When Decent People Start to Fear – and Loathe Cops…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Most everyone has witnessed cops speeeeeding – not on a call, just driving somewhere . Yet they can do it with impunity.

Case in point: A few months back, the wife and I were returning home from Northern Va., driving on I-81. The speed limit at the time was 65 MPH. A state cop ahead of us was toodling along at about 75. I followed him (discreetly, at a distance, in a pack of cars) for more than a half hour. This same cop undoubtedly issues big bucks tickets to Mere Ordinaries (Will Grigg’s excellent term) for doing exactly the same thing. They’re not cops, of course – which is why it’s not exactly the same thing.

And why they get ticketed.

I know some will defend the cops by saying they probably know it’s ridiculous, too – that is, speed limits/enforcement – but they’re just doing their job.

Well, that “Nuremburg defense” doesn’t fly with me. It didn’t use to fly with most Americans, either – until, that is, we became a nation of neo-Weimar cringers and badge-lickers who accept any affront by law enforcement if it’s done “for our safety.”

At one time, I considered applying to be a cop because I liked idea of being a peace officer – that is, going after bad guys. But the fact is most cops spend a lot of their time – possibly a majority of their time – pestering/harassing/fleecing decent people over BS “violations” that only a BTK-like sociopath would feel good about enforcing.

Not surprisingly, we’re hearing more about (and seeing more, thanks to portable video rigs) BTK-esque goons with badges and official state sanction visiting almost unbelievably disproportionate acts of physical brutality on Mere Ordinaries over even minor (and absolutely non-violent) challenges to their “authority.”

Here’s a an especially horrific recent example:

In Washington State, a thug cop named Matt Paul who had previously body-slammed and paralyzed for life an innocent man over a suspected minor offense later tried the same trick on a citizen who happened to be out walking one day when he witnessed this same cop berating some more Mere Ordinaries and dared to film the episode. When the Mere Ordinary with the video rig attempted to walk away, and inadvertently jaywalked in so doing, this thug cop plastered the Mere Ordinary’s face into the concrete, breaking his nose in the process. And his superiors continue to defend him – the thug cop, that is.

See here for more details:

Some will dismiss the case just mentioned as exceptional and aberrant – but the plain fact is that the sort of extreme physical violence deployed so casually – so eagerly – by such as Officer Matt Paul is now implicitly ready to explode anytime a Mere Ordinary runs up against a cop. For example, see what happens if you happen to be out driving one night and, noticing a “safety checkpoint” up ahead, decide you’d rather not spend 10 (or even 5) minutes being subjected to an arbitrary detainment and interrogation – and turn your car around (legally) and head the other way. You will very shortly feel like OJ in his white Bronco – except of course you didn’t just murder two people. If you decline to pull over, the situation will escalate. And even if you do pull over, it will escalate – not because you did anything that in a formerly free America could be characterized as illegal. But because you challenged the Authority of Law Enforcement. At the very least, you will be subjected to an even heavier-handed interrogation, probably including a physical pat down and search of your vehicle – for doing nothing more than turning your car around and attempting to avoid their “checkpoint.”

Then there is the notorious case of the motorcyclist – another Mere Ordinary – who had a gun drawn on him by a plainclothes cop … because the Mere Ordinary was speeeeeding. Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ

That was bad enough. But worse was yet to come after the Mere Ordinary posted the video above on YouTube. The Maryland State Police executed a major raid on the Mere Ordinary’s home, seizing his computers and other personal property because in Maryland, you see, it is illegal to film cops doing their (cough) duty – even though they can and do film the Mere Ordinaries they process every day, using said video as evidence against them.

All of this is bad business – for the cops as well as Mere Ordinaries. Because, ultimately, when Mere Ordinaries come to view cops with contempt, as potentially dangerous thugs to fear and avoid rather than peace officers – they’ve lost moral legitimacy and once that’s gone, the only thing keeping the populace from literally tearing them to pieces at the first opportunity is just exactly that: The first opportunity.

Someday, perhaps soon, that opportunity will come – just as it did in Egypt and before that, in places like Vichy Paris, after the Nazis fled and the Vichy goons found themselves no longer large and in charge.

It’s not going to be pretty. For us – or for them.

Throw it in the Woods?





  1. Oh Eric, they have no idea how right you are, particularly in the end of your piece.

    Anyone who is not in a coma can see that the fabric of our society has gone from a little frayed to rapidly shredding. Should things, and I do not desire this, primarily for my kids’ sake, unravel as I think they may, I don’t think I would want. Too many people knowing that I was employed in ” law enforcement”. Like you said, it’ll Nobel a bad day for all of us, but so much worse for the collaborators.

    You cannot take advantage of your position in life and expect to be worshipped, or even protected for that matter, when the bill comes due.

    • Hi G3,

      It’s tragic all around. The system creates a dynamic of obedience – “the law is the law” – and encourages people to let loose their inner control freak in ways small and large. The government school system cripples most people’s ability to think (use reason) and instead produces rote-learned automatons (what Carlin called “obedient workers”). Some of these become law enforcers; and I suspect most of these are not outright sadists or even “bad men,” in the sense that they believe they are doing the right thing (by enforcing the law; see earlier point).

      This is how the Soviet system worked. The Nazi system.

      And soon, our system, too.

  2. I am an older man, Vietnam vet. I was raised to be respectable of authority an am so to a fault. I have never had any trouble with the law other than about 5-6 speeding tickets in the last 50 years. But, the abuse of power by police has become very obvious and I must conclude that is the way they are being trained. Perhaps it is a by product of the air travel laws where you are assumed to be a terrorist until proven otherwise. I can remember when American citizens were assumed to be innocent. Recently, my girlfriend’s ex-husband was depressed, threatened to kill himself, and then drove off in his car after calling my girlfriend. She mistakenly called the police. She thought they would try to help him. Here is what happened. About a dozen cops showed up at our house, blocked off the streets leading to our house, herded us including her two children out in the street, searched our house, and stood around us in a circle us with semi-automatic rifles slung over their shoulders in a ready position. They watched us very carefully as our neighbors watched through their windows. My girlfriend was able to get her ex on the phone and he drove to our house. They let him through the road block and pushed him to the ground once he got out of the car and took him in. He did have a unloaded hunting rifle locked in his trunk. Hard to explain but I was very afraid of these cops. They was something very scary about these cops. They seemed very ready to kill someone. My girlfriend was crying as she asked the main cop to not hurt her ex, she explained he had lost his job and was going through some very tough times which was very unusual for him. The cop in charge said, that the safety of her ex was not his concern his concern was for the safety of his men. To me it was obvious that he and his fellow officers were going to error on the side of their safety. bty, cops in our areas average over $100k per year and have million dollar pensions after 20 years on the force.

    • I was taught to be respectful of authority, then I grew up and learned that respect is earned not conveyed by your job. So many active duty military say things like: you sign the dotted line, you obey orders. Ok, so if your commanding officer ordered you to point your weapon at the guy standing next to you and pull the trigger, would you? That would be obeying a direct order. it would also be a psychopathic act of murder. So do you obey orders or are you responsible for knowing the difference between right and wrong REGARDLESS if the guy standing next to you is American or not??????????????????

      • It’s a tragic irony that so few Americans – especially those who defend cops (and other officially-authorized thugs) who defend themselves and their actions by reciting, “I am just following the law (or orders)” don’t recall what happened to Adolf Eichmannn, et al, who made the same appeal to an entirely differently minded judicial system oh so long ago.

        The wheel turns. Once again, all that matters is The Law – and following orders.

        We are going to find out shortly where that gets us, I suspect.

    • Late to the party here, very late, but the cops have a boss and it is the mayor, County or City council.

      Get 15 to 20 folks to “join” an informal group.
      Over a few months each make a call the mayor and each councilman stating the issues and naming names.
      All go, and some make a statement at a council meeting.
      Do not sit together or even acknowledge each other but nod approvingly while the others are speaking.
      Make another call mention you were at the meeting or head about it from a friend, and ask what they intend to do.
      If nothing, do all you can to vote them out.

      A group of us are doing this very thing with our State reps and senators over open carry and other issues.
      The only thing they are doing, we tell them, is not enough!

      Federal Farmer

    • These flash mob robberies, racial beat downs (like the Wisconsin State Fair episode) and inner city rioting (like Vancouver and more recently London) are going to bring us troops in the streets, more police abuse, random searches, etc.; which will bring more unrest, protest and property damage leading to more police militarization, martial law and ultimately (open) military government.

      Those of us that understand what really happened in 1865 already know this is an occupied territory subject to “administrative” law and realize we’ve had quasi-military government for a long long time (Exactly when was reconstruction officially declared over?) That’s why traffic court judges blow you off if you try to assert constitutional rights and simply take your money. They sure won’t admit it, don’t want to piss off the slaves, there’s more of us than them. But that’s how it goes down all too often.

      Back when we were more honest, the Law of War (now kinder, gentler International Law) had a common sense axiom: If a sovereign occupies a territory with its military, that territory is subject to the will of the sovereign. For you clovers, that means (and I typed it slowly): If someone has a lot of men and guns on your land, they get to tell you what to do!

