Shooting Civilians Not Enough, Cops are Now Shooting Each Other Too

It has been a while since I have posted about the police, but yes, they are still murdering innocent people of all races, ages, and genders. Recently however, police incompetence has taught a few of the officers some lessons of their own. Some cops are getting a nice taste of what they routinely dish out to us peasants.

A police supervisor shot one of his minions who was undercover, supposedly because the supervisor missed a meeting and didn’t know the procedure for the drug bust.

The undercover cop bought $60 worth of drugs. Then he got shot 9 times by his colleague who hadn’t attended the briefing. If this was a citizen who bought $60 worth of drugs, and was shot to death, you would never have heard about it, because he would have “deserved it” according to the media, the police, and most sheeple. Also, the cop who shot him would never have been taken to court.

I’m glad it was a cop that got shot by this other cop and not an innocent person. The cop that got shot had conspired to rob and cage non-violent people. The cop who shot him had conspired to do the same, plus murder a non-violent “criminal”. They are feeling the consequences of their unjust violent actions, (funded by theft in the first place).

This should teach us two things: 1) cops have no value for human life when they can demonize their non-violent target as a druggy, 2) even if cops did care about people, and even if they only policed crimes with victims, they are often too incompetent to properly deliver the service.

To prove this point, I direct your attention to exhibit A- a case where the police were actually attempting to do their job; investigating a report of a suspicious person and possible break-in.

A man shot by police officers who went to the wrong Atlanta house ran bleeding outside where a neighbor heard him asking, “Why did they come in my house? Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?”

It happened Monday night when officers arrived at the wrong Atlanta address after a report of suspicious activity, shot homeowner Christopher McKinley, killed his dog and “likely” shot a fellow officer, leaving him seriously wounded, authorities said Tuesday.

The most tragic part of this story is that they killed a nice, happy, family pet for no reason. Even if they had responded to the right house, did they think the dog had broken in? What is up with police shooting dogs for no reason? This should really scare people if the nature of those who go into police work enjoy killing innocent animals, just like serial killers.

The innocent man police shot is lucky to be alive, and the only consolation is that at least one of the officers knows how his victims feel after being shot by a fellow officer.

We have trigger happy sociopaths running around and telling us they are keeping us safe, but when they are called to actually do their job, they can’t even get the right house, resulting in the death of a pet, and attempted murder of the innocent homeowner. And even if it was the right house, they still would have killed the victims’ pet, and still gone in trigger-happy guns blazing for no reason.

Yet, if we suggest reform to the police system, we are labelled cop-haters by these thugs and their brainwashed supporters. I believe in the free market, so there will be protection and crime investigation if the market (the consumer) demands it. I do not need my money stolen to provide me this service–especially when the “service” endangers me more than the criminals they “protect” me from.

We need to open policing up to competition by abolishing all state monopolies on crime prevention and investigation, which includes government contracting to a private company. We need to be able to remove our money from bad agencies, and give it to good ones. Right now, the police who commit these atrocities are not properly punished, nor are the agencies defunded which hired the incompetent at best, possibly sociopathic officers.

At least when cops get shot by other cops, they are feeling the consequences of their unjust actions for once.

      

Private Police Outperform Public Police in One Texas Town

One town in Texas decided not to renew it’s contract with the local constables. Instead they hired a private policing company to patrol their streets. The result: it cost less and crime dropped.

And it was not just some statistically insignificant drop in crime: there has been an overall 61% drop in crime since the private police took over 20 months ago. The town of Sharpstown is not tiny either; it is home to 66,000 residents, located just outside of Houston. The new police force puts more officers out on patrol, and costs the city $200,000 fewer each year than the constables cost.

This just shows what a simple profit incentive can accomplish. Instead of doing the same old thing, SEAL, the private police force, uses targeted patrols for high crime area, and keeps the same officer in a particular neighborhood, instead of randomly sending patrols zig-zagging all over the place.

“Law enforcement officers are trained to be reactive. They’re out there to run calls, they’re running one call to another, so they’re reacting to something that’s already happened. Private security, the way that we train our guys, is more proactive, meaning that we’re in the community proactively patrolling to prevent those crimes.”

Said James Alexander, the director of SEAL operations.

One town isn’t hard proof of anything, but it is certainly an indication that private police can do just as good, if not better than, a public police force. And this example is not purely private either: the police were still hired with public funds. I would like to see what happens when people are left to their own devices to shop around for protection, as long as they are rebated the money previously taken by force to pay for public police.

