Diapered AGW Attacks Man for “Walking off Trail”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Video has surfaced of an armed and Diapered government worker attacking a man for walking his dog “off trail” in New Mexico.

According to news reports, Darrell House – a former Marine – was out for a stroll at the Petroglyph National Monument in Albuquerque, NM when he found himself facing the faceless AGW, who began barking commands, including that the man show his “papers.”

The man did not immediately step n’ fetchit, which constitutes a “threat” to the “safety” of armed government workers. Out came the Agonizer – some will know the reference – and the man can be seen writhing in pain on the ground as the AGW continues to bark orders at him.

“Today… I was tased for being off trail at the Petroglyphs. I come here to pray and speak to my Pueblo Ancestor relatives. Even though I’m Navajo and Oneida, I honor this land,” House wrote in a caption on one of the Instagram videos.

The victim understands why he was victimized – and it had nothing to do with being “off trail.”

“Power, dominance . . . to keep people like me in order,” he told local media.

AGWs like this one will be the ones coming to your door with the Needle  . .  and their guns.

. . . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – 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: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!


Share Button


  1. Reading many of these comments defending the tasering order follower…I guess you get your freedom only as long as you follow the(ir) rules?

    Or maybe I’ll patrol the sandy desert (I live in AZ so don’t give me that “itz a fragel eecosiztem” line. The desert is much tougher than a few people walking on it.) with a taser and electrocute anyone who doesn’t comply with me or show me their papers.

    And good thing the AGW kicked the guy’s phone away. The perp might have been trying to open the “Self Destruct” app on his phone.

    • The very fact that the AGW kicked the “perp’s” phone away tells me that he KNEW he was doing wrong and intended to stop his subject from gathering evidence against him. That’s called obstruction of JUSTICE, let alone vandalism (damage to the phone?).

      • And the electrocution victim was trying to grab it, maybe to film, but maybe it had a laser gun built in. Officers can’t be too careful ya know. As the mainland Chinese (among whom I lived for 4.5 years) have been programmed to repeat, when presented with gov. fuckery, “well as we all know, every coin has 2 side”

    • Hi Auric and Anon,

      turtle blues had already provided a link to the entire 9 minute video of the encounter, so this is not new. This video does not justify the officers’ actions. Unless, refusing to show one’s papers to an authority figure, who is demanding his ID to determine if he can issue a citation instead of a warning, justifies a potentially lethal assault.


      • Jeremy, I was almost killed by a pig Saturday and so was Cholley Jack. We went for out driveway walk. I hadn’t looked out and was busy getting my rifle strapped on, never having a clue I’d need it. By the time I got to the ground from the front porch I could see a enraged and fast pig coming for CJ. CJ realized he was no match and I did too when I saw it. The pig must have been rolling in cowshit because by the time I got my rifle unslung and tried to get an aim, CJ nearly covered the entire outline of the mad pig. I had just a second and managed to get off a shot right above CJ’s butt and hit the top of the pig’s butt. That turned the pig enough I put another into a gut shot(this was the fastest shot I ever had to take) and as it kept running I put one in it’s chest and saw a spray of blood come out but it kept on going. I inspected CJ and saw he had cowshit on his butt, too close to call, for him and me. Wifey called him back to the porch just a few feet away and I told her to clean his butt. She was her regular self not even seeing it. I backed up to the porch, got us all inside and shut the door but never took the safety off. Pigs are crazy mean. I later went to look for it, buzzing as I went. I only got an easy breath when I saw it by the water not breathing or moving. That’s my method for dealing with pigs and that’s not the first time. I don’t care what color they are or what their uniform. I got a whole new respect for M 193.

  2. Well Well Well the Washington Examiner has a new 6+ min video via the AGW’s body cam tells a whole different story, This Geronimo wannabe dude was a dick. He provoked the ranger over and over.

    I know we all love to hate the State and it’s enforcers but a little fact finding and critical thinking is in order before we act like hoards taking up pitchforks.

  3. And what about that pesky Constitution thing. You know, the one that says the federal government can only own property in any State with that State’s permission, and it can only be used for “forts, magazines, and other needful buildings”. The entire national park system is clearly illegal in the first place. All Federal land used for other purposes should be open for homesteading. Not that we have a functioning Constitution any more. It’s coup de grace was finalized this year.

  4. Here is a link which includes the park ranger’s lapel cam footage.
    => https://www.kob.com/
    => albuquerque-news/lapel-footage-released-of-confrontation-between-park-ranger-native-american-man/5963417/
    Petroglyph National Monument is manged by the National Park Service.
    The park ranger is an employee of National Park Service, not Albuquerque PD.
    (I include this because APD is, shall we say, somewhat notorious for using force, including deadly force, with questionable justification.
    This is *NOT* APD.
    Some here will say, who the f*ck cares what costume was worn, or who signs his paycheck.
    I beg to differ, in this case.

    Based on the lapel cam, it appears to me the park ranger was just doing his job, and *very* politely requested compliance form the individual in question, who somehow believes the rules about staying on the trail do not apply to him, because of his Native American heritage. We see immediate theatrics and exaggerated cries of distress before any harm whatsoever is done to him, which only intensify after he is tased. IMO, this clown is what may be described as a) a “professional Indian,” and b) a “professional victim.”
    IMO, he is very much akin to the “drummer” who got in Nick Sandmann’s face.
    Sorry, i have *zero* tolerance for such people.

    Jeremy here says “people wander off the trail here all the time.” Well, fine . People run red lights and stop signs all the time, too. Doesn’t make it right (and, yes, I have ignored red lights in the wee hours after coming to a complete stop and realizing there was no traffic, traffic to include AGWs w/ bubblegum machines on their roofs).

    The rule is there for a reason.
    Eric, and perhaps others here, live in a verdant environment which has far more capacity to heal itself than the high desert of the American Southwest. Partly, the rule is undoubtedly in place due to the volume of use. I have not visited Petroglyph, but I have hiked La Luz, more than once.
    These trails are adjacent to a major metropolitan area, and are thus subject to high use. High use means high impact, which require reasonable rules to preserve them for all to use.
    Slightly OT (but not much), a woman I once dated told me that Mt. Whitney trail is “nothing but pee and poop,” because people to not respect the rules.
    I have not myself hiked Mt. Whitney, so I will stand corrected if the situation has improved.

    To summarize, IMO this “professional Indian” is a jackass, and deserved what he got.
    note: If you follow the link above to KOB TV and scroll down the page, you will find an additional video by another “professional victim” couple, the male of which voluntarily wears a six pointed yellow star. Take it somewhere else, a-holes. I do *not* want to hear about it.