      So name for me any one of the U.S. territories or several states that does not have a United States military base on it….right, none….see legal axiom above. Of course our government would never use the military against our own people; after all that’s against the law……

    • And ahhhmmmm proud to be an uuuuhhhhmeeerrrrrikkkan, where at least ahhh know ahhhm freeeeeee.


      It’s infuriating just to watch. Tough guys choking out and body slamming people who are clearly harmless who could have been asked to leave (if dancing was a problem) or given a ticket.

      I’d really like to see these buzz-headed goons deprived of their guns, their badges and their “back-up” – and left to the mercies of those they “serve and protect.” I suspect it is going to come to that, and soon.

      I would not lift a finger to help any one of those cops get out of a burning car. I’d enjoy hearing their screams.

      • It’s nuts and I really don’t understand it. All I see is abuse of power and bullying. Is this what law enforcement is now? This is what you consider good, Clover?

        • Me either.

          I couldn’t do what those cops did to those people. Not one of them (the cops) said to the others: “chill… this is getting way out of hand… if we need to give these peopke tickets, then we give them tickets. But we don’t choke hold and body-slam non-violent civilians who – at most – are being slightly annoying…” No, these assholes were going to “enforce the law” – with full force!

          What kind of sick fuck – what kind of sadist/sociopath – wants to do this kind of thing to people for a living?

          • It’s obvious these cops are completely unskilled in any sort of combat/hand-to-hand. There are 999 different ways to bring a person into submission without using power/strength! Their take downs are completely ridiculous too. I’m surprised they didn’t hurt themselves doing it! -morons

            • They’re bullies – thugs – that’s all and no more. Men don’t do that kind of shit to people. I have no doubt that, stripped of the protection of “the law” and their badges and guns, these cretins would piss their pants if they had to face someone who was their equal, on equal terms.

              Really pisses me off. But I bet Clover loves it.

      • Soon those bystanders are going to attack the AGWs when this happens. Friend of mine told me a story, this was in the late 70’s, of how he and some others from Vietnam, in the early 70’s, had intervened on some cops attacking a peaceful anti war protest. They basically arrested and cuffed the cops because they were abusing the students.
        Beware the man who has nothing to loose.
        Another good crowd chant is:
        Beware! Beware! Beware the thing that is coming!
        Beware the risen People!


      • MOST cops are still honorable heroes–most of the time. But horrible training, and tolerance of the bad hats by other cops has stripped the former “thin blue line” of the respect they ought to have. I saw a jailhouse video of a woman thrown into a concrete bench by a goon-cop and knocked unconscious. Five heroes followed to comfort and rescue her. All the comments were about the monster and I was the first one to applaud the heroes. That is one reason our cops are decaying. Police work is truly difficult and needed and we need to APPRECIATE the ones who do it right.
        Freedom requires Responsibility and a sense of duty. It CAN be restored.

        • I don’t know about that. RIght out of the starting gate cops work for a criminal gang that collects their salaries through armed robbery, and gives them generous benefits and pensions on the backs of people who have no benefits and no pensions.

          Note that with people losing their jobs and facing poverty on a mass scale, government employees like cops – I won’t dignify them by referring to them as “workers” – still collect full salary and benefits, and governments are looking to raise taxes even higher to cover them. That’s the jack-booted “compassion” of the State.

          Even aside from that the reality is that 99% of cops give the other 1% a bad name.

        • Hi Lady,

          I’m a middle-aged, middle-class, college-educated white guy. I don’t “do drugs.” I’m a responsible citizen, homeowner and taxpayer. Yet I fear and loath armed government workers. Why? Why should someone like me – who isn’t a criminal by any sane definition – fear and loath armed government workers?The answer is obvious. Armed government workers are the criminals. They force people like me to pay for their “services” – which I have no interest in paying for – and (far worse) I am forced to pay for my own terrorization by these armed government workers, who will threaten my life for declining to wear a seatbelt or a helmet and force me – using the same threats of murderous violence – to produce “papers”on demand and require me to prove to their satisfaction that I am not “drunk,” despite my having given them no reason to even suspect I might be.

          They will Hut! Hut! Hut! me for not obeying outrageous “shelter in place” (house arrest) orders, or because I do not wear a Fear Mask or abide by antisocial distancing decrees.

          My point is, simply, that much – arguably, most – of what armed government workers do is not the legitimate/desirable work of dealing with those who harm other people (e.g., thieves, thugs, rapists, murderers, etc.). Instead, as they themselves state, they enforce the law. Whatever the law. Many of these laws being morally despicable because they punish people who’ve done nothing to cause harm to anyone else – instead, they have “violated” a statute. For this, armed government workers will resort to summary execution – if you “resist” – and drag you to a cage, if you “comply.”

          Why in the world would any decent person have the slightest respect for such a creature?

      • When the yankes pulled out the worst of the carpet baggers and scallywags got it in a bad way.
        Local hero killed some 25 of them.

        Same with those who joined with the Nazis in France.


  3. This comment is being reproduced from my private communication with Mr. Peters:

    I read your article about cops on LRC. I totally agree with you. Coincidentally, just I decided to validate the thesis that cops are sociopaths under controlled circumstances. I did so under controlled circumstances because I wanted to be able to counter the outcome of the cops actions.

    So, I was leaving work at around 5 PM and was about to merge on to the freeway. I saw a trooper driving in the left lane. I decided to speed up not to exceed the speed limit of 60 MPH and merged into the traffic just in front of the cop. There was nothing unusual about how I maneuvered this. Not to my surprise I saw the horrifying lights in my rear view mirror. I pulled over on the shoulder.

    The cop walked up to the passenger side. I had rolled down both the (tinted) windows because I did not want him to feel itchy in his palms and tase me. He asked me for the regular documents. I asked him what happened. He said I cut in front of him. I must have sped up to do so. Moreover he was pissed that a mere extraordinaire had did so to him. I am in the Army and was in my uniform so that in a way made him watch his mouth a little bit. To his accusation, I countered that I must be the biggest idiot in the world to speed up and cut off a cop. I told him that I was watching my speedometer especially since I saw him coming and never went over the speed limit. So, in order to prove that I was speeding he was admitting that he was speeding himself for me to get ahead of him. He took my license and came back and let me go.

    I was prepared to demolish him in a traffic court. I was upset about my friend being pulled over earlier and cited for going at the speed of the traffic flow. The trooper was in motion and claimed that her vehicles audio/video monitoring equipment had scanned him at 72 MPH in a 60 MPH zone.

  4. The suspect did back away from someone in plain cloths from a plain car with a gun drawn towards the direction of the MDSP car behind him.

    I would think it reasonable that most people with their heart pumping with adrenalin flowing would back away from an approaching individual with gun in hand. (either that or attack the individual)

    I think that the plain clothed officer approaching him with gun drawn could have lead to a tragedy over a speeding ticket. Thankfully a tragedy did not occur.

    I do not think the suspect was wise to be driving at times 100+ mph down the interstate. From the video, it seems that he is guilty of speeding. He could be charged for reckless or careless driving depending on the law and the prosecutor. If Anthony caused damage/injury to others, he could be facing more serious charges than speeding.
    I find it disingenuous that Anthony was charged after the fact and had his personal equipment confiscated after the video showed the MDSP in a poor light.


    Years ago I was side by side with another car at the light. I drove ahead of the car and made it ahead of him when the two lanes became 1 soon after the light. I then saw the hidden flashing lights from in the cabin. (An unmarked car) I pulled over. A plain clothed LEO came over and asked for DL. I reached into my inside jacket pocket. He immediately reached for my hand. I was startled and scared. Luckily that was all that happened and no ticket for me. I understand in hindsight that he was afraid that I might pull something on him. I was fortunate that he did not have a gun pulled out ready to use.

    I learned an important lesson that day. I inform the LEO of my intentions before I reach for any documents.

    • I agree that this appears ludicrous. I cannot think of a valid reason for this to occur. I do not know if he could have been saved with 60 bullet wounds. The paramedics may have been able to save him, if they were permitted access to Jose.
      “And the Pima County sheriff scolded the media for “questioning the legality” of the shooting.”

      Besides Jose’s death, this makes me most angry. Something seems terribly wrong here. There seems to have been a homicide committed by the people who should be serving & protecting the community. I doubt anyone will face any severe consequences for this action.

      Although it will not replace the life lost, I hope she is able to sue the town for big bucks. Maybe then they will consider their actions before some one else is needlessly killed.

    • All over “drugs” (i.e., arbitrarily-decreed illegal drugs). Our Cloverite society embraces this tyranny – this insanity – because Clovers like my brother cannot perform simple feats of logical thinking such as asking themselves why it’s ok (legal) to bust down people’s doors and assault them with automatic weapons because they are in possession of one type of drug (an arbitrarily-decreed-to-be-illegal one) but it’s ok (legal) to literally fill up your entire house with as much of other kinds of drugs (the arbitrarily legal ones) as you like, without ever having to worry about being shot dead by cops for doing so.

