who's your nanny?

I'm Channeling Eazy-E

I'm not completely on board with the argument that you can't be taken seriously as a writer if you use blatant profanity, but there's nevertheless some merit to it. So with that, I'll try to hold my tongue for now -- click here if you don't know what I mean by the title.

As for what's got me so riled up, check out this personal story from my good buddy Jon Wolf.

Taser Time Utah

Utah police tased a DUI suspect after the man tried to escape from their squad car.

The man was apprehended by the Utah Highway Patrol in the Salt Lake City area. He was traveling southbound down 1-15 Friday and pulled over on suspicion of DUI. When the UHP handcuffed him and placed him in the back of the squad car, he attempted to escape while the car was in motion.

The suspect apparently slipped out of his handcuffs and tried to kick open the back door of the car. Shockingly, it appears some people don't like to be kidnapped by state agents for causing harm to no one.

According to reports, the man's "vital signs remained strong" throughout the course of his public electrocution. Ostensibly, this is reason enough to risk killing us so the Gestapo no longer have to worry about breaking finger nails as they mete out the justice!

Red Light and Speed Cameras in the District Are Very Lucrative

The red light and speed cameras in Washington, DC have added a record high of $36.4 million to the DC treasury during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2009. But do not be alarmed. The purpose of the cameras clearly is to keep the residents of the District safe on the roads. The money collected will only be used to benefit the public at large. I mean, no government would set up red light and speed cameras just to collect money from its citizens and then spend the money on itself, would it? That's ludicrous. It's the government; it's here to help us.

 

"I Lost My Temper"

So says the 72-year old grandmother who was tased by a Travis County police officer because she swore at a police officer. Kathryn Winkfein was tasered by Constable Christopher Bieze during a traffic stop when she cursed out the officer for giving her a ticket.

When Winkfein walked toward a busy highway lane, Bieze shoved her back toward the shoulder. She shouted at Bieze, “Give me the f---ing [ticket] and I’ll sign it.” But by now the situation had escalated to the point where Bieze threatened to Taser her. She shot back, “Go ahead, Tase me!”

Winkfein then announced she was getting back in her car. After more shoving and shouting, Bieze made good on his threat — he Tasered Winkfein twice, sending her crumpling to the ground. Her cries of pain were captured on the dash-cam.

Ms. Winkfein was awarded $40,000 in an out-of-court settlement. In response to this settlement Travis County Constable Richard McCain said, “When the county wrote a check for $40,000, we rewarded this defendant for bad behavior, which is wrong.” 

Allow me to read between the lines of this comment in the context of what transpired between Officer Bieze and Ms. Winkfein. Ms. Winkfein was pulled over for speeding and was upset. Ms. Winkfein used some profane language to express her displeasure. Rather than act like a man and ignore such language, Officer Bieze felt threatened by an unarmed elderly woman who can give out a good tongue lashing. Fearing for his own safety, the officer threatened to assault Ms. Winkfein with a taser and then made good on his threat. Officer Beize tased an elderly woman for profanity. I'll give you a moment to let that sink into your mind.

In response to Officer Beize's actions, Officer McCain criticized the judgment, essentially arguing that rude behavior by regular citizens directed toward an officer warrants physical assault. Again, I'll give you a moment to let that sink into your head.

Stories such as this are why I have little hope for our future. The police in this country do not hide their brutality and genuinely believe that verbal insults warrant violent reactions. They really do believe that they have the right to abuse the people they were supposedly hired to protect. Officer McCain worries that the $40,000 settlement rewards bad behavior. Of course, he does not at all question Officer Bieze's actions. He does not bother to contemplate whether a violent response to angry but nonviolent individual is itself bad behavior. If any regular citizen had attacked a 72-year-old woman after she swore at him, he would be in jail now with no bail and the prosecutor would demand the maximum sentence.

The police in this country have no moral compass. They believe that they are the law and whatever they do is, by definition, just and right. They are idols unto themselves. The American public is just as corrupt for they defend the police and their actions. They are unable to apply moral law consistently. In the eyes of most Americans as long as you have a badge, you are a god and the law is what you say it is.

Woman Finds Police Officer in Her Bed

The Washington Post reports:

A U.S. Capitol Police officer was arrested Sunday morning in Arlington County when a woman came home and found him passed out drunk in her bed, police said. The two had never met.

The officer, Thomas Patrick McMahon, 34, was charged with unlawful entry. Police say they are perplexed as to why McMahon picked the apartment, in the 1000 block of North Randolph Street, to sleep. He lives in Reston.

"I don't know if it looks similar to his apartment in Reston or what," said Arlington police spokeswoman Crystal Nosal. "Thankfully, nobody was hurt."

(I'm also glad no one was hurt. Had the cop awaken from his drunken stupor to find an unknown woman in what he may have thought was his bedroom, the woman could have been assaulted or shot as an intruder.)

When officers arrived at 1 a.m., McMahon was still sleeping, Nosal said. Police think he walked into the apartment through the front door.

McMahon, a Capitol Police officer since 1998, is on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the criminal charges, said Kimberly Schneider, a Capitol Police spokeswoman. Schneider said the agency will also conduct an investigation.

His arrest was first reported on WUSA-9.com.

I wish I had a job where I could get drunk, unlawfully enter an apartment thus breaking a law I was hired to enforce, fall asleep in a stranger's bed, and be placed on paid administrative leave while the very agency that hired me has the final say on the outcome of the criminal charges. Nice work if you can get it.

Then They Came for the Texters

Maryland lawmakers have upped the ante on the police state once again. Beginning tomorrow, police will be granted even more authority to snoop in our private business when a law banning texting while driving takes effect.

Lawmakers and many residents are hoping that the ban will prevent motorists from engaging in this bad habit that studies prove dramatically increases a driver’s car crash risk. Maryland State Highway Administration spokesperson Lori Rakowski notes that it is impossible for a person to drive safely while texting because both activities usually require the use of both hands and eyes.

Interestingly, it's still legal in Maryland to be a woman while driving.

D.C. Police Faulted on Response to Burglaries

D.C. residents living just south of the Potomac Ave Metro stop have been victimized by a rash of burglaries over the last two months. The Post reports:

The bad guys have them worried, but what really irks the residents, they say, is that the officers who handle the calls come with a nonchalant attitude about "property crime."

Some say the muted response has left them wondering: In a city that saw more than 180 people slain last year, what does it take to get the police focused on curbing a rash of break-ins?

The neighbors have written a letter to the mayor, arranged a meeting with their D.C. Council member and complained loudly at community events. Still, they say, the burglaries continue.

If the citizens of Washington, D.C. would read this blog more often, they would know that the police in general, and the Nation's Capital in particular, have no incentive to solve any crimes at all. Since the State is a territorial monopolist of security which receives its income through taxation, it has no incentive to do any thing it says it will do, namely protect its subjects and their property. Its subjects cannot purchase security services from anyone else. And since the State can charge its subjects whatever price it wishes, it will charge as much money in taxes as it can. This is what we would expect from any monopolist: charge as high a price as it can and do as little as it can get away with.