Government “Authority” is a Recipe for Abuse of Power

A few months ago when I was driving down to Florida, I was listening to the radio around Charlotte North Carolina. The hosts were asking for callers to relay their worst boyfriend/ girlfriend experience. One woman called in and said that she had caught her ex-bofriend cheating on her, and broke up with him—a pretty normal response. But apparently this man felt the need to exact revenge on his innocent ex who he had already wronged.

The caller said her ex-boyfriend was a TSA agent, and told her to “have fun next time you try to fly”. She assumed this was a hollow threat, that her ex had said in a moment of anger at being dumped. But a few months later when she went to the airport, she was pulled aside for additional screening. Well that could have just been a coincidence she thought.

A few years later and a handful of flights later, the caller said that every single experience flying is now horrible, because without fail, she is pulled aside for additional screening and interrogation. And this happens at airports that her ex-boyfriend doesn’t even work at. All the hosts of the radio show were laughing and said something like, “Oh man, that is a bad one, what a jerk”.

But I was sitting there horrified. How could we have gotten to the place in our country where we laugh about a psychotic government agent making his ex-girlfriend’s life harder. TSA agents who go through essentially no training nor a selective hiring process, and have ridiculously high numbers of creeps among their ranks, can apparently wield their power to harass and seek revenge on people they know.

I heard it on the radio, so who knows how true it is, but the worst part was the reaction of everyone in the conversation. Even the lady relaying the story was kind of giggling like, “oh that crazy ex of mine”. But this is disgusting! How can we put up with this type of abuse of power.

And that’s not even the worst of it. What could high level federal agents do to someone they don’t like? I’ve read about a police officer who harassed a girl for months with tickets and towing after she denied his request for a date. What happened in the case of General Petraeus? Was that some agent getting extrajudicial revenge?

“I’m a cop,” is now something a criminal can yell in public while attacking someone, to make sure no one intervenes. Or, as in the video linked to, a real cop can yell this while attacking a girl, and get the support of the cameraman.

And then we see it in our everyday lives. From Facebook:

Told this guy to turn around because it was a one way gas station at work, and he comes inside to tell me he’s a “fucking cop and I’m a fucking douchebag” and its not a law. Sorry bro just doing my job. And thanks for helping my opinion of cops.

Trivial? In some ways. But it points to this attitude of law enforcement and those with “authority” that they think rules don’t apply to them. If you are a cop, then follow the rules, set the example. Don’t act like a thug, swearing at the teenager behind the counter because he did his job. I feel like we have all run into police who have acted like this.

The problem isn’t finding good cops—I will admit there are plenty of well intentioned police officers. The problem is keeping bad cops from damaging innocent people they come into contact with. That is the major problem right now. And as I have said before all that needs to be done is apply the proper incentives to keep people in check. Employees of private companies get fired when they sully the name of their employer by acting inappropriately.

Law and order should be a product, sold by private companies, without influence of the government. This would mean we truly choose the laws in our society, and the people who will enforce them.

NYC Police Show No Respect for Authority

Police in New York City apparently have no respect for “legitimate” authority, as there has been a 94% drop in traffic and parking tickets issued, since Mayor De Blasio showed some support for protests against police brutality.

The police officers were even classy enough to use one of the slain NYC police officer‘s funeral as a platform for protest, turning their backs on the Mayor as he delivered a eulogy.

“Just no respect for the mayor. Nothing else to say,” one officer commented. And seeing as this man has no respect for authority, I assume he just wants to break the law. This officer must wish there was no mayor so that he could break the rules the mayor’s office currently sets for police officers. If the officer simply followed the rules, he would not run into trouble with the mayor and other politicians, who are just trying to do their jobs.

See what I did there? When civilians protest the unjust actions of police, they are labelled law breakers and trouble makers by police. But when Police disagree with their rule makers and enforcers, well this is just a legitimate qualm!

But I thank the NYC police officers for proving a very important point. The police are only there to keep us safe when their tax collection has been accomplished. They are well aware of this, which is why their protest has taken the form of denying the City of New York revenue generally collected by the police.

By showing some support for protesters, Mayor De Blasio has found himself on the wrong side of the thin blue line, and is being punished by the police. Just like protesters who film police in an attempt to keep them accountable for their actions are arrested, beat and harassed by some officers. You cannot criticize the actions of even a handful of officers, because according to the police, this means you are ungrateful, and probably just want to break the law.