      Imagine being thrown into pound-me-in-the-ass prison for five years because, during the course of a traffic stop, a cop found three or four cases of Vodka in your trunk. Felony intent to distribute a controlled substance! Baaawkk! Of course, that doesn’t happen. But it would if you had a few bags of pot back there. And the Covers are ok with that. Gotsta keep those dangerous drugs off the street, ya know…. er, well… some of them, anyhow.

      Clovers eat up whatever rigmarole (no matter how convoluted or contradictory or even flat-out silly) “the law” – that is, Cloverite politicians – comes up with. It must be righteous, since, after all, it’s the law! And if you break the law, why, you get what you deserve!

      That’s my brother for ya…

  5. Clover will surely be ready to chew the carpet when he learns that today at least one motorcycle rider hit an indicated 164 MPH in a 55 zone… and he did it just for him.

  6. I was beaten severly by police once for simply attending a rock concert where a few attendees got out of hand and the police just started beating everyone in sight.

    Another time I was standing at the corner of a local shopping center waiting for my dad and a police officer accused me of being an outlaw biker (no motorcycle, no tattoos). He assaulted me in an attempt to get me to fight him or confess.

    Now, as anyone can see watching the reality TV show Speeders,the deputies in Calvert County Maryland sit in the woods with their laser radar guns wearing camoflage as if they are hunting deer. When they get a speeder they high five each other and celebrate as if they just scored a trophy buck or made a touchdown. They get way too much enjoyment out of their revenuing operation. $afety my a$$!

    • Damn dude! That’s some crazy stuff about the mall incident. I’ve encountered a few police officers that really had a chip on their shoulder and wanted to throw down, it’s bred into them. Sounds like you have a knack for it though. Haven’t seen that Speeders show. I’ll have to take a look.

    • About seven years ago, my dad was stopped for “speeding” on the PA Turnpike. My dad – a retired doctor – does not drive like I drive. He rarely drives faster than a few MPH over the limit, but in PA the cops can be real dicks and have been known to pull people over for as little as 5 MPH over, which, given the already ludicrously low limits (60 on the highway, etc.) is itself a disgusting rip-off under the guise of “safety.”

      But, I digress… .

      My dad – retired doctor, well-dressed, in his late sixties – gets pulled over for 66 in a 60. The cops ask if they can search his car. My dad foolishly gave them consent to do so. (I was not there to tell him otherwise and he, being a soft-spoken and not confrontational kind of guy, figured he had nothing to hide, so why not?) Well, of course they didn’t find any drugs (or plant any, thank God). But the asshole cop put my dad – again, retired doctor; soft-spoken older guy – through a stressful and menacing Gestapo-esque search without any legitimate reason for doing so (i.e., some sort of probable cause). He ended up just getting a speeding ticket but if I read later that the cop who put him through this drill had been paralyzed in an accident – or better yet – killed – I’d have cheered.

      • A CHP cop just gave me a ticket for 80 in 65 area. Unbelievable. 80 – 85 mph happens all the time, on every freeway whenever not crowded, in So Cal. I’ve had a clean driving record up to this point. I’m a safe driver who signals in advance of changing lanes, doesn’t tailgate, doesn’t weave through traffic like a maniac, and doesn’t cut other drivers off when changing lanes.

        I now hate cops with a passion. If I saw a criminal beating up a cop on a street, I would watch the cop get beat up until whatever happens to him. Who the fuck gives a ticket for 80 in 65 in an area where 80 is the norm? Who the fuck doesn’t let off a good citizen with just a warning. Fuck this CHP cop. I hope he suffers.

        I will go to court to ask for dismissal or reduction of conviction and/or fine.

  7. What the cops clover the >govs all over fail to understand, is that every instance like this that gets brought to the attention of the Mundanes reduces the bond of trust between “us” and “them”. They already see it as Us vs Them. Once enough CITIZENS see it that way it might get ugly. The Indiana supreme court ruling says we no longer have the right to resist ILLEGAL ENTRY of our homes (our castle!!) by the police. I believe the quote was something along the lines of “for any reason, or no reason at all” So, if a cop chooses to rape your wife or daughter, then you have no right to resist. Talk about breaking the trust. The other point is this. Cops have become gun toting revenue enhancement agents. Speeding?? Exceeding an arbitrary velocity set by some office worker… Then you are expected to pay tribute to the state. If you refuse… the costumed goon with a gun can collect a death sentance on the sopt. “There are none so enslaved as those that falsely believe that they are free”

    • jesse, there is no where that I seen that says it is your right to cause danger to others. 128 mph past other vehicles in the right lane doing wheelies is not ok. I would think a person should spend some time in jail for such an offense. I have no clue why that did not happen in this case. The only reason I can think of is that the police did not see the biker when he was at his worst.
      You know there has been no home invasion of anyone that I know by the police. I do not know what court ruling you are speaking of but I would think that the policeman would need just cause to enter a house. If there is signs that as you say someone is being raped in a house I pretty much doubt if the police need to get court approval to enter. Exactly how many times in Indiana do you know of where the police have illegally entered a house and started raping someone? I would bet if you did find a cop doing that you would be justified in doing pretty much anything to him. It is nice to make up what would happen in certain cases but it is another thing to have the actual truth in what does happen.

      • Nowhere that you seen, eh Clover?

        Didn’t you see the sign? Your IQ must be this high to post here.

        Gawd. Dealing with you is like trying to squeeze Jell-o.

        You spew out idiot non sequiturs then argue against them. No one ever said the guy wasn’t breaking the law, or event that he didn’t deserve a ticket. What has been argued is the response of the cops. That it’s excessive to threaten lethal violence over a traffic offense. That no reason (note: not hysterical fishwife emoting such as you are prone to) existed for that cop to suspect the biker was violent, or contemplating violence. Hence, pulling his gun (especially when out of uniform and before he identified himself) was grossly disproportionate and could easily have escalated the situation needlessly. (You – of course – never responded to my explanation about how police-type semi-auto pistols function; i.e., that they don’t have safety catches – other than the trigger – and as a result of this, they are very, very easy to discharge accidentally if your finger is on the trigger.)

        We also have argued that the cops’ subsequent Gestapo-style felony raid on the guy’s house was egregious; an example of our police state in the making. The cops can film us – and use that video as evidence against us. But if we film them, they’ll assault us as if we were murderers on the loose.

      • I wish the Jesus Hoover would come and vacuum up all the Clovers… everyone with an IQ under 100, except for a small number of them, since we’ll still need people to make us french fries at McDonalds and scrub bathrooms, etc.

        • Those jobs were once done by people with over 100 Iq.
          And should be.

          the problem is, we are allowing those with an IQ of 79 (forrest Gump) and a mean streak write and enforce our “laws.” And there is no policing those people after that. Mundanes won’t shoot a piggy in cold blood… the problem being: Cops ARE cold-blooded. Can’t kill them in “warm” blood… 😛

  8. And quoted directly from the 2010 NPMSRP Police Misconduct Statistical Report, dated April 5, 2011 at http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=4053 ; “While the rate of police officers officially charged with murder is only 1.06% higher than the current general population murder rate, if excessive force complaints involving fatalities were prosecuted as murder (sic: which they are not) the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by 472%.”

    In other words, in the United States we are FIVE TIMES more likely to be murdered by a police officer – than by a civilian!

    And as reported by Barry Cooper of http://nevergetbusted.com/2010/ , he has used the FBI’s own murder rate data to state that we Americans are SIX TIMES more likely to be murdered by a law enforcement officer, than by any civilian!

    Either way, American law enforcement has morphed into something much more prone to use violence as a resource against civilians, than law enforcement of earlier times, whose mission was to “serve and protect.”

    If you know ANYONE in law enforcement, I would highly recommend that you strongly encourage them to take the Oath Keepers pledge, and to fully understand what they are pledging – that is, to stand in defense of liberty and the Constitution against all unconstitutional orders or actions.

    • Nice stats DJ. I am not surprised by this AT ALL. Back in the day things had been different and sure there might be some good ones still around, but I think there are too many cops that are fucking scum bags. While on the subject, I also think there are too many judges that are even worse scum bags. This is EXACTLY why we see the articles every few months about a judge doing some EXTREMELY disgusting creepy ass shit. They are sick fucks and they employ their little suck fuck servants out in the field to carry on the daily sick fuck business. Safety, public welfare, keeping the peace, and upholding the law is just a past-time for the judicial system now, not a function. Get used to it!

      • Yeah… Just imagine what it would be like (and what kind of person would be interested in) spending their days arresting people (and ruining their lives) because they got “busted” with illegal (vs. legal) drugs, or pulling people over because they aren’t wearing their seat belts, or randomly searching/interrogating people who aren’t even suspected of having broken any law.

