who's your nanny?

I'm Officially a Journalist

After years of being accused of being a shitty journalist by people who didn't know the difference between a news story and an op-ed, I can now say I've officially published my first article as a reporter, and it's a scoop. So folks -- you know who you are -- you can let me have it if you find the piece rife with opinion. But you won't.

John Edison Jr., the southern Maryland boy who was railroaded last year by police and prosecutors for allegedly raping a 12-year-old -- and who was acquitted last December after the jury deliberated for a whopping 20 minutes -- has filed a civil suit against the state of Maryland, the two girls who accused him of rape and physical assault, and two detectives -- St. Mary's County Det. William Raddatz and Maryland State Police Det. Leo Nims -- responsible for filing charges against him despite no evidence but a mere statement from the girl.

The story runs today in the County Times, a free St. Mary's County newspaper. The paper is available on news stands locally and online in PDF format, so you'll find the story on p. 12 in the "Crime & Punishment" section of the Nov. 25 issue.

[Edison attorneys] Winkelman and McDevitt write in their court filing that during interrogation their client repeatedly denied the rape allegations, yet Raddatz told at least one fellow officer that Edison confessed to the alleged sexual assaults and sexual intercourse.

Edison's attorneys also charge that Raddatz photographed and documented a mark across Edison’s chest as a scratch that he knew, or should have known, to be an impression left by a table during his interrogation. This "scratch," they allege, was used by Raddatz and Nims to confirm the accusations of the young girls and thereby secure a search warrant on Edison’s residence.

Winkelman and McDevitt further argue in their filing that a search of Edison's house revealed no evidence of a struggle or blood; that medical records indicated no occurrence of sexual or physical assault; and that both detectives were aware that the alleged victim and witness changed their story of events at the hospital but nevertheless proceeded in their case against Edison.

Unfortunately, today's edition hasn't been published online yet but I'll link to it just as soon as it is. And if you want a good recap of the entire case written at the time of Edison's acquittal, go here.

UPDATE: Here is the online version of the paper. Scroll to p. 12 for the article.

NJ Officers Pay for Violent Assault

I know this might come as a shock to some people, but drug dealers/users and gun owners deserve to exercise their right to self-defense when intruders decide to invade their homes.

Gunfire erupted as a police tactical squad executed a no-knock search warrant in a New Jersey suburb Thursday, leaving four officers and a suspect shot.

One Lakewood police officer who was shot in the face and another who was shot in the foot were taken to a hospital, Deputy Chief Michael Mohel of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office said. Two others sustained minor injuries when they were struck in their bulletproof vests.

The suspect, Jamie Gonzalez, 39, was taken to a hospital with multiple gunshot wounds, Mohel said.

There was no word on their conditions and the names of the officers have not been released.

Police had planned to search the home in the town about 35 miles east of Trenton for narcotics and weapons, Mohel said.

There aren't a lot of specifics included in this report, but from the looks of what we do know, a SWAT team conducted another no-knock raid on a private residence on the off-chance that it would reveal -- gasp! -- illegal drugs and guns.

For as much as I despise the entire idea of government police, I take no pleasure in knowing that four officers who are probably fathers, brothers, uncles, and sons were nearly killed as they stormed the home of someone who all too realistically could have been nonviolent, or perhaps not even the intended target. After all, I oppose the idiotic "war on drugs" and its associated violent home invasions in part because they needlessly put officers themselves in harm's way.

However, far more crucial is the fact that Jamie Gonzalez was shot -- we have no idea as to the extent of his injuries at present, only that he sustained multiple gunshot wounds -- simply for defending himself and his property from these invaders. That is the real tragedy here.

I don't want to engage in much speculation, but the report certainly doesn't suggest that police were tracking someone who had just committed a violent crime. But even if they were, and especially if Gonzalez were a violent thug who thrives on confrontation, is storming through his front door with guns drawn really a smart idea if officer safety is paramount?

I'm looking forward to seeing how this story shapes up, but if we use recent history as a guide, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that neither drugs nor guns were found in Gonzalez's residence or, even if they were, that they've ever been used on anyone against his or her will.

The Largest Street Gang in America

Government police, of course.

Thanks to Emily for alerting us to this video. It's an hour long but well worth the time investment. Watch it all if you can stomach it.

Mother Charged with Child Pornography

For taking photos of herself breastfeeding her baby (!!).

Jacqueline Mercado, a 33-year-old Peruvian immigrant, took a few photos of her young children at bath time. A week later, Richardson police were rummaging through her house for kiddie porn, and a state child welfare worker came to take her kids away.

The photo in question: Jacqueline Mercado and Johnny Fernandez say they took this image last October to memorialize the breast-feeding stage of their son's life. Below: The Lucca Madonna, painted in the 15th century by the Dutch master Jan van Eyck. Defense lawyers argued that while breast-feeding images are a second-degree felony in Richardson [Texas], they are also on public display in the finest art museums in the world.

[...]

With nothing else to support their contention that the photos were related to sex or sexual gratification, the police and the Dallas County District Attorney's Office presented the photos to a grand jury in January and came away with indictments against Mercado and Fernandez for "sexual performance of a child," a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The charges centered on a single photo, the breast-feeding shot. Fernandez and Mercado say they took it--although the child had ceased breast-feeding--to memorialize that stage of their baby's development.

The criminal charges against Mercado have been dropped, but at the time this story went to press the kidnappers on the dole at CPS continued to hold her other children hostage.

How sick. This poor family would have been better off staying in Peru.  

I want to share this quote from a guy at a libertarian Google group I belong to. I'm not sure he'd want me to give his name so we'll leave it anonymous for now, but he hits the nail on the head.

The United States has the most sexually-repressed yet disgustingly perverted culture on the planet. Only a culture of self-loathing, closeted pedophiles and sexual deviants would consider breastfeeding an erotic activity constituting child pornography. Sickos.

I couldn't agree more.

(HT Manuel Lora)

Woman Loses Baby Following Extradition Ride

Maricris Shaw is awaiting trial in St. Mary's County, Maryland on criminal charges of identity fraud, writing bad checks, and vehicle taking. According to the Enterprise, the 35-year-old was apprehended by police in Florida and extradited in May, an experience that she says cost her the life of the unborn baby she carried for six months.

The St. Mary's County state's attorney's office outsources its extradition services to Con-Link Transportation Corp., a company it's used for the past dozen years.

Kevin McDevitt, Shaw's lawyer, said his client had a sonogram done in Florida before she got into Con-Link's van.

"Everything was fine with the baby," he said.

Shaw said she told a judge in Florida that she wanted to return to Maryland and resolve her legal problems, but that she was concerned from the onset when the van's crew put her and other inmates in restraints.

"They put a big chain on my belly," she said. "They put me in the back. I was in the middle [with] inmates on my left and right side."

Shaw says she rode in two different vans with six different drivers through 14 different states by the time her transport was complete. However, during the first couple days she became sweaty and dizzy, to the point where other inmates pleaded with the crew to increase the air conditioning in the van because of Shaw's pregnancy.

But in days following everything got worse. Much worse. Shaw came down with a fever and started bleeding. Instead of immediately taking Shaw to a hospital, Con-Link drivers instead took her to a gas station, where they asked a female attendant to assess her condition. You read that correctly. Instead of seeking professional medical attention in the wake of Shaw's hemorrhaging during a known pregnancy, Con-Link officers instead sought medical advice from a gas station attendant.

In a display of intellectual acuity that was clearly absent in Con-Link's drivers, the female gas station attendant told officers they had to get Shaw to a doctor right away. However, Shaw claims that officers said they were given orders to do no such thing and instead took her to the next jail on their route, where she was seen by a nurse who allegedly said Shaw looked "perfect" without even checking the baby.

Shaw contends that she arrived at St. Mary's jail in Maryland on June 5, which would mean she spent eight days on the road. However, police and Con-Link officials dispute this.

A man answering the phone at Con-Link's offices said Shaw's account would be "impossible" and not in keeping with its inmate delivery schedules.

"Our trips do not last that long," he said.

Capt. Rick Burris of the St. Mary's Bureau of Criminal Investigations said Friday that a detective is continuing an inquiry on the matter, but that no indications of any wrongdoing have been found.

Fair enough, perhaps. The duration of Shaw's transport should be easy enough to verify if Con-Link and St. Mary's County police maintained even minimal record of her extradition (hardly a given, of course). What may not be so easy to explain, however, is why she allegedly was not taken to an actual hospital until four full days after her arrival in St. Mary's County.

Now, it's sort of a running joke in southern Maryland that if you're not dead by the time you get to St. Mary's Hospital, you will be by the time you leave. But what isn't so funny is that Maricris Shaw claims that she felt her baby moving the day she arrived at St. Mary's jail, but by the time doctors at St. Mary's Hospital assessed her baby's condition they could not detect a heartbeat. It was at this point that Shaw was informed that her baby had died.

As despicable as the treatment of Shaw and her unborn baby appears to have been, it's just about on par with what she's getting right now from the state's attorney and other officials attempting to paint her as a liar.

St. Mary's State's Attorney Richard Fritz (R) said last week at his office in Leonardtown that the crimes Shaw is charged with are "all cases that are based on deceit and untruthfulness," and that any liability for the woman's eventual miscarriage would also have to consider any previous health issues and other accounts of what happened.

"It sounds rather unbelievable that someone would keep a human being caged for seven days in a little van," Fritz said. "Her word is not necessarily the last word, nor should her word necessarily be believed without question."

Just when you think it's safe to go back in the water, ladies and gents, there's Rick Fritz reminding you that St. Mary's County is infested with sharks in the police department and prosecutors' office who revel in demonizing their suspects before they ever even get their day in court.

Fritz, ever the humanitarian, claims it's "unbelievable" that Shaw would be caged for days in a van, yet this is the same guy who just last year saw to it that 16-year-old John Edison Jr. was confined in a government cage for nearly six months on charges for a crime that any rational person would have known he didn't commit. This is the same man who essentially admitted that county and state police executed Jamie Dean in 2006, yet he refused to hold any of the offending officers accountable for their actions.

Worst of all, Fritz implies that because Maricris Shaw is merely charged with crimes that are based on "deceit and untruthfulness," we're simply to conclude that she's lying about the way she was treated during her extradition. Yet again, Fritz appears to be doing his best to convince us he operates under the assumption that we're all guilty until proven innocent. Shaw was pregnant at the outset of her transport from Florida and suffered the tragedy of a miscarriage while in the custody of police and affiliated contractors, yet we're to believe that her baby's fate was due to "previous health issues?" How convenient.

Even if Maricris Shaw is guilty of every charge levied against her, it is indisputable that her baby was innocent and undeserving of its fate. At minimum, one would think that if the state's attorney -- who once claimed it was the responsibility of his office to "[make] sure that our police are above reproach in their relations with our citizens" -- cannot be bothered to even consider the prospect of government malfeasance in the matter, he could at least display a little sympathy for a grieving woman.

That he can do neither merely proves that he's just about the last person who should be allowed to have any control over the legal proceedings in St. Mary's County.