And the rest of us are sitting back here a little confused like, wait, we got what we wanted? Why did the police cut down on arresting people for victimless crimes and stop giving out revenue generating tickets? Only once you realize their real role do you understand: they are punishing the mayor by denying him revenue for the city that the officers usually extort from the people of New York.

It is great when there is some infighting amongst the organized crime syndicate called government. Takes the pressure off the peasants for a while. I certainly wonder how it will turn out: I am sure De Blasio wants to get his hands back on the peoples’ wallets, and I am sure the police want to keep acting like a gang without being criticized by their superiors.

If you resist an officer even when you have done nothing wrong, many will use this as an excuse to beat, arrest, and possibly even murder you. So would it not be fitting that since these officers are resisting their boss, they should be fired?

Or perhaps the NYC police are really just thugs who always want it their way, whether their way is right or wrong. They will claim they are just following orders, but then they will attempt to strong arm their boss into changing the orders.

Well it seems if they have that much control, couldn’t they simply not arrest people for law violations they disagree with? I think the NYC cops have tipped their hand. They like harassing people, and will only give De Blasio what he wants, if they get what they want: free reign over the city of New York.

Private Security is No Scarier than Public Police

wvpI talk a lot about private security or private police and how these could replace government to prevent crime, bring criminals to justice, and protect innocent people. I started doing some research to see how many private police forces are already out there, and what they are all about. A Huffington Post piece was one of the first I read. I assumed it would be casting private police in a bad light, and so it did.

Police Brutality

The article mostly focused on Detroit, and talked about how evil greedy businessmen saw the—gasp—opportunity to profit off of Detroit’s misery! And one of these companies has bought 2 million square feet of real estate which it patrols with private police, and monitors with 300 cameras in and around the buildings. This, in the eyes of the HuffPo reporter, is a bad thing, because then only the rich will be protected! While if we let the government steal our money to pay for police, everyone will be equally unsafe, and that’s  more fair.

The author apparently ignores the fact that it is bad for business to have crime in and around their company, storefronts, workplace, etc. Therefore everyone within the vicinity would be protected in order to attract more customers, and not scare anyone off.

Interestingly, the concerns HuffPo raised about private police are playing out on a larger scale with public police: no accountability, the rich get better treatment while the poor are not sufficiently protected, and innocent people could be beaten or killed. The article then links to various cases of “private police” overstepping their authority.

Two of the cases involved security guards. One of these security guards was not working when he shot and killed a man who he was arguing with outside of a gas station. He has been charged with the man’s murder. The other security guard was fired from the school he worked at after attacking a boy with cerebral palsy who slapped and spit at the security guard. In each of these cases action was taken against the security personnel; they were treated as anyone would be for their unjustified actions. Contrast this with public police who routinely murder and attack innocent people without provocation, keep their jobs, and are not charged.

At worst the private security companies seem to be as bad as typically government police. The only case having to do with Detroit private security was one in which mall cops killed a man who they were restraining with force and pepper spray. The man had been “acting suspiciously” and was told to leave the mall. When he returned the next day, he allegedly threatened to kill someone, after which the incidents leading to his death unfolded.

But Eric Garner had not even threatened to kill anyone when he was suffocated to death by NYC police in July. He was suspected of selling cigarettes illegally, and video footage shows he did not react violently when a team of police confronted him, not in the act of selling untaxed cigarettes, but after Garner broke up a fight (isn’t that the cops’ job?). The man is seen with his hands in the air moments before police attack and kill him. The police officers at the center of the murder still have their jobs with the NYC police department, and have not been charged.

False Arrest

The HuffPo article also raises concerns about false arrests by private security personnel. Again, this information focuses mainly on mall cops who are tasked mostly with thwarting shoplifters. It seems that in actual incidents of false arrest, when a mall security officer detains or uses excessive force against a subject, the victim routinely receives awards in civil court. In fact, even when the victim was guilty of shoplifting, they still sometimes won in court after suing the security company, because of the excessive force used in detaining or interrogating the suspect.

Again, let’s contrast this with public police. There was a case of a man who was arrested and held for over twelve hours, all because he helped a bicyclist who had crashed. She was using the man’s phone when he was approached by responding police (who he had called), slammed to the ground, handcuffed, and arrested because he wouldn’t leave the scene immediately, even though the women who crashed still had this man’s phone. No action has been taken against the officers responsible.