        • I think you would bring up an interesting point. I just wonder if you had two planes that take off every day. One plane everyone in the world knew that they were not allowed to do any searches and the other plane they had security. How many people would opt for the one without security. I would guess that the one without security would be a million times more likely to have someone come on it with a gun or a bomb compared to the one with security.

          When terrorists resort to having bombs in their shorts and bombs in their shoes then you know you are doing something right.

  9. And just a side note here… but for anyone reading this article by Eric that does not agree with him, or understand that there is something seriously wrong now with law enforcement in America, one needs go no further than to subscribe for free to “Injustice Everywhere” at http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ and their National Police Misconduct Newsfeed Daily Recap. If you do, once daily, you’ll receive their list of reported and verified police misconduct for that day. I have been a subscriber for quite some time, and I generally receive 15 to 30 reports daily within their single daily email – and that adds up to THOUSANDS of reports per year!

      • What a farrago of Cloverite non sequiturs that was!

        Note: Laws = plural. Hence: “Any laws that (sic) a policeman breaks are entered there.”

        Anyhow, to get back to your farrago of non sequiturs:

        No one that I’m aware of has disputed that the biker was riding in excess of the posted limit and hence not “innocent” insofar as violating the statutory speed limit is concerned. Your comment is (again) a non sequitur (look it up; as a product of government schools I’m assuming you don’t know what the term means).

        The point of contention here, Cloveroni, is whether threatening lethal force is justified over a motorcyclist speeding. You think it is. The rest of us don’t.

        You’ve tossed out all sorts of “what ifs” (e..g., What if he was a robber? What if he had a gun) all of them supported by… nothing. You don’t draw (or unholster) pistols unless you think you might have to shoot someone – and the only time you’re ever justified in shooting someone, you Cloveroni, you, is when there’s a “clear and present” objective reason to believe you are facing potentially lethal violence directed against yourself or some other person. That clearly was not the case here. The biker was not making aggressive moves toward the cop. He gave no reason to suspect he was either armed or violent. Hell, he wasn’t even trying to get away. But the scrawny little Barney Fife wanted to show how Large and Charge he is. And that gives you a chubby, I know.

        What makes you a Clover is your belief (expressed here scores of times) that virtually any measure is justified in order to enforce virtually any law. You do not believe that an individual has the right to be left in peace absent some specific probable cause to suspect he may be (for example) drunk or violating some other law. You throw that basic idea of Western law out the window in favor of an ends justify the means (any means) approach that gives the law and its enforcers carte blanche to do things like stop/interrogate/search anyone – everyone – because someone might be doing something illegal or which you simply don;t think they ought to be doing.

        You’d have made a great block fuhrer in NS Germany – and I am sure the New America will find a use for you, too.

            • Short bus: He meant, the rider could have run had he wanted to. But he did not. He made no attempt to flee/elude. Despite your idjit assertion to the contrary. (If you’re idjit assertion was correct, then you’d have to explain why he was not issued a ticket for that; arrested for that. If you attempt to elude and are caught, you will be arrested. You don’t just get a ticket and send a check in the mail).

              So – again – we have a young guy running fast on his bike; that’s it. Absolutely no reason to draw guns and threaten to shoot him (and potentially incite a gun battle, since the idjit cop was not in uniform, did not show ID but just jumped out of his unmarked car, gun unholstered… it would have been reasonable self-defense had the biker been armed, for him to have brought out his own gun, if he had one. In which case, there could have been a shootout – and possibly fatal injuries – all because the asshole cop needlessly escalated the situation.

              I know you think such things could never happen to a law-abiding (and badge-licking) Clover such as yourself. You’re wrong. It can – and it just may someday.

              And when it does, you’ll blink a them in wide-eyed surprise, wondering how this could happening to a nice guy like you… .

  10. Police in America have been militarized in earnest ever since 9/11. It has been reported that not only are many of the newer LEOs (law enforcement officers) returning military combat veterans who have been desensitized to violence, but also that many are addicted to steroids and PTSD treatment drugs. Our federal government has been training LEOs that veterans, constitution supporters, end the fed proponents, anti-abortionists, Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, small government and liberty proponents – among others – are all enemies of the state and of LEOs in general. Of course LEOs who believe such nonsense are being used by the very same globalists, the new world order, and the financial elite, who are foisting this propaganda upon LEOs and uninformed Americans in general. Thank goodness that there are organizations such as Oath Keepers, which are working hard to awaken LEOs and break the chains of this propaganda being put upon them by the enemies of liberty and freedom. Remember that not all LEOs are bad or brainwashed, and many are awakening. There are plenty of LEOs who have pledged to refuse to obey unconstitutional orders (such as civilian disarmament), and our civilian population outnumbers the LEOs by thousands to one at any rate.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .”
    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    • Very nice quote! Too many Clovers around these here parts (America) for any solid backbone. Our time has come and gone. We’re experiencing the downward spiral now of our experiment. Verdict is in bro. Greedy, hatred, power, stupidity, ignorance, and money won dude! Just listen to the voice of the new Americans, which can be found in Clover’s posts.

  11. I concur with your column and often wonder why policemen defend their colleagues who clearly have abused their “authority.”

    On an axiomatic level I believe violence always produces the opposite of its intended (beneficial) ends. Even in the most narrowly-defined instances of self-defense, violent means are fraught with unintended consequences.

    That said, in an environment where police abuses are increasingly recognized (I question whether their prevalence is growing or just better documented), and where the militarization of the cops is a direct threat to innocent citizens, really bad choices become the only ones available.

    People who wish to be “law enforcers” should, out of self-preservation, re-learn a central axiom of human relationships: Don’t piss people off too much; no one is bulletproof.

    BTW, those who defend police pulling guns for reasons having no discernible connection to immediate self-defense obviously have little or no experience with firearms. It is an awesome destructive power to hold, requiring but a light squeeze of the finger muscles to shred flesh and bone, crush arteries and nerves, to maim or kill in an instant!

    TV melodramas have taught two generations of Americans that fistfights and guns are No Big Deal. In truth, people occasionally die from being struck with a fist and very few gunshot wounds result in less than permanent maiming. To point a gun at another human being is a BIG DEAL. Stop letting those around you normalize such evil, including when costumed agents of the political system do it with little or no real cause.

  12. Hi Eric,
    I just read your article about the out of control tactics of some of our police around the US, and I wanted to email you since I just had this line of thought today while I was eating my lunch.
    There are so many cases lately of cops acting in ways that fail to serve the public interest. In particular, the no-knock warrant home-invasions have got to stop immediately. The militarization of the local police in America is extremely alarming to me and people need to wake up to it and demand better behavior from their police.

    If this trend is not reversed, I feel just as you mentioned, that people will start to treat police with contempt and distrust. And this will erode their credibility and their ability to protect the public.
    I am glad we have dedicated officers that handle the dregs of society on a weekly basis, and I am sure you appreciate that aspect of their service as well, but we cannot allow this type of behavior by public servants who are sworn to protect the citizenry.

    • Agreed.

      I find myself in a strange position. By nature, I am pro-cop (in the sense that I am anti-thug). When cops are doing a legitimate thing – going after the predators who make life miserable for the rest of us – then they have my backing and my thanks. But increasingly, cops are morphing into American Brownshirts who spend their time (or a great deal of their time) treading on the (former) rights and liberties of people who are by no sane standard criminals or even ne’er do-wells but rather “guilty” of violating some Nanny State (or Tyrant State) decree – and sometimes, not even that. Lately, you don’t even have to have been suspected of some “offense.” It is sufficient merely to be in a certain place, such as in the vicinity of a “checkpoint” – or for the cops to be in your vicinity (as in the case of no-knock/warrantless raids).

      It’s scary – but more scary is that so many of our fellow Americans don’t care or (worse) cheer such things.

      • Increasingly, Americans have little choice but to armor their doors to render a no-knock warrent’s execution impossible. The police depend on “Shock and Awe” (another War-over-there coming home to roost) and it they are stymied for a couple minutes trying to get through the door, it makes it more likely one will be able to phone 911 and explain that you’re armed and in fear of a home invasion, and that if the people trying to break in are legit, they’d better stand down and talk before there’s a tragedy to explain to the TV news.

        People in 3rd world kleptocracies have learned to surround their homes with high walls topped with embedded broken glass and razor wire, not to keep out the freelance criminals but to slow down the official ones. Methinks Americans are well on our way to discovering this necessity as well.

    • I don’t consider myself gun happy whatsoever. Matter of fact I never even shoot my guns, but if a no-knock home-invasion happens here I’ll be blasting and going down with the ship. I/we/all citizens work too fucking hard to be where we’re at and have the things we have. Our home is Our home.. Period!

  13. The unmarked cop should have displayed a badge as he exited his car. I would have shot the SOB, he could have been some guy pissed off about being passed and experiencing road rage.

    However I don’t think it was necessarily wrong for a uniformed cop to pull his gun in this case. The guy on the bike was obviously recklessly endangering life. Many times I have had these morons on their crotch rockets roar pass at 120+ just as I was contemplating a lane change. I don’t need one of these dick heads coming though my windshield.

