Friday, August 1, 2008
Police Impersonators: Never There When You Need One
Hey, you sure you're safe there, Bubba? Dibor Roberts, a 48-year-old, 120-pound naturalized citizen from Senegal, is led into a courthouse in a Yavapai County, Arizona jail to talk to the press. She is shackled, both hands and feet, because she supposedly "assaulted" Sgt. Jeff Newnum of the County Sheriff's Office, a beefy guy a head taller and at least 75-80 pounds heavier (see photo below).
Last March, two young girls in Phoenix were pulled over in front of the Desert Sky Mall by a man they believed to be a police officer. His vehicle was a white Crown Victoria equipped with running lights; he was attired in what appeared to be the appropriate State-issued costume -- complete with a bullet-resistant vest -- and accoutered with a sidearm, handcuffs, and mace.
The man strode toward the girls only to pivot back to his car suddenly and call 911 when a mall security vehicle drove by. Amid a growing sense of uneasy consternation, the girls watched as a police car arrived on the scene, and the man who had stopped them was handcuffed and taken into custody.
It turns out that 33-year-old Michael Escobar wasn't a police officer of any kind, or even a representative of a "state recovery agency," as he had claimed to the 911 operator. He was simply a criminal prepared to exploit the potentially deadly deference that people display to the demands of the State's hired enforcers.
After Escobar was charged with several offenses -- including suspicion of kidnapping -- Phoenix police described the episode as "a reminder to drivers to pull over in a well-lighted area during a traffic stop," reported the local CBS affiliate, KPHO. "Officers are required to carry their badges and commission cards, so drivers can always ask to see their identification."
Remember that well: Drivers who are worried about being waylaid by highwaymen disguised as police have official permission to choose a safe location for the shakedown to take place.
Your eyes can deceive you: This vehicle, which belongs to a private security force in California, is not a police car. Nor is the spiffy little number found immediately below.
A second case of that occurred last March in Sahuarita, Arizona. A woman was pulled over by a man driving a white mini-pickup with a red emergency light.
The woman stopped and pulled to the side of the road, but did not roll down her window when ordered to -- despite the fact that the man threatened her with what appeared to be a gun. The man -- described as Latino in appearance, heavyset (250-280 lbs.) and wearing casual attire -- withdrew to his vehicle and drove away without further incident.
Just a few weeks ago -- July 3, to be specific -- police in Tucson issued a warning about another ersatz officer "who talks his way into women's homes and then has then strip." This predator has succeeded in getting several women to let him into their homes by displaying a badge and then telling them he is either conducting a drug investigation or trying to capture a criminal suspect. The suspect was also seen driving a white or gray car with running lights and what appeared to be police markings.
This kind of thing is not limited to Phoenix, of course. Last spring, Denver witnessed what the Denver Post called a "rash of police impersonators." In one incident, a woman who was pulled over in a poorly lit intersection refused to follow orders from a man driving a car equipped with running lights. The man, who identified himself as a police officer, claimed the woman had a cracked rear window and ordered her to follow him; when the driver refused to comply, the man drove off without incident.
A similar episode on April 22 turned out much differently. In that case, the woman who was pulled over complied with the order to follow the "officer," only to be taken to the darkened parking lot of an industrial park and raped.
As law enforcement becomes increasingly authoritarian, and the public grows more docile, the practice of police impersonation by criminals is becoming more commonplace.
"You wave a badge at someone and tell them to pull over and you'd be amazed at how many people are going to obey," observes psychologist Dr. Naftali Berrill, head of the New York Center for Neuropyschology and Forensic Behavioral Science. "They disarm their victims by appearing to be cops." (Emphasis added.)
It is potentially fatal for an individual to allow himself, or herself, to be psychologically disarmed by someone who wears a costume and carries a gun. This is certainly true where street criminals are concerned. But in historic terms, it is even deadlier to allow one's self to be disarmed, in any sense, by agents of the State.
All of the world's private criminal syndicates combined have never killed as many people as were slaughtered in the late century by the public criminal organizations called "governments."
Between 1995 and 2005, more Americans were shot by law enforcement agents (3,949) than killed by terrorists (3,147). Most of those included in the first figure were criminal suspects, many of whom were trying to kill the police officers who shot them. But the contrast becomes a great deal more acute when we recall that the latter figure includes nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11, which is both an atrocity and an anomaly.
In other words: It is the rarest of things for an American to be killed by a terrorist, but not that uncommon for an American to be killed by police.
We should also take into account the increasingly promiscuous use of "less-lethal" weaponry by police, particularly Tasers. Originally advertised as a non-lethal alternative for use against violent suspects, the Taser has now become an instrument of "pain compliance" used against practically any civilian who taxes the patience of a police officer in situations that don't involve violent crime.
Most recent case in point: In Lakeside, Michigan just a few days ago (July 26), newlyweds Andy and Ania Somora, were tased at their own wedding reception after police from fourteen different agencies were mobilized in response to a single complaint of rowdy behavior.
This happened, according to witnesses not on the government's payroll, because the groom objected to the arrest of his elderly father, who had annoyed one of the Heroes in Blue by urging him to de-escalate the situation.
