baby in the face, yeah, at that point I do pretty much view them as being as close to "subhuman" as you can get. At that point you know better. I guess its just a matter of where I draw the line. I can't really objectively quantify it.

Quit embellishing!

"Using violence" and "murder" are two distinctly different things...

Here's your original sentiment in it's entirety;



I fully understand folks who would seek retribution for maimed children, hell I understand folks who seek retribution for detention and/or imprisonment for victimless crime.

But DO NOT paint me with the brush of promoting murder on the internet!

Understanding and forgiving those who opt to murder the offending "Just-Us" department employees would be an accurate portrayal...

Say you see a cop patrolling on the street, you know nothing about him other than the fact that he has a uniform, and you shoot him. is this murder?

TC and I would say yes, it seems like you would say no. That's what you guys are debating. The difference between murder and justified killing.


OK, now that is more of an answer and I cannot disagree with too much you write here. One thing, however: I do not consider myself "bloodthirsty" at all, whatever the term actually means in any given case of usage...

I'm not accusing you, osan. I've been accused by others.

w
hich is an important point because it is one of those hot button terms, not unlike "whatever" in that it carries with it all manner of implicit meaning, different for every person perhaps but very often the element of dismissal or marginalization and discredit is front and center. That aside, being unwilling to abide deliberate violation of the rights of myself or others and believing that the penalties for unrepentant trespass should be severe does not make me or anyone else "bloodthirsty". It only means that we stand firmly upon the most fundamental and thereby broadly applicable principles of proper human relations. Those principles call for holding to account individuals who so trespass.

Here's my thing. Its one thing to say that its OK to use vigilante justice against people who have unrepentantly trespassed against you. I would hope you'd admit the trespass would have to be fairly serious. Its another thing to say that all cops without exception are just targets for vigilante justice. Has every cop transgressed? Yeah, but to the level that would justify death? I don't think so.



More radical? More fundamental? Or are you using the term in its incorrect vernacular sense meaning "extreme"? I suspect the latter, but without certainty we are unable to proceed intelligently.


Extreme.

You are thereby honored in your home.


Others do not see it so;)





So was Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, Ted bundy, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, and so on down a disturbingly long line.


I understand. I don't know all of the people you mentioned, but I recognzie enough of them to know what you are getting at. Some humans should be executed for their crimes. Is a young, wide-eyed idealist who really believes that donning the blue uniform and enforcing "the law" is "keeping our streets safe" and so forth a candidate for said execution? Is he on the same level as Dahmer or Bundy? I don't think so.



Credit to you for recognizing this. I'm not sure any of us can say with perfect certainty where it the balance point is for all occasions. But there is nothing amiss in stating a generalized position that asserts police may be removed from the book of the living any time they violate the rights of their fellow human beings. And yes, it is more greatly justified against them than others for any of several reasons including their general mental posture, what with all their idiotic belief in their unassailable authority to command YOU. This mindset renders them considerably more dangerous than the average boob. For one thing, they are not likely to ever see when they are wrong, much less to admit it. Given that, they will ALWAYS call for backup and the result will not be good for you precisely because they are always right, their power is absolute, and their rage will be vast when you dare to challenge them, regardless of how timidly and politely. They are bred and trained to be dangerously psychopathological lunatics. Think about it awhile and you will see that it must be so because no decent man would enforce the brands of statutory restrictions and compulsions that cops regularly insist upon at the implicit threat of their guns.

"Decent men" is a tricky term. I don't think a decent man would do it if he understood what I understand. Heck, i don't think he would do it if he understood what TC understands. But somebody who doesn't have a clue? Yeah, I think he could. His conscience is going to bother him at some point, but its possible.



What is more horrific is the reality with which you and I are daily forced to cope through no fault of our own. Think on that awhile. We did not offend police. They have offended us. We are, therefore, at the center of our individual and sacred rights to take those measures we deem necessary to set things to rights. Theye, of course, will rail wildly, arms all aflail against such a notion, not because it is wrong in any broadly defensible manner, but narrowly because it threatens the assumptions of position over and above those of you and me. There is no rocket surgery here, my young friend. Theire agenda in this regard is ever so childishly transparent.

Consider the deal with Eric Frein. Assuming he is indeed the person who plugged those two PA cops, do you not find it endlessly curious that (to my limited knowledge) in the network media has seriously and neutrally raised the question of why Frein would have done such a thing? The presumptions, tacit and otherwise, have been that Frein is an evil bloodthirsty monster. That subtext alone is considered sufficient to halt all further discussion on the issue. By that standard, Frein is sub-human, must be hunted, and when he is murdered the world will ask no questions. That is one reason I hope Theye never find him. Would it not be a hoot were it to come to light that he was in fact NOT the shooter? What, pray tell, would Theye do? Theye would spin it for all they were worth and in the end the message would be that the cops did what they had to do and that it was all justified, horrible results notwithstanding.

I don't know why Frein did it. I'm not assuming his guilt. I certainly don't think anyone has the right to kill him without a trial. Perhaps he didn't do it. Or perhaps he had just reason. But I won't automatically assume Frein was justified just because the targets were LEOs.




ETA: Who is Cantwell? Are you referring to John Cantwell and expressive logic?

I was referring to Chris Cantwell. In my mind he's kind of the poster child for "even crazier than me" which is to say pretty extreme:p

[Christian Liberty]

Wow. I never thought that saying that maybe it's not a good idea to murder cops would be so controversial here.

I like Larken's video on it. The average person would be completely horiffied by the stuff he says in it. But its still not as radical as some of the stuff we're getting here. I do think there's a little more nuance here than you may be allowing for. I can understand wanting to stay away from it though.

[Brett85]

I can understand wanting to stay away from it though.

Yeah, you would think. Some of the comments in this thread are probably bordering on illegal activity, at least if it went a little further and a specific threat against a specific police officer was made. The thread should probably get deleted before the Department of Homeland Security or some other government agency gets a hold of it.

[acptulsa]

I'm 99 44/100% sure it's a bit late for that...

[osan]

I can understand why someone would want to kill a cop. But, assuming (note that I am saying this as a hypothetical, not specifically WRT Frein's specific situation) the cop is simply minding his own business, and has yet to do something absolutely horrific so as to justify such, I would still consider killing such a cop to be murder.

I must have missed something somewhere because I was not aware we were speaking of plugging someone indiscriminately. Perhaps I assumed too much, assumed wrongly, or just misunderstood something key. I am speaking of holding police mortally accountable for the crimes they commit and not for stropping in their squad cars in some abandoned alley.


For one thing, I disagree with you on epistemology. I don't not think our autonomous interpretations of what is right or wrong have any actual basis. That would be part of our disagreement here.


If they had no basis, they would not exist.


There is a fine line (not so fine actually) between rewarding stupidity and killing people for it.

Not sure how to interpret this... what is your point?


They were brainwashed by the society that they live in.

That is tantamount to making excuses for their behavior.


I'm fine with disarming them. I'm completely against them acting like they are bosses. But again, there is a fine line (again, not so fine) between that and saying that all cops should die.


