Monday, June 21, 2010

The Police State's "Cardinal Rule": The Mundane Must Submit

British officer: You call yourself a patriot, and a loyal subject to King George?

Hawkeye: I don't call myself "subject" to much of anything.

Hawkeye explains the foundational tenet of the American worldview to a self-important armed government functionary offended by the frontiersman's principled defiance; from the 1992 version of Last of the Mohicans.

Marilyn Levias, a 19-year-old Seattle girl involved in a jaywalking incident during which a police officer assaulted another 17-year-old girl,  displayed "a dangerous refusal to observe a cardinal rule that civilians simply must comply with instructions from police officers," insists Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes. 

For this, Miss Levias faces a gross misdemeanor charge of "Obstructing a Police Officer." During the confrontation, Levias's 17-year-old friend, Angel L. Rosenthal, intervened on her behalf and was punched in the face by officer Ian P. Walsh. As is typically the case when a Mundane's face obstructs the trajectory of a police officer's fist, the victim is the one facing criminal charges. 



In announcing the criminal charge against Levias, City Attorney Holmes offered the mildest possible limpwristed swipe at the Seattle Police Department by saying that the incident illustrates the need "for de-escalation training for officers." Holmes also cited an observation by Judge Michael Spearman, auditor for the police department's Office of Professional Responsibility, that "The use of force in a [jaywalking] situation as a best practice is questionable."

Even this timid and tentative criticism was an unbearable affront to the delicate sensibilities of Rich O'Neill, president of Seattle's Armed Tax-Feeders Guild. 

"Force was not used in a jay-walking incident! Force was used because the individuals involved assaulted a uniformed police officer," protested O'Neill.

The "assault" in question occurred when the teenage girls tried to free themselves from Walsh's clutches after he had needlessly laid hands on them. They were uncooperative, not threatening

Yet to O'Neill, who is apparently so Emo that his last name should be Philips, jaywalking occupies the same continuum as violent crime. 

Accordingly, the use of overwhelming force is entirely appropriate: "Officers are trained to enforce the law and not to `de-escalate' (walk away) simply because a violator objects to being stopped. That would simply lead to lawlessness."

Indeed: If we don't permit police officers to slug jaywalking teenage girls in the face, the terrorists will win.

There are evil axioms embedded in the statements of both Holmes and O'Neill. First of all, both assume that there is a dichotomy between police and "civilians" -- which of necessity means that the former should be regarded as military, or at least para-military, in nature. Holmes reinforced that assumption by referring to the Mayor of Seattle as "commander in chief" of the city's police. 

As I've noted elsewhere, the idea that "civilians" are to render instant, unqualified obedience to any armed individual in a government-issued costume is the chief characteristic of the martial law mind-set. 

O'Neill exhibits that mind-set when he complains that "de-escalation" is tantamount to surrender -- or, as he put it, walking away from a confrontation. 

In fact, if the police are to be peace officers, rather than paramilitary enforcers, there are many circumstances in which they should simply walk away. The alternative is ... well, what we're dealing with now: The promiscuous use of physical coercion, including lethal force, as summary punishment for failure to "cooperate" with the police. 

Robert Peel, the British Prime Minister who created the first modern police force in 1829 while serving as British Home Secretary, insisted that "police are the public and the public are the police." The only difference between a police officer and any other "civilian," from Peel's perspective, was that he is "paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" where protection of life, liberty, and property are concerned. 

Thus if it was proper for Ian Walsh the tax-engorged state functionary to punch a teenage girl in the mouth, it would be just as proper for a hypothetical productive private citizen named Ian Walsh to do exactly the same thing in the same circumstances. 

As any honest person will acknowledge, our alternate-universe Ian Walsh would be facing assault charges, rather than being commended as a stalwart defender of public order.

It was the assumption of police impunity, not the requirement to "de-escalate," that led to Walsh's lawless assault on 17-year-old Angel Rosenthal -- unless we are to assume, as do O'Neill and his ilk, that the individual police officer is the law. 