There were also false arrests of reporters covering the Ferguson protests. In fact there are too many such cases to even properly give perspective here, like the high profile case of a New Mexico man who was given forced enemas by police and doctors who claimed he was hiding drugs. He was not hiding drugs, and the searches violated even the ridiculous warrant that authorized his detention. Other cases include assaults by police when people will not show their ID, and rape by police of people pulled over during traffic stops.

In response to the arrests of three law enforcement officials in Oklahoma for sexually assaulting women while on the job, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper told women they can avoid getting raped by a cop if they simply follow traffic laws.

Raw Story first pointed out on Tuesday that Capt. George Brown, a state trooper, shared a few tips for women in an interview with local NBC News affiliate KJRH. Brown told the KJRH anchor that women can keep their car doors locked and speak through a cracked window if a trooper approaches them. If the trooper asks a woman to get out of the car, Brown said, she can ask “in a polite way” why he wants her to do that.

But the “best tip that he can give,” the anchor said on air of her interview with Brown, “is to follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over.”

In the past month, a Tulsa County Deputy, an OHP trooper and an Oklahoma City police officer have all been charged with repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting women while on the job.

Anyone who has dealt with police knows how ridiculous it is to suggest only cracking the window, or asking an officer why you must exit the vehicle. This type of “resistance” will be met with extreme anger and aggression by police, likely assault, and probable charges of resisting arrest.

Are Private or Public Police Worse?

What exactly is the case that private police would be worse than public police? From the information I have read, it seems private security is more often held accountable than public police. Further, public police simply investigate their own incidents of police abuse which, surprise, often “prove” police acted according to procedure. And the incentives for behaving appropriately are stacked towards the private sector, where private police will be fired or prosecuted for violating rights, if for no other reason than protecting the profits of the company.

And in the most egregious cases of private security violating innocent people’s rights, the “private” security firm is hired by the government. This means they are not delivering a service in demand, but rather having stolen money (tax dollars) fund their enterprise. This makes them essentially the same as public police. The private police have to keep customers happy and not land themselves in too much civil litigation. The government can ignore their “customers” because they force us to fund them, and have the courts on their side. The more fragmented the system, the more likely it is that competing interests hold the others accountable.

Copblock, an organization dedicated to holding police accountable for their actions, sums up this sentiment.

I have never had a conversation about private protection services without the other person quickly bringing up Blackwater.  I think the biggest reason for the association is a misunderstanding of what a free-market anarchist means by the word private.  I will start by stating what a private company is NOT.  It is not a company that is funded by force through taxation.  It is not a company that has been granted a monopoly over a particular service by the government, and it is not a company that has been granted special legal protections against liability. 90% of Blackwater’s revenue comes from government contracts paid for with stolen money.  Blackwater’s “customer” is not only spending money that is stolen from you and me, but they are spending it on something very few people would actually fund voluntarily.  Would you personally hire Blackwater to kill people in Iraq?  Blackwater is essentially the same type of institution as your local police.  They are both funded through force and perform “services” that few that are forced to pay for those “services” want or need.  Blackwater is NOT what I am talking about when I discuss private protection services.

So, to be clear, I am not advocating a system where a municipality uses stolen money to hire the lowest bidder and then grants them the same immunities and privileges that the police now enjoy.  When I speak of a private company providing protection services, I am talking about a company that competes among other companies to attract individual customers.  Companies could package different services then sell them to willing customers.  Maybe you feel comfortable with providing your your own security, so you would only be interested in paying a company to investigate a crime that you were a victim of after the fact.  In reality, even now, you really are your own best security.  A private company no doubt would have better response times, but even they cannot be everywhere.  Nevertheless, maybe you don’t feel comfortable protecting yourself so you would be willing to pay more for a company that promised to respond to any panic calls within a certain amount of time – a promise they would be liable for if they broke, unlike your local police.

And finally, here is something that blew my mind. Despite hearing everyday about abuse by public police, there is hardly a murmer about private security force misconduct. Now I assumed this might just be because there were so few private police, but I have learned that there are almost 3 times as many private guards than public police officers in the U.S. Accountability to the company means they perform better, and abuse less.

If you feel safe, you might not have your local cop to thank after all… and these days, he’s the one making most of us feel unsafe.

Police LOSE Military Weapons Provided by Pentagon

bearcat

Gun control advocates seem to want only police and military to have weapons. I’ve discussed at length why this is stupid in and of itself, but there is another reason I may have glossed over. Criminals often get their guns from police departments, whether they are stolen, or sold on the black market by corrupt cops. Because there is nothing about becoming a police officer that makes one magically immune to corruption and engaging in illegal activity; people seem to forget this.

