If Cops Are Heroes . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Then how come they’re so obsessed with “officer safety”?Hawthorne 06_06_13rf So fearful – and not even of any real danger to their persons? Isn’t the very definition of “heroic” an action that requires placing one’s own physical safety in jeopardy in order to secure the physical safety of others first?

Why, then, are we constantly urged to admire poltroons who insist that their safety always comes first? That the possibility of a Mere Mundane so much as mussing their uniform justifies the actuality of a physical assault by them as a preventative measure?

Who not only avoid the proverbial fair fight – but who insist on the unfair fight every time? Who – for instance – mob a 20-year-old college girl, screaming at her and flashing guns – over an alleged underage purchase of beer. (In fact, the girl bought cookie dough and bottled water when six armed “heroes” thug-scrummed her; story here.)

Who bark orders at people with the gusto of Stasi thugs, as in this example:

You’d think large men (and often large women) with large guns on their hips, the full weight of the state backing them up, wouldn’t be so on edge and terrified – so constantly worried that some ill might befall them – such that it’s necessary to pre-emptively tackle, stomp (or Tazer and shoot) women half their size, old people twice their age, gangly teenagers – and so on – all the while demanding that their helpless victims “stop resisting.”

And yet, this is the first resort of all-too-many “heroes” (hereafter to be referred to in quotation marks, for reasons that ought to be apparent) who in these latter days of the once-republic seem positively eager to turn every minor thing into a major thing. Who literally shoot first – and ask questions later. Who won’t so much as risk a tongue lashing before lashing out – physically – against people whose persons may be abused with near-impunity; who have next-to-no worry about being beaten/caged/killed themselves as a result of their actions – or even made to pay financially (sovereign immunity being another perk). heroes 2

This is “heroic”?

How about the recent “heroic” dog-killing in California? It is not an isolated case of “heroic” excess. This sort of thing is becoming a weekly occurrence.

A man uses his cell phone camera to video a group of  “heroes” doing a SWAT-style home invasion – probably of a home where arbitrarily illegal “drugs” were alleged to be. In any event, the man is clearly no physical threat to the proceedings – or those doing the proceeding. He is on the periphery of the scene, along with a number of other bystanders. But his videoing of the proceedings alarms – rather, it annoys –  two “heroes,” who begin to approach him. Check Takealot Specials and Woolworths Specials. At this point, the man – who had been taking his video while walking around with his leashed dog in tow – very non-threateningly walks back to his nearby car, shoos his dog inside, then calmly walks back to meet with the “heroes.” He is not belligerent; he made no attempt to flee. And more to the point, he violated no law as it is still legal to video “heroes” in public – just as they are at liberty to video us when we are out in public. Whether they like being filmed is as irrelevant (in terms of the law) as whether we like being filmed by them. Except of course, that “the law” doesn’t matter when “heroes” are involved.

Thus: Even though the man had done nothing illegal, nor had he done anything to suggest he was any sort of physical threat to the “heroes,” he was accosted – physically assaulted – by a pair of “heroes.” Two against one – the unfair fight, again – and over nothing.heroes shoot dog pic

Whereupon the man’s dog – who witnessed the unprovoked assault of his master by two strange men – frantically leapt out of the car’s open window and rushed to his master’s defense. And for this was summarily executed by the “heroes” . . . in the name of “officer safety.”

Of course, it would have been a whole lot safer for all involved had these “heroes” reacted appropriately – that is, like normal human beings who are obliged to keep their Inner Chimp in check as opposed to costumed and armed thugs  who know they can over-react without consequences.

The man was in a public area, in no conceivable way “interfering” with anything. However, he was guilty of challenging the unwritten (but mercilessly enforced) law that one must never treat a “hero” disrespectfully. And taking video of “heroes” is regarded (by the “heroes” themselves) as precisely that – an affront to their authority. It is much worse than merely questioning what they do. Because it is a record of what they do. Which implies that what they’re doing at the time of the recording might not be quite right.Hereos shoot dog 2

And that is the cardinal sin – as “heroes” see it.

Which is why it is imperative they be recorded – that they know they’re being recorded. That what they do will be seen by the world.

It is our only – and perhaps, last – defense.

“Heroes” ought not to mind.

Throw it in the Woods?


    • Nope. It won’t be people shooting back. One only has to look at how the laws are stacked in favor of law-enforcement/tax-parasites vs. the mundanes/tax-payers to see the hand-writing on the wall.

      I would predict that the public response will be a bit uglier.

      Cop’s personal property mysteriously combusting at an alarming rate. Cops’ trucks, cars, boats, homes, etc. going-up in smoke. If a thug can’t live in a community, he/she cannot terrorize that community.

      At some point anyone working as a cop will be un-insurable and the thugs will look to some any other profession as safer and more lucrative.

    • The actually do manage to get it right sometimes, although never consistently. I would really like to see the Institute For Justice become a sort of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist answer to the ACLU. To date, they’ve mostly been involved in fighting things like eminent domain laws, restrictive business/labor laws, and other economically-related legal issues (which is a good thing, mind you). It would be nice to see them expand their scope of practice to other areas of law and justice.

  1. At least these monkeys are being filmed. Imagine if the Germans had cell phone cameras during the monkey Hitler era.

    • I don’t think it matters if this shit is on the evening news every night. The American public is too addled to do a damned thing about it. As a population, we are beaten down.

      • Amen….and it’s getting worse. This is one instance where blacks and whites could come together as well as the few Hispanics that aren’t blatant statists. And as Mike Leach once said about his football players “fat little girlfriends”, it seems like the new crop of women have no fight at all. Dumbed down, fattened up

  2. Did you see this one? Boarder Patrol pheroes smash in the window when the driver refuses to consent to a search. His car is rigged with cameras, otherwise no one would know:

    I So need one of those cameras in my car.

    • I forgot to mention, Boarder Patrol is not a spelling error. They are not on the border, so they must be patrolling something else. … And they’re looking for boarders for the new prisons.
      I guess that means all pheroes are Boarder Patrol? When they’re not trolling for revenue, or just out to bust some skulls open, that is.

  3. I live in Texarkana, a small city in Arkansas, and the few cops I have met in Texarkana seem nice enough. Of course in Texarkana, when you walk in the courthouse, there are no guards and there are no metal detectors.

    When I lived in larger cities, the cops were not so nice and the courthouse had guards at each entrance, and I had to empty my pockets and pass through metal detectors.

    So, if the courthouse has guards and metal detectors the cops are bad. Otherwise, the cops are good.

    • DWornack said: “So, if the courthouse has guards and metal detectors the cops are bad. Otherwise, the cops are good.”

      This reminds me of the Clinton era when concrete barricades were placed on the street in front of the White House. They were to protect the president, of course.

      Someone made the comment that if the public at large did not feel threatened by the president’s power, then nobody would be likely to harm him and the extra protection would not be necessary — as it had been for the previous 200+ years.

      • When we moved here – Floyd County, rural SW Va. – the sheriff’s office was Andy Griffith-esque. No bulletproof glass, no perimeter security folderol. Guess who got a “grant” from heimatsicherheitsdeinst? Guess what we have now….

    • DWornock, the small Midwest town I live near (the county seat) doesn’t have guards or metal detectors in this courthouse either. There are two bailiffs present when the court is in session though. But three of the local thug-scrum dragged a young man of my acquaintance out the front door of the house he was rooming in and gave him a sound beating for denying them entry without a warrant. They then proceeded to go on a fishing expedition at 0400 in the morning, back in November of 2011. When he was released after a 24 hour administrative hold (during which time he was forced to submit to a body cavity search) he found what purports to be a copy of a search warrant on the living room table. It was issued at 0745, no district or case number on it. This hapless young man was rooming with his uncle who was allegedly using methamphetamine. But I know this lad well enough to be nearly certain he wasn’t involved, so I asked him agree to a certified urinalysis immediately upon his release from jail. He did so and was totally clean. The sheriff even commented that you usually don’t see a UA this clean.

