Monday, July 21, 2014

"It Stops Today!"

“Every time you see me, you want to mess with me! I’m tired of it! It stops today!”

Eric Garner, a peaceful and productive citizen, had suffered years of pointless and unnecessary harassment by the costumed predators employed by the NYPD. He told one of them to leave him alone. Such impudence by a mere Mundane cannot be tolerated, so Garner was murdered in the street in full public view.

Several plainclothes officers were prowling Garner’s Staten Island neighborhood on the afternoon of July 17 seeking to harvest revenue by catching harmless people in the act of committing petty infractions. Police Commissioner William Bratton describes this as “stamping out petty offenses as a way of heading off larger ones.” in practice, this means authorizing police to commit actual crimes in their efforts to turn harmless people into “offenders.”

When a fight erupted in Garner’s neighborhood, the plainclothes officers – who have no enforceable duty to protect persons or property – didn’t intervene. Garner did, according to witnesses, breaking up the fight and restoring peaceful order. This made Garner conspicuous to the officers whose uselessness he had just demonstrated. 

The 43-year-old father of six and grandfather of two had been arrested on dozens of occasions and had court dates scheduled later this year for charges of marijuana possession and selling untaxed cigarettes. Even if one assumes – and one shouldn’t -- that either of those charges involved an actual crime, on the day he was killed Garner had done nothing whatsoever to justify being interrogated by the police, let alone arrested.

The first fatal mistake Garner made was to act as a peacemaker. The second was to assert his self-ownership in the face of someone employed by the contemporary equivalent of a slave patrol. Within minutes, five police officers attacked him, one of them slipping behind him to apply an illegal chokehold. Garner died of cardiac arrest after being swarmed and suffocated in front of numerous horrified witnesses, one of whom captured the entire event – from first confrontation to homicide – on camera. 

Those who visit the fetid and disreputable social media neighborhoods where police congregate anonymously and express themselves candidly will quickly learn that Garner has only himself to blame. He was an overweight, combative black man who didn’t know his proper place, which was at the feet of his betters, meekly accepting the shackles and submitting to whatever indignities they deemed appropriate. 

“Anytime a person says `I’m tired of it, it stops today,’ that will almost always end with the use of force,” insisted one contributor to an LEO-exclusive forum. “He made that decision, not the police. The Police must effect the arrest and rise above any resistance” – including verbal resistance to unwarranted harassment by the police, which as Garner’s death illustrates can be treated as a capital offense. 

Elsewhere police and their apologists – both paid and uncompensated – are caviling about the nature of the restraint used by Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who attacked the victim’s throat. Because the victim reportedly didn’t suffer significant damage to his throat and trachea, the illegal restraint wasn’t a “true” chokehold, or so the apologists insist. Under NYPD guidelines in place since 1993, this isn’t relevant: The policy explicitly and categorically forbids the use of any restraint involving pressure against the neck or throat. 

Lead assailant Daniel Pantaleo.
Furthermore, since 2011, thousands of New York residents have been arrested and convicted under a law that makes any aggressive contact resulting in “obstruction of breathing or blood circulation” a criminal offense – a felony when that act results in the victim suffering “stupor, loss of consciousness, impairment and/or physical or serious physical injury….”

 If that statute were applied equitably, as it almost certainly will not be, Pantaleo and his accomplices would be prosecuted for murder.

Atrocities of this kind happen every day across the soyuz, many of them generated by the decades-long derangement known as the war on drugs. The murder of Eric Garner demonstrates that even if drugs were “legalized,” police would still find ways to kill innocent people while collecting the state’s cut of drug proceeds: Remember, the officers who harassed, surrounded, and eventually killed Garner accused him of selling “untaxed” cigarettes.

Three days before the NYPD murdered Eric Garner, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that his Cigarette Strike Force had “seized nearly $1.7 million in cash and contraband” during its first six months of operation. Directed by the state Tax Department, the strike force is a public works project for the coercive sector, encompassing twelve federal and local law enforcement bodies.

Through the task force, participating agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security to the NYPD’s 120th Precinct – the on-duty home to Eric Garner’s murderers – have access to “crime-related intelligence” to help them collaborate in the supposedly vital task of dismantling “major cigarette trafficking organizations.”