But it is even worse than criminals getting their hands on cops’ revolvers or 9mm. You may recall that we have a pentagon who enjoys handing out military weapons to police departments to the tune of $4.3 billion since 1990, and “184 state and local police departments have been suspended from the Pentagon’s “1033 program” for missing weapons or failure to comply with other guidelines.”

There are two missing military grade humvees. Let that sink in… not quite something you misplace. There are 4 missing M14s from Meridian, Mississippi alone; the M14 is an assault rifle, not to be confused with the made-up term based on cosmetic features, assault weapon. An assault rifle is military grade, and can be fully automatic. Some other samplings:

The Stockton Police Department, in northern California, said it was suspended from the Pentagon program in October after losing two M16s. And the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office, also in northern California, acknowledged it was suspended from the program after reporting a missing M14 and two M15s.

numerous missing weapons from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, mostly .45-caliber pistols and one rifle. It “would take some time to get actual numbers but I think it was 11 or 12,” he said.

Other departments only lost one or two guns, such as a missing M16 in Huntington Beach CA, and 2 missing .45’s at a Georgia PD. There are multiple departments under investigation for which we do not yet know the reason or number of weapons lost.

So who are the ones we can’t trust with guns? Who are the irresponsible gun owners here? Should I really trust the safety of myself and my family with people who routinely lose weapons that I am not even allowed to own? Because of these incompetent (at best, possibly corrupt) police departments I could have a criminal break into my home with a fully automatic machine gun, with a humvee getaway car, while the law only allows me to protect myself with semi-autos, and in some instances, a limited magazine with only 10 bullets.

I do a lot of criticizing… mostly because the government deserves more criticism than it gets. So what do I propose to keep people safe if we are ever lucky enough to move beyond the mafia style protection that we currently get. (If you’re confused why I call it mafia style protection, it is because the same police that “protect” us will come and arrest you at gunpoint if you do not pay for that protection, as in, taxes.) Here is one solution, and would you believe, the free market came up with it? How they ever managed to organize enough without the government is beyond me…

But anyway, there is now an app for smart phones called Peacekeeper, and what it does is connect you with people of your choosing who also have the app. It is geared towards neighbors and family that are close-by, because in the event of an emergency, instead of calling 911, you simply press the app, and it alerts your chosen circle. The need for this app is based on response times from police that do not adequately protect homeowners and other victims. And for once I’m not even blaming the police for this, it’s the bureaucracy as well as physics. A ten minute response time gets the police to the site of a crime approximately 8.5 minutes after they are needed, and in cities this time gets much worse. People in dangerous cities have waited an hour to a day for a police response to an emergency!

People are increasingly reliant on a failed system of state-centered security. We’ve set out to change that.

Peacekeeper aims to put you and your friends and neighbors back in charge of your own security. With our app, you can create your own ‘Tribe’ of family, friends, and neighbors who look out for each other and respond to cries for help. If your elderly neighbor falls and breaks her hip, she can use Peacekeeper to let everyone in her Tribe know; and one of you can take her to the hospital. If your friend’s being robbed, he can alert you on Peacekeeper so both of you can take action together to help.

We will all be safer if we take our security into our own hands, instead of relying on disinterested 3rd parties, who cannot be as useful, even when they actually do care. Of course, this response of friends and neighbors means the right to be armed with whatever one might want is even more important. But hey, if the police are handing out fully auto machine guns to who-the-hell-knows-who, then I want one too! But I’m willing to pay for mine, instead of stealing it from the taxpayers.

Defender of Murderous NYC Police Complains: No One Respects Cops

resisting arrestI’ve said similar things in the past, how can you get arrested with the only charge being resisting arrest? It means they are arresting you for nothing. It is the clearest case of the police being the aggressors, breaking the non-agression principle and then using your rightful reaction of resisting kidnapping as an excuse for why you should have been kidnapped in the first place.

And yet, just this week, the commissar of the New York City Police Union had the nerve to complain that people do not respect cops, and suggested civilians get what they deserve when they resist arrest.

“There is an attitude on our streets today that it is acceptable to resist arrest,” lamented Lynch. “That attitude is a direct result of a lack of respect for law enforcement.”