      Now, a year and a half later, they have finally charged him with “Keeping Or Maintaining A Public Nuisance” (Mo. Rev. Statute 195.130), a Class C felony (i.e. running a drug house). It’s a frivolous charge and everyone knows it, but the prosecutor refuses to even discuss it with me. Because in his words I’m not an attorney. Mr. Maximum-Conviction-Rate seems to forget, apparently, that I pay his salary (but only because I’m forced too). The cops around here operate as if the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist (so in practice it doesn’t). The judge told me he could not dismiss the charges against this unfortunate lad, that it was up to the the prosecutor. You know, the one that won’t even discuss it with me. The system is broken. Your over simplification that if the courthouse has no metal detector or guards, “Otherwise, the cops are good” is baseless.

      I have had family members that were police officers and deputies. I’ve had friends that were too. Anecdotally, based on over four decades of life experience (my first real dealings with the thug-scrum were at age 15), I would say perhaps 5% tops are “good cops.” They usually don’t stick around either, but when they do they’re pretty jaded and cynical. I’ve worked with several former deputies and cops that got out not because of the danger, but because of the corruption. I contend that the Andy Taylor / Mayberry / Dragnet cop illusion we were fed as children and young adults bore about as much resemblance to reality as “Teletubbies” does, even back in the day. I do believe the cops were more careful to cover up their abusive behavior, but they didn’t have to worry about mundanes with video capable cell phones back then either. Or as one deputy told me “no pictures no proof.” But if you were “well connected” in the community, certain infractions received a wink and a nod and still do. Overall, I am convinced there has been corruption in law enforcement as long as there has been law enforcement. After all, boys will be boys and frankly the military is no different. So, in your own words, the Texarkana cops “seem nice enough” with an emphasis on the “seem.” Probably some of them are…until you question their authority or assert your rights. Here’s hoping you don’t find out the hard way.

        • Bobbye, I would dispute the “supposed to” part with you. The system operates exactly like the key players and recipients of its legal plunder want it to. Hence the system is one of “Just us” versus justice; the judges, lawyers, cops, jailers, contractors and the politicians that allow it, being the “us.” But that is not how it was originally intended to work. It’s kind of like taking a standard gasoline powered V8 engine and setting it up to run on steam. It wouldn’t work right, it would be slow, inefficient and need constant maintenance along with requiring the additional bulk of a boiler, feed water tank, condenser, etc. One could claim that it operates and even that it operates as intended by the tinkerer that cobbled it all together. But one could not claim that “it operates exactly like it is supposed to”, because it was supposed to operate on gasoline not steam. Our justice system is supposed to operate to restore property to the victims of real crimes, punish the miscreants that aggress against others and or their property and act as a general deterrent to those acts of aggression. Instead, it has largely become little more than a means for the various players in the system to extract our wealth from us, curtail our Liberty and strip us of our rights. That is not how it is “supposed to” operate at all.

          • The system wasn’t tinkered with, it was replaced. In some instances it was replaced one piece at a time, but replaced none the less. There isn’t really anything left of the original system but perhaps the outer shell that encased the inner workings. The replacement system is operating as designed.

            It’s more like ripping out the flathead V8 and driveline out of a 1930s Ford and replacing it with a complete Toyota Prius drivetrain while allowing the body and interior to decay. The body is this decayed shell of what used to be while the inner workings are completely different, “modern”, and foreign. These inner workings function exactly as they are supposed to for the purposes they were put in for.

  4. Hello Eric,

    I haven’t been to your page in a long time but not because I didn’t want to. I’ve been working out of the country and without access. I hope you are well and that you remember me. I’m the retired cop that used to occassionally comment on your page.

    This topic is obviously brought out a lot of emotion from some of your readers. Before you all flame me I see some of your points. I see the direction law enforcement is going and I don’t like some of it probably as much as some of you. I enjoyed my years on the P.D. because I really did help people but I also put a lot of bad guys in jail. Bad guys that deserved to be locked up as they were a threat to all. I never shot a dog or beat a kid but I did shoot a few evil people and use physical force against even more. Ladies and Gentlemen the bad guys are out there and for every video you see of officers doing something wrong there are many acts of kindness and hard work that aren’t recorded. You know as well as I do that a cop conducting an routine investigation into a crime and arresting the perpetrator doesn’t go on youtube or the news.

    Please remember that there are victims out there that the evil people prey upon and they appreciate it when cops take those evil people off the street. I agree with most of you on the uselessness of the war on drugs and I really don’t care what you choose to do on your property as long as it doesn’t affect me. I’ve agreed with Eric on some of these ridiculous traffic laws on the books and the enforcement of them is absurd.

    However I must say to the fellow that said “The only good cop is a dead cop”, well you Sir haven’t walked a mile in my shoes. And to Libertymike and his six criteria for being a cop.

    1. Neither of my parents worked in the public sector.
    2. Neither were blue collar in fact my mother has a Doctorate Degree and taught at a local college.
    3. I attended private schools through the 12th grade.
    4. I wouldn’t be so bold as to say I was athletically superior but I did OK as a cross country runner and football player. I also went on to win several medals in the Police Olympics at the state and national level.
    5. I was an A or B student throughout school and dean’s list in college.
    6. I’ve never been interested in controling or intimidating anyone. The badge was a means to working hard to investigate crime, locking up bad people (Yes Mike they are out there) and whether or not you believe it the badge allowed me to give people the benefit of the doubt and often give them a break like a warning or turning a kid over to their parents instead of locking them up. The parents were usually much more of a problem than the kids.

    Take care Eric and I hope you are well and your business is thriving.


    • Ladies and Gentlemen the bad guys are out there and for every video you see of officers doing something wrong there are many acts of kindness and hard work that aren’t recorded. You know as well as I do that a cop conducting an routine investigation into a crime and arresting the perpetrator doesn’t go on youtube or the news.

      In other words, “one bad apple”…

      *YAWN* Sorry, no sale.

      • It always disturbing to see people defend, Human Zoos:

        “They need to be locked up to pay for their crimes.” Pay whom?
        The offended party, or the state?

        […] in our country today, the state considers itself
        the primary aggrieved and wronged party in every crime that is
        committed. The state is then made whole by taking free slave
        labor from people for a few years – or decades as the case
        may be.” …


        America’s Injustice System Is Criminal

        “There is no institution in America that is a greater failure than the criminal justice (sic) system. The system can do nothing but fail, because the search for truth and justice plays no part in the system. The prosecutor’s career depends on his conviction rate, not on discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused.” …


        Schools and Jails

        “If jails worked, wouldn’t we need fewer jails and not more jails?

        […] The truth is that jails are not cages anymore. Jails are: free health care, free dental care, free HBO, free books, free pornography, free air conditioning, free heating, free conjugal visits, free exercise facilities, free trade schools, free showers, free beds, free laundry service, and lots of free time to hone their criminal trade from fellow inmates.

        All that is free only to the inmate. The family that the inmate devastated when he raped and murdered their little girl is the one who pays his bills with their taxes. And this is called “justice”?

        Don’t get me wrong. If jails were harsh environments I still wouldn’t support their existence. Jails are miserable failures the same way that the government schools are.”…


    • And when you KNEW that your some of your colleagues were ‘bad apples’, what did you do?

      Hint: if you didn’t confront them, report them, and see to it that they were prosecuted for the abuses they perpetrated, then congratulations… you’re a bad apple.

      Let’s be clear: the moment you signed on for that paycheck, you accepted that your role was to enforce every law that existed during your tenure – you did not get to exercise your conscience (and if you did… then congratulations… you’re a bad apple for selectively enforcing the ‘law’).

      In other words, as Thoreau said, either you absolutely abrogated your conscience and moral sense with regard to the laws you were enforcing, and reduced yourself to “a level with wood and earth and stones… command[ing] no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt”, and for that compliance you should be mocked (given how corrupt we all know our political overlords are)…


      you enforced the law as you saw fit (i.e., you permitted your conscience to guide you) in which case you were a bad cop because that’s not what you’re supposed to do.