None of this has even the remotest connection to the protection of persons and property. This is law enforcement pared down to its detestable essentials -- state-licensed aggressors dispatched to harass, detain, and kill people purely for the purpose of revenue collection.
“All these agencies realize those among us who sell illegal cigarettes are a threat to government tax revenue,” belched New York State Commissar for Taxation Thomas H. Mattox, describing cigarette sales conducted without giving a cut to the political class as “economic crimes that fill the pockets of criminals.”

The expression “economic crimes” is a Soviet-grade collectivist coinage, and Comrade Cuomo channeled the hell-dwelling spirit of Feliks Dzherzhinsky in expressing his determination to punish those who participate in black market cigarette sales.

“Cigarette smugglers should be on notice – our administration will not stand for [sic] those who break the law and steal from taxpayers,” decreed Cuomo, determined to protect his regime’s exclusive privilege of stealing from the productive public. “New York has zero tolerance for this illegal activity, and those who further it will be brought to justice.”

Or, as the killing of Eric Garner demonstrated, those suspected of violating the “zero tolerance” standard by occasionally selling loose cigarettes will be hounded beyond forbearance and then slaughtered in the streets.

Tobacco, like marijuana, is a substance with mood-altering properties. Unlike marijuana, tobacco is legal; another distinction is that tobacco, unlike marijuana, has no known beneficial uses. Apart from a handful of very small jurisdictions, sale and consumption of tobacco have never been prohibited. Instead, the parasite class has expanded efforts to impose “sin taxes” on tobacco: By some estimates, taxes account for more than half the retail price of the typical carton of cigarettes.

Two hundred and forty-six years ago, revenue agents in Boston impounded a large cargo ship christened Liberty that contained a bounty of untaxed goods. The owner of that vessel was a notorious scofflaw and extremist who had been cheating the government by withholding its cut of his commerce. 

The officials responsible for this seizure acted out of the smug assurance that the “decent” majority would support this righteous assertion of authority. They were wrong. Rather than rallying to the cause of law and order, the population turned against its government, assaulting officers and attacking their facilities. 

Acting on the principle that law enforcement “must rise above resistance,” authorities escalated their efforts to restore order, eventually sending in the military. This led to a massacre that triggered a revolution in which that same supposedly reprehensible smuggler, John Hancock, would play a significant role

Eric Garner’s exasperated proclamation “It stops today!” is cognate with “Don’t tread on me,” and his murder by an army of occupation immeasurably more vicious and corrupt than the Redcoats could precipitate a long-overdue rebellion against the omnivorous elite that army serves. This is why no effort will be spared to redirect outrage over this atrocity into racial collectivist channels, were it will serve the interest of people who encourage ordinary Americans to look with suspicion and hostility at each other, rather than directing such attention at those who presume to rule the rest of us. 

 Obiter dicta 

Last week I had the privilege of being interviewed by Jeff Deist, President of the Mises Institute, on the subject of "Police State Keynesianism":


 If you can, please donate via PayPal or the Bitcoin button above to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. We're literally struggling to keep the lights on, and could really use your help. Thank you!


Dum spiro, pugno!


Kent McManigal said...

The only “economic crimes that fill the pockets of criminals” of any consequence are "taxation" of various sorts.

I'm not sure why "those who break the law and steal from taxpayers" are worse than those who use the counterfeit "laws" which "legalize" theft to steal from "taxpayers". I prefer the honesty of the freelance thieves.

Anonymous said...

looks like a long hot summer


Walter Zoomie said...

Every time I peruse "Police One" I want to vomit.

Gil said...

Actually nicotine has beneficial properties: as a calmative, blood vessel enhancer and brain sharpener. Hence nicotine helps against depression, Alzheimer's, dementia, diabetes, etc..

Bob Robertson said...

Sovereign Immunity must be abolished.

The last vestiges of the Divine Right of Kings has become intolerable.

Anonymous said...

So, start killing the pigs. they are useless, get rid of them.

William N. Grigg said...

I have a different perspective on that question --

Brian K said...

Great work, Mr. Grigg. I saw this story discussed at Vox Popoli, which has a lot of libertarian commenters, and still some statist shills showed up to blame the victim. I wish I could contribute some funds, but I'm out of work. Thanks for your vigilance on these issues, you're one of the few practicing actual journalism. God bless you.

Dan Pedersen said...

It's ridiculous how these things get out of hand and lead to far more serious consequences than the sale of "illegal" cigarettes and the use of marijuana. A man died over something stupid. It's a waste of time for the police to be evolved in these issues, and when the enforcement of such laws leads to violence, death and loss of freedom it under-minds what the police as supposed to be about and gives them all a bad name.

