Police Officer: "Trust Me, Ferguson Changed Everything"

[tod evans]

I believe that acting under "color of authority" in the commission of a crime is far more grievous than the same crime being perpetrated by a no-authoritarian. And the penalty should be at least twice as severe.

I can agree with this.

Can you agree that it is damn near impossible to seek justice against an authoritarian in their courts?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I see a difference, but I don't promote or condone either. It's possible that if a police officer harmed me by intentionally killing or seriously harming someone I was close to, I might get so mad that I would possibly commit an act of violence against the police officer. But I still wouldn't claim that it was morally right. I wouldn't condone it and promote it as something other people should do.

You see, I can see why you'd say this. There are Biblical arguments you could use for this. But I definitely don't think that using vigilante justice in such a situation is a monstrous or unthinkable act that should be called "murder" and punishable by death or life in prison. I don't think its "extreme" or "terroristic" to say that yes, a cop can do something so horrible that you would hunt them down and kill them. At the least that would be a far lesser evil than the evil that motivated it, in my opinion (assuming the evil in question is fairly serious, again, we're talking about grenading a baby in the face here, not a parking ticket.)

I mean, if a cop actually came into your house and started shooting at you, then it would be an act of self defense to shoot back and would be morally right. But that's extremely unlikely to happen. Even the worse police abuses generally don't involve cops just shooting indiscriminately at someone in their house for no reason.

OK, say that happens to your wife when you aren't at home and she dies. The jury, which is filled with cop-worshippers, votes to acquit despite irrefutable evidence (say you have a video camera in your home AND there's other evidence.) Are you telling me that you wouldn't at least consider going after that cop? Would you consider someone who did so to be a monster on the same level as the cop who broke in in the first place?

The ironic thing about all of this is that I would probably still be considered "anti cop" by most people. I posted all kinds of articles during the Ferguson riots criticizing the police response and advocating demilitarizing the police. But if you don't take it to the most extreme level possible, then I guess you're "pro cop" here.

You're anti-cop compared to the average person. I would say moderately so, though, since you still think its possible to be a morally justified police officer, and you definitely seem to mitigate "legal" actions simply because they are legal. That isn't an attack, just an explanation of why I am more radical than you are.

I think I'm more in line with Larken Rose while tod and osan are more with Christopher Cantwell. You're probably close to where Ron Paul is.

If a child is injured as a result of being indirectly assaulted by a cop who is legally executing his duty after having exercised prudent judgement and taken appropriate measures to ensure bystander safety. Then any injury to that child should be considered accidental or the fault of the child's custodian.
To launch a physical assault on that cop, under such circumstances is a grievous and immoral criminal act and shouldn't be permitted in a free, civilized society.

If a cop throws a grenade into someone's home because he thinks that person may be smoking a plant, that cop deserves to die, even if there isn't anyone there. That there was a baby there is just icing on the cake.

 

[navy-vet]

I, for one, certainly don't think that disbanding the police would turn them into "honest, gentle, compassionate human beings who will only as for a hug now and then to maintain their benevolence."

Oh, wait ... I just realized that you were probably referring to "the thugs" and "the police" as if they were two separate groups ...

Sorry, my mistake ... nevermind ...

haha good one....I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, and that, is a very bad place to be I'm sure. I on the other hand am fortunate to live in an area where I believe most of them are trustworthy. The reason I relocated from the NE to the SE some forty years ago in fact. The citizenry here, repubs and tea partiers mostly, holds them accountable and their actions are closely scrutinized by a group of reps from the streets. Maybe it's because we have a libertarian minded chief of police. Hell, this is the only County in the whole State that refused to secede from the union during the civil war.

 

[Brett85]

@FF-What verses in the Bible do you use to promote your view that vigilante justice is justified?

 

[Christian Liberty]

@FF-What verses in the Bible do you use to promote your view that vigilante justice is justified?

I don't know if it is, and Biblical reservations would be part of why I'm hesitatnt to say that it is. That said, Ehud did "murder" (kill) the tyrannical king who was oppressing Israel, seemingly with God's blessing, so there is at least some precedent for it.

Mind you, VENGENACE is the Lord's as Romans 12:19 says. So, if vigilante justice was ever justified, it would have to be something other than vengeance. I think one could argue that removing an unrepentant murderer from the streets is loving your neighbors... That might be a stretch but I do think you could argue it.

 

[Brett85]

I don't know if it is, and Biblical reservations would be part of why I'm hesitatnt to say that it is. That said, Ehud did "murder" (kill) the tyrannical king who was oppressing Israel, seemingly with God's blessing, so there is at least some precedent for it.

I don't think there's any situation today where God explicitly gives his approval for someone to commit an act of vigilante justice.