    -f rom a white male who spent most of his childhood in Albuquerque (Ridgecrest/Nob Hill, HHS class of 1966, for those who know the area)

    • This stay on the trail/no motor vehicles/no wheeled vehicles/no pets/no camping/no fun are just mission creep which eventually leads to no human use. For mother gaia. For the sea turtles. For the moss etcetcetc. It never ends until we’re all concentrated in ultra-surveilled ridgidly enforced “smart” cities. SSS

      • Yeah, but, guess what?
        People are leaving the cities, because COVID, among other things.
        Unintended consequence for those who would rule us, IMO.
        Well, *GOOD*.
        F* them and the mules they rode in on, IMO.

    • Yeah, I smell bullshit with this statement:

      “I come here to pray and speak to my Pueblo Ancestor relatives. Even though I’m Navajo and Oneida, I honor this land”…

      “Navajo and Oneida” is a hell of a combination, Navajos being from Arizona and Oniedas from New York. Came to pray, my ass. Sounds like a post hoc rationalization after he got jammed up.

      Cops are certainly assholes, but in a significant number of cases so are their minority “victims” who think they can do whatever they want and then just play the race card.

      In some of these cases it’s hard to pick a side… they both deserve each other.

      • Mmmm, hmm.
        Navajo + Zuni I might believe.
        Diné + Oneida is a *real* stretch, and neither has anything to do with the various Pueblo peoples.
        This joker is a fraud, no matter his heritage.

      • Hi X,

        “In some of these cases it’s hard to pick a side”.

        In this case, no it’s not. It doesn’t matter if he’s a “fake” Indian or an asshole, all he did was to refuse to comply with a morally, and probably legally, illegitimate order, “show your papers!”

        The officer assaulted a man for refusing to comply, the full video clearly shows this.


    • Hi Turtle,

      I watched the entire 9 minute video and at no point is the assault on the man justified. He never threatens the officer or endangers him. He simply refuses to produce ID. This clearly annoys the officer, which culminates in the assault. If the officer were actually interested in protecting the park, rather than asserting his authority, he could have simply asked them to vacate the unauthorized area, even escorted them. He did not do this, he insisted that producing his ID was a necessary precondition for the resolution he claimed to want. Mr. House was not given the chance to leave peaceably. I suspect, but do not know, that he would have done so were it not for the AGW’s insistence that he produce ID. Which, it is important to add, was requested by the officer for the purpose of possibly escalating a warning into a citation.

      I’m glad that you posted the link to the complete video, as it confirms that the officer’s action were unjustified. Unless, as libertarians, we accept the idea that refusing to show one’s papers warrants a summary assault.


      • Hi, Jeremy,
        and thanks for your response.
        Well, reasonable men can disagree.
        I guess there are at least two issues here.
        Perhaps more, but at least,
        A) failure to obey the park rules, and
        B) Failure to produce ID.
        I gather you live in NM. Is that correct?
        I do not, having lived in SoCal since the late 1970s.
        I do not know NM law, but here in California, AFAIK, citizens are not required to carry “official papers,” except when driving a motor vehicle. (That is another topic, for another time.) And bravo for that, I say. Zu papier, bitte, is from another country, another century, and IMO has no place in a free society. 🙂
        >Mr. House was not given the chance to leave peaceably.
        >I suspect, but do not know, that he would have done so
        Well, here we differ.
        I suspect, but do not know, that Mr. House was seeking confrontation, for reasons known only to him, and would *not* have voluntarily complied with Park Ranger’s perfectly legal request to stay on the trail. My personal opinion is that Mr. House believed he was entitled to “special treatment,” and i have no patience with such people.
        Once more, this is a matter of opinion, and reasonable men may hold differing opinions.

        • Hi turtle,

          Thanks for responding. Yes, I live in NM and, unfortunately, NM is a “Stand and Deliver” State, oops I meant “Stop and Identify” State.


          However, I don’t think that park rules are laws as recognized in the statute, but I may be wrong on this. Still, so what? As libertarians we make distinctions between what is moral and what is legal. In this case, the officer made clear that his intention in demanding ID was to determine whether the individual had been warned before, and that the warning may escalate to a citation if he had. In other words, the demand was an exercise of authority, for the purpose of possible revenue extraction. Fuck him.

          As for the motives of Mr. House, why does it matter? Do we accept that a man may be justifiably assaulted for failing to comply with an immoral order? The officer did not need to demand ID, at no time did Mr. House refuse to leave the “unauthorized” trails, he was not given a chance to do so unless he complied with the ID order. If, as the officer proclaimed, his interest was in protecting the park, why did he not simply ask them to leave without an ID requirement? The video shows that the officer approached them from a long way off, he even apologized for being out of breath, due to catching up with them. This indicates, but does not prove, that the officer initiated contact. So, I think the evidence supports Mr. House’s claim that they were enjoying the holidays by walking in nature. We cannot know this, but I don’t see evidence that Mr. House was seeking confrontation. As for feeling entitled to “special treatment”, I agree that this is a common and loathsome tactic today, but am not sure that Mr. House would have gone there were it not for the officers statement that “this land is sacred to many”.

          Also, your observation about the relative frailty of the high desert is correct. Cryptogamic soil is delicate and it is important to protect it. So, the rules about hiking “on trail” do make sense. Still, one can hike “off trail” and not damage this topsoil, which appears to be the case here. The only time I saw Mr. House venture off the “natural” trails that exist between the scrub and topsoil was when he was tasered.

          Of course, we cannot know the motivations of Mr. House, if he is a “professional Indian”, an asshole, or a self entitled jerk, exploiting racial “victim” status. All of that may be true, but is entirely irrelevant. What we do know, proven by the full video, is that he was assaulted by an AGW, with a potentially lethal weapon, without moral justification. Is that not enough to condemn the actions of this officer?

          Kind Regards,

          • Hi, Jeremy,

            I learned a new word! Thanks 🙂
            Wikipedia article is rather extensive, for those who are interested.

            To speak to the question of “Why the rules?” I believe, as I stated previously, it is very likely a question of traffic volume. Five thousand tramping boots likely do a great deal more damage than five, or fifty.
            Another *possible* reason for “stay on the trail” @ Petroglyph is the nature of the place. Petroglyphs are really a form of “ancient graffiti.” Whether they have religious significance to anyone, in this case, I do not know (perhaps you do?). Either way, there are undoubtedly *some* a-holes out there who would be in favor of some 21st century “editing,” which would destroy the monument. (I also like to see Juan de Oñate’s “Pasp por aqui” @ El Morro without any modern “embellishments.”) Park police do have to deal with these possibilities.