I also take issue with the slant that you present in your articles, William. As you may recall I mentioned this to you once before in an email. It's unfortunate that you feel it necessary to paint all police officers with the same brush and characterize them as nothing more than a bunch of thugs who carryout state sponsored violence.

It disappoints me as a Christian, a Libertarian sympathizer and a former police officer that you would describe an entire group of people this way and deliberately ignore the fact that the police also do a lot of good things and are not merely a group of violent people. Domestic abuse is a good example. You can be sure that if there were no police, there would be more domestic violence, that is one of the number one things that police deal with and they are able to successfully defuse many of those situations. I've been there many times. Granted, the police also sometimes escalate those situations.

I can also tell you that for many police officers, when they read articles like this they are likely to feel as though they are an enemy and this only further exacerbates the "us versus them" mentality that really does exist to some extent in the policing world.

Generally, when police read things like this they don't see it as a balanced review of the facts, they find it heavy-handed and borderline militant. It also serves to paint Libertarians with the same brush as the most extreme elements of the "Freemen on the land" movement, which the police generally consider as potential terrorists.

These types of articles vilify the police and cause a lot of anger and hatred toward the police who must deal with it out on the street. It only serves to escalate police and public encounters into potentially violent incidents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the police shouldn't be held accountable. I'm just suggesting a more balanced and peaceful approach. But at the end of the day it's your blog, it's not for me to tell you what to do, it's just a suggestion from someone who has been on both sides of the fence.

William N. Grigg said...

Dan, as I've said to you before I appreciate both your experience and your advice.

How often do police intervene to protect innocent people from criminal violence inflicted by their comrades? I've written about several cases of this kind, each of which ended with the conscientious individual police officer being purged from the ranks or otherwise punished.

When describing an act of plain and unambiguous criminal behavior, where is the appropriate "balance" between the aggressors and the victim? What can possibly justify the behavior of the officers who assaulted and killed Eric Graner? Why should decent people coddle the sensibilities of people who would defend this kind of behavior?

Have you taken even a small sample of the comments being made by police about the death of Eric Garner? Are people capable of emitting such sophomoric, tribalist hatred toward the public the kind of people whose favor I should seek, or whose feelings I should spare? --

Dan Pedersen said...

You just did it again man. You seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between "the police" and individual human beings who also happen to be police officers. You are painting a group of people with the same brush and talking about them as though they are all criminals.

Also, I said nothing about the police being justified in killing Graner, I made that quite clear.

I'm all for people writing articles that expose police brutality, but yours sounds more like propaganda than journalism. You even stretch the facts in order to make them fit your narrative. In the last article I wrote to you about you made it sound like the police just came up pulled the guy out of the car. But the video revealed that the driver was already out the car and then tried to go back in. You misrepresented the facts in order slant the story in the direction you wanted it to go.

Just because the police were not "balanced" in the way they treated Graner, does not justify you be unbalanced in your critic of the incident and certainly not with regard to ALL police in general.

I find your article extremely difficult to take seriously. And just look at what another commenter wrote above "So, start killing the pigs. they are useless, get rid of them." This is the type of sentiment that you are facilitating. When you say things that facilitate those types of comments and then you allow them on your website, what message are you sending? You're wrong William.

William N. Grigg said...

I find your article extremely difficult to take seriously. And just look at what another commenter wrote above "So, start killing the pigs. they are useless, get rid of them." This is the type of sentiment that you are facilitating. When you say things that facilitate those types of comments and then you allow them on your website, what message are you sending? You're wrong William.

First of all, either you don't take my writing seriously, or you consider it a menace to public order. Pick one and stick with it.

Secondly, as I've patiently explained many times before, I allow unfettered commentary of all kinds in the comments section, apart from deliberate mis-representation or unalloyed blasphemy. The prescription for depraved speech is rational speech -- something I practiced in my reply to the comment above.

Whatever rhetorical skills I posses are not sufficient to provoke hostility toward the police as an institution -- apart from the pervasive and escalating criminal behavior of people in that profession, which is abetted by others within it that do nothing to intervene on behalf of the innocent, or condemn such acts after the fact.

In the story to which you refer ( I accurately described the driver as "compliant and non-aggressive," and that the officer -- without any clear need to do so -- reached into the vehicle and initiated force.

