“heroes” Value Their Privacy – But Not Ours

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s a video showing some “heroes” unhappy about a pair of guys taking video of the outside their nest – which is public property and which the citizens therefore have every legal right to take video of.

But the “heroes” do not like this.

They never do.

Notwithstanding that it is legal. Mark that. When a law doesn’t suit them, they obey it grudgingly – or simply ignore it.

They take filming them as an implicit challenge, an affront to their privacy and peace – which of course are sacred. Whereas ours is held in absolute contempt by them, to be violated at will whenever they feel so inclined.

The law reflects this stilted standard, too.

For example, “heroes” may legally ride around in cars (paid for by us, with money taken by force from us; hence not actually their cars) with windows so deeply tinted it is impossible to see the “hero” within – but in most states, it is an offense for ordinary people to have the windows of their cars (which are actually their property, paid for by themselves ) tinted beyond even slightly.

Because it is important for “heroes” to be able to violate our privacy at will.

They insist on the tint restrictions in order to be able to – effectively – search our vehicles with no legal cause whatsoever, merely by looking inside. Which they demand they be able to do at any time  – including when they pull up beside us in traffic.

It is irrelevant that we might not wish them to be able to look inside our vehicles – very much in the same way that most of us would prefer they not examine the contents of our pockets – at least absent the formality of probable cause to suspect a criminal act, which has fallen into desuetude in these times of Keeping Us Safe.

Tinted windows prevent causal thieves from being able to see what we have inside our cars, which is a reasonable and sound idea. Regardless, they are our cars – and window tint or not has nil effect on the “safety” of other drivers, therefore there is no legitimate justification for laws making it an offense to tint them. If this were not so – if tinted windows were a “safety issue” – then tinted opaque “hero” cars are very unsafe indeed.

Of course, it has nothing to do with “safety.”

It is exactly the same as a legal requirement – probably coming soon – that non-“heroes” may not put blinds or shades up in their homes;  “safety” (“officer safety” – not our safety) will be cited as the justification when this law is introduced – as it is cited with regard to laws about window tinting.

It is a question – as per Humpty Dumpty – of which is to be master, that is all. 

The same “heroes” who get upset when their space is violated – even though it is not actually their space (a “hero” nest is – as it’s styled – public property, paid for by the taxes extracted from the citizenry, which is why citizens have a legal right to be there and to video record there . . . for the moment) routinely violate our space.

Which is actually our space – because we pay for our homes and land, not the taxpayer.

Regardless, “heroes” trespass upon our property at will. March up to and stand menacingly on our lawns and driveways ad doorsteps – often without warrants – “just asking a few questions,” berating the owners (sic) for not being “cooperative” and “having a bad attitude.”

The thought that perhaps people do not like the presence of armed strangers they did not invite violating the privacy of their property, whom they have no interest in speaking with – and whom they regard in much the same way as a fly landing in one’s soup – never seems to occur to “heroes.”

Perhaps because the “heroes” have become to believe that they are, in fact, heroes – as opposed to what they actually are. Which is armed government workers. The mercenary troops of the government.

Law enforcers.

Over-armed, obsessed with their safety – recklessly indifferent to ours. Clueless about the growing contempt in which they are held by ordinary citizens, who grow tired of being ordered to present ID for no reason other than a “hero’s” need to assert who’s in charge. Of having their travel interrupted for no reason other than that they happen to be driving on a particular road at a particular time and now must prove they are not “drunk” or “on drugs” – despite no evidence or reason to believe that they might be.

Tired of the shaved heads, dark sunglasses, campaign hats and general’s stars.

Of demands for immediate deference and automatic obedience merely because they possess Authority. That is, because they are legally empowered to bully us.

Tired of this manufactured state of never-ending fear – which is being used to justify a regime of terrorism in the name of protecting us from it.


Perhaps laughing at these violent, paranoid geeks is the best medicine for now – as in the video above.

