Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One of the worst aspects (and there are many) of “law enforcement” in Late-Empire America is the unwarranted – rapid and violent – escalation of response by police, often out of all proportion to the original “offense” and when the “offender” is clearly no physical threat to the cop or anyone else.

For example, there’s the infamous case of Audra Harmon, who was pulled over for a minor traffic violation; ordinary speeding. The woman – a mom with her kids in the car – argues with the cop, asking that he show her the radar readout,rather than being immediately servile and submissive. The cop – a large man – begins to scream at her, then physically assaults her for “resisting,” ultimately Tazering her, forcing her to the ground and handcuffing her in front of her kids. Here is the video of that incident:

Now, granted, it may not be smart to mouth off to a cop – even when you’re being waylaid for no good reason (or for a trumped-up reason).

But this was blown out of all proportion, given the minor nature of the “offense.” And of course, the woman was in no conceivable way any threat to the cop.

That no longer matters. Simply objecting , verbally – or passively declining to immediately follow whatever orders are shouted at you – has become “resisting” in the minds of many cops. We now have a system in place that not only permits but encourages an over-the-top response to trivialities such as failing to “buckle up for safety” – or openly criticizing a pat-down by a GED reject TSA goon. And once there’s a pretext, any pretext – the least “resistance” (that is, failure to immediately cringe, submit and obey) can lead to outright physical assault.

Here’s another example:

Some kids were out on their skateboards. Apparently, in violation of some petty ordinance. A shorts-wearing fatty cop and his similarly porcine partner roll onto the “scene.” The first cop roughly snatches one kid’s skateboard, then body slams the other kid for daring to not immediately Submit and Obey. Rewind your mind: a 250-plus pounder hurls himself onto the person of a scrawny adolescent as if he were taking down Ted Bundy… over a skateboard ordinance violation. Imagine if this were your 14-year-old kid. Here’s the video of this incident:

One last example:

A woman is stopped for … jaywalking. She gets mad, understandably. The situation escalates. The cop – another big burly man – punches the woman in the face, full fist, full force. And it all began with… jaywalking.

Here’s the video:

The root problem is that we have so many petty laws in the first place. Cops should not be put in the position of having to enforce ridiculous – and tyrannical – edicts that naturally get people’s backs up, because people quite rightly object to being handled like criminals or talked down to like an idiot child over something that is – in a sane society – absolutely none of the cop’s business in the first place.

It used to be that, for the most part, only criminals – actually dangerous people, sociopaths – had to fear being handled roughly by cops. Now society is so interwoven with laws that it is almost impossible to step outside of your door without violating one and thus, find yourself the target of law enforcement.

An interesting aspect of this is the psychology involved. Criminals – dangerous people, sociopaths – understand what they are and know what they’ve done and so rarely evince genuine outrage when caught, roughly or otherwise. But the rest of us – the John Qs. and Janes just trying to live our lives – we take affront when a cop suddenly appears and begins quoting “the law” and spewing threats at us. This combination of shock and outrage contributes to the escalation of the situation. That woman in the first example above probably could not conceive that she would be Tazered and bullied to the ground by a cop – a personage that she had almost certainly (like most of us) been conditioned from an early age to regard as her (and “society’s”) guardian angel. Cops just didn’t do that kind of thing to housewives. Or kids. Or old people.

Or anyone else not a threat to them – much less “society.”

But that was before society began policing every aspect of our lives, giving cops a reason to hassle us where none existed before – and providing the pretext for the escalation we see all around us. There is, quite literally, no way out. Or at least no good way out. We have two choices:

Passively – and immediately – Submit and Obey to each and every law, no matter how petty, unjust or ridiculous. Never say anything to a cop except “yes sir” and “no sir.” Do whatever they say, every time – without question – period.

Or, dare to question – and risk the consequences of “resisting.”

In other words, we have the choice between abject servility – or at least trying to retain our dignity even in the face of possibly hideous consequences.

In a very real sense, it is the same choice articulated more than 200 years ago by another “resister” by the name of Patrick Henry:

“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Henry – indeed, the entire founding generation – would find themselves on the wrong side of “the law” (and cops’ Tazers) were they alive today.

Will we stand with them?

Or with the Clovers?








  1. This is a great article Eric, thanks. As a Virginian by birth and now a Missourian by choice (since the Comm-unist-wealth of Virginia turned into an outright police state some years ago) let me point out a few things to the clovers on the “troll” here.

    George Washington said that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. It is dangerous, because it is too easy for a useful fire or a state that is serving you to get out of hand and overcome you. Once government becomes your master, it has every reason to be fearful, because just like a runaway fire, your first impulse will be to try everything you can to put it out. Since tyrannical governments are comprised of men that desire power, adulation and wealth, regardless of the consequences to their fellow countrymen, they will do anything to keep their ill gotten gains. They will use the public schools and media to indoctrinate, taxes and fiat currency to steal wealth, bogey-men and false flag operations to frighten and inflame hatred, plethoric laws and the police to subjegate and subdue the sheeple. They will hire and promote underlings that are just like them which perpetuates the problem.

    Kudos to the clover who could film for hours and never have a problem, you are their perfect citizen: a spineless, brainless, nutless, gutless lump of state sponsored modeling clay ready to rat out your neighbors and turn a blind eye to the most heinous injustice so long as it it perpetrated by the state and they let you keep a portion of the fruits of your labor (if you even have any “fruits” if your own and aren’t receiving some kind of government check at our expense). You, clover, were a member of the German church choir that sang louder when the train cars of the Nazi’s victims rolled by so you wouldn’t have to hear their screams. You are the lifeblood of the state and the enemy of your self sufficient and individually responsible fellow countrymen.

    In the United States of America, our basic principles of law were that you were innocent until proven guilty, you had equal protection under the law and no crime was committed unless there was a bonafide injured party (not the abstract “people” or “state”, but an actual human victim or victims). With that in mind, it was assumed that it would be better for ten guilty men to walk free, than for one innocent man to suffer loss of property, liberty or life.

    When the police start administering pre-judicial punishment with baton or electro-shock torture device because you dare question them or the “administrative” law they are enforcing, you have tyranny and a police state plain and simple. If that’s what you want, then you don’t have the spirit of a true American and I respectfully request that you leave immediately for North Korea. You’ll be happy there.

    Consider this: in order for the political-corporate class to comfortably and easily extract our wealth from us, surveill us, disarm us and control us, they have to have foot soldiers to enforce their will. Seatbelt laws, sobriety checks and licenses aren’t there for your safety or security. They are there so the state can interfere with you whenever they so choose. Since the American people (so far) are rather sensitive to actual military men pounding their streets (don’t worry that’s changing), the police are the de facto occupying force. Right down to their insignia of grade (and I’m a vet, so I know).

    Running ten or even twenty miles an hour over the arbitrary speed limit on a dry road, with no other cars around harms no one. But let Officer Friendly see you do it and you pay. He can’t present an injured party before the court and it’s his word against yours. Since he is an officer of the court and you are sheeple, guess who’s word carries the most weight. Never mind that his career path trajectory will be higher if he brings in more revenue for the county, city or state. Never mind that your presumption of innocence or his failure to abide by his own administrative procedures should be enough to set you free. In this so-called “Land of Liberty” (now a hollow boast) the judge should tell him to stop harassing citizens, wasting the court’s time and to go investigate actual crimes. But the judge gets paid out of the same coffers the cop does and unless you either have hard evidence of your innocence (one cop actually told me “no pictures, no proof”), most likely you and your hard earned money will soon be parted.