I don't recall anyone saying any such thing. Could you show where?


There's a point at which I lose all compassion for them, but just becomming a cop and handing out traffic tickets isn't that time.

The deeper nature of the crime is the same, the only differences residing in the more superficial nature and the degree of the offense. Handing out parking tickets is, at its deepest roots, no different than murdering an unarmed suspect by shooting him in the back. But to see how this is the case, one must be able to strip away all arbitrary superficialities and get to the absolute core principle at work. In this case, it is the fact that one human being is imposing an arbitrarily contrived requirement upon another. It is done without consent and no other demonstrable authority. That is the core nature of the crime and it comes into play no matter what the other elements of the act in question may happen to be.


Grenading a baby in the face, yeah, at that point I do pretty much view them as being as close to "subhuman" as you can get. At that point you know better. I guess its just a matter of where I draw the line. I can't really objectively quantify it.


And that is so precisely because you are attempting to judge based on superficialities such as degree. See beyond the surface appearances and all of a sudden clarity is abundant. Does a cop have authority to blow a child's face halfway off with a grenade? We will call that one a "no". Does he have the authority to write a parking ticket? That, too, is "no". The common element here is action taken without consent or other authority. The rest is windows dressing, in a sense.


TC and I would say yes, it seems like you would say no. That's what you guys are debating. The difference between murder and justified killing.

I will speak only for myself by saying that I am not advocating murder, but also that where cops are concerned the very definition of "murder" may tilt to some degree.


Is a young, wide-eyed idealist who really believes that donning the blue uniform and enforcing "the law" is "keeping our streets safe" and so forth a candidate for said execution? Is he on the same level as Dahmer or Bundy? I don't think so.


Depends on the assumptions under which one labors.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow. I never thought that saying that maybe it's not a good idea to murder cops would be so controversial here.

Murder has a specific meaning. You're being hyperbolic here. Killing enemy soldiers is not murder.

[Brett85]

Murder has a specific meaning. You're being hyperbolic here. Killing enemy soldiers is not murder.

I was going to post a reply, but this is just ridiculous. I hope you all have fun with your homicidal fantasies of killing cops. The liberty movement is never going anywhere politically if the liberty movement is represented by the hardcore extremists posting in this thread.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, you would think. Some of the comments in this thread are probably bordering on illegal activity, at least if it went a little further and a specific threat against a specific police officer was made. The thread should probably get deleted before the Department of Homeland Security or some other government agency gets a hold of it.

Ironically, arresting anyone for anything they posted on this thread would likely at least in part prove said posts right. The NSA has probably already seen it. I'm not really sure what they could do about it.

BTW: This is the video I was talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

[Christian Liberty]

I must have missed something somewhere because I was not aware we were speaking of plugging someone indiscriminately. Perhaps I assumed too much, assumed wrongly, or just misunderstood something key. I am speaking of holding police mortally accountable for the crimes they commit and not for stropping in their squad cars in some abandoned alley.

I thought the implication was that simply being a cop is just cause for vigilante execution, that was what I was arguing against. I was not arguing that it is NEVER OK to use vigilante justice against a cop or that one's crimes could never raise to a level where that would be OK.




If they had no basis, they would not exist.


They exist because of God. That's a claim I can't prove but that's the assumption I would operate under. I'm not sure if debating it would be helpful or a distraction.


That is tantamount to making excuses for their behavior.


Not an excuse, just a mitigating factor.



I don't recall anyone saying any such thing. Could you show where?


tod evans very clearly implied such. I thought you were to, but since you are denying it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


The deeper nature of the crime is the same, the only differences residing in the more superficial nature and the degree of the offense. Handing out parking tickets is, at its deepest roots, no different than murdering an unarmed suspect by shooting him in the back. But to see how this is the case, one must be able to strip away all arbitrary superficialities and get to the absolute core principle at work. In this case, it is the fact that one human being is imposing an arbitrarily contrived requirement upon another. It is done without consent and no other demonstrable authority. That is the core nature of the crime and it comes into play no matter what the other elements of the act in question may happen to be.


Do you believe all crimes deserve execution? Or do some crimes warrant lesser penalties?



And that is so precisely because you are attempting to judge based on superficialities such as degree. See beyond the surface appearances and all of a sudden clarity is abundant. Does a cop have authority to blow a child's face halfway off with a grenade? We will call that one a "no". Does he have the authority to write a parking ticket? That, too, is "no". The common element here is action taken without consent or other authority. The rest is windows dressing, in a sense.


I think the distinction between theft and murder is more than "window dressing" frankly. Yes, both are bad, but they aren't equal.

[Christian Liberty]

Murder has a specific meaning. You're being hyperbolic here. Killing enemy soldiers is not murder.

The sad thing is, this could just as easily have been written by Chris Kyle. If I didn't know you or what you were talking about, I'd assume this post was about Iraqi soldiers. Is this mindset really any different?

[tod evans]

tod evans very clearly implied such. I thought you were to, but since you are denying it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I take umbrage at this misquotation where you claim that I advocate the indiscriminate murder of kops.

You sir are a liar and a spin artist!

Here is a relevant and accurate quotation from earlier this evening;



But DO NOT paint me with the brush of promoting murder on the internet!


Stop your slander immediately!

[tod evans]

Some of the comments in this thread are probably bordering on illegal activity,

The only comments in this thread that border on illegal are the direct and intentional mischaracterizations set forth by you and FF of very clearly articulated points.

If either of you young men are fractionally as intelligent as you claim you would reread your slanderous and misguided posts, edit them accordingly and then apologize for your temerity.

[osan]

OK, so I believe we have cleared this issue up a bit. Nobody here, to my understanding, us suggesting we go out and slaughter all police. What seems to be the consensus us that police should be held strictly accountable for their deeds and that all people hold equal authority, if not the physical means, to act as task-master on that point.

My original point was that the grenade episode really gets under my fur, especially after seeing the photos of the child and I stand by my opinion that ever last one of those good-for-nothing cops should be experiencing equal horror and agony, at the very least. For me, such crimes are unforgivable. I expect nobody else to share my position on the matter, though all are welcome.

[tod evans]

OK, so I believe we have cleared this issue up a bit. Nobody here, to my understanding, us suggesting we go out and slaughter all police. What seems to be the consensus us that police should be held strictly accountable for their deeds and that all people hold equal authority, if not the physical means, to act as task-master on that point.

My original point was that the grenade episode really gets under my fur, especially after seeing the photos of the child and I stand by my opinion that ever last one of those good-for-nothing cops should be experiencing equal horror and agony, at the very least. For me, such crimes are unforgivable. I expect nobody else to share my position on the matter, though all are welcome.

As I've stated earlier, baby maiming kops deserve retribution, as do all of their superiors who actively or tacitly encourage such behavior...

I personally understand and could readily forgive anyone who sought retribution for such behavior...

For a couple of the denser members here; The above statements are not to be construed as encouraging criminal behavior.

[A Son of Liberty]

That is tantamount to making excuses for their behavior.