      So overall… congratulations… you’re a bad apple. Don’t be too ashamed though – there are no good apples.

    • Carl,

      You sound like one of the peace officers I remember from my youth. Where no harm, no foul meant a warning. Alas, the true peace officers are a dying breed as you are retired and any decent officers left are likely being encouraged to retire ASAP.

      And the new breed of cops are a brutish lot. i.e. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/john-w-whitehead/college-girls-and-bottled-water/

      I’m afraid things will get worse before the pendulum swings the other direction. I’m hoping it won’t be much worse, yet the trends are disturbing.

      To bad you’re not a sheriff somewhere. The world could use more peace officers who can reason out that just because a “law” was broken, does not automatically mean that someone should be frog-marched off to face some form of punishment. True justice can have compassion.

    • Carl, as you stated, you’re a retired cop.
      Things are different now.

      Even if there are good cops still around, guess who people have contact with in the age of law enforcement? It’s not the hold overs from the era of the peace officer 99 times out of 100.

      • It’s not the hold overs from the era of the peace officer 99 times out of 100.

        For all practical intents and purposes there are no “peace officers” anymore. They’ve been deliberately driven out of the profession by the corporate-political Ruling Class to make way for the “bad apples” (i.e., “law enforcement” officers, a.k.a. “enforcers”) that are now the majority – and that will soon be the ENTIRETY of the profession.

        Any “peace officer” who dares swim against the tide and runs counter to the direction of the herd is going to wind up getting KITLOD – and not by a perp either (although the scumbag thugs responsible for making the death happen will pin it on some random perp). And any “peace officer” who lets his pals in blue run amok and refuses to take a stand for the rule of law is as guilty as they are and might as well be one of them.

    • Hi Carl,

      Good to hear from you!

      In brief, here’s the dynamic that’s playing out – as I see it:

      Police work has changed. It is no longer primarily or even mostly about peace-keeping; that is, with protecting innocent citizens from violent people, from people who steal and so on. It is increasingly about law enforcement – as police now routinely describe it themselves. Any law; all laws. They must be enforced… because it’s the law.

      Much of this involves nonsense – from the standpoint of the proper role of peace officers in a free society – such as enforcing behavioral/lifestyle choices that (as such) involve no harm to others (no victim) and thus, cannot be considered crimes, properly speaking. Everything from “buckle up laws” to the outright evil “war” on some drugs.

      The entire Bill of Rights has essentially been revoked. The 4th and the Amendments being the most egregious examples. And it is cops who are culpable because they willingly participate in this systematic dismantling of every bulwark erected to prevent abuse of authority – to keep arbitrary authority in check. A “good cop” would resign rather than man a fourth amendment-free “sobriety checkpoint.” But he has bills, a family to feed…. so he does not. He tells himself he is “helping to get dangerous drunks off the road.”

      It’s a tragic situation – for all.

      I’d be the first to stand behind a peace keeper such as yourself. Most normal people support peace keeping. But it is just as normal to be repelled by law enforcement. To find oneself filled with a mix of fear and loathing when faced with a buzz-cut, order-barking goon.

      America is not what it was – and is becoming something it should never have been.

      • Eric-

        Just want to nitpick.

        If you think that most normal people support peace keeping, then count me out unless the peace keeping is completely voluntary. Thus, even if A aggresses against B, peacekeeper C (for Carl) has no right to aggress against A – not in a free and civilized society. What authority would C have to aggress against A? What if A did not consent to C touching him? Should not A, even if he was the aggressor vis-à-vis B, be able to rightfully resist C’s attempt to arrest him and kill C, if necessary?

        In my view, the sooner humanity relegates the impulse to do good to the dust bin of history, the better of we will be. The do-gooder impulse is pure, unadulterated evil. Of course, not all of our enemies are do-gooders; to the contrary, many of them are ego-centric, narcissistic sociopaths who don’t even bother to conceal their true motives and their base profligacy.

        Invariably, peace keeping is motivated by the same do-gooder impulse, which, in turn, manifests itself in protecting people for their own good, using force for the greater good et al.

        Yes, as a practical matter, I agree with you that peace officers, as you conceive of them, are far better than the lot we have now.

        • Hi Mike,

          This issue – the role (if any) of “peace officers” in our theorized ideal free society – is a tough one to noodle out.

          It seems to me that it comes down to the question of redress-by-proxy. A is violently assaulted by B, but for whatever reason is not able to seek redress himself. Is it legitimate for a proxy – C – to intercede? More broadly, can the NAP exist as an absolute standard (the ethical basis for our ideal society) if we accept the idea (and practice) of peace-officers?

          If our ideal society were composed entirely of “awake” individuals – people who have accepted the NAP as the ethical basis for their interactions with others – the issue becomes moot. Of course, we must take into account the people who have not accepted the NAP.

          What to do about them?

          I remember Plato’s dialogue with Thrasymachus – who, when asked what constitutes justice replied, “the advantage of the stronger.”

          This, sadly, describes the world in a sentence.

          Absent a global reformation of the human mind (its soul, if you like) I am forced to concede that some organized means of keeping the predators among us in check is probably necessary in any society that’s larger than a small village (which might be able to use shunning and so on to deal with predators).

          I personally don’t object to the concept of organized peace-keepers, provided they are restricted to defending the NAP against those who abuse it. I personally would be willing to pay a fee to support such efforts.

          But I would never demand that you also pay to support such efforts.

          Perhaps the whole thing could be set up along the lines of a volunteer fire department; i.e., no one in the community is compelled to pay, but the service is generally supported by the general community and provides service to all. That would include courts, jails and so on.

          I think such a system would be viable in a society where there are no at-gunpoint taxes of any kind. If I, for instance, did not have to pay federal/state/local/Social Security/property taxes (plus pay out for mandatory insurance, etc.) I’d have 40-50 percent more income. Sending a check for say 3 percent of the 40-50 percent I just got back in my pocket for a service that I actually wanted would be something I’d happily do.

          I agree there are dangers with granting anyone (much less any group of people) a legal right to use force against others – others who have not harmed them.

          But there may be no way around that one…

    • Hi Carl,

      This just came to my attention:


      It’s an example of what I mentioned in my earlier post; i.e., that any cop who willingly chooses to be part of activities such as this forfeits any benefit of the doubt. He’s a thug; an enforcer.

      Kokesh did nothing criminal; he harmed no one – nor threatened to. He merely asserted his natural right – as expressed in the Second Amendment – to keep and bear arms. But he violated “the law” – an evil, unjust, tyrannical law. And was subjected to a home-invasion assault by armed thugs. It’s despicable.

      Every one of the costumed thugs involved has chosen sides – the wrong side.

      Der Tag Kommt.

      • I just read about this when I saw your link today at work and had to comment. So upset about this. I actually try to keep up with Adam’s work as much as I am able, as well as your site and lew rockwell. So very upset about this right now, the thugs aren’t even pretending to try to hide their activity from us.

      • Eric,
        I read about Kokesh and I’m disgusted by what happened to him. I would have refused to participate in that. I hope he’s released and no charges filed and he sues those responsible. Our country has seen a huge degradation of our personal rights and politicians and judges ignoring our Constitution. I’m not sure where its all going but I hope for everyone’s sake we can turn things around. First order of business is to throw all the bums out in Washington.

        • Hi Eric,

          I am in total agreement with you on ridiculous seat belt laws and the useless enforcement of such. I’m in agreement with you on victimless crime all the way. Where’s the crime if there isn’t a victim???

          I can also tell you that since leaving law enforcement I’ve felt the fear and apprehension people get when the police are behind them. I’ve read and considered many of your posters call for private law enforcement. If it works I’m for it. I’m skeptical though that it will be what its advocates think. The ability to fire and hire your law enforcers based on their performance leaves a lot out. Who is the judge of their performance? A neighborhood association or a lone individual? If that private LEO just ticketed the Neighborhood Associations kid for reckless driving can you trust that person to make a judgement call on that officer?

