Saturday, August 3, 2013

Abolish Your Local Police

Two gangs gathered near a home in California. The man who lived there avoided one, and was severely beaten by the other.

Ronald Weekley, Jr. , a 20-year-old college student from Venice, California, was riding his skateboard on the “wrong side” of the street in front of his house when he was assaulted by four armed gangsters and severely beaten. The assailants then abducted the victim and accused him of a criminal offense because he was insufficiently docile while being beaten. They also claimed that Weekley had previously been seen on their turf, without permission, after sundown.

The assailants belonged to that privileged caste of social misfits and intellectually stunted functionaries called “police officers.” According to a friend named Alexis Parker, the police pounced on Weekley after he tried to avoid a confrontation with an unlicensed street gang on the other side of the street. 

Weekley had done no harm to anybody by riding his skateboard on the “wrong” side of the street, but because he didn’t immediately stop with an armed stranger in a government-issued costume demanded it of him, he was taken to the ground in front of his house and beaten nearly to death, while onlookers screamed in terror. Another member of the sanctified fraternity of official violence ran interference for the four who mauled Weekley, ordering spectators to keep their distance while his comrades pummeled the helpless man. 

Weekley, who suffered a broken chin bone, a broken nose, and a concussion, was then charged with the non-crime of “resisting arrest.” 

The cretinous bullies who had participated in the thugscrum also claimed that the 20-year-old man had “outstanding warrants” for “curfew” violations that he supposedly committed before he turned 18. (A curfew, it should be understood, is a martial law measure.)

“I was screaming because I thought they were going to kill him,” one eyewitness to the atrocity, which took place about a year ago, told a local television station.

This episode offers a splendid opportunity to examine the kinship between the street gang we call the “police” and their much less dangerous private sector competition. If Weekley had been confronted by the private gangbangers he sought to avoid, and then fought back when they assaulted him, the assailants would not have had the privilege of prosecuting him for resisting. That is the most significant material difference between those contending groups of armed thugs. It’s also worth pointing out that common street gangs don’t have tax-supported employee unions who demand that the public celebrate their acts of unprovoked criminal violence

Weekley’s predicament brings to mind the passage from the Old Testament describing how “a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him; …. [then he] went into his house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him” (Amos 5:19). He had done no harm to anybody, and was trying to avoid a violent confrontation – and then encountered an even more acute threat before winding up enduring lasting and unjustified injury in his own home.

This incident likewise underscores the wisdom expressed by Edmund Burke in his essay “A Vindication of Natural Society”:

In a State of Nature, it is true, that a Man of superior Force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full Liberty to defend myself, or make Reprisal by Surprise or by Cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him. But in Political Society ... if I attempt to avenge myself, the whole Force of that Society is ready to complete my Ruin.

In any free society worthy of that description, the innate right of an innocent person to resist criminal aggression by government functionaries is recognized, respected, and cherished. While stipulating that politics is a snare and a delusion, I earnestly hope that Americans will agitate for the restoration of legal protection for the right to resist unlawful arrest. Eventually, however, we must demolish the spurious legal protections that allow the continued existence of government “law enforcement” agencies that claim a monopoly on aggression. 

In the decades leading up to the American Founding, Anglo-Saxon common law recognized not only a right to resist unlawful arrest, but also the duty of bystanders to intervene to prevent an abduction by law enforcement officers

In the in the 1710 case Queen v. Tooley, the Queen’s Bench ruled that every Englishman “ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws. And if any one against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Charta.” 

An illegal arrest is an act of lawless violence against a helpless person, which “is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion” in any circumstance, observed the court. In fact, a criminal act of that kind carried out by a law enforcement officer is “a provocation to all the subjects of England.”

This ruling grew out of the attempted arrest of a woman named Anne Dekins by a constable named Samuel Bray. When Bray attempted to arrest Dekins for what we would now call “disorderly conduct,” she put up loud, insistent resistance. Her cries for help drew the attention of a man named Tooey, who – in the company of several others – confronted Bray and demanded that he explain his actions. 

Bray produced his official credentials, which failed to impress Tooey and the others. He then called for backup. When the other constable arrived, he drew his sword and engaged in combat with Tooey, who defended himself. The constable, as it turned out, was not the better man. Several other constables arrived, seized, Tooey, and charged him with murder. 

The trial court threw out the murder charge, ruling that the warrant was defective. Since the arrest was illegal, the court pointed out, Dekins had a right to resist. 

In trying to enforce an invalid warrant, Bray “did not act as a constable, but a common oppressor,” observed the trial court. Tooley and the other bystanders were properly “provoked” by the act of aggressive violence against Anne Dekins, and their forceful but measured response – first demanding that the abductor release the hostage, then exercising defensive force to free her – was entirely appropriate. 