    But let Senator Buttmunch or Councilman Funderbluck, completely trashed, leaving the country club at 1:00 AM , park his SUX 9000 up against a lamp post at 45 MPH and Officer Friendly will escort him home with a wink and a nod. If Officer Friendly decides to administer a little equal protection and write the Councilman a ticket, he’ll probably watch the Chief tear it up on Monday morning. If he makes an issue of it, they’ll change the court date and not inform the Officer (I have friend who this happened to and he quit the police force because of it, darn shame too because he was an honest cop). Whether you like it or not, that’s how the system really works too much of the time and in America that’s un-Constitutional which means illegal!

    To close: Clovers are the very reason men like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro come to power: they love to meddle in everyone else’s affairs and will go along with those in power of like mind. I truly hope that all you clovers out there will wake up to and champion the causes of true liberty and individual responsibility or that you and only you get the government you so richly deserve.

    • Hi Boothe,

      Outstanding post; I couldn’t have done better. But Clovers will read this and the blank, cattle-like dullness of their eyes is all you’ll get in return. I’m about to wade into the comments awaiting moderation…. better get my gloves on.

  2. Fair enough–totally agreed on the 9mm, it’s in serious need of Viagra!

    I still sincerely hope crowds begin to intervene.

    I’m reminded of that Solzhenitsyn quote:

    “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 good-bye 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 with 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! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    • The dilemma is the age-old one of firepower vs. concealment. I’d like to carry my .45 with me all the time, but in summer – wearing shorts and a T-shirt – it is very hard to hide the fact that you are carrying. I have a permit, so this is no big deal, legally speaking. But I try to be a sensible gun owner and avoid making others uncomfortable by dint of my being obviously armed.

      My little .380 has even less stopping power than a 9mm but when I carry this pistol, even when wearing shorts and T-shirt, it is impossible to tell I am armed without frisking me.

      So, I end up carrying the .380 more than the .45 (especially in summer) on the theory that having any gun is better than having no gun.

  3. My question is always: why don’t the crowds respond and defend these innocent people being mauled by pigs?

    The jaywalking incident in particular. I’ve seen the video before, and I am absolutely certain had I been there I would have tried to restrain that cop, and yelled to the crowd to help. There were plenty of able-bodied people present, and plenty of sentiment against the cop. It would have taken just one catalyst for them to mob the cop and free that crying girl. They wouldn’t have had to beat him senseless–though that would be immensely satisfying. No, just hold him down while she escapes, and run like hell afterward.

    There was a similar scene in a DC subway a while ago, wherein the cop lay on top of a woman who probably weighed less than half his ponderous bulk. He froterized her for at least three minutes trying to cuff her; there was no backup in sight. Why didn’t the crowd (which was at least two dozen) pull him off and free her? She had done absolutely nothing except question his inspection of her bag–which he no doubt did out of salacious intent, given how attractive she was.

    My question becomes: what the hell is wrong with the bystanders? How much longer will they remain immobile?

    Not even SHEEP are this stupid. When a predator mauls one, the rest have the good sense to run away.

    We’re more stupid than Cape buffalo: if a predator attacks a calf, the adults will defend it and maul the predator. Even lions don’t often go after Cape buffalo calves.

    I may have to stop calling Clovers “Sheeple” because it’s a discredit to sheep.

    God I hate what this country has become. I’m very near convincing my wife it’s time to leave.

    • Government school happened. There is no “right” in government school. The victim and anyone who comes to his aid will be punished. Maybe the aggressors will be punished. Maybe, probably not. And if they are, it will be no worse than what the victim (and any who came to his aid) gets. Oh and if the victim fought back? Then his punishment will be much worse. Did he hurt his attackers? Worse yet.

      Government school ways have taken over in the general society. Just being hit by another kid is a punishable offense in government school. Kinda like how it’s assault on an officer if his fist touches your face.

      • Why does nobody ever say “Want to know what happened? Massive immigration from countries with no traditions of liberty, property rights and common law”?

        The freedom tradition in America died because the Anglo-Saxon stock who originally founded it were slowly overwhelmed by a never-ending parade of socialists, first from Ireland and Germany, then Italy, and now from all over the goddam place. Something for the open-borders libertarians to mull over. You cannot have functional anarchy without a common social foundation.

        • IMO those that initially came to north america from europe could be divided into two basic groups, those who came to be free and those who came to be free to establish the sort of control freak society they had long dreamed of.

          The progressive movement and other related efforts were in part to control and rein in the immigrants. To properly condition them, to protect them from themselves. One of the things that came of it was the compulsory and centralized government run schools.

          It wasn’t the immigrant masses that worked the political system to remove the checks on power. To establish the federal reserve, the income tax, the direct election of senators. And of course if it didn’t serve their needs voting wouldn’t have been expanded to those who could only take from others. We got these things because the control freaks who have been here since the start of the nation wanted them.

          The battle in north america since at least the 18th century has been between those who wish to control and those who wish to be free. More people being added hasn’t changed that. And while many are of the peasant/serf mentality some of the strongest pro-freedom voices are from the same influxes of people.

          • ThatGuy makes a couple of valid points, I think. For example, many of the Union conscripts in the War were recent immigrants from countries with a tradition of centralized authority ready and eager to commit brutality under color of “the flag.” (There is no Southern analog to the organized and official brutalities of the armies under Sherman and Sheridan, etc.) These immigrants were more than just cannon fodder, too; they also readily embraced the Lincolnian claptrap about “preserving the union.”

            Population density is also a factor. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the farther away you are from a major city, the freer it tends to get. And the reverse. In the 18th century (and well into the 19th) it was very hard for the government to be as tyrannical as it has become today because one could always just pick up and move to the hinterlands. And in the hinterlands, Clovers (parasites and control freaks) do not have the medium they need to survive and thrive. Cloverism requires population density. It is the inevitable friction between people in close quarters that provides Clovers with the pretexts they need to exert control; to pass laws and regulations.

            I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way to escape Cloverism – and that is to leave them behind, somehow.

        • As you know, a similar fate befell Rome for similar reasons. By the 300s, the Roman army was composed mostly of foreign mercenaries; the government was controlled by corrupt plutocrats bum-rushing each other to see who could whore the country out first and fastest to better line their pockets. The “Roman core” had become, mostly, decadent, dissolute and ignorant of its own traditions.

        • Wasn’t it simply a case of the late 1700s/early 1800s America having a “filter” – the only reason you could want to go there is to be a settler who finds some unowned, unmodified land which requires hard work to convert it into a farm and there’s no charity to fall onto if times are hard – if you can’t get your farm to work (or can’t supplement it with hunting in the meantime) then you’re only option is to starve to death. I believe the (real) Daniel Boone noticed the second wave of settlers didn’t have the same ideals and ethics as the first wave.

          • Ye gods – a sensible comment! No emoting; no hysterics. Excellent!

            And: Yes, you’re right. The early settlers/colonists were willing to endure a much harder life, just to be able to live a free life. That mindset – fiercely independent, jealous of its liberties/disdainful toward control freak types – found expression in the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense and so on.

            But, probably inevitably, Cloverism began to arise. “City people.” Yankees.


            People not content to MYOB and live and let live; people who just have to impose their ways on others. As the country grew, Cloverism flourished – as it always does in close quarters, where there are lots of people living tightly packed. It is no accident that the epicenter if Early American Cloverism was NYC. Then Washington, DC.

      • Here’s a barometer of how much has changed in about 30 years:

        Remember Jaws?

        There’s a scene in the movie where the mother of a kid eaten by the shark approaches the police chief to upbraid him for allowing people to swim when he knew a shark had attacked someone a week earlier. She slaps the chief across the face. The response – then vs. now – is most revealing. Then, the chief just takes it; he accepts the slap in the face, knowing he deserved it. And more, it was inconceivable back then – to the audiences of 1977 – for him to have responded as a cop would today to a slap in the face. Which would be: An immediate physical assault with Tazers, body-slam to the ground, cuff and stuff followed by multiple felony charges. Right? We all know that’s exactly what would happen today.