 

[navy-vet]

I can agree with this.

Can you agree that it is damn near impossible to seek justice against an authoritarian in their courts?

I can surely agree that it might be damn near impossible to "get" justice in "their court" certainly. But, that is why, when it involves a cop , there is an avenue available at least in my State, where such a matter is weighed outside of the jurisdiction of the perp, and sometimes at a higher level to boot.
I see that we are not in disagreement here, for the most part. I'm glad of that too. We both want justice and fairness for all concerned and that's a good thing.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not saying that I wouldn't ever commit an act of vigilante justice under any circumstances, but I wouldn't try to defend my actions as being morally right.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think there's any situation today where God explicitly gives his approval for someone to commit an act of vigilante justice.

Here's the thing. I'm not arguing that it would be justified in the sense that God would approve of it, or that it would be living up to the perfect standard God has for us. Heck, Jesus never killed anyone nor did the apostles, and I can't say with 100% certainty that he would ever want us to do so either. There's still some uncertainty for me with regards to this, so I have a difficult time saying too much beyond "I don't know."

I would argue that its "justified" in the sense that it doesn't inherently go beyond the non-aggression principle, and thus that someone who does it (in these types of cases) should be acquited by a libertarian jury. I definitely don't think people "should" smoke pot but I don't think they should be convicted for it either. This may be comparable.

Again... there's still some theological uncertainty for me on this point. I don't know the answer with certainty. I definitely think this is more nuanced than terms like "murder" or "morally exemplary" would allow for.

 

[navy-vet]

I can surely agree that it might be damn near impossible to "get" justice in "their court" certainly. But, that is why, when it involves a cop , there is an avenue available at least in my State, where such a matter is weighed outside of the jurisdiction of the perp, and sometimes at a higher level to boot.
I see that we are not in disagreement here, for the most part. I'm glad of that too. We both want justice and fairness for all concerned and that's a good thing.

On further thought.... should one not be able to obtain justice through the system, because it is corrupt or even inept. And the perp is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....then, I can see where it might be justified to execute an appropriate act or group of actions to protect the public at large.

 

[navy-vet]

On further thought.... should one not be able to obtain justice through the system, because it is corrupt or even inept. And the perp is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....then, I can see where it might be justified to execute an appropriate act or group of actions to protect the public at large.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCe1pHqP06A

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Vigilante:

Full Definition of VIGILANTE. : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice. — vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun.


Example:

Po-lice: This dog is wagging his tail, so I will blow him away! Blam!

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cleburne-texas-dog-shooting/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...oser-with-kissing-noises-before-opening-fire&


Seems to me that we have far too many of these self-appointed doers of justice and they've become institutionalized. They come nowhere near the grand scheme of legal authority to justify committal of such acts. The subsequent process is inadequate because they have twisted proper legal authority to meet their own ends. Their conclusions simply support their own order. Their conclusions have little to do with the law in law and order. We have pretty much been left with order, without the law.

 

[navy-vet]

Vigilante:

Full Definition of VIGILANTE. : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice. — vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun.



Example:

Po-lice: This dog is wagging his tail, so I will blow him away! Blam!

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cleburne-texas-dog-shooting/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...oser-with-kissing-noises-before-opening-fire&


Seems to me that we have far too many of these self-appointed doers of justice and they've become institutionalized. They come nowhere near the grand scheme of legal authority to justify committal of such acts. The subsequent process is inadequate because they have twisted proper legal authority to meet their own ends. Their conclusions simply support their own order. Their conclusions have little to do with the law in law and order. We have pretty much been left with order, without the law.

Hence the legitimate concern regarding the militarization of the police forces...
Which is another blow back from our wars by the way.
I really like the body cam idea which records all encounters with the citizenry and a system of review by members of the citizenry as well as the police. With powers to initiate grand jury reviews etc.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, [...]

I have NEVER said that there are no good cops. In fact, I've posted several OPs at RPFs over the years about good cops - specifically, about good cops getting fucked over by the very organizations they work for (precisely because they were good cops and tried to do the "right thing" - here is just one example: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374256-This-is-what-happens-to-good-cops).

I've also said - more than once - that this whole "good cops vs. bad cops" thing completely misses the forest in favor of obsessing over particular trees. The problem is fundamental and systemic - and it goes far, far deeper than whether this or that particular cop is "good" or "bad." ANY system that allows certain groups of people (such as cops) to get away with actions and deeds that would otherwise be considered and treated as heinous crimes if committed by anyone else (such as shredding infants' faces with flash-bang grenades) is doomed to produce two things in increasing quantities: violent injustice ... and violent blowback. (For an example of the former, see the case of Jose Guerena - for an example of the latter, see the case of Eric Frein.)