            An interesting question, to which I do not know the answer, is, “What law governs on NPS land? ” Are national parks and national monuments governed by the laws of the state in which they are located, or does U.S. federal law take precedence? If the former, then park rangers will have more, or less, authority, depending on the location of the park. My hunch (but I do not know) is that the feds have anticipated this possibility, and dealt with it (somehow). As I say, I am speculating.

            But now, to the question of law versus morality. Certainly it is true that you must obey the dictates of your own conscience. It is also true that if the law conflicts with your beliefs, you will have trouble with the law, until or unless you can get the law changed.

            Do I think the Park Ranger handled the situation poorly? That assertion appears defensible. IOW, yes. It is possible he could have achieved a better outcome without the repeated tasings. Maybe park rangers should be provided with nets, to deal with recalcitrant individuals in a more “humane” manner. 🙂 Tasers were intended as a “non lethal” alternative to firearms, but, as the years have passed, it has become apparent they are *not* entirely harmless, and a) may be misused by overzealous laws enforcement, and/or b) be totally ineffective with some individuals. What to do?

            I seem to remember reading once, a long time ago, that some clever polymer chemists @ Sandia Labs were attempting to develop some kind of “sticky goo” which would function as a “one time net” for this purpose. Evidently they were unsuccessful, or maybe just had to go back to their regular task of devising better ways to blow up the world.

            Thanks for keeping it civil. 🙂

            • Hi tb,

              I also appreciate your civility, thanks.

              I stated that the rules make sense, because cryptogamic soil is important and delicate in this environment. Petroglyphs certainly have cultural and historical significance, and probably religious significance as well. Some argue that they were also information markers. And yes, some assholes add their own graffiti, but it is surprisingly rare.

              I don’t know what laws officially govern NPS land.

              As for how the Park Ranger behaved. The full video you provided makes it clear that his primary concern was the exercise of authority, NOT the protection of the park. He stated that he needed to get ID so he could check whether the man had been warned before. He also stated that, if he had not, the couple could simply leave the unauthorized area without penalty. He also stated that, if he had, a citation could be issued. So, according to the officer himself, the demand for ID was about enforcement and revenue collection, NOT protecting the park. We can never know how Mr. House would have responded if the officer simply asked the couple to leave the unauthorized area, but didn’t demand his ID, this option was never presented to him. I believe, after watching the entire video, that the couple would have obeyed this request. But, that is merely speculation. What is undeniable is that the officer valued his exercise of authority (demand for ID) MORE than he valued protecting the park. Again, the only time the delicate soil was threatened was when the officer assaulted Mr. House.

              In any case the full video clearly shows that the officer assaulted this man without moral justification. This action will, almost certainly, be deemed appropriate by the internal protection agency of the Park Service.

              Kind Regards,

              • WTF protection would he have provided out there in fresh air. It’s all bullshit to me. Cops are sorry POS, every one. Who else would do something like this?

      • Trust me, I’m not cop-lover. But the Supreme Court ruled in the Hiibel case that you must provide ID if the cops ask.

        Now, I might think that is BS, but the cops can and will use the Hiibel precedent to justify their actions.

        The problem is that the erosion of our civil liberties goes far beyond the individual cop on the beat. The cops on the beat get away with what they do because judges, juries, DAs, and Supreme Courts allow them to. The rot in the criminal “justice” system is pervasive on every level.

        • Hi X,

          I don’t think you’re a cop lover, nor meant to imply it. Nor am I claiming that the officers demand for ID was unlawful, a case can be made that it was, and maybe it wasn’t (depends on what is legally defined as “criminal activity”) but, you’re right cops can, and will, insist that they have this right. My point is, so what? The demand was not necessary for a peaceful resolution, it was presented as a condition for a possible peaceful resolution. We cannot know whether Mr. House would have agreed to leave the unauthorized trails peaceably because he was never given the opportunity to do so.

          The officer claimed that he was primarily concerned with protecting the park, but his actions speak otherwise. Austrian econ 101, preferences are displayed through action, not speech. His actions indicate that he was primarily concerned with exercising authority.


            • Morning, Eight!

              I agree with you and Jeremy. The core of the matter, as I see it, is that this man was out for a walk in the desert. He wasn’t causing any harm. This idea that people are obliged to step n’ fetchit whenever a Holy Armed Government Worker appears is despicably servile. But he was a nice AGW! No, he wasn’t. His “soft” initial tone was laced with the implicit violence that hangs over every interaction with an AGW. It is not like a causal conversation with another person. The AGW has the badge and the gun – and you know it. So does he.

              But he just wanted to give the guy a friendly warning!

              No, he was demanding their names and other personal info, none of which is necessary to issue a friendly warning.

              The whole song and dance was a prequel to the Hut! Hut! Hut!

              All because a man minding his own business, not causing any harm, just wanted to go for a walk and didn’t want to deal with a government creep wearing a badge and a Face Diaper.

              I get this. People are sick of being hassled.

              What the AGW did was make a point of showing who is Boss.

              And that is why so many of us can’t stand these creatures.

              • Morning Eric,

                “But he just wanted to give the guy a friendly warning!”.

                If one watches the full video, the officer is open about why he “needs” the information: to determine whether the man has been warned before, if he has, the officer could issue a citation. Mr. House had no moral obligation to contribute to his own potential harm. The officer was not nice, he was using a tactic. He was not reasonable as there is nothing reasonable about the demand for ID if, as he claimed, the purpose was to get the couple to leave the area.


                • Hi Jeremy,

                  Yup. The “good cop” routine. There is an insipid quality to this pantomime. Yes, I’m a really nice guy and want to make friends. It’s no big deal, just cooperate…

                  How about: Fuck off.

                  Americans – many of them – have lost the needle to their compass. A free man ought to be able to go for a walk without being ID’d. “The law” be damned. “The law” is precisely the problem.

        • X,
          I don’t know who this Hiibel person is but, what if you don’t have ID on you? Sometimes when I go hiking I leave my ID in the car.

          • I don’t carry any ID on me when I’m not driving. Just some cash and keys. I can’t give the taxfeeding thugs what I don’t have.

            By the way, William, I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I admire your work on “The Time Tunnel”. Very impressive sets and effects for the time though the scripts are nothing special for the most part.

          • Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada is the 2004 precedent in which the Supreme Court ruled that cops had the legal right to ask for your ID or name. The subject in question refused to provide name or ID and was arrested. He was not driving at the time.