    Private tracks are the place for those stunts not public roadways. I have an expectation of certain speeds as posted by law. I also understand that there will be some speeding and act accordingly but this guy was far and above that.

    • Only a comment about the guy shooting the unmarked policeman. You forget that it was obvious he did not have a gun. Everyone knows a reckless bike rider would never carry a gun.

      If you look at the video closely you would notice a marked car a few feet from the back of the motorcycle. The bike rider saw it.

    • When there is a marked car within 15 feet of your vehicle I would think showing a badge when the suspect was moving away would not be the first action.

  14. Concerning Graber’s Video:
    The officer was in plain clothes, driving and unmarked car, cut off the motorcyclist, and pointed a gun at the motorcyclist all BEFORE he announced he was an officer. I would back up too

    Secondly, the motorcyclist was stopped in traffic on an offramp and therefore was no longer driving recklessly; the danger was no longer imminent. There was no need to pull a gun whatsoever.

    Finally, No matter how much police train, they can accidentally discharge a gun and shoot an innocent bystander. So don’t pull the gun unless it is absolutely necessary which it wasn’t in this case.

    • On the gun: Very true. Clover is probably not a shooter and unfamiliar with semi-autos. The cop was likely carrying a Glock or Sig with a round in the chamber and a very light trigger. In a high-stress/panic scenario, it is extremely easy to let one fly. His weapon may not have even had a safety catch, Clover (in case you plan to ask). Sigs and many other similar “tactical” semi-autos are designed to be carried “locked and loaded.” The “safety” – with a round in the chamber, ready to fire with a light pull of the trigger – is the trigger. This is why it is even more important – if you’re not looking to shoot someone – to never unholster such a piece, let alone point it, unless you do plan to shoot someone. It is not like the old .38 wheelguns that most cops used to carry – and which were much harder to “accidentally” discharge.

      Bottom line: It’s crazy that we’re even debating this. Pulling guns on people who are clearly not violent felons is a symptom of the degradation of this country into a police state. That we are debating the actions of the cop shows just how far the police state mentality has become the American mentality.

      • Nice fiction Eric. I like your comments. Probably, likely, easy to let one fly. You still say the cop is pointing the gun at the guy. That is the video I saw. We would not have to debate any of this if we go off of the facts rather than making up things.

        • What’s fiction, my low-wattage Cloveroni? Do you dispute any of the points I made about the functional characteristics of tactical semi-auto pistols? Do you know any more about guns than you know about grammar – or history, or human nature?

          Pulling a gun is serious – potentially lethal – business. You are never justified in doing it, whether you’re a cop or a Mere Ordinary – unless you yourself have damn good reason to believe your own life is in mortal danger. Period. You don’t pull out a gun because a guy was speeding – even if he was doing 120. Last time I checked, doing 120 doesn’t justify capital punishment.

          The situation did not warrant the threat of lethal force.


          It was an insane over-escalation – and an example of the police state in the making we’re facing.

          There’s no reasoning with you, Clover, because reason is off the table. Your just feel and emote and see the world in terms of subjectives. You have accepted the age-old con that government somehow sanctifies actions that would be clearly immoral if the individual did them; that the government exists to protect us; that it is a basically benevolent institution. People such as you pave the way to the Gulags and to places like Treblinka and Auschwitz.

          Just trust the government; it knows best… submit. Obey.

          • The reason the cop pulled a gun was because the stopped guy started an agressive move to get away. Do normal speeders do such a thing? Is that not something a criminal might do?

          • Clover, some guy cuts you off with some sort of appliance car, gets out and draws a gun on you. What do you do? Look for a way to get out of there if you have any human instinct left.

            In the comment above you’ve completely submitted to the thinking of a police state. You have no ability to perceive the situation from the motorcyclist’s point of view. It’s the same idiocy by which the american public accepts the absurd foreign policy and foreign wars. They cannot see things from the point of view of people who have lived under US supported dictatorships. That’s how people get conned into accepting tyranny. You’ve been conned.

          • Brentp
            If I am driving at 120 mph and do wheelies and weave through traffic and pass someone on the right at over 100 mph I would expect to be stopped by the police. If when I am stopped with a marked car behind me and an obvious plain clothes cop in front of me with a normal police type manuever to cut me off and I start to move my bike away from them to get away, I would expect anything could happen. The same as I would expect something bad to happen to me if during a stop I start beating up on a cop. You may think that is ok but I was taught to do nothing like that.

          • One more thing BrentP, there was no audio on the clip right before the stop but why is it that all of the cars seemed to stop? Would it be that they all knew there were police coming behind them with sirens blaring?

          • Clover, you act as if crime doesn’t occur in front of cops and that cops don’t commit crime. Sorry, both happen. The uniformed cop behind only makes backing up away from the crazy guy with a gun towards the uniformed cops _MORE_ reasonable.

            Some day you might encounter people who want to appear as cops. Some are just people with issues, others are criminals. I’ve encountered the former but not the later. If you assume the crazy person is a cop and submit you could very well end up dead.

            • Amen to what Dom wrote: Clover is incorrigible. An almost sexual badge-licker. He believes the law is always right… because it’s the law. Else why would it be the law? That cops and other government authority figures are miraculously free of human frailty and defect – because they’re cops and authority figures! And that they always act properly and for our own good – by definition.

              Etc. Etc.

              Submit, Obey.

              Clover doesn’t like the idea that only specific harms done by specific people should invite the attention of law enforcement – the bedrock and ancient (former) basis of Western law since Magna Carta.

              So long as he can point to some general, possible “risk” – no matter how diffuse or remote – and as defined by him and his fellow Clovers – then it’s ok for laws to be passed subjecting anyone and everyone to random police attention.

              He is a born serf. The perfect New Man, not merely ready (happy) to be enslaved but lusting to see the entire world enslaved, too.

          • Gee why is pulling a gun serious business? It should allowed for every Americans via the 2nd Amendment according to Libertarians. Waving a gun in someone’s faces isn’t dangerous unless something goes wrong and if it doesn’t then no harm has been done. Considering way more people die from motor vehicle usage than from gun usage means gunplay isn’t particularly dangerous.

          • Gil: “Gee why is pulling a gun serious business? It should allowed for every Americans via the 2nd Amendment according to Libertarians. “

            That has to be the most inane comment so far today.

            The Second Amendment codifies the natural right of every person to possess a gun for self-defense. This incident was not self-defense. The biker was not doing anything that could be reasonably construed as constituting a mortal threat to that cop – and (for now) our laws don’t provide capital punishment for riding your motorcycle fast or doing wheelies.

            How you get from my criticizing the cop’s excessive force to some (imagined by you) Libertarian endorsement of waving guns around is an example of Cloverite “thinking.”

            I hope you were just trying to be sarcastic.

          • If someone breaks into my house, but is not armed, should it be illegal for me to shoot because technically my life isn’t threatened?

            I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion.

            Criminals, and by that I mean actual, violent felons (Such as people who try to commit murder, rape, breaking into someone’s house, exc. I’m not talking about petty misdemeanors) do lose their rights when they try to harm other people, at least during the commission of the crime. I don’t think I should be legally required to stand by and let a criminal abuse my property or in other ways aggress against me just because he is not able to kill.

            • Hi David,

              I agree – I’m not sure why you think I believe (or argued) otherwise!

              A person who breaks into someone else’s home – for whatever reason – loses the benefit of the doubt. If the homeowner shoots/kills him, the onus is on the person who broke in, not the homeowner.

              I hope I am never confronted with such a situation; I have no desire to hurt anyone. However, if some prick comes into my house in the middle of the night, I’m not going to ask him his intentions. I’m going to assume the worst – and respond accordingly.

  15. Gee you’d think a good argument against excessive speeding is that it’s endangering others lives. If that fellow lost control he could have potential hurt others. You’d think the Libertarian alternative is that people should get on a private racetrack thus not being in a position to potentially harm others. It’s akin to shooting a gun in public – for Libertarians it’s covered under the 2nd Amendment and it doesn’t matter how a person is shooting a gun as long as no one gets hit or no private property is damaged then it’s all hunky-dory.

    • Well, first, “excessive speeding” is subjective. Was he going a great deal faster than the speed limit? Sure. But does exceeding the posted limit automatically constitute “excessive” (that is, dangerous or unreasonable) speed?

      Keep in mind that just a few years ago, doing 80 (to be precise, 76) on many Interstate highways was reckless driving – legally speaking – because it was in excess of 20 MPH over the posted maximum speed limit of 55. Now, most of us – except Clovers, of course – know (and knew) that the 55 MPH highway limit was absurd. Hence, the tickets issued were unfair (the “minor” ones) and sometimes a travesty (such as “reckless” for driving 80 MPH).