I despise and revile unjust killings of any kind - such as the recent Vegas cop killings, for example (and über-cop-critic Will Grigg agrees with me: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ack-of-the-Head-is-NOT-Applied-Non-Aggression). But there is a VERY significant difference between "cop killers" and "killer cops." Unlike killer cops, cop killers aren't automatically & reflexively given the benefit of the doubt by the public or the "law enforcement" & "justice system" communities. Unlike killer cops, cop killers don't have public relations departments doing whitewash jobs to cover up or excuse their despicable deeds for them. Unlike killer cops, cop killers don't have politicians and "justice" system bureaucrats (such as judges and district attorneys) clearing paths to exoneration or acquittal for them (in those extemely rare instances where "bad" or killer cops ever even see the inside of a courtroom). And so on ... and on ... and on ...

Fuck cop killers - and fuck killer cops a dozen times with a rusty spike.

In fact, fuck the whole goddam cop system of institutionalized thuggery. It could not have been better designed to help "bad" cops get away with their misdeeds even if it had been intentionally designed to do so (e.g., see this update to the Regina Tasca story I linked to above: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391019-Regina-Tasca-update-via-Will-Grigg). The police are nothing but a revved-up machine for the production of compliance with, submission to and revenues for the State - nothing else. "To protect and serve" is a sick joke. Even the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled (several times, IIRC) that police have NO responsibility whatsoever to protect people or property from anything at all. Yet people persist in the deluded folly of imagining that cops exist and operate on their behalf and for their protection. They manifestly do not. To hell with 'em ...

 

[osan]

You don't believe that intent matters? I mean, there's no difference between an accident and a willful action?

Intent is not the issue, but rather the question of whether an act was an accident.

In the case of the bombing of that baby, the act was deliberate. That grenade did not accidentally fly into that house. It was sent there by the cops with intention. There may have been no intention to injure the baby, but that element of the equation is irrelevant. They intended to send the grenade in. They did so without regard to the possibility of the toss going wrong and what might happen if it did. The result was a child whose face was gravely disfigured. The intent is rendered irrelevant in the face of the result and the fact that those imbeciles refused to use what little brains they apparently have as anything more than racks for their butch-looking kevlar helmets.

There is no possible way in which the act could be assessed an accident because "accident" assumes both the presence of factors beyond one's control and that absent those factors, one has proceeded with all reasonable and due care, diligence, and mindfulness. Neither of those last three factors are in evidence. Those monsters, in an apparent fit of pig-macho, went willy-nilly without an apparent regard for the safety of the "scumbags" they were presumed to have been raiding. In the process the child was maimed horribly. Every single last cop with the least fragment of a finger print on that "operation" should swing publicly from a rope. No exceptions. No mercy.

Example: my car is well maintained, yet one say while on the highway a control arm fails, sending my vehicle and myself careening into oncoming traffic, colliding with another vehicle, and killing one or more of the occupants of that conveyance. THAT is an accident. My drinking a gallon of tequila and then plowing head-on into the same car, killing the same people, can in no possibly valid manner be deemed an accident, even in the absence of any intention to do harm. The difference in that case is that while I intended no harm, I did not show sufficient regard for the rights of my fellows to take the simple step of choosing not to drive while out-of-my-skull drunk. Because of that, the absence of malice constitutes no mitigation with respect to my responsibility for the result.

You make your bed. You lie in it. Screw all this soft-peddling of what police do. I say the same for anyone else, but police merit treble consequences precisely because they are entrusted with life and limb in ways others are not, as they claim special authority over the rest. They must therefore be held to a far higher standard of action and responsibility. They typically attain to a standard so low as to be less than what one would expect from a child with severe congenital brain damage. This is wholly unacceptable.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

that this whole "good cops vs. bad cops" thing completely misses the forest...

I always thought the good cop/bad cop bleating was for drones, but it's also even illogical at face value. Nobody says good nurse/bad nurse or good mailman/bad mailman. Nobody even says good judge/bad judge.

cop killer

Another illogical phrase full of emotion. I don't know where this is done with any other occupation. Occupation is only referenced in exceptional cases, such as nurse killer Richard Speck. The term baby killer is still heard, so I suppose the cop killer drones are trying to play that card when it's just really part of the job.

Killer cop

A better term. It should go into specialized dictionaries.

 

[osan]

haha good one....I see, there are no good cops in your opinion, and that, is a very bad place to be I'm sure. I on the other hand am fortunate to live in an area where I believe most of them are trustworthy. The reason I relocated from the NE to the SE some forty years ago in fact. The citizenry here, repubs and tea partiers mostly, holds them accountable and their actions are closely scrutinized by a group of reps from the streets. Maybe it's because we have a libertarian minded chief of police. Hell, this is the only County in the whole State that refused to secede from the union during the civil war.