There is no place in a genuinely civilized society for any group of people – however accoutered, by whatever name they call themselves – who claim the supposed authority to commit violent aggression. Anybody who countenances such behavior in the name of “supporting your local police” is an enemy to human liberty and basic decency.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Bob said...

Another argument, Will, for the abolition of "law enforcement." The Federalization on local "law enforcement" certainly did not help matters.

Anonymous said...

Though I certainly agree in principle with what is stated in the article, I would like to try to clear up a few things concerning this passage:

" . . . I earnestly hope that Americans will agitate for the restoration of legal protection for the right to resist unlawful arrest. Eventually, however, we must demolish the spurious legal protections that allow the continued existence of government “law enforcement” agencies that claim a monopoly on aggression."

First, the difference between "legal" and "lawful." When you talk about "lawful," you are talking about "law," and specifically common or natural law, or what some people might just call "God's law." When you talk about "legal," you are talking about corporate legal codes. In other words, in the context of common and natural law, which are NOT dealt with in the courts today, which operate under commercial and maritime law, people are entitled to "lawful" protection to resist unlawful arrest. (By the way, unlawful arrest is kidnapping, and if it's done at gunpoint, these pigs could face life in prison.)

Also, pigs don't engage in "law enforcement." They are corporate code enforcers. The "government," with the willing help of the whores in the "mainstream" media, has erased the distinction between "law" and "legal codes."

Since all governments are actually corporations, the crap that they try to call "law," such as statutes, regulations, codes, by-laws, etc., does not "lawfully" apply to anybody outside their corporate structure. In a closely-related manner, the Constitution itself states in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that federal legislation has no jurisdiction inside the union states.

It is vital that people in the union states realize the difference between "legal" and "lawful," and that they realize that these "legal codes" are an obvious sign of a corporate "government" that has no claim to either respect or legitimacy.

The only legitimate functions of a legitimate government (if one can actually exist) are the negative concepts of protecting peoples' lives, liberty and property. At the point where any "government" starts passing millions of "legal codes" trying to tell people that they have to register automobiles, wear helmets while riding bicycles, what kind of light bulbs they can purchase, or how much water their toilet can use to flush itself, you have arrived at the point where you either refuse to comply, or act and live as a slave.

A lot of what I've stated here can be reinforced in many places. You might want to start by googling Reality Blog, and looking at two very informative articles on that site concerning this issue, called "Killing Your STRAWMAN – The Path To Freedom," and "Killing Your STRAWMAN 2: A Free Man's Chronicle."

As someone once said, "Good night, and good luck."

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

When a law-abiding person such as myself strongly dislikes most police officers (a.k.a. "pigs"), the real problem can obviously be found residing in the thug behind the badge.

When the sh*t finally hits the fan, and some Americans openly and violently rebel, the pigs are going to be ENTIRELY SURPRISED to discover how much they are hated by the silent majority (of law-abiding people).

The fact that a large number of police officers are former military personnel says a lot about cops... and our military personnel.

What I meant to say was...

Without them, Iraq and every other backwards, third-world, pothole nation would have obliterated our Constitutional freedom. Thank God for our brave and intelligent fighting folk!

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 1:58PM, your bit about the difference between "legal" and "lawful." reminded me of this article:

A Nation of Rules

"The United States, once a “nation of laws,” has become a “nation of rules.” [...] Americans, however, do not seem to be able to see the difference between the two."

- IndividualAudienceMember

Robert in Arabia said...

Where I live, no one has ever suggested that His Majesty's police behave like those in America.

willb said...

For Texas residents:

In Texas, you cannot resist an arrest conducted by someone you know to be a peace officer
regardless of whether the arrest is legal or not, however, you may resist unnecessary
use of force by a peace officer in certain circumstances:

Code PE - Penal Code
▿ Title 2. - General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility
▿ Chapter 9. - Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
▿ Subchapter C. - Protection Of Persons
§ 9.31. - Self-Defense.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer,
or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the
arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his
direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater
force than necessary.

Although this statute gives you the right to resist unnecessary use of force I would use the
analogy of a pedestrian walking in a cross-walk: though you have the legal right-of-way do you
really want to stand on principle against a speeding truck willing to run you over regardless?
Bottom line, when it comes to cops you are out-manned and out-gunned; don't resist, make your
stand in court.

Only our juries can save us from an oppressive judicial bench and police force.
Rather than looking for ways to get off a jury we should all be looking for ways to get on a jury.

willb said...

Our best and last line of defense is our juries.

Get on a jury and shield your fellow man.

Keith said...