What you neglect to mention is that the video of that incident plainly contradicted the officer's claim that the "suspect" had choked him unconscious, as the security video documented. Because the victim did not passively submit to an unjustified beating, he was charged with attempted murder. That's not "stretching" the truth; it is raping and strangling it.

I do not "stretch the facts," but when a uniformed aggressor is clearly lying about something that is easily documented, I am inclined to resolve ambiguities in favor of the victim.

All of my criticism of the police focuses on the fact that a police officer is an individual like everybody else, which means that he does not have the moral right to commit aggressive violence. Police, as a self-identified caste, insist that they are exempt from that universal moral law, and they define their status in society in tribal terms.

Did you read the vituperative, hateful, racist comments made by our gallant defenders of order regarding the death of Eric Garner? What message are THEY sending, Dan? These are people who claim the right to initiate force and escalate it to homicide when they meet resistance.

Kent McManigal said...

Dan- There are NO "good cops". None.
A "good" cop would have shot the murderous cops before they managed to murder Eric Graner. They murdered in complete safety- in the presence of... how many cops?

Some cops are "nice". Whoop-de-do. I'm sure the most brutal (freelance) mass murderer is "nice" to certain people- when he's not "on the job".

All cops are paid with stolen money. That's wrong. All cops enforce counterfeit "laws" against innocent people. Wrong, again. How many wrongs does an individual have to participate in on a daily basis in order to keep his "job" before you admit he's evil?

"But the video revealed that the driver was already out the car and then tried to go back in."
So, it's fine and dandy to molest or murder people who try to avoid contact with known (and proudly self-identifying) molesters/murderers? That's a perverted theory.

Cops and copsuckers are the ones who will be responsible if/when people start systematically killing cops. They could change their stupid and evil behavior this instant if they wanted to. Yes, they'd be forced to quit "policing" and find honest work, but that's a small price to pay to stop being an evil thug.

Will is right. Again. And people like you, Dan, just prove his point better than anything he could ever write. Thanks.

Keith said...

If only we could reward individual cops for good behaviour. Unfortunately the entire system militates against it, and the results are entirely and very easily predictable from first principals:

Humans act - in the hope of alleviative felt wants.

Humans differ, in our wants likes and abilities.

There is a "dis-utility of labour" (work sucks).

Just from those three propositions, it is easy enough to deduce that different people will very quickly and naturally begin to specialize in what they are each good at, and will exchange with others for things that those others are good at.

Naturally, no one wants to spend more time working than they have to, in order to provide sufficient goods or services to exchange for the goods or services that they really want, but either don't like producing, or aren't particularly efficient at producing.

To paraphrase classical economist David Ricardo - they produce what they have a "comparative advantage" in producing and trade for those things that they don't.

We each exchange what we subjectively value less for what we subjectively value more.

Clearly we'd all like to work less and exchange less and get more for it, and that want balances out through all of society - if there is a field of endeavour where less work allows you to exchange for more goods and services, then people will tend to move into that field of endeavour and produce more of those goods and services, until its profits approximately balance with those from other fields of endeavour.

The only way to stop people from moving into a field and producing more of the good or service - and hence lowering its exchange price - is to forcibly keep them out, and to forcibly prevent their would be customers from exchanging with those would be producers.

That is monopoly - and it can only persist through force.

With competition (like Eric Garner) being violently prevented (that's the only way it can be prevented) the desire for ever more return from provision of ever less and ever poorer quality goods and services, and ever less respect for customers - takes over and, that is exactly what we are seeing.

With a monopoly, there is by definition, no market.

Consumers cannot indicate what they prefer and how much they prefer it by buying competitors goods and services.

There is no pressure to innovate - If you are old enough - remember when the only telephone you were allowed was the one provided by the monopoly telephone cable company?

Remember what a big clunky old fashioned thing it was? It took months or years to get a connection, and was hideously expensive, and if it went wrong, it could take days or weeks to get an engineer out. Do you think that if you were still stuck with that monopoly cable - that they would have any incentive to ever develop an I-Phone, that you could buy and have a new account and connection up and running within minutes for?

Cops aren't just the same level of complacent, lazy and over priced monopoly that those old monopoly phone companies were

They're where boot rubber meets human face, and where lethal choke hold meets grandfather's throat, for all of the abusive, over priced, complacent monopoly that comes under the collective heading of "state".

What good person would knowingly be part of that?

Dan Pedersen said...