While the NYC cops continue to brutalize and murder people, this spokesman actually tries to act like the police are the victims! If only we respected them, they would stop beating us. Doesn’t that sound like an abusive relationship to you? They blame the victim. And the obvious question to everyone not thoroughly indoctrinated is, why the hell would I respect someone who makes his money from stolen tax dollars, and who uses the excuses “I’m just following orders” and “I want to get home at night” to justify their immoral actions that would be considered illegal if anyone not wearing a badge did the same?

In fact there is case law from the Supreme Court in 1900 that says if an unlawful arrest is taking place, the person being arrested indeed has the right to resist arrest, and in the case at hand, he even shot the arresting officer dead. This is because no warrant was issued for the arrest, and the police who were “just following orders” from their Chief, had no right to initiate force against the man. Indiana recently adopted a similar law that clarifies this: if a police officer enters your house or aggresses on you without a warrant, he is like any other person violating your rights, and you may therefore respond the same as you would to any other intruder.

So instead of blaming the victim, the clear course of action to keep police officers safe, as the spokesman claims is his prerogative, would be to punish officers who harass innocent people, and initiate arrests against innocent people, with trumped up charges based on video recording, or insulting language (not a crime) towards the officer, or with the only charge being resisting arrest, proving there was nothing to be arrested for in the first place. Stop defending bad cops, and maybe you won’t all get grouped into the bad cop mantra. Stand up and punish bad cops, and take a stand against police brutality, and perhaps some respect for police will return, when it is deserved. And don’t expect this to happen quickly: police have earned their reputation as lawless thugs, and trust, once broken, is nearly impossible to repair.

So until then follow this advice on how to talk to police: Don’t.

dont talk to police

And at this point, I would extend this concept to off duty police officers who do not stand up against the disgusting actions of their “brothers in arms”. Shun police officers, in public, at social gatherings, and wherever else you meet them. If they want to feel above the law, then let them be alone in their elevated caste. Respect is earned, not taken by force. Until police start respecting civilians, there is no reason to have respect for police as a whole. Respect the individual officers who stand up against their out of control compatriots. But if they are just following orders, just want to get home at night, just doing their job, or just watching as people’s rights are violated, how are they any better than the aggressor?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” –(probably) Edmund Burke

No Victim, No Crime

In my posts, I can be a bit hard on cops sometimes. This is because with great power comes great responsibility. Police are often in rough situations, and see the worst of the world on a daily basis, which can mess with anyone’s head to some extent. So today instead of simply criticizing the actions of more cops who shot innocent people, or violated their rights of freedom of speech and to be secure in their persons, I want to offer a solution. It’s so simple, and no one should have a problem with this: no victim, no crime.

So think about a lot of these instances of police abuse you hear. They start with expired tags, or with the refusal to show ID to a cop, or with twenty-somethings filming the police. The police as it currently stands feel their responsibilities cover “crimes” that have no victim, like insuring registration on cars is paid. In these respects they are little more than enforcers to ensure the state gets paid their “protection money”… because wouldn’t it be terrible if something happened to that nice shiny car of yours?

The solution is, a cop cannot intervene at all when there is no crime, defining crime as requiring a victim. Expired tags? Oh well, the state is not a victim if the money is extorted in the first place: withholding something that someone wants to take from you is not victimizing the state, it is refusing to be victimized (kind of like shooting someone in self defense who breaks into your house).

This wouldn’t eliminate all police brutality, but it would be a good start. Then there would be no dispute about whether police acted appropriately when shooting or brutalizing unarmed victims who had been stopped for jaywalking, or an ill placed traffic cone, or buying water, or reaching for a cane, or peaceful protesting, or not showing ID, or being dazed after a brutal car accident, or hanging out on a campsite they rented,  etcetera.

There was no crime in all these cases, so the police would never have had any authority to even detain or force any of these people to talk to them. All these victims would still be alive or unmolested and unscarred from their run-ins with police, enforcing a law that has no victim to protect.

If common law boiled down to the non-initiation of force principle, things would be safer for police and for peasants—I mean civilians. Cops wouldn’t have to be trigger happy with innocent people, able to use the excuse, “I want to get home at the end of the night”. The only people that would be confronted would at least be suspected of a crime that had a victim, which would mean far fewer people ever having to deal with the police.

Did this person initiate force against another? If yes, the police get involved. If no, the police go on their merry way. And if the police initiate the force without a victim, well then they have violated the law like anyone else. The badge does not negate the possibility of victimizing another.