        If the chief in the movie had acted as a cop would today, the audience would have viewed the cop as villainous thug.

        That says a lot about how much has changed.

      • An excellent point BrentP!
        In my brief sojourn in publik skewl before my mother blew her top at a parent-teacher meeting (lurid details available upon request), I suffered exactly what you’re talking about.

        My dad always taught me never to be belligerent, but to be vigorous in self-defense. There was no “if someone hits you, go tell the teacher” crap; it’s unmanly and beneath us.

        When I was physically bullied in grade school, I hit back; it stopped the bullying because bullies can’t stand a victim who fights back. But the REAL bullying then commenced because the fucking teachers would punish us BOTH. I tried half a dozen times to reason–“Look, he started it and hit me first. Ask anyone who saw it.” To which the tax-feeding parasite laughably called a teacher would reply in the Statist Teacher’s Manual sing-song verse 17, “It doesn’t matter, two wrongs don’t make a right. If he hits you tell me and I’ll take care of it.”

        And there’s the statist/Clover credo; appeal first to the almighty god of Authority vested by the holy State.

        • Sounds about on par with my school experiences, except I was nearly suspended for being punched. Didn’t even fight back. Kid was less than half my size, it didn’t hurt. Teachers swarmed in while I staring at the kid trying to decide if I should pulverize him or not.

          I had to deal with the bullies after school, off school grounds. The bullies were always safe at school so long as their target had something to lose. But these days the government schools claim everywhere a kid goes their dominion as well. And now kids kill themselves to escape the bullying. Perhaps because it was made the only way out. All avenues of defense, of rectifying the situation were closed off.

          I suppose all that government school conditioning has prepared me well should I ever be attacked by a cop. I’ll probably notice its a cop before I fight back.

          As to smaller/more rural areas. They have lots of control freaks who have to be in everyone’s business too. Sure they have less tools to go about harming their neighbors but they are still there and do make things difficult for those who are different. I am not sure that’s the answer. I see moving further out as just a temporary fix for those who flee and are enough like the people in the town they pick to be left alone.

          I think to actually fix the clover problem requires dismantling the institutions that condition people into going along with and/or believing in cloverism. The biggest being the government schools. As a child I wanted to escape the government school. As an adult I find the government school everywhere I turn. People copied what they were taught and experienced into everything. It gets worse every year. There’s a reason some towns fought government schools. They weren’t the crazy people we were led to believe.

      • Handguns are surprisingly un-lethal. You are in much more danger from a bladed weapon at close range than a handgun; I remember vividly an on-call night in a big ER when a guy came in with no less than NINE 9mm bullet holes, still hollering incoherently about the bastard that shot him.

        That cop looked distinctly outnumbered and outclassed in the jaywalking-beating-up-teen-girls video. If four or five strapping youths had stormed him, it would have been over in seconds.

        I may not be strapping youth but I vow to myself that if I see someone similarly abused, I WILL intervene.

        • It depends on the gun. And the shooter!

          The 9mm is a POS weapon. Do not buy a 9mm if you are considering a handgun. Buy a .45

          Hit a guy center mass once with a hollow point .45 and he is not long for this world. A head shot and it’s over right now, baby.

  4. I do not look dangerous. Neither did that woman. I am small (5’7″) and wear glasses most of the time. When ever I am dealing with a policeman I give them all the respect in the world. Yes Sir, No Sir. Why? That is the only defense we have. I call it the play dead defense.
    We live in a dangerous world. Our idea of justice is just plain stupid. It is little different than the middle ages when there was trial by combat. The trial is now by Lawyer. And the Lawyers argue in court by their union rules. Anyone else is not welcome in a court of law in this country. Even a lawyer gets another lawyer if he is charged with a crime. Afterwards, the lawyers go out and have a drink together. So the law is really a sham put forth by lawyers to make a good living off the rest of us. Trial by persuasion.
    The police are stuck in the middle. It isn’t the lawyers that get shot and killed in the line of duty. Well not often anyway. It is that poor sucker trying to enforce the “law”. A good policeman uses common sense. Not all policeman are equally intelligent . . . Often in the past a lawyer went over split second decisions in a court of law to see if the policeman was within the law in split second judgements that could have gotten him killed. That is the other side of the story. The cop was stupid.
    Just exactly what is the law? Well we have so many laws on the books that it is virtually impossible to know just what the law is. For instance, in the state of Ohio, you have to have your headlights on in broad daylight if you use your windshield wipers. It is a ticket offense not to do so.
    That law was put into effect recently.
    I am sure there are dozens of laws just like it.
    To get these laws changed you have to prove discrimination or unconstitutionality of the law.
    30 years ago no one would have known the cop stepped over the line. The current crop of cops has to deal with big brother too! All of a sudden, thanks to technology changes, anything done in public is recordable. You are on center stage if you are out of line.
    Internal Affairs is supposed to keep these people in line. It is run by cops for cops. So who exactly watches the policeman? It isn’t easy to push things under the rug when 30 telephone movie cameras are sending it to the internet for everyone to see.
    Now we have to get Internal Affairs to police their own. That is the guilty party here. Internal Affairs looking the other way instead of doing their job. Any one of those movie incidents should have gotten the cop fired on the spot. They are a fraternity just like the lawyers. They look out for their own whether they are right or wrong.
    The law is not about justice. It is about a fraternity of lawyers making a living off the people.
    That guy went to jail because of the system set up to handle things. If he had been Mafia, he wouldn’t have served a day in jail. He would have got off with a fine if that. Chances are he would have gotten bailed out and left the district before anyone could bring him to “justice”. No one would have pursued it. Instead, because he was innocent and virgin as far as the law was concerned they slapped his wrist with 2 months in jail and a felony on his record. If he had bailed, he would never have gone to jail and would not have a felony on his record. He would be one of many open cases on their books. That is how the law works or fails to work.
    Free society, don’t make me laugh. Years ago I was on the scene of cops harassing hippies. I had a 400 dollar Nikon camera on the scene taking pictures with available street lights. It had high speed black and white film. The cop came over to me in his cruiser and told me not to take any pictures. I said “yes sir.”
    Then I got in my car went over two blocks, went up to the city desk of the local paper and talked to the City Editor about freedom of the press.
    He sent a reporter with me back to the scene. Suddenly things were different.
    The sergeant over the police couldn’t have been more different. He chewed out the police on the scene for telling me I couldn’t take pictures for the Daily News. The minister they had arrested was turned loose, He had protested the children being harassed (15-17 year olds).
    The difference was the reporter from the Daily Paper. I had already dumped the film at the city desk for development. They couldn’t get to the evidence without breaking into the newspaper.
    That was years ago. (1966) and I was in my twenties. I looked innocent in my glasses and short stature. I was no problem to the police. I knew even then that exposure to film was the real weapon against these thugs. They knew it too.

  5. I submit that, in the general freedom-loving community (of which I am a part), we suffer, not from inadequate trust and faith in cops, but from too much. Let me make it clear – the average libertarian thinks too highly of the police. He is shocked when they behave like brownshirts; he argues with them, expecting them to care about what is right. The approach to a police officer should be identical to the way you’d behave with a dangerous gang.

    • “Let me make it clear – the average libertarian thinks too highly of the police.”

      Then these people do not understand what it means to be libertarian.