The deeper nature of the crime is the same, the only differences residing in the more superficial nature and the degree of the offense. Handing out parking tickets is, at its deepest roots, no different than murdering an unarmed suspect by shooting him in the back. But to see how this is the case, one must be able to strip away all arbitrary superficialities and get to the absolute core principle at work. In this case, it is the fact that one human being is imposing an arbitrarily contrived requirement upon another. It is done without consent and no other demonstrable authority. That is the core nature of the crime and it comes into play no matter what the other elements of the act in question may happen to be.

Is a crime a crime if the social paradigm doesn't recognize it as such? Of course it is. "Crimes", the unprovoked violations of the life, liberty and property of others, like the principles from which we deduce them, are objective and self-evident. To an extent, I'm undermining my own argument here, but we have to recognize the power of social conditioning - you and I may have been born sovereign, but from the moment we could understand language and begin to reason, we were inculcated into the "authority" paradigm; Empire, as you eloquently refer to it. We had to be "born again", accepting the truth of human nature and interrelations. And now when we speak of that truth, the vast majority of those around us look at us as though we're from another planet, such is the power of our perverse social paradigm. Plato's freed slave returned to the cave and told those still chained to the wall of what he'd seen outside, and they thought he was mad. Acknowledging self-evident truths isn't a perilous journey from bondage in cave, granted. But upending everything one has been taught to accept as true is no walk in the park, either, and most people haven't made the effort... hell, most people don't even know there is anything to upend! Fish don't know they're wet, and all.

So, yes... they are criminals in that they in nearly all cases violate the life, liberty and property of innocent people. But, yes... they are little more than children, without a developed ability to reason... they have no reason to reason - everything that they've been taught from the moment they began to understand language leads them to believe that they are doing "good", and the vast majority of people in our society stand behind them, and tell them it is so. To kill such a person - outside of self-defense - is tantamount to killing an idiot, or a child.


Murder has a specific meaning. You're being hyperbolic here. Killing enemy soldiers is not murder.

The only morally justifiable killing is in self-defense.

[jbauer]

Events like Ferguson don't ignite in a vacuum. Maybe it's time to do 'something different'.



Shut up and look in the mirror, pal. By the time a few people act up because they're sick of your shit, almost everyone affected is sick of your shit and looking for an excuse.



Keep repeating that lie, bud. Maybe someone will be mentally deficient enough to believe your alternate reality.

Nobody is alleging that Brown shot anything at the cop but dirty looks and rude comments. Are we scared of those things now?

So, the title says, Police Officer: "Trust Me...", and said officer proceeds to tell one or more major and obvious lies. I think there's a lesson for us in that somewhere.
I think he's talking about case number 2

[Pericles]

Murder has a specific meaning. You're being hyperbolic here. Killing enemy soldiers while engaged in a declared conflict is not murder.

FIFY

[Christian Liberty]

I take umbrage at this misquotation where you claim that I advocate the indiscriminate murder of kops.

You sir are a liar and a spin artist!

Here is a relevant and accurate quotation from earlier this evening;



Stop your slander immediately!

tod, I don't doubt that the NSA is stupid enough to not realize what you are doing (and that's a good thing) but I am not. See the exchange below.

TC said that those who advocate killing police are just as bad as the cops themselves (or something to that effect.) You replied:



I had to jump on this too...:mad:

Are you fucking serious? Kops are the foot soldiers in the war(s) waged on the citizenry.

Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?

Shameful!

Now, were we to take this post alone, we could perhaps say you were talking about certain cops or certain types of cops. But I wrote this:


There is some space between "Licking the boots of your oppressor" and "supporting cop killing whenever and wherever it occurs."

See how explicitly clear I made this? Your reply:


Not in my world.

So, obviously you don't lick the boots of your oppressor. So either you do in fact support cop-killing "whenever and wherever it occurs" or you didn't actually read my post. Which one is it?

Either way, I am not "slandering" you.

Osan, in reply to my same post above, says:


Not on Earth. But please, describe this space, where it exists and under what conditions; how we recognize it and what we do when we are in it.

Would you say there is "some space" between shooting an attacker dead and laying down to let him slit your throat and rape you as you slowly bleed out?

Then Osan said this:


OK, so I believe we have cleared this issue up a bit. Nobody here, to my understanding, us suggesting we go out and slaughter all police. What seems to be the consensus us that police should be held strictly accountable for their deeds and that all people hold equal authority, if not the physical means, to act as task-master on that point.

My original point was that the grenade episode really gets under my fur, especially after seeing the photos of the child and I stand by my opinion that ever last one of those good-for-nothing cops should be experiencing equal horror and agony, at the very least. For me, such crimes are unforgivable. I expect nobody else to share my position on the matter, though all are welcome.

Both osan and tod evans had given me reason to believe that that was what they were advocating. i don't have a problem with holding specific cops accountable for the actions they've committed, whatever that may mean for you. But I think the "holding them accountable" should be proportionate to what they did, if at all possible. If its just money and time, I would say err on the side of letting it alone rather than taking a life, if those are your options. A cop strip searches your wife in the street? Yeah, I could see violent reaction there...

[Brett85]

When I was criticized for making a completely non controversial statement that cops killing and abusing civilians and civilians murdering cops are equally wrong, it was pretty clear to me what those who replied to my comment were saying. That was confirmed the longer the thread went on. It's a little late to back away from that now.

[tod evans]

So, obviously you don't lick the boots of your oppressor. So either you do in fact support cop-killing "whenever and wherever it occurs" or you didn't actually read my post. Which one is it?
Either way, I am not "slandering" you.


What you "believe" is irrelevant, what you type isn't.

Your interpretation of what I type is just that, your interpretation....

You and I have been down this road before where you voice your interpretation and then attribute it to me as my words.

This is slander.

It's irresponsible, manipulative and childish.

[DFF]

The same people who we used to count on for support, the good, law abiding general public, are now reluctant to trust us.

Geewiz, now why could this be...?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/693px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg_-448x299.png

http://voiceofdetroit.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/US-world-leading-jailer.jpg

[tod evans]

Both osan and tod evans had given me reason to believe that that was what they were advocating.

What specifically are you trying to attribute to osan and myself?

"That" is not descriptive enough for a person making accusations that could possibly hold the weight of investigation or even indictment.

[Christian Liberty]

When I was criticized for making a completely non controversial statement that cops killing and abusing civilians and civilians murdering cops are equally wrong,

I think those particular abusive cops are worse. Its one thing for civilians to do awful things. Its another thing for a cop to do them with all the power of the US Government behind them. So no, its not non-controversial.




it was pretty clear to me what those who replied to my comment were saying. That was confirmed the longer the thread went on. It's a little late to back away from that now.

This is correct. Its insane that tod is accusing me of slandering him when what he said is so obvious in this case. I think he may be ashamed of it and doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

What you "believe" is irrelevant, what you type isn't.

Your interpretation of what I type is just that, your interpretation....

You and I have been down this road before where you voice your interpretation and then attribute it to me as my words.

This is slander.

It's irresponsible, manipulative and childish.

tod, you really need to learn to read. All the information is quoted in post #92. Either you are a liar or you are stupid. Which is it?