Damn It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta ... Er, I Mean, Cop

Just when you thought you had a good story of a run-in with a police officer acting above the law, check out the sad story of Bismark Dinius. He was at the helm of a sailboat when it was plowed into in the middle of the night by a 385 hp Baja Outlaw operated by deputy sheriff Russell Perdock, who just so happens to be the number two official in his police department.

Sadly, 51-year-old Lyn Thornton, fiancee of the sailboat's owner Mark Weber, succumbed to injuries suffered during the collision. So who was charged with manslaughter? You guessed it: Bismark Dinius.

As you might suspect, it's always good to be a police officer if you've killed someone as a result of acting like an irresponsible jackass:

Right from the start, questions were raised about how the investigation was handled. As soon as the police arrived, Dinius was given a breathalyzer test and later a blood test at the hospital.  He was found to have a BAC of .12.  The bigger issue is Deputy Sheriff Perdock’s blood alcohol level.  A Lake County sergeant told a local TV reporter that he was instructed by a superior not to give a breathalyzer test to Chief Deputy Perdock. Instead, Lake County Sheriff James Beland drove Perdock to a nearby hospital where a blood sample was taken.

Accounts vary as to what happened next.  Beland testified that after they left the hospital, he drove around with Perdock for more than an hour before taking him home and then dropping off the blood sample at the Lower Lake Substation. Beland couldn’t remember what they talked about, but he was fairly certain they didn’t talk about the accident. Beland also couldn’t remember whether the blood sample was in his car’s trunk or on the passenger seat. Perdock contradicted Beland’s testimony, saying that he was certain he didn’t ride home from the hospital with Beland, although he couldn’t recall how he got home.  Russell Perdock said that he’d had “part of a Coors Lite” earlier that afternoon. His blood test came back clean, but according to the label placed on the sample at the hospital he was tested 24 hours after the accident. A deputy filed an addendum later saying that someone at the hospital must have made a mistake; Perdock’s blood was tested two hours after the accident.

Read the rest of the story.

(Thanks to Kramer)

Idaho Police Sodomize Man with Taser

Via Manuel Lora, Boise police officers put a Taser up a man's anus and fired it -- after he was already handcuffed.

Then they placed the taser on his genitals and threatened to do the same. The suspect still had burns inside his right buttock 13 days after the brutal attack.

Torture, sexual assault, and attempted manslaughter -- all in a day's work when you've got a license to kill.

More here.

Government Misuse of Tax Money: A-OK

The Buffalo News reports that a Clarence Center woman known for helping refugees settle in Western New York has been charged with "misusing tens of thousands of dollars in money from the United Nations."

The U.S. Attorney's office charged Deborah C. Bowers, 54, of Countryside Court, with 14 felony crimes, including wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements to federal agents.

Bowers misused part of the $350,000 in United Nations funds that she and an Iraqi-American associate received in 2005 to operate an Iraq radio station, prosecutor Timothy C. Lynch said.

This in contrast to the hundreds of millions that are extorted from honest citizens every year by the state in order to fund socialist UN programs in the first place.

Who Will Put an End to U.S.-Led Genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan?

More than 7,500 Afghan men, women, and children have been murdered by the American regime in its apparent War on Poor Farmers, yet the Holy One maintains "we still have a long way to go."

Maybe Obama should just tell us what his magic number of civilian deaths is so we'll actually know when we've "gotten there."

As a rule, politicians will find any excuse to perpetuate programs that grow the state and allow them to accumulate power, money, and terms in office. Content to peddle the Bush line that carpet-bombing Middle East towns can actually prevent someone from detonating a dirty bomb in a London or New York subway, Obama's latest laugher is that "we" have to get through Afghanistan's August 20 presidential election and then turn "our" attention to creating an Afghan army and police force. Apparently because that's already worked out so well in Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, where 20 civilians are slaughtered for every alleged terrorist killed, Obama has said, "By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," contending that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. Uh huh. And just abandon all those permanent military bases the government's spent billions to build and maintain?

It's one thing to fall for propaganda when emotions are running high, especially when the horrors of a massive terrorist attack are still fresh. But it's another thing entirely to condone genocide after you realize the government had to fabricate evidence and advance lies in order to justify its criminal invasions and occupations in the first place.

In a shameful display of our disregard for anything that doesn't immediately disturb our daily lives, Americans have made it clear that as yet we will not be the ones to put an end to these atrocities. While there may be just causes, it certainly isn't clear -- when so many innocents must bear the consequences of indiscriminate killing -- that there's ever been anything remotely resembling a just war.

Are the Swiss Next?

The next target of American bombs, that is, for vowing to prevent UBS from turning over to the FBI data on more than 52,000 Americans who hold Swiss bank accounts.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said on Wednesday that Swiss law prevents UBS from handing over client information and the government would seize UBS client data, if necessary, to stop that happening.

The case, which comes amid a global fight against tax cheats supported by the U.S. administration, has damaged the UBS brand and could result in an expensive settlement for the bank at a time when the bank needs to focus on restructuring.

"Switzerland will use its legal authority to ensure that the bank cannot be pressured to transmit the information illegally, including if necessary by issuing an order taking effective control of the data at UBS," the Swiss government said in a response to U.S. authorities filed in Miami on Tuesday.

To be sure, there's nothing especially noble about Swiss seizure of private bank accounts as an act in and of itself, even if it would ironically result in greater protection of American interests than the U.S. state is willing to provide. (After all, we all know Barack and Friends only have what's best for us at heart.) But given the opportunity to choose whose actions are less immoral, I'll side with the Swiss on this one -- they're retaliating against an initiation of violence by the American state.

Although Reuters blithely refers to the U.S. government's targets as "tax cheats," there is no such thing as a tax cheat. A cheat is someone who uses manipulative or dishonest measures to tilt an otherwise level playing field in his favor. Thus, the term "tax cheat" implies that people have an obligation to follow certain rules (or laws) when it comes to surrendering their income to the state. No idea could be more absurd.

The U.S. government is not engaged in some "game" with taxpayers, whereby both sides participate willingly in a contest with the intent to emerge victorious. Just the opposite, the state has rigged the relationship so it always wins -- it merely points its guns at us and extorts whatever amount of our property it sees fit.

The state is a criminal gang, differing from private hooligans only to the extent that it cannot be held accountable for its transgressions against the innocent. To argue that Americans have an obligation to "pay" taxes is to argue that we likewise would have an obligation to submit to the robber at our doorstep as he demanded our money or our life.

Taxation is theft, period. It is not based on some voluntary arrangement; it is based on coercion and violence.

Surrendering taxes to avoid the ultimately penalty of death is hardly shameful; it is the act of the tyrant that is shameful. But how unfortunate that swaths of Americans believe the tax-avoider is the real criminal.

Au contraire. Having the balls to look the bastards in the eyes and tell them they'll get your money over your dead body is nothing short of heroic.

Celebrating Evil

Today I will be celebrating friendships at the Fourth of July party I'll be attending. Unlike the vast majority of people, however, I will not be celebrating the decision to shed one criminal enterprise for the formation of another, nor will I delude myself into thinking that the United States is in any capacity a free country in terms of libertarian values.

We live in a state that sanctions the theft, assault, and murder of innocent citizens on a daily basis. That, my friends, is nothing to raise a glass to.

We're Quickly Becoming a Nation of Criminals

Yesterday I used the example of a drunk-driving incident to briefly illustrate how unjust the American legal structure is. From your county commissioners right on up to the federal government, the state constantly seeks to prosecute us for the mere potential to commit crimes, not simply in response to harm done intentionally to someone else or his property.

The problem with this system of governance is that it is extremely tyrannical. From a moral standpoint, you can't have a criminal without a victim, yet the state increasingly criminalizes nonviolent habits or behaviors that do no harm to anyone, save perhaps the individual who chooses to engage them. And even when the state does prosecute someone who's actually violated the property rights of others, the state doesn't merely force the individual to pay for his own crimes; it compels innocent taxpayers to pay for them as well when it robs us at the point of a gun in order to feed, clothe, and incarcerate the miscreant.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans not only condones but actually encourages this so-called system of "justice," even though granting the state such enormous power means there literally is no limit to the abuses that can be wielded on nonviolent citizens. To illustrate this further, I will reprint some comments I received yesterday at the Examiner in response to my post.

Read the entire article.

Our Unjust Legal System

Prosecutors in New Jersey are seeking the maximum penalty of nearly three years in prison for a man who initiated a head-on collision with a truck carrying a man and his daughter while he was intoxicated.

Shaun Campbell of East Rutherford told a judge Tuesday that he had been drinking "quite a bit" of beer when he crashed his SUV head-on into a pickup in April. The truck's occupants, a man and his 4-year-old daughter, were not seriously hurt.

The 40-year-old Campbell's blood-alcohol level was .288 percent, more than triple the state's legal limit.

Authorities say Campbell's license has been suspended 78 times in 22 years. He still faces drunken-driving charges in two other New Jersey cities.

First of all, it doesn't matter how many times Campbell's license has been suspended in the past. None of those incidents is relevant to the issue at hand. And if Campbell didn't hurt anyone or cause property damage while he was driving under the influence in any of the previous cases, he never should have been charged for civil or criminal offenses, much less had his license suspended. You can't have an offender without a victim.

Moreover, forget the fact that current drunk-driving laws have apparently put no dent in Campbell's recidivistic behavior. What's most imperative is that the accident that occurred as a result of his intoxication is between him and people in the vehicle he struck, not between him and "society" in general. However, instead of being compelled to compensate his victims in the form of monetary damages, thereby bearing sole responsibility for his offense, Campbell will most likely be sent to a government cage where tax-surrenderers will be forced to house and feed him for the duration of his sentence.

If you're wondering how a system of "punish the innocent in order to punish the guilty" can be even remotely just, congratulations, you're beginning to think like a libertarian.

A Taser Twist

A Pennsylvania student could serve almost two years in jail for using a police officer's Taser against her as she tried to arrest him.

Twenty-year-old Jeremy Spisak, of McDonald, was sentenced Monday after pleading no contest in January to disarming a law enforcement officer and other charges.

I can't comment on Spisak's actions without knowing the specifics of the incident, but there are any number of circumstances under which this kid's actions could have been legitimate -- say, if he was defending himself against an illegal arrest or protecting his person from an officer who simply initiated physical violence for any reason.

Of course, given that the government's goon squads are virtually entitled to operate above the law -- even in plainclothes but especially when fully costumed in state garb -- Spisak would almost certainly have faced jail time even if his actions were morally justified. After all, notice that it's apparently against the law to disarm a law enforcement officer no matter what.

The biggest problem here is that way too many people believe that arrests are legitimate as long as they're made in conformance with the laws. However, this assumes all laws are just when nothing could be further from the truth. Any law that criminalizes nonviolent behavior is unjust, meaning that while it may be legal it certainly is not necessarily moral.

Therefore, if the police officer who was tased was in the processes of detaining Spisak in response to a legitimate crime, Spisak's actions may very well have been criminal. Even in an anarchic society -- i.e., one in which police forces and courts were privatized -- there would likely be some point at which private forces would have to detain suspects who turned out to be innocent of the charges against them. But the difference between that hypothetical environment and that which exists today is that the state's enforcers cannot be held accountable for detaining the wrong people, whereas private law enforcement forces could be.