If its subjects object to this treatment and sue the State for failing to protect them or their property, they can only turn to the State for resolution. And the State, being a judge in its own case, will rule in its own favor. This is exactly what the District Supreme Court did in the 1981 Warren v. District of Columbia. In this case, the court ruled that the police had no obligation to protect three women who were sexually assaulted for fourteen hours. Do any of the citizens of Washington, D.C. really think that the police which did not protect the physical bodies of three women from being assaulted, but will use all of their resources to protect residents' laptops, televisions, and X-Boxes?

Also unfortunate is the mindset of the residents in the article. Not one resident suggests purchasing a gun to protect his property. Not one resident suggests that the neighbors get together to watch over each others property. Not one suggests any sort of personal responsibility to protect his own life and property. This omission reflects The Servile Mindset of many Americans. They have been made helpless through the public education system and easily give up their right of self-protection for the fraudulent claims of the State-provided security. They have forsaken the option of self-protection and can only think about compelling the police to defend them although the police have no incentive at all to to this. Unless the people are awakened from their dogmatic slumber, they will continue to be victimized by the private criminals who rob them and State-provided police who do nothing to protect them.

 

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.

Police Tase Unarmed, Legless Man in Wheelchair

Because, as we all know, suspicion is enough to confer guilt here in the ol' land of the free.

The man who was Tasered, 40-year-old Gregory Williams, a double-leg amputee, spent six days in jail on suspicion of domestic violence and resisting arrest, although the Merced County District Attorney's Office hasn't filed charges in the case.

Williams, who was released from jail Friday, said he was violently manhandled and Tasered by police, even though he claims he was never physically aggressive toward the officers or resisted arrest.

Williams claims police kept tasing him even after he told them he had a heart condition. And even though he was in close proximity to his two-year-old daughter, whom Williams heroically tried to protect from professional kidnappers known as the Merced County Child Protective Services (sic). Story here, thanks to Jack Slater.

Watch the disturbing video here.

Let's Start a Pool

This is a suggestion from reader Jack Slater, who wonders when government police will start zapping us with Tasers specifically to draw blood samples from citizens stopped under suspicion of driving under the influence.

Police State Indiana

An Indiana man detained under suspicion of drunken driving has filed a lawsuit alleging that police forced him to submit to a blood and urine test after a Breathalyzer showed he was under the legal limit.

[Jamie] Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard's attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.

I'm shocked! Shocked!

O Glorious Taser

Are you fucking kidding me?

If you didn't think we were doomed yet, this ought to clear things up for you.

(Via Radley Balko)

Another Death by 'Non-Lethal' Taser

This time in Arizona.

He had been taken to a nearby hospital after he was shocked by police, but his condition deteriorated and he was pronounced dead at 8:55 p.m. the same day.

The man's name was not released, and police are awaiting his cause of death to be determined by the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office.

Only idiots associated with the state would have the audacity to question the cause of this guy's death.

I Have Figured Out How to End the Police State

Let's hire Hooters girls and Playboy Playmates to take pictures on police cars holding rifles. It appears to be the only offense which will lead to police officers being fired since assault, theft, trespassing, murder, etc., only lead to paid administrative leave. 

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.

Tallahassee Police Get 23-Year-Old Girl Killed

This story is a couple months old, but everyone should know about it. The video's about 15 minutes long, but watch the entire thing if you can stomach it.

(Thanks to Jack Slater for sending it to me.)

Re: White Guys Hate Cops, Too

Brutus, since I can't think of anything else to write about at the moment -- and don't have the time anyhow because I'm swamped in bureaucratic paperwork trying to incorporate my business so I can pimp my chili spice mix before the turn of the next century -- I'll share a couple police stories of my own.

For starters, I've long thought there are only two types of police officers: cool ones and complete pricks. I think that's probably still a fairly decent assessment, though the cool ones are being rapidly displaced by power-hungry jerks. Most of my encounters with cops have taken place on the highway, and I think I've been pulled over six times for "speeding." I'm 3 for 6 when it comes to getting off without a ticket.

I remember only four of these occasions specifically. The first was back in college in early 1996 when a buddy and I drove to the train station in Rochester, New York to pick up our friend Marge. The speed limit had just changed from 55 to 65 and though the trip back to Geneseo was only a half-hour, it was hardly routine so I had to pay close attention to the overhead signs. I was going 70 in the middle lane, assuming the speed limit was 65, when a county sheriff's deputy pulled me over. I explained that I was only going 5 mph over the limit, but he eagerly explained that he was hiding behind an area that was still at 55. Whee, I exclaimed, or something to that effect. At any rate I hadn't noticed a highway marker. I knew there was no getting out of this one, so I politely asked if he could hurry it up because I had to pee (I actually had to). At which point he sat in his cruiser for at least 15 minutes.

Verdict: Dick.

The next time was in the fall of 1996 in St. Mary's County, Maryland. I had just moved from New York to Maryland to take my first full-time job, a teaching position at one of the county schools. I had to go to the DMV (Maryland calls it the MVA but I still haven't gotten used to that after more than a dozen years) because my car was still registered in New York and I needed to pay Maryland's extortion fee in order to have the privilege of owning a car here. I was over the grace period and literally thought to myself before I left for the MVA that this would be the day I would get burned on my way up the road -- appropriate given the fact that the cop could nab me for driving an unregistered vehicle in addition to any moving violations. So I was extra careful to watch the speedometer. I didn't matter. I was clocked going 10 over the limit and issued a $60 citation. (Considering the one I'd just paid in Rochester was $120, I asked the cop if I could just give him $100 and have my way on the roads the rest of the day. He declined.) When he asked where I was going, I told him I was on my way to register my car. He laughed and didn't push the issue. I was surprised.

Verdict: He was pretty cool.

I was pulled over again the following year, this time up in Dansville, New York as I was on my way back home to Maryland after visiting my pathetic excuse for a girlfriend. I stopped at a gas station to fill up and get a can of dip for the drive and had no idea what the speed limit was on the way to the highway entrance. I was doing about 45 -- figured that was fair -- when a town cop threw the lights on behind me. I had my license and registration ready to go as he approached like he was waiting for me to hang a tommy gun out the window. I opened the door because my window would fall into the door every time I tried to roll it down, and the officer gave me one of the "Whoa! Whoa!" gestures. This would most likely get you tased or at least form tackled immediately nowadays, but I explained my window situation and he told me to just sit back in the driver's seat. My window ended up falling into the door anyway because I then had to roll it down. He asked where I was going. I said, "On my way back to Maryland, doesn't that suck?" He laughed and said, "Am I going to find anything on your driving record if I run your license?" I said, "I sure hope not." At which point he told me to have a safe drive and let me on my way.