[tod evans]

tod, you really need to learn to read. All the information is quoted in post #92. Either you are a liar or you are stupid. Which is it?


Here's quotes for you,in context, practice your own advice.






"Militarization" commonly refers to the gear used...

The attitude taught to, and the behaviors fostered by the street cops superiors are what I blame out of control kops on..

The kops are at fault, no doubt, but I do not absolve their superiors or the media......


Kops hiding........:D


Good!


I had to jump on this too...:mad:

Are you fucking serious? Kops are the foot soldiers in the war(s) waged on the citizenry.

Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?

Shameful!


Not in my world.


"Radical" is believing that the people who have openly declared war on you are your enemy huh?

Maybe you consider yourself one of the "warriors" instead of one who has had war waged against him?

I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you're not subjected to the very ugly reality of which we speak....


Mental frailty isn't an excuse I accept from countrymen who have declared war on me and mine.

I too consider myself a Christian, one who freely outs the Judas's in our midsts, one who despises the money lenders and tries to do the right thing..

To me the right thing in the case of "Just-Us" department employees who have declared open warfare on the rest of us is to pray for their putrid souls as I fight them with every weapon I can muster.

Do not make excuses for evil.


I strongly advocate every man stand against those who declare war on us "with every weapon he can muster"....In your case that may be your mouth and intellect, in anothers case it may be with a .308, while others may choose to run the offenders out of town...

Advocating that one "shoot cops" would run afoul of the TOS here on RPF but that doesn't mean that I can't point out the obvious or even state that I understand righteous anger.

Were I asked to stand in judgement of Mr. Frein I would entertain a defense of "He needed killin' " in relation to the dead kop...

Unlike society at large I view members of the "Just-Us" department as sub-human, on par with rabid dogs and other feral creatures that have no place in polite society....


Quit embellishing!

"Using violence" and "murder" are two distinctly different things...

Here's your original sentiment in it's entirety;



I fully understand folks who would seek retribution for maimed children, hell I understand folks who seek retribution for detention and/or imprisonment for victimless crime.

But DO NOT paint me with the brush of promoting murder on the internet!

Understanding and forgiving those who opt to murder the offending "Just-Us" department employees would be an accurate portrayal...


I take umbrage at this misquotation where you claim that I advocate the indiscriminate murder of kops.

You sir are a liar and a spin artist!

Here is a relevant and accurate quotation from earlier this evening;



Stop your slander immediately!


The only comments in this thread that border on illegal are the direct and intentional mischaracterizations set forth by you and FF of very clearly articulated points.

If either of you young men are fractionally as intelligent as you claim you would reread your slanderous and misguided posts, edit them accordingly and then apologize for your temerity.


As I've stated earlier, baby maiming kops deserve retribution, as do all of their superiors who actively or tacitly encourage such behavior...

I personally understand and could readily forgive anyone who sought retribution for such behavior...

For a couple of the denser members here; The above statements are not to be construed as encouraging criminal behavior.


What you "believe" is irrelevant, what you type isn't.

Your interpretation of what I type is just that, your interpretation....

You and I have been down this road before where you voice your interpretation and then attribute it to me as my words.

This is slander.

It's irresponsible, manipulative and childish.

[edit]

I forgot one more unanswered question from earlier;


What specifically are you trying to attribute to osan and myself?

"That" is not descriptive enough for a person making accusations that could possibly hold the weight of investigation or even indictment.

[Christian Liberty]

You and osan have both implied that it is justified to kill any cop at any time for any reason. Both of you implied it when you both disagreed with me when I said there is some space between licking the boots of your oppressor and supporting cop-killing whenever and wherever it occurs.

tod, you're better than this. Come on. I don't care what position you take on this issue, but I do care that you are lying about that which is in plain sight for us all to see.

[tod evans]

You and osan have both implied that it is justified to kill any cop at any time for any reason. Both of you implied it when you both disagreed with me when I said there is some space between licking the boots of your oppressor and supporting cop-killing whenever and wherever it occurs.

tod, you're better than this. Come on. I don't care what position you take on this issue, but I do care that you are lying about that which is in plain sight for us all to see.

Look FF, I'm sick and tired of you calling me a liar, trying to attribute your interpretation of my words as what I've actually said, and then trying to give some kind of silly ultimatums with ridiculous questions phrased in such a way that absolves you of actual comprehension.

Not acknowledging loaded questions is a far cry from either lying or advocating murder.

I have asked you several relevant and pertinent questions that you have conveniently sidestepped and tried to obfuscate with your little tantrums, would you care to address them? (They're the sentence that precedes a question mark)

If you're able to draw degrees of wrong from bombing a child in his crib then that's a moral failing on your part, I'll not entertain your loaded question on the matter further.

Go back in this thread and read the posts that lead up to this quote;
when I said there is some space between licking the boots of your oppressor and supporting cop-killing

Here's the question I asked TC that you felt compelled to address;


Where you raised to lick the boots of your oppressor?


And here is the offensive post that you've been defending;


To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. The war on drugs is literally killing people all across America and is more dangerous than the drugs themselves. But to say that the cops intentionally threw a grenade at a baby just isn't accurate. So I certainly don't see that as any worse than someone who intentionally murders a cop. The war on drugs which leads to all of these police abuses and those who promote and use violence against police officers are equally bad.

If you actually support bombing children in their crib or in any way condemn those who seek actual justice outside of their court system then yes I view you as a bootlicker. And my statement of "Not in my world" rings true.

[Christian Liberty]

Look FF, I'm sick and tired of you calling me a liar, trying to attribute your interpretation of my words as what I've actually said, and then trying to give some kind of silly ultimatums with ridiculous questions phrased in such a way that absolves you of actual comprehension.

Not acknowledging loaded questions is a far cry from either lying or advocating murder.

I have asked you several relevant and pertinent questions that you have conveniently sidestepped and tried to obfuscate with your little tantrums, would you care to address them? (They're the sentence that precedes a question mark)

If you're able to draw degrees of wrong from bombing a child in his crib then that's a moral failing on your part, I'll not entertain your loaded question on the matter further.

Go back in this thread and read the posts that lead up to this quote;

Here's the question I asked TC that you felt compelled to address;


And here is the offensive post that you've been defending;



If you actually support bombing children in their crib or in any way condemn those who seek actual justice outside of their court system then yes I view you as a bootlicker. And my statement of "Not in my world" rings true.

I see a difference between using vigilante justice on those particular cops, and on all cops. I would condemn the latter but not the former.

[loveshiscountry]

To be accurate about what happened, the cops didn't intentionally hurt the baby in the crib. They threw a grenade into the house and it happened to land in the baby's crib. Now, it was absolutely terrible what happened, and it illustrates why the war on drugs needs to come to an end. Depraved indifference

[navy-vet]

I'm ripping this off.
How exactly does one do that Deborah? I want a copy too....:confused:

[navy-vet]

No, the blame goes just to the cops. Fuck those piles of garbage. If anything, the public is too subdued and subservient toward them.
So, your position as well as a few others in here, is that society has no need of law enforcement? The thugs will simply lay down their weapons and transform into honest, gentle, compassionate human beings who will only ask for a hug now and then to maintain their benevolence? If, and when, the police are disbanded?:rolleyes:

[navy-vet]

I think killing an innocent child is far worse than killing a cop. Both are (generically) wrong yes. But there are rational reasons to hate cops, at least. An innocent child who's done nothing to anybody? No.