          It’s a complicated issue and I hope we don’t come to the boiling point you mentioned. I’m getting on in years and I only want to see the United States continue as a Republic with freedom for all. As of right now we don’t have the freedom our forefathers set in place and I agree it’s getting worse in all respects. Forums like yours allow a place to vent your feelings over these kind of things. Thank you for hosting it.


          • Morning, Carl!

            Amen to all of that.

            It seems to me that the problem mostly resolves itself if one – if a given society – takes the position that there must be evidence of harm done to a specific person(s) or their property in order to establish that a crime has been committed. A victim must be produced.

            Put another way: That lack of evidence of harm done to a specific person(s) or property is a legally viable defense against any charge leveled.

            The state (or “society”) cannot be a victim – because it is not a person; it has no rights – and therefore has no standing in court.

            This would eliminate most unjust laws – in particular, those relating to personal choices/matters of self-ownership.

            As far as peace keeping:

            My sense is that most people in a free society (or at least, a sufficient number) would freely contributed to the support of it if coercive taxation ceased to exist and if peace keeping were just that – and nothing more.

            It would not be necessary for everyone to do so, but the protection would nonetheless extend to everyone in the community (the same way volunteer fire departments work).

    • Carl-

      You will note that I wrote, “TYPICALLY, a cop is a person who has, at least, SOME of the following attributes”. You, sir, I will take at your word and include you in the distinct minority.

      How was your salary paid? Was it from voluntary exchange? Did people freely donate money to you? Did you execute a contract with those for whom you provided police services?

      In a free society, the NAP applies. This means that no person has the right to aggress against another. If one aggresses against another, the latter has the right to use physical force to repel the former.

      Thus, in a free society, there are no special rules for those who would fight “crime” and “the bad guys”. In other words, those who fight crime do not have a right to accost another person, under any circumstances-even if the person is smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine or consensually engaging in intercourse on their property or the property of another.

      In a free society, neither you nor any other LEO would have the right to interfere with another’s travel. Therefore, no sobriety checkpoints, no roadblocks, no speeding tickets, no traffic tickets, no pull overs-for any reason whatsoever.

      Until and unless one person harms another, no third party has the right to interfere and if they do, they have aggressed and may be rightfully repelled.

      You write of evil people. They do exist. We write about them nearly every day. Far and away, the most evil are those who are in the political / ruling classes; put another way, evil is most apt to be found where Caesar is and there you will find his judges, his prosecutors, his Praetorian guard, his financiers, his lawyers, his advisers, his supporters, his dependents and those who profit from his laws.

      • Mike,
        I appreciate you taking me at my word. I was paid by the municipality I worked for. I’m not sure I completely understand NAP but I am in agreement with you on sobriety checkpoints, victimless drug use and ridiculous zoning laws etc. I do disagree on some issues. Many times traffic stops resulted in much bigger things. Such as the driver being wanted for felonies such as robbery, burglary etc. I think taking these kind of people off the street is important because they just may prey on anyone of us or our loved ones. For the record I think drivers should receive a rating on their license the same way a teenager gets a probationary license. If you’re a proven talented driver with years of experience or high speed driving skills I think you should receive a break or allowed to pass, exceed speed limits etc. Some of the biggest hazards I saw were slow incompetent drivers. They caused many accidents. We have to have some restrictions, total freedom would also be total chaos.

        • @ Carl – “total freedom would also be total chaos.” Really? And you can assure us of this with what conclusive evidence? I would require proof of this assertion that is beyond a reasonable doubt before even considering that it might be right. It seems to me that total government is more likely to equal total lawlessness based on documented police, military, CIA/FBI/NSA/BATFE/ICE actions taken against those they are sworn to protect in recent years. Please enlighten us as to how you are so sure of this “fact.”

          • Most people have the same idea so you will never get rid of government theft/terror. This is exactly the reason we will be stuck with these political monkeys for at least another couple hundred years.

          • It does not look like he read any of the links, Boothe. Especially with this comment: “I think taking these kind of people off the street is important because…”

            Because they need more training in how to be a criminal?

            I wonder if he’s ever read something like this:

            What is Anarchy?

            From that article:
            “Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. “

          • Boothe and DownShift,
            I’m sorry but I can only give you a quick response as my work calls. I read the article Boothe linked and I often read Lew Rockwell. That’s how I first came across Eric’s blog. I agree that most people treat each other well and would honor social contracts with or without law enforcement. However, no laws in place would have to assume that everyone would act “normally”. I’m sure you know from your own experiences that everyone doesn’t. Some act downright vicious and evil. Without any authority who will deal with them? I’m sure some of you are perfectly capable of handling your own and your families security but many people aren’t. They need protected from the people that act outside the social norms. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my posts but I’ve got to go and I’ll try and catch up with all of you tomorrow.

            • Hi Carl,

              I accept that life is imperfect – and try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

              My beef is not with cops who act as peace officers. Who try to stop acts of violence and apprehend those who commit such acts. My beef is with cops who commit acts of violence themselves – and do so under color of “the law.”

              I often harp on seatbelt laws – because it’s an excellent case in point. No other person is harmed by my electing to not buckle up. Yet a cop has legal authority to waylay me at gunpoint – and use that gun – if I refuse to comply (and attempt to drive off or escape his “authority”). This is of a piece with innumerable other “laws” that involve no harm to others, no victim – and therefore, no crime.

              In brief: A typical citizen, minding his own business, causing no problems for others, shouldn’t have to worry about cops at all. They should be a non-presence in his life. He sees them, of course – but they’re not looking for him. He shouldn’t fear them.

              But today, typical citizens live in constant fear of cops. They’re everywhere – and they’re not looking for criminals (people who commit acts of aggressive violence). They are out there enforcing “the law” – arbitrary edicts involving no harm to others; manufactured “offenses” that entail no victim – and thus, no crime.

              They are aggressive, arrogant, demanding and threatening. They use force at the drop of a hat. Against ordinary people over nothing.

              It’s despicable.

              That’s what I and others – who would otherwise have no beef with peace officers, who would support them – are sick and tired of. It is getting near a flash point, I suspect. Many of us have had about as much as we’re willing to take, in terms of deciding it’s not worth fighting back.

              I think that soon, it will be.

          • I think “authority” empowers those who are vicious. The smarter ones seek to become that “authority”. The dumber ones realize that such a set up makes the vast majority of people potential victims. Regardless of the method chosen, the centralized authority system results in reduced risk to the criminally minded or even the just plain nasty people.

            Bringing some of the risk back to criminality, at least of the dumber variety that doesn’t seek offices and jobs of authority has done a lot to reduce it. It’s always risk and reward.

          • See, Boothe, when he says, “some of you are perfectly capable of handling your own and your families security but many people aren’t. They need protected from the people that act outside the social norms.”

            That, to me, means he hasn’t read the anarchy link.
            Maybe if he does, he might go on and read this and see yet another example of how conflict was ironed out peacefully, for the most part, all without the need for goberment of any kind:

            The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality


            Maybe if he reads that he will come to understand that to remove the monopoly the state has over policing everyone, is not the same as saying people will be at the mercy of criminals.

            If that’s not enough, Rothbard covers his objections very well, here:

            Society Without a State


            Here’s a snippet:

            “[…] Surely, it is universally asserted, the state
            is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the
            judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts,
            and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My
            contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services
            of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by
            private persons and institutions on the free market. “…

          • @ DownshiftFast5to1 – I believe Carl is catching on to the ideas that are discussed here, but like the rest of us, he has a lot of social programming, formal education and misinformation to overcome. It’s a classic example of “It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you. It’s what you know that ain’t so.” According to Robert Burton our sense of certainty does not have to be based on fact or logic for us to be convinced we are right about a thing. We, as humans, can be dead wrong about a thing and still believe it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those of us that are willing to accept that and then modify our beliefs and worldview based on new information seem to be in the minority (but I could be wrong about that too). The fact that Carl is here with us, discussing things in this forum is a good sign that he’s waking up and looking for the truth. That gives me hope for him.