Verdict: Coolest on-duty cop I've met to date.

The last time I was pulled over (knock wood) was in 1998. I was driving through Mechanicsville, Maryland where the speed limit drops from 55 to 45 at the bottom of a hill. Yeah, one of those deals. I was on my way down to 50, but the state trooper must've decided I was too much of a threat to the Amish buggies on the shoulder in that particular patch of highway to let me get on with my day as I decelerated. I had already pulled over before the cop even left the speed trap to roll up behind me, and out popped a hot little Hispanic firecracker. She went all of about 5'2" and I immediately knew I was screwed. Ladies and gents, there ain't no getting around a ticket from a female cop, especially one that can claim double minority status. The world is their enemy and they're out to make you pay for it one motorist at a time. And even though we all know hot chicks can often get their way with male officers, I doubt Brad Pitt has much of a shot with policewomen out to do anything guys can do and better (so take that!). This was the extent of our conversation:

Her: "License and registration."
Me: (sigh, eyes rolling)
Her: "Have a nice day (hands me the ticket)."
Me: "Go fuck yourself (muttered, of course)."

Verdict: Whore.

You know, looking back at this I was pulled over a lot in a relatively short timespan. Funny thing is, even though I didn't even realize how much I hated the state back then, I sure as hell hated it enough not to want to surrender any more money to it than I had to, so I was always conscious of how fast I was driving. But you'll notice that all of these episodes occurred prior to 9/11, before complete militarization of even local police departments had occurred.

Today I practically consider it a divorceable offense for my wife to be pulled over. While she's certainly not as bad a driver as most women, she still puts her makeup on while she's driving and loses track of her speed. (She denies all of this, of course.) I probably shouldn't be such a prick myself; it's the state's fault, after all, for monopolizing road ownership and law enforcement in the first place (and these guys will pull you over for anything if they feel like it, even if you're only going more than a few mph over the posted limit). But you have to be smart enough -- and, yes, cynical and vindictive enough -- to take measures to avoid being pulled over by police at almost any cost these days.

It's bad enough to have to surrender payment at the hands of jackasses dispatched to steal our property just so they can raise more money to hire more officers in order to perpetuate the cycle. But it's even worse to be electrocuted or killed in an age when everyone is fair game as the police remain above the law.

White Guys Hate Cops, Too

Writes Ted Rall:

No one should be less scared of cops than me. I'm white, clean-cut, middle-aged, invariably polite: "Hello, sir. Is there a problem, officer?" Yet I can't point to a single positive experience I've ever had with a cop. Neutral ones, sure--basic, cold, bureaucratic interactions. But no great ones.

And lots and lots of negative ones.

Where to begin?

I'll never forget the New York traffic cop who stepped off the curb in front of my car on Madison Avenue and ordered me to turn right. He wrote me up for illegal right turn. "But you told me to," I protested. "Wrong place, wrong time," he smirked. $165 plus three points on my license. I appealed. The cop lied under oath. The court believed him.

Or the Nevada highway patrolman who pulled me over. I was doing 80 in a 70. He wrote me up at 100 mph. My brother-in-law, never the suck-up, confirmed I was going 80. I was so furious--the fine would have been $400--that I spent double that to fly back and challenge the ticket in court. I won.

I completely agree with Rall on this point: I have never had a good experience with a police officer. Neutral at best. Several negative ones. I still remember being stopped in New Jersey because I did not know about "jughandles." I made a left turn and accidentally went the wrong way down a one-way street. It was late at night and there were no cars on the street where I turned. There was no "No Left Turn" sign nor was there a "Do Not Enter" sign. The cop gave me a ticket for going down the one way street and then had the effrontery to say that he was being kind because he could have cited me for making the left turn as well. No, you arrogant S.O.B, you could have let me go since I was not from the area and clearly not familiar with the laws. Condescension such as this is one of the many reasons many people hate the police. Clearly it was in his powers to let me go without a ticket of any sort; he explicitly stated that he was not citing me with the other offense. Not only did he give me a ticket, he then taunted me with his "kindness." They are quite aware of their power and enjoy lording it everyone else not a police officer or other hallowed member of the State. Cops are a menace to society and I am glad to see a white, mainstream, liberal male say so.

 

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)

Don't Let People Get Naked in Your Own House

Or drink a beer. Or smoke a plant. Or do anything else they choose to do of their own free will absent harm to anyone else.

Cuz the state, boy, it's comin' for you!

Will Grigg on The Menace to Society aka The Police

Will Grigg has yet another excellent pieceon the police and the "obey us or suffer the consequences" mentality which infects law enforcement and its defenders. Grigg cites several police officers and we should all pay close attention to their words. The police in this country really do believe that they have the right to arrest, tase, or shoot you for any reason. It is not unlike the racist mindset of whites in this country until about 1970ish who thought that they could do anything to non-whites. When one group of people genuinely believes that it is superior to another for any reason, abuse will inevitably follow.

Grigg also makes this excellent observation regarding Obama's about-face in his comments directed toward Officer Crowley:

Accordingly, police unions now have sufficient political influence – due in no small measure to the tendency of conservatives to fetishize armed bureaucrats in uniform – to stare down the President. Witness the success of Sgt. James Crowley, the officious dweeb who needlessly arrested Henry Gates, in extracting – with the help of his comrades in the police union – what amounts to an apology from Barack Obama.

Observed the Christian Science Monitor: "[T]he union's hard line – successfully staring down a president – is a window into the so-called Thin Blue Line – the 'Band of Brothers' mentality that draws police departments closer in time of crisis." Or, in this case, fuses them together in bonds of adolescent petulance in confronting their critics when one of their number abuses a citizen.

We've reached the stage in our imperial decline in which the bearer of the Imperial Purple has to take care to keep the Praetorians on his side. Obama is particularly vulnerable in this respect, not only because police unions see him as a cultural outsider but especially because his agenda for forcible reconstruction of American society will depend heavily on the organs of official coercion.

All government power rests on consent; even the most heavily armed governments such as the former Soviet Union or the current regime in North Korea are dependent upon the consent of the soldiers. If the soldiers decide not to shoot, then the dictator's orders are meaningless. If Obama's plans become law, they will require a massive expropriation of wealth from the public. In order to steal such a massive amount of wealth, he will need the cooperation of police officers in every county of every State; now is not the time to alienate the very people he will need to disarm the public and enforce his laws.

Are Cops Really This Stupid?

That's a question sent by reader Brad after he read this story. You be the judge.

A man, who doused himself with gasoline and charged at an officer, burst into flames when he was hit with a Taser, police in Australia said Tuesday.

"He was carrying a lighter and pouring himself with petrol," said Inspector Bill Munnee with the West Australian Police. "We don't know if the lighter set it off or something from the Taser."

All because you apparently can't even sniff glue without getting a visit from our almighty "protectors."