" either you don't take my writing seriously, or you consider it a menace to public order. Pick one and stick with it."

I don't take it seriously, but others do.

If someone started a blog heavily criticizing you as an evil person, and someone left a comment stating "we should kill William Grigg", you wouldn't see a problem with that?

You really think that you are not capable of provoking hostility toward the police when you write regular articles demonizing all of them? Do you think that everyone who reads your blog is of sound mind? Why do you think propaganda is so effective?

"The assault began when an officer named Ronald Cannella who had attempted to pull over a man named Livingston Manners for allegedly running a stop light dragged the driver from his vehicle and threw him to the ground in a gas station."

That's what you said in the other article that I mentioned. You don't think you left anything out or misrepresented what happened in any way? I'm glad you are not writing police reports.

Yes, the police officer was wrong, I didn't think I needed to mention that, because we already agree on that. I was making a different point.

"I do not "stretch the facts," but when a uniformed aggressor is clearly lying about something that is easily documented, I am inclined to resolve ambiguities in favor of the victim."

Need I say more. You just admitted that you are not objective. You slant the story in a particular direction without regard for other important factors. How would you feel if a judge did that? I'm sure you would have plenty to say.

Yes, I read those comments and they are despicable, but they do not represent the opinions and actions of all police. Once again you are painting them all with the same brush. I understand your anger and you have a right to be angry, but you are to some extent channeling it in the wrong direction. Hate the sin, but love the sinner. I guess that's the crux of what I'm trying to say.

When you say "these people", don't you realize that I was one of those people? The "us vs them" mentality is not just the fault of the police, there are elements of the public that foster that rivalry and the way in which you describe the police in your articles contributes to the animosity on both sides.

William N. Grigg said...

If someone started a blog heavily criticizing you as an evil person, and someone left a comment stating "we should kill William Grigg", you wouldn't see a problem with that?

That sort of thing has been done, and you should see some of my "fan mail."

Furthermore, if I were mulcted and abused people as a profession, why would I expect to receive gratitude and respect from my victims and potential victims?

Do you think that everyone who reads your blog is of sound mind?

No, but I have reason to believe that the self-selected audience for my writings consists of people capable of exercising moral discernment and discipline. This is manifestly not the case with law enforcement, a profession that deliberately recruits people inclined toward violence (witness any of the myriad recruitment videos focusing on SWAT training and the like).

You just admitted that you are not objective.

You're pushing on an open door: I have never pretended that I'm not a polemicist.

You slant the story in a particular direction without regard for other important factors.

That is not what I said, nor is it an accurate statement of my approach.

I begin with the assumption -- mandated by the Anglo-Saxon tradition of individual rights -- that the government, represented in its agent, is presumptively wrong, and must justify his actions. When that agent acts abusively and lies about his actions, why should I extend the benefit of the doubt to him about anything?

How would you feel if a judge did that? I'm sure you would have plenty to say.

Judges should apply that principle -- namely, that the police have to justify their behavior, and that their version of events should not be considered self-ratifying. In practice, they do precisely the opposite.

When you say "these people", don't you realize that I was one of those people?

I am sincerely and devoutly grateful that you have joined the ranks of the productive class!

The "us vs them" mentality is not just the fault of the police, there are elements of the public that foster that rivalry and the way in which you describe the police in your articles contributes to the animosity on both sides.

Most "mainstream" media coverage of the police is worshipful, not critical, and popular entertainment relentlessly lionizes the police. The public remains, for the most part, much too deferential to the police. Yet despite this fact, and the fact that violent crime (including crimes against police) has declined consistently since the 1970s, police as a group (with blessed exceptions) are becoming more militaristic, aggressive, hostile, and tribal in their outlook.

I have never encouraged nor sanctioned criminal violence against police or anybody else. What I am doing is de-sanctifying the profession of state-sanctioned aggression.

Dan Pedersen said...

You're beyond reach William. Take care.

William N. Grigg said...

Given that you're no longer employed in the coercive sector, Dan, you're made some progress -- which is why I entertain higher hopes for you. God bless!

Anonymous said...

1 of about a half dozen police officers was sanctioned, but all 4 paramedics/EMTs (non of whom worked for the city) were sanctioned by the Fire Department. It is not clear what the paramedics and EMTs were expected to do?

Diaz Cruz said...

Heh most of the "cops" today seem to take the job out of a power trip actual cops and servants of people are quitting by the dozens they can't stand the corruption infecting this institution.