Now let's assume Spisak was targeted mistakely by the female officer who was attempting to arrest him. Should it be considered a criminal act to use any reasonable means possible to escape this unjustified attack? After all, remember that the state insists Tasers are non-lethal weapons. If I knew I was being forced to submit to the will of someone who really didn't know whether I was innocent or guilty, I may very well choose to put up with the abuse in the hope that the matter would resolve itself without further harm to myself, but certainly I would be under no moral obligation to oblige such violent treatment -- especially considering the state is a criminal gang in the first place, given that it could never exist without first stealing from the innocent to fund its exploits.

An even simpler exercise would be to apply this logic to a situation where a cop initiated an arrest (violence) in response to a nonviolent act that was merely deemed illegal by a legislative mob that enjoyed majority rule. For instance, let's say I refused to put on my seatbelt after being ordered to do so by an officer. I can assure you such spirited opposition to an unjust demand would eventually be met with 50,000 volts of state "justice," and that's probably if I was lucky. However, if the officer so much as laid a threatening finger on me, I would be entirely morally justified in removing it, even though in today's society I would almost certainly be facing the prospect of using a commode in front of perfect strangers immediately henceforth.

Even if we assume Spisak acted illegitimately in tasing the female officer, it doesn't obviate the fact that state abuse is ingrained in our pysche these days; and what's worse, it's actually encouraged by scores of delinquents who put "safety" ahead of their own freedom. The vast acceptance of public police forces proves this point. But in actuality, crimes by the state would almost be bearable in this pitiful reality in which we live if the police could merely be held accountable for their own misuse of their weapons, too.

(Thanks to Wolf, who really needs to blog more often!)

Another Reason to Not Trust Juries

Last year I wrote an essay arguing that coercive jury duty lowers the quality of justice since many jurors who serve would not do so except that they face fines and jail time for refusal to serve. Another reason why jury duty is a poor method for providing justice is because there is a very good chance that the 12 individuals who compose the jury will be brainwashed, trained monkeys who privilege the State.

William Grigg reports on a jury which acquitted a police officer for felony gross begligent discharge of a firearm and a misdeameanor cout of displaying a firearm in an "angry manner." Writes Grigg:

The charges arose from a March 2008 “road rage” incident in which White shot Rachel Silva and her eight-year-old son. Silva had cut off White and backed into his car. She was shot twice in the arm and her son was hit once in the knee.

White, who was off-duty at the time and accompanied by his wife, initially claimed that he fired in “self-defense.” He later claimed that he fired his gun when Silva refused his demands to get out of her car. White never displayed a badge or identified himself as a police officer; witnesses to the shooting didn’t recognize the incident as a traffic stop or other enforcement action, but thought it was a domestic squabble.

Larry Ludlow, who has covered this case in the past, informs me: “During the trial, [White] lied several times and was caught in these lies, but the military-worshiping jurors didn’t care. They even swallowed the `fear of death’ excuse despite the difference in the size of the two vehicles — with [White's] vehicle being much larger.”

The case was also distorted by a grotesquely lenient charge: White should have been prosecuted for felonious assault with a deadly weapon, rather than “negligence.” In any case, owing to the fact that White was one of the state’s sanctified armed enforcers, he was acquitted of all charges and reinstated on the force.

Rachel Silva, on the other hand, admitted to being intoxicated and had the book thrown at her. She pleaded guilty to felony child endangerment and misdemeanor DUI charges. The only potentially positive aspect of this case is that Silva’s son will grow up with a usefully cynical attitude toward our tax-devouring “protectors.”

All Government Laws Are Backed by Violence

"[G]overnment interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." Ludwig von Mises

This is the inference I drew while reading J.D. Tuccille's latest post.

Update on My Prophecy

Here's an article detailing the downward spiral of accused museum shooter James von Brunn. As I predicted, the media continue to conflate hatred toward the State with hatred toward Jews and blacks as they investigate the life of von Brunn. Some quotations:

Von Brunn had talked about giving up "precious things" — even the computer from which he spread his angry diatribes against Jews, interracial dating and the government, said fellow white supremacist John de Nugent....

On his Web site, von Brunn said he is a descendant of German immigrants who became convinced Jews controlled the government.

After he got out, he became a regular in white supremacist circles and soon had his own file with watch groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. He wrote an anti-Semitic text and maintained his conspiracy theories on the Web site....

"I was stunned to have met anyone who acted like that. I don't remember encountering anyone that bigoted before in my life," Riley said. "He was right out there for all to know and see and he was just so angry, it was kind of alarming to be around him."

The reader is left with the impression that this man so seethed with hate toward blacks, Jews, and the government that he went to the Holocaust Museum to murder Jews. So clearly if an individual expresses hatred toward racial minorities, Jews, or the government, he must be planning to kill. If he believes in conspiracy theories, like those anti-patriotic 9-11 Truthers who do not trust the government, then he is a ticking time-bomb. Thus, we need the government to watch these people more closely, especially those people who are angry at racial minorities, Jews, or the government. The government may even need to just put those people in jail to preempt any future attacks. And the government is once again our savior.

Yes, these are interesting times for the Remnant.

Is My Prophecy Coming True?

There was a shooting today outside of the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC. The headline reads "Suspect has ties to hate, anti-government groups." The suspect, 88-year-old James Wennekter von Brunn, may have been the same von Brunn who was convicted in 1983 of a plot to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board. Apparently a racist, anti-Semitic web site and a book named Kill the Best Gentile were attributed to von Brunn.

Just as an article on the murder of Dr. George Tiller conflated anti-abortion extremists with anti-government groups, this article conflates anti-Semitic extremists with anti-government groups. When I wrote the post on the Tiller murder, I predicted that

future reports will detail which groups [murder suspect] Mr. Reoder joined, if that information can be discovered. The reporters do not have to make explicit connections. They need only mention "suspected abortion doctor killer" with "anti-government" or "anti-tax." The incessant repetition, as Hitler pointed out, will eventually become true in the minds of the masses.

This is not an anti-abortion shooting, but remember that anti-Semitic hate groups were listed in the MIAC report just like anti-abortion groups. Both articles link violent actions of hate with anti-government. There is nothing accidental about this. Expect any future shooting, beating, or murder by a racist or anti-abortion zealot to be linked to anti-government groups. The sheeple, fearful that extremism is on the rise, will give the State permission to clamp down on this behavior. The State will then use its new powers to brand anyone who criticizes it as a threat to national security. These may well be dark times for the Remnant.

Our Injustice System

Writes Bill Anderson:

It is my belief that there are no excuses at all -- none -- for wrongful convictions. The forensic science is there to use, and everyone in the system is well aware of the real pitfalls in eyewitness indentifications. However, the problem is twofold. First, prosecutors rarely care. They are the products of law schools that preach winning at all costs, and since most of them either are elected or have political ambitions, being "tough on crime" is a requisite item on their resume, and being reflective and being thorough to make sure no errors are made simply is not "being tough."

Second, prosecutors can operate under cover of immunity. In most professions, people who make serious errors of judgment that result in real harm done to others are held accountable for their actions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are protected by immunity.

Yet another clear reason why law and justice should not be provided by a monopolist.

The Great Thief

Uncle Sam, of course. The federal government has invoked eminent domain to confiscate 500 acres of private land in order to install a memorial for United Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Penn., on 9-11.

Among those who will lose property is a man whose father had purchased land there during the great depression and a pastor who owns a cottage there where he planned to retire. Landowner Randall Musser told the Associated Press he served on the committee that helped establish the memorial's boundaries and said that back in 2002 landowners were promised that eminent domain wouldn't be used.

Eminent domain is a criminal statute used by the state to steal property from private citizens under penalty of death. There is no negotiation, discussion, or debate. You either get out of the way of the wrecking ball or you become part of it.

The passengers of Flight 93 believed they were defending their country from foreign invaders. Unfortunately, however, it seems they were merely defending parasitic politicians in the nation's capital who would eventually turn around and exploit their bravery as an excuse to plunder innocent civilians.

Roughly 30 percent of all the land in the U.S. is owned by the federal government, yet instead of erecting a memorial on property it already maintains, the scumbags in D.C. would rather build it in the middle of nowhere as long as it presents another opportunity to add to its own booty at the expense of private property owners.

Instead of celebrating these victims of 9-11 the federal government is tarnishing their memory. You cannot honor the dead by disgracing the living.

Niagara Falls Police Use Taser to Obtain DNA

Ryan S. Smith, a shooting and robbery suspect from upstate New York, told Niagara Falls police he'd rather sit in jail instead of consenting to an order to submit a DNA sample.

A police officer said that when Smith was ordered by officers to give his DNA, he adamantly refused.

“I ain’t giving up my DNA again. I already gave it up once. I’ll sit in jail. I ain’t giving it up. You’re going to have to Tase me,” the officer’s report stated.

So tase him they did. And as is usually the case when the state determines the merits of its own behavior, a Niagara County judge has ruled that the electrocution was legally permissible.

Niagara County Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza decided that the DNA sample obtained Sept. 29 from Ryan S. Smith of Niagara Falls — which ties him to a shooting and a gas station robbery— is legally valid and can be used at his trial.

Smith was handcuffed and sitting on the floor of Niagara Falls Police Headquarters when he was zapped with the 50,000- volt electronic stun gun after he insisted he would not give a DNA sample.

Smith had already given a DNA sample without protest a month earlier. So why did police feel the need to obtain it on a second occasion, you ask? Well, they sent the first sample to the wrong lab, "where it was opened and spoiled." Apparently torture is a reasonable remedy for incompetence.

Smith may very well be guilty of the crimes with which he's been charged, but even the most unsavory of characters are entitled to due process.

Sperrazza even admitted that police should have arrested the disobedient Smith -- you know, in accordance with the law -- and brought him to court where he would have been warned about the penalties for noncompliance with a court order. But instead of adhering to established precedent herself, the judge ruled that it's legally permissible to use a Taser to obtain DNA as long as it's not done "maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury."

Ah, well as long as it's not done "maliciously" or "excessively!" No doubt such ambiguity is comforting to anyone who understands the all-too-lethal nature of the "non-lethal" Taser.

All laws are ambiguous when the state is allowed to interpret them to its liking; that's one of the primary reasons I hate the state. However, for all the abuses such abstract terminology will henceforth legitimize in a legal sense, that's not even the biggest problem with this ruling.

Sperrazza's decision that use of a Taser is legally permissible in order to enforce compliance with a court order is severely misleading and unlawful per se -- she ruled on the means through which state officials are allowed to collect DNA evidence when she should have ruled specifically on the legal propriety of compelling it in the first place.

In other words, even if electrocution were a perfectly acceptable method of coercing the nonviolent -- it's not -- the officer(s) who tased Smith broke the law by collecting the DNA sample prior to allowing the suspect to appear before a judge to be informed of the consequences of failing to comply with a court order.

If one is pulled over and suspected of drunk-driving but refuses a breathalyzer test, standard protocol for an officer is to issue an arrest and haul the suspect to jail, not to administer 50,000 volts of electricity to someone who merely refuses an order. Yet, anyway.

However, with rulings like the one issued by Sperrazza, who herself contorted the laws so she could absolve fellow tax-feeders of their due process violations, our devolution into a full-fledged police state continues apace.