Once again, according to Peel's "Nine Principles of Policing" those paid to perform the police function must display "absolute impartial service to the law"; in this case, "subordination" is a suitable synonym for "service." 

Likewise, Peel recognized that public support for government-employed "professional" police is inversely proportionate to the tendency of police to employ coercive force, particularly under dubious circumstances. 

Peel was a conservative politician steeped in the assumptions of an imperial monarchy. Yet his "cardinal rule" regarding the relationship between the public and the police would be that the latter must defer to the former, rather than the reverse. 

This is why, in seeking the "voluntary cooperation" of the public, the police were to emphasize "persuasion, advice, and warning," Peel maintained, employing compulsion only when absolutely necessary. Under Peel's standards, that threshold obviously isn't met when a teenage girl jaywalks and then mouths off to a police officer. For those hostage to the martial-law mindset, that threshold is reached whenever a Mundane displays so much as a moment's hesitation in complying with a police officer's directives, whether or not they are rooted in actual legal authority. 

Jesse Wright, a newlywed 22-year-old EMT from Chattanooga, faces a cluster of spurious criminal charges because he refused to submit to the supposed authority of Officer Jim Daves. At the time, Daves was physically obstructing Wright's efforts to get medical attention for his wife Aline, a cancer survivor who was experiencing a stroke. 

Jesse and Aline are both employed by Chattanooga's Erlanger Medical Center. Aline, who lost her leg to cancer a few years ago, is undergoing chemotherapy, and the possible side effects of her treatment include stroke. Last Wednesday, when Aline's face began to droop and her speech became slurred, Jesse called the Medical Center and informed them of her condition. En route, Jesse treated stop lights as if they were stop signs -- pausing at each and then proceeding through them before they turned green.

Aline Wright in the hospital.
Daves, who was lurking near one stop light, hit his siren and followed Jesse and Aline to the hospital. When they arrived, Jesse grabbed Aline and, carrying her in his arms, tried to get her into the emergency room. His path was suddenly obstructed by Daves, who ignored the obvious fact that Jesse was dealing with a life-and-death emergency. 

For Daves, the really important thing was not to render aid, but rather securing compliance from a Mundane -- even if this meant prolonging the encounter while his stroke-afflicted wife suffered permanent brain damage. Aline's symptoms were visible and unmistakable -- yet Daves was fixated entirely on enforcing the "cardinal rule" of contemporary law enforcement: Make The Mundane Submit.

To his credit, Jesse ignored Daves' self-preoccupied demands and got his wife the treatment she needed. Daves continued to harass Jesse as the newlywed husband and his professional colleagues sought treatment for Aline. In addition to barging in to Aline's hospital room, Daves called Jesse a "sh*thead" and promised that he would "think of something" to justify arresting him. A couple of days later, hospital security -- acting on a spurious, vindictive warrant filed by Daves -- arrested Jesse on several counts, including a felony charge of "evading an officer." 

If Jesse hadn't "evaded" Officer Daves, Aline (whom he had married just days before) might either be dead or so mentally incapacitated that her career options would be limited to employment in a sheltered workshop or a position as a patrol officer for the Chattanooga Police Department.

Because he's been charged with a felony, Jesse has been placed on unpaid leave. By way of contrast, Daves has been put on paid vacation while the police department sorts out the PR mess the officer has made. 

A very similar incident occurred last year when paramedic Maurice White, Jr. was assaulted by State Trooper Daniel Martin in Paden, Oklahoma, a small town 40 miles east of Oklahoma City. 

According to  an AP account, Martin was speeding in his cruiser in a frantic rush to get nowhere in particular, and had his feelings hurt when the ambulance — which was actually providing a useful service by ferrying Stella Davis to the hospital — didn’t pull over for him. He then compounded his useless rage by imagining that the driver flipped him off.