Enjoy your honeymoon: Newly married bride Ania Somorra, seen here at the bottom of a thugswarm, is subdued and handcuffed after being tased at her own wedding reception.
This isn't the first or only time cops have celebrated a marriage by needlessly assaulting the bride with a Taser.
Earlier this year, Chicago resident Ramona Madison, and her father Clarence Phelps, were both attacked by Taser-wielding police at her wedding reception following a noise complaint about their outdoor party.
"Basically, what happened is that they came in and started using the Taser, [without] even knowing what was going on," insists Mr. Phelps, who -- along with his daughter -- is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit. The police, in a now-familiar routine, insisted that Phelps and Madison were non-compliant, which is now commonly treated as an excuse for a potentially lethal use of force.
Those incidents reminded me a bit of the police pogrom in Fiddler on the Roof that brought a tragic end to Tzeitel and Motel's wedding. That comparison is unfair, of course: The rampaging Cossacks in that story, after all, didn't actually lay a hand on the bride or groom.
The word most commonly used in describing atrocities of this kind is "overkill": Police arrive, militarized to the molars and infected with the notion that their every desire is law; they find a group of puzzled, inoffensive people who didn't get the memo explaining their duty to submit to every order issued by uniformed bureaucrats with forelock-tugging docility; words are briefly exchanged, Tasers and clubs are wielded, people needlessly get hurt, and the public is told that the officer or officers "acted properly" in according with established policy.
In numerous, perhaps countless ways, the public has been informed that the mission of the police is not to protect the public, but rather to compel its unconditional submission. After all -- as we have discussed previously -- there is no statutory or constitutional duty to protect any individual citizen, but they act on the assumption that each individual citizen has the legal obligation to obey the orders of an officer without question or hesitation. A citizen is required to obey and submit to a police officer, under penalty of criminal charges, even when the officer is manifestly in the wrong.
It is this summary disarmament of the citizen that makes police impersonation so attractive to certain criminals: Such malefactors assume that the victims will have no choice but to comply with their demands.
But the brief record of such incidents reviewed above reveals a remarkable irony: Police impersonators, in some cases, are less dangerous than real police. When rebuffed, most impersonators apparently withdraw rather than escalating to actual violence. Real police generally don't, even when de-escalation is not only appropriate but required.
This is illustrated by the infuriating case of Dibor Roberts, who was convicted on two felony counts (resisting arrest -- which shouldn't be a criminal offense -- and unlawful flight) by a Verde Valley, Arizona jury in May. Dibor's "offense" consisted of frustrating a high-strung, officious boob in a state-issued costume by acting exactly as she had been instructed to by the agency employing said boob.
Hell-o, Newnum: Yavapai County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Newnum, who needlessly assaulted Dibor Roberts, seen here perjuring himself in court.
Roughly a year ago (July 29, 2007), Mrs. Roberts, a 48-year-old nurse and naturalized American citizen from Africa, was returning from work at about 10:45 PM when she saw a car driving erratically in front of her.
After she passed the vehicle -- a maneuver that entailed acceleration, of course -- she noticed what appeared to be a set of police lights in her rear-view. Her first impulse was gratitude, assuming that the erratic driver was going to be pulled over. But she became first puzzled, then alarmed, when it became clear that the apparent police vehicle intended to stop her.
Dibor and her husband, as it happens, had discussed recent incidents involving police impersonators. They were aware of advice given by police agencies to people being pulled over by purported police officers in dangerous circumstances: Drive carefully to a well-lit, preferably public area, and call 911 if possible to verify that it is a police officer. That is the established policy of the Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, whose roster includes Sgt. Jeff Newnum.
With that advice in mind, and worried about the suspicious disinterest of the alleged police officer in dealing with the erratic driver, Dibor slowed down and proceeded in the direction of a better-lit area. Her behavior was in strict compliance with the advertised advice of local police authorities. But even if it hadn't been, it still wasn't the behavior of someone trying to flee from the police.
Deputy Newnum, who radioed his headquarters to say that he was pursuing a "black driver" who refused to stop, pulled alongside Dibor's car, and eventually cut her off, forcing her to stop. He then came boiling out of his vehicle with his gun drawn because, as he later testified, "I knew I had an angry driver."
Of course you did, Jeff -- and threatening the driver with a gun is just the thing to defuse the situation, right?
Dibor, very alarmed by this time, was frantically gesturing that she wanted to proceed to a well-lit area, and trying to make her intention clear by shouting through her windows. Newnum took out a baton and shattered the driver's side window, seizing the terrified woman and dragging her out of the car. As he did so, Dibor's foot came off the brake and her car -- which was still in gear -- rolled forward over Newnum's foot.
"He pulled me out and the car jerked because I had my foot on the brakes," Dibor explained after the incident.
"She took it too far when she ran over my foot," lied Newnum later in court. We know that this is a lie because, first, it was Newnum who took things "too far" by needlessly escalating the encounter; second, because Dibor didn't try to escape after supposedly assaulting the officer; third, and most importantly, because although he stated definitively in court that Mrs. Roberts had deliberately run him over, he said in his official report six months earlier that he "couldn't remember" whether this was the case. (He also equivocated, under oath, as to whether he was injured in Dibor's supposed attack.)