        • Carl-

          There are two sentences in your post responding to mine that Eric and nearly every person here would completely support:

          “Some of the biggest hazards I saw were slow incompetent drivers. They caused many accidents.”

          You described some of the driving habits of what we call a Clover.

        • “total freedom would also be total chaos”

          This statement I see in many discussions. It assumes that without government there would be no rules of interaction and that without fear of punishment people would do all sorts of horrible things.

          Most everyday rules of interaction were taken over by government, not created by it. Thus these rules would persist even if government were to go away. In fact it has been found that people in general, at least when it comes to driving (and probably applies elsewhere), are more obedient to these rules when government is removed from the equation. With a punishment based system its more about what a person can get away with.

          The idea that fear of punishment is what holds society together is very disturbing. If that were indeed true, humanity deserves to go away and let the insects take over.

  5. Great blog post. I used to be a “law and order Republican” but, for me, law enforcement has lost respect. Presumptions that I once held in favor of law enforcement are gone. Too often they appear to be nothing more than tax collectors, picking low hanging fruit, avoiding the dangerous, ignoring the menial, chasing harmless technical violations of the law abiding and timid.

  6. Wow, great comments!

    I keep telling myself not to read any more police brutality articles, or watch clips, because they piss me off so much. But I read just one more and here I am.

    The comments here give me encouragement for the future. Aside from my best buddy and his son, when I look around me in my daily travels I see complacency to all this abuse, to outright support for “tough” police. I keep thinking: how long will it be before people start telling cops to GFY and fight back?

    This country has become a very creepy place to live, looking back over my 6+ decades of life. It wasn’t all that long ago that most innocent people were not in fear of cops. Now everyone is in fear of them — and if not, they’d better be.

    • Well, that’s their story about the IQ levels anyway.

      Unfortunately, cops are tested mostly to make sure they aren’t to smart. (Smart cops might question illegal orders or tactics) I would hope that there is a lower limit on cop IQ, but I suspect so long as they can swing a club and breathe, they’re qualified.

      Cops these days don’t solve crimes. Forget the fantasy TV shows. They are not real.

      Road-side tax-collection is where all the money is. And working as a tax collector doesn’t require intellect. Chimps might be able to handle the job. (not so sure about Bush Jr though) Traffic enforcement is the primary focus these days. Busting heads and shooting dogs is just cop entertainment to break-up the tedium of tax collection.

      • Abso-damn-lutely correct. Cops are nothing more than tax-hoovering vermin. Just as a buddy commented to me the other day “If the cops cared about “safety” why is it they sit two miles down the road from the bars in order to nab someone doing DWI instead of at the front door offering to take someone “safely” home? Instead they let someone drive drunk for two miles and thus potentially threaten the public all for the sake of loot.”


    • The 104 figure is the upper limit, the cop version of a Mensa candidate. A few exist, but they’re the rare outliers, not the norm. The “average” cop IQ is at least 15 to 20 points lower.

      • That jibes with my experience of them. A great many are unable to form coherent, grammatically correct sentences (e.g., “you ain’t got no weed on you”?).

        But the obvious one is the more significant one: They’re intellectual automatons. They don’t question what they do. Or, if they do, they don’t adjust their actions. If it’s “the law,” then they will enforce it. And will feel no compunction about making us submit. No matter how inane, or evil, “the law” in question may be (e.g., seatbelt laws and the laws arbitrarily criminalizing the possession/use of some “drugs”) they will ticket/cuff/cage (or worse) the “offender” and feel no pain about doing it.

        This is unimaginable to me – to any person with a thinking brain.

        Imagine it: You put on a special costume, one specifically designed to convey threat and intimidate people. Then you “pull over” people who haven’t done a thing to harm anyone – and extort their hard-earned money on the pretext that you’re “keeping them safe.” Or, you help bust down the door of some poor guy who’s got some plants growing in his basement – and play your role in destroying the guy’s life, sending him to a cage for years to be brutalized and then, when released, permanently hobbled by that experience and rendered unemployable by dint of having a “record.”

        Who could do that “for a living”?

        Not me.

    • That 104 figure is an estimate (in IQ units) of the average on a score that is in different units.

      The actual test used (the one that was the subject of a lawsuit when a candidate was rejected for scoring ‘too high’) is related to IQ units.

      To see why: ’21-22′ on the pig-test translates (roughly) to an estimated IQ of 104 (ish), however 33 equates to 125.

      So using Grade 9 algebra (assuming linearity), and calling the test score ‘Test’, we get the following estimated relationships between the pigtest and the estimate of IQ (IQ*):

      IQ* = 62 + 21(Test/11) (if pigtest average is 22) OR
      IQ* = 67.25 +21(Test/12) (if pigtest average is 21)

      The claim is that the pigs take people who score in the 20-27 range, and that this gives them an average of 21-22 (which ‘translates’ – weakly – to 104, supposedly… more on that below).

      Now.. If E[X]: X in (A,…,B) < (A+B)/2 (i.e., if the average is below the midpoint of the range), it tells you IMMEDIATELY that both the mode and the median are below 21-22 (the only way to get an average below the midpoint of a range is for the mode to be below the average). In fact it’s possible to get an estimate of the mode just from the gap between E[X] and (A+B)/2\.

      Autrement dit: the most common test score for the pigs will be 20 (the score is always an integer – an individual can’t score ‘20.4’, say).

      So if the ‘translation’ mechanism is linear, the ‘modal’ pig has an IQ in the interval [100, 102.2] with reasonably high probability.

      Two things: first, just as is the case with the nonsense that being a pig is scary and dangerous (it isn’t – it’s not even in the top 10)… the story that the everyday pig you meet on the street is smarter than average is nonsense.

      Second: I don’t believe for a second that the modal pig IQ is 100.

      Remember -kids who become pigs are the kids who did not do well enough in high school to get into college/university… and who were also not smart enough to self-identify for, e.g., trade school or an apprenticeship – both avenues (college and trade school) lead to higher incomes than you get as a pig (except if you’re on the take).

      All of the above applies to soldiers as well – I say this as a former soldier myself, albeit one who dragged to average up a tiny bit during my ‘service’.

      • Morning, Kratoklastes,

        Another characteristic associated with lower IQ is poor impulse control, especially with regard to physical lashing out. Now add steroids (in many cases), a pack (and us vs. them) mentality; the military-esque rigmarole of shaved heads, menacing uniforms with military grades of rank… .

        For me, the “shaved head” thing is a handy way to differentiate Then vs. Now – i.e., the era of still-somewhat peace officer-ish as opposed to the law enforcement era of today. The change began to happen, as I recall, in the late 1980s, in the wake of the BDU-worship and flag-humping of the Reagan presidency. It accelerated rapidly under Clintigula – who is not given the credit for nursing along the nascent police state that he richly deserves. Of course, it was under The Chimp that things really got simmering.

        And here we are.

        • For me, the “shaved head” thing is a handy way to differentiate Then vs. Now – i.e., the era of still-somewhat peace officer-ish as opposed to the law enforcement era of today.

          My standing question is “what the FUCK is up with this ‘prick-with-ears’ look amongst the coptards?” It’s to the point now where if I run into a guy I don’t know who has the “skinhead” look, I assume by default that he’s a pig and instantly decide that I want nothing to do with him. Unacceptably and perhaps juvenile-y judgmental, I realize, but I’m not about to take a chance.

          • In Germany, guys who shave their heads are identifying themselves as either cue-ball bald, or as a member of the Nazi party. Age is the best discriminator as to which is which.

            Based on the behavior of shaved head cops, it does make one wonder if they secretly want to belong to the old SS.

            Though I’ve recently seen a few firemen joining the shave pate gang.