Crowley to Dispatcher: "Gates Is Uncooperative, Send Backup"

The Associated Press and CNN are reporting that Lucia Whalen, the woman who called 911 in the Gates case, did not mention that the suspects were black. For those interested in the racial aspect of the case, the 911 tapes raise new questions about how and why the situation escalated. For those of us interested in the martial law mindset of police officers, this passage in the Associated Press report is telling:

In a radio communication with a dispatcher, also released Monday, Crowley said Gates was not cooperating.

"I'm up with a gentleman, says he resides here, but was uncooperative, but keep the cars coming," Crowley said.

Is it standard police procedure in Cambridge to call for backup simply because a man is being uncooperative?

I also noticed that Ms. Whalen has hired Wendy Murphy as her attorney. One may wonder why someone who simply called 911 to report a possible burglary would need an attorney, but this is a very wise move. You should never talk to the police without a lawyer especially if you are innocent.

Quote of the Day from Anthony Gregory

Regarding the Gates arrest, Gregory writes: "Race is irrelevant. A cop has no right to arrest people for being rude. The cop was an intruder. The urge to defend police for their criminality will always render the rightwing completely unable to understand and defend liberty."

Read more here.

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.

A Menace to Society

Police officers in Cambridge are upset with the President for his remarks about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The President said that the officers "acted stupidly," but then admitted that he did not know all the facts. David Holway, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which represents 15,000 public safety officials around the country, said

What we don't need is public safety officials across the country second-guessing themselves...The president's alienated public safety officers across the country with his comments.

I have no problem with the State being divided against itself; such disagreements among this criminal gang increase our chances for freedom. But the truth is that there is no reason for anyone not a police officer to trust any police report. Those of us who read the blogs of William Grigg and J.D. Tuccille among other libertarian blogs (including WYN!) regularly know that police routinely abuse their power and cover up their crimes. And in many of these cases, senior officers and the courts condone their behavior and exonerate them from any culpability. Why should we give cops the benefit of the doubt when they

• taser people for being polite and asking questions?
• assault an EMT worker and only receive a five day suspension without pay and anger management classes?
• murder a man outside his home because the undercover officer is participating in a drug buy on the victim's property?
• taser individuals and, if they die, argue that the death was a result of "excited delerium"?
• kill motorists while driving recklessly yet be acquitted of manslaughter charges?
• taser a sassy 72-year-old woman because she refused to sign a speeding ticket?
• taser a 14-year-old girl over a disagreement she had with her mother?
• kill a family chihuahua because it bit one of the officers?
• get drunk in a bar, beat up the female bartender who was only protecting her property and receive probation?
• strip search a man in public in front of 30 witnesses and then drive off?
• arrest a mayor and his mother-in-law in a drug sting, kill the family's dogs, realize that the drugs did not belong to the mayor, refuse to apologize, and then say that the shooting was justified?
• trick a young man who was sleeping off his inebriation into a drunk driving charge?
• rear end a car in a police cruiser, flee the scene of the accident, call their fathers who are also police officers to help search for the accident victim, find the victim, assault the victim, arrest the victim, lie about the incident, are revealed as liars when surveillance video appears, are exonerated by the District Attorney who chooses not to prosecute, and now face only disciplinary action from their police department?

This is a very short list of crimes and abuses by police officers in various jurisdictions. Simply listing all the dog-shooting incidents I know of would tax this blog's server; listing all the taser stories would crash it. And in almost every one of these incidents, the police officers involved were exonerated. The police department ruled that the shooting or tasering was justified or the DA did not prosecute or the judge in the case set the officers free or in the most depressing of cases, the jury condoned and approved the violent behavior of police officers by exonerating them.

The people in this country have very sound and legitimate reasons to fear police officers. Anyone who has been stopped by a cop becomes quickly aware of the chasm of power between him and the officer. If the officer interprets any of your behavior as threatening, he can arrest you or taser you or shoot you. And if you or your survivors believe that the action was unjustified, to whom can you turn for justice? To a judge who is paid by the same entity as the State? And what will the judge rule? He will rule that the officer's actions were justified unless there is considerable outcry from the public. But justice will inevitably be perverted in favor of the police because the State is a judge in its own case.

So I as much as I dislike the President and his government (And all governments. Don't get it twisted, conservatives), I have no problem with the President's comments. The police in this country are a menace to society. They are running a bigger deficit in goodwill than the Federal Government in national debt. They are not to be trusted. Unless their testimony is corroborated with non-police testimony or evidence, we should assume they are lying. They are an intolerable evil because our own money pays these thugs to tase us, beat us, and kill us.

Drug War in Microcosm

An otherwise nonviolent man murdered by police on his own front porch for having the temerity to protect his property from armed trespassers dispatched by the state.

And don't you just love the fact that you and I qualify for the death penalty here in the "land o' duh free" if we simply confront police while unarmed?

A Repost of The Miseducation of the Negro

The recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the subsequent cries of racial profiling has compelled me to repost this essay. The Gates' arrest is not even remotely as tragic the murder of Oscar Grant by Officer Johannes Mehserle. Nevertheless, most people will focus only on the question of race and will be deceived into believing that if we somehow solve racism, police brutality and abuse will end. 

According to the police report, Gates was arrested "after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while being surprised and alarmed." Yes, it is possible that this report is masking racism, but it need not. As I wrote in the original essay:

Certainly some police officers are racist and abuse people for this reason. But they could also abuse us because they simply did not like how we looked at them; they did not appreciate our tone when we replied to a question they asked; we did not get out of the car fast enough when asked; we got out of the car too fast when asked; we did not get on the ground when commanded; we did not stand up when commanded; we protested a ticket; we filed a grievance against them with their supervisor; they were just in a bad mood; they wanted to abuse us and knew that they could get away with it.

It is quite possible that Gates was arrested because he was acting like a jerk and embarrassing the police officer on the scene. Police have the power to arrest anyone for any reason. If the charges are dropped, nothing will happen to police officer. In fact, the officer will probably be supported by his police union making prosecution of any sort almost impossible. Unless people realize that the very nature of the State encourages and protects police from their abusive actions, the police will continue to commit blatant and heinous crimes with impunity.

Never Believe Uncorroborated Police Testimony

An admonition from William Grigg.

'A Microcosm of America's Foreign Policy'

British commentator hits home runs all the way through this video. And the implication that the U.S. police state does its best to treat its own subjects citizens the same way it treats foreigners is priceless.

(Thanks to Dan)

Having Eyes but Never Seeing

I heard a pastor once say that truth is out in the open for anyone to see; they only have to look. One truth I try to impress upon people is that the State by its very nature creates two sets of laws. There is one set of laws for the agents inside the State (public law) and another set of laws for those outside the State (private law). This evidence is everywhere and people completely ignore it because they have been indoctrinated in the myth of the rule of law. Police officers in Montgomery County, Maryland, are providing yet another example of how the duality of law works.