Take away their mirrored sunglasses and body armor and menacing uniforms and what’s left is a species of lesser humanity, the very banality of evil Hannah Arendt wrote about after the fall of the Third Reich. Once-menacing characters such as Ernst Kaltenbrunner and the better known Adolf Eichman and their ilk – who were also law enforcers – didn’t look very menacing once they were out of uniform – and in the dock.

Perhaps one day that history will repeat, as it ought to.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets – they’re back!  are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. Also, the eBook – free! – is available. Click here. Just enter you email in the box on the top of the main page and we’ll email you a copy instantly!





Share Button


  1. it would be refreshing if people would just laugh out loud at those legislators who propose such silly laws about tinted windows, and demand that the Heroes be driving vehicles with no tint at all…the better to make sure they are acting legitimately.

    • The usual excuse that I hear from people whose windows are tinted is that it keeps the car from getting like an oven when locked up and parked on a sunny day. Since there should be no reason for a police car to be parked with the engine off when on duty, there is no reason to obstruct the officer’s vision with window tint.

      • They do at times “lie in wait” for legitimate LE purposes. However, I agree with the “sauce for the goose” argument. To outlaw tinted windows would make any panel truck suspicious as well. Next you’ll have cops, when they pull over Sammy John’s “Chevy Van” (hopefully after he puts ‘her’ out…in a town that was so small…you could throw…a rock…from end to rend…else he’ll be investigated for ‘corrupting a minor’), they’ll make him open up all the doors and windows on the pretext of “Occi-fer Saa-f=tee”, and, since he “voluntarily”opened the van up, conduct a wee search, and “magically” find a pipe or joint, giving pretext to seize the Chevy Van and sell it off to pay for the Department’s “wish list” of “toys”.

  2. Yeah, they’re “heroes” all right, like the cowardly piece of shit in Florida who hunkered down to save is own vile miserable ass will kids were getting shot. “Officer safety” was obviously first in this craven cop’s mind. If I were the supreme high ruler, his transplant-able organs would be ripped from him as he screamed in agony to be given to decent people. His loathsome carcass would be ground into a slurry and cast into a pit where a tree could be planted to draw sustenance from his foul remains.

      • I for one look forward to jury duty and live for the day when I can bring the entire crushing machinery of the State to a grinding halt by simply kicking back and saying “Not Guilty.” The jury box is the only place where an individual has any real power in the tyrannical mess we find ourselves in. If I’m ever on a jury where the case is a non-violent victimless “crime” I will gleefully screw the dirtbag cops and the scumbag persecutor. Guaranteed. There will at the least be a mistrial where the gunvermin goons are left scratching their heads, if not a complete dismissal.


        • I haven’t received an answer to the last several messages I sent to FIJA, so I suspect that they are down to little more than a name. Larry Dodge got out at the right time, and they’ve never been the same. Voting not guilty will get you prosecuted if you are ignorant enough to give a reason the court doesn’t agree with. To get away with it, you’ll have to invoke your right to remain silent. Yes, that will lead to a mistrial when it should lead to an acquittal, by law.

        • The judge will invalidate the result if (s)he believes that the jury is performing an act of ‘Nullification”, and find the foreman in contempt for not delivering the expected verdict. Andrei Vishinsky and Roland Fresseiner must be laughing their assess off at us from down “there”.

    • I know you’re being kind. This incident has all the stench of a false flag. False flags don’t mean that someone wasn’t injured or killed. False flags are events that are allowed to happen.

      • False flags are events that are blamed on someone other than their creator. Events that are allowed to happen aren’t necessarily false flags.

  3. Ah yes, Charlie Beck, Four Star General of the LAPD. What a nice family he has, why his daughter likes horses, even loves them. So much so that dad got her a position as a mounted Police Officer. She even gets to ride her own personal Horse at work. Fed and doctored and housed by the tax paying public.