      Today, in Virginia and many other parts of the country, speed limits are back up to 65-75, or about what they were in the early 1970s (before Congress imposed the 55 MPH limit). Traffic routinely runs at or close to speeds that were (in the “Drive 55” era) technically-legally speaking, “reckless driving.” But you don’t get a ticket today – or if you do, it’s a minor one. It is no big deal to be driving 80 MPH today. These speeds are about what the designers of the Interstate System had in mind when they laid out the highways – back in the 1950s. In other words, we’ve got speed limits that still assume 1950s-era parameters in terms of such things as tires, brakes, handling/stopping ability, etc. The fact is in a modern vehicle, a decent driver doing 90 or 100 MPH is no more “unsafe” (let alone “reckless”) than a 1950s or 1960s-era vehicle with a decent driver running 70 MPH was back in 1970.

      So let’s say the biker shot up to 100 or so for a few seconds (which is typical; if you ride, you’ll know what I mean). Is that really such a big deal? Sufficient cause to exexute a felony-style stop, whip out pistols and possibly incite a shooting that could easily have left someone (not just the rider) dead? Not to me.

      • Yes Eric, driving your motorcycle over 120 mph in traffic doing wheelies is a big deal. He also could have made someone else crash just by the fact that having something fly by you at 50 mph faster than what you are dirving can startle someone so much that they lose control. If he lost control he could have made other vehicles crash and roll over. That is a thousand times worse than someone pointing a gun at the ground.
        It still goes back to you saying the guy was just speeding. How the hell does the policeman know that the guy was only speeding? How do you know the guy was not running from something? How do you kknow the guy did not have a gun? How do you know that the guy was not a serious criminal since he was stopped by the police in a marked car and started backing away so that he could take off. It is all in the video. If the guy had parked his bike the policeman would not have drawn his gun and that is a fact. The truth as shown in the video is that the policeman had his hand over the gun and did nothing until the guy started to take off.

        The facts are never enough for you. You always add to them. The policeman pointed his gun at the guy? If the facts are not enough then don’t write about it.

        • Are you kidding with this?

          “the fact that having something fly by you at 50 mph faster than what you are dirving can startle someone so much that they lose control”

          If you can’t maintain control of your vehicle with people passing (at any speed) you don’t belong on the road.

          “How do you know the guy did not have a gun?”

          It’s pretty hard to shoot a gun while riding a bike.

          I mean, have you ever shot a gun. Have you ever ridden a bike?

          I think we’ll give you a break from the site for a bit, go chew up your carpet in the meantime.

          • Maybe it would be a good thing to remove people that make things up. Can not shoot a gun frm a motorcycle? Get real. I guess you have either not road a bike or shot a gun.

            Yes it is possible for someone to lose control because they are severly startled. That could and would cause someone to be startled whith anything flying past them 50 mph faster on their right side if they did not see them coming.

            • You’re right, Clover – I never have “road” a bike. Perhaps you’ll tell us all how that’s done?

              The rest: Once again, here’s an example of your Cloverish (i.e., totalitarian) mindset. You view the possibility of something – no matter how remote, no matter the absence of any substantive reason for believing it might be actuality – the same as you do the clear actuality. Thus, to you, even though the biker gave no reason to suspect he might be armed (let alone about to use any weapon he might have had) he ought to be dealt with as though he had in fact been armed (or gave good reason to believe he probably was) and not only that, seemed likely to use his weapon to commit a violent act.

              In effect, cops should be able to pull a gun on anyone – because anyone could (conceivably)be armed.

              It’s of a piece with your Cloverish bleating in support of random “checks.” Someone might be driving drunk, therefore everyone must be subjected to random arbitrary stops. There’s a one-in-a-million (and that’s probably an extremely low estimate) chance that some Abdullah will try to sneak explosives or weapons on a commercial flight – so everyone, even toddlers and old people in wheelchairs – must submit to a grope by a TSA goon or walk through a porno scanner… et cetera.

              To a Clover, the presumption is always guilt. Rights – civil liberties – take a back seat to the mere suggestion or possibility that an illegal act may have been committed or might be committed.

              And that’s why you’re a Clover, Clover.

          • Some more for Clover:

            In San Francisco, the city public defender is accusing undercover narcotics officers of stealing from suspects. For the second time in a week, Public Defender Jeff Adachi has released surveillance video footage that shows two officers walking into a residential hotel empty handed and leaving with bags that were not booked into evidence. One of the men whose rooms were searched, Jesus Reyes, said he recognized a backpack that was his being carried off. It contained a laptop computer and Sony digital camera. The officers with the bag were identified as Richard Guerrero and Reynaldo Vargas. Guerrero faces similar allegations in another case. Reyes was charged with meth possession, but those charges were dropped when Guerrero did not show up for court after being subpoenaed. SFPD officials said five officers seen on the video had been removed from plainclothes duty. The other three are Jacob Fegan, Christopher Servat, and Adam Kujath. This marks the second time in the past week Adachi has used video footage to allege police conducted illegal searches or stole from suspects. The revelations have prompted the dismissal of nearly a hundred cases and led the FBI to open an investigation. Stay tuned.

            In London, Kentucky, the former Whitley County sheriff pleaded guilty last Thursday to extortion, drug, and conspiracy charges for a pattern of conduct that extended throughout his stay in office. In pleading guilty, Lawrence Hodges acknowledged that he had been popping pain pills, ripping off cash from the office, and extorting drug dealers by busting them and then funneling them to a local attorney. Hodges got $50,000 in kickbacks, the sheriff’s office got $50,000 in “donations,” and the dealers got more lenient treatment. He admitted stealing $64,897 from the sheriff’s office, part of which went to buy pain pills. He also admitted looking the other way on drug sales by his favored dealers. Prosecutors are recommending 15-years in prison when he is sentenced in August. Hodges also faces a state court prosecution in which he is charged with stealing $350,000 from his office. He has pleaded not guilty to that charge. He was jailed pending sentencing.

            In Eureka, California, a former Eureka police officer was charged April 14 on a raft of counts suggesting he was a rogue officer. Daniel Kalis had been under investigation since January by the Humboldt County district attorney’s office, and the Eureka Police initiated their own investigation in March. On March 7, Kalis was placed on leave. He resigned early in April. He is charged with possession of a controlled substance (heroin), unauthorized communication with a prisoner, possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, false imprisonment, possession of controlled substances without a prescription, unauthorized disclosure of motor vehicle records, unauthorized access to a computer network, petty theft, and vandalism. More charges could be pending.

            In Muscatine, Iowa, a former Muscatine police officer pleaded guilty last Friday to drug and theft charges. Scott Burk, 48, was arrested last August after an investigation by state and local police. Authorities found cocaine in his vehicle and home, along with missing funds from the Muscatine County Drug Task Force. He pleaded guilty to cocaine possession, a drug tax stamp violation, and second-degree theft charges. He faces a year for the possession charge, and five years each for the other two. He will be sentenced in July. His attorney said Burke is currently in drug treatment and will seek probation.

            • They must have had a good reason! Cops never do anything illegal, excessive or criminal. They’re here to protect us! Safety! The children!

    • Once it is decided that people should be punished for what could happen to themselves or others there is no longer freedom but at the whim of the state. The reason is that once that has been accepted as a premise there is no limit to the constructs that can be created.

      One of the more absurd constructs is that rain barrels are made illegal because collecting rain water could prevent the use of that water by people down river.

      As to driving, other drivers can risk our lives on a daily basis with their poor driving and nothing is thought of it if they do it slowly rather than fast. When was the last time you saw someone ticketed for merging into 70mph at 35mph by cutting off another driver? Try making a safe merge by accelerating properly and if a cop is around there’s a good chance he’ll write a ticket for it.

      • The cops will ticket or put in jail if it is bad enough anyone that willfully endangers others. You must believe like previously stated that it is fine to shoot a gun into a crowd and you should not be prosecuted as long as no one was hit.

        If the normal accident rate is say 1 in a 200 thousand miles and you willfully drive in a manner that makes the risk 1 in 500 miles then I think you should be prosecuted. Your rights to do whatever you like ends when it causes a significant risk to others.

        • You don’t get it. You never will until some cop decides it is time for you to be fined or arrested and then you’ll complain about that horrible cop who charged you for a victimless crime. The news media runs stories on a regular basis on people that have become the target of law enforcement “unfairly”. People who think that the cops should only enforce laws on “bad people” not “good people” like themselves.

          What I always find amusing is when the local speed kills busy bodies are the ones who get ticketed in the crack down they demanded.

          To risk, life has a non-zero risk. Everything we do has a non-zero risk. Once you make things illegal based on having a non-zero risk you’ve opened the door for laws on everything. All you’ve done is empower the state. Instead, how about instead, statutory compensation? If your motorcycling harms someone at 120mph, you have to pay compensation times a factor of one thousand. No power in that for the state. No power in that for control freaks to run other people’s lives, and that’s why foolish risk taking isn’t punished that way, a way which actually would compensate victims and discourage the behaviors. Instead the behaviors are about not getting caught by cops and victims are left with little recourse.

          • Naw Brent, you don’t get it. Clover cracks corn and no one cares. You have successfully engaged a tod. Your points, no matter how sounds and relevant, are completely useless against this creature. Move on, I have!