There are no good cops. "Good cop" is perforce an oxymoron. The reason is because while there may be a small handful of good men who chose to become police, it is the very nature of the role in sé that is evil. "Good cop" makes as much sense as "good child molester" or "good dictator". Many cops are bad men, that much cannot be reasonably denied. I acknowledge that a small percentage of cops are good men, as men. But as cops, they are perforce a stain of evil upon the earth.

Just as one need not be stupid to act stupidly, the man behind the badge does not have to be evil in order to commit evil acts. Those evil acts are committed pursuant to immoral statutes, ordinances, policies, and so forth. For example, a good man with a badge discovers a pound of cocaine during a traffic stop. The right course of action is to ignore the cocaine, but no cop will do that. Why? Because it is their charge to enforce the immoral statutes against possession of cocaine. They are, therefore, compelled to perpetrate and act of purest evil against the possessor of the coke. Good men engaging in evil acts produces results that are in no fundamental manner different from evil men doing the same.

Your cops are NOT trustworthy precisely because they will sock your ass into a prison on any pretext they may plausibly contrive pursuant to the statutes they are expected to enforce equally with every other law enforcement mob across the state and, in fact, the land. If you doubt this, I suggest you make yourself a suppressor for one of your firearms and go strolling down the avenue with it. When you are discovered, you will be charged federally at the very minimum, and probably also at the state level as well. You will be convicted and you will spend the next several years getting your sphincter exercised regularly and often by large and lonely men. Given this, please provide me with the basis that would support your contention that those cops are trustworthy. They are ENFORCERS for pity's sake. They are not there to serve and/or protect YOU. They are there to enforce arbitrarily contrived statutes, no matter how ridiculous or criminally dangerous they may be. Be further aware that the proof of their rotten character as cops and even as men lies in the fact that no matter how wrong a statute may be, they will still enforce it. Why? Because retaining their positions, salaries, and benefits is more important that protecting your rights. Some may not want to enforce a given law, but they damned surely will if the choice is between that and losing their jobs. So there is the golden character of your "trustworthy" police laid out here on the table for you to witness.

Go ahead, tell me I am wrong. Let us see it. Show us how it is so with examples.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

For example, a good man with a badge discovers a pound of cocaine during a traffic stop. The right course of action is to ignore the cocaine, but no cop will do that. Why? Because it is their charge to enforce the immoral statutes against possession of cocaine. They are, therefore, compelled to perpetrate and act of purest evil against the possessor of the coke.

I'd say drug arrests and incarceration is one of the best examples of showing the wanton disregard for doing the right thing. I'd bet up to 50% of lice budgets are spent on this. Lice perform these arrests with Hitler-like zeal. They love fucking you up and being self-righteous about it!

If you sign up to become lice, then you are part of the problem.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I always thought the good cop/bad cop bleating was for drones, but it's also even illogical at face value. Nobody says good nurse/bad nurse or good mailman/bad mailman. Nobody even says good judge/bad judge.

Another illogical phrase full of emotion. I don't know where this is done with any other occupation. Occupation is only referenced in exceptional cases, such as nurse killer Richard Speck. The term baby killer is still heard, so I suppose the cop killer drones are trying to play that card when it's just really part of the job.

A better term. It should go into specialized dictionaries.

Good points, all.

Intent is not the issue, but rather the question of whether an act was an accident.

In the case of the bombing of that baby, the act was deliberate. That grenade did not accidentally fly into that house. It was sent there by the cops with intention. There may have been no intention to injure the baby, but that element of the equation is irrelevant. They intended to send the grenade in. [...]

You are absolutely correct. If anyone but cops had been the perpetrators in that incident, you could safely bet everything you own that any prosecuting attorney would be slobbering over the opportunity to charge them with and try them for the cruel and vicious disfigurement of an infant. You could further safely bet everthing your entire family owns that said prosecutor would not give a shit about whether the harm to the child had been "intentional" or not. In fact, given that the grenading was performed "in furtherance of a felony" (specifically, in the course of an attempted kidnapping), the lack of "intention" might very well be presented as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one (under the rubric of something like "wanton and reckless disregard").

If we (as non-cops) had done exactly the same thing, exactly the same way, for exactly the same purposes (namely, in order capture a man who had done, as far as I am aware, NO harm to any other person or property - just so that we could lock him up in a cage and/or extract money from him), does anyone here seriously imagine that any other decent person would (or even should) give a damn about the fact that we had not actually "intended" to mangle a baby?

No? Then why the hell should we consider lack of "intention" to be a mitigating factor merely because the actual perpetrators had government-issued badges?

 

[Pericles]

If there were good cops, there would not be any bad cops.