Really, its like a comparison between someone who wants to bomb ISIS with someone who wants to bomb a childcare center. Yes, both are wrong but one is more rational than the other.
You don't believe that intent matters? I mean, there's no difference between an accident and a willful action?

[navy-vet]

I personally feel that there is a significant difference in wanton disregard and gross negligence than a reasonable mistake during a reasonable execution of an act in the context in play here. As for the killing of a child, indirectly, in an enemy camp, to save the lives of other innocent children...that's a call I am glad I never had to make and hope I never do, but I'm reluctant to pass judgement on another for making a call like that, when I don't have all of the facts.

[Brett85]

If you actually support bombing children in their crib or in any way condemn those who seek actual justice outside of their court system then yes I view you as a bootlicker. And my statement of "Not in my world" rings true.

:rolleyes: So I guess I support bombing children in their crib because I don't think it's justified to go murder cops. Never mind the fact that I've stated at the very beginning of this thread that the incident with the cops throwing the grenade in the baby's crib just illustrates how out of control the cops are. But it just isn't hardly possible to be extreme enough for some people here. I think if my family and friends knew I was posting here and even having these kinds of conversations, they would think that I was completely nuts just for engaging in such a ridiculous conversation.

[navy-vet]

When I was criticized for making a completely non controversial statement that cops killing and abusing civilians and civilians murdering cops are equally wrong, it was pretty clear to me what those who replied to my comment were saying. That was confirmed the longer the thread went on. It's a little late to back away from that now.
I believe that acting under "color of authority" in the commission of a crime is far more grievous than the same crime being perpetrated by a no-authoritarian. And the penalty should be at least twice as severe.

[navy-vet]

I believe that acting under "color of authority" in the commission of a crime is far more grievous than the same crime being perpetrated by a no-authoritarian. And the penalty should be at least twice as severe.
Don't you agree?

[Christian Liberty]

You don't believe that intent matters? I mean, there's no difference between an accident and a willful action?

I think there is. I've been arguing such throughout this thread.

:rolleyes: So I guess I support bombing children in their crib because I don't think it's justified to go murder cops. Never mind the fact that I've stated at the very beginning of this thread that the incident with the cops throwing the grenade in the baby's crib just illustrates how out of control the cops are. But it just isn't hardly possible to be extreme enough for some people here. I think if my family and friends knew I was posting here and even having these kinds of conversations, they would think that I was completely nuts just for engaging in such a ridiculous conversation.

My family and friends think I'm nuts to. I don't care. I just care about truth:)

On a more serious note, though, would you at least make a distinction between saying that vigilante justice should be used against THE PARTICULAR COPS who engage in atrocities like grenading children in their beds, and saying that vigilante justice should be used against "cops" indiscriminately?

If somebody just killed a random cop who was patrolling in his squad car and as far as we knew hadn't really done anything to anyone other than hand out traffic tickets perhaps, I would vote to convict the killer (assuming no reasonable doubt and all that.) If somebody killed the specific cop who grenaded those children, I would vote to acquit. No, I'm not necessarily saying it would be "right", and I honestly have a hard time knowing with certainty how to assess that type of a thing from a Christian paradigm (I have a number of conflicting values there.) But I certainly wouldn't convict them of murder in that case. And really, that doesn't seem that "extreme" to me. Of course, my perspective of what qualifies as such is somewhat biased;)

[Christian Liberty]

TC, would you assert that it is NEVER justified to use violence against a cop? Or is it possible for a cop to do something so grievous that a violent response could be justified?

[Brett85]

On a more serious note, though, would you at least make a distinction between saying that vigilante justice should be used against THE PARTICULAR COPS who engage in atrocities like grenading children in their beds, and saying that vigilante justice should be used against "cops" indiscriminately?

I see a difference, but I don't promote or condone either. It's possible that if a police officer harmed me by intentionally killing or seriously harming someone I was close to, I might get so mad that I would possibly commit an act of violence against the police officer. But I still wouldn't claim that it was morally right. I wouldn't condone it and promote it as something other people should do.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah, you would think. Some of the comments in this thread are probably bordering on illegal activity, at least if it went a little further and a specific threat against a specific police officer was made. The thread should probably get deleted before the Department of Homeland Security or some other government agency gets a hold of it.


Not that it really matters, but any such comments on this forum would already be noted by at least four active accounts. I don't know if one person represents all four accounts, but all of these accounts login daily to RPF. My observation is that the animosity is so great that the person would be itching to report someone.

It's a grand misnomer that any government agency has the wherewithal to efficiently monitor such comments. Contrary to popular perception, their technology/work is too inept, diffuse, unresourceful, and frankly, just lazy. Informants are paid in larger operations. Smaller matters, such as these, generally rely on tips from tattlers.

If it matters to you.

[Brett85]

TC, would you assert that it is NEVER justified to use violence against a cop? Or is it possible for a cop to do something so grievous that a violent response could be justified?

I mean, if a cop actually came into your house and started shooting at you, then it would be an act of self defense to shoot back and would be morally right. But that's extremely unlikely to happen. Even the worse police abuses generally don't involve cops just shooting indiscriminately at someone in their house for no reason.

[navy-vet]

I think there is. I've been arguing such throughout this thread.


My family and friends think I'm nuts to. I don't care. I just care about truth:)

On a more serious note, though, would you at least make a distinction between saying that vigilante justice should be used against THE PARTICULAR COPS who engage in atrocities like grenading children in their beds, and saying that vigilante justice should be used against "cops" indiscriminately?

If somebody just killed a random cop who was patrolling in his squad car and as far as we knew hadn't really done anything to anyone other than hand out traffic tickets perhaps, I would vote to convict the killer (assuming no reasonable doubt and all that.) If somebody killed the specific cop who grenaded those children, I would vote to acquit. No, I'm not necessarily saying it would be "right", and I honestly have a hard time knowing with certainty how to assess that type of a thing from a Christian paradigm (I have a number of conflicting values there.) But I certainly wouldn't convict them of murder in that case. And really, that doesn't seem that "extreme" to me. Of course, my perspective of what qualifies as such is somewhat biased;)
Vigilante justice is not justice and can not be condoned in a free society.
I disagree with the example of the child that was injured by the grenade, and believe I know what you are saying, and do agree with much of it in principle.

[Brett85]

The ironic thing about all of this is that I would probably still be considered "anti cop" by most people. I posted all kinds of articles during the Ferguson riots criticizing the police response and advocating demilitarizing the police. But if you don't take it to the most extreme level possible, then I guess you're "pro cop" here.