  7. stop resisting, or he’s resisting – is a little joke police learn early in the job — its a go ahead for bashing folk who most often arent resisting in the slightest. american police conduct is disgusting — and starting to infect other police agencies around the world via the damn reality shows…

  8. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/06/annoy-a-cop-in-new-york-state-that-could-soon-earn-you-4-years-in-jail/

    This law actually makes it a felony to annoy a cop and the reason they give is that their job is dangerous and that annoying a cop could put innocent lives at risk.

    “The consequences are way too low for the offender and it sends the wrong message to the public. Police officers are the public’s first line of defense to restore order in dangerous/chaotic situations. Citizens do not have the legal right to physically challenge the authority of an officer lawfully performing their duties. Threats, intimidation and physical force used upon our police officers not only erode respect for our criminal justice system, but also endanger the public as well.”

    As for eroding respect I would suggest that our lack of respect comes from their actions themselves. When they act like pigs, bullying, snotty, hands on hips, acting like demi-gods who demand worship, they are not likely to get respect from anyone who lacks the proper fear of authority. If their costume, plastic badge and stick don’t impress you much their gun is supposed to as is their posturing and attempt to look and act intimidating. They actually teach them how to appear threatening. We see them take it to an extreme with their gym muscles and military haircuts. Even the women cops do their best to come off as thugs and they can be worse because they think they have even more to prove.

    They look, act, talk and walk like jackbooted thugs and when that isn’t enough to get them respect they will gang up on you as if sheer numbers will do the trick.

    I do not respect anyone who tries to use fear as a weapon, I only feel contempt and I know I am not alone.

    • Ah, according to that logic, all the dog executions are the fault of the dog for annoying cop.

      Silly me, and here I thought the cops execute all those dogs because there was no penalty to them for doing so.

      So, now the cops can justify all those the pet executions as “the dog was barking and it annoyed me.”

      Black-shirted thugs, the modern-day brownshirts.

    • When I first heard about this law, I was tempted to say that any adult who would voluntarily live in the People’s Socialist Democratic Republic of New York deserves to suffer under such a law. However, in a blinding flash of the obvious, it soon thereafter occurred to me that, odious and insufferable as life in that Marxist hellhole no doubt is (as it is in other parts of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic), this law will not remain unique to said hellhole for very long. The PSDRNY is merely an incubator, a test bed, for this law that will soon be coming to all 50 states – including yours and mine. The PSDRNY was chosen because it is one of the states in which it would be least resisted as a test case.

      The PSDRNY in this case is to the legal advance of the police state what The People’s Socialist Democratic Republic of Massachusetts was to gay marriage – the camel’s nose under the tent flap, the first step, the launching pad.

      • Likely true, especially since if it then IS challenged in court, it’ll be challenged in a court where the judges are bought and paid for, to obtain the intended results (a legal challenge upheld making for case law; subversion of and control over the sheeple.)

        The outcome is pre-determined. I forget the name of the process, not Hegelian Dialectic, but similar sourcing.

  9. I have been calling cops “cunts” for a long time now. It is such an obscene trm that it only should be used for tin-badged, gun-totin’ loudmouths who like to “get over” on other prople.

    • Nah, I feel the same way about “cunt” that I do about “pig” or “swine” – it’s a word that describes something noble or beautiful (in this case the female genitalia). As long as we’re using anatomical terms, I think “boil,” “chancre,” “hemorrhoid,” or “tumor” would be better choices for describing cops.

  10. Of course police forces today are working on eliminating any cop that is not a sadistic psychopath. Once this is done they will have the kind pigs that they really want to have – ones that love to beat innocents to death and doing it with a smile.

  11. If I’m ever in a situation where I have the better of a cop, I will be sure to shout “stop resisting” over and over. He’ll know exactly what is coming as a result.

    • Yes, indeed. I think there are very few of us who haven’t savored that very same fantasy.

      Of course the “stop resisting!” warnings would have to be accompanied by non-stop taser salvos and kicks to the groin (preferably with steel-toed footware).

  12. People need to start defending themselves against these goons. I sincerely hope that the cop who shot that dog, the one who mercilessly beat the kid sitting on a bench, etc get what they have coming. I truly hope all the officers in these videos get it back 10 times worse than they dish it out. They’re WORSE than the criminals they’re supposed to be protecting society from.

  13. Eventually, prosecutors will run out of jurors who have NOT been bullied by a cop.
    Then will the tide turn, and at the current rate it will be soon.

    • The State will never allow things to get that far. We’re already at the point where trials by jury are almost a thing of the past. In camera trials heard by a lone judge or a panel of state functionaries –which will take place AFTER a confession/guilty plea has already been coerced out of the defendant– will have replaced them. Imagine Stalin’s show trials of the 1930s, only conducted in English and staffed by bloodthirsty rednecks instead of Russian peasants.

      • I understand and agree with what you are saying but take umbrage with your falling for the Transnational Progressive perversion of the term “Redneck”. Why do you fall for the idea that a person who works with his hands at a hot dirty job is an ignorant bigoted slob? If you want to see an example of arrogant, judgmental, bigoted behavior take a look at the faculty of any Ivy League College.

        • Why do you fall for the idea that a person who works with his hands at a hot dirty job is an ignorant bigoted slob?

          What gave you the impression that this is the definition of the term “redneck” that is applicable here (i.e., that someone who works with his hands = ignorant, bigoted slob)? I never even hinted at that definition, let alone spelled it out as such.

          If you want to see an example of arrogant, judgmental, bigoted behavior take a look at the faculty of any Ivy League College.

          Of course. Those people are just as odious.

          • Implicit in his post is the proposition that one who works with his hands at a hot dirty job is one to be emulated and respected.

            We need to eradicate the blue collar mentality and all that it entails like anti-intellectualism, anti-creativity, pro union, pro macho, pro state idiocy.

  14. The only explanation for the behavior of “the new cop” is that their training is designed to brainwash them into to seeing everyone as “the enemy”. They probably have cartoons showing how to bully people into submission similar to the cartoon series shown to our WWII soldiers before they shipped out. These cartoons were designed to desensitize the soldiers to the humanity of the enemy and were rolled out after it was discovered that most of them would not shoot at the enemy. No doubt there is a modern equivalent Federal program that helps do the same for the local cops who otherwise could possibly shirk their duty to scare the living shit out of a 20 year old girl walking out the grocery.

  15. It’s important to be aware that bad things are being done; but as for stopping it—that ain’t gonna happen. Notwithstanding the powerful changes that have been accomplished throughout history by “significant minorities”, and while a skeptic/quitter/curmudgeon like me continues to speak out and hope that Einstein was wrong about insanity, I think we are too far gone. I think the only thing that has a chance of rehabilitating our Americana, bringing about a cultural reversal, and quashing Antonio Gramcci’s “long march through our institutions,” is total collapse and reset. The question that haunts me is whether we will end up under total control of the Ruling Elites, turn into Somalian warlord regions, or back to something akin to our founding period. It may all depend on how many true patriots survive the reset.

    • Ever read James Kuntsler’s The Long Emergency?

      Although Kuntsler is an urban planning, suburb hating, peak oil doomsday progressive, he at least recognizes the limitations of TOP MEN to save humanity.

    • I’m afraid that I have to agree, Henry. I’d like to think that “common” sense isn’t a complete misnomer and that at some point a majority (or at least a sizable enough minority to make a real difference) will stand up and scream “ENOUGH!” Unfortunately, what I see and hear around me everyday doesn’t give me any grounds for such optimism.

  16. The only way to reform the police industry is to abolish government police forces altogether. They cannot be reformed, they cannot be reined in, they cannot be retrained. The perverse incentives — or perhaps the direct incentives — are simply too great for any result other than corruption. Like Trocki said: Stop hiring “LEO’s”.

    • That’ll never happen as long as the State exists. LEOs are the State’s “muscle” for keeping us Mundanes in line.

  17. What is more disturbing is the trend by many to thank these thugs for there “service”.

    Advice to all: When you see a “hero” on the street give him a wide berth, don’t run just avoid him at all costs.