            The problem is that terms used in the Constitution such as “probable cause” and “unreasonable searches and seizures” are subjective and thus dependent on how the courts interpret them. If the courts rule that cops had “probable cause” or were acting “reasonably” when they beat the fuck out of you for not cooperating with them, then they can and will do it and will get away with it.

            • I would refuse regardless. (They can ask all they like. It does not mean that I’ll comply.) If I don’t have ID I can’t show it to them, and I will not give them a name other than “Enemy of the State.”

        • Hi X,

          I think – if I understand the law correctly – an AGW cannot simply demand ID at his whim. There must be probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed. In other words, an AGW cannot legally just walk up to you and demand ID because you are walking down a public sidewalk. But in this case, the AGW may have been legally entitled to demand ID given the man did violate a law, apparently.

          Even so, the attack on the man was totally over-the-top. At worst, the man “walked off the trail” and “was disobedient.” If we’re gong to torture people for such “crimes” then this country truly is lost.

          • Well — and I am not being pedantic here, but this is an important distinction — it is not so much a question of understanding “the law” as it is a matter of “following the precedent.” The IS often a difference between “the law” and what the courts SAY the law is.

            And yes, you are correct, the precedent says that the cops can ask for ID if they have probable cause — which in turn is completely subjective. This Indian guy was, by his own admission, breaking the rules of the park, so the cop had probable cause. The greater problem is that even if the Indian had not been breaking the rules, any cop could have easily manufactured probable cause by saying the magic words “I smelled marijuana” or “I believed he had a weapon” when it was in fact, say, a cell phone, or “I believed he was intoxicated” because he stumbled.

            The fact remains that the courts, which are staffed by socio-political elites, gave the cops these powers. The idea that one can stand up to the cops and then have his day in court is largely fantasy, and the idea that the cop will personally pay a price for his actions is usually a fantasy as well.

            The best policy is to avoid the cops as much as possible. However this Indian guy failed to do that by taking the attitude “I’m an Indian, I can walk wherever I want.”

            • And the most “magic” words of all are, “I believed my life was in danger.”
              You will be “defending” yourself from that incantation from beyond the grave, if at all.

          • And demand of “ID”, which only applies in states with “stop and identify” statutes, is still in flux insofar as the LEGAL requirement to produce a Government-issued ID card (usually a Driver’s License) on demand by the ‘peace’ officer. Yes, in ALL states, if the LEO asks your name and place of residence, you do have a requirement to truthfully answer, promptly, but you do NOT have to carry “your papers, please”. Even in states with the “Stop and ID” laws, an LEO may only TEMPORARILY detain to investigate IF “reasonable suspicion” of a crime exists, that generally being considered, in most cases, to be an hour or less. That is, de facto, an ARREST, and one should consider himself as having all rights pertaining to arrestees and employing caution thereof. An further detention is, in the eyes of the law, an actual arrest, and must be based on “probable cause”, which is a higher level of proof. Of course, there is but one “wee” problem…it’s generally not a good idea to argue the finer points of detention and/or arrest procedures with a hostile, self-righteous, abusive LEO, it’s a bad situation that you can’t “win” by force or evasion, at least not in the end, and you would most likely turn what could be a lucrative lawsuit into being a LONG-term “guest” of the state, or even the most “righteous man” in the whole Gott-damned cemetery! As any attorney would advise…don’t fight the cops, even if they are being abusive, on the street, save the fight for your lawyer to carry out in COURT.

          • eric, true enough and it varies from state to state. Besides, I think SCOTUS has that same smell that got rubbed off on CJ Sat.

    • Why can’t somebody take a hike off the beaten trail?

      Always somebody in your face no matter where you are.

      It’s stupid. Not only in your face, tase the insolent untermensch too.

      It’s stupid to wear a mask, but it is 100 percent wear your mask, buy your draught beer and remove your mask to drink your daily beer.

      It’s stupid, but everybody does it. It makes no sense.

      The poor soulless park ranger has no idea how much damage he has done, to the victim and to himself. No freaking idea. Why does the park ranger want to behave like he did? Over the line tasing someone several times and not have your conscience bothered beyond reason.

      Have a luckless rest of your miserable life. uff da.

      If you don’t want to live and let live, you deserve the hell coming to you.

  5. Theres a serious flaw in the “Lets see some ID” routine – the victim gets to eagerly comply reaching into pockets for their permission slip. Gnomesayin?

  6. Would it not have been a refreshingly glorious day if half way through the vicious encounter the AGW holstered his torture device and stated “It’s holiday season and I’m just not up to the drama today. Please stay on the trail and have a great day.” I have been witness to AGW’s in other countries acting in such a non-escalating manner, as I am suggesting, for small infractions.
    This unwarranted action by the AGW is kind of Deja vu of the March 2020 Carlsbad Caverns NM incident where the fat POS ranger ROBERT MITCHELL executed a young Mr Lorentz for contempt of cop. How convenient that AGW MITCHELL’s camera ‘stopped working’ for the 26 seconds it took to snuff out Mr Lorentz’s life.

    In this latest incident, if not for the fact that Mr House’s sister was filming the unnecessary encounter, I truly believe Mr House, and his cool friendly little dog, would of both ended up dead, bleeding out in the sand due to multiple gun shots, and the AGW’s camera would of mysteriously ‘stopped working’ at that critical point.

  7. Good Morning RG,

    This video gives a little more context and also probably explains why his hike was filmed. Another person, seemingly filming the event, shrieks in horror as the cop brutally assaults Mr. House. Again, the ONLY justification for such an assault is if Mr. House posed a genuine threat to the officer, he clearly did not. This is evidenced by the fact that he had no weapons, and that he was not charged by the officer for any “offense” that could endanger him. He was cited for, “interfering with agency function, concealing his identity and being off the trail”, none of which even remotely justifies this assault.


    I just don’t see this as anything like the Sandeman situation. In that case, there was no justification for the initial condemnation, as even the edited video did not show any obvious harassment. In this case, we see a brutal attack, and we know that the attack was not done in self defense, the only possible justification for it. Wise land use policy, following rules, etc… are completely irrelevant to this.


  8. Stay in line, follow orders, there will be consequences.

    Here’s agenda 30: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

    Vandals damaged natural gas lines that feed Aspen, CO sometime yesterday.

    That’s not nice. Might start happening everywhere.

    Malicious intent, find the bums and let them stand out in the cold for a couple of hours to settle them down.

  9. “Apologies, we lost our signal with our reporter Stephanie…”

    Yea, I’m sure you did. Someone put the kibosh to that story once the shot of the man on the ground got to the transmitter. My guess is Steph is going to be covering the controversy over at the landfill for the next few weeks.