[Occam's Banana]

So, your position as well as a few others in here, is that society has no need of law enforcement? The thugs will simply lay down their weapons and transform into honest, gentle, compassionate human beings who will only ask for a hug now and then to maintain their benevolence? If, and when, the police are disbanded?:rolleyes:

I, for one, certainly don't think that disbanding the police would turn them into "honest, gentle, compassionate human beings who will only as for a hug now and then to maintain their benevolence."

Oh, wait ... I just realized that you were probably referring to "the thugs" and "the police" as if they were two separate groups ...

Sorry, my mistake ... nevermind ... :p;)

[navy-vet]

If a child is injured as a result of being indirectly assaulted by a cop who is legally executing his duty after having exercised prudent judgement and taken appropriate measures to ensure bystander safety. Then any injury to that child should be considered accidental or the fault of the child's custodian.
To launch a physical assault on that cop, under such circumstances is a grievous and immoral criminal act and shouldn't be permitted in a free, civilized society.

[sparebulb]

Vigilante justice is not justice and can not be condoned in a free society.

Ken Rex McElroy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy) just gave you +rep........from the grave.

[tod evans]

I believe that acting under "color of authority" in the commission of a crime is far more grievous than the same crime being perpetrated by a no-authoritarian. And the penalty should be at least twice as severe.

I can agree with this.

Can you agree that it is damn near impossible to seek justice against an authoritarian in their courts?

[Christian Liberty]

I see a difference, but I don't promote or condone either. It's possible that if a police officer harmed me by intentionally killing or seriously harming someone I was close to, I might get so mad that I would possibly commit an act of violence against the police officer. But I still wouldn't claim that it was morally right. I wouldn't condone it and promote it as something other people should do.

You see, I can see why you'd say this. There are Biblical arguments you could use for this. But I definitely don't think that using vigilante justice in such a situation is a monstrous or unthinkable act that should be called "murder" and punishable by death or life in prison. I don't think its "extreme" or "terroristic" to say that yes, a cop can do something so horrible that you would hunt them down and kill them. At the least that would be a far lesser evil than the evil that motivated it, in my opinion (assuming the evil in question is fairly serious, again, we're talking about grenading a baby in the face here, not a parking ticket.)


I mean, if a cop actually came into your house and started shooting at you, then it would be an act of self defense to shoot back and would be morally right. But that's extremely unlikely to happen. Even the worse police abuses generally don't involve cops just shooting indiscriminately at someone in their house for no reason.

OK, say that happens to your wife when you aren't at home and she dies. The jury, which is filled with cop-worshippers, votes to acquit despite irrefutable evidence (say you have a video camera in your home AND there's other evidence.) Are you telling me that you wouldn't at least consider going after that cop? Would you consider someone who did so to be a monster on the same level as the cop who broke in in the first place?


The ironic thing about all of this is that I would probably still be considered "anti cop" by most people. I posted all kinds of articles during the Ferguson riots criticizing the police response and advocating demilitarizing the police. But if you don't take it to the most extreme level possible, then I guess you're "pro cop" here.

You're anti-cop compared to the average person. I would say moderately so, though, since you still think its possible to be a morally justified police officer, and you definitely seem to mitigate "legal" actions simply because they are legal. That isn't an attack, just an explanation of why I am more radical than you are.

I think I'm more in line with Larken Rose while tod and osan are more with Christopher Cantwell. You're probably close to where Ron Paul is.


If a child is injured as a result of being indirectly assaulted by a cop who is legally executing his duty after having exercised prudent judgement and taken appropriate measures to ensure bystander safety. Then any injury to that child should be considered accidental or the fault of the child's custodian.
To launch a physical assault on that cop, under such circumstances is a grievous and immoral criminal act and shouldn't be permitted in a free, civilized society.

If a cop throws a grenade into someone's home because he thinks that person may be smoking a plant, that cop deserves to die, even if there isn't anyone there. That there was a baby there is just icing on the cake.

[navy-vet]

I, for one, certainly don't think that disbanding the police would turn them into "honest, gentle, compassionate human beings who will only as for a hug now and then to maintain their benevolence."

Oh, wait ... I just realized that you were probably referring to "the thugs" and "the police" as if they were two separate groups ...

Sorry, my mistake ... nevermind ... :p;)
haha good one....I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, and that, is a very bad place to be I'm sure. I on the other hand am fortunate to live in an area where I believe most of them are trustworthy. The reason I relocated from the NE to the SE some forty years ago in fact. The citizenry here, repubs and tea partiers mostly, holds them accountable and their actions are closely scrutinized by a group of reps from the streets. Maybe it's because we have a libertarian minded chief of police. Hell, this is the only County in the whole State that refused to secede from the union during the civil war.

[Brett85]

@FF-What verses in the Bible do you use to promote your view that vigilante justice is justified?

[Christian Liberty]

@FF-What verses in the Bible do you use to promote your view that vigilante justice is justified?

I don't know if it is, and Biblical reservations would be part of why I'm hesitatnt to say that it is. That said, Ehud did "murder" (kill) the tyrannical king who was oppressing Israel, seemingly with God's blessing, so there is at least some precedent for it.

Mind you, VENGENACE is the Lord's as Romans 12:19 says. So, if vigilante justice was ever justified, it would have to be something other than vengeance. I think one could argue that removing an unrepentant murderer from the streets is loving your neighbors... That might be a stretch but I do think you could argue it.

[Brett85]

I don't know if it is, and Biblical reservations would be part of why I'm hesitatnt to say that it is. That said, Ehud did "murder" (kill) the tyrannical king who was oppressing Israel, seemingly with God's blessing, so there is at least some precedent for it.

I don't think there's any situation today where God explicitly gives his approval for someone to commit an act of vigilante justice.

[navy-vet]

I can agree with this.

Can you agree that it is damn near impossible to seek justice against an authoritarian in their courts?
I can surely agree that it might be damn near impossible to "get" justice in "their court" certainly. But, that is why, when it involves a cop , there is an avenue available at least in my State, where such a matter is weighed outside of the jurisdiction of the perp, and sometimes at a higher level to boot.
I see that we are not in disagreement here, for the most part. I'm glad of that too. We both want justice and fairness for all concerned and that's a good thing.

[Brett85]

I'm not saying that I wouldn't ever commit an act of vigilante justice under any circumstances, but I wouldn't try to defend my actions as being morally right.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think there's any situation today where God explicitly gives his approval for someone to commit an act of vigilante justice.

Here's the thing. I'm not arguing that it would be justified in the sense that God would approve of it, or that it would be living up to the perfect standard God has for us. Heck, Jesus never killed anyone nor did the apostles, and I can't say with 100% certainty that he would ever want us to do so either. There's still some uncertainty for me with regards to this, so I have a difficult time saying too much beyond "I don't know."

I would argue that its "justified" in the sense that it doesn't inherently go beyond the non-aggression principle, and thus that someone who does it (in these types of cases) should be acquited by a libertarian jury. I definitely don't think people "should" smoke pot but I don't think they should be convicted for it either. This may be comparable.

Again... there's still some theological uncertainty for me on this point. I don't know the answer with certainty. I definitely think this is more nuanced than terms like "murder" or "morally exemplary" would allow for.