This would also mean we could free up a lot of resources. For one, you don’t need as many police, lawyers, and judges when the only people going through the system have victimized someone, versus expired licenses, smoking pot, or “resisting arrest” (and the only reason I mention resisting arrest as a victimless crime is because it always baffled me how someone could get arrested just for resisting arrest. After all, what were they being arrested for that made them resist arrest? And if they are only being charged with resisting arrest, that means there was no original crime to be charged with, and therefore resisting arrest was appropriate, as in “why am I being arrested if I have not committed a crime?”… “STOP RESISTING”).

We would also need fewer people to write laws, because they wouldn’t be able to make anything criminal if there was no victim, and everything that includes a victim is already criminal under the common law of, “No one may initiate force against another”. And they say there’s no room for budget cuts! But as it stands victimless crimes serve as an excuse for cops to abuse their power.

The Rise and Danger of No-Knock Warrants and SWAT Raids

bearcatPolice are increasingly using “no knock warrants” to search houses that the court has authorized them to search, according to due process. A no knock warrant is exactly what it sounds like, the police do not knock before breaking down a suspect’s door with a battering ram, and swarming a SWAT team throughout the premises. The excuse for no knock warrants is that it keeps police officers safe. But in the past, police have been shot, and shot at, by home owners who thought criminals were invading their home.

One case was when an veteran with PTSD had his home raided because he had a few pot plants which he used to self medicate. The police did a no knock raid, and maybe it was the PTSD, or maybe it was the fact that he did not hear the cops identify themselves as police (if they even did in fact, the neighbors say they heard no such announcement), but this Marine shot at the intruders, killing one officer and wounding 6. He was charged with murder because “he should have known they were police”; apparently suspected criminals are supposed to have super-powers that allow them to differentiate between violent home invaders, and violent police officers with a warrant. The Marine, whose original “crime” was non-violent and had no victim, killed himself while awaiting trial. Because police decided it was “safer” to perform a no knock search, a cop and a veteran are now dead. Does that sound like they are increasing SWAT raids for the “safety of police”? Oh yeah, there was no evidence found that the veteran was selling the marijuana he grew.

The point of knocking and identifying oneself as a police officer is to give the suspect a chance to surrender to police peacefully, and avoid property damage. It’s one thing to avoid knocking on the doors of suspects wanted for violent crimes, or with a history of violence, but why on earth would these types of SWAT raids take place for non-violent and even victimless crimes? Just the other day a tragedy was barely avoided when police raided a home for suspected credit card fraud. None of the suspects were home at the time, but that doesn’t mean SWAT raids can’t harm innocent bystanders. The subject of the warrant’s son was home, and when he heard the door get kicked in, he unholstered his legally owned firearm, prepared to protect himself. Luckily the police identified themselves, he re-holstered his weapon, and no one got hurt. Oh and the cops didn’t find any evidence of credit card fraud.

Another issue with no knock raids is that criminals have begun to impersonate police in order to gain access to homes, and perform home invasions. What is the public supposed to do when they can’t tell the difference between the cops and the robbers? Unprofessional power hungry cops just exacerbate the problem, since many civilians who have never been on the wrong side of the law find it hard to believe that this roided out thug who just kicked in their door and is yelling “I’ll blow your f****ing head off” is actually an officer of the law.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Radley Balko identified in his research at least 50 innocent bystanders killed by police in needlessly violent SWAT raids. Some were hit with stray bullets, like 11 year old  Alberto Sepulvada; some were shot when police mistook them for a threat, like 92 year old Katherine Johnston; and some died when officers guns “accidentally discharged”, like Eurie Stamps. Innocent civilians are dying because police just can’t help but dress up and play war.

And it is not just anecdotal evidence that shows an increase in SWAT raids. In the 1970′s there were only hundreds of SWAT raids throughout the United States each year, but by the 1980′s that number grew to 3,000 annually. In 2005 there were approximately 50,000 military style SWAT raids by police in the United States. And we know these are not all for violent crimes, because if they were, the Optometrist Sal Culosi wouldn’t be dead after a police bullet pierced his heart during a raid initiated after a cop overheard Culosi wagering on a football game at a bar with some friends.

The bottom line is that these no-knock warrants and SWAT raids needlessly put the public in danger, and police officers in danger. There is no need for this number of no knock raids, nor this number of SWAT style raids. Keep in mind that this entire post is only talking about raids in which warrants have been obtained, and doesn’t even scratch the surface of police home invasion without warrants; also becoming a rampant Fourth Amendment violation in America. Innocent people will continue to die at the hands of police until we take a stand for our rights and refuse to allow police to operate above the law.