The ambulance driver, intent on getting the elderly patient the care she needed, hadn’t noticed that the trooper had been behind him with lights flashing. When Trooper Martin zoomed by, he made radio contact and snarled that the driver “should consider checking [his] rear view mirrors.”

A little while later, Martin cut off a car driven by a family member of the patient and signaled for the ambulance to pull over. Seeing a woman sitting next to the Trooper, and thinking she might need medical care, White -- who was supervising the driver -- complied — only to find himself under assault and the subject of a spurious arrest on the way to the hospital

When Martin tried to arrest the ambulance driver, Mr. White — a man of amazing patience and dignity — intervened to explain that the ambulance was carrying a patient. This prompted a tantrum from Martin, who assaulted White twice and threatened to arrest both him and the driver. That attempt failed, but not before Martin actually placed a hand on White’s throat to choke him as the patient’s family looked on in stunned, disgusted disbelief.
Later, at the hospital, Martin actually said in the presence of witnesses that he was prepared to pull his gun and use lethal force against White. After all, de-escalating an unnecessary confrontation would be tantamount to surrender, and countenancing defiance by a Mundane would fatally undermine respect for The Law.  

Episodes like this are hardly uncommon. Indeed, it's reasonable to believe that treatment of this kind -- if not necessarily this severity -- is becoming the rule, rather than the exception, during encounters between police and citizens

Where police constitute a threat to life, liberty, and property, ignoring them -- or actively resisting their demands -- is not only legally permissible, but morally imperative. Now that the Brotherhood in Blue is becoming little more than an armed plunderbund (noble and worthy exceptions to that characterization notwithstanding), it's difficult to see how things would be noticeably worse if we simply did away with it outright

 Your donations -- which are greatly appreciated -- 
keep this blog up and running.

Tune in each Saturday night (8:00-11:00 Mountain Time) for Pro Libertate Radio on the Liberty News Radio Network. And be sure to check out the archive of previous installments. 

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

The incident about the woman and her husband ferrying her to the hospital is disgusting. What I find unforgivable is that the hospital bends down and licks the police boot and then suspends one of its own in deference. Never mind what happened. I hope they, the hospital and the police, get whats coming to them. This is all simply more evidence of the "end-run" that the feds/military has done to our local departments and posse-comitatus by an indirect militarization of said departments through the generous gifting of automatic weapons, gear, and APC's. So what's next? Bradley fighting vehicles and tanks in the streets in order to combat the war on jaywalking?

liberranter said...

Will, I'm sure you're aware that Oklahoma State Trooper Daniel Martin is an Iraq occupation veteran, which no doubt explained his "badge rage." I wonder if this is also true of Chattanooga PD "Officer" Jim Daves.

Anonymous said...

Never ever call the police and always take all necessary precautions to avoid ever having to interact with them.
As for the servile ass kissing that seems to seems to pervade the comment sections of the daily rag - whenever the topic involves the police committing some new outrage against the serfs- it makes me realize Amerika is doomed. The average dolt wouldn't know freedom if it karate chopped him or her. All they can do is live in their deluded stupor singing praises like "thanks for putting your life on the line daily" to the pompous parasitical armed enforcers lording over us.

Anonymous said...

WoW! Great post!

Problem is how do we fight the bastards and why has it come to this?

When I was a kid my parents drilled into my head to seek the police if I was ever in trouble. Now you are smart to tell your children to go the other way if they see a police officer.

Limnicky said...

Will I disagree with your opinion on the Seattle officer. If you watch the entirety of the video the 2 young ladies in question are resisting and then the one who got punched grabbed the officer and tried to assault him. I am very skeptical of the Police State and your articles have been very informative, I have learned much from you and the interviews you have done on ISI, but in this case I think you are wrong. The officer in question was trying to maintain the situation from escalating into a worse one. In the video there is even a man who appears to have a gun. We have had 7 officers murdered in this area over the last 9 mos and that part of town where this happened is a continual problem for citizens and police alike.