[navy-vet]

I can surely agree that it might be damn near impossible to "get" justice in "their court" certainly. But, that is why, when it involves a cop , there is an avenue available at least in my State, where such a matter is weighed outside of the jurisdiction of the perp, and sometimes at a higher level to boot.
I see that we are not in disagreement here, for the most part. I'm glad of that too. We both want justice and fairness for all concerned and that's a good thing.
On further thought.... should one not be able to obtain justice through the system, because it is corrupt or even inept. And the perp is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....then, I can see where it might be justified to execute an appropriate act or group of actions to protect the public at large.

[navy-vet]

On further thought.... should one not be able to obtain justice through the system, because it is corrupt or even inept. And the perp is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....then, I can see where it might be justified to execute an appropriate act or group of actions to protect the public at large.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCe1pHqP06A

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Vigilante:

Full Definition of VIGILANTE. : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice. — vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun.


Example:

Po-lice: This dog is wagging his tail, so I will blow him away! Blam!

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cleburne-texas-dog-shooting/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?461652-Cop-coaxes-friendly-dogs-closer-with-kissing-noises-before-opening-fire&


Seems to me that we have far too many of these self-appointed doers of justice and they've become institutionalized. They come nowhere near the grand scheme of legal authority to justify committal of such acts. The subsequent process is inadequate because they have twisted proper legal authority to meet their own ends. Their conclusions simply support their own order. Their conclusions have little to do with the law in law and order. We have pretty much been left with order, without the law.

[navy-vet]

Vigilante:

Full Definition of VIGILANTE. : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice. — vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun.



Example:

Po-lice: This dog is wagging his tail, so I will blow him away! Blam!

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cleburne-texas-dog-shooting/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?461652-Cop-coaxes-friendly-dogs-closer-with-kissing-noises-before-opening-fire&


Seems to me that we have far too many of these self-appointed doers of justice and they've become institutionalized. They come nowhere near the grand scheme of legal authority to justify committal of such acts. The subsequent process is inadequate because they have twisted proper legal authority to meet their own ends. Their conclusions simply support their own order. Their conclusions have little to do with the law in law and order. We have pretty much been left with order, without the law.
Hence the legitimate concern regarding the militarization of the police forces...
Which is another blow back from our wars by the way.
I really like the body cam idea which records all encounters with the citizenry and a system of review by members of the citizenry as well as the police. With powers to initiate grand jury reviews etc.

[Occam's Banana]

I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, [...]

I have NEVER said that there are no good cops. In fact, I've posted several OPs at RPFs over the years about good cops - specifically, about good cops getting fucked over by the very organizations they work for (precisely because they were good cops and tried to do the "right thing" - here is just one example: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374256-This-is-what-happens-to-good-cops).

I've also said - more than once - that this whole "good cops vs. bad cops" thing completely misses the forest in favor of obsessing over particular trees. The problem is fundamental and systemic - and it goes far, far deeper than whether this or that particular cop is "good" or "bad." ANY system that allows certain groups of people (such as cops) to get away with actions and deeds that would otherwise be considered and treated as heinous crimes if committed by anyone else (such as shredding infants' faces with flash-bang grenades) is doomed to produce two things in increasing quantities: violent injustice ... and violent blowback. (For an example of the former, see the case of Jose Guerena - for an example of the latter, see the case of Eric Frein.)

I despise and revile unjust killings of any kind - such as the recent Vegas cop killings, for example (and über-cop-critic Will Grigg agrees with me: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453767-Shooting-Someone-in-the-Back-of-the-Head-is-NOT-Applied-Non-Aggression). But there is a VERY significant difference between "cop killers" and "killer cops." Unlike killer cops, cop killers aren't automatically & reflexively given the benefit of the doubt by the public or the "law enforcement" & "justice system" communities. Unlike killer cops, cop killers don't have public relations departments doing whitewash jobs to cover up or excuse their despicable deeds for them. Unlike killer cops, cop killers don't have politicians and "justice" system bureaucrats (such as judges and district attorneys) clearing paths to exoneration or acquittal for them (in those extemely rare instances where "bad" or killer cops ever even see the inside of a courtroom). And so on ... and on ... and on ...

Fuck cop killers - and fuck killer cops a dozen times with a rusty spike.

In fact, fuck the whole goddam cop system of institutionalized thuggery. It could not have been better designed to help "bad" cops get away with their misdeeds even if it had been intentionally designed to do so (e.g., see this update to the Regina Tasca story I linked to above: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391019-Regina-Tasca-update-via-Will-Grigg). The police are nothing but a revved-up machine for the production of compliance with, submission to and revenues for the State - nothing else. "To protect and serve" is a sick joke. Even the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled (several times, IIRC) that police have NO responsibility whatsoever to protect people or property from anything at all. Yet people persist in the deluded folly of imagining that cops exist and operate on their behalf and for their protection. They manifestly do not. To hell with 'em ...

[osan]

You don't believe that intent matters? I mean, there's no difference between an accident and a willful action?

Intent is not the issue, but rather the question of whether an act was an accident.

In the case of the bombing of that baby, the act was deliberate. That grenade did not accidentally fly into that house. It was sent there by the cops with intention. There may have been no intention to injure the baby, but that element of the equation is irrelevant. They intended to send the grenade in. They did so without regard to the possibility of the toss going wrong and what might happen if it did. The result was a child whose face was gravely disfigured. The intent is rendered irrelevant in the face of the result and the fact that those imbeciles refused to use what little brains they apparently have as anything more than racks for their butch-looking kevlar helmets.

There is no possible way in which the act could be assessed an accident because "accident" assumes both the presence of factors beyond one's control and that absent those factors, one has proceeded with all reasonable and due care, diligence, and mindfulness. Neither of those last three factors are in evidence. Those monsters, in an apparent fit of pig-macho, went willy-nilly without an apparent regard for the safety of the "scumbags" they were presumed to have been raiding. In the process the child was maimed horribly. Every single last cop with the least fragment of a finger print on that "operation" should swing publicly from a rope. No exceptions. No mercy.

Example: my car is well maintained, yet one say while on the highway a control arm fails, sending my vehicle and myself careening into oncoming traffic, colliding with another vehicle, and killing one or more of the occupants of that conveyance. THAT is an accident. My drinking a gallon of tequila and then plowing head-on into the same car, killing the same people, can in no possibly valid manner be deemed an accident, even in the absence of any intention to do harm. The difference in that case is that while I intended no harm, I did not show sufficient regard for the rights of my fellows to take the simple step of choosing not to drive while out-of-my-skull drunk. Because of that, the absence of malice constitutes no mitigation with respect to my responsibility for the result.

You make your bed. You lie in it. Screw all this soft-peddling of what police do. I say the same for anyone else, but police merit treble consequences precisely because they are entrusted with life and limb in ways others are not, as they claim special authority over the rest. They must therefore be held to a far higher standard of action and responsibility. They typically attain to a standard so low as to be less than what one would expect from a child with severe congenital brain damage. This is wholly unacceptable.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

that this whole "good cops vs. bad cops" thing completely misses the forest...