Through her window, Dibor repeatedly yelled "It's too dark; I'm afraid." She was dragged from her vehicle yelling "No, no, no, no," as Newnum threw her to the ground. Her cellphone was taken from her and thrown away as well.
She had no chance to call either 911 or her husband, a detail that was confirmed, ironically, by Newnum's boss, Sheriff Steve Waugh. This is significant because the state's corroborating witness, Colin Bass, claimed to have heard Dibor use her cell phone to ask her husband how to escape. (Bass also claimed to have taken Newnum's police flashlight from the Deputy's belt to help direct traffic, an element of his story that is entirely implausible.)
Why was Newnum so wired when he came charging at Roberts with a drawn gun? He testified that he was worried that he couldn't see Dibor's hands; that was the "threat" she supposedly presented to him. But he also testified that he saw her hands plainly, that they were gripping her steering wheel "firmly" -- supposedly the behavior of an impaired driver. In either case, the jury bought into the idea that the police officer's behavior was appropriate, given the supposed threat posed by a terrified, small-boned, 120-pound, 48-year-old nurse.
Roberts was initially arrested and held in jail for six days. As mentioned above, she was later convicted of two felonies, resisting arrest and unlawful flight (interestingly, the initial traffic violation was apparently dismissed outright). The first charge was dropped by the judge, and Dibor was given a sentence of six months' supervised probation. But she has an unearned, unwarranted felony conviction on her record, which means that she cannot continue to work as a nurse (or vote, or -- more importantly -- legally own a firearm).
Despite the fact that Roberts, not Newnum, had carried out his department's policy regarding late-night traffic stops, Sheriff Steve Waugh insisted that his officer had (let's say it altogether now) "acted appropriately."
In his closing arguments during Dibor's trial, Yavapai County Prosecutor Glen Hammond insisted that her crime was that "she did not stop" --
which would mean that Sheriff Waugh had abetted the crime by instructing motorists uncertain of the identity of their pursuer not to stop until they reached a well-lit area. Hammond's position was that Dibor was a criminal because she had obeyed the instructions offered by the Sheriff's Department, and that it was not necessary to prove that she had willfully tried to flee or injure Newnum.
The jury, which apparently consisted of Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel and his brood, swallowed the prosecution's argument without protest and dutifully regurgitated it two hours later.
After fastening the noose of an unjustified felony conviction around Dibor's neck, Hammond -- as if to validate the suspicion that prosecutors are uniformly despicable -- actually tried to depict her as the bully in this entire affair.
"All he [Newnum] wanted from the very beginning was an apology and [he] left it up to the County Attorney what to do with this case," simpered Hammond. "It was a misunderstanding. It has been really tough on him and his family due to a lot of press, a lot of hate mail. He has been called a racist.... He just wants everyone to move forward and" -- here I must pause to find a basin to collect my rebellious gorge -- "let the healing begin."
So eager was Hammond to recite those puerile cliches that he inadvertently confessed to actionable malfeasance of office: If this even was a "misunderstanding," then it wasn't a crime, and shouldn't have been prosecuted as such.
If Newnum really wanted nothing more than an apology "from the very beginning," he should have complied with Dibor's reasonable and lawful request to find a well-lit area to conduct the traffic stop. That would have cleared up the "misunderstanding" without further complication.
That's how a peace officer would have behaved under those circumstances. It's a pity none was present at the time.
In fact, Dibor Roberts would have been better off that night if her suspicions had been correct, and Jeff Newnum actually had been a private criminal. Contemplate that fact, and its implications, if you're interested in a cure for narcolepsy.
Those interested in donating on behalf of Dibor Roberts' appeal -- which will cost as much as $25,000 -- should contact the Friends of Dibor Roberts by way of the "Woman's Right to Light" campaign.
(Credit must be given to J.D. Tuccille for his tenacious cyber-reporting on the Dibor Roberts outrage.)
On sale now!
Dum spiro, pugno!
at 10:27 AM
Labels: police state; Dibor Roberts
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This is getting old. When do we get to shoot back? This is a serious question. How much more abuse do the cops think we are going to take? There is a limit. Why they insist on pushing us closer to that limit is beyond me. I am not at the point where I actually root for the druggies to "get a few" before they die in a hail of bullets.
I have zero sympathy for cops killed in the line of duty. Why? Because things like this are common place enough that one can no longer give the police the benefit of the doubt as to who was "in the right". I am disposed to think that the cop was wrong more often than not.
It is in the interest of the cops that they purge these thugs from their ranks and vigorously prosecute them. Failure to do so will only further alienate the public and one day it will reach the point that the people will cheer when a cop is shot. When that day comes it will not be good as the people will lose restraint and an anti-cop backlash will result in escalating violence. In that day a lot of cops will simply disappear as vigilante street justice takes over. I don't welcome that day but the cops are pushing for it with all their abuse. The LA riots of 1992 shows just how a powder keg situation can rapidly escalate. If it comes to it, I will be the hunter rather than the hunted. God forbid such a day.
The cops need to stop covering for the thugs in their midst and start aggressive prosecution and purge their bad eggs.
In congruence with, and elaboration on, the matters which Mr. Grigg here writes about, readers ought to find my below article of value:
"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (first published on December 19, 2001) http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
Law enforcement in America has
become a disgrace and places us
all in real danger.