Seems now adays the only one who take the badge are not men and women who have kindness in there hearts and hope in there souls but perhaps gang bangers and thugs who no longer want to risk there lives for a profit so they go to Gov work. Go work for the power no risk involved reminds of counterfitters word about gang work he said you crazy i won't go intom a gang to much risk little pay white collar is where the moneys at.

Hollywood lionizing them nah the fictional cops are far more virtuous than real life they serve the people take bullets for em. Solve things with words before guns and force. Real life cops do not do this.

I prefer the fiction honestly.

Good article Will and for those "cops" shameful display on there part yes big tough guys abusing of an elderly man. Pathetic

Anonymous said...

"You just did it again man. You seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between "the police" and individual human beings who also happen to be police officers. You are painting a group of people with the same brush and talking about them as though they are all criminals."

It reminds me of defenders of the NSA saying the same thing. Or defenders of the IRS. Or defenders of the mafia. Or defenders of the ATF. Or the drone war. Or the CIA torture bases located around the world.

At a certain point one has to realize that they are held accountable for the people and organization they are associated with - especially when those people are paid via the tax dollars from people who actually create the wealth. The irony, of course, is that cops do exactly this same thing every day - how they tend to be very racist toward non Asian minorities, how many are very much uneasy with citizens being armed, how they view groups of people in the marjiuana business, etc.

The argument about how domestic abuse would happen at a higher rate if cops did not stop sounds a lot like the arguments that people in NYC make about how in areas where cops aren't a minute or two away, pure anarchy will happen! I have lived in plenty of places where cops are twenty or thirty minutes away and those places also have far, far lower crime rates because criminals know the homeowners will shoot them if they try anything. Believe me, if I had a choice between a lot more cops and a lot more homeowners with firearms, I know which I would pick to handle the crime problem.

My other issue with cops is how they falsely think they are somehow good at fighting and shooting bc of the pathetic training they received. As someone who knows how to do both, I always laugh at how easily 90 percent of cops could not outshoot a typical teenage girl competitor shooter. Most cops, who qualify once or twice a year on ridiculously easy courses, can't even hit their targets at seven yards. Their fighting skills without a gun are usually even more pathetic - I could train an average teenage boy to knock out an average cop in a few weeks of boxing coaching. Yet cops walk around thinking they are some sort of combo of Jerry Miculek and the Klitchko Brothers because of the awful training they receive, the false confidence drilled into their heads, and the qualification shooting of once a year at seven yards. It is pathetic! No wonder why cops are five times more likely than a conceal carry holder to shoot the wrong person!

Diaz Cruz said...

Seriously? There training is that bad you think cops would have more stringent qualifications for law enforcement but it seems i waa=s wrong its more of more boots on the grounds. Number above all.

But that just average cops how are swat trained this day and age

Anonymous said...

"Their skills without a gun are even more pathetic - I could train an average boy to knock out an average cop in a few weeks"

The thugscrums depicted on this blog don't look pathetic. They are horrifying.


Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Grigg,

I followed your exchange with Dan Pedersen. His "argument" is ridiculous. So tell me, if there was ONE compassionate SS concentration camp guard in Nazi Germany, who regretted what he was ordered to do to the Jews, Slavs, dissidents, and others, that means EVERY SS guard was a nice, kind man?


In that case, go to any court, and point out to the judge and jury that there are indeed law-abiding people in the population, and therefore criminals do not exist, and the charges against the defendant should be dropped. If a defense lawyer tried that one, the judge would throw him off the case, send him for psychiatric testing, and have his law degree revoked.

Psychologists have studied so-called "True Believers" and found that when presented with irrefutable concrete evidence that their beliefs are flat-out wrong, rather than alter their beliefs, they cling to them even more firmly than before. It has been tested and proven. After seeing proof that their beliefs are wrong, they are MORE fanatical, not less so.

Therefore, arguing with someone like Dan, and showing him proof that he is wrong, is counterproductive. You will only drive him further into his comfortable cocoon of illusion. Save your breath.

By the time an adult man or woman becomes an abusive cop, whatever defects of genetics and upbringing that person suffered which have caused them to become a psychopathic murderer and a parasite on society, are too ingrained and habituated to be altered, except by extensive and expensive psychiatric treatment.