Anonymous said...

If that was my daughter that he hit, he (and his family) would spend the rest of their life looking over their shoulder.... period. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord and I would be His instrument.

Limnicky said... is an example of Police abusing their authority.

John Washburn said...

The sad thing is this attitude was spoofed in the comic book The Badger back in 1983-1986

The Badger beat a jaywalker with exceptional vigor and offered as a defense: "The Law is the Law and law breakers need to be punished!"

The virtue of the comic book is that the Badger was represented as INSANE because of this attitude.

Not so with the annointed ones.

Todd said...

Were those women technically assulting a police officer? From what I could see, yes they were.

Did the police officer technically assult either of the women before they reacted? Most likely.

Is the police officer incompetent? In this situation -- TOTALLY. What kind of an imbecile resorts to violence when enforcing JAYWALKING?! (answer a heavily armed imbecile with a license to kill). I guess we should all be grateful that he didn't mace, taze or shoot anyone (and you know in your heart that if he did he would be found to have "followed procedure.")

Even ignoring the pathetically humorous fact that this hero in blue took several difficult minutes to subdue a significantly smaller, unarmed woman (and sucker punch her also smaller female friend), this makes the Seattle police department a laughing stock. Again, keep in mind that this violent idiocy began because this "hero" was hell bent on enforcing a JAYWALKING statute.

The most serioius crime here is the fact that Seattle residents are forced to pay this idiot's salary and very, very generous retirement.

Anonymous said...

A Seattle resident commented somewhere on line that this intersection is near a high school, and the students routinely ignore the traffic lights, deliberately clogging up traffic even thought there is a pedestrian overpass right there. You can see part of the overpass in the video clip. This is not to say that the cop handled the situation correctly, but it's very possible that many of these students are unsociable, ignorant, spoiled brats at best.

liberranter said...

Even ignoring the pathetically humorous fact that this hero in blue took several difficult minutes to subdue a significantly smaller, unarmed woman (and sucker punch her also smaller female friend)...

The only thing preventing more of us mere mundanes from beating these brainless, donut and steroid-bloated psychopaths into bloody, comatose piles of pulp is that they're quick to summon paramilitary backup in a fraction of a second faster than that required to detonate an atomic bomb. While many a mundane can readily testify to the Fat Blue Line Gang's apparent inability to summon said backup in anything remotely resembling a timely manner when it comes to the defense of a citizen's life or property when either or both are endangered, the cruisers, helicopters, and SWAT humvees seem to have an almost supernatural ability to travel at wharp speed and to arrive in a millisecond at any location at which one of the Blue Gangbangers is in distress.

I have no doubt that both Marilyn Levias and Angel Rosenthal were fully capable of individually incapacitating Officer Porktard with at least kick to the family jewels, just for starters. I'm equally sure that the only thing stopping them from doing so was the realization that the equivalent of the entire German Sixth Army would descend upon them with lethal force at Officer Porktard's first pathetic whimper for "help!"

Anonymous said...

Sorry Limnicky but the video starts with him already laying hands on the girl so I haven't a clue as to what transpired previous to that. Once he started manhandling her the friend tries to pull her off and you feel THAT constitutes "assault"? Are you some sort of drone? It was at that point he throws a punch at the girl. Seriously now. Based on your comments you'd allow yourself to be manhandled or your friend or daughter to be roughed up by some stooge simply because he has a uniform on? As far as police being murdered... sorry, but I don't care. I didn't ask them be cops and to feed off the public host with a hog leg strapped on. They deserve no more respect than, say, a student jaywalking across the street. And, honestly, isn't that the most ignorant of things to cite someone on? Most dangerous occupation? Don't make me laugh. There are far more dangerous jobs out there where those involved aren't sucking on the public teat. Now THOSE I can really respect.

dixiedog said...

I agree with your verbal pounding as is evident in your piece here, Will.