    • The reason for this, I’d say, is the assumption that only “bad people” violate the law – hence, “good people” have nothing to fear from cops. But while that may have been generally true in the past, it is no longer true today. There are so many laws on the books – many of them what lawyers call malum prohibitum (illegal because the government says so; for example, laws against smoking pot or speeding) vs. malum in se (wrong morally, law or no law; an example being theft or physical assault) – that it has become almost impossible not to break “the law” virtually every time you leave your house. And thus, to become a potential victim of a cop. Hence, it’s good policy to avoid them – and when confronted with one, to say nothing beyond the minimum that’s legally required. Remember: It is their job to arrest people. Many don’t give a shit whether the reason for that is reasonable or right. They are “just doing their job.”

      Also, bad laws attract bad people as enforcers of those laws. Dickheads and bullies; people who like to lord it over others.

      Can you imagine “busting” someone for idiocies such as having a bag of pot on them? Cuffing them and taking them to jail?

      It’s despicable.

      • “Also, bad laws attract bad people as enforcers of those laws. Dickheads and bullies; people who like to lord it over others.”

        I don’t think the quality of the law has as much to do with the quality of officers as much as two factors.

        First, this is a profession that has always attracted the power-hungry, the maladjusted victims of bullying trying to remedy their suffering by punishing “bad people,” as well as those only distinguishable from criminal extortionists and shakedown artists by the badge pinned to their chest. Crooked and deranged lawmen are not a new thing. What’s changed is Youtube bringing you examples from across the nation and world.

        Reason #2 however is a new thing: the increasing militarization of police forces and staffing of them with the “semper fi, do or die” types fresh off contact patrol in Baghdad and Kandahar. These guys are trained to follow orders without question and that their loyalty is first and foremost to the corps or the army or what have you.

        I’ve been foolish enough to debate the validity of our military posture and foreign policy with the “we protect your freedoms” crowd and came away with the realization that these people are taught to think that they are a cut above the rest, that they are a higher form of life than the mere citizens who only live “free” because they maim and kill poor people thousands of miles away. This mentality has been imported to your local police department. You quite literally endanger your personal safety just by publicly raising the smallest question about the myths and propaganda that surround those “who keep us safe.” And that was without the badge, gun, and sense of moral righteousness the public bestows upon the blue gang.

        This may very well be a chicken-or-egg argument, but I think the real culprit is social decay on both sides of the fence, both with the jackbooted fascisti and the lovely people who think they can say and do whatever they want to whomever they want, even a man with a license to kill, cause they got free speech rights ‘n junk. Cops and politicians are men, just like the civilians they lord over. The ugly truth is they are nothing but a mirror into our larger society.

        • Good points, all.

          And: We reap what we sow. We cannot and should not expect the brutality we so casually inflict abroad to remain abroad. If we evince no horror (or shame) at the casual murder of foreign people who just happen to get in the way of the US blunderbuss, we ought not to be shocked when such casual violence becomes routine here as well.

        • You know One Guy, if police did not have to deal with the libertarian “Dickheads and bullies” maybe they would be nicer. I know a lot of nice cops. Maybe that is because they do not have to deal with your sort of people on a daily basis like in some cities.


          • Yeah – like people who choose not to wear seat belts, or who drive faster than a number on a sign, or get mad when a pot-bellied stranger in a funny costume wants to stick his hands down their pants as a condition of allowing them to board an airplane. All those people who just want to live their lives in peace, be left alone and leave others alone in return.

            Such dickheads!

            No Clovers

  6. “Spoken like a true clover. We should all just shut up, submit and obey.”
    Spoken like the truly internet brave.
    But where’s the sense in escalating a ticket? Do you think you can mau mau him out of it?
    I’ve defended myself in traffic court a few times and had the pleasure of beating the cops like a bongo drum!!

    • There is no sense in escalating it. You are absolutely right about that and present company all know and agree with this. A better question is when the cops beat the shit out of someone where the punishment doesn’t fit the crime where’s the sense in that? I am 34 and remember a time when I used to respect cops and actually thought they were there to help. My personal experiences have taught me otherwise. Every time I see a cop the only thing I can think is the possibility of imminent harassment and delay. I’m not sure about this, but I think many people feel exactly the same. Which brings me back to thinking about the cause. Which is all the stupid invented violations and petty laws which open the door for abuse.

        • Like I said before dude. If there were documentation (people videoing or raising a fuss) ALL the TV and internet news would be inundated with stories like this. I have a couple degrees in self defense, a video camera, and a .45 on me at all times and like I said.. Cops scare me!

          • It’s a lose-lose deal for us…

            Submit and Obey – and we’ve pussified ourselves. And we still may find ourselves “taken down” for some trumped-up BS.

            Resist (and here I don’t even mean physical resistance; just not taking any shit from them and refusing to quake and shake, etc.) and we will be taken down and even if they’re totally in the wrong and we’re totally in the right it will be a long (and expensive) hassle trying to make it right. The system is completely stacked against us and in favor of them.

            The really FUBAR thing about it, though, is that guys like you and me – who have never committed a real crime and don’t bother anyone – are worried about becoming the next Rodney King….

      • I know exactly when my respect for cops started to decay. I was about 19 years old. I was returning home in my freshly painted ’75 Ford. An Illinois state trooper starts tailgating me. I slow to 5 under. I make a right turn… cop follows. I signal a left turn into the subdivision and come to a stop to wait for on coming traffic. The cop pulls his cruiser onto the gravel shoulder and intentionally nails the accelerator to spray my car with gravel. About every two years since then I’ve had an encounter with a cop that lowers my respect for them another notch.

        How low is it now? I used to live a couple blocks away from some very hood invested chicago housing projects. Those gang bangers don’t scare me because I know they have ZERO interest in me. Cops concern me as a threat because I (as a productive individual with something to lose) am their prey, for fun and profit, as I have learned through experience.

        Eric, you are spot on, that things are now totally broken when people such as ourselves are concerned with getting beaten by cops. I have a little story along those lines… One of my neighbors will not call the cops any more because he doesn’t want to interact with them because of how they behave and treat him. Another neighbor told me what this neighbor used to do for a living before he retired… he was a police officer.

        • We’ve got a two-fold problem here, one that feeds on itself:

          Bad laws breed (and attract) bad cops.

          So many of the laws on the books today are tyrannical – evil, even – that a decent, fair-minded person would be troubled “enforcing” them. So, decent, fair-minded people are either disinclined to become cops, or quit once they realize what the job involves – or become corrupted (because they need the job) and end up no longer decent, fair-minded people. As the system grows more oppressive, it begins to attract outright thugs, sadists and bullies – the sort who peopled the ranks of the Gestapo or NKVD. I think we are nearing that point now… .

    • Once again, we hear you loud and clear: “SHUT THE FUCK UP!”

      So let me get this right. I am suppose to shut my mouth and cow in absolute submission because I might set off some cops roid rage? And if I protest and the cop goes off with a beating … I am the problem? How dare I protest?

      About a year after my service in the Army, I was at a Fair with a friend. I saw a large crowd gather (it’s a Fair) and decided to see what was going on. As I got about halfway into the crowd, I was whacked on the back and a thunderbolt went up to my head. I am being attacked-defend yourself. I pivoted and swung. To late, it’s a cop. On his ass. And his nose is gushing. Now there is another cop. He has a 357 revolver pointed at my head from 10 feet. I immediately went down. Let the beating begin. Handcuffs are stomped on after cop puts them on. Mace in my mouth, eyes, up my nose, in my ears. Meanwhile, while I am trying to avoid the mace, I am being told to stop struggling while my legs are being beaten with a nightstick. I finally decided to play dead and take the pain … and they stopped. The cops take me to the security office at the Fair. I am pleading to have the handcuffs loosened. My reward. The edge of a clipboard across my cheek just below my right eye. Finally, a kid cop loosened up the handcuffs. Off to jail. I didn’t sleep for 3 days. Because my right ankle was cracked and hairline fracture in my cheek. Finally went to the hospital. I was being charged for 1st degree felony assault on a cop. Something like 40 years in prison is what I heard on my first court date. I blurted out to my lawyer that they will take me out of the courtroom dead. The courtroom is stacked with cops. After giving preliminary testimony, the DA decides to plea bargain to a 3rd degree misdemeanor – 6 months county, 5 years probation. So, if I go to trial, the courtroom is stacked with cops and I am going to rely on a bunch of cop loving citizens gyrating their loins in orgasmic worship to get me out of this? Yeah, I took the plea rather than 40 years in prison. We know why the DA plea bargained … but hey, she had to save face for the cops.