Instead of deploying the National
Guard to Iraq they should have
sent our local/city/state Police.
Isn't that what Iraq is?
A Police action?
A magnificent piece, Mr. Grigg. How long, indeed.
I keep on hearing the term "a few bad apples." It's funny how all these "few bad apples" all seem to materialize from nowhere and converge on a situation, like the 12 police officers who performed the thugswarm maneuver on three FDA-unapproved drug dealers/killing suspects, and proceeded to beat them: not to neutralize a threat, but just to get some barely-restrained, testosterone-fueled violence out of their thuggish constitutions.
A healthy percentage of badgethugs live for the feeling power. I won't say all. There are some well-meaning badgethugs, but none that will only enforce laws that protect individuals from actual violations of their persons or property. All badgethugs are given a monopoly on power to do things to others that would get anyone else thrown in prison, including initiating violence, escalating a confrontation, and using far more violence than is necessary to neutralize a threat. Is it surprising that they use this power and get away with it, after a review by their co-workers in government? In after-action reports on badgethug atrocities, of course there is no "wrongdoing" found: thugs and their government employers and protectors do not know the meaning of the word "wrong." And it does not help that the majority of the populace believes that nearly anything a badgethug does is justified, merely because a badgethug does it.
As for Tasers? They are decreasingly being used as less-lethal tools to neutralize threats. Instead, they are being used as weapons of inducing compliance and submission. Quite simply, Tasers are used as cattle prods.
Moses' act in Exodus 2:12 was absolutely virtuous. Upon seeing a fellow man being beaten by an initator of violence: "he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand."
I am all about turning the other cheek when I receive a slap in the face. When fists, batons and Tasers are being used, things change. I will take a badgethugs's speeding ticket. I will submit to his arrogance and insecurity-fueled insults. But if I see what Moses saw . . .
It is time for real men to see what Moses saw, and feel the righteous outrage he felt: outrage at brutal injustice.
anonymous 12:57 am, they want us to shoot back. Police agencies are hiring thugs and then indoctrinating them to be even more thuggish in order to provoke reactions from the general populace; police agencies are deliberately promoting a thug culture. This is by design so that eventually the people will start killing police. They will then justify all kinds of police state tactics (martial law, gun sweeps, checkpoints, implanted ID chips, mandatory ID cards, etc.) in retaliation for righteous citizen self defense. As difficult as it is, we must resist the urge for violence towards police and instead focus on exposing police criminality and educating police that they are being used as mere pawns and sacrificial lambs to fulfill a depraved political agenda.
WND had an article just yesterday about police tazing a young man who had fallen from a bridge and was lying on the road below with a broken back - 19 times - for his own protection. Law enforcement in this country is a joke as are the courts and gov't that spawned them.
So out on my bike ride this week I spotted officer friendly setting up a 'revenue enhancement position' (speed trap) with a young man in tow - ride along indoctrination I guess. And I offered him the single digit salute in front of his young charge. He promptly packed up and left. It put a smile on my face and left me feeling more light hearted.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I am not amazed by the behavior of the government. That has come to be expected. Her lawyer and the jury make me weep. Obviously, no one on that jury loves liberty, they're all a bunch of unthinking bootlickers, and the lawyer was incompetent. Now we see how there could be a handfull of guards over an entire concentration camp. Now we see how a bus load of people allow a maniac to decapitate of fellow passenger in Canada this week. Baaaaa!Baaaaaaaaa!
Felonies for traffic offenses and resisting. What state is this Arizona? Better stay away from there. I know it hasn't been done yet a cop with intelligence and heart but let's hope they can try and depending on technology instead of dealing with people either taser jockeys.
"this is getting old" is an understatement.
"i'm pruod to be an american! where at least i know i'm free!"
next time i hear that song i'm gonna be sick.
a non-violent soltuointo this is that communities get rid of their police forces. even one innocent person in jail is an abomination. but i don't think it will happen since these juries keep placing those innocent people in jail. this i crap.
"Law enforcement in this country is a joke as are the courts and gov't that spawned them."
The courts that spawned them are
unfortunately comprised of juries
of our "peers."
Recall the college experiment where
students were rigged for punitive
electrical shocks administered by
other fellow students?
The students administering the
shocks were told that the
experiment was to study the
reaction of the students being
shocked but this was a ruse. The
true nature of the experiment was
to study the students actually
adminstering the shocks to see how
far they would go (the other
students were not actually hooked
up but only putting on a show.)
As the experiment progressed the
students delivering the shocks
slowly but surely began
increasing the voltages. Even
though the students they were
torturing were screaming and
foaming in pain the adminstering
students continued to elevate the
voltages to levels they were told
Interesting experiment, eh?
Deep down we are basically cruel
Perhaps this is why our code of
justice was designed to err on the
side of the innocent? Has this
gone by the board in America?
God help us if we lose sight of
what it means to be a just people.
"Woe unto you, unjust Judges!"
Well, we should avoid shooting at the police... they are better armed and better organized.
Instead, we should go after the masters or these police thugs - politicans.