    I’m speaking of both the horse and Becks daughter about the Food, Housing and Doctoring……

  4. “what’s left is a species of lesser humanity,” More often than not, it is “My daddy works there, and got me a job at the police department. Good thing cause I’m too stupid to get a job where you have to think or work”.
    There is no way to both roust people and be respectful. And here we are asking folks that are too stupid to even get a real job, to do both.

  5. This video reminds me of a Huey Lewis and the News song, Bad is bad:
    Across the street
    A neon sign
    All you can eat for a
    Dollar ninety nine

    Our soul stew
    Is the baddest in the land
    But-a one dollar’s worth
    Was all that I could stand

    I couldn’t stand listening to the video until a “hero” appeared.

  6. I’m sorry, but these guys are idiots. It seems like they’re trying to give the impression of being an unstable people. If you don’t like cops (and I’m not a big fan), why provoke them and give them a reason to mess with you? Not my idea of a way to spend my free time. Do these guys have jobs?

    • Hi Rex,

      You prove my point.

      “Provoke” the cops? How so? By engaging in peaceful, legal activity? That these “heroes” do not like the activity ought to be irrelevant. It’s legal – therefore, they have a legal obligation to leave them alone.

      But the fact that it is legal does not matter. They are affronted – and that is what matters to them. Hence their aggressive tactics, demands for ID and so on.

      Your statement reveals the degree of your conditioning – the extent to which you defer to these geeks. These armed government workers. Whom you seem to think are owed deference.

      They deserve contempt.

      And to be laughed at.

      • Hello Mr. Peters, I believe you and Rex are both correct, but you are more so for the fact that the Police are Public Employees and not Private Citizens when they wear that uniform or are at work. The Police are subject to Public Scrutiny all the time as an Employee should be. If the Video Guy had done the same to me, a Private Citizen, I would have told him, Politely, to get the camera out of my face or I would break it. The Police can’t do that – at least in theory they can’t. Ask yourself this question ‘Am I a Public Employee or a Private Citizen’ when the camparison is made.
        Thank you for a good article.

        • Hi Hugh,

          Thanks for the back up!

          Also, I think the key point here is that taking video is legal. The law enforcers ought to know – and abide by – the law. They have a greater obligation to do so than you or I.

          The fact that law enforcers routinely ignore the law – and are not held accountable for it – is outrageous. That is what the men taking the video were attempting to convey and that is what Steve does not grok

        • Breaking his camera would constitute destruction of private properry, a crime.
          If you touched him in the process, you would be guilty of battery, a crime.
          Law enforcers frequently violate the law in ignorance, just like you would.

        • Doing that outside would likely get you prosecuted for destruction of property and possibly assault and/or battery. IF you’re out in the open, you have no expectation of privacy. Now, if the camera is pointed at you through your window, that’s another matter, you can call the cops yourself and get the “peeping Tom” taken care of.

          No one has an expectation of “privacy” if they’re out in the open, COPS included. However, I would as a simple matter of COURTESY, if there was a need to take pictures or video of someone, get their permission and contact info if they desired a copy for themselves. Some things can be easily resolved simply by being considerate.

      • Having had a lot of friends in and around police departments, I can testify with absolute certainty that a first semester pre-law student knows more about law and laws than the average police academy graduate. They are given a very cursory education in the most important laws to enforce and left to be directed by the city or town council who they actually answer to on the job, which usually prefer traffic ticket revenue unless it is a tourist trap. Tourists can do no wrong in a tourist trap, as long as they don’t require a code run.

    • I think Rex has a point. Does the guy shooting the video interact the same way with other people he meets during the day? Wouldn’t you find it annoying if, in a public place, someone walked up to you videotaping you and being provocative? Sure, you could walk away (as the cops could have done) but why act like a dick in the first place?

      • Hi Steve,

        The point is these “heroes” aren’t other people; they are “law enforcers.” To suggest that they abide by the law appears to be a bridge too far for some people.

        Who’s the “dick” here – the armed thugs who hassle these guys? Or the guys who mock them for hassling them?