      Yeah, you are wondering. The crowd turned out to be watching a fight. The cop said I just out of the blue assaulted him. And all those cops at the Fair, they were moonlighting in uniform. I don’t know why they singled me out … and then lied about it. Maybe they mistook me for someone else. Regardless, they lied about it and it cost me and they didn’t have second thoughts about it. All that money I saved while in the military, went to my lawyer.

      So, between that, all the stories and video’s and … naw, I don’t shed a tear when a cop gets blasted … I just figure it is karma catching up.

      So I did 3 months on good time. That cop, even after the surgery on his face, will look in the mirror every day of his life at his nose and remember me.

      • Curt,

        You’ve got my sympathies; hideous story. To me, the worst about it is not what the cop did to you, though. It’s what the jury of (as you magnificently put it) “cop loving citizens gyrating their loins in orgasmic worship” could have done to you. No real chance that justice would prevail; that is, too much of a risk (40 years in prison!) to chance it. Egregious.

        Welcome to the site –

      • That is a horrible story. Makes me sick that stuff like that happens and I’m sure it happens often. Glad you left your signature on his face!

    • Haha! Unless you’re gun-juggling, drunken racecar driver on public roads then you’re a faggotty clover. Hope you don’t hit by an anti-clover because they don’t usually carry insurance.


      • I allowed this one through (there were several just like it) to illustrate the mindset of a Clover. Hysterical, shrieking, emoting. Incapable of serious thought. This is what we’re up against.

        • Yeah, I’m sure if you got into a crash, you would do everything to minimise your liability and try everything to avoid jail time. I’m sure if you found out the person you crashed into was going under the speed limit you’d argue something like “if that clover had been doing the speed limit then we would have safely passed one another so I’m not fault, they are”.

          • Aussie Clover:

            Like all Clovers, you base your argument (such as it is) on nonexistent or wildly exaggerated”What Ifs” and non-sequiturs as a feeble way to avoid rational discussion.

            It’s so predictable it’s becoming tedious to even respond to it.

          • Wow. Just wow.

            The irresponsible do not magically become responsible because there is another law. The evil don’t become good because there is another law. But we are seeing more irresponsibility and evil as the number of laws increases. Wonder if there is a relationship there.

            • It’s startling, isn’t it?

              The methodology seems to be: Gin up an exaggerated “threat” – hype it out of all proportion. Next take it as given that everyone, or most people, are guilty/irresponsible/criminal even before anyone has actually done something. Then treat everyone as if they had, in fact, done something.

              Feel safer now?

          • Gee Eric & BrentP it’s not like car accidents actually occur or something like that. But then you folks believe being drunken racer is responsible.


        • What “hysterics”? You & your friends believe neither driving while drunk nor racing other cars amounts to being “irresponsible”. I believe Libertarians have used the argument that as taxpayers they are co-owners of the roads and as such can drive pretty much any way they want provided “no one gets hurt” (which is decided by the Libertarian driver).


          • Those hysterics!

            What is “drunk” driving? There’s quite a continuum. As I have pointed out before, the real issue is impairment – for whatever reason. The fact is some drivers are less impaired with a few drinks in them than others are completely sober. But who gets targeted? The senile citizen wandering across the double yellow into oncoming traffic? Or the guy whose driving is faultless but has the bad luck to roll up to a “sobriety checkpoint”? You know the answer.

            But you choose to emote and exaggerate.

            Similarly with your second burst of hysterics. No one here ever advocated “racing” on the public highways; you’ve just inserted that loaded, demagogic term (in this context) in an attempt to conflate that with driving faster than the speed limit – which almost everyone does, routinely – and which is as far from “racing on the roads” as South Beach is from the North Pole.

            Try again, Aussie Clover.

            No Clovers

          • Those so called innocent people you speak of Eric that just have a few drinks kill thousands each year and 10s of thousands of accidents. It is pretty much impossible to get a DUI after just a couple of drinks. The fact is that all people that get a DUI are impaired. They are given routine DUI tests before they do any BAC check. It is real nice of you to back the drunks because some of them do not kill anyone. Makes sense to me, not.


            • Clover, this is utterly hopeless and pointless, but – again:

              Legal DUI/DWI standards are arbitrary, just like speed limits. Some people are more able drivers even with a few drinks in them than others are 100 percent sober. But rather than focus on impaired drivers – regardless of the reason for impairment, be it old age, too much booze, lack of skill or just not paying enough attention – Clovers such as yourself fixate on an arbitrary alcohol percentage in the bloodstream. As if the senile old coot wandering across the double yellow is somehow less dangerous than the high-skill driver who maybe had a few drinks but whose driving is still flawless.

              It is exactly like your whining about the speed limit. To you, driving faster than the limit – whatever the limit is – is dangerous, ipso facto – and deserving of punishment. The limit is sacred! Obey!

              Likewise, the Drunk Driving witch hunt appeals to your Cloverite moralistic fetish; your endless desire to crusade and control.

              No Clovers

          • Eric you do not understand. Drivers are given routine tests before they are ever given a BAC test of which you complain. You say a few are able to drive drunk ok. Thousands don’t. Because an individual drunk is capable of still driving as well as the worst nondrunk on the road is not a positive thought for me.


            • And those tests are fraught with problems – from the coordination tests many people have trouble with even when completely sober to the notoriously inaccurate Breathalyzer. But even that is not the point, Clover. The point is, the system does not go after people who have given reason to believe they are impaired (for whatever reason) by dint of such things as erratic driving. Instead, we (that is, your system) randomly assaults people for absolutely no reason (forcing them to stop and be interrogated is a form of assault) and tags them as “drunk” drivers according to an arbitrary standard, even though their actual driving might be exemplary.

              And meanwhile, no dragnets, no “random roadblocks” to check for senile citizens – and so on.

              You’re too fixated on your simple-minded, arbitrary categorizations of people.

              It’d be short-bus sad except for the fact that people like you are everywhere these days.

              No Clovers

          • It is pretty simple Eric. You want cops to follow people to see if they are drunk. There are hundreds or thousands of people on the roadway for a single cop. Following everyone is not an option. What is the other option? Having random safety checkpoints so that the drunks know there is a chance that they will be checked so they stay off the road in the firstplace. I know of some that do not drive if they drink because of it. That tells me that it works at least to a degree. You come up with a better way than having thousands of cops following everyone then I will listen to you. You have not come up with that option.


            • No, Clover, the very last thing I want is for cops to follow people to see whether they are drunk. What I want is for cops (and the laws) to leave drivers alone unless they’ve given the cops a good reason to believe they might be impaired – for whatever reason. What you want is a witch hunt directed at one type of impairment, arbitrarily defined by a number (like the speed limit) that may and often does not have anything to do with the actual driving involved.

              If you were capable of reason, the following might resonate:

              I (and this is just for purposes of argument) am a much better driver (natural skill, more training, etc.) than my mother-in-law. She has not-so-great vision and a poor sense of spatial relationships. Even with a few drinks in me, I am still a more competent driver than she is when sober. Because I start out with more in “reserve,” my abilities are still higher even when I drink than hers are even though she does not. Again, I am just using this as an example, to (try) to make a point. I don’t actually drink much at all (just to get that out of the way, because I l know if I don’t you’ll go off on a Cloverian tear about me advocating for drinking and driving).