Much cheaper and less troublesome to just put them out of their misery, and protect society, by first apprehending them and caging them, then administering a humane lethal injection, as we do with pit bulls that have been deliberately abused and trained as fighting dogs.

- Lemuel Gulliver.

PS: Maybe that's why Dan is no longer a tax feeder and Sonderkommando thug. He probably told his fellow cops, yes, there ARE one or two citizens who are not our enemies, and so we should treat them ALL with respect, and so he got booted out of the gang of Einsatzgruppen psychopaths. You think, maybe?

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Grigg,

Your compassion and resultant anger at injustice are infectious. You make us all furious, and we would like to see a swift and hard justice administered. However, here are some words of wisdom from Christina Sarich, on her website

"Usually when we face obstacles we tend to shrink. We become so small that our focus becomes relegated to just our needs, our wants, our lack or problem. The interesting thing is that at any one moment, someone else is feeling the same pains, for a different reason, and the only way to truly get the mind out of its own little, contracted space is to help someone else with their problems. It is a way to instantly widen our view and give the very thing we need for ourselves – love, empathy, concern, understanding. Ironically, it is when we give these things away, that our own problems seem to lessen, and in giving what we desire for ourselves, we create a feedback loop which expertly, perfectly, gives us back exactly what we gave."

To paraphrase: What goes around, comes around. What we give out to the world, comes back to us, like homing pigeons coming back to roost in the nests wherein they were born.

It would be well if that lesson was taught as "Dealing With the Public 101" to new recruits at the Police Academy.

For ourselves, we need to balance our righteous anger at injustice, against the compassion (literally, "suffering together") that prompts that righteous anger. We need to become like Jesus in the Temple, able to destroy the exploitative moneychangers in anger, then afterwards to go out and heal the sick and suffering. Caring compassion and righteous anger are two sides of the same coin, two wings of the same bird, two legs of the same man. We must not let either one overtake us or dominate the other in our souls.

- LG

Anonymous said...

Diaz Cruz,

There are a few exceptions to the poor training, but those are few and far between. Despite what you hear ok tv, SWAT teams are usually not a whole lot better than the average cop. An average competition shooter laughs at the lack of skills the average SWAT Team member has. People think cops are highly trained and skilled bc that is what the cops themselves and the sycophantic media repeat over and over, but when actual events take place that can't be covered up by the media, it becomes a lot more obvious. Some recent examples include the Empire State Building shooting, the Boston bombing, the Chris Dorner nonsense, and countless accidental discharges of weapons and shooting the wrong person.

Their skills also look a lot better than they are because typically no one really fights back, usually not even the criminals. The few times someone does, like the psycho Dorner, the cops do things like manage to repeatedly shoot at and miss the female Hispanic drivers of a completely different model truck when looking for a 300 black man. This is because their skills suck to start with, and when stress and fear are added they to to Barney fife levels quickly.


They are most certainly a joke and only look scary bc everyone tends to submit to them mentally, even the criminals. Not to mention they usually greatly outnumber the old people or women they are attacking.

rkshanny said...

"It Stops Today!" How eerily prophetic!

Anonymous said...

Fact: Every cop has seen other cops break the law/s. From lying on reports to lying under oath to violating a citizens Constitutional rights.
This makes it so every cop who has seen such criminal acts by other cops and did not report it, has willfully engaged in the cover up of such unlawful acts by remaining silent and not up holding their oath.
Which makes all cops felons.
All being said, one of my prize displays of criminal conduct is when their union tells them to stop writing traffic tickets to force I.E., a city to cave in and give the criminals what they want. More taxpayer money, of course is what they want. Where in their oath does it say, "they do not have to enforce the laws when the union tells them to"? When they come back off the ticket strike, do they reaffirm they oath to uphold the laws? Which then makes it so a liar, a person who took an oath to uphold the laws, and didn't for a payoff (union style) takes the stan and states under oath they saw X run a stop sign. How on earth can the courts allow a proven liar who has already show their taking the oath is worthless be allowed to keep testifying under an other that they have broken.
Its a racket against lawful, honest and decent people and all of us would be much better off once its ended.
The facts speak for themselves. Cops taking the oath is meaningless, as real world truth proves.
A joke: Cops call the rest of us, "civilians" which is exactly what they themselves are. They live in this make believe world playing their military dog and pony shows. They are civilians first and foremost and haven't the first clue what their job title is, Civilian Peace Officers. Talk about being dumb down at the academy.

Dan Pedersen said...