(Thanks to Wolf for sending the story.)

I'll Take Private Gangs over Government Gangs Anyday

Police in Anne Arundel County, Md., suspect gang links in the killing of 14-year-old Christopher Jones, who was attacked and beaten to death over the weekend in Crofton, allegedly by 16-year-old Javel Marqueth George and an unidentified 14-year-old boy.

"Whatever dispute he has, whoever he hangs around with, whatever those factors are -- he doesn't deserve to be assaulted while riding his bike," said Anne Arundel County Police Captain David Waltemayer. "It is ridiculous."

Ridiculous indeed. Just about as absurd as when Anne Arundel police officers sexually assault young women during field sobriety tests, kill unarmed suspects in the middle of the street, or murder pregnant women during tyrannical drug raids.

The difference is, private citizens are (rightly) almost always held accountable for their crimes whereas tax-eating parasites in government law enforcement are hardly ever even charged for their criminal offenses, much less prosecuted and convicted.

This Is a Stretch, But Hear Me Out

Given that I am a member of the K.O.O.K.S., I tend to look at current events from a much different perspective than most people. Thus, rather than analyze the murder of Dr. George Tiller through the left-right prism of politics which most people look through, I will analyze this through my KOOKY lens.

This MSNBC report gives some of the details of the suspected shooter's private life:

Roeder's family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became "very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way," his former wife, Lindsey Roeder, told The Associated Press.

"The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs."

This report is linking anti-government and anti-tax ideology with extreme murderous religious fundamentalism. I daresay that this is not a coincidence. The MIAC report released several months ago also intentionally conflated anti-government groups, white supremacists, and anti-abortion groups. Moreover, the report made no effort to distinguish between peaceful anti-abortion groups (or peaceful anti-government groups) and those that would use violence.

The article continues with this nugget of information:

In 1996, Roeder (pronounced ROW-der) was arrested in Topeka after being stopped by sheriff's deputies because his car lacked a valid license plate. Instead, it bore a tag declaring him a "sovereign" and immune from state law. In the trunk, deputies found materials that could be assembled into a bomb.

The MIAC report also included sovereign individuals, i.e., people who believe that the rule of the State is illegitimate such as yours truly, as potential terrorists.

It is quite likely that this was a lone assassin who believed that he was doing God's work by killing an abortion provider. Even though many anti-abortion groups are distancing themselves from this act, some anti-abortion activists are not:

Some anti-abortion activists said they were familiar with Roeder. Regina Dinwiddie, a protester in the Kansas City area, said she had picketed a Planned Parenthood clinic with Roeder. She said she was "glad" about Tiller's death.

"I wouldn't cry for him no more than I would if somebody dropped a rat and killed it," she said.

Nevertheless, I always wonder if the State plants informants in various groups and tries to provoke crime. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Several writers at the LRC blog have noted that the latest FBI arrests for a terrorist plot look like dimwits who were complicit in a crime completely made up by the FBI. What did the State gain from this circus? It "reminded" the masses that there are evil people in the world who want to kill them, but the State is there to protect them.

What does the State gain from the murder of Dr. Tiller? It can use the fear generated from this murder to advocate more gun control measures. It can inflame the tension between pro-life and pro-choice groups which will serve as a useful distraction from the State's wars and destruction of the economy. The State can use comments such as those from Regina Dinwiddie as gasoline. But the most fruitful reward will come from the media's portrayal of the accused killer. The media will continue to imply that anti-government and anti-tax beliefs are gateway ideologies to extreme fundamentalist Christianity. My guess is that future reports will detail which groups Mr. Reoder joined, if that information can be discovered. The reporters do not have to make explicit connections. They need only mention "suspected abortion doctor killer" with "anti-government" or "anti-tax." The incessant repetition, as Hitler pointed out, will eventually become true in the minds of the masses. The State can then surreptitiously can call on the masses to watch their neighbors and report any anti-government or anti-tax ideologues as potential murders. Think of Minority Report with self-appointed anti-government watchdogs as the precogs.

I remember reading a blog post a while back by Karen DeCoster which suggested that government is trying to incite a race war in this country. Given Obama's very pro-choice views, it would not surprise me if our government was trying to incite a war between anti-abortion and pro-choice groups. I do realize that this argument is a stretch even for a member of the K.O.O.K.S. Not all crimes in this country are provoked or committed by the agents of the State. But we radicals must remember that our government has openly declared war on us. The MIAC report was a declassified report. There is no telling just how detailed and insidious the classified report is. Moreover, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel are all on record saying that a good crisis should not be wasted. Dr. Tiller's murder can be a very propitious event for the State and we should not forget that.

Kidnappers Abduct Three Children in South Carolina

The gang of criminals known as the Newberry County Sheriff's Department has kidnapped three small children from a house in which it found just over an ounce of tobacco apportioned into small baggies. Three suspects were charged with possession of tobacco with intent to distribute.

“When deputies arrived at the residence, they ...were able to see in plain view a [tobacco] plant growing at the residence,” said sheriff’s Major Todd Johnson in the press release.

“The officers also observed a partially smoked [Marlboro] cigarette on the porch of the residence.”

For the record, an ounce of tobacco fits in a small sandwich bag. But I have to come clean. The officers didn't really arrest these people for tobacco, they busted them and abducted their children over an ounce of marijuana.

So how many of you were ready to march to South Carolina with shotguns when you thought police confiscated innocent children in the name of tobacco, but couldn't care less now that you know it was actually marijuana?

In order to prosecute victimless "crimes," the state is willing to commit actual crimes by initiating violence against nonviolent people and their property. This is evil incarnate.

At Least Jihadists Admit to Their Brutality

I know this will come as a complete shock, but the U.S. is denying a report in a British newspaper alleging that photographs depicting Iraqi prisoner abuse include images of rape and sexual abuse. In fact, Barack Obama is so confident in the report's deceptiveness that he's trying to block release of the photos.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Daily Telegraph newspaper had shown "an inability to get the facts right".

"That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images," Whitman told reporters. "None of the photos in question depict [sic] the images that are described in that article."

Hey, I'm pretty sure I know at least one good way to verify the allegations of the report: release the damned photos.

Obviously, if the Obama administration has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear should the photos see the light of day. (Our benevolent defenders ought to be familiar with that line, eh?) After all, the photos are from 2004, well before Obama became commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

No matter. We all know Our Holy Savior is so dedicated to "change" that he'll just toe the Bush line on torture and "state secrets." No harm, no foul. Better yet, no reason to have to explain this, especially considering he just gave that Memorial Day speech touting America's "moral authority":

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others were said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Ah, the ol' phosphorescent tube trick. Brings back memories. So much for all that "transparency" Obama's been promising though, huh?

Actually, I expect the president to be a pompous slimeball, slinking around and covering his ass after breaking all his empty promises. But considering the praise the vast majority of Americans shower on the U.S. military, you'd think more officers wouldn't be such transparent hacks. Say, like retired U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who conducted the 2004 investigation into the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and concluded that the pictures in question revealed "torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

So far, so good. But then Taguba goes on to illustrate how the state's goons ultimately stick together by explaining why he actually supports Obama's cover-up:

"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," he said. "The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan."

Yes, thank goodness the American people are denied the ability to hold their rulers LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WAR CRIMES.

At least craven sociopath Taguba got one thing right: the release of these obviously damning photos would necessarily imperil our troops. Indeed, just today Will Grigg recalls the testimony of U.S. Army Major Matthew Alexander, a military interrogator who "asserts that torture and other abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not Islamic ideology, served as the main recruiting theme for foreign Jihadists who gathered in Iraq." Grigg continues (and I set this apart to drive the point home):

By his reckoning, torture contributed directly to the death of more Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan than occurred on September 11, 2001.

For all the despicable actions of the Jihadists who videotape their murderous, sadistic exploits, at least it can be said that they are capable of admitting to their brutality. At least they spare us the self-righteousness that we're so accustomed to hearing from American politicians and torture apologists, who claim they're setting the moral course for humanity as they torture innocent prisoners and then disguise their cowardice in admitting to their behavior as concern for "the troops'" well-being.

Fuck tha Police

Pretty ironic I never cared much for N.W.A. when I was in college.

Will Grigg highlights everything that's wrong with government police with his concise comments related to the video below. Watch the video, then read this.

N.W.A. had it almost entirely right. Statist tyrants are colorblind.

Army of Criminals

There will be more than enough discussion this week over why an American Army sergeant shot and killed five of his fellow soldiers in Baghdad. I was waiting to hear from the gun control lobby since it responds to mass shootings the way Pavlov's dogs respond to dinner bells and then I read this gem from Butler Shaffer at the LRC blog:

News reports inform us that an American soldier undergoing stress therapy in Iraq allegedly shot and killed five of his fellow soldiers during one of these sessions. This led one CNN babbler to ask the most inane question: why did he have a gun? Hey, fella, he's a soldier, participating in a war in Iraq. You may have heard about this war: it made all the newspapers!! What would you expect a soldier in a war zone to be carrying?

That's is always the first question gun control lobby members think of when a mass shooting occurs; it's as if they are taking a Rorschach test and every imagine they see is a gun.

But a more disturbing picture of the composition of the Army was reported by this article on the shootings I found on Yahoo. It appears that Uncle Sam is getting desperate in recruiting cannon fodder to fight the wars of the elite. So our government is allowing gang members to become to enlist:

A 2007 FBI report on gang activity in the U.S. military found that members of nearly every major street gang were present in the ranks of the U.S. armed forces. Service members associated with Bloods, Crips, Black Disciples, Gangster Disciples, Hells Angels, Latin Kings, The 18th Street Gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Mexican Mafia, Nortenos, Surenos, Vice Lords and various white supremacist groups were documented serving at U.S. military installations at home and abroad. The report said the Army had the highest count of gang members in its ranks, partly because it is the largest branch and partly because of relatively lax recruitment requirements.

Now other than cannon fodder why would the US military accept gang members? Isn't the US government supposedly creating a disciplined military to protect us from those evil foreign governments who hate us for our freedom? Are not gang members less receptive to discipline? Would you really want to train folks who are already willing to kill people here at home to become even more proficient at killing? Well, if you were the State, the answer to that question is, "Yes, I would like to train people already predisposed to kill and possibly undisciplined to serve me."

Ashton Lundeby Vs. the American Police State

William Grigg shares the horrific story of Ashton Lundeby, a 16-year-old North Carolina boy who has been detained by the FBI for more than two months on the suspicion that he has made bomb threats via the Internet.

Despite the fact that Ashton has an airtight alibi for the night he supposedly made a threat against Purdue University in Indiana, he has not yet been charged with a crime. Of course, this courtesy is essentially irrelevant in our post-9/11 era of the PATRIOT (sic) Act. As Grigg writes, "the late Bush administration, with the enthusiastic support of nearly every conservative commentator and activist of any consequence, quite thoughtfully disposed of the habeas corpus guarantee."

Federal officials no longer have to provide real evidence of a crime; they merely need to claim arbitrarily that they have "good faith" reasons to suspect terrorist-related activity before whisking you or your kids away to government cages to be held indefinitely. It matters not whether you're innocent or guilty, you see; the shepherds who occupy the ranks of the American Police State simply need to give the illusion that they're "tough on crime" so the sheep believe they're "safe," civil liberties be damned.