This woman is seeking Congress in Yavapai county:
She is a lawyer in Human Rights and Labor and a solid Christian. Please contact her office regarding the Nurse. I think Ms Livingstone may show interest.
I am also including this link, because the citizen has little help against the Blue Wall, and is being made an example of. Assistance is desperately needed. I appologize if the link is huge.
Peace Officers were sworn to protect and serve. Enforcers who wear masks and hide behind the Law are dangerous.
May the Lord Bless You
I think the major point of the Milgram experiment was that these people were not administering shocks because they were cruel, it was because they were being told to by someone in "authority," who urged them on and said them things like, "You won't get in trouble for this."
The main point of the Milgram experiment is that people are sheep. Loose and in the pastures, they pose little risk to anyone. Average, normal, sane people simply do not administer electric shocks to defenseless people as an ordinary part of their day. But put such people in an unnatural position (such as a policeman, soldier or corrections guard who has a monopoly on 'legitimized' force) put a gun, a club or a Taser in their sweaty hands, and a chain of command breathing down their necks, and you will find that they are capable of doing horrible things that they never would have done if they had not been put into positions of artificial coercive power.
I'm sure no German boy in the 1920's said, "when I grow up, I want to shoot kneeling political dissidents in the back of the head and watch their lifeless corpses lurch forward into a ditch." Nobody can do evil for evil's sake. Evil must always be done because the actor thinks, on some level, that his act is good. Not necessarily morally good, but at least physically good.
Policemen have an artificial monopoly on violence. Not only does their employer, the State, defend them, but people have attributed to police some sort of divine status, as "the ones who only do that which is good." Until they are the ones getting clubbed and Tasered for a "crime" which hurt no one else.
Cut no slack for policemen. Everyone deals with people they would rather not during their work day. If any of us said or did the things they do on a daily basis to our "clientele," we would be sacked in a minute. Not the badgethugs. Nobody is forcing them to be policemen. They get no adoration for me because their job is "dangerous and difficult." When 70% of your job entails issuing fines and arresting others for "crimes" that are not violations of the person or property of others, or even violations of God's rights (carrying a firearm without a State-issued permission slip), they have lost all my respect.
I have never been arrested. My detestation of this coercively-funded "profession" is based on my hatred of the initiation of violence.
The main lesson we can garner from the Milgram experiment is that men need to forge their own steel backbones. We must never act under coercion. Know what is just and unjust. Vehemently refuse to do or support that which is unjust, and vow to neutralize any clear threat posed by any unjust aggressor. Whether he has a shiny piece of metal on his shirt or not.
Will Blalock said . . .
"The students administering the
shocks were told that the
experiment was to study the
reaction of the students being
shocked but this was a ruse."
Yes, but a critical component of that experiment was that they were being encouraged to do so by an authority figure. The experiment was intended to determine, at least in part, the subjects willingness to comply with unethical requests made by authority figures.
Bob Altemeyer has an e-book "The Authoritarians" available free on-line which discusses this experiment in detail and I highly recommend reading it. Though his conclusions may be somewhat left leaning his treatment of the subject of compliance to authority makes it a very good read (and he will also respond to email).
And as far as our code of justice, it fell by the wayside generations ago. The farce that our courts have become err on the side of expediency for one party, and one party only - the state.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Instead, we should go after the masters or these police thugs - politic[i]ans.
Alas, the primary mission of the thugscum swine that populate today's "law enforcement" [sic] agencies is to protect these very same criminal politicians from "Us, the People." You can best believe that any attempt to dispatch these verminous politicians to hell where they belong will be met with the full force of the swine's armed wrath. Imagine the events of Nazi Germany's Kristallnacht amplified several hundredfold (or even several thousandfold) as martial law is declared in the wake of any citizen attempt to liquidate a large number of politicians or their cop bodyguards.
Violence against politicians will accomplish nothing. Nothing but crackdowns and reprisals: more thuggery, and worse.
The only solution to the problem of politicians is to withdraw your support from the whole political game. That is all it is. A power game. To vote is to declare, "I believe I have the right to force my neighbor, at gunpoint or the threat thereof, to subsidize the policies and services I would like to see."
A violent revolt at this point would ensure nothing but a new coercively-funded government being set up in place of the old one. And it would probably be worse than its predecessor. Ideas, not force, are what maintain long-term stability and justice. In a milieu of just ideas lived well, the need for violence is minimal. There is never any need or justification for the State and its violence.
The only politically efficacious thing to do is withdraw your support from the State. You will not change it from within, and neither will the other well-meaning politicians, like Ron Paul. You cannot change the destructive nature of a concentration camp by switching its kommandant. The only way to eliminate such an abomination is to have the majority of people withdraw their support for its existence. You cannot change the invariably violent nature of a tax-based government and still have it remain tax-based. You will never change an institution that was formed and is sustained by the grassroots actions of individual human beings by working from the top down, from within the system. You can bash away at the stones of a fortress all day long and accomplish nothing. Or you can undermine it at its very root and foundation: the support of individuals.
Some other things you can do:
Do not speak well of the State. Do not identify yourself with it. "Our troops," "My government." I do not know about the rest of you, but I refuse to claim possession of a tsunami, an earthquake, a tornado, a government, or any other violent and destructive force that exercises power over me, yet over which I have no control.