Re: "pigs"

My four legged swine are placid and productive individuals, and apart from excitement over food, or stroppiness from my ancient boar when there's a sow on heat, they are entirely trust worthy and make enjoyable company (as well as bacon).

a complete contrast to the unproductive, unpredictable and frequently lethal violence from the individuals who form the generously upholstered blue line.

non de guerre said...

Keith, a very good point you make. Thats why I prefer to call them Monkeys with Guns. Hopefully, no organ grinder takes exception to that.

Keith said...

non de guerre, you've reminded me of a couple of old South African jokes:^)

Q: What do you call a baboon with and AK?

A: Sir! and, you say please Sir, and Thankyou Sir.

Q: What do you call a baboon with an AK, that just had sex 5 minutes ago?

A: Anything you damn well like, He's fast asleep and won't hear you.

A friend from the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) told me that the public perception of their cops is of heavy drinking, wife beating bullies and loosers

-Which sounds like a very healthy opinion to hold.

Anonymous said...

Our mindsets that interpret the "justice" system need to quickly progress so that we can collectively gain the courage to actually synergize effective administrative action. These are corporate code enforcers that are granted authority and jurisdiction by; our own effort, consent, presumption and contractual maxims. The delusion and ignorance most people suffer from is a Stockholm syndrome-like defect that prevents any free thinking movement based on moral reasoning and equal consideration. I have considered the alternatives to main stream code enforcement for some time. I encourage everyone to put effort into a factually based cost-benefit analysis of "law" enforcement corporations vs. community centered safety models. Analyze the CAFR of each code enforcement municipality while considering all four elements of a contract. Knowing most states have predominate corporate "courts" that are infested with corporate trained, highly condition, self serving, ignorant, impostors, is frustrating because We, 14th amendment citizens consent and support it...we need to provide counter conditioning and encourage free thinking communities to independent, locally relevant remedies. Additionally, most states are administrative based and require legal documentation in order to refute clauses in an ever changing web of contracts. Dissent and anger is trending, I hope movements of intelligent responses can also trend.

Anonymous said...

So what ever happened to these bastard criminal thug nazis? Most likely they all got a promotion and it's still business as usual.

How much longer are these murdering sob's with guns and badges going to continue to get away with these atrocities under the color of law before the people just start taking them out before they take you out?

There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. Marcus Tullius Cicero

joyce said...

will b,

I agree and disagree.

I agree that when in the moment people (who are in the right) stand up against the police, they will probably die or almost die.

I disagree that juries will save us... first of all, the right to a trial by jury is being eroded (they keep expanding the number of 'offenses' that are 'quasi-legal' or 'administrative' in which they say, nope no jury for this case). Secondly, the state will use every trick in the book to get you to plead out including freezing/stealing your assets pre-trial.

Which brings me back to maybe we do need to fight back at the time of being accosted by LEO's. We need bystanders to already be fed up and be so disgusted at the illegal actions by police that they need to intervene. They are the ones who are outnumbers. By something like 300 to 1.

aeonaut said...

So lemme toss out a question to ya'all....Obviously, an "ideal" society would have no need for peace officers as everyone would get along peacefully. But here, in the real world, now, would you have ANY peace officers? If so, what would be their role in society. If not, then who takes care of the real human offenders?

William N. Grigg said...

Police are not peace officers; they are state-licensed practitioners of aggression and coercion. Peace officers are people who defend private property (including the bodily integrity of innocent people). Police have no enforceable duty to protect an individual citizen from criminal violence. Some will do so on occasion, but this is not required of them.

A genuine peace officer employed as a cop would intervene to prevent aggressive violence by his or her colleagues. That almost never happens. I've profiled two very different peace officers -- Ramon Perez from Austin, Texas, and Regina Tasca from Bogata, New Jersey -- who were quickly removed from the force because they had intervened to protect innocent citizens from potentially lethal police abuse. In each case, the "offender" was branded a risk to "officer safety," run through a bogus psychological evaluation, and then cashiered.

The American public pays an extravagant sum for government enforcement officers -- and even more in voluntary payments for private security, which is necessary because police do not protect life and property. So there are plenty of genuine peace officers around; they just don't work for the government.

Keith said...

the world will always have some bad people within it, and, to date there are very few techniques for identifying and weeding out bad people from any group.

on the basis that humans are not angels, and any group of humans may contain some bad ones;

why should any group be permitted the privilege of lawfully committing aggressive violence?

That privilege of committing aggressive violence with impunity is exactly what the cops have, and is it any wonder that we see it being abused?

is it any wonder that the institution of cop seems to attract bullies and sadists in disproportionate numbers?

Sure, to paraphrase Robert Peel, we have need for those who devote themselves full time to those duties which are the responsibility of every individual.

but we need those full time protectors to be regular people, who are subject to the same laws as the rest of us - including free market competition,

rather than perpetuating some specially privileged monopoly caste.

willb said...