  18. How can one identify a “good” cop from a “bad” cop?

    YOU CAN’T! They dress and look the same! All one can do is assume ALL Police are bad in order to protect oneself from State abuse.

  19. Isn’t the very definition of “heroic” an action that requires placing one’s own physical safety in jeopardy in order to secure the physical safety of others first?

    No, that’s just one possible meaning. For another, see heroic measure.

    … Who literally shoot first – and ask questions later.

    No, they often just shoot first and never do the other thing.

    • For another definition of heroic, how about “any person who, at the risk of bankruptcy, death, deprivation of liberty, grievous bodily harm, prosecution and incarceration by the state, asserts his natural rights to give the state, or any of its parasites, his middle finger?”

  20. Ex-military types who are used to wanton killing and brutalization of occupied people probably make up a huge fraction of these goons. Not to mention the “us-against-them” mindset that is bred by the military and reinforced by the years they spend in hostile environments. Military service needs to be an automatic disqualification for becoming a cop.

    • “Military service needs to be an automatic disqualification for becoming a cop.”

      Indeed – and I’d go one step farther: No more cops. Peace officers, ok. But no more cops (i.e., “law enforcers”).

      And no more laws – except the law: Do no harm to the person or property of others.

      Any other law that isn’t just a restatement of the above is superfluous; any law that goes beyond the above is no law at all – but tyranny.

      • The only complete disqualifier I’d go for – as opposed to a rebuttable presumption against them, which I would apply to someone with a military record – is not to accept anyone with relatives or connections in the police, because cop families breed a clannish, them-and-us mentality.

        • Typically, a cop is a person who has, at least, some of the following attributes:

          (1) One or both parents are/were in the public sector;

          (2) One or both parents are/were anti-intellectual, blue collar types;

          (3) Public schooling throughout his “education” or, at best, very limited private schooling, never mind home schooling;

          (4) Athletic inferiority as adolescents and as high school ball players. How often does the star quarterback or the star point guard go on to be a cop? Quite often, cops were the second stringers or, if they were starters, they did not excel.

          (5) Academic mediocrity. Cubed.

          (6) An inherent desire to control and intimidate. The badge and the gun are the means.


      • Hey Eric,

        Pretty scary stuff you’ve shown on youtube links. My opinion is that if there is to be law enforcement it should only be by elected sheriffs. I’m not especailly fond of voting but it may make sense on a local community level to have some accountability to the people. I’ve met some rather cool sheriffs in my life. It seems that there are far fewer municipal police that fit that bill in my personal experience.

        Overall I’d be ok with no law enforcement as an ideal. The population has to be slowly weaned off the idea of being protected by others and moved back to individual security. The best start would in my opinion keep law enforcement electable at the local level and fire all armed goons that are loyal to any other executive offices like the mayor, the governor, or the president.

        The next bill of rights should have a amendment that prevents Federal government from supporting any local police forces or education or religion with funds which readily become extortion and blackmail withdrawals to centralize. Overall, I agree with anarchist in principle that the state always starts small and ends a gorilla. The small end sometimes is bearable but the gorilla we have all inherited is quite frightening. I do believe that we will win to reset the button this time around. But what happens when its reset and it becomes Gorilla 4.0? By that time the government will probably have knowledge about how to reprogram the human mind and mean literally. If its isn’t George Orwell this time its still coming even after the reset and controlling technology keeps coming at an accelerated pace. Sadly, it might take a reset plus -1000 feet reduction in a simple government to allow freedom lovers to outpace its encroachment. The next reset after the one we are most likely to live through, may never happen if people aren’t active to prevent it from the start.


    • It’s funny you should put it like that. In fact, that has more to do with how military activities have changed. Between the world wars, many British police were recruited from among veterans with good military service records – and, in those days, those who got promoted to N.C.O.s were those who had held up well in trench warfare, which meant steadiness and unflappability, not trigger happiness. (It’s probably also how the police got the nickname “the old Bill”, from a cartoon about just such a soldier.)

  21. Another thing is this died in the line of duty mandatory hero worship nonsense.
    A lot of people die doing their duty(job) and since the cop’s job is not even top ten dangerous, well, sorry but you’re not the lonesome stranger.

    Not to mention half of the cops who do die in the line of duty do so by crashing their cars driving around like maniacs.
    I suppose they want a medal for that too.

    Yep, as a matter of fact they do..

  22. “You shouldn’t generalize all cops based on these videos. These are just the bad eggs.”

    Bad eggs. LOL

    This society is a travesty.

    • “These are just the bad eggs”

      Look how many “people” repeat this exact same line….
      They aren’t “people”…They are gubbermint indoctrinated cannon fodder.

  23. Because deep down, bullies are pussies, and that’s all cops are: pussy bullies.

    BTW – Where is the Notify box? I’m not getting updates to posts I comment on.

  24. Don’t look at officer hero now you might be charged with menacing glaring. Super duper heroes who wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a real war zone but love to kick the shit out of some poor serf. Put on your Oakley sunglasses and XXXXL tactical gear now heroes and keep those donuts safe.

  25. Ernie Pyle in his book “Brave Men” stated that Hotel Managers and Police are the 2 biggest bootlickers on Earth. He was correct.

  26. The piggies escalated the situation needlessly, this is on them. That being said, the guy should have better secured the dog- who doesn’t know they love to kill dogs? Shoot, they’ve killed little dogs locked in cages so they’d surely do it in an arguably justifiable situation like we have here.

    • Mr. Jonz.

      During the late 60’s, I saw this same comment on a bumper sticker in a Hell’s Angels booth at custom car show in LA. The main reason I had such respect for these guys is they hated traffic cops almost as much as I did. Today, it’s become a blur. They’re all basura.

    • Or one serving a life sentence without possibility of parole – in GenPop, without protective custody.

      Oh, wait, I guess those two things are one and the same…

    • Although I agree with Eric P. in general, I think “the only good cop is a dead cop” is a bit extreme. There are plenty of good cops, and I’ve interacted with a few over the years. Suburban cops, especially, are less apt to be “oinkers,” as an old friend used to call them, while inner city cops deal with crazies and assholes on a regular basis, and can become cynical quickly. I read a book called “Signal Zero” decades ago, by a college professor who joined a Florida police force and went through just such a metamorphosis, and it changed my perception of police forever. I recommend it to every poster here, if you can find a cop.

  27. Whereupon the man’s dog – who witnessed the unprovoked assault of his master by two strange men – frantically leapt out of the car’s open window and rushed to his master’s defense. And for this was summarily executed by the “heroes” . . . in the name of “officer safety.”

    I eagerly await the day when Fido is fast enough in his leap to take a lethal bite out of porktard’s throat before it can even reach for its weapon.

    • Few dogs are that aggressive. It’s been bred out of the species, and for good reason. Otherwise, we’d be looking hard at the local dogs when a child went missing.

      A wolf on the other hand could be making a meal out of a human in such circumstances, porktard or no.

      Cops are just shooting dogs because they can. There is no punishment for doing it, so they get to use their weapons and feel all macho about it.

      • Ahhhh, but let one of us Mere Mundanes shoot a police dog, or otherwise effectively defend ourselves from one of these near-wolves intentionally trained to maul (and even emasculate) it’s intended victim and in many locales you have just shot (or at least assaulted) a cop! What kind of ridiculous double standard is that! I knew a (now former) cop on the Tri-Cities drug task force years ago that bragged about releasing several police dogs to run down an armed robbery suspect. He claimed that as the alleged thief rounded the corner the dogs caught up with him and all they could hear were screams and barking. The “phero” was laughing about this poor schmuck being in the ER at Petersburg General. He said the ER doctor was going down an extensive list of injuries the dogs had infliceted, including a missing testicle. If it had been the other way around and the victim’s Dobie or Rottweiler had de-nutted one of the cops, you can bet there would have been a wholesale execution down the nearest alley. And not just for the dog either. The pigs are definitely in the farm house now and they are certainly “more equal” than the rest of us barnyard animals to say the least. So much for equal protection under the law…

        • Indeed, the double-standard is the issue.