          • Brent,
            Who would enforce the statutory compensation? Or even WRITE the statute?

            Immediately, there is a system. Immediately, there will be officers of the court. Immediately, the system will start to be corrupted. 🙁

          • I can’t remember my train of thought from two years ago.

            I assume you are discussing stateless society which I wasn’t in this exchange. I think I was merely discussing a way to achieve better safety results without having a system that benefits the state as an institution. It is quite possible to have a state or other institution that enforces rulings of compensation to people harmed instead of a system that collects fines for itself and puts people in prison for the same behaviors.

  16. Nice video of the motorcycle incident. Truely brilliant to cut off the part of how the motorcylce rider was driving. If the cop did not have his gun drawn then he should have. Back in the days where there were not any police around he would have been shot by someone. Truely brilliant to edit out the bad parts of the so called innocent victoms.

    • What part of speeding is a mystery to you? Do you really need to see a video of someone speeding to know what it looks like? Just imagine a speedometer and the needle above the speed limit.

      • Dom if you had looked at the entire video the driver of the motorcycle had nothing to do with any type of speeding that I have ever seen. I guess you say that his drivng was fine but if that is the anything goes mentality that you want to go to then I do not want to be on the road with you and your friends.

    • Clover this another example of your terminal Cloverism. Draw a gun on a person (and implicitly threaten them with death) merely because they were speeding? Note well: The biker was not “attempting to elude” – nor had he harmed anyone. Just speeding. A traffic offense. That’s all.

      Since when did speeding (or any non-violent traffic offense) become a capital offense?

      The scrawny little thug with the gun (the official goon, the cop) made no attempt to effect a reasonable traffic stop. He didn’t first show his badge, identify himself as a cop and say, “pull over!” That would have been reasonable. And it would have been reasonable for him to escalate if the biker refused to comply or behaved threateningly. (It is clear he did neither.)

      Instead, this turgid little thug (who probably beats his wife/kids) jumps out of his unmarked car and immediately draws his gun on the guy.

      The rider – anyone in that situation – could quite reasonably have assumed he was being targeted by a street criminal (not much difference anymore, really) and, reasonably, defended himself. If the rider had a gun, he – reasonably – might have reached for it in an effort to protect himself – and either been shot or shot the thug/cop or stray bullets might have hit bystanders.

      Over a freaking speeding ticket. No violence. No attempt made to resist let alone threaten the thug/cop – who was completely over-the-top aggressive and escalated a situation to potentially lethal levels without any justification.

      And you love it.

      Because you are a Clover.

      • Eric and Dom, a speeding ticket is someone driving 10 to 15 mph over the limit and causing only a slight danger to others. The person in the video broke probably a dozen laws and endangered dozens of people. Do you not understand the difference? How did the police know that such a driver was not a robber and trying to escape. That is the only time that I have seen such driving. Usually only in a movie. Even real life car chaces do not look that bad.

        • Cloveroni… where to begin?

          A. You have no idea how fast the biker was going.

          B. Your definition of a “speeding ticket” is just that – your own personally confected definition. (Even “reckless driving” is often just a statutory speeding ticket; i.e., doing in excess of “x” MPH over the limit.)

          C. You assert absurdities that not even the cops asserted (e.g., the biker was a robber and trying to escape). He had not committed – or even been suspected of having committed – any sort of real crime or violent act. Not vehicular manslaughter. Not hit and run. Just speeding. A non-violent (and minor) traffic offense. (Note well, Clover: The biker was not arrested at the time of the incident; he was just issued a traffic citation.)

          D. You avoid dealing with the most relevant fact – that the biker made absolutely no aggressive/threatening moves and was not even suspected of being a potentially violent criminal (see point C above). Therefore, use or threatened use, of deadly force was by definition uncalled for, excessive – and dangerous to all around.

          The only time a person should be staring down the barrel of a cop’s gun is when that person is suspected of being a violent criminal, or appears about to become one (by attacking the cop).

          This business of pulling guns on people over speeding, or Tazering them merely for questioning a cop’s motives during a traffic stop – is an obscenity and despicable.

          I know you think it’s all in a good cause; that “law abiding” people have nothing to fear. That’s why you’re a Clover, Clover.

          • Ibern –

            Exactly. We should not expect that the militarized police (and militarized tactics) used to “fight fer freedom” in eyerak and elsewhere will not eventually become the norm here. You can’t have a brutal empire abroad – and a freedom-loving republic at home.

            Blowback is a bitch.

          • Unfortunately, groveling, cowardly little bootlickers like Clover don’t get it

            The U.S. is know the land where most of the people can be fooled all of the time.

          • The thing about Clovers is they don’t “get” that what goes around, comes around, i.e., once you allow the state to brutalize anyone, then everyone is vulnerable. Utimately, it’s just a matter of time. All the Clovers see is that “those people” (“speeders,” pot smokers, whatever) are getting what they deserve (according to Clovers), not realizing that one day, they (the Clovers) are going to be getting what they deserve, too.

            I doubt Clover has ever even heard of Martin Niemoller let alone read his famous comment in re the above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…

          • 00You are right Eric I have not heard or read abuut Martin Niemoller. I guess I do not need to since I know the difference between pointing a gun at a person and the grou nd. I know the difference between a simeple speeding violation and driving 128 mph weaving through traffic. I know the difference between someone protecting themself and an agressive act. It seems to me that others need to do a lot more studying than what I need to do. I also know the difference between an undderwriting loss and a huge gain.

      • Eric, et al. –
        I’m hesitant to defend a clover’s comments on this site. There is, however, a bit more to the Anthony Graber story that needs mentioned here.

        There are, or were two versions of Graber’s video posted online. The first one was the edited version that shows little more than the stop performed by Trooper Uhler. The second and more relevant video shows Graber’s riding in the minutes leading up to (and including) Uhler’s actions. Graber was riding on a public highway in excess of 100 mph, and pulling wheelies at various times whilst riding at supra legal speeds. Speeding is one thing, but reckless riding is ostensibly why Uhler chose to shut Graber down in the manner that occurred.

        The long video suggests that Graber is a skilled rider, but he was nonetheless performing dangerous stunts on a public highway.

        You will get no disagreement from me that Uhler’s manner of performing a traffic stop was far from perfect. What I’m asking for here is some perspective, based on the fact that Graber was doing a hell of a lot more than “speeding”.

        Here’s the original, edited video:

        If you click on the video link that appears at 0:03, you’ll see that the account holder has removed the long, or “wheelie” version of the video.


        • James – see the post I just left for Clover.

          Yes, the guy was riding fast. But (to me) the salient facts are:

          * The rider did not make any violent/threatening moves toward the cop; he was not suspected of having done anything more than ride his bike fast. Very fast, yes, But again, just a traffic offense. Not criminal violence – the only time a cop is justified in pulling a gun on someone and literally threatening to kill them.

          * The cop did not attempt a reasonable stop first, before escalating things. He didn’t show his badge and say, “pull over!” He just cut the guy off, jumps out of his car with a gun and points it at the guy. Scary – and dangerous. I have a CC permit. I keep a gun with me at all times. If some random dude (as far as I could tell) jumped out of his car and pointed a gun at me, I’d be likely to point my gun at him (or reach for it). And then I’d be dead (in this case). Or the cop would be.

          Over a freaking speeding ticket.

          Look: If the guy had hit and run someone, or was coming at the cop – or suspected of being a violent thug on the loose – I’d be totally ok with (hell, I would want) the cop to use/theaten to use lethal force. But this was way over the top and it’s an example of the increasingly common use of disproportionate tactics over penny ante stuff on people who are no threat to the cops or anyone else.

          • Your mind is made up on this matter, Eric, and I respect your comments. We do agree on most points here. Trooper Uhler is no saint, nor are the follow-up actions of his department.

            I do maintain that Graber’s riding constituted reckless endangerment.


        • Lets for a moment consider the morality here. I have been endangered a fair number of times by cops driving recklessly on the public highways. What would have happened to me if when in the instances I caught up to the cops, I pulled a gun out and pointed it at them in order to charge them with a violation or crime for their reckless behavior? As reasoning I offered the typical excuses of my own safety and paranoid possibilities that the cop was some sort of criminal, insane, on drugs, etc and so on.

          You know as well as I do that such a reaction would have been considered a violent crime. If it is a crime for you or I it is crime for the cop in any free and just society. Thus, this is an example that despite all the rhetoric we do not live in a free country.

          • The cop pointed the gun at no one. Don’t forget the motorcylist was trying to escape and that is when the cop pulled out his gun and pointed it at the ground. The facts are no good on this site though. They get deleted.

          • Way to ignore the point I was making Clover.

            Anyway, do you believe what is at 3:16 in the video in Jim’s post wouldn’t get you or I a prison sentence (or dead) if either of us raised a gun that high to a recklessly driving cop (on or off “duty”) who was backing away?

          • To a Clover, cops are exceptional – spayshull – Protectors. The rules do not apply to them, because after all, they’re cops.

            Clover does not appreciate the irony of this position, of course.