        • If they aren’t people, how did they become LEOs?
          Hassling a LEO has never been something a person who wants to go unmolested by one to do.
          One of the primary ways I avoid LEOs is by habitually obeying traffic laws. When contacted, I treat them with the respect that they should deserve, regardless of the fact that some of them will attempt to extract hero worship.
          The only time I have ever had a gun intentionally pointed at me was one night when I was sitting in my van eating a Taco Bell taco. Someone saw me back up to a closed autobank in the parking lot of an open supermarket and called it in as suspicious. It was a warm summer night on a busy road, so I didn’t notice the officer until he spoke. Since I was looking down the barrel of his Glock, I went into maximum obedience mode (unusual for me). He demanded my drivers license and I asked him if I should put down the taco before I reached for it. This seemed to confuse him and “disarm” him at the same time. About the time I handed him the license, I noticed his mentor officer standing about thirty feet away with a humorous look on his face. After running my ID, he told me to leave. I contacted the department the next day to complain about what I perceived as excessive force, and was told that he had made a felony arrest the night before he encountered me and was still pumped. Early in the morning a day or two later, he spotted me and waited until I rolled out of the same lot where the previous encounter has occurred. Even though he should have known better, he asked me for my documents again. He then had me accompany him to the rear of the van, where after he pointed out that my tail lamp was out, I fixed it by wacking the fender. He gave me ticket for driving a defective vehicle. When the court appearance rolled around, I checked the docket to make sure I had the right courtroom and took a seat in the gallery. After the judge left the room, I approached the prosecutor and asked if I could leave. She asked if I had checked in and I asked where I was supposed to do that since there was no signage to that effect. She called an assistant who interviewed me in the witness waiting room. After recounting this whole story over a minicassette recorder that he carefully identified himself into, he asked what I wanted to have happen. I told him that I would appeal any conviction up to whatever level the excessive force issue could be introduced to show the officer was stalking me. He offered and I accepted a dismissal of the charge, and I left.

  7. Eric, Great article. Regarding tinted windows. I believe that tinted windows that are effectively opaque from the outside do present a safety hazard. Eye contact plays an important role when driving. I often look to see what the other driver is looking at or doing or looking at when driving. When someone is preparing to turn left in front of me, did he look my way? Did he see me coming? I walk a lot. Turn signals and eye contact are very important to the pedestrian, not just to other drivers. Is the driver going to stop at the stop sign so I can cross? Did he even look my way to see if anyone is about to cross the street in front of them. Dark tinted windows obscure important visual cues. Do you look through the windows of the vehicle in front of you to see what is transpiring ahead? I am making a left on a four lane road. There is a string of cars coming from the opposite direction waiting to make a left in front of me. It’s difficult to see if cars are coming towards me in the oncoming curb side lane. I look through the windows of the vehicles in front of me to help determine whether it safe to proceed or not. OMG, the driver next to me has a flat or some other kind of problem. I pull along side, beep the horn and try to get his attention. There is no response. Is he aware that I am trying to get his attention? Who knows. All I can see is a black window. Eye to eye contact and other visual cues play an important role in safe driving. Opaque windows obscure important visual cues and make driving less safe.

    • I have been driving for over 45 years and one thing that has become unreliable about other drivers in that time has been their predictability with eye contact. Combine that with the fact that a growing majority of them don’t use their signals or obey right of way laws, and it is safer to assume that one cannot know what they might do next. I have become very good at reading vehicle language, and it becomes less applicable every day. I retaliate by going slow (so they’ll pass me) and stopping at stop signs (which very few do). Being in the right is of no value when needing to be extricated.

  8. The contents of this article irritate the living hell out of me…because it is TRUE.

    I take exception with the knee jerk assertion that the problem is the COPS. We are the problem when we put up with the crap as described. I am not defending the police, as I have been accused. Blaming Lt. Calley for the RVN war is just as misplaced. Our society is sick with Fascism; we are the fourth Reich. What else can account for the conditions so well describe by Eric.