  10. Okay, okay, I know I am going to get beat up on this, but here is my viewpoint anyway. In every story there are three sides….his side, her side, and the truth. In my opinion, we are missing a large part of the video to actually deem what is “truthful” and in no way am I supporting the outrageous use of force from the forest ranger because it was excessive and uncalled for, but the trail was closed for a reason. Just because the guy is Native American does not mean he gets to surpass the rules that the rest of us are obligated to follow. What happens if the trail had a potential for landslides and he got hurt or the was the habitat for a mama bear and her two cubs and he got mauled? Let me guess, he wouldn’t sue right, and taxpayers (since it was a state park) wouldn’t end up bearing the cost?

    In a perfect world I would say people should be able to come and go on public land as they please, hell we are paying for it, might as well use it. The problem is most people suffer from impaired judgement and rarely make the best decisions. People today are quick to sue…for everything. Obviously, there was also someone else with the man because someone was filming and it wasn’t the dog. So we are not getting the whole story.

    • The history of the national park system is pretty sketchy, with a lot of the “rules” made up as the service went along. For example, at one time ranchers grazed cattle in Yosemite and Yellowstone. When the rangers tried to stop it the courts had to rule. In the early days they were run much more like a city park than a nature preserve. It was really the 1960s radical ecoterrorists who decided to take over the park operations and put restrictions on movement in place.

      IMHO, the entire Department of Interior is completely against the interests of the United States.

      • I agree RK, I never understood the reason for the Department of the Interior (or most other departments either). I am all for allowing them to open to the public with no fees, but also hiker beware. The federal government and its taxpayers are not responsible for anything that happens to you. You fall off a cliff because you desperately need a shelfie and your family wants to sue because there was no fence holding you back, tough. A mountain lion attacks you and rips off your arm, that’s nature.

      • LOL.
        But very soon now, the Department of the Inferior will be headed by:
        You don’t like the NPS?
        Take it up with the Chief, Chief.
        Sister’s ex-husband said he once saw a grizzly that had been shot seven times with a .22. Dan said the grizzly was pissed off.
        Friend came face to face with a female mountain lion on the back deck of the family cabin. His dad told him, “Alex. don’t move.” He didn’t, and eventually the cat wandered off. There was a little girl in a wilderness park in Orange County who was not so lucky. She was seriously mauled by a mountain lion. This is not Disneyland, folks.

    • Morning, RG!

      I think you make the mistake of buying into the government-snuggler’s argument … what if? What if? Saaaaaaafety!

      In fact, the guy wasn’t doing anything – hadn’t caused any harm, at least. So what that he “walked off the trail”?

      It isn’t private property. It is public property – which, in theory means it’s ours. In fact, it means it’s the government’s – and that disgusting creature – the AGW – is a government enforcer.

      I wouldn’t stop to pee on him if he were lying in a ditch on fire.

      • Sorry, Eric, but I cannot make a sound judgement on half a video. I am not backing what the forest ranger did, but I also do not believe in “rules for thee, but not for me”. At the end of the news broadcast the anchorwoman stated “Mr. So and So believes he has the right to walk on this land, because he is Native American.” Wrong answer. Everyone has the right to walk on this public land because they are American taxpayers. What a person identifies as should not come into play.

        As I stated in my reply to RK I am all for personal responsibility, but the hikers, bicyclists, runners, etc need to realize that is something happens to you the rest of us are held unaccountable. I am tired of people ignoring rules and then forcing the rest of us to bail them out. Like the idiots that get lost in the wilderness for two weeks that use government resources to find them or morons that drive through three feet of water around the sign says “High Water. Detour”. They get caught in a flood and police and firemen are called to come get their asses.

          • I am all for Darwin weeding out the stupid.

            Eric, how does one hold someone accountable when there are no rules? Not only that, but who holds them accountable?

                • @RG, from the brief clip you can see it is an adult male, walking in the desert minding his own business. To me it is clear that this is clearly enforcement for the sake of the exercise of power and nothing more. Maybe the ranger is protecting his paycheck by enforcing the “rules,” but this clearly is “because I told you” type of enforcement.

                  • Sorry, I believe in facts. I want to see the whole video. Maybe what we are seeing is indeed correct, maybe there is more to it.

                    I remember another video that was quite inaccurate and destroyed a young man’s reputation until it was fully released. Mr. Sandmann and his Catholic school buddies were demonized as thugs picking on a old Indian man.

                    Also, I have gone hiking a few times I have never had someone filming me while hiking.

                    • “Also, I have gone hiking a few times I have never had someone filming me while hiking.”

                      So obviously nobody else has either, seems what you are implying? Is that a ‘fact’?

                      You may not be a Clover, but you are looking mighty weedy.

                      How many times here have you said “it’s the law” as though that makes it right?

                    • A,

                      I am a Clover, huh? You are the one not even using a screen name, just a generic classification with 1000 others.

                      I happily stand by all of my views whether they are agreed with or frowned upon on this forum.

                      If you want to debate set yourself up so we can identify each other, otherwise, you are just one in a million Anonymous’s and not worth my time.


    • Hi RG,

      You are correct that we don’t know exactly what happened. However, the rules governing public land access are entirely irrelevant to the violence unleashed upon this man. We do have enough information to condemn the actions of this cop and, doing so, is not similar to the Nick Sandeman case. It is commonplace to walk off trail in this area, many people do it and, if challenged by a ranger, will return to the trail, which is exactly what happened here. According to the story, the cop escalated to potentially lethal violence because Mr. House refused to identify himself. The only possible justification for the violent attack, that we did see, is if Darrel House were threatening the life or safety of the cop. If such were the case, the cop and the department would be proclaiming it loudly; Mr. House was viciously attacked for “contempt of cop”. In this assessment I have made one assumption, that Mr. House never posed a genuine threat to the officer, which seems a near certainty to me. However, if I’m wrong, I’ll withdraw my condemnation of this cop. The video clearly shows a cop attacking a man with a potentially lethal weapon. It is highly likely that he did so because Mr. House refused to submit to his authority. This is contemptible.

      In the Sandeman case, even the highly edited video did not justify the conclusions drawn by many people. An honest reaction to that edited video would be, “huh, I wonder what’s going on here”.


      • Good morning Jeremy,

        You may very well be right, but I am not going to partake in assuming. Too much of the video is missing for me to come to a conclusion. In my personal opinion something doesn’t smell right.