Perhaps even more abhorrent than the detention of a boy who would quite likely be innocent of charges against him were the state to actually file any -- any real doubt as to why it hasn't yet? -- is the fact that the our taxpayer-fleecing captors apply the very same methods against us as all those terrorists they're supposedly trying to apprehend. Per Mr. Grigg:

Annette and her children were held hostage in their home until 1:30 in the morning. The 12-year-old daughter was dragged from her bed by an armed stranger – an act that left the girl traumatized (and one for which the assailant should be thrashed to within a centimeter of his tax-devouring existence). Annette insisted that Ashton not answer any questions without an attorney present, but she wasn't permitted to call one.

The Feds confiscated Ashton's computer and gaming equipment, and made off with a great deal of family paperwork. But they couldn't find a particle of evidence anywhere to suggest that the teenager had built a bomb, or that possessed the necessary knowledge and intent. Nonetheless, they handcuffed Ashton and hauled him away to jail.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who knows how the new American Schutzstaffel treats ordinary, nonviolent citizens suspected of engaging even in mere drug use. Even when our noble stormtroopers target the innocent by mistake, they're lucky to get so much as an apology, so what should we expect when we're actually accused of terr'ism?

It seems we're faced with only two options nowadays. We can sit idly by while a gang of corrupt tyrants confiscates what few liberties we actually have left, or we can wake up to this political effrontery before we're all literally enslaved by murderous thugs who have to do nothing more than point a gun and bark. Given our current state of affairs, I am not optimistic that we will make the call that results in lasting freedom.

UPDATE: Will Grigg issues an update on the case of Ashton Lundeby, who apparently is not being held in custody under the USA PATRIOT Act. It also appears that Lundeby has been known to engage in pranks where he would call in a bomb threat for kids anxious to get out of school. None of this changes the fact that we live in a supposedly free country where paramilitary police harass and terrorize the innocent as they pursue those who are ultimately found "guilty" of engaging in victimless crimes like gambling and drug use, but the state's case against Lundeby certainly appears to be stronger than I originally assumed.

The State Creates Crime

Unfortunately, I was flying home from Mexico last Friday so I had to miss the Great Southern Maryland Police State Orgy, formerly known to most locals as "Tiki Bar Opening" -- the day on which casual partiers flock to Solomons Island to celebrate the symbolic beginning of summer.

As I documented last spring, in recent years the island has become more representative of history's most notorious state-run military regimes on the third weekend in April than the quaint waterfront tourist town that it actually is.

The police will tell you they're on hand -- with fully militarized assault vehicles in tow -- "just in case" things get out of control. In other words, should criminal activity break out, our noble law enforcement officers will be there to protect us!

But what if it's the police themselves who are responsible for the bulk of the criminality at such events? According to The Enterprise, if the cops couldn't locate "criminals" during the Tiki Bar opening, they simply created them through entrapment.

Maryland State Police on covert duty at the Tiki Bar's opening weekend in Solomons report that they arranged a drug deal Saturday with a St. Mary's man and gave him a ride to a home, where he was arrested.

Dustin Richard Cushman, 22, of California was released the next day on $10,000 bond to await a court hearing on charges including the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute the drug at the residence.

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing inherently immoral about engaging in nonviolent, voluntary transactions with consenting adults, you know you live in a fairly safe area when police officers have to lure people into committing a "crime." (Well, "safe" except for when one must deal with the criminal elite known as the police.)

Like anything else subsidized by taxpayers, government policing is merely another make-work program. Most people believe the police exist to defend us against criminality, so police departments are incentivized to ensure there is plenty of it to keep their officers occupied. After all, if there were no "criminals," there would be no need for government police, right? Think about that the next time your trusty politicos pass their next law.

Of Course FBI Employees Wouldn't Spy on Teenage Girls. They Are Our Protectors.

Writes Karen DeCoster:

Sick. Grown men watching *teenage* girls trying on prom gowns for a charity event at a mall. Little girls bothering no one. Question - what are FBI agents doing in a satellite control room in a mall in Morgantown, WV? Here's the stupid comment of the day.

Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

Thank to Mark Anderson for the link.

******************************************************

Every time I read or hear that someone is "shocked" to find criminality in the State I am reminded of a quote from Albert J. Nock:

I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

According to the article, "The workers were described in a complaint as 'police officers,' but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did." Moreover, "The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the FBI generally boasts about how it catches child predators and reveals every detail of the suspects' lives before a trial even commences. There are even "20/20" and "Dateline" specials on how the FBI entraps child predators. So why the secrecy?

How Sick Would You Have to Be to Rape a Woman Holding a Baby?

It takes a particularly evil person to violate a woman's right to be secure in her person by forcing her to have sex against her will. But how twisted would you have to be to rape a woman while she held her baby?

This is the accusation leveled against Joseph Daniel Bynum, a 22-year-old Maryland man who currently is on probation for the "crime" of lying to a police officer (never talk to the police). He has been charged with second-degree rape, fourth-degree sex offense, and second-degree assault for allegedly raping a woman on January 20, 2008 while she held her infant son and is only now going to trial.

According to the victim’s account in court charging documents, Bynum called the victim and asked her to take a ride with him. She declined, but said he could come visit her.

Bynum allegedly sat next to her on the couch as she fed her infant son and tried to put his arm around her. She told him to stop. Instead, he allegedly stood up, turned off the lights in the room, stood in front of her and told her to put her son down.

Fearing that Bynum would harm her son, the victim stated she put the baby off to one side, still holding him. Bynum then allegedly kissed her and forcibly removed her pants.

He allegedly attempted to have intercourse with her even as she repeatedly told him to stop.

Bynum finally stopped, redressed and sat down next to the victim, trying to talk to her, before leaving the house.

When contacted by the police, Bynum claimed that he had engaged in consensual sex with the victim.

My gut tells me that it's implausible that a man who has an amicable relationship with a woman would behave so heinously as to rape her in front of her own child. But while I obviously could be wrong, this isn't the biggest reason I doubt the veracity of the woman's story.

I am extremely skeptical not only because the state's prosecutors almost always side with the woman in these cases of he said/she said and because state attorneys generally face no repercussions for charging innocent suspects with crimes they didn't commit, but also because Maryland prosecutors already have a pitiful track record of bringing rape charges against suspects based on nothing more than an accusation by the alleged victim.

While the case against Bynum pends in Charles County courts, just last year St. Mary's County prosecutors, led by Asst. State's Attorney Joe Stanalonis, held innocent 16-year-old John Edison Jr. without bond in a government cage for over five months despite the absence of any physical evidence whatsoever that he committed a violent rape. The jury didn't even have to deliberate for an hour before acquitting Edison, revealing the laziness and negligence with which lead Det. William Raddatz and ASA Stanalonis proceeded against this boy.

The fact that the state pays no penalty for violating the rights of innocent victims illustrates how unjust our "justice" system really is. Ironically, it was John Edison's naivete about the state and its machinations that ultimately saved him because he refused to accept a plea bargain, instead vehemently insisting he was innocent and forcing the state to try to prove a chump case in court. Interestingly enough, defense attorney Kevin J. McDevitt, who successfully defended Edison, is also representing Mr. Bynum.

Admittedly, I'm making a fair amount of presumptions considering the Bynum case is in its early stages. But with this in mind, one has to wonder if the charges brought against him aren't simply an attempt to get him to plead out, especially given his previous conviction where police could genuinely threaten an extended sentence. Call me a cynic, but the U.S. wouldn't lead the planet in incarcerations if states were more interested in putting only the guilty behind bars than they were in merely adding to their conviction totals to give the impression that they're "tough on crime."

And that's the real crime in all of this.

Are You a Member of the K.O.O.K.S?

Michael Gaddy has a very interesting article up on LewRockwell.com. He writes

Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.

First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.

Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.

Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?

Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.

Why would the State provoke such "senseless" tragedies? Mr. Gaddy replies

As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.

When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?

Another Example of How Gun Control Kills

I wanted to reprint a comment left in response to my post yesterday on the Binghamton shootings that I think is rather interesting and deserves serious consideration:

I'd like to know how long it took SWAT to enter to stop the shooting. My guess is it was after the killer had taken his own life.

The cops have no problem flash-banging their way into anyone's home and shooting, at the very least, the family pets. But put someone in a building with a gun and the cops are worried about their safety.

Columbine comes to mind. These bullies are cowards. Get rid of them!

As I've seen in other places: Arm the people, disarm the police!

Actually, this episode was over almost as quickly as it transpired -- 13 people were killed by Jiverly Voong between 10:31 and 10:33 a.m. before the shooter apparently committed suicide -- leaving police with little time to respond before the damage was done. However, this fact alone should compel most clear-thinking folks to ask a very important question: How many people would have died if it was legal for law-abiding citizens to conceal-carry firearms? Probably not more than a dozen.

It should be widely known that government police are under no legal obligation to respond to emergency situations or to protect you. But even when they do arrive on the scene, there's no guarantee they will do anything to defend innocent civilians anyhow (think the VA Tech massacre, where cops cowered behind trees and cars until the shooting stopped).

The Binghamton massacre proves once again how self-reighteous politicians and their gun control laws harm the innocent. This saying might be a cliche, but it's nevertheless true: When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. When they're needed most, anyway.

Gun control laws not only result in needless deaths of those who otherwise could have armed and protected themselves, but they also inoculate the people to the fact that we're all responsible for protecting ourselves and our own families in the first place, and therefore brainwash us into believing we should ultimately place our fate in the hands of the state.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if that weren't the entire goal to begin with.

Finally, a 'Legit' Reason to Call in SWAT

A gunman has taken hostages and already shot several today in Binghamton, N.Y.

I don't endorse the existence of government police, but considering we're shackled with them, they should at least be deployed proportionately to the level of force required for any particular situation.

What I hate almost as much as the police state is the widespread militarization of police departments, which to be sure has contributed directly to the state's increasingly totalitarian behavior. Even the smallest counties and localities have resorted to using SWAT teams for routine police work, whether it's serving simple gambling or drug warrants, maintaining crowd control, or responding to suicide calls where an individual poses no threat to anyone but himself.

Whereas SWAT teams were originally devised for exceptional circumstances like hostage crises, fugitive situations, or commensurate threats posing an immediate threat to a community at large, today they are used systematically to intimidate, harass, terrorize, and even murder scores of nonviolent civilians.

It would behoove us to keep these rather quaint notions in mind today as Binghamton police attempt to extinguish a troubling ordeal.

Maritime Corrections

Via Karen De Coster, people who can no longer afford boats purchased during the boom are now resorting to ditching or sinking them.

I've heard of this occurring to a certain extent here in Maryland on the Patuxent River, though nothing I would consider palpable. However, this story takes me back to when my wife and I bought a 17-foot Boston Whaler in 2005.

Though the government has done its best to prevent us from using our boat because of its evil emissions regulations, we were nevertheless quite aware that the costs of pleasure boating are hardly limited to the boat loan itself. However, I know at least a couple people who made sure they got all the boat the lender would let them qualify for, only to resort to keeping it on the trailer once gas hit four bucks a gallon in the middle of the summer.