Warning: Street Gang Harassing Citizens Nationwide

wvpThere’s a street gang that has been spreading and becoming more brash in their behavior. The worst chapters started in LA and New York City, but now they are moving out of big cities, and into towns near you. These gang members control their turf viciously, and wear near identical clothing, usually blue or black, and emblazoned with a small metal coat of arms. They are often heavily armed, and have been seen beating, shooting, and kidnapping people all across the country. I’m not talking about the Bloods or the Crips, this gang is even more dangerous. They call themselves, “the Police”.

And what is worse is that the courts almost always fail to bring these criminals to justice! In the past, these gang members have shot innocent people, and walked free. In some cities, they have acquired military like weapons and transportation, and have the nerve to say it is to keep people safe! This gang is not new, but it gets bolder every year, performing record amounts of home invasions that they call SWAT raids (in one of the most recent, an innocent 80 year old man was murdered in his own home). And if you try to fight back when they break down the door, they have the courts on their side, who will arrest and prosecute you, claiming that just because they yelled their gang’s name—”Police!”—before breaking down your door, that you have no right to defend yourself!

This gang will attempt to engage you without just cause, and I have warned in the past that it is unwise to converse with “the Police”, and it is smarter to leave the situation as soon as possible (though this can also be dangerous). The gang is known for having a short temper, and will often hold you against your will if you do not cooperate. In just the last couple days “the Police” have attempted to get a women to show them her breasts, and when she refused, tasered this poor girl. But it gets worse: a chapter in New Mexico pulled a man from his car, and subjected him to multiple anal examinations, enemas, and a colonoscopy against his will, all because they thought he had drugs in his anal cavity. It turns out he did not, but that didn’t stop the doctors from complying with “the Police” who said the man was clenching his buttocks, and that an uncertified drug sniffing dog had justified the warrant; a warrant that had expired before the invasive procedures, and was confined to a different county. Yet no arrested have been made to date for this sexual assault, and to add insult to injury, the medical clinic sent the victim a bill for the procedures he repeatedly objected to!

I luckily escaped a run in with this gang when I was in New Hampshire camping at the Osceola Vista Campground with my family this past summer. Would you believe that the federal government actually pays a New Hampshire chapter of this gang called “the Police” to patrol, not only the common areas of this campground, but rented campsites of visitors? A gang member snuck up on our rented property and began to interrogate us. If my sister’s big American bull dog had been spooked, would this gang member have simply shot the dog, as many “Police” have done in the past (then kidnapping the dog’s owner and creating trumped up charges as an excuse)? Clearly his intrusion onto our site was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects rented property as our own, yet “the Police” have apparently infiltrated our government to the point where no one wants to prosecute them for their crimes, while their scope and authority is broadened daily. We escaped this incident, but the campers across the way were not as lucky, taken into custody for the reckless crime of… rolling a joint… while in the woods…. camping.

And despite these abuses by this highly powerful and widespread gang, many Americans think “the Police” should be the only ones carrying guns! This gang has authority and a monopoly on initiating force, but are not held accountable for their actions, which is the worst combination. Yet if everyday Americans were not harassed by the government for carrying weapons and protecting themselves against criminals, then the justification for needing “the Police” to “keep us safe” would dwindle. If criminals were shot by their victims instead of running free (and being released from jail time and time again) then we wouldn’t need half as many police as we do now. With their numbers smaller “the Police” might not feel so powerful, and this gang may actually return to their roots, where they once did protect innocent people from criminals.

Some members of “the Police” are actually good people, and try to do their job of protecting innocents. But their cause is not helped by officers who routinely violate the rights of the people. Good cops should be even more angry at bad cops for tarnishing their reputation. People in a profession that could once be respected are now viewed with suspicion at best, because of what one faction of the group does. This trend needs to stop, and police need to be held accountable for their actions. Breaking the law is not acceptable just because someone is in uniform with a nice shiny piece of metal pinned on their chest. If police enter a home without a warrant, that is breaking and entering like it would be for anyone else. If police taser a person on the street without just cause, that is assault. If police anally probe a man without a warrant, then they should be prosecuted for sexual assault and rape, just like anyone else. Only if we hold police accountable for their actions as people will we see the rise of cop-bullies stop. But if police behave as a street gang and hide behind their uniforms, hide behind their “orders”, hide behind their badge, or their superiors, or their guns, or their title, and operate “above the law”, then someone please tell me why we even bother having laws in the first place.