    • Raider Girl,

      I believe you are correct in your reservation of judgment, though you’ve likely reasonably assessed the actions of the AGW to be unwarranted.
      Here in Az, Phoenix especially, we have long considered a “Stupid Hiker Law”, which would be akin to our “Stupid Motorist Law”, which says if you drive yourself past barricades, particularly during our seasonal floods, that you must pay for your own rescue, should it be necessary. Here’s an article on that:


      There are some foolish arguments made here, such are requiring “hiker cards”: “…Many other states charge for annual hiker cards and use the proceeds to pay for the costs of rescues.”

      Again, why the hell should I pay for your rescue? Also, why the hell do so many people rely on the gov’t to save them? Some of the primary guidelines when hiking are “make sure someone knows where your are going” and “have more provisions than you think you’ll need, but, therein lies the stupidity, I suppose.

      If I were to sprain an ankle, I’d likely procure a “stick” to help me down the mountain. If I straight fell off the f***ing mountain, well double-dumbass on me! The number one rule when on the mountain is “Don’t fall off the mountain!”.

      • Hi DaDnOn,

        What details could emerge that would warrant reserving judgement? We know that this man was brutally attacked by an AGW with a potentially lethal weapon. We know that this man posed no genuine threat to the life or safety of the officer. This is not conjecture, the man was charged with “interfering with agency function, concealing his identity and being off the trail”, none of which poses a threat to the officer. Perhaps this officer has challenged Mr. House before, perhaps Mr. House continues to flaunt his authority by hiking off trail (reading more on this incident, this seems likely). But, so what?

        While reserving judgement until ALL the facts are in is often a good practice, it is not always so. We know enough facts in this case to condemn the actions of the officer, reserving judgment until ALL the facts are in is the narrative used by the PTB to mute criticism and aid in the eventual whitewashing of the event when the internal investigation concludes that the “officer acted according to policy”. Yes, there may be a different outcome, but almost certainly not. It seems that “our” initial reaction, when ENOUGH facts are known, should be one of condemnation, not tacit support of the officer, pending all the facts. I know that RG is not supporting the officer, but the “reserve judgement” approach has that effect anyway. Perhaps it will be revealed that Darrel House has had numerous encounters with this officer, perhaps he swore at him, etc… Many will view this as justification for the assault, it is not. Also, while I agree with you and RG that people who engage in risky behavior should not be bailed out by taxpayers, this observation is completely irrelevant to this event.

        The late, great William Norman Grigg often spoke of “the Tom Joad test”; if, upon seeing a man being beaten by authorities, does your sympathy instinctively lie with the beaten or the beater? The PTB endlessly propagandize on behalf of the latter, that “we” should assume that the cops have good reason, that we should reserve judgement, that we should not get involved, that we should automatically respect their authority. How can a free society exist if most people are conditioned to accept this attitude? Many people on this site lament the fact that most people do nothing when someone is assaulted by an armed goon for not wearing a mask, having a party, going to the beach, etc… Why do we let this happen? Because most of us fail the Tom Joad test, and the PTB wants it that way.


        • Hi Jeremy,

          I cannot speak for BaDnOn, but there have been many times where the picture doesn’t always produce the cause and effect needed to make a rationale judgement. There is an old saying from Edgar Allen Poe “Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.” As I stated before in my original post there are three sides to every story. Maybe these guys do have a past history. Maybe Mr. House banged this guy’s wife or he and his buddies beat him up in grade school, maybe the forest ranger is just a jerk, but I am willing to allow all substantial evidence and both sides to tell their stories before announcing a verdict.

          We all have a right to Due Process and this includes the forest ranger. It is not selective (or should not be selective) in who it represents.

          The assigned quasi liberal of the EP Autos Forum aka as RG. 😉

          • Hi RG,

            I don’t consider you a liberal; I consider you a “conservative” who hasn’t yet taken the next step (as I did, a long time ago). As Jeremy wrote, whatever the issue, there is no excuse for the AGW’s brutal treatment of the man – who was clearly not anything more than a “threat” to the AGW’s Authority. No weapon. No raised hands, even. Nothing more than disobedience. There is no justification for the kind of force we see used in this case. It’s egregious, it’s despicable. You don’t torture people for walking off trails, or refusing to hand over “papers.”

            And it’s why many people – me among them – who strongly support peacekeeping despise “law enforcers.”

            • Hi Eric,

              The liberal analogy I think it is pretty funny, honestly. Most of the time I am on the outer circles of most people’s belief system so it is even more hysterical that in this forum I am to the left since many peoples views are so radically to the right of my own. It was tongue in cheek.

              As I have stated before (and we won’t rehash it) because we are on opposing sides and will just agree to disagree. I believe there are good and bad people on all walks of life. I know where you stand on this, as well as, many others here and I respect that. We just have different experiences, but we can agree on 90% of everything else. 🙂

              • Which opposing sides raider? Free Market or flaming socialist (it’s the government’s job to take care of me because I am obedient little slave….)?

                • Eric and I agree on most free market principles. Our disagreement lies in the military and LEOs.

                  I am a libertarian that believes in limited government, but I do believe a small amount of government may be necessary. This is where many and I part ways.

                  If others want to view me as a flaming socialist so be it. I am who I am.

                  • Morning, RG!

                    I wish we could agree on peacekeeping, which I do support. But “law enforcement”? The term reeks of arbitrary authority; of the Taser,the gun and the cage. The NKVD and Gestapo “enforced laws,” too.

                    No reasonable person can object to keeping the peace. But much – even most – of what “law enforcement” does has little if anything to do with that.

                    I think that statement is inarguable.

                    • So now you’re blocking my comments? So typical of the coward’s and the hypocrites from the far-right.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Your comments are being moderated because you seem unable to discuss facts, civilly.

                      Like the fact that a rag – a “mask” – keeps no one “safe.” It does, however, degrade them and condition them to servility.

                      And – sigh – this isn’t a “far right” site. It is a libertarian site. Libertarians support individual liberty and voluntary social arrangements. You appear to be a coercive collectivist and thus have much more in common with the “far right” than libertarians do.

                      As an example: I support your right to lock yourself down; to close your business and to perform whatever bizarre rituals make you feel better. But I deny your assertion that you have any right to compel me to agree with you and to demonstrate my agreement by performing your bizarre rituals.

                    • Here is Peter the Diaper Huffer’s latest:

                      So typical of your tribe… you are the poster child for irrational, nonsensical, extreme bias, flip-flopping, implicit violence, bigotry and hatred… and of course extreme hypocrisy.

                      You don’t want to post my comments, because you know I’m right. Common sense, logic and humanitarian ideals always wins out.
                      However, these qualities are not familiar to your clique of misanthropes.

                      And by the way Clover, my name is Peter Harris.