Four Montgomery County police officers are refusing to pay speeding tickets they received from speeding cameras. I'm sure these officers were shocked when they received the tickets. Before these cameras arrived, my guess is that police officers rarely received tickets. No police officer would pull over a fellow officer for speeding in his police cruiser. Perhaps he may get pulled over for speeding in his private car. But even then, he will probably be let go as soon as he flashes his badge. In fact, the only situation I can imagine a police officer receiving a ticket before cameras is an officer speeding in his private vehicle in another jurisdiction and the cop who pulls him over decides not to extend the speeding officer a courtesy. 

The Examiner reported that a "Montgomery County judged tossed tickets of four on-duty police officers who were caught by speed cameras. Two of them were driving twice the speed limit, driving 50 and 51 mph in 25 mph residential zones." This should be no surprise. The judge and the police officers are paid by the same institution, the State. The State is judging its own case. As long as the judge harbors no personal animosities toward the officers, why would anyone expect otherwise?

These officers have posed a problem to the local government of Montgomery County because it exposes the truth that there are two sets of law. In an effort to spin this truth, Council President Phil Andrews stated, "The public is resentful when public employees are treated different than private citizens, unless there is a valid reason for the action," (emphasis added). The council president is saying as clear as day that there exists two sets of laws. The added phrase "unless there is a valid reason" disarms the masses. Rather than ask why there are two sets of laws in the first place, the masses will ask, "is this exception reasonable?"

The judge in the case stated that the county lacked a written policy regarding speed camera tickets violated the officers' right to due process. County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield replied, "Police department policy is clear: If officers don't have a good reason to be speeding they have to pay tickets, same as everyone else," (emphasis added). Yet again a county executive speaks the truth about public law and private law. The legitimacy of this "good reason" will be determined by other State agents. Why would a judge or county executive reject a "good reason" which they themselves could possibly use in the future should they receive a speeding ticket?

That there exists two sets of law is obvious and open to all. Yet the education of the masses precludes them from putting together the pieces of the puzzle. They think that this puzzle forms a picture of protection and safety rather than robbery and oppression.

The Remnant, however, is not fooled by these mock judicial proceedings. We know what the puzzle should look like. We know that the State is a criminal gang writ large but its power rests on consent from the masses. As long as the masses view the State as legitimate, it can continue to steal with little resistance. The real threat these officers pose is that their actions may persuade some of the masses to wake up from their dogmatic slumber. They will then realize that there is no rule of law as long as there is exists a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate judge of this law. If enough do so and withdraw their consent, the State will collapse like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away. It will fall of its own weight and break into pieces.

 

Yet Another Excellent Post from William Grigg

It's Not That the Police Killed Him; He Just Happened To Die

Most of the time, when a citizen dies needlessly at the hands of one of the state’s armed enforcers, we are told insistently — by both the agency that employed the assailant and the state-aligned media — that the officer “acted appropriately,” and that he “followed established procedures.”

Where the death was clearly a result of police violence, defenders of the state’s apparatus of regimentation take refuge in contrived ambiguity.

For instance: Whenever a young person dies after being subjected to electro-shock torture via Taser, the public is lectured about the lethal effects of  “excited delirium,” a mysterious condition that seems to afflict only those who are gang-tackled, tased, and otherwise abused by police. (While some medical examiners accept “excited delirium” as a valid cause of death, the condition is not widely recognized among medical professionals apart from those closely associated with law enforcement.)

Accordingly, when an overweight individual who may suffer from type-2 diabetes, cardiac disease, and similar conditions dies needlessly in police custody, we’re told that it wasn’t tasing, beating, and other mistreatment by police that killed him; it was either the sudden lethal expression of an underlying health problem, or a case of “excited delirium.”

The “excited delirium” rationale can also be applied when police kill innocent, non-violent people who are taking prescription drugs for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, and similar conditions.

Thus when police in southern Utah murdered 32-year-old Brian Cardall near Hurricane last month, practically the first words to fall from the mouth of one of the assailants was that Cardall was killed by “excited delirium” — not by the repeated Taser strikes used to subdue the husband and father during a psychotic episode.

A different but related approach to police self-justification was displayed in the recent death of 42-year-old Donel Stogner of Walker, Louisiana. Stogner was pulled over, apparently for a traffic violation, by Livingston County Deputy Sheriff Chris Sturdivant. During the stop, the deputy noticed something in Stogner’s right hand; when Stogner refuses to open the hand, Sturdivant grabbed him and tried to pry it open.

A struggle ensued in which — as documented by the deputy’s dash-cam video — Stogner appeared to put something in his mouth. This prompted Sturdivant, a wiry, athletic male, to climb the larger man’s back, wrap an arm around his throat, and throw him to the ground, where the two grappled for nearly five minutes.

During the scuffle, Sturdivant can be heard repeatedly ordering Stogner to “spit it out”; Stogner, for his part, can be heard groaning and laboring for breath — the latter being a result not only of exertion, but of a naked chokehold being used, somewhat inefficiently, by the deputy.

At one point, Stogner apparently knocked a can of pepper spray from Sturdivant’s hands. The struggle continued until a second officer arrived and pitched in.

Stogner wasn’t breathing by the time his protectors were finished serving him, and he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

The preliminary finding by the local medical examiner, Dr. Ron Coe, was  that there were “many factors in Stogner’s death.” The middle-aged, overweight man was a methamphetamine user (he had been arrested on drug charges several times, including an arrest just days before he died). He suffered cardiac arrhythmia, severe atherosclerosis, and had an enlarged heart — all of which reflected a poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle, and would probably have killed him eventually.

Almost by way of afterthought, Dr. Coe pointed out that Stogner also had a broken hyoid bone — a U-shaped bone located at the base of the tongue, right where the deputy had been applying a chokehold for several minutes. This indicates that there was “some force applied to this region” by Sturdivant, Coe admitted, before insisting that any of the aforementioned conditions could have resulted in Stogner’s death.

No, it’s not the Taser, the club, the chokehold, or the gang-beating that kills a non-violent offender; the recipient of state-inflicted violence simply chose that precise instant to have a heart attack. There’s nothing the see here; just move along.

Land of the Free

Police in Wausau, Wisconsin confiscated an American flag belonging to Vito Congine after the man flew it upside down to protest the village board's refusal to grant him a liquor license.

In mid-June, Congine, 46, began flying the flag upside down — an accepted way to signal distress — outside the restaurant he wants to open in Crivitz, a village of about 1,000 people some 65 miles north of Green Bay.

He said his distress is likely bankruptcy because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license after he spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a downtown building for an Italian supper club.

Hours before a Fourth of July parade, four police officers went to Congine's property and removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey.

Funny how you can barely get a flag hung upside down these days before the very tyrants you're protesting show up to prove your point for you.

(Thanks to Jack S.)