              But the point is, drinking does not necessarily mean drunk – and “drunk” under our system does not correlate with evidence of impairment, just with a politically established BAC threshold.

              Poor driving – that is, impaired driving – as a result of lack of skill, ineptitude, senility, failure to pay attention, too much booze etc. – that’s the problem. And the way to deal with it is – drum roll, please – to have cops be on the lookout for poor drivers, then pull them over to investigate further.

              And leave the rest of us alone.

              No Clovers

          • Very very funny Eric. You say that you do not want a bunch of police following us around and you want the police to only stop drunks if they are following them around. That pretty much says drunks on the road is fine with you. You are all for liberties and rights but where is my rights and others of being able to drive somewhat safely when thousands of drunks our on our highways? At least our government is smart enough to do something about it. As I have said all along, the rights of thousands of people not to be hit or killed by drunk drivers over powers your right to not be stopped for 5 mintes once or twice a year if at all.


            • There’s absolutely nothing funny about the harassment of people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion (hence, investigation), oh Clover. Your concept amounts to: Treat everyone a priori as criminal; leave them be (for awhile) only after they demonstrated innocence. You’re too dense to grasp that the train of logic you apply to “drunk drivers” (but in fact to everyone on the road) applies just as well to any other “crime” as well as any other area of life.

              Example: Domestic abuse. Why, there are thousands of wives/partners being abused by their spouses. We should do something to prevent it! Lets have social workers/cops “interview” all married couples at random – just to be safe. Do you even begin to see? I doubt it.

              Because you’re a Clover.

              No Clovers

      • “Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this… and totally redeem yourself!”

        Not even worth commenting..

  7. “More and more people are being treated the way cops reserved for poor people of minority ethnicity ”
    You wont get any sympathy from me by playing the race card. When was the last time you saw a group of white people gang up on a cop making a routine contact?
    Once again We see the Bigotry of soft expectations!

    “. Now that this sort of treatment is hitting “good” people, there is outrage. But still we see the masses think that the victim did something he/she shouldn’t have to deserve it or it was just a bad cop. Only when they are exposed to it first hand will they come to understand neither is true. It isn’t deserved and it’s policy.”

    Years ago I witnessed a two on one assault on a Norfolk street. Large crowd gathered. The police showed up, arrested the victim and began dispersing the crowd. I stepped forward to give them my version and was promptly threatened with being bitten by a dog and arrest. Did I jump up on some high horse and make a martyr of myself? Hell no! Self preservation prevailed.

    There’s a great website written by a truly outside the box thinker called nononsenseselfdefense. Marc Macyoung postulates that such people are experincing a sort of win called a secondary victory. Clearly irrational to anyone but themselves. I.E. “it took five cops to get me cuffed and into the car”

      • Granby Street 1976
        I also got myself thrown in jail there a few weeks later for saying the word pig within earshot of a cop.

        • Holy shit! Norfolk, Va baby.. The armpit of the universe! I lived there for seven years! I used to do website work for a business on Granby Street called Bress Pawn Shop. It was/is right across the street (50 feet) from the Greyhound Station. I’ve seen some shit there, but nothing compares to Virginia Beach, Virginia during prime summer season. I used to participate in some of the foolishness. Nothing violent though.

    • Arresting the victim… sounds exactly like what I learned in government school. Any sort of self defense will be punished by authority.

      Correction to my earlier comment underlined:
      These things are inherently unjust and people will be angered by them. These people who do _not_ physically act against the cops but merely challenge them are not the problem, they are acting NORMALLY.

      • In the United States of America you do not challange cops. You take it to court. It makes no sense to challange someone doing their job. Challanging cops in the wrong way and you can get hurt and probably should.


        • “It makes no sense to challange someone doing their job.” Good advice! I’ll have to remember that next time I get incorrect change.

        • Clover, in the USA, like most nations the world has seen, the cops and the courts are two divisions of the same institution, the state. But I notice that you accept the premise that cops can beat people who verbally challenge their power. Predictable, but sad.

        • When you say challenge, Clover (“challange” in your public skool-disabled lexicon) you really mean question. Never question a cop. Just do as you’re told, regardless. I cannot think of a more un-American mindset than this.

          No Clovers

  8. Don’t misunderstand, I have zero sympathy for cops that cross the line like the vid you just posted. Or this one

    But folks that ought to know better than than to give them a reason and are capable of making a choice that influences the situation don’t get any sympathy from me.

    • It’s not a matter of getting sympathy. It’s a matter of right and wrong. It is wrong to fucking physically hurt people for no reason! That’s it..

      • When are the police able to defend themselves? If you break a couple of their legs or arms? If you throw a brick at them? When? None of those videos showed people being beaten by the police. Surely not the skate boarder. Surley not the woman in the car. The ladies that were fighting the police could have gotten a few months in jail. When I grew up you treated police like judges in the courtroom. With respect. If not, there is not a person back then that would have said anything if they threw you on the ground. The only thing that has changed is that people feel they can disrespect and beat up on police and they should just take it.


        • Clover, as usual, the point escapes you. And that point is: The initial contact itself is unjust. The Cloverite laws that give police authority to henpeck (and worse) people for no legitimate reason. If such laws did not exist, there would be no (or much less) harassment of non-criminal citizens by over-aggressive cops, hence far fewer pretexts for the escalations seen in those videos.

          Then we have the “cop culture” that demands and expects immediate servility – just because they’re cops. Regardless of any other factor. But what is a cop? Just a guy with a badge and a gun and the legal right to use force against you. He is not a Special Person (much less a “hero”) by dint of that. Why does a cop deserve any more respect – merely because he’s a cop – than anyone else does? Why should a person who behaves like an asshole be entitled to deference and respect just because he has a uniform and a badge?

          Clovers, of course, worship cops because Clovers worship authority.

          No Clovers

          • You had a point yourself? “I get to decide which laws I will obey and won’t”? So you’re saying “so what if that woman was speeding, it shouldn’t a crime hence the cop is a prat”? Never mind IF she was she was doing that it was while there was snow and thus the driving conditions were sub-optimal.

            A more hilarious thought is what you Libbers think should take its place – private property owners and “private denfence agencies”! If you don’t like the cops why should you like a PDA officer from someone you had an altercation with and he’s trying to enforce something you don’t think “should be a crime”? After all, who gets to decide what the laws are? Whatever the private community wants? Gee, in some countries women who get raped are the who face punishment and it comes from religious/community ideals shaping statutory laws hence by Libertarian standards that’s okay because it’s not like those law were forced onto them by a Goverment.


        • I get it exactly Eric. You say it is fine to do whatever to policemen because they have a uniform on and are part of the gooovernment. Everything I have ever been taught and read is that you treat police with respect and they will respect you. You have not shown me otherwise. In all cases that you have shown are examples of people not treating them with respect and even beating on them. Do you say it is ok for people to do that to other people? I guess it is just cops that you feel it is alright to treat however you dang well please.


          • Clover, cops don’t understand respect and neither do you, they use fear. A typical encounter I have with a cop is when I am minding my own business when a cop decides to insert himself into my life, usually taking a threatening tone if he isn’t yelling and screaming from the get go. There’s a reason I drive around with video rolling. If I was doing anything wrong why would I record it?

            One of these encounters happened a couple years ago. I am walking home from the local carry out place with a beef sammich. I turn on to the sidewalk on my property when a cop stops his cruiser jumps out and yells in a menacing way: “I WANT TO TALK TO YOU!” Where’s the respect? He’s a thug. It doesn’t get any better from there.