                    • Clover,

                      I’ve asked you several times now to explain how a person who isn’t sick can get someone else sick; how wearing an old rag, a bandana or a “mask” that cannot filter viral particles serves any medical purpose… no response.

                      I have pointed out the fact that this virus poses almost nil serious threat to 99.8-something percent of the healthy population… etc. etc. A fact. The “science,” as you people like to style it – when it suits.

                      You mumble back about “humanitarian ideals” – an interesting notion given the hell you and your fellow Sickness Cultists have imposed on the people of the world.

                    • Eric,

                      A serious question and I ask this because of Peter’s comment below.

                      Do you pick and choose whose comments are moderated on this forum other than those deemed “Clovers”?

                      I ask because yesterday, as well as, the military tiff that I participated in last week held my comments for a few hours rather than posting immediately like they usually do. I thought this was odd. Maybe it was a system issue, but I did want to ask.



                    • Hi RG,

                      I resort to the Moderation tool only in extreme cases; e.g. that of Peter the Diaperer. In your case, WP did it for reasons known only to the WP gods. But I keep abreast of things here and un-Moderate the posts WP holds back for its own inscrutable reasons!

          • @RG,

            I see where you are coming from, but I think that if the “real” story was significantly different than what’s on the video, we’d see a “resisting arrest” charge or something greater. Maybe not, but that’s my opinion. I think the absence of the “resisting arrest” charge says at least as much as what the short video captured. My two cents.


            • Hi cjm,

              I stated above that the forest ranger’s use of force was unjustified, but I just feel something is not right. I am going to title it female intuition (could be very wrong), but I would like to hear the other side. The park may very well back the hiker and the park ranger then should be fired (not on administrative leave, but out and out fired).

            • Thanks, Eric. I appreciate the quick reply. There is no reply button under your answer. I noticed when WP comments section narrows not all of the responses have a reply button or it is my stupid IPAD.

              • Hi RG,

                No, it’s not your IPAD. But, there is a way to navigate/respond that works quite well.

                Put this link in your toolbar:


                This sends you directly to the comments page. You do need to register and sign in to access this page (ignore the “no login providers enabled” bit and login anyway). It lists every comment in temporal order and in “widescreen” (no compression). It also shows comments awaiting moderation that do not show up in the comment thread following a particular article. This can be helpful to those anxious that their post has been deleted by Eric (it hasn’t, unless you’re a particularly tenacious and delusional stalker sporting multiple names). Occasionally, a comment will automatically go into moderation, but it is viewable on the full comments page.

                Directly to the right of each comment there is the name of the post and a “view post” link which takes you to the top of the article. To access a particular comment without having to find it by scrolling under the article, click on the date and time link on the right side of the screen (in the “submitted on” column). This takes you directly to that comment. If it is early in a thread you can reply directly to it. If it does not have a reply button under the comment, scroll upward until you find a comment on that thread with a reply button. Clicking there will put your comment in that thread. If you want your reply to be directed to a specific person, scroll up until you find the most recent comment from that person with a reply button and click on that (sometimes this is not possible).

                It is far easier to navigate the comments from the full comments page than by scrolling underneath each article. I hope this info is helpful.


          • Hi RG,

            I certainly don’t think you’re a liberal, at least not in the modern, perverted meaning of the term. And, I agree with you that what seems to be is often false, or only part of the story. But, that truth does not mean we should always reserve judgement until ALL of the facts are in (which is itself highly problematic). In this case, we know enough of the facts to render a judgement, and it should not be let’s wait for due process and a verdict (which is also plagued by the three sides to a story, the defendant, the State and the truth).

            We know that Darrel House was assaulted, by an AGW, with a potentially lethal weapon. We also know that he posed no genuine threat to the officer. So, what new facts could emerge that justifies this attack? Past history or banging his wife could render his actions understandable, but not justifiable. If I discovered that a man was banging my wife, and I assaulted him, my actions would be deemed by many as understandable, but that would not make them justifiable.

            Libertarians are often accused of rejecting authority, this is not true. We reject illegitimate authority, which includes actions taken under color of law, or even the law itself, if the law is unjust. Going back to the “Tom Joad test”, the reserve judgement approach you favor, in this case, seems to be a reflexive deference to authority, regardless of legitimacy. This may not be a fair characterization of you, but this attitude is dominant in our culture, and inimical to liberty. If the dominant attitude toward authority were suspicion and, when the available evidence supports it, condemnation, rather than deference, perhaps more people would be “eternally vigilant” against tyranny.


            • Hi Jeremy,

              I am not siding with authority, just due process. You are correct sometimes all of the facts are not at hand and a decision has to be made with what you got. If I was a juror I would watch the video and then also look at each man’s history. Does the forest ranger have a history of being reprimanded for going above and beyond reasonable enforcement of the law? Does Mr. House have a history of causing trouble? Did these men know each other? If the park ranger does have a record of citing undue violence then of course, I would side with Mr. House. If the opposite was true then I would side with the ranger. I may want to side with one side more than the other, but our viewpoints have to weigh the information that we have and deter any form of bias that we may have even if it is the opposite of our narrative.

              • Hi RG,

                I’m not talking about being a juror. I’m talking about making a judgement, with the available facts, about whether this AGW’s actions were justifiable. What the courts deem, if it ever goes to trial (it won’t), is not at issue here. Nor is a Jury’s decision a sufficient substitute for justice or the truth (it is often manifestly unjust).

                By reserving judgement, waiting for an “investigation”, etc… you are siding with authority. You are ceding even the appropriateness of making a judgement, to this authority. I have asked many times, what new facts could emerge that would justify this particular assault? I have offered my answer, only if Mr. House posed a genuine threat to the officer. We already know that he did not. Past history, banging wives, taxpayer liability for stupid behavior, etc… are completely irrelevant to that determination.

                Have you heard of Kelly Thomas? He was brutally beaten to death by six police officers in Fullerton, CA. He was a small, 160 pound homeless man who posed no threat to the officers, his last words, before unconsciousness, and death a few days later were, “God help me daddy, they’re trying to kill me, daddy”. Many people witnessed this event, none intervened. Outraged citizens were told to reserve judgement, wait for all the facts, follow due process and trust the justice system. Well, they did, only two of the officers were charge, both acquitted.



                You see, due process doesn’t work when the State grants de facto immunity to itself and its’ enforcers.


                • Hi Jeremy,

                  I think of everything as a juror. That is the way my brain is wired. I deal with government agencies on a weekly basis. I have to look at both sides of every issue. I take what the agency tells me they have and then what the client tells me they have. I side 99.9% with the client, but I have to weed out the disinformation and determine what is fact, otherwise, I either a) look stupid; b) lose my license. If I jump to conclusions it could cost my client and I bigly. 🙂 I need to be rational and see all sides.