I certainly can't countenance a damned armed paladin (or any other man for that matter) punchin' a woman in the face (unless she's armed), regardless of the circumstances surrounding the incident. They can simply be manhandled into submission IF required.

However, that said, I can't understand why ANY policeman (or she-police), who isn't culturally congruent, would even agree to work that beat long term. It's obvious, judging by the culture and attitudes observed just among the commoners on the video in that particular neighborhood that remaining cool, calm, and under self-control in that role would be most difficult, even for a normally docile personality type.

I know as for me I'm just not blessed/cursed (depending on ones perspective) with Will's perfect idealism to act so "Christian-esque" in every situation and/or encounter with the much more course grained humanoids of today, especially the more youthful.

Sure, jaywalking is certainly a "make work" quota-fulfilling citation for the paladin in question and he should have acted with more restraint and decorum, precisely because he is a member of Leviathan's "priesthood," (armed enforcer) if nothing else.

You know Will, given your genuine disdain and harshest contempt for Leviathan, its attendant apparatchiks, and its entire corrupt apparatus at large, I wonder from time to time whether you ever question why Paul didn't flee stat from that prison when the earthquake tore it up? He was wrongly imprisoned, after all, yet stayed put and even convinced the genuine criminal rabble therein to also stay put.

Hmm.....just sayin'...

I agree with you, Limnicky, about the Dearborn episode and its ominous implications for the rest of the country, but I have to agree with Will in regards to this policeman's conduct in making a mountain of a crime and blowback out of a molehill of an issue like jaywalking and punching an unarmed woman in the face.

I do agree without reservation with Will's synopsis of the Okie vid, though. That cop is simply a narcissistic power-monger personality type who should have been fired quick time, but naturally won't be. However, one piconit to pick on that one: why didn't the ambulance driver run the emergency lights and siren for goodness sakes?

Speaking of youthful thugs/thugettes, this thug's unexpected smackdown by an oldie admittedly made me smile, although his cussing was a big negative. When the evil of busing started I was forced to do the same thing with one particularly troublesome student in school. He didn't mind that his welfare momma had to come to the school to pick him up; neither did she apparently. OTOH, I was terrified that my Mom had to take off work and drive 40 miles to pick me up. Needless to say, there did not ensue a blissful trip home.

Still, I was surprised to see that this guy was still ready and able to smack down a troublesome thug who got in his face talkin' the tired, race-tinged smack and assault.

Thank God there are still a few men, unhampered by "sissification," in America. They're dying off fast...sigh.

Sans Authoritas said...

"You know Will, given your genuine disdain and harshest contempt for Leviathan, its attendant apparatchiks, and its entire corrupt apparatus at large, I wonder from time to time whether you ever question why Paul didn't flee stat from that prison when the earthquake tore it up? He was wrongly imprisoned, after all, yet stayed put and even convinced the genuine criminal rabble therein to also stay put."

What St. Paul did undermined the entire establishment more than his escape ever could have. What would have happened if Jesus had justly killed Pilate with his bare hands? What would have happened if Jesus told his followers to take up arms and free the slaves, rather than take St. Paul's advice to slaves: "be subject to your masters?" They would have all been hunted down and exterminated. As it was, this whole "human beings have equal human dignity" and "God does not respect persons" business had the entire establishment hunting down Christians and trying to exterminate them.

Some causes are simply not furthered by certain means.

-Sans Authoritas

Ralph said...

The law actually is quite explicit in this regard if we look at "original intent" of the founders.

First, we have the 5th amendment: no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

"Due process' is explicitly defined by Justice Joseph Story as COMMON LAW, and he refers to Chief Justice Coke of England, as his source, as did the founders, who wrote the phrase into the constitution.

Both Blackstone and Coke state clearly that any detainment on the street WITHOUT A WARRANT is IMPRISONMENT, and subject to habeas corpus remedy.

The 4th amendment says no warrants shall issue except for proable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Oath or affirmation means the officer who requested the warrant has waived due process protections under law(no 5th amendment protection).