    Recently I have observed two of my county cop cars parked front to back, side by side, occupants talking, OFF THE RECORD. Twice ! This is tantamount to HRC’s private server. No consequences while they exchange phone numbers.

    We must stop participating in all this HERO WORSHIT. Wonder when the public will come to realize that the police exemplify pure Stolen Valor. Every two-bit shit head Chief is a five-star general…WTF ? Remember that all that clap trap using rank designations is phony. There is no rank. These are, contrary to the military, job titles. Nothing more. WTF ?

    • This is where again I become the crazy person because I study root cause. Modern (usual use of the word in regards to US society referring to their 19th century political origins and the time since) policing is about keeping the social classes in their place and enforcing economic law while collecting revenue for government.

      As a result americans want the police to enforce laws against those bad people over there but not them. Ever notice when some Barney Fife enforces the laws against good people or a good person gets treated like the bad people it can become a human interest news story? That’s this attitude showing through.

      It is this way because people want it this way. It was designed to be this way. People just get upset when they find they are part of the social classes to be controlled. So then comes the ‘hero’ worship which is an extension of the same fiction that keeps wars happening. People need their illusions, just watch what happens when saying anything that may pop them.

    • Lt. Calley was CONVICTED of murder and served hardly a year or two in jail. The soldiers ARE responsible for the atrocities they commit. Read 4 hours at My Lai. Read how the mothers complained “you turned my honest boy into a murderer” Funny point made in the book, they never complained about the B52 pilots killing many thousands of women and children from 30,000 feet. They only complain when it is up close and personal.

      • That’s the nature of WAR, Johnny, and you’re foolish and NAIVE. A soldier OBEYS orders. He is at times ordered to do things that he would reasonably find distasteful and disturbing and would NEVER consider back in “The World”. Blame his superiors, whom would have included GEN Westmoreland and President Nixon, for ambiguous and conflicting orders in a theater where the standing rules of engagement did not reflect the reality of what the grunts had to deal with. In “Nam”, ANYONE could be an enemy, and GIs got killed when they disregarded that caution. Of course, that we put soldiers and airmen in harm’s way without a clear plan to win nor an exit strategy is unforgivable, but blaming an Army 1LT whom had no business with a commission, whom rightfully would have made a decent supply sergeant at best, was wrong-headed and Nixon was correct to pardon him in 1971.

        The hell of it is that we have cops HERE whom don’t understand the difference…too many of these bulldog-jowled, crew-cutted, Ray-Ban wearing goons obviously didn’t get enough “trigger time” in Fallujah or Kanduhar, judging by how they approach CIVILIAN policing…as if they’re constantly in a war zone! It’s that sort of vicarious theatrics and its supporting and mis-placed hero worship that gets Americans killed at an increasing rate by the CIVILIAN police whom are supposedly sworn to “protect and serve”…but obviously not THEM!

  9. Shunning can be an effective method for dealing with copfuks. Identify the rogue cops, “dox” them, publishing their names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers. Post pictures of them with their information on utility poles. When they have to explain to their families why nobody in town will do business with them, they might get the message. This works especially well in small towns.

  10. Think a hero will come save you during a mass shooting? In the case of the Parkland Florida high school mass shooting, nope.

    “Deputy on duty during school shooting never went inside.” This is the hero assigned as the school “resource” officer. He is seen on video waiting outside several minutes during the attack.

    I had heard the shooter had not come across the school hero during his attack, but now we know why.


    He has resigned. But that will probably make it easier to get hired on somewhere else in a few months when its long forgotten.

    This kind of stuff is the reason we need to legalize self defense anywhere.

    IMHO, if you proclaim a gun free zone, your failure to protect should be a major liability. As in you should be sued into the stone ages. If you have to be insured for everything else these days, why aren’t gun free zones required to carry insurance? Requiring insurance will end this idiotic practice overnight.

  11. The hypocrisy of the cops is astounding. As they want to ban (and ultimately confiscate) AR-15 from us proles, they insist on carrying them more than ever. When Sheriff Israel declared that the cops would now be carrying AR-15s in Parkland High, none of the anti-gun people so much as blinked.