I still can't help smirking when I think that a total of 12 gallons of gas will fill both of my portable tanks to the brim.

Three PIGS Charged in Partamian Death, DA Vows to Expand Police State

In the wake of the tragic, accidental death of Arman Partamian following a night of partying during a pledging event at SUNY Geneseo, three members of the PIGS fraternity are becoming familiar with the unofficial motto of the American "justice" system: "If you can't prove someone guilty of an actual crime, invent one!"

According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Devin McClain, 21, Alex Stucki, 20, and Daniel Wech, 21, have been charged in the death of Partamian on March 1.

McClain, Stucki and Wech are each facing the following charges: criminally negligent homicide, a felony; three counts of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, one count of second-degree criminal nuisance, one count of first-degree hazing, all misdemeanors; and two counts of second-degree hazing, a violation.

All of these young men have pleaded not guilty to these charges, and rightly so. Although I don't have all the particulars surrounding the events that occurred the night Partamian died, I'm fairly confident that if Livingston County District Attorney Thomas Moran couldn't come up with any charges alleging that McClain, Stucki, and Wech intended to cause the death of their friend, they're probably innocent of any actual crimes. Even the most serious of these charges -- criminally negligent homicide -- implies the lack of intent to do harm.

Of course, that little detail doesn't matter when it comes to the state. Politicians, police officers, prosecutors, and judges all work in conjunction to craft and enforce all sorts of laws here in these United Police States of America that, ironically, intend to criminalize nonviolent behavior, which will ultimately turn us into a nation of lawbreakers.

Hence, the age-old common law standard of mens rea -- the concept that there is no crime without a "guilty mind," or no crime without intent -- has effectively been cast to the dustbin of history. Whereas the mens rea of robbery is the intent to deprive someone of his personal property, the mens rea of murder is the intent to deprive someone of his life. Note, however, that according to New York law a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when "with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."

Clearly it would have been helpful if some teacher along the way had told the geniuses who drafted New York's penal codes that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't use the term you're defining in the definition. While this type of arbitrary language works to the state's benefit because it ensures we really don't know what's against the law and what's not, the entire concept of "criminal negligence" is an oxymoron in the first place if we apply the moral standard of mens rea: Criminality requires intent, which is absent in the event of negligent behavior; thus, a death that results from negligence should not be considered a crime.

To be sure, this is not to say that negligence should not be punished. Certainly one could bear a civil responsibility, and therefore be required to pay a civil penalty, if his negligence results in the injury or death of an innocent person. However, criminalizing any number of acts that can be interpreted as "causing the death of another person" is a highly subjective practice that invites widespread abuse. After all, should we imprison high school girls if their ex-boyfriends decide to commit suicide after an unexpected breakup?

The remainder of the charges leveled against McClain, Stucki and Wech range from absurd to downright ignorant.

First, criminal nuisance is a catch-all charge that can be applied whenever police want to round up anyone who "knowingly" creates conditions that endanger others or contribute to unlawful activity. In other words, you may want to think twice before giving your buddies a lift to the library; certainly you know that operating a motor vehicle is a risky endeavor. Of course, this charge obviously has been applied to the Geneseo Three to hold them criminally liable for providing alcohol to a minor because Arman Partamian was only 19 years old. According to the standard of mens rea, however, this cannot morally be considered criminal behavior because Partamian willingly ingested the alcohol. Moreover, drinking laws are immoral on their face -- any adult has the natural right to consume alcohol if he chooses.

As for the ridiculous charge of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, well, see my previous comment. Arman was an adult. Just because New York law considers anyone under 21 a "child" when it comes to the purchase or consumption of alcohol, it doesn't prove that the Geneseo Three are criminals; it merely proves the state's laws are unjust. And hazing laws are as ridiculous as "hate crime" legislation. Even if someone is murdered, the crime is murder -- it hardly matters why the crime occurred. These charges are ancillary and excessive, and smack of little more than a brutish attempt by the DA to publicly smear McClain, Stucki, and Wech as mere miscreants who abused a defenseless child, instead of as human beings who may be guilty, at worst, of poor decision-making. In short, they probably say a lot more about the character of Thomas Moran than the guys he's attempting to throw behind bars.

(Via Bennett Loudon, author of the D&C report I linked at the outset, the young men face a total of 1-1/3 to 4 years; Stucki faces an additional tampering with evidence charge -- he allegedly removed Arman's PIGS jersey -- which could add an additional 1-1/3 to 4 years.)

And speaking of Moran, it appears the Geneseo Three aren't the only ones the DA is coming after. Per the D&C:

"The out-of-control binge drinking is going to end," Moran said moments after the arraignment of the members of an unsanctioned fraternity accused of causing the death of Arman Partamian, a 19-year-old student at the State University College at Geneseo.

"We've learned that many of the off campus fraternities have been operating illegal drinking venues where students come, show their student ID, pay $5 and get a cup and then drink without limitation," Moran said.

"I'm going to do everything I can to stop every one of those parties. If I have to start charging the fraternities with tax fraud, I’ll do that," Moran said.

To this I say: Why stop there? Moran should just start charging anyone who provides alcohol to minors with criminal nuisance and the assorted bevy of drinking infractions! After all, just because people usually find themselves charged with these "crimes" only after someone gets hurt, it doesn't mean that's the "only" time they can be applied. Come on, I've read the laws! All that these frat guys and sorority gals really have to do is create the conditions that "endanger" all the other kids on campus who, uhhh, drop five bucks at parties even though they have no idea what's going on inside.

Tom Moran, it's time to be a Real American! You know being a petty tyrant and pestering drunk kids about the stupid tax code isn't going to put a dent in off-campus partying; you gotsta pull out your jackbooted thugs and start raiding these hooligans, yo! A couple full-auto AR-15s to the forehead and soon enough word will start getting around campus that you're not fooling around anymore!

After all, you're the DA in a small college town, where students learn best by participating in teachable moments, observing their instructors and participating in hands-on activities. If you really want to beat the concept of criminality into these kids' dense skulls, no better way than to demonstrate it yourself.

The Stormtroopers Own Your Castle

Government invaders costumed in paramilitary gear broke into the home of Rita Patterson and William Hanavan on Saturday looking for a drug suspect and narcotics, reports The Buffalo News. Police left the premises without finding any drugs or arresting anyone, but not before terrorizing an innocent family and executing their two dogs "for no reason at all," said 68-year-old Daniel Patterson, who lives with his daughter.

Rita Patterson said she was cooking dinner in the kitchen when she heard loud noises at the side door. Hanavan was upstairs taking a nap, and at first she thought he may have fallen out of bed.

Before she knew what was happening, police wearing masks and helmets and carrying automatic weapons had broken through the door. They tied her hands with a zip tie and put her on the floor.

Her father pleaded with police not to shoot the dogs, but they wouldn’t allow him to grab the dogs and put them in another room, Patterson said.

One of the officers started firing a shotgun at the two dogs, one a pit bull and the other a pit bull-boxer mix.

One of the dogs was shot three times: once in the throat, once in the back and the last time in the leg while trying to run away, Rita Patterson said.

The other dog was cowering behind a table. Neither was a threat to the police, the residents said.

This atrocious behavior is the police state personified. The state's armed thugs have a legal right to trespass on our property brandishing weapons the rest of us aren't even allowed to own, use them in manners that would get private citizens thrown in jail, and are under no obligation to insure their information is even accurate before engaging in tactics that put the lives of law-abiding citizens at risk.

As abhorrent as it was that this family's pets were killed before their eyes, just imagine what might have happened had Hanavan or the Pattersons had the audacity to defend their home and dogs from these terrorists. One unfortunately need not engage in much speculation given that the precedent has already been set.

In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment required police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home -- a decision intended to protect not only innocent suspects but also police, who could be mistaken by homeowners for criminal intruders (those not protected by government-issued guns and badges, that is). However, the exceptions the court allowed have set into motion widespread and unbridled assaults on our civil liberties that have manifested themselves in the "war on substances the state would rather you not ingest." As Radley Balko explained in Slate Magazine:

But Wilson didn't eliminate no-knocks. In [its] decision, the court recognized three broad exceptions, called "exigent circumstances," to the announcement requirement. The most pertinent of these state that if police believe announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing their presence.

A legal no-knock raid, then, can happen in one of two ways. Police can make the case for exigent circumstances to a judge, who then issues a no-knock warrant; or police can determine at the scene that the exigent circumstances exist and make the call for a no-knock raid on the spot. In the latter case, courts will determine after the fact if the raid was legal.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that allowing police to determine for themselves the circumstances justifying no-knock entry essentially invalidates any requirement to approach a judge beforehand. After all, the state is the ultimate judge in conflicts involving itself, so the chances that it will rule against itself are between slim and none.

Balko's findings tend to support this assertion:

In the real world, the exigent-circumstances exceptions have been so broadly interpreted since Wilson, they've overwhelmed the rule. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!), or that the mere presence of indoor plumbing could be enough to trigger the "destruction of evidence" exception.

In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect's constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: "We do bang on the door and make an announcement—'It's the police'—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down."

Legalities aside, no one -- whether the private citizen or the government agent -- has a moral right to trespass on private property with the intent to initiate violence against nonviolent targets, much less carry out these threats by unilaterally inflicting damage to private property and harm on human beings.

Moreover, if you're inclined to excuse such tyrannical behavior even under select circumstances, consider the fact that when police kill innocent civilians during the course of these violent home invasions, they generally receive a paid vacation followed by an inevitable return to active duty; if you or I happen to kill a cop while attempting to defend ourselves from faceless assailants during the course of an immoral SWAT raid, we're looking at the death penalty or life behind bars.

Thus, the crux of the matter lies not with legality, but morality. Cory Maye is currently serving a life sentence even though there is no reason not to believe Maye when he said he acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Ron Jones during a drug raid in the middle of the night. Maye testified that police did not announce themselves, and that he ran to his daughter's room to ready a pistol in an attempt to protect himself and his little girl from harm that proved to be imminent. Though Maye said he believed the police were burglars, officers associated with the assault on Maye's person and property testified that they identified themselves as law enforcement officers, and Maye was ultimately convicted of murder.

Because we hold the concept of legality in higher regard than morality, Cory Maye is but one innocent man who may never spend time with his daughter as a free man again. However, morally it doesn't make one whit of difference whether Maye realized the intruders were police officers or not. Human beings who initiate lethal violence against other, nonviolent human beings deserve to be shot. It is the act of the offender that counts, not his attire.

We would be wise to consider the words of Will Grigg, who wrote in an article defending the right to self-defense:

Armed aggressors have no right to self-defense. An armed criminal has no right to shoot back if his victims offer armed resistance. That principle should apply to aggressors of any variety – including police who stage illegal and unnecessary home invasions, or who commit violent acts in the course of unlawful arrests.

It's more than a little ironic that the Supreme Court paid lip service to the "Castle Doctrine" when attempting to distinguish between police and criminal intruders in Wilson v. Arkansas: its decision in the case has guaranteed that the two are one and the same.

Will the Feds Respect States' Rights on Medical Marijuana?