                  Our judicial system is imperfect and unfortunately, evil people evade jail or death every day, but currently it is the only thing we have.

                  • Hi RG,

                    “I think of everything as a juror.”

                    Well, to me this is a problem, to do so is to accept that the State can rig the game in its’ own favor. Disagree with the death penalty, not qualified in a capitol murder case, disagree with the obvious immorality of drug laws, not qualified in a drug case. Believe, as did Jefferson, that a juror has the right, and duty, to judge the LAW as well as the facts, not qualified in any case.

                    Now, if you mean, think critically, I agree with you. But, jurors, for the most part, don’t think critically. They accept judges instruction uncritically, even if they are not founded in law (jury nullification). The system selects for people who have a bias in favor of the prosecution, and this is considered OK, “the only thing we have”.

                    In this case, the cop clearly assaults a person who posed no threat to him (the evidence that he did so is at least as good as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that the State pretends to respect). Can we not, at the very least, condemn this action?


                    • Jeremy,
                      You are absolutely right.
                      I was kicked off a jury in Riverside,CA (DUI case) because I expressed the opinion (oh, may) that 0.08 BAC and “impaired” are two different things. Can’t have that.
                      You *will* vote the way we tell you, or you will be sent home.
                      Gee, thanks, i didn’t want to be here anyway. Why not just have “robojurors” from Boston Dynamics, who will reliably vote as programmed? It would save everyone some trouble, and the taxpayers a great deal of money, once the equipment cost was amortized.

                    • Hi Jeremy,

                      I am not referring to what the State or a judge tells me. I refer to my own institution, my years of experience on this Earth, and a willingness to be open minded and try to see both sides of an argument. I suffer from biases (as do most people), as well as, a severe stubborn streak, but I can rationalize two differing opinions, even if I may not agree with them.

                    • Hi RG,

                      Thanks for the clarification. So, I think like a juror means, to you, what critical thinking means to me.

                      Yes, all of us are subject to confirmation bias though many (like Peter Harris) believe they are not. The best we can do is to try to recognize our own biases and approach a topic with an open mind.

                      Kind Regards,

            • PS, Jeremy. My instinct is always to want to defend the person being tortured/beaten. BUT, there are some instances wherein someone who isn’t completely “neutralized” will get up and continue to try and kill you. It’s a difficult world. 😉

        • Jeremy,

          Raider Girl did well with a short explanation. Not much time for long posts today, but the short answer for “what could justify this?” is “I don’t know”. That seems to point to a bunch of fruitless postulation. Mr. AGW is probably just an arsehole, it’s true. But assumptions can often be dangerous, and I’d rather be sure before condemning someone. Most people won’t assault someone else unless provoked. Again, probably just a “respect my authoriti!” moment here, but I can’t be sure. If Mr. House threw a wild round kick at the cop while yelling “die pig!”, I wouldn’t know without the whole story. Maybe the cop might decide not to press charges on “attempted assault” because he took pity on Mr. House. Probably not, but I don’t know without the whole story.
          I’ll give the example of people condemning Mr. Kyle Rittenhouse after hearing he shot a few people and witnessing a few seconds of video of him walking down the street carrying the dreaded AR-15. What could possibly warrant his actions?!… Oooohhh…

          • Hi BaDnOn,

            “what could justify this?” is “I don’t know”.

            Well, we should know. Only if Mr. House posed a genuine threat to the officer, are his actions justifiable. We know, to a degree “beyond reasonable doubt” that he did not. Why would we apply a more rigorous restriction on ourselves, in merely offering an opinion, than the State claims is necessary to deprive a man of life or liberty?

            In the abstract, I agree that “rushing to conclusions” is a bad thing. But, this is not what is going on here. We have ENOUGH facts to condemn this action. We, at least most on this forum, also have the honesty to admit if we are wrong. It is a strangely inverted world where the benefit of the doubt is rarely given to a “normie”, but almost always given to a State licensed purveyor of violence. The “reserve judgement, wait for due process”, etc… is a narrative used by the PTB to disarm criticism of their own abhorrent actions. “We” should not fall for it.


            • “Why would we apply a more rigorous restriction on ourselves, in merely offering an opinion, than the State claims is necessary to deprive a man of life or liberty?”

              Well, because we’re better, more reasonable people?

              “…The benefit of the doubt is rarely given to a “normie”, but almost always given to a State licensed purveyor of violence.”

              Yep, and that should change. I won’t say that all AGWs are hell-bent for power-hungry and violent vindication, and in most situations, you don’t find that. BUT, I’d say if we have these AGWs around, that emotionally vengeful and violent acts SHOULD be exceedingly rare. Much more so than the general population, if hiring and training were done correctly. I like Eric’s idea of the return of the “Peace Officer”. If Mr. House isn’t out in desert assaulting people or destroying property, he is left alone.

              ‘The “reserve judgement, wait for due process”, etc… is a narrative used by the PTB to disarm criticism of their own abhorrent actions.’

              Yes, again, but it shouldn’t be just for them.

              My only point here is that sometimes, what appears logical and straightforward is not. How do magicians earn a living? By astonishing people with that fact.

              Personally, my code is to never attack unless attacked. Some people call that the non-aggression principle. AGWs often violate that, but the NAP is NOT their code. THAT is the problem with “law enforcement” as Eric has often pointed out. I’m sure you’re well aware of all that, though.

              To summarize, I’ve often been wrong when assessing things, so personally I’m very cautious. I do not approve of electrocuting people unless it is a defensive maneuver.

              Need to get to work now, brother. Peace be the journey. 😉

      • Hi BaDnOn,
        Around here there’s always a few Darwin Award contestants who climb Mt. Washington in the summer with nothing more than a cellphone, figuring they can call for help if they get in trouble. It never occurs to these idiots that even though it’s in the 80’s on the ground it’s near zero windchill temperatures as you get near the summit. The past few years the rescuers have started charging them for the cost of the rescue.

    • Did it sound like he was starting a court case? RG, you can make an excuse for getting beat up if your dog has to take a piss.

  11. This falls within the objectives of UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 30. If you aren’t familiar with it, one of the objectives is to keep people controlled in the city, and out of any wild area. Thus keeping them “pristine”. Of course the Psychopaths In Charge will be allowed to enjoy them, without any of us proles annoying them. I won’t even bother with the brutality of this particular enforcer. Such has become far too normal. Apparently sadism is a job requirement.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here