    Cops are exempt from EVERYTHING they will arrest you for. What does a cop do to catch a speeder? He speeds. What does a cop do after he tickets you for talking on your cell phone while driving? Talks on his cell phone. What does a cop do after he writes you a seatbelt ticket? Drives away without his seatbelt on.

    The Magic Government Tin Badge makes then SO superior to the rest of us filth…

  12. Would be nice if we mundanes could have tinted windows. I know I would make mine dark. It would help keep the car cool in the hot weather, keep the sun from fading the interior, plus keeping people from seeing your property inside………….sigh…..

  13. Yes, they do value their privacy as any Free person should. However, their reaction to being filmed in public is laughable. When the TIPS program was proposed in 2003 or so the US House member representing NC-9 was on a local talk show. When the host pressed her on the invasion of privacy aspect she blurted out, “If yer not doin’ sumpthin’ wrong, what’s yer problem?” To which I wanted to reply, “If I’m not doing something wrong what’s YOUR problem?”

    As far as the “hero” moniker goes, it may have been Will Grigg who wrote, “if you start calling them all heroes they’ll soon begin to like it. Then they’ll expect it. And before long they will DEMAND it.”

    I think we may already be there.

  14. I was watching some show the other day where a bunch guys in identical green outfits, body armor and helmets were kicking in doors while wielding M-4s. Flashbangs, shouting, the whole bit.

    It wasn’t the Army practicing MOUT at Ft. Irwin, it was the East Bumfuck Sheriff’s Office training for no-knock raids on Cheech and Chong.

    Swine Assault Teams (SWAT) are an end-run around Posse Comitatus and they know it, so if they can’t USE the ARMY, they’ll BECOME the Army.

  15. I do laugh at them, unfortunately I do not get the opportunity as often as those who live in occupied territory. On the occasion I do see a SWAT officer, all decked out in his / hers camo, body armor, helmet, goggles and jack boots, I either laugh at them and ask them if they realize how silly they look or I ask them if the invasion is on and do I need to run home and grab my rifle. You should see the looks I get in return, a real HOOT!

    • Cops in BDUs and body armor are like those cosplayers who go to sci-fi conventions dressed up in a homemade costume of their favorite video game or anime character.

      We’d laugh at them if we saw them out on the street, so why NOT laugh at the cops cosplaying soldiers?

        • They are more treasonous than most cops ever get a chance to be:
          Treason is defined in the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3, as consisting “only in levying War against (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
          All members of the American military take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
          When the military is committed to foreign actions without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution, that is a violation of the Constitution, arguably the action of domestic enemies.
          When a member of the military participates in an unconstitutional foreign military deployment, s/he violates both the Constitution and his/her oath to “support and defend” it, giving “aid and comfort” to it’s “domestic enemies,” committing treason by the definition given by the Constitution.

    • In defense of the campaign hat, when I was a Boy Scout in Montana long ago the Scouts had a version of that and it was a very nice hat for outdoor wear hiking and camping. Reasonably waterproof in brief showers, provided good shade and kept leaves, branches and other items from hitting your head or face.
      Not sure why troopers wear those other than for the outdoor protection. You can secure those hats with the included chin strap, unlike the cowboy hat, for high winds. Cowboy hats are better looking but can blow off in high winds and the felt ones are hotter than the thinner campaign hats. Also, unless you are in the West the cowboy hat will look out of place. So don’t take out the dislike of cop crazies on the hat. You can also stick feathers, etc. in the small band around the bottom of the crown to spiff up your look, so you won’t look like a “law enforcer.”

      • It being a part of the uniform is the only justification.
        If one considers what supposedly intelligent men and women are willing to do to add trinkets to their uniforms, one would have to assume that the military has more validity as a cult than as a defensive entity.
        Being a resident of what is called “the cowboy state,” I can tell you that you will see more baseball caps on cowboys in real life than cowboy hats on actors in westerns.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here