St George Tucker states that the constitution grants no general jurisdiction in common law, as this would annihilate the states, but the 14th amendment removes this jurisdiction from the states under "privileges and immunities".

Why was it only reserved to states in the first place? Read Madison's comment regarding life, liberty, and property in "Federalist #45".

Hamilton points out that the phrase "due process" has a precise technical import and can NEVER be referred to an act of legislature.

Why? because an act of legislature allowing an officer to detain any person amounts to a general warrant, which is specifically prohibited by the 4th amendment.

Anonymous said...

I have to defend the policeman in this incident.

While jaywalking is a silly offense once he proceeded to write a ticket and the girl flipped out what was he supposed to do? All she had to do was speak to him – perhaps he then would have just warned her but when she acted like an idiot I’m sure this settled the decision for the officer to write a citation.

The age of the girl who intervened is irrelevant – look at her size. Plus she was clearly interfering by physically intervening – she touched the cop first. Also consider that he was severely outnumbered – had the crowd turned on the cop he was dead.

Furthermore what was he supposed to do in that situation? It would have been much worse to taze her. Perhaps he could have used mace but is it preferable to be maced over one punch to the face? And the punch didn’t knock her out, so he probably pulled it since he wanted her to back off, which she did. The punch was effective – the girl immediately calmed down and realized that she wasn’t dealing with one of her friends.

While there is much police brutality all over the country this video is not an example of such.

Anonymous said...

We have NO idea how the situation reached the point where the video starts. Yes, the video starts with the cop putting his hands on the girl. But what happened before that? People saying he did first or she did first can only speculate, neither side has any proof. It doesn't matter if he was giving her a ticket for jay walking, littering, whatever. All we get to see is a girl resisting arrest, and then a second person come in and try to separate the police officer from his suspect. Both resisting arrest and interfering with an arrest are crimes. The cop had a gun, a night stick, and probably a tazer. Would you have prefered he whip any of those out? The girl stepped in, shoved the cop back, so he cocked her in the face. Notice how after that she keeps her distance and decides maybe she shouldn't get involved.

Nobody who watches that video can say with complete and utter certainty how the situation reached the point where the video starts. What is certain is that given the situation he was in (outnumbered and facing a non-compliant individual) punching someone in the face is rather tame given the resources at his discretion. It's one thing to mouth off to a cop, you can give a cop all the attitude you want. Once they say "You are under arrest," you don't fight back. You can talk up and down about "bowing down to the authoritarian regime,' or some crap like that, but if a cop says your under arrest, you are under arrest. You let them cuff you, you let them read you your rights, and then you get a lawyer who will argue whether or not the cop was right to arrest you. If he was wrong, you get let go, and if the case is bad enough, the cop can lose his job. You fight back against a cop, you are lucky if all he does is punch you in the face.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous...
Lets see how you feel when they do this to your mother or your kid. You sound like a typical spineless turd who need s to be controlled.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody who watches that video can say with complete and utter certainty how the situation reached the point where the video starts. What is certain is that given the situation he was in (outnumbered and facing a non-compliant individual) punching someone in the face is rather tame given the resources at his discretion. It's one thing to mouth off to a cop, you can give a cop all the attitude you want. Once they say "You are under arrest," you don't fight back. You can talk up and down about "bowing down to the authoritarian regime,' or some crap like that, but if a cop says your under arrest, you are under arrest. You let them cuff you, you let them read you your rights, and then you get a lawyer who will argue whether or not the cop was right to arrest you. If he was wrong, you get let go, and if the case is bad enough, the cop can lose his job. You fight back against a cop, you are lucky if all he does is punch you in the face."