            He had been following me, driving slowly. Apparently turning on to my own property was dissing him in some way. Time and time again I find these cops to have egos more fragile than the worst motorcycle gang member, inner city gang banger, or general drunk over muscled idiot.

            There’s the experience I wrote into an LRC article where a cop similarly felt disrespected because I sounded the horn on my bicycle when the car he was riding in nearly hit me while I was traveling at the posted speed limit on a residential street.

            Every little thing is disrespect to these fragile ego’d morons. they understand one thing, submission through fear. Sadly they think that is what respect is, same as you apparently.

          • Clover: Of course, I said no such thing. (“it is fine to do whatever to policemen because they have a uniform on and are part of the gooovernment.”)

            What I did say was that we have an increasing number of absurd/unjust/tyrannical laws and that cops, as the enforcers of such laws, are not entitled to our respect for doing so. Also that they often over-react, get too aggressive, too soon – sometimes, brutalizing people for little or no legitimate reason at all.

            But as a Clover, you filter that through your Cloverite consciousness and come up with “it is fine to do whatever to policemen because they have a uniform on and are part of the gooovernment.”

            You are living, breathing testimony to the train wreck that is the government skool system.

            No Clovers

          • Ok Brent. Why did the policeman want to talk to you? I have never had that happen and I CAN NOT believe it would happen unless they suspected you of something or saw you do something? Convinient to not mentioned what you were stopped for.

            What is wrong with the statement “I WANT TO TALK TO YOU!” ? I can think of a thousand worse things that someone could have said and I am sure the police have heard all of them.


            • Because, oh Clover, in a free society, a person who hasn’t done anything, or given any indication he may have done something, ought to have every right to decline to speak with a cop – and be able to walk away – without fear of being accosted for so doing.

              I know, of course, that you can’t understand such a concept.

              Because you’re a Clover.

              No Clovers

          • One more thing Brent, if you feel that you need to run a video to catch the police doing something wrong to you, you are the problem and not the police. I would need thousands of hours of video and still I would not see anything. It is funny that the people that have the video cameras rolling are the same ones that cause a lot of the problems in the first place. You are one of the people that tries to create a fight so you can edit it so it does not show what you did to cause the confrontation in the first place.


          • To Eric, what is the difference between saying “it is fine to do whatever to policemen because they have a uniform on and are part of the gooovernment.”)

            and saying “are not entitled to our respect ” and as ssuch it does not matter if you spit on them or beat them up because you said it is fine not to respect them.

            Is it fine to have someone spit on you and beat you up because they did not believe you were fair in a auto article review because you were doing your job?


            • The difference, oh Cloveroni, is simply this:

              I do not threaten people with violence if they do not read my reviews, or make a negative comment about what I’ve written.

              It is amazing to me that you can’t grasp this elemental difference.

              But then, you’re a Clover.

              No Clovers

          • Clover, I only mentioned the lead cop, there were three others, each with their own police cruiser. The reasons the cops had as flimsy and blown way out of proportion as they were are not relevant and neither is the fact the cops were totally wrong.

            They don’t matter with regards to how I was treated and would be accepted by you no matter what they are as being just. You display that behavior of yours by trying to make his behavior into being “respectful”. Could it be worse? Sure. But he didn’t respect me, he wanted me to fear him. Fear is not the same as respect. Respect gets respect. He had none for me so all I had for him was fear of what he could do to me and get away with.

            I started running video because of an experience I described earlier with a PTSD cell phone using while driving cop.

            I see you want to cast me as a “bad person” who “deserves it”. And that’s fine. That’s how you think. That’s how you must think or your entire world view will come crashing down. Some day you’ll find that you are a “bad person” and when the cops give you what you “deserve” I am sure you’ll later accept it and come to an understanding that massa was right to punish you.

          • “I would need thousands of hours of video and still I would not see anything.”

            For some reason I am not surprised by this statement at all.

          • Gee, Libber Eric & Brent – no one ought to defend cops who abuse their privileges and many cops ought to be put in jail if found guilty. However the latest Libber story doing the rounds is some retard who got beat to death when the cops responded to complaints he was allegedly breaking into cars. Golly, I can easily imagine ordinary guys who, if they caught that retard breaking into their cars, would put him into hospital (if there was no laws against that sort of thing which would the case in Libertopia. i.e. property crime). It’s a shame Libertarians are so against the cops (good riddance to them if they go for jail for woefully unjust conduct) that they’ll overlook some criminals are still criminals under Libertarians standards.


            • Is it appropriate for several cops to literally beat to death a lone – and no longer capable of resisting – suspect?

              The most revelatory aspect of your comment, to me, is the way it shows how eager you are to see blood spilled. And to defend those spilling it.

          • Gil, what does the state teach us? That we are not allowed to use physical violence in the defense of property. The government you live under for example is well known for punishing people who defend their property. So, if defending property with violence is wrong then cops should not be doing it, just to set a good example.

            The reason some people will see a video of cops beating up a clear criminal as wrong is because of the concept that putting on a government costume does make someone an exception to the moral code or at least internal consistency. Since government usually prohibits and punishes violence used to defend property it should not engage in such behavior itself.

            If using force to defend property is acceptable, then we should all be able to do so without penalty.

          • Aw shucks, BrentP, I said I know guys who would have put that retard into hospital if they caught him breaking into his car except they’d be arresting for defending their private property. By rights under Libertopia people should be able to defend their private property and either there are no cops or if there are then they arrest the beaten vandal. But of course this character was *alleged* to have seen breaking into cars.

            Gee, how many said videos don’t have any context? I would certainly have no sympathy for cops who use excessive force and they should be arrested in kind. However I don’t where Libertarians think cops should take abuse and just stand there and be expected to take it either. Once again do you think you can shout and scream at a private individual without repercussions? Conversely, if they are in the process of arresting a violent offender then force would be justified.


            • So, let’s see:

              It’s ok to beat up a “retard.” Or a mentally ill homeless person. Under color of law. By a bunch of big, strong men armed with guns who had already subdued the guy.

              Honestly: It is my hope that one day people such as you find themselves on the receiving end of a wood shampoo or copper jacketed headache relief administered by costumed thugs under color of law.

              Also: I note once again your emoting, hysteria and exaggeration. You write, “Once again do you think you can shout and scream at a private individual without repercussions?” First, no one said any such thing. What was said was that one ought to be able to disagree with a cop, to be able to walk away (if one hasn’t done anything and there is no evidence of the person having done anything), without being assaulted. Further, you Down Under Clover, even shouting at a private individual does not entitle the person being shouted at to physically assault the shouter.

              Try again.

              No Clovers

          • So you would rather people have their cars vandalised and looted by criminals than for anyone to call the police? I gues vandalism and looting is the lesser of the two evils for you.

            P.S. I used the derogatory term because people were using it as a defence for his actions? The criminal is “special”? He doesn’t deserve any punishment whatsoever, apparently.


            • More hysterics, emoting and exaggeration. Are you not the least bit embarrassed by your sloppy, imprecise, shrieking fishwife arguments?

              No one said anything remotely like “So you would rather people have their cars vandalised and looted by criminals than for anyone to call the police?” That is entirely your confection – an exaggeration designed to try to shift the premise of the discussion to something you can defend. What was said was that it’s not acceptable to beat up “retards,” or to use excessive force under color of law. Police in particular have an obligation to use only as much force as is reasonable and necessary. They have official sanction – and guns. So, to repeat, what’s not defensible is a gang of cops beating the snot out of a half-wit homeless guy (or anyone else).

              Try again, Down Under Clover.