You are right Lemuel, we should kill all tax collectors, just like Jesus did. You throw the first stone.

Chris Mallory said...

Dan Pedersen said...
"You seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between "the police" and individual human beings who also happen to be police officers. You are painting a group of people with the same brush and talking about them as though they are all criminals."

What is that thing that most cops get up and put on every morning before they go to work? What is it called a.... UNIFORM. That's it! UNIFORM!

From my trusty Merriam-Webster:

uni·form adjective \ˈyü-nə-ˌfȯrm\
: not varying or changing : staying the same at all times, in all places, or for all parts or members.

You wear the uniform or carry the costume jewelry, then you are the same. PERIOD.

I am sure back when you were working as a cop and you pulled over a "good" biker wearing an outlaw biker's patch, you didn't paint him with the same brush as you did all the "bad" bikers who just happened to be wearing the same patch.

Anonymous said...

Excellent point, Chris Mallory.

I'm still half-laughing, half-throwing up over this comment:

"It's unfortunate that you feel it necessary to paint all police officers with the same brush and characterize them as nothing more than a bunch of thugs who carryout state sponsored violence."

It's like: duh.
They - Are - nothing more than a bunch of thugs who carryout state sponsored violence.

Geez Louise, a person would have to be blind to see that wasn't true.

There's a lot of that going around these days: willful blindness.

- helot.

Anonymous said...


Again, thank you for your hard work, under more than difficult circumstances.

You are true hero.

My other hero speaks many truths & his message has endured over these years.

"... no chains around my feet but I'm not free." ~ Bob Marley

Bless up Mr. Garner. I hope to meet him on the other side and give him a big hug.

Does anyone have contact info such as address for Mrs. Garner and family so we can send sympathy cards? It seems lame, but as a sick old lady it's about all I can do right now.

Also, I'm sending Will some small donation tomorrow. If everyone pitches in just a little, it will help Will and his family. Give up one day of coffee or cigs or herbs or one meal or one movie and send that $5.

AND, to further the cause, write to these so-called alternative sites and hound them to hire Will to write for them OR at least reprint his articles. Infowars, Huff,, ... we know the sites.

Bless up one and all.


"cannabis is the healing of a nation." ~ Bob Marley, original freedom fightah.

Anonymous said...

I just watched the nypd video of two cops struggling with a nutjob dressed as Spider-Man and it is hilarious. For anyone who has done a day of Greco wrestling or Muay Thai clinch work, this is beyond pathetic.

Anonymous said...

To bring this topic back to its starting point. Out of control, gone wild cops, murdered a man in cold blood and will get away with it because the system is out of control and needs deranged nut jobs on power trips to hold the masses in fear. Lets be honest for a minute, no one really believes that normal and decent people murder other people because they are on a power trip. Its called a lust for blood to prove to themselves and others that they are bad asses and not to be messed with. A murder here and a murder there are part of the program to install fear in the hearts of the American people. And the jackboot cops are just the group of people to inflict such terrorist actions of fear into the hearts of the American people. And the proof that cops are suffering from serious mental health issues is, they are proud of what they do and the fear they put into the hearts of the American people. Not even for a second understanding they are evil and what they do is evil. But it beats flipping burgers and asking if folks want fries with that order.
No investigations will point to the cops as being murders in this matter. Because the jobs of cops today is to make the citizens fear government.
A man lost his life to cold blooded murders in public, during the day on a public sidewalk, to cold blooded murders who have little value of human life. Proven facts! That what this is really all about. And no pointing the finger at anything to change the topic, to create a different debate is going to bring the human life back that these cold blooded murders took.

Lily Dane said...

Excellent analysis of the tragic story of Eric Garner. Following your blog now - love your philosophy and writing style.

Lemuel Gulliver said...


The NYC Medical Examiner on August 1 has ruled the death of Eric Garner to have been a homicide:

It now remains to be seen if the NYC District Attorney will press charges against the murderers, or, as per usual, decline to do so, citing "qualified immunity" of these thugs in taxpayer-supplied costumes, with taxpayer-supplied badges, drawing taxpayer-supplied salaries.

(Isn't it lovely? Eric Garner and all working members of his family were forced to pay the weekly wages of his murderers. And if the family sues the city, the taxpayers will pay that settlement as well. The murderers will walk away scot free.)

James Bond, anyone? License to Kill? It is no longer just happy fiction, but our real and present nightmare.

- LG