Aye. Withdraw from the violent game that is politics as far as you can. Do not vote: you have no right to use my money. I have no right to use yours. I signed no "social contract." I owe you absolutely nothing for living peacably and productively among other people. The only thing I owe others is to treat them with justice. In addition to the core requirement of justice, it is wise to treat others with charity, as well.
The requirements of justice mandate that you may not inititate aggression against your neighbor by voting for a politician, thereby cowardly forcing your neighbor to remit his hard-earned money by proxy.
"they were being told to by someone in "authority,"
Doesn't that make my point about
This enabling "authority" needs to
be removed and only WE the JURIES
can do it.
This is the whole point of the
jury trial system guaranteed us in
Beware the Scribes and Pharisees who
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit; and
where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty.
Our Juries can cut the state down
to size simply by not enforcing
its laws. This is the path provided
by Our constitution and is the
ultimate check on state power.
No violence or cynicism required.
Thus is the state busy corrupting
due process, discrediting trial
laywers and intimidating jurors.
"Woe unto you, unjust Judges!"
"Police Impersonators: Never There When You Need One".....
LOL! Funny, but THEY ARE there. All the time. Impersonating and grandstanding some long ago dead spirit of justice dressed in their halloween garb and masks.
Will Blalock . . .
Your faith is misplaced. Neither juries nor religious dogma will rid us of our tyranny. That truism has held for the entire known history of man.
The court system is a loaded game and much is done simply as an administrative practice - no court, no hearing, no jury. And when a jury is seated they are instructed as to their actions by the presiding authoritarian. They have no conscious beyond that.
If courts/juries worked, 'Shrub' et. al. would have already stretched a rope. Are you going to hold your breath waiting for that to happen?
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Will Blalock said: "Our Juries can cut the state down to size simply by not enforcing its laws. This is the path provided by Our constitution and is the ultimate check on state power."
I don't have a Constitution.
I never signed it, did you? Did your grandfather? Father? If they did, did it bind you?
Rights are one of two kinds: A) Natural or B) Contractual. The Constitution gives me no rights. The most it can do is enumerate some powers that men in power pinkie swear they will never use to violate men's natural rights. (The Constitution is a lie from the beginning, based as it is on coercive taxation.) I believe it was Madison who said something to the effect of, "[the]our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Somewhat of a contradiction. Moral and religious people are governed by God, and therefore have no need to be governed by violent men.
There is no "ultimate check on State power" that is protected by any scrap of parchment. The ultimate check on State power is God, followed by human nature lived to its fullest by individuals. Unless men recognize that we are all created with the same human nature, and that parallel, alternate moral universes for individuals in government do not exist, [universes where murder, robbery amd initiating violence are no longer wrong] the State will thrive. No matter what a piece of parchment with ink scrawled across it says. The State only makes rules. It doesn't need to follow them. So it doesn't. Because it's inconvenient for attaining the State's end: more power.
My sincere and anguished apologies to liberranter. Owing to a keyboard slip committed while I was distracted by one of our offspring, I accidentally rejected the following comment. Please re-send it.
@Sic Semper Tyrannis, 5:29 AM, and Sans Authoritas, 7:07 AM:
Well stated, both of you!
The "jury" system in this country is under the sway of the very same tyrannical body that seeks its abolition altogether through deliberate tampering of the process. (Whenever a judge instructs a jury to "disregard" any statement made in a court of law or issues fiats from the bench prohibiting jurors from taking certain facts under consideration, said judge is violating his/her oath of office and is thereby legally subject to impeachment and removal from the bench, at a minimum, and even to criminal penalties if the tampering goes far enough.) Sadly, the clueless, illiterate dolts that populate the average jury pool are either unaware of their responsibilities as supreme interpreters of law or are apathetic to them. In short, juries are not going to solve our problem of runaway government.
Sans Authoritas is correct in reiterating the position first made prominent by the great Lysander Spooner that the Constitution, as a legal document, cannot be made binding upon those who did not directly express their consent to it through signature. That argument aside, one can argue that the circumstances under which said document was crafted represented a breach of law in that the convention that drafted and approved the document exceeded its specific authority, having never been granted authority by the states to repeal the original Articles of Confederation, thereby rendering said constitution null and void.
Even all of this aside, the complete ignorance of, disrespect for, and apathy towards said "founding document" by "Us, the People", along with our collective (again, that word I so despise!) unwillingness to hold "our elected representatives" legally and morally accountable for their criminal actions, precludes any meaningful change in our lifetime.
How about getting rewarded for invading the wrong house? Here's the link.
Notice how nobody turns down the "awards". Nor say that they were wrong. Nor mention that they would pay for the damage they created. Nor with their own two hands repair said damages out of humility or remorse for what was done.
Nothing but silence or evasion.
I would say some sort of award was well deserved. For cowardice and lies!
They get no adoration for me because their job is "dangerous and difficult."
They're sure not shy about demanding adoration, though. If I never hear about how cops "put their lives on the line every day" again, it will be too soon.
Actually, using the government's own figures, cops dodn't even crack the top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in the country. No government workers do.