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that federal narcotics officers will only enforce unconstitutional and immoral federal marijuana laws in states that have not legalized medical marijuana.

That would be a departure from the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Well, whaddya know? If this shift in policy actually comes to fruition, I guess we'll no longer be able to say that Barack Obama has followed completely in the footsteps of his predecessor.

While this technically would signal a very small win for civil liberties at the federal level -- on this particular issue, the feds would at least acknowledge limitations on power that the founders intended to apply broadly -- it's hardly an indication that the Obama administration is interested in reforming oppressive drug laws. 

Indeed, though the feds have no business regulating drug use at all, Holder has made it clear that his office still intends to target, harass, terrorize, incarcerate, and even kill regular ol' peaceful marijuana users across the country, to say nothing of people who choose to use other, more dangerous drugs. And according to this report, it's entirely unclear what will become of people like Charles Lynch, who was convicted on federal charges last year for running a legal dispensary in California.

While a little marijuana freedom is clearly better than none at all, I'm a little skeptical of this push to legalize marijuana for medical purposes alone. I happen to be a proponent of outright drug legalization, especially at the federal level, but I can't help but wonder whether this narrow focus on marijuana's medicinal value won't simultaneously perpetuate its stigma as a dangerous drug that should remain illegal for everyone without a bogus permission slip from the state.

Certainly the argument can me made that it's almost impossible to recover lost liberties all at once. After all, Americans are living proof that if the state simply chips away at our freedoms one step at a time -- think progressively tyrannical smoking bans -- we'll apparently consent to anything; so it makes sense that such maneuvering would work when it came to regaining our rights, as well.

Therefore, we should by all means fight for any victory against the state, no matter how minimal, just as long as we keep the big picture in mind: the state is our enemy, and we all have a natural right to behave in any manner we choose so long as it does no tangible harm to anyone else.

What we need to bear in mind with regard to Holder's announcement is that the Obama administration is not contemplating this shift in policy simply because it retains a healthy respect for states' rights. Modern presidents don't just issue policy directives that limit their own power. If this change actually occurs, you can rest assured it will be because it works to the president's benefit in at least some capacity (and one that will likely remain unknown to anyone outside his inner circle).

So take a moment to cherish this supposed win for individual liberties -- but only a moment. You will know true liberty only when the state is disarmed and no longer retains a license to kill merely to preserve its hegemony over our lives.

Maryland Needs New Acronyms for All Its Prohibitions

I know it must seem like I write frequently about Maryland's politics because that's where I live -- to an extent that's undoubtedly true -- but it would be a lot harder to do if the Nanny State on the Chesapeake didn't roll out new bans on personal behavior on an almost daily basis.

The latest legislation to breeze through the senate would prohibit phone texting while driving.

The bill would make violations a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum fine of $500. It would be a primary offense, meaning police would be able to pull over drivers solely on suspicion of texting.

We hear a lot about "gateway drugs." Funny, though, how politicians never talk about "gateway laws" -- seemingly benign legislation that allows police to forcibly detain nonviolent people against their will on the suspicion of breaking one law, only to use said detentions to "legitimize" further snooping and harassment in the attempt to write additional citations or make arrests.

Makes you wonder why the governor doesn't just cut to the chase and issue an executive order requiring daily "humanity checkpoints" whenever we set upon Maryland's overrun and overregulated roadways.

It's bad enough that we have acronyms like DWI and DUI as a result of absurd drunk-driving laws. But considering we can now be rounded up by the state for Driving and Texting Under the Influence While Smoking In Front Of Young Children, it's really time for Maryland to start consolidating its tyranny so we can keep it all straight.

Maryland's Police State Is Alive and Well

A U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has dismissed a lawsuit alleging gross negligence and malicious conduct on behalf of Maryland police in the 2006 death of James Emerick "Jamie" Dean, who was shot and killed by a Maryland State Police sniper during a standoff in which Dean insisted he be left alone to contemplate suicide.

Distraught over impending orders to Iraq and the prospect of leaving his wife after having returned from horrific experiences in Afghanistan, Dean flew into a tirade over the Christmas holiday and stormed off to his father's house in the woods, where he would eventually find himself confronted by an assortment of paramilitary assault teams after concerned family members trusted police simply to make a "check the welfare" visit.

United States District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow dismissed the Dean family's suit primarily on grounds that the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars individuals from seeking damages against states in federal court "unless Congress has exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override this immunity or the State has waived it."

This lawsuit was brought to federal court because Maryland had not waived immunity and therefore could not be sued, so essentially it was doomed from the start. However, while the Dean family retained no illusions that the state would admit fault in the needless slaying of a man who suffered from war-induced PTSD and pleaded with police to leave him to himself that fateful night, Jamie's widow Muriel told me yesterday, "I kind of thought this was the way it would turn out, but I had to try."

Admittedly, I'm not a legal scholar, but there really doesn't appear to be much legalese in the court's dismissal. It basically comes down to: "We've got immunity," ho-hum. But legalities aside, this decision should come as no surprise given that the state is the ultimate judge of its own behavior, and therefore very rarely admits any wrongdoing. (Incidentally, it's funny how the government loves the Constitution when it protects its own powers but simply ignores it when it doesn't.)

What I find particularly interesting in Judge Chasanow's ruling is her response to the plaintiffs' claim that Jamie Dean was unreasonably seized by police in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Now, as someone who believes that the Bill of Rights applies (or should apply) only to the federal government, not the states, I must point out that generally I would argue that the state of Maryland is under no obligation to observe the Fourth Amendment. However, because the Fourth Amendment has been incorporated against the states via the due process clause of the squalid Fourteenth Amendment, Maryland is legally compelled to honor it.

But this is where Judge Chasanow's interpretations get very peculiar. While Chasanow conceded that seizure occurred once police decided to surround the house in which Dean was contained, she nevertheless ruled that the "[p]laintiff[s'] Fourth Amendment claim turns on whether the use of deadly force was unreasonable," and ultimately concluded that Dean's death was the result of "reasonable police conduct, not excessive force."

Judge Chasanow's ruling is a perfect illustration of why government police are so infrequently held to account for the application of excessive force and a general abuse of authority. Absurdly, her decision rested explicitly on the conduct of police sharpshooter Sgt. Daniel Weaver, who made the decision to shoot Jamie Dean, while ignoring entirely the implications of the circumstances that led to Dean's decision to raise his weapon against police in the first place.

Despite the fact that Jamie Dean posed a threat to no one but himself, Maryland police proceeded to erect a barricade around the house he occupied. When Dean refused to come out, county police units initiated the use of lethal force by firing dozens of tear gas containers into the house, marking the point at which police went from "protecting and serving" to tactically assaulting Jamie Dean's civil liberties. Less than two hours after state police units arrived on the scene, Mr. Dean was dead.

Even St. Mary's County State's Attorney Richard D. Fritz, who cowardly refused to take legal action against his fellow tax-eaters in the wake of this preventable tragedy, wrote in his report following a death investigation that the tactics employed by the Maryland State Police "can best be considered as progressively assaultive and militaristic in nature," were "overwhelmingly aggressive," and were "not warranted under the circumstances of the facts present in the case."

While Fritz never actually used the term "excessive force" in his report, his description of the police department's actions can only be interpreted by rational observers as an expression of such behavior. Additionally, he emphasized:

"[T]here was absolutely no need to push an extraction of Mr. Dean. This was not a hostage situation, where an innocent civilian was being threatened by Mr. Dean; to the contrary, it was a barricade by a single individual, who was demanding to be left alone."

In other words, the standoff never should have been escalated by police to the point where shooting Jamie Dean was necessary, yet Judge Chasanow laughably insists that the force applied by police was "reasonable" and therefore not excessive.

Even Jamie Dean's family will tell you that Jamie didn't leave police with a lot of choices in the end when, after hours of unwarranted harassment, he finally decided to raise his rifle in the direction of a (badly misnamed) state police Peace Keeper vehicle, thus posing a mortal threat to the officers inside. However, the point remains that police acted recklessly and irresponsibly in escalating the situation to such a point to begin with. That Chasanow refused to take the full scope of events into consideration when ruling on the outcome is indicative of the omnipotence the state retains over the rest of us.

Moreover, as the inestimable William Grigg has written, "Armed aggressors have no right to self-defense." Just as a burglar has no moral right to shoot back if his intended victim decides to offer armed resistance, neither, it could quite reasonably be argued, do state-costumed thugs once they initiate aggression. However, to add insult to injury, Judge Chasanow offered the following:

Tragically, Sgt. Weaver’s shot resulted in Dean’s death, but this fact alone does not automatically give rise to a wrongful death or survival action. Furthermore, even if Dean’s death was caused by wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs’ state law claims would fail because Defendants would be shielded from liability by immunity. [emphasis mine]

How lovely. Even where victims of excessive force (or relatives of said victims) could actually get a judge to acknowledge wrongful conduct, it really wouldn't matter anyway because agents of the state enjoy immunity protections. So basically we're all just screwed no matter what.

In conclusion, this court decision highlights two very important facts: 1) The American people really don't have any rights in the eyes of the state, and 2) we don't have a justice system in this country; we have a legal system.

It's bad enough that the government can confiscate our property through its assortment of taxes and things like environmental or zoning regulations, but that's nothing compared to the fact that it can steal our very lives as well. And if federal courts in Maryland are any indication, it appears there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

Report Burglary, Get Assaulted

In a story that tends to support the notion that government police make little distinction these days between criminals and their victims, Stephen Pyles, a deaf man in Pasadena, Maryland, was assaulted by a police officer who was investigating a burglary at his home.

The 55-year-old Anne Arundel County man was accused of punching a police officer in the chest. But a paramedic who was there wrote in a report that Pyles, who is deaf and cannot speak clearly, simply pressed a note to the officer's chest and was then "violently wrestled to the ground" by the officer.

[...]

"When the officer was pushing me, I couldn't breathe. I kept trying to mouth the word 'air, air, air' over and over again," Pyles, who says he had neck surgery six days before his arrest, said through a sign-language interpreter. "Every time I see the police, I get chills. If something happens to my mom, who do I call? I can't call the cops."

Ah, to "protect and serve." Prosecutors have dropped the charges against Pyles citing lack of evidence, but one need not engage in too much speculation to figure out how this incident would have turned out absent the heroic testimony of Ashley Eckhardt, the paramedic on scene who witnessed the police brutality.

According to court documents signed by Officer L.A. Facciponti, Pyles pointed his finger in the officer's face, pounded a table and slammed down a pen that ricocheted and nearly struck the officer. Then "he suddenly and without warning used ... his fist to punch me in the chest," the officer wrote. Facciponti, who joined the department in June 2007, tried to arrest Pyles, but the man resisted and the officer used "hand techniques to take him to the ground," according to the documents.

But Ashley Eckhardt, a paramedic with the county Fire Department, wrote a different account. Pyles apparently "frustrated from not being able to communicate with the officers, attempted to get an officer's attention by grabbing the officer's arm and placing a piece of paper with a note for the officer on the officer's chest," she wrote. "It was at this time that the officer began wrestling the patient to the ground." Pyles was "guarding himself from the officer," "pointing to his neck" and "motioning for officer to stop," she wrote.