A Little Bit of Good News for the Residents of Washington, DC

An appeals court has hit D.C. with a restraining order forbidding Mayor Adrian Fenty and Police Chief Cathy Lanier from erecting any more police barricades to prevent violence. These checkpoints allowed the police "to stop motorists, check IDs, and turn back anyone without 'legitimate business' in Trinidad." This law has echoes of an 1807 Maryland law which limited residence of blacks in Maryland to two weeks. Or an 1821 District of Columbia law which required blacks to register and post bond. Or an 1826 North Carolina law which forbade blacks from entering the State. But I guess it's not slavery or oppression since many blacks serve in the DC government. Our mayor and several DC council members are black. And blacks in this country would never enslave or oppress other blacks.

Anyhoo, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, architect of the quarantine, was disappointed with the decision and he may appeal. He asked, "How are we going to control these Negroes if we can't watch where they go and whom they consort with?" Oops, I mixed him up with someone else. 

Police union Chairman Kris Baumann, an early and outspoken critic of the quarantine, said that rank-and-file officers deserve credit for speaking against the program. Perhaps they do, but they won't get any from me. If rank-and-file officers really thought that this quarantine was a bad idea, they could have refused to set up the checkpoints. Instead the rank-and-file officers simply submitted to the myth of the rule of law. 

The residents of the Trinidad could also have resisted and demanded that the police respect their rights. But I guess their education made submission necessary. 

My Mom Used to Pretend to Call Child Services When I Didn't Behave...

...but this chick be nuts! (language)

Why I Can't Stand DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

Radicals such as I have thousands of reasons to despise police. If you spend some time reading Will Grigg's blog you, too, may also find some compelling reasons to agree with NWA. Since I live in Washington, DC, which is slowly becoming a totalitarian police state, I have particular grievances against our "protectors." I reserve most of my odium for our police chief who believes her charge to keep people safe pretty much means she can violate any of our rights at any time. In response to the several murders in the Trinidad area last summer she decided to have "safety checkpoints" in which police randomly pulled over drivers who have done nothing and harass them for their safety. She has also been one of the major opponents of loosening DC's gun laws. This is an example of how the State's protection racket works. The State proscribes its citizens from defending themselves and then arrogates to itself the exclusive right to protect the people. Of course, in 1981 the highest court in the city stated that its citizens had no right to any government services including police protection anyway. One would think that the citizens of the city would have compelled its government to stop violating their rights, but no such uprising has occurred. Indeed, one is hard pressed to defend rights one never exercised or experienced and only the Remnant has the moral courage to imagine the rights lost and to challenge the status quo which dictates that all men are equal but some men are more equal than others.

Recently our police chief expressed outrage at those who would use technology to circumvent DC traffic cameras. These apps which can be downloaded to IPhones can also help motorists avoid sobriety check points. Police Chief Lanier called the technology a "cowardly tactic" and stated "people who overly rely on those break the law anyway are going to get caught" in one way or another. Such is the totalitarian mindset which infects police and politicians. People who have the effrontery to avoid traps designed to steal their money or put them in jail are cowards. Real patriots willingly walk into traps so that the State may fine them or put them in jail.

I'm still waiting for research on the speeding cameras, but in 2005 the Washington Post reported that redlight cameras did not decrease traffic accidents in Washington, DC. Thus, police data from her own police department refutes her claim that traffic cameras keep the people safe. My guess is that the speed cameras have also failed to decrease accidents, but such failure does not matter. There is no "failed policy" in the mind of the State unless the policy fails to enrich the State; as long as the speed and redlight cameras continue to collect revenue they will always be a success.

The real reason why police hate radar detectors and these IPhone apps is because they threaten the stream of revenue. For years, the police have been thinking of ways to trap motorists. This is why so many police departments use unmarked police vehicles. If safety were the real motive behind these laws, the police would never use unmarked police cars. If the motorists can identify a police car, he is less likely to speed or make a U-Turn or do anything which might get him pulled over. However, if the car next to you is a midnight blue Chevy Impala or a solid black Crown Victoria, the motorist may not notice and might speed or make a questionable U-Turn.

The speed cameras in the District are all located in areas designed to generate the most revenue. If the cameras were placed in the interior of the city, most residents would become aware of them and they could not generate a lot of tickets. The people who drive the routes regularly would know they exist and adjust. However, if the cameras are placed in locations out-of-town drivers frequently pass through, the State can still make money. There are two in the 395 tunnel which leads to I-95. Many out-of-towners cut through the city while driving on I-95. There is a camera on New York Avenue westbound into the city. New York Avenue leads to the 395 tunnel so someone from New Jersey could receive two citations before he even leaves the city. There is another camera on Michigan Avenue near Trinity Washington University and Catholic University. I'm sure the DC treasury receives a nice inflow of money during the fall when the new students arrive. There are also mobile units which sometimes station themselves at the bottom of hills. Let gravity aid in the collection of loot.

The fundamental purpose of the State is robbery; that is why it came into existence and that is the purpose of all these regulations and laws. The State wants a cut of every activity we do and its agents are constantly thinking of new ways to steal from its subjects. Police Chief Lanier assists the State in its crime through her ceaseless singing of the siren song of the State and her endless violations of our natural rights, and this is why I can't stand her.

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.

"Lawful" Does Not Mean Moral

J.D. Tuccille writes:

Psychologists have put a lot of hard work over the years into mapping our moral development as we grow from childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. Part of becoming an adult is getting beyond the idea that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. Adolescents think the law [is] the last word; adults understand that the law is always open to evaluation, and that good laws that respect individual rights should be obeyed, but bad laws that violate our rights should be opposed and defied.

This is a truth I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. It drives me to the point of insanity when I read comments defending police brutality or drug raids simply because it's "lawful." Of course, it's "lawful." The State is a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate decision-making. It can and does write the laws so that its behavior will be "lawful." Thus, the State can steal because it writes laws granting itself the power to tax. It can murder because it writes laws which allow it to declare war. Its agents can invade the homes of peaceful citizens and murder them and/or their pets because it writes laws making certain drugs illegal and then grants itself the right to search people's homes. Its agents also reserve the right to shoot innocent civilians and since the survivors can only come to the State to protest any of this behavior, it will say that its actions are "lawful." 

If Americans would quit worshipping the State, perhaps such common sense would finally penetrate their ossified intellects.

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!)

Weekend Roundup

I apologize for being out of blogging commission for the better part of the weekend. I was preoccupied in just about equal parts by a pre-4th of July party and a trip to the emergency room, but it seemed that no matter where I was, I couldn't escape the fact that our society is driven by sheer ignorance and stupidity.

On Saturday I went to my friends' party along the Patuxent River, in the middle of which my buddy Randy set up a barge with about $10,000 worth of real fireworks that he ignited around 9:00 p.m. Interestingly, I waited an entire year to witness this show because Randy's collection was confiscated by Maryland police during last year's party because he didn't have a government permit to discharge fireworks.