            He’ll bubble over with indignation, too, when I point out that many non-cops are much better drivers (and better equipped to drive fast) than most cops. A state-sanctioned goon in a POS Crown Vic with 90,000 miles is allowed to banzai through heavy traffic at 90 MPH while a guy in a brand-new M3 with an SCCA license in his wallet will be nailed to the wall for doing 80 on an empty (except for the cop running radar) road out in the middle of nowhere.

            Safety first!

  17. Oh man, I can’t even imagine how bad things would get if I u-turned before the safety check points that are setup near my house once a month or so! Eric, have you had the opportunity to check the laws in Virginia on video taping? I would be willing to do an experiment!

    • Here’s some stuff I found; apparently, it is only illegal – so far – in three states, Maryland, Michigan and Illinois:

      In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland), it is now illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

      The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

      Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law — requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

      The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

      In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s electronic surveillance law — aka recording a police encounter — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals….” (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

      The selection of “shooters” targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

      Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

      On his website Drew wrote, “Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility.”

      Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

      In short, recordings that are flattering to the police — an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog — will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

      A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

      On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III’s motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

      The case is disturbing because:

      1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents’ house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

      2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, “It’s more [about] ‘contempt of cop’ than the violation of the wiretapping law.”

      3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is “some capricious retribution” and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber’s traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

      Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. “Arrest those who record the police” appears to be official policy, and it’s backed by the courts.

      Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: “For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man.”

      When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

      Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,” the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

      As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials.”


      • Illinois law is interesting. While generally a recording without the permission of the other party would be illegal under the eavesdropping law, there is a particular exception. That exception is a traffic stop.

        The exception does not specify law enforcement personnel making the recording. It simply calls out that audio of a traffic stop may be recorded so long as there is accompanying video. Essentially, the part of the law written to make police dash cams and body microphones legal is written correctly such that the law is the same for the people and the government’s employees.

  18. I caught the end of an OLD episode of COPs today. An old episode of COPs is like a shock to the system of how bad things have gotten in the last 20 years. The way cops behaved 20 years ago is just light years better than today and that wasn’t all that good then.

    Sure they were on their best behavior for the cameras, but just look at a recent episode for apples to apples contrast of “best behavior”. I’ve seen old episodes where guns were left with neighbors, a cop got rear ended by a drunk driver and remained entirely calm and civil (I’ve been the subject of a ‘roid raging cop because I looked at him in a way he didn’t like after he turned left across my path forcing me to stop), civilly talking to people and resolving disputes, and much more that has been replaced by immediate rage, force, and violence.

    BTW I like the term “Mundanes” even better, I don’t know if Will Grigg created it, but that’s where I first encountered it so I credit him until I learn otherwise.

    • Back in the ’80s – when I was in high school/college – I got pulled over many times for “speeding” (this was the era of the 55 MPH highway limit, so today’s no-big-deal and legal/nearly legal travel speeds of 75-80 could lead to a big ticket – sometimes even “reckless driving” – back then).

      It was routine to get out of your car and walk over to the cop to discuss the matter. You could even argue with the cop and not risk a beating, Tazering – or worse. They didn’t ask to search your car. They did not pat you down. Drawing a gun on someone (without seriously provoking it by some obvious/overt physical threat) was unheard of.

      No “safety checkpoints.”

      You were pretty much free to go about your business until you – specifically – did something to prompt a stop. They could not just pull you over or stop you or demand to see ID “just because” (i.e., because the robed tyrants decreed it was ok to fillet your civil rights in the name of combating some generic “threat” such as “drunk driving”).

      Then it changed. “Mom Culture” – a psychological dysfunction that elevates risk-aversion to a kind of pagan cult on the altar of which all freedoms and civil liberties must be sacrificed (or at least, take a back seat) arose. Baby on Board! Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Moms everywhere. The children….

      After that came the Cloverites and their disgusting worship of authority and willingness to give free reign to it, in order to “protect” us and and in the name of “security.”

      9/11 sealed the deal. Since then, the country has been a de facto police state – and I suspect soon will become a de jure one.

      It will only take one more “threat” (not even necessarily another “attack”) and the Clovers and Moms will beg for the boots.

      Of course, they’re too limited in intelligence and indifferent to history to grasp that the boot will come down on their necks, too. Or perhaps they just look forward to that, craving “protection” and “security” – and fearing and loathing liberty – as they do.

      And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free…

      • I got a ticket in southern Oregon in the mid ’80’s. The speed limit was 55 MPH, and I was going downhill (6 percent grade) on a straight bit of I-5 at 65 MPH. I was polite too . . . until the patrolman told me that driving faster than 55 was dangerous. I asked him, “Dangerous for whom?”

        I then told him that the fastest I had legally driven on the open road was 140 MPH. That was in Nevada, when there were no speed limits on the open road. The fastest I had ever driven (illegally) on the open road was 147 MPH in the same turbo-charged Datsun B-210 I was driving when he stopped me.

        I find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that the speed limit in Califnordia (AKA Absurdistan) is 70 Miles Per Hour when the Interstate Highways were designed for a safe 75 to 80 miles per hour in cars that were designed and built more than half a century ago. Cars that had drum brakes, bias-ply tires, crappy steering, massive unsprung weight, live axles, single master cylinders, and not only did those cars have no crumple zones, they didn’t even have seat belts . . . much less air bags.

        Many of these cars were aerodynamically unsafe as well: the 1959 Chevrolet sedan, for example, had a body-style which generated so much lift that at 100 miles per hour, it had 60 pounds road weight on each front tire, and 40 pounds on each rear tire — this was discovered in wind tunnel tests. At 100 miles per hour, the car had an effective road weight of 200 pounds! This same ’59 Chevy had a shipping weight (no gas, passengers or luggage) of 3,645 pounds. In other words, it was almost flying.

        In Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah, the speed limit is 75 miles per hour. And on I-15, between Saint George and Sulphurdale, Utah, it has recently been raised to 80 miles per hour.

        Today, cars have radial tires, (invented by the French) disc brakes and rack-and-pinion steering, (invented by the British) dual master cylinders, MacPherson strut suspensions, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, and neutral aerodynamics.

        In most places, 90 miles per hour would not be excessive.

        I suspect that the reason for such low speed limits (especially in Absurdistan) is not so much for safety as it is for reasons of generating “revenue.”

  19. Mr. Peters –

    What you describe above (“The speed limit at the time was 65 MPH. A state cop ahead of us was toodling along at about 75.”) was something that I witnessed this morning on my own stretch of I-81. Two unmarked Crown Vics were toodling along in the passing lane at approx. 80 mph. The flow of traffic was 70 mph or so; thus, their transit didn’t appear excessive. Nonetheless, the posted limit is 65 mph. The 5-0 were just rolling, and did not appear to be in pursuit of anyone.

    As the road was wet and I was riding my motorcycle, I didn’t want to press my luck by twisting wrist and following them in the left lane.

    That’s it. Sorry that there’s no add’l. drama here. I can only conclude here by saying that my respect for der polizei did not expand or contract after witnessing our intrepid officers making good time on the Interstate this morning.


    • A fellow Virginian!

      As you’ve noted (and as I wrote) this kind of thing is commonplace. The fact that cops routinely drive faster than the posted limit on both highways and secondary roads tells us much about the cant they spew when issuing tickets to non-cops for doing exactly the same thing.

      Related: The “war” on drugs. I’ll start by saying I haven’t touched pot since college (20 years ago) but admit I did smoke pot sometimes in college. The larger point I want to make is that virtually everyone I know – and I suspect virtually everyone younger than 50 or so today – either smoked pot themselves at one point or had many friends who did. And who know there’s no harm in it (as such), at least, no criminal harm in it (like smoking cigarettes, it’s obviously not good for your health, of course). Yet some of these people became cops, or judges, or lawmakers – who turgidly advocate throwing people into prison and ruining their lives for doing nothing more than that which they themselves once did (and got away with). And which they know to be harmless – or at least, no more harmful than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes – to name two of our arbitrarily legal drugs.

      It makes me sick.

      • I’m actually domiciled up in Pennsylvania.

        I would love to go riding on some of the lovely roads in VA and WV, though. “One of these days.” 🙂

        The Crown Vics mentioned in my initial post were probably being driven by detectives with the PA State Police.

      • Thank you for the article Eric.

        In a sense, this is what happened when “Peace Officers” evolved into “Law Enforcement”: Their job is no longer to “Protect and Serve,” but to enforce the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats.

        Or as my father (who was a totally disabled World War II combat veteran) had said, “All the things we fought against in World War II, our own government is doing to us today.”

        Or, in the words of Robert “call me Bob” LeFevre, “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.”

        And in regard to the war on (some) drugs, dad said the following: “We have the exact same situation in this country today as we did when I was a boy and alcohol was against the law.”

        And to quote Bob LeFevre again: (Regarding politicians, bureaucrats and the police) “Nothing is ever too good for them, because they see themselves as being PART OF ‘the public good.'”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here