              No Clovers

          • Way to ignore the point there Gil. The point is that the state and its employees do not get an exception. Either something is wrong or it is not. In your country if you defend your home against a criminal you’ll likely be the one going to prison. Government requires that you flee and let the criminal have/wreck your stuff. Yet, the government gets to use violence against criminals? Furthermore it gives criminals relative safety to carry out their deeds. Did it ever occur to you that those in government might have a motive for creating this condition? That it is to their benefit? I doubt it.

    • At some point, though, we either have to stand up – consequences notwithstanding – or supinely accept any and every degradation, so long as it’s “the law.”

    • What is ‘giving them reason’? IME cops can be on a hair trigger and it doesn’t take much to send them into a rage. A cop turned left in front of me and I came to a stop and shrugged as he went by with his cellphone held to his ear. This cop did a U-turn and came flying back at me at nearly twice the posted speed limit. Pulls me over and starts screaming at me. Eventually he calms down enough to write a warning for not yielding… but had I not been careful with my words I’d probably still be in prison with life long injuries. For what? Nobody with a skin that thin should be wielding the monopoly on legal violence, but that is becoming more and more the case as cops go after anyone who they think ‘dissed’ them. Anything short of total submission is reason.

      This is one of three such cops I’ve encountered in recent years. They are like playing with unstable explosives. One slight wrong move, even if you didn’t realize it was one, and *BOOM*.

      • Well-said, Brent.

        And the truth of your statement is testified to by the fact that we all understand the importance of deference when dealing with a cop. That it’s wise to be “polite” and “obey orders.”

        The fact is, most of us fear cops.

        What does that imply?

        Cops, meanwhile, have lost any respect for citizens due to the evisceration of respect for civil liberties. There are virtually no limits now on what cops can do – legallyas well as illegally (they’re rarely ever prosecuted in the case of the latter). And we’ve encouraged, via the” war on drugs” (and the real wars in Iraq and elsewhere) a militarized mindset in cops, in addition to employing de-sensitized (and possibly psychotic) ex-military to become cops.

  9. It’s unfortunate that we live in a day and age where routine police contact (and yes there are too many of them) frequently result in escalations to lethal force directed at the officers. This leads to a saftey/surrive/win at all costs mentality in the cops.
    In video one the woman doesn’t appear to be an overt threat but her noncompliance with the small stuff trips the cops trigger. Once he decides to arrest her she changes her mind and wants to get back in the car. Too late, the rubicon has been crossed. She made her decisions in front of her children so why use that as a cudgel against the cop?

    We don’t see the lead in to the skateboarder video. But ask yourself, What if they were on your commercial property driving your business away, and the cops were acting on your behalf?
    Boarder number two, after being contacted, decided to just leave. The cop didn’t taser him, baton him, twist his limbs or spray him. Just a body weight pin. Boo effing hoo for the boarder.

    In video number three. I have no idea why the woman is being arrested. No need to assume that it’s an unwarented arrest The white cop is surrounded by black people and the woman is putting up a fight. (IMO the old saying about discretion being the better part of valour should have come into play here) Woman number two jumps in. This is clearly an attempt to prevent the arrest and would be chargeable as misdemanor interference with legal process or even felony attempted lynching. (look it up. lynching is legally defined as removing someone from custody and is only indirectly related to folks spontaneously hanging other folks)
    The cop had a clear use of force scenario. Foolishly he decides to use a fist to the face which while expedient (and probably emotionally satisfying)is generally hard to find on a use of force continum. Tasers, chemicals and batons are the authorized intermediate force weapons. I fault his judement for timing and giving into the impulse. Temporizing and waiting for backup may have been the better choice.
    I would ask anyone here to look at yourself and ask how would you act in those situations as the citizen in contact with the police? would you cooperate? would you fight or flee? If not why would you hold th epeople in the videos to a lower standard than you would hold yourself? If not then that’s whats known as “The bigotry of soft expectations”.

    • The underlying problem that I tried to get at is the needlessly adversarial relationship that’s been created as a result of endless laws, many of them exceptionally petty and having no legitimacy in the moral sense (which ought to be the basis of all law). When you see a cop rolling in behind you in the rearview do you feel safer? Of course not. Most of us, when we see a cop, see a potential hassle. A law-quoting automaton who is “just doing his job.” Not a protector. Certainly not a peace officer.

      We obey out of fear – not respect.

      Take, for example, these “sobriety” and “safety” checkpoints. What happens if you merely turn your car around and go the other way – having done nothing more “wrong” than wanting to avoid being subjected to an interview/inspection/interruption of your travel? You know what will happen.

      And even when you do Submit and Obey, it’s still no guarantee of decent treatment. Just recently, for example, there was the case of the Maryland cops who beat the snot out of a college kid who was clearly (incident video’d) not doing a blessed thing, including “resisting.” See here:

      In the America I grew up in, you didn’t get Tazered because you argued with a cop over a traffic ticket; a peace officer would have de-esalated that situation, unlike the example in the article. Instead, the cop escalated it, egging the clearly upset (for good reason) woman on.

      In the America I grew up in, grown 250 pounder cops didn’t body slam skinny 14-year-olds for riding their skateboards. If they needed shooing away, a peace officer would have said, “get out of here, kids.” None of this “gimme your IDs” bullshit. That bloated bastard in the video deserves a serious ass-whupping by someone his own size – and my hope is he will get one someday soon.

      And jaywalking? That used to be the stuff of jokes in the America I knew.

      • It is amazing how state apologist will bend over backwards to absolve state thugs of any responsibility. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the cop, not the people the cop is supposedly there to serve. These cloverite enablers of tyranny are nothing more than the tools of mass murderers and enslavers. They don’t give a damn if their desire for law, order, and obedience results in large scale death and destruction. They don’t care that giving the state monopoly coercive power ultimately devalues their own life and that of their loved ones. They simply don’t care. Clovers are essentially anti-reason, which is why they swear fealty to their almighty secular god the state.

    • “It’s unfortunate that we live in a day and age where routine police contact (and yes there are too many of them) frequently result in escalations to lethal force directed at the officers. This leads to a saftey/surrive/win at all costs mentality in the cops.”

      I am rather tired of this cop safety thing which is really a combination of paranoia and insecurity on the cops’ part and the very nature of the job which they decided to take. If I were to take a job where I collected money from people on the side of the road by implied threat of armed violence I would expect that some people might resist such theft to varying degrees. To merely be angry at the theft would be expected behavior and not cause to escalate to violence. The same is true with enforcing our rulers’ company town style laws. These things are inherently unjust and people will be angered by them. These people who do physically act against the cops but merely challenge them are not the problem, they are acting NORMALLY. But cops today are insecure and have fragile egos. Any challenge to there authoritah is to be put down.

      More and more people are being treated the way cops reserved for poor people of minority ethnicity (which varied by time and geography). Now that this sort of treatment is hitting “good” people, there is outrage. But still we see the masses think that the victim did something he/she shouldn’t have to deserve it or it was just a bad cop. Only when they are exposed to it first hand will they come to understand neither is true. It isn’t deserved and it’s policy.

      The reason things have gotten as far as they have is that people by and large still have the illusion that they are free. This illusion sits on the belief that cops only enforce these freedom threatening laws on “bad” people, people who deserve it. People do not like their illusions busted. They get very angry when that happens. It’s the cops that are going to bust that illusion of freedom right in their faces and thus it will be the cop that will be the immediate target of that anger.

      If a cop doesn’t enjoy this, doesn’t have the ego for it, can’t handle it without cracking skulls, doesn’t like risking his life collecting revenue for his bosses, he should look for a different job. And all it takes is a lack of enforcers for a police state to fall apart.

      • Very well said! Can ya’ll just imagine how much of this shit goes on every single day? The stuff we have the luxury of seeing is just by luck. I am a law abiding citizen (for the most part) and the only thing that scares me on the streets are cops and clovers!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here