Well, not one to suffer fools, Randy decided to beat these guys at their own game and obtain a license several months ago to become a certified pyro in the People's Republik of Maryland. I know that I for one felt a whole lot safer knowing Randy was forced to jump through any number of bureaucratic hoops just to put on a show for his friends and family. In fact, I hear that when you whip out your almighty fireworks permit the wind stops blowing and fire stops burning!

Interestingly, one of the fire marshals told Randy that although this year's display was in full compliance with the government's rules and regulations, his display last July was actually configured in a safer manner. But I just don't believe it given that he was operating outside the purview of our masters last year. Everyone knows you're not safe until the state says you are.

Then there was Sunday. My son had had a low-grade fever for a couple days, but yesterday his temperature spiked to almost 103 early in the afternoon. Sadly, my wife and I know of two young families who've lost children two or younger in the past year due to sudden illness, so considering my son appeared to be lethargic we figured we'd leave nothing to chance and just take him to the emergency room.

But of course, as soon as you get to the ER you realize you're still rolling the dice. We waited for more than two and a half hours before we were even seen, and I'm sure most people have had a similar experience. All I kept thinking was that when Barack the Beneficent's health care "reforms" are pushed through, wait times will only increase. To make matters worse, I had to listen to a Fareed Zakaria interview on CNN with Paul Krugman and John Taylor on the community tv that seemed to go on for infinity.

Because I was trying to avoid gouging my eyes out with my thumbs I really don't remember any specifics, save for Krugman assuring us that he's the smartest man in the universe and a later segment in which some brain-dead chick argued that further regulating health care would actually account for increased competition and lower costs. It's virtually impossible to find data suggesting this has ever happened, yet the vast majority of Americans will swallow this garbage hook, line, and sinker.

To top everything off, I had to listen to a bunch of reporters on the BET Awards red carpet droning on about the death of Michael Jackson. One guy literally repeated himself about three times following commercial breaks when he said he never thought he'd see the day Jackson died. Riveting journalism there. And some 20-something actress from Benjamin Button actually said the world's most notorious plastic man made the greatest strides for blacks in history. Hey, I'm not saying Jackson wasn't influential, but I guess this girl's too young to remember Jackie Robinson or MLK.

Of course, this was nothing compared to one lady from Idaho (I think) who said Jackson really "touched me." Let's just say I wasn't the only one in the waiting room who laughed at that one.

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.”

Who Polices the Police?

From William Grigg at the LRC blog:

Officer Paul Abel, a veteran of counter-insurgency warfare in the Regime’s illegal occupation of Iraq, was deeply drunk last June 28 when somebody punched him at a stoplight.

Abel, an eight-year veteran of the police force, “drove around the block, until he spotted [21-year-old Kaleb] Miller, whom he knew from the neighborhood,” recounts the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Witnesses said the officer hit Mr. Miller on the neck with the butt of his Glock and the gun went off, grazing Mr. Miller’s hand.”

Miller strenuously denied that he was the one who struck Abel, and two witnesses to the event confirmed that the victim “looked nothing like” the guy who punched the drunken off-duty cop.

Abel, 35, was put on unpaid suspension (a rarity) and was brought up on charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and DUI. He waived a jury trial, which is generally a good idea for the defendant in cases of criminal conduct by police.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning insisted that the case turned on a single question: Was Abel arresting a suspect, or acting in retaliation? The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrated the latter, beginning with the fact that no evidence was presented, other than Abel’s alcohol-distorted recollection, that Miller was the one who threw the first punch.

Abel maintained that the violence he employed was “necessary” because Miller wouldn’t obey commands to lie on the ground. Bear in mind, first of all, that Miller had done nothing wrong, and secondly, that as far as he could tell, Abel was simply a deranged, drunken individual wielding a weapon, rather than a deranged, drunken, armed individual clothed in the supposed majesty of state “authority.”

Predictably, Judge Manning ruled in favor of Abel, insisting that while the off-duty officer’s conduct was “inappropriate, imprudent and ill-advised,” it was still justifiable, since police enjoy broad discretion in the use of force. Apparently that “discretion” extends to driving under the influence of alcohol, in addition to pistol-whipping and shooting a completely innocent bystander.

“It is not the obligation of this court to police the police department,” pronounced Manning as he placed his imprimatur on Abel’s unprovoked assault on an innocent man.

Police union official Dan O’Hara insists that Abel is simply an “aggressive” officer, and insists that his critics are out to “crucify” him.

Those critics include three Pittsburgh residents who have filed official complaints against him for abusive conduct in other incidents: One involved an off-duty fight in which Abel was reportedly the aggressor, but the other antagonist was put on trial (and acquitted of all charges but disorderly conduct); another reports that Abel assaulted a local resident whose grandfather was threatened with a Taser; and the other alleges that Abel pressured his wife into making false claims of sexual abuse against the grandparents of her children.

Nonetheless, Judge Manning’s ruling has cleared the way for this, ahem, hero of both the homefront and the Mesopotamian Campaign to return to the police force.

Apparently, even the most corrupt and sociopathic police have an unqualified right to employ violent or lethal force, and submitizens have an unqualified duty to submit. (emphasis added)

This is yet another consequence of having a monopoly on justice. No one should be surprised that the judge in this case ruled in favor of the police officer. The judge and the police officer work for the same entity; the State acts a a judge in its own case. But I was surprised that Judge Manning would be so candid.

The Non-Issue That Is the Gov. Sanford Affair

The mainstream media and conservative blogosphere are all over South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for cheating on his wife, even though his personal life is none of our business.

But the fact that he's the top administrator of a state that relentlessly steals from citizens and pulls its guns on nonviolent gamblers and drug users? Eh, whatevs.

'Operation Dry Water': A Boatload of Hysteria and Abuse

American pirates who go by the names "Coast Guardsmen" and "Natural Resources Police" will be joining forces this weekend to ramp up their harassment of boaters who might be operating vessels while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

According to its website, "Operation Dry Water" -- be sure to check out the fancy police-state artwork in the logo -- is a government initiative ostensibly "aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents and fatalities" amongst boaters.

Certainly it has nothing to do with increasing the scope of the state's authority in its attempts to control us and generate revenue. Per one report out of Maryland:

"Nationally, one in five boating deaths are directly caused by operating under the influence of alcohol," said Capt. Mark O'Malley, the Captain of the Port of Baltimore.  "That equates to between five and 15 people who are at risk of being injured or killed this year within Maryland state waters. That's unacceptable. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the NRP, we're going to get ahead of this problem this year," he said.

[...]

"We will be out in force looking for boat operators who are operating a vessel while impaired by alcohol or drugs," said Sgt. Art Windemuth, the public information officer for NRP. "Impaired boaters caught this weekend can expect penalties to be severe. In Maryland, they include one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first offense."