          Under the Rule of Law, the rulers would be treated the same as the ruled. The enforcer the same as the enforced-upon, etc. The laws would apply equally to all, tax-payers and tax-parasites alike.

          If the rule of law still applied, the cops taking the opportunity to slaughter dogs at every opportunity would be charged and convicted for their criminal actions.

          Alas, the rule of law is dead.

          • In every Western movie you have ever seen, the one wearing the badge says,”I am the Law” at some time in the show. Did not matter if the badge wearer was the good guy or the bad guy, they all had the same belief; the one with the badge is The Law. All of them believe in the Rule of Law. The only solution is to get rid of The Law. No city cops, no county cops, no Sheriffs of Nottingham, no Federal cops. If you aren’t willing to go there, I guess you just live with what is.

            • Hi Bob,

              Yes, indeed.

              The solution – as you’ve noted – is to disabuse people of this idea that “the law” – and those who enforce it – is ipso facto entitled to respect and obedience.

              As I see it, there is only one law – the natural law. The law that says each of us has an equal right to be left in peace unless we’ve caused harm to someone else or their property.

              Put another way: That no one has the right to use force against someone else except in defense against force used against them first.

        • I’m actually inclined to cut K-9s some slack for two reasons:

          1. They’re already suffering unthinkable abuse just by being enthralled to the porktards. That is the rankest, most despicable form of animal abuse I can think of, short of maiming, torturing, or deliberately starving or dehydrating one of these poor pups to death.

          2. These dogs have been conditioned to become weapons, usually against their actual nature. It’s analogous to an innocent baby being raised in isolation to become a child gladiator or child soldier.

          Now, both of those two things said, I won’t hesitate for a second to defend myself against a K-9 attack, their porcine handlers be goddamned.

          • libberanter,
            I’d disagree on #1 above, as it would force us to also place training a helper animal in that same classification.
            Despite our bias (animal assistants are “good”, K-9s are “Bad” because they’re taught to be the equivalent of soldiers), the training itself is what becomes the abuse. 😛

            We need a way to differentiate that training (desensitization?) from the outcome, that’s all.
            But otherwise, the animal helping a paraplegic or a blind person is no different from the K-9. They have no free will, no choice, no capacity for those. (Some of this goes into the difference between an animal and a person, of course.)

            Any ideas?

            As to #2, 100% correct: They dog is trained as a warrior would be trained, and for about the same reason: their sole purpose is to attack, injure, maim, kill. And while a sword can be used for good or ill (same as gun), the humans who undergo that at least had a choice to make. The animal – legally unable to comprehend what they are agreeing to – is taken and forged, more like an object itself is forged from raw ore.

        • You did not challenge the SOB, did you?
          I’d like to think that, even in a restaurant, I’d get up and stick a knife through the bastard’s neck. And explain why. (I don’t carry an ice pick, alas, or I could ensure it would be OVER.)

          The cop was bragging about an assault similar to a smart bomb (filled with napalm). The attack continued, and he did nothing. By itself, for us, that’s depraved indifference. For a cop, it should be assault with intent, or attempted manslaughter – but as one film noted, we make these men (paraphrasing film) into weapons. It’s all good as long as they are OUR dogs of war, and commit atrocities in OUR name; when it’s the “enemy” who does the same, they are savages, sub-human, evil., and must be stopped at all costs…

          Fred has said similar, BTW. (fredoneverything .net)

          • What I’ve discovered over the years, Jean, is that when you challenge one of these offenders they never give you any more information. So I have learned to observe and listen, all the while not giving away my position on the matter. It often infuriates those around me who think I should immediately take rash actions based on this principle or that ideal when confronted with the truth. Beware the man who urges actions in which he incurs no risk. And I have taken hard line stands in the past, up to and including losing my job. But the world is often an ugly place and the people in it can be dangerous and despicable despite The Law. So I pick my battles carefully and by extension I avoid alienating my sources of inside information. Had I challenged this thug by physically attacking him successfully or not, I would not be retelling his tale now. I would be ashes or worm food because to paraphrase Ron White, I didn’t know how many of his peers it would take to bring me down, but I did know how many they would use: as many as it takes. Furthermore, attacking someone physically for something they said they did, with no physical proof, since there are a lot of B.S.ers out there, is a clear violation of the NAP. Beside the fact that it is far better to use your skills and abilities to inform others and sway their opinions. Why go out in a stupid and soon forgotten blaze of glory just to take out one hornet, when with a little patience and persistence you may eventually be part of getting rid of the whole nest?

      • Even more disgusting, if a mere Mundane had killed a cop dog, which is a savage animal, trained to attack anyone except it’s master, he’d be charged with killing a police officer, yet these bastards never get charged with killing a citizen, those bastards deserve to be reduced to dog shit, in the usual way.

  28. You’d think large men (and often large women) with large guns on their hips, the full weight of the state backing them up, wouldn’t be so on edge and terrified – so constantly worried that some ill might befall them – such that it’s necessary to pre-emptively tackle, stomp (or Tazer and shoot) women half their size, old people twice their age, gangly teenagers – and so on – all the while demanding that their helpless victims “stop resisting.”

    What I’m saying here is redundant to the regulars here and mostly for the benefit of lurkers and/or new visitors (and MAYBE that rare Clover who possesses rudimentary cerebral functions and just might be swayed by reason), but the reason for this is that we Mere Mundanes, in growing numbers, are awakening to the reality of the system under which we live and are growing just about sick and fucking tired of it. TPTB realize this; hence, the feral brainstemmers who, in growing numbers, are being issued costumes, badges, and weapons they don’t know how to use.

    The good news is that the feral brainstemmers are outnumbered and, at least in terms of sheer numbers, outgunned as well. What also works against them is that, being brainstemmers, they have no concept of tactics where urban warfare is concerned. Think of the long, slow war of attrition that has been Afghanistan for the last 35 years (actually, the last several centuries) coming to a neighborhood near you. Think of the feral brainstemmers as the Mongols/British/Russians/Americans and We the People (let us hope that the “Sheeple” amongst us will either have been converted or culled by that point) being the Mujahideen.

    • Ah… the British figured out what worked in Afghanistan in time for the Second and Third Afghan Wars, and the Mongols already knew before they got there. That’s why things there worked out for both of them after that.

  29. May I suggest a new word for these phoney heroes? Phoney + hero = phero; pronounced fearo it also helps to identify the underlying cowardly fearfulness the LEOs have within themselves and, conversely, also the fear they try to project onto the Citizenry. (Pheroes for more than one of these beasts which is the usual way they operate in their attack packs.)

    Language is a great way to stand up to TPTB and mockery is the best form of attack because if there is one thing a person of power can not stand it is to not be taken seriously by the Mundanes.

    Other suggestions?

      • Pigs are cool, intelligent animals. I call ’em ‘caged gerbil shooters’, since I don’t think they’d dare mess with a loose gerbils. I wouldn’t insult the pigs. And recently there actually was a story about one of these ‘heroes’ pepper spraying a SQUIRREL! Now if that don’t take the cake!

        • Yeah, I’ve actually commented in the past about how the term “pig” or “swine” is really inappropriate for a cop. Pigs/swine are, as you point out, noble and useful animals. I really would prefer the term “rat” or just “vermin” as a reference for the blue-clad thug. Both of these terms connote something that is at best useless and at worst harmful and toxic, and are thus much more appropriate metaphorical appellations.

    • SkunkBear, as far as I am concerned you just won the entire fucking internet.

      “Phero” is some damn fine – Ah say, damn fine – wordsmithing, Suh. {You have to say that with a Foghorn Leghorn accent}.

      I would love to link it somehow to ‘pheromone’ somehow… perhaps when pronounced ‘fear-o moan’ it can be the bleating noise that pheroes make when they don’t get the pick of the doughnuts.

      This is just another reason why I love the internet – it shows us that there are super-bright people all over the place.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here