I too agree and disagree, but...

Juries have the legal authority to judge both fact and law.
This is historical to the common law and is constitutional.
Yes, our courts are eroding this ultimate power of the people but
the pendulum is swinging. Last year New Hampshire approved court
procedure allowing defense attorneys to argue jury prerogative
to judge both law and fact. This is cause to celebrate.

Meanwhile, though attorneys (outside New Hampshire) cannot inform
juries of their true power, that power exists nonetheless.
An individual jury person who is aware of that power can legally
and justly exercise it. So: Get on a jury and shield your fellow man!

As for plea bargaining, it is a scare tactic and I agree that it is
used in a predatory manner that circumvents justice. However, if
defendants were able to appeal to a fully informed jury (law and fact)
then I believe this would take all the cards away from prosecutors.

As for excessive police force, it is legal to resist excessive
police force in Texas but as you say, you better have witnesses,
and thanks to the latest technology and the fact that the police are
rapidly losing popular support, those witnesses are easier and easier
to come by. In the meantime, it is prudent to submit and avoid injury
as much as is possible.

Again, a just jury is the only real remedy where both judges and police
conspire to break the spirit of the law or otherwise enforce unjust laws.
A fully informed jury can nullify the law. This is the exceptional and
ultimate power of the jury: to nullify law and/or exonerate a defendant.
The judge cannot do so, the police cannot do so, only a jury can nullify the law.
This power was intentionally given to juries so to protect us from the very
overreach we are seeing exercised by our judges, police and legislatures.

We the People are not duty bound or legally bound to enforce their crap laws.
As juries we can not only refuse to enforce a law but we can publicly pronounce
a law as null and void and there is nothing they can do about it.
Through jury nullification we could effectively end the drug war, the
tax war, civil rights war, police war, and every other war the state has
declared against us.

A jury has 3 verdicts (not just 2)
2)Not Guilty
3)The Law is a Ass.

This is no joke. It really is that simple and intentionally so.

The pendulum is swinging in our favor. As the state loses control
it becomes more and more violent in asserting that control.
Eventually, everyone will have a beef against the state and it will
collapse under its own weight, and the cages will open.

Anand Venigalla said...

While I might not go so far as to abolish the local police (just restrict them very, very much), I most definitely sympathize with those who hold that it's acceptable to use defensive lethal force against these thugs in blue, black, or whatever the heck they're wearing.

In fact, I might support certain attempts to do so, and if those attempts succeed, then that would be a good thing.

business attorney florida said...

Thanks for keeping me up to date with the news that I've missed these past few days. Great post, Will. As always, amazingly thorough job. Your work is widely under appreciated.

joyce said...

will b,

Again, I agree and disagree. Without parsing through it all again, I just want to respond to your comment regarding "a just jury is the only real remedy where both judges and police conspire to break the spirit of the law or otherwise enforce unjust laws"

This remedy will not criminally prosecute the aforementioned judge/police who are without a shadow of a doubt committing criminal acts. That is the flaw in your plan. All of the govt agents will continue to act with impunity.

Anonymous said...

This will always be apropos:,33427/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Onion, why are you so prescient?

Anonymous said...

Seems to me there should be an internet wall of freedomista heroics, and on that wall are the names of those who stood up against tyranny and Fascism and the paid a price.

If there was such a wall - and not a B.S. wall like so many these days - three names I'd nominate:

Ramon Perez from Austin, Texas, and Regina Tasca from Bogata, New Jersey, and the very heroic, William N. Grigg.

Thank you for giving me a reason to respect (appreciate?) humanity.

There are others, ones who stand up against the bastards who love to put the boot on the face of mankind, but those names stand out tonight. True heroes, all.

- IndividualAudienceMember

Anonymous said...

Agree with rejecting the bullying and abuse, totally. However, there is another side that ALSO needs covering, and that's the whistleblowing officers who try to fight the corruption by themselves and lose their career for sure, and sometimes their lives. If there was more support for whistleblowers, instead of letting the brainwashing work about them being "traitors," it could actually change things because the balance would be in favor of the whistleblower!

Here's a weblink to a Kansas officer who got wrongful termination and finally decided to fight back with a lawsuit:

Story has also been picked up in US Observer and Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest, excellent article by Lorne Dey who did his own research:

Local media doesn't seem to be interested in this, once the local paper published the lawsuit a year ago, so nobody's picking this up so that the locals are aware that their own city hall is under the looking glass! Wonder why! "We do it because we can!" Ck out the comments on Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest for 2 posters' extra background info to the story--even on FB.

Sam said...

I agree 100%.