Unless death is perceived to be a lesser penalty than a year in jail or a $1,000 fine, I'm not sure how any serious person could feasibly believe that this increased enforcement has anything at all to do with preventing alcohol-related deaths.

Moreover, one wonders how the police are going to detect those who are boating under the influence. Boats generally rock from side to side, so maybe they'll just wait for our vessels to touch one of the yellow or white lines painted on the waterways. Given that marine police need no probable cause to detain boaters, we can expect these floating fascists to conduct even more random inspections than usual.

As I pointed out in an article a few years ago as Maryland was contemplating a statute that would have required all boaters to wear life vests while underway, the percentage of boaters killed in Maryland in 2004 for any reason was virtually zero. I wrote:

According to Boating Statistics 2004, published by the U.S. Coast Guard in September 2005, there were 206,681 motorboats registered in Maryland in 2004 and only 16 boating fatalities.

According to a Maryland Natural Resources Police report for 2008, there were nine boating fatalities last year throughout the entire state, with only three attributable to alcohol. Three. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of boating expeditions that took place all year?

Furthermore, per page 4 of the same report, only 3 percent of boating accidents can be blamed on alcohol in the first place. Considering that "operator inattention" (9 percent), "operator inexperience" (12 percent), and good ol' "human error" (6 percent) account for 27 percent of all accidents, clearly the state of Maryland needs to just cut to the chase and ban boating altogether!

The only plausible conclusion one can draw when assessing the state's hysteria over "boating under the influence" is that this is an undeniably safe activity -- you don't need to be sober to realize the statistics prove that alcohol consumption on the water is a non-issue.

Indeed, the biggest threat to American boaters is the heavy-handed, civil liberties-trampling state itself.

No License, No Fun

Police raided an Ohio bar last Friday night and arrested four nude dancers because the club is not licensed as a "sexually oriented" business.

Thank goodness we can rely on the state to put an end to peaceful behaviors that take place in private establishments.

But that's not all. If you click on the link you'll notice that a topless 14-year-old was among those arrested. According to the story, "The bar's owner and manager have been charged with illegal use of a minor in a nudity performance and with child endangering."

Because there was a minor involved, there's a good chance most people will not only disregard the fact that the state has no moral right to prevent consenting adults from engaging in voluntary association, but that they'll also endorse the raid altogether. However, while it's taboo to suggest that parents actually be responsible for their children or that individuals bear responsibility for their own behavior, the only point of concern should be whether the 14-year-old was coerced or acting on free will.

This is one of those issues that usually gets libertarians accused of being child molesters, but if the girl freely chose to remove her top in front of bar patrons, I'd say that's her deal. If, on the other hand, she was forced to dance against her will, that's another story entirely and the aggressors should be prosecuted -- though I'd guess that the girl's father would have his own sense of justice in mind and have little need for the state anyhow.

But let's proceed under the assumption that the girl knew what she was doing and chose to nude it up, even if only for the purpose of carrying this philosophical discussion a bit further. If a 14-year-old girl is choosing to associate sexually with grown adults, it's pretty likely she's got some issues. Certainly someone in her past could have caused her physical or emotional harm that manifested itself in this type of destructive behavior. Maybe she grew up without the benefit of responsible parents. Who knows? The point is that in this particular instance, the only thing that matters is whether she was the victim of tangible harm at the moment police raided the bar.

By the way, I'm not arguing in defense of the character of the onlookers in the bar if they actually knew the girl was only 14 -- she wouldn't be the first kid to have used a fake I.D. to gain access to a club -- I'm arguing that the girl was probably in no more harm dancing topless in front of arguably seedy drunks than she is right now while in the custody of the state.

More to the point, the state's efforts to collectivize all of us is a direct reflection of its abhorrence of individuality. If it were to admit that there are some 14-year-olds who are more mature than a lot of 30-somethings, it would immediately invalidate its claim to an entire class of human beings.

Police lieutenant Rick Edwards has said that officers on the scene never even witnessed the 14-year-old interacting with customers, an admission that indicates there was probably no harm whatsoever brought to the girl. Of course, like everyone else I can only go by the information present in the brief news account, but this looks like yet another case of the state prosecuting nonviolent individuals merely for the potential to do harm. That is, the government likely has once again initiated violence against people who themselves have done no such thing.

Tasah Tasah Tasah!!

Gee, a guy who refuses to cooperate after being treated worse than a rooster at a cockfight. Go figure.

And check out the sucker punches toward the end of the video.

Four police officers and all of them too pussy to just jack the guy's arms behind his back if they really needed to handcuff him so badly.

(Thanks to Manuel Lora)

Obama's 'Deeply Troubled' by Iranian Violence

Because security forces open fire on peaceful citizens protesting a corrupt election?

Yes, it is quite appropriate to be bothered by this behavior. But apparently the American president is blissfully unaware of the violence visited upon nonviolent American citizens by our domestic police forces on a daily basis.

UPDATE (6/17): To clarify, I don't use the term "corrupt" to imply that the Iranian elections were somehow rigged or fraudulent -- Paul Craig Roberts argues they almost certainly were not -- but merely evil or depraved. As in, the evil of democracy is that most people mistakenly believe that free elections confer upon the majority the right to coerce the minority.

More Police Impunity

Last week William Grigg posted a story about a New Jersey State Trooper who ran a stop sign and killed two women in a minivan while pursing a speeder. Trooper Robert Higbee was acquitted of a vehicular homicide charge. The court dimissed charges of careless driving and failing to stop or yield at a stop sign, downgrading the offense of a single charge of “unsafe driving.”

In Washington, DC, the family of a pedestrian who was killed by a D.C. police cruiser nearly two years ago is suing the city, claiming wrongdul death and that an officer altered the scene of the collision.

George Thomas Riggs, 70, was “lawfully” crossing Wisconsin Avenue at Norton Place at noon on Sept. 24, 2007, when he was hit “suddenly and without warning” by a police car headed southbound, according to the suit, which seeks $3.3 million in damages.

The police report noted that Riggs was on foot in the crosswalk “when he ran into the right side of a marked police vehicle” driven in the far left lane by Officer Henry Lee. The report makes no mention of the speed Lee’s cruiser was traveling (empahsis added).

The intersection has no signal. As the pedestrian, Riggs had the right of way under D.C. law.

From the view of the police state, Mr. Riggs was at fault for lawfully using a crosswalk and running into Officer Lee's squad car. Such is the logic of the State.

Officer Lee was not charged. Investigators reportedly concluded that Officer Lee's view of Riggs was blocked by another vehicle at the crosswalk. The lawsuit also alleges that the officer who arrived on the scene "directed that the site 'be altered, changed and destroyed' before Lee’s 'negligence and culpability could be ascertained.'"

Of course, had one of us serfs killed a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing the street, there would be calls for more speeding cameras, larger fines, and longer jail sentences. And I bet that the police report would not say that the pedestrian ran into the driver's car.