I always thought the good cop/bad cop bleating was for drones, but it's also even illogical at face value. Nobody says good nurse/bad nurse or good mailman/bad mailman. Nobody even says good judge/bad judge.



cop killer

Another illogical phrase full of emotion. I don't know where this is done with any other occupation. Occupation is only referenced in exceptional cases, such as nurse killer Richard Speck. The term baby killer is still heard, so I suppose the cop killer drones are trying to play that card when it's just really part of the job. :rolleyes:




Killer cop

A better term. It should go into specialized dictionaries.

[osan]

haha good one....I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, and that, is a very bad place to be I'm sure. I on the other hand am fortunate to live in an area where I believe most of them are trustworthy. The reason I relocated from the NE to the SE some forty years ago in fact. The citizenry here, repubs and tea partiers mostly, holds them accountable and their actions are closely scrutinized by a group of reps from the streets. Maybe it's because we have a libertarian minded chief of police. Hell, this is the only County in the whole State that refused to secede from the union during the civil war.

There are no good cops. "Good cop" is perforce an oxymoron. The reason is because while there may be a small handful of good men who chose to become police, it is the very nature of the role in sé that is evil. "Good cop" makes as much sense as "good child molester" or "good dictator". Many cops are bad men, that much cannot be reasonably denied. I acknowledge that a small percentage of cops are good men, as men. But as cops, they are perforce a stain of evil upon the earth.

Just as one need not be stupid to act stupidly, the man behind the badge does not have to be evil in order to commit evil acts. Those evil acts are committed pursuant to immoral statutes, ordinances, policies, and so forth. For example, a good man with a badge discovers a pound of cocaine during a traffic stop. The right course of action is to ignore the cocaine, but no cop will do that. Why? Because it is their charge to enforce the immoral statutes against possession of cocaine. They are, therefore, compelled to perpetrate and act of purest evil against the possessor of the coke. Good men engaging in evil acts produces results that are in no fundamental manner different from evil men doing the same.

Your cops are NOT trustworthy precisely because they will sock your ass into a prison on any pretext they may plausibly contrive pursuant to the statutes they are expected to enforce equally with every other law enforcement mob across the state and, in fact, the land. If you doubt this, I suggest you make yourself a suppressor for one of your firearms and go strolling down the avenue with it. When you are discovered, you will be charged federally at the very minimum, and probably also at the state level as well. You will be convicted and you will spend the next several years getting your sphincter exercised regularly and often by large and lonely men. Given this, please provide me with the basis that would support your contention that those cops are trustworthy. They are ENFORCERS for pity's sake. They are not there to serve and/or protect YOU. They are there to enforce arbitrarily contrived statutes, no matter how ridiculous or criminally dangerous they may be. Be further aware that the proof of their rotten character as cops and even as men lies in the fact that no matter how wrong a statute may be, they will still enforce it. Why? Because retaining their positions, salaries, and benefits is more important that protecting your rights. Some may not want to enforce a given law, but they damned surely will if the choice is between that and losing their jobs. So there is the golden character of your "trustworthy" police laid out here on the table for you to witness.

Go ahead, tell me I am wrong. Let us see it. Show us how it is so with examples.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

For example, a good man with a badge discovers a pound of cocaine during a traffic stop. The right course of action is to ignore the cocaine, but no cop will do that. Why? Because it is their charge to enforce the immoral statutes against possession of cocaine. They are, therefore, compelled to perpetrate and act of purest evil against the possessor of the coke.



I'd say drug arrests and incarceration is one of the best examples of showing the wanton disregard for doing the right thing. I'd bet up to 50% of lice budgets are spent on this. Lice perform these arrests with Hitler-like zeal. They love fucking you up and being self-righteous about it!

If you sign up to become lice, then you are part of the problem.

[Occam's Banana]

I always thought the good cop/bad cop bleating was for drones, but it's also even illogical at face value. Nobody says good nurse/bad nurse or good mailman/bad mailman. Nobody even says good judge/bad judge.

Another illogical phrase full of emotion. I don't know where this is done with any other occupation. Occupation is only referenced in exceptional cases, such as nurse killer Richard Speck. The term baby killer is still heard, so I suppose the cop killer drones are trying to play that card when it's just really part of the job. :rolleyes:

A better term. It should go into specialized dictionaries.

Good points, all.


Intent is not the issue, but rather the question of whether an act was an accident.

In the case of the bombing of that baby, the act was deliberate. That grenade did not accidentally fly into that house. It was sent there by the cops with intention. There may have been no intention to injure the baby, but that element of the equation is irrelevant. They intended to send the grenade in. [...]

You are absolutely correct. If anyone but cops had been the perpetrators in that incident, you could safely bet everything you own that any prosecuting attorney would be slobbering over the opportunity to charge them with and try them for the cruel and vicious disfigurement of an infant. You could further safely bet everthing your entire family owns that said prosecutor would not give a shit about whether the harm to the child had been "intentional" or not. In fact, given that the grenading was performed "in furtherance of a felony" (specifically, in the course of an attempted kidnapping), the lack of "intention" might very well be presented as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one (under the rubric of something like "wanton and reckless disregard").

If we (as non-cops) had done exactly the same thing, exactly the same way, for exactly the same purposes (namely, in order capture a man who had done, as far as I am aware, NO harm to any other person or property - just so that we could lock him up in a cage and/or extract money from him), does anyone here seriously imagine that any other decent person would (or even should) give a damn about the fact that we had not actually "intended" to mangle a baby?

No? Then why the hell should we consider lack of "intention" to be a mitigating factor merely because the actual perpetrators had government-issued badges?

[Pericles]

If there were good cops, there would not be any bad cops.

[tod evans]

If there were good cops, there would not be any bad cops.

If there were good citizens there would not be any bad kops either....;)

[fisharmor]

There is no possible way in which the act could be assessed an accident because "accident" assumes both the presence of factors beyond one's control and that absent those factors, one has proceeded with all reasonable and due care, diligence, and mindfulness. Neither of those last three factors are in evidence. Those monsters, in an apparent fit of pig-macho, went willy-nilly without an apparent regard for the safety of the "scumbags" they were presumed to have been raiding. In the process the child was maimed horribly. Every single last cop with the least fragment of a finger print on that "operation" should swing publicly from a rope. No exceptions. No mercy.

I'm surprised it hasn't been pointed out that this entire episode happened in one of the southeastern states which navy-vet claims are so much better when it comes to police.

No state is immune. Not even New Hampshire. It happens everywhere, and it always has. If you can't find examples of police brutality and cover-up prior to the militarization efforts, you just aren't looking.


If there were good cops, there would not be any bad cops.

I agree, let's cut out the good cop/bad cop false dichotomy.
I like "cop" and "guy who thinks he's doing good for society but if he ever made a stand on that he'd get the police equivalent of a blanket party".

[sparebulb]

.... should one not be able to obtain justice through the system, because it is corrupt or even inept....

Juries, grand juries, prosecutors, the vetted mass media and SWLOD's ensure that this has not, and will never, happen in America.