What would be refreshing is if the police were to show some gratitude to the workers who put their lives on the line while producing the food that goes on cops' tables and building the roofs over cops' heads (not to mention providing the material to make the tools that cops use to torture- waitaminute... "protect and serve" is what I meant to say- "protect and serve") so that the police can get out there on the street everyday and bust down doors.
@Sic & Sans
Yes, our legal system is being
undermined, but this usurpation of
authority is not codified. It is
What device did our founding
fathers put at the very very
bottom of our state apparatus?
The vote? No. A Jury of the people.
Everything else hangs on this.
Throw all the cold water you like
but having the FINAL say on the
law is the ultimate power to rule
and structure society.
You say you have no constitution?
Baloney. You were born into a
social structure that you inherited
by default. With society comes the
law, period. Be thankful your
inherited contract includes your
having the privilege to serve on
A stroke of genius. It's the only
sword we need and all we need do
is pick it up.
I'm no federalist or statist, but
no matter what form of govt you
choose SOMEONE has to have a final
say on the law's veracity(and no,
it's not the U.S. Supreme Court.)
They can have the vote, pass all
the bogus law they like. Just put
me on a JURY.
(I have served proudly several times.)
I wonder if there are any cops in America who would have been worthy to shine this man's shoes.
Mr Grigg's writes: "the document exceeded its specific authority, having never been granted authority by the states to repeal the original Articles of Confederation, thereby rendering said constitution null and void."
But you could argue the same about the very same Articles of Confederation documents as against the rights of the native people who lived in the Americas before it was colonised. If you take that line of argument the whole edifice falls and you are forced to start all over again, build a new + truly inclusive 'from below' society out of the ashes of the old. And that requires - collectivity at the small community level!
And: for "Even all of this aside, the complete ignorance of, disrespect for, and apathy towards said "founding document" by "Us, the People"
Likewise, IMO you are arguing in favour of am inclusive ie genuinely we the people (not some people in the local community, but all of them rich or poor black white jewish and muslim), all must be fully included, welcomed in a genuinely 'owned' constitutional settlement. And that must include solidarity with other communities doing likewise: EVERYWHERE.
Where you say: "along with our collective (again, that word I so despise!)"
Why do you despise it? In my experience a feeling of such strength against a concept with such inherently good connotations (* & everyone else, please don't trot out the tired old line that I am hereby somehow arguing for a central command Soviet-style state, i am clearly not) is usually indicative of some form of denial? Or perhaps you are using it as a rhetorical device, in which case i would ask you to not as it plays on some of your reader worst, dangerous and highly contagious prejudices/ and is therefore akin to playing with fire.
For Jesus' sake! Religion itself is by its very definition a solidarity in the collective (re - legere; 'to bind back' that which has fragmented); so how on earth a writer of your calibre and ostensible religious persuasion can despise such a word is beyond me..
Just to be clear, Will was reposting my earlier contribution after having accidentally deleted it.
To answer your specific points (off-topic as these may be):
As to the question of the legitimacy of either the U.S. Constitution or Articles of Confederation, I agree that both can branded as non-binding on anyone other than those who signed them, most certainly not "the People" as a whole, whether the generation of the founders or today's Americans. As an anarcho-capitalist who believes in the sovereignty of the individual, this is the only position I can reasonably support, since only the individual, not the "collective" acting for him or her, can freely give consent to be party to a contract or compact. The best that can be said about either the Articles or the Constitution and BoR is that all represent the enunciation of the ideal that "government" must be strictly limited and respect the rights of the governed, however unworkable in practice this may have turned out to be, human nature being what it is.
Likewise [with the statement "Even all of this aside, the complete ignorance of, disrespect for, and apathy towards said "founding document" by "Us, the People"], IMO you are arguing in favour of am inclusive ie genuinely we the people (not some people in the local community, but all of them rich or poor black white jewish and muslim), all must be fully included, welcomed in a genuinely 'owned' constitutional settlement. And that must include solidarity with other communities doing likewise: EVERYWHERE.
The only "collective" aspect of this statement I can find is in the observation that most "individuals" resident in these United States just happen to be either ignorant of or apathetic toward the exercise of their God-given rights to live their lives and enjoy their property in peace and without interference from others. (Take a random sampling of individuals on the street and quiz them on the Bill of Rights. I'll bet that their answers will shock and appall.) It has nothing whatsoever to do with "inclusiveness." For example, the fact that a band of gypsies might move into my neighborhood and that I might despise such people, for whatever reason (calm down, I'm using a hypothetical here. I don't know any real gypsies - honest! :)~ ) confers upon me no right whatsoever to interfere with their peaceful, non-aggressive enjoyment of their own property. That said, my only obligation to these neighbors, and they to me, is to leave one another alone. Mutual self-interest is the glue that unites in the face of a common threat. Where this "glue" has been dissolved is in the historic success of the State to "divide and conquer", to use force to confer upon one person a benefit at the expense of his neighbor. Until or unless human beings find the moral strength to resist the urge to profit from such immoral behavior, no progress will be made, no matter how "diverse" or homogeneous a community might be.