The problem with this very idiotic assumption through the ages is that all who make it forget that A) lawyers cost money, and B) time is limited (unless you are immortal, in which case your time is worthlessm, but the mental and emotional suffering of being kidnapped at gunpoint are still valid). Those two situations mean that the cop has veritably KILLED you days to months to weeks earlier, as that time was stolen from you at gunpoint. It is as if your life ended that much sooner. Frankly, you may want to defend those who make a living at such activities, but personally, you'll have to count me out.

When the cops start being disappeared by vengeful "taxpayers," do not expect me to pitch in to save cops or their families. I wouldn't dare get written up for "obstruction of justice." Heh heh heh.

Anonymous said...

mmmm, under some similar circumstances, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto solved some of the tactical issues when faced with overly oppressed police presence. It do put some fear in those troops, but as a whole the majority of the group being oppressed didn't survive

Anonymous said...

If I found myself in the same situation as the young man being prevented from entering the hospital with his stroke-victim wife, I'm inclined to believe I would have taken out my .40 and shot that particular uniformed idiot.

Anonymous said...

Indeed... I teach my 8 yr-old daughter that the police are NOT her friends, and that they should be avoided at all costs.

Patrick Henry said...

Gods Peace to all of You,
I've read every word of your entire blog and thank GOD there are more people out there like me that see the garbage going on right under their noses. While being a peaceful man I'm no longer their slave and only have one judge. I've already taught one officer of the limits of his authority and did it completely peacefully, I also spent 42 hours in jail unlawfully but the stage is set the next time I'm accosted as I have a Fee Schedule in place for the cost of my services and the theft of my life, I'm sorry but I applaud (to a degree the reservation of the people viewing the young lady being accosted.) As if I'd been there the so called officer would have been picking himself up off the ground. Assaulting a minor and a female to boot is just a big no no in my book.
Statutes are not a law it is defined in their own law dictionary as "a legislated rule of a society given the force of law."
Society is defined as "A group of people gathered together by mutual consent to deliberate determine and act toward a common goal."
That's from Blacks Law dictionary.
Notice the mutual consent part.
The second she said no he lost his authority if she didn't break a law, commit an injury upon another live human being, or their property.
People need to read our founding documents get a set even women and become sui juris. Instead of the nation of cowards this place has become.
Oh by the way every human being has the absolute right to resist unlawful arrest, In fact to the point of killing the aggressor even police. I recently started a blog aregularamericansperspective and while I wish I wrote like will maybe it will help me become a better writer but I'm going to start posting how in America you can escape their tyranny completely peacefully, mind you they still can murder you with almost complete impunity, but done correctly you have alot more power than you think.

Peace Jim
aka Patrick Henry

Anonymous said...

Limnicky wrote:
"We have had 7 officers murdered in this area over the last 9 mos..."
The vast preponderance of evidence indicates that seven is grossly insufficient. It appears that soon any Mundane will be justified in the belief that every pig willfully intends to murder, maim, or unjustly incarcerate him the very first time a "good" opportunity presents itself. If that comes to pass, every mundane will be entitled to forestall that aggression by any means required.

Isaac said...

The argument over who slapped who first is irrelevant. It seems that the crux of Grigg's essay rests on the belief of people like Pete Holmes, that the "cardinal rule" of a civil society requires "that civilians simply must comply with instructions from police officers." This is the question, not whether a particular teenage girl deserved or did not deserve to be punched in the face by an armed tax collector.

So where do the anonymouses stand on that issue?

Anonymous said...

Isaac, I have to agree with you there. Ultimately it boils down to do they, the donut-eaters, have any authority at all to force someone against their will to obey? Where is the "consent"? Of course they would argue, in their pretzel logic, that the LAW, a creature that the legal caste , the pols, and their handmaidens the police & military, forged out of whole cloth for their own benefit, has "given" them this mystical power while burdening the citizenry with ever increasing costs and increasingly onerous "LAWS". Those who operate within in the bowels of Leviathan are devils and not worthy of respect nor pity. Do they shed a tear for the ones they feast off of? Where, I ask you, can a man go peacefully without having to deal with any of these goons?