Pyles said he was terrified and suffering intense pain as he lay on the floor with his hands bound behind his back. "I really thought my throat was going to close up," he said. "I couldn't breathe. I thought I was going to die."

As William Grigg has written quite poignantly, individuals have a moral right to resist an unlawful arrest; in fact, Maryland is one of only a dozen states that actually recognizes a legal right to do so.

Of course, as the state is the ultimate judge of its own behavior, don't expect to see Officer Facciponti charged with any wrongdoing. We serfs are the only ones capable of breaking the law.

Nation of Criminals

The announcement that the U.S. leads the world in terms of prison population and incarceration rate is nothing new. However, a new Pew study analyzes the costs associated with maintaining our domestic prison state, and I figure it's always refreshing to remind oneself of just how good we have it here in the "land of the free."

Some quick direct quotes from the report:

- One in every 31 U.S. adults is in the corrections system

- During the last 25 years prison and jail populations have grown 274 percent to 2.3 million in 2008

- [Research] estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008

Report here.

"Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnston, Leaving Her To Bleed to Death in Her Own Home While They Planted Drugs in Her Basement, Then Threatening an Informant So He Would Lie To Cover It All Up"

Must-read blog post from Radley Balko about the murder of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston and the subsequent cover-up by the police.

Hat tip to Art Carden at the Independent Blog.

Who Needs Gun Bans?

The Illinois General Assembly is contemplating a bill that would force all firearm owners in the state to maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 (!), "covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person."

In short, instead of banning guns outright, Illinois legislators will simply make their ownership impossible for all but the richest individuals -- and that's assuming insurance companies would even issue such policies in the first place, as they'd apparently be on the hook for a million bucks any time a homeowner willfully defends his property from violent intruders.

I don't want to stray too far from the point at hand, which is to highlight the ease with which politicians can issue de facto bans on certain activities without actually having to legally prohibit them, but this is not a Second Amendment issue.

Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment (supposedly) prohibits the federal government from usurping gun freedom, not the states. While the provisions set forth by the Bill of Rights were never meant to apply to the states, the feds use the incorporation doctrine to continually seize state power. However, the right to keep and bear arms has not been legally incorporated against the states (for the moment, anyway).

I bring up this point because many pro-gun activists are apt to argue that the Constitution should prohibit Illinois from imposing this anti-gun legislation on gun owners. However, while such an overreach by the Supreme Court could give the appearance of preserving the right to bear arms in this particular instance, it would nevertheless result in an overall loss of liberty as the federal government centralized even more of its authority.

Simply put, we should never turn to government in the first place with the naive expectation that it can or should protect our freedom. Rights to life, liberty, and property are not man-made rights; they are natural rights that can neither be conferred nor upheld by the criminal state.

Until we refuse to play the role of servile slave to our government masters, we will remain unfree. And that goes for the ownership of anything from guns to goulash.

Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to Be Teenagers

Time for casual blogging has been scarce the past couple days as my wife and I have been tending to our one-year-old as he battles his first bout with a virus presenting gifts of vomiting and diarrhea, but I had to make time for this police state update from Radley Balko.

Regular readers of this blog are probably well acquainted with the excesses of Maryland's state and local SWAT teams (see here, here, and here for a refresher), but when more than a dozen domestic terrorists can legally storm your house over a teenage boy's misdemeanor marijuana charge, you can be pretty confident that private property rights are a thing of the past.

Here's a snippet of the story, as described by the boy's mother and victim of the Maryland State Police raid:

... At about 3:30 a.m.on January 10, 2008 approximately 16 Swat Team Members of the Maryland State Police entered our home with force with M-16s at the ready. Please note that we are the only county in Maryland that does not have a county police department. While the M-16s were drawn they handcuffed four of us (my oldest son has been living with his girlfriend for sometime now) this includes my 12 year old son. ...

Be sure to read it all for yourself, but note that the woman says police confiscated a shotgun her husband has had since he was 18 after they found a trace amount of pot in the basement.

It is no coincidence that the state confiscates our weapons at every possible opportunity. Not only is a disarmed citizenry more susceptible to the tyrannical edicts of its rulers, but it's also less capable of overthrowing the statist thugs when people finally realize they've had enough.

The only real question I have is, what's it going to take for people to put an end to their own subjugation? What hope is there for liberty when we increasingly permit the state's goon squads to terrorize innocent, nonviolent individuals, pretending that violently invading private homes with automatic weapons is actually less of a crime than smoking a harmless fucking plant?

I don't know if I'll come down with whatever's ailing my little boy, but I've already got a head start on the nausea.

Bills Running Back Arrested for Felony Gun Possession

Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch was arrested in California for possession of a concealed firearm. Even though he used it to harm no one.

Tell me if you think this story's a little messed up:

The Culver City Police Department on Sunday afternoon released a brief statement with details of the arrest. The statement noted officers spotted three men in a 2006 Mercedes Benz and recognized Lynch as the Bills' running back.

"A subsequent field investigation led to the discovery of a loaded firearm," the report said. "The officers determined the gun belonged to Lynch and he was arrested for possession of a concealed firearm."

If I'm reading this correctly, police officers pulled over the Mercedes essentially because they recognized a celebrity. Perhaps being a pro football player qualifies as probable cause these days.

Sure, you might thinking, "But it turned out Lynch was breaking the law!" If that's your argument, I'd point out that instituting martial law would allow the state to nab a whole lot more "criminals" than it already does. Heck, you pass enough laws, we'll all become criminals eventually. Sadly, it seems we're headed down that road.

The point is, Marshawn Lynch -- for whatever his reputation -- violated no one's rights by allegedly carrying a firearm in a car. And come to think of it, automobiles have been used pretty frequently to do exactly that, though we haven't banned them (yet).

Just keeping it real, homies.

Define Irony

A prominent member of the local Muslim community in Buffalo has been charged with beheading his wife.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

Not sure this was the best way to go about that.

Another Reason Why Public-Private Partnerships Do Not Work

And another reason why justice services cannot and should not be provided by a monopolist. Two Pennsylvania judges have been accused of receiving kickbacks from two private detention centers. In exchange for these bribes, the judges sentenced kids to jail time for even minor offenses. Here is the key passage in the article:

Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day.(My italics)

The income of facilities which received a fee per youth per day can be expressed in a very simple formula: revenue(R)=Number of youths(Y)*number of days(D)*fee(F). If a facility had three youths who stayed a week and it received, say, $1,000 per a youth per day, the revenue for the week would be as follows: R=3*7*1000=$21,000 for the week. How can this facility increase its revenue? It has to increase the number of youths or the number or days or the fee it receives? This means that in order to increase its revenue it must lobby the county to increase its fees or increase the number of youths behind bars or the number of days those youths serve. If the facility were to lobby the county, there would be political costs to bear. It would have to make an argument for why it needs more money and convince the people who pay taxes to accept a tax hike or reduced services to pay. That is time consuming. The facility could also encourage the county to create more laws, thus increasing the chance of arresting someone and having said individual sent to the detention center. 

On the other hand, who controls the number of youths and the number of days that each youth serves? The judges in the court. Remember, the judge is a monopolist of law and order and ultimate judge in this county. If anyone were to check the judges decisions, it would be a higher judge, but this judge would also be paid by the same entity as the lower judge so there is no real check. Thus, the judge can pass any sentence that he wishes, even if it seems harsh because the only place a defendant can appeal is to another judge paid by the same institution. This means that a facility that wishes to increase its income has an incentive to bribe judges to pass harsher sentences; it is less time consuming and easier to pass the cost onto the taxpayers (Look, we need the money because the judges are these harsh sentences). There is risk to the facility, of course. The judge may actually have ethics. But if I were head of a facility (and had no moral scruples) it would be easy to ascertain whether a judge were open to bribes. Just take him out to lunch and talk with him.

The point I am making is the following: The State does not receive its revenue through voluntary exchange. Thus, any private firms which contract with the State also do not receive their revenue through voluntary exchange. The only way for such firms to increase their revenue and expand assuming these firms contract only with the State is to compel the State to give them more money. This necessarily means that the State must expropriate more money from its subjects or pass laws to favor the firms at the expense of society. In either case, the State must act in ways which benefits one class of people (the firms) at the expense of another. In this case, justice was perverted and youths who may not have spent any time in jail did so to increase the revenue of the contracted detention centers. Such corruption is entirely predictable; one only has to understand that man acts to better his circumstances and how the State functions. The incentives would become as clear as a full moon on a starless night.

Young Boy Killed Protecting His Sister from Rapist

A 7-year-old boy was murdered by a robber after heroically attacking him in order to protect his older sister from being raped.

It all happened in late November, in the small military town of Noginsk-9 - a place where even small crimes are rare.

Around midday, a man rang the bell of the flat where Zhenya and his family lived.

“I asked who it was. The man said he was the postman, and he needed to give us a telegram and get a signature. So I opened the door,” recalls Zhenya’s sister Yana.

The little girl says the man held a knife to her throat, and demanded that her brother bring him all the money he could find. Zhenya did as he was told. But when the man started undressing his sister it was more than the boy could bear.

Zhenya seized a knife from the kitchen and plunged it into the man's back. This didn't kill the attacker, but it was enough to set Zhenya's sister free. She ran for help. But it was too late for her brother - he was stabbed eight times.

So sad. In the words of Michael Barnett, from whom I learned of this story: "This kid was a man before he got the chance to be a kid."

Violence-Mexico's Newest Export to the US

“…States actually are institutions that create conflicts and then present themselves as the solution to a problem that they themselves have created in the first place.”  Hans Hermann Hoppe

The Examiner reports that the violence associated with the Mexican drug war is now appearing in the US. Some excerpts:

U.S. authorities are reporting a spike in killings, kidnappings and home invasions connected to Mexico's murderous cartels. And to some policymakers' surprise, much of the violence is happening not in towns along the border, where it was assumed the bloodshed would spread, but a considerable distance away, in places such as Phoenix and Atlanta...

In an apartment in Columbiana, Ala., police found five men with their throats slit in August. They had apparently been tortured with electric shocks before being killed in a murder-for-hire orchestrated by a Mexican drug organization over a drug debt of about $400,000.

In Phoenix, 150 miles north of the Mexican border, police have reported a sharp increase in kidnappings and home invasions, with about 350 each year for the last two years, and say the majority were committed at the behest of the Mexican drug gangs.

In June, heavily armed men stormed a Phoenix house and fired randomly, killing one person. Police believe it was the work of Mexican drug organizations...

El Paso, population 600,000, is only a quarter-mile away from Mexico's Ciudad Juarez, which has seen open gun battles and 1,700 murders in the last year. But El Paso remains one of America's safest cities, something Cuthbertson said is probably a result of the huge law enforcement presence in town, including thousands of Border Patrol and customs agents.

In the past year, more than 5,000 people have been killed across Mexico in a power struggle among Mexico's drug cartels and ferocious fighting between them and the Mexican government. The cartels have established operations in at least 230 U.S. cities, according to the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.

Keep in mind that all of this violence, corruption, death, pain, suffering, and mayhem from which the State claims to protect us is solely due to the State's drug laws which ban the importation and possession of plants it has not approved.