Why do you despise [the collective]? In my experience a feeling of such strength against a concept with such inherently good connotations (* & everyone else, please don't trot out the tired old line that I am hereby somehow arguing for a central command Soviet-style state, i am clearly not) is usually indicative of some form of denial? Or perhaps you are using it as a rhetorical device, in which case i would ask you to not as it plays on some of your reader worst, dangerous and highly contagious prejudices/ and is therefore akin to playing with fire.
Whether "the collective" is a term of, as you put it "inherently good connotations" is purely a matter or opinion and perspective. From my point of view, "the collective" is an ill-defined term and concept that has been used (abused?) to perpetuate more human suffering throughout the course of history than anything else, usually at the hands of self-annointed power elitists who have anything but the interests of said alleged "collective" at heart.
No, "the collective" is responsible for, among other things, the imposition of both the mildest and worst forms of sociopolitical totalitarianism in human history. Again and again we have witnessed throughout the ages hordes of individuals who have abdicated their God-given gift of (and responsibility for) both critical thinking and personal responsibility cave in to the philosophy du jour, no matter how (self-)destructive, in order to go along to get along, or to reap some perceived benefit, however chimerical or intangible, at the expense of someone else. "Gute Deutscher" and "Faithful members of the Soviet People's Party" are two good historical examples of these types of people. "Patriotic Americans" are the best example existent in large numbers today.
The police in the UK are so much more sensitive:
Monday, August 04, 2008
English police's new mission: sex change
Police send 344 officers on sex-change training
The move is in response to one of their colleagues undergoing treatment to change from a 42-year-old married man into a woman called Lauren...
A total of 510 staff - including 344 police officers - working for Humberside Police in North East Lincolnshire received a letter from the chief superintendent saying they had to attend the half-day training course to help PC Lauren's transition.
Will Blalock writes:
"Yes, our legal system is being
undermined, but this usurpation of
authority is not codified. It is
And your solution to this is???? You think the law-giver's are going to re-write things in such a way that don't favor them?? Do you want the 'red pill or the blue pill'??
Mankind has been waiting for thousands of years for your words of wisdom, or jury as it were, to free us from tyranny.
Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes it is appropriate. Yes, if people of reason were allowed to decide the facts outside of the system then a jury might well work. but the 'system' is rigged and systemically flawed - as such, it offers no solution.
There is a saying that 'even a stopped watch is right twice a day' and when one observes that which they wish to avoid, that truism is quite apparent.
So here's a couple revolutionary thoughts that you might wish to consider 'Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun' and 'Religion is the opiate of the masses'. While I disagree with both authors dogma and conclusions, I will admit their insight is pretty accurate even in this day and age.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Somehow I failed to post complete address on prior post.
Alernatively one can google "Do you know any heroes around here?" (In quotes.)
There's Something About Henry
by David McGowan
Part I: Sympathy for the Devil (Portrait of an MK-ULTRA Assassin?)
Part II: The Myth of the Serial Killer
Part III: Seven Degrees of Henry Lee
Lax treatment afforded America's serial killers
Part IV: Seven More Degrees of Henry Lee
The suspicious deaths of key players during the trials of various killers & the suspicious deaths of the killers themselves.
Part V: The Mind (Control) of a Serial Killer
Part I: Sympathy for the Devil
"Henry is an unusual prisoner. He's been given a high security cell and a few special amenities ..."---Jim Boutwell, Sheriff of Williamson County, Texas
On June 30th of 1998, Henry Lee Lucas, arguably the most prolific and certainly one of the most sadistic serial killers in the annals of crime was scheduled for execution by the state of Texas. Given the advocacy of the death penalty by Governor George W. Bush, things clearly weren't looking good for Henry at that time.
Bush had not granted clemency to any condemned man in his tenure as governor. In fact, no governor of any state in the entire history of the country has carried out more judicial executions than has Governor George. At last count, the state of Texas had dispatched 130 inmates on Bush's watch.
So Texas was definitely not the place to be for a man in Henry's position. And considering the nature of Henry's crimes, it seemed a certainty that nothing would stand in the way of Henry's scheduled execution. There weren't likely to be any high-profile supporters, a la Karla Faye Tucker (though even personal appeals to Bush from the likes of Pat Robertson failed to dissuade the governor from proceeding on schedule with Miss Tucker's execution). Not likely because Henry's crimes were of a particularly brutal nature, involving rape, torture, mutilation, dismemberment, necrophilia, cannibalism, and pedophilia, with the number of victims running as high as 300-600 by some accounts - including Henry's own, at times - though this figure is likely inflated.
By all accounts though, Lucas, frequently working with partner Ottis Toole [Later pardoned in Florida by another Bush]- a self described arsonist and cannibal - savagely murdered literally scores of victims of all ages, races, and genders. All indications were then that this was pretty much of a no-brainer for America's premier hanging governor. But then a most remarkable thing happened. On June 18, just twelve days before Henry's scheduled demise, Governor Bush asked the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, whose members are appointed by Bush himself, to review Henry's case. Strangely enough, eight days later the Board uncharacteristically recommended that Henry's execution not take place.
The very next day, just three days short of Henry's scheduled exit from this world, Lucas became the first - and to date only - recipient of Governor Bush's compassionate conservatism....
There is a solution to all this mess. It's actually easier than one might think. Please feel free to email me at LCharles14@yahoo.com and we can discuss it.
Post a Comment