This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Law Enforcement is Not Your Friend
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
Across the West, instances of abuse of authority by domestic police forces are becoming more prevalent. Two weeks ago, two police officers in my hometown accosted my brother as he walked back to his car after purchasing a six pack of beer. The officers, who thought my brother was up to no good because he parked a few blocks from a bar, questioned him for a full half hour. All the while, they found it necessary to remind him repeatedly that “he was in trouble” and that the situation was “serious.” After my brother asked numerous times what he had done and if he was under arrest, the two officers finally let him go. Though he was never charged with a crime, it was implied that he wasn’t free to leave. During the back-and-forth, one officer claimed that he and his fellow officers kept the town safe through such tactics like assuming everyone is a criminal. The sad part is, the officer likely believed his own story.
Situations of police arrogance and abuse like this are now commonplace in many Western countries and especially the United States. After a decade of civil liberties systematically being slaughtered and the rights of foreigners being stripped away in the name of “fighting terrorism,” even the most egregious acts of crushing natural rights hardly draw any outcry from the greater public. Just last week on August 16, 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub was forcibly taken from his home in Chesterfield Country, Virginia and is currently being held against his will in a psychiatric hospital. His alleged crime he has yet to be charged for? Questioning the federal government’s true motive in all its dealings on his private Facebook page. Despite having no criminal record and no history of mental health illness, Raub was effectively kidnapped from his home in a coordinated effort by FBI officials, Secret Service agents, and local police. The pickup hardly differs from the Gestapo tactics used in communist Russia to suppress political dissent. The arresting officials claim that Raub was not under arrest despite the fact that he was in shackled handcuffs and was not free to return home. FBI spokeswoman Dee Rybiski assured the Associated Press that many of Raub’s writing were “threatening” and that they had received “complaints” over the violent rhetoric. But according to The New American, nowhere in Raub’s writing was violent revolution ever suggested. Thankfully, a judge recently ordered the release of Raub as there was no legal basis to hold him involuntarily.
While the Brandon Raub affair is horrendous, arrest and detainment of political dissent is nothing new to the United States. From John Adams’ signing of the Alien and Sedition Act to Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and imprisoning political opponents and those who spoke out against the Civil War, freedom of speech and peaceful protest have never been regarded as sacrosanct. Should law enforcement feel the need to keep someone against their will, there is little to stand in their way. And this behavior is not unique to the United States.
In Canada, the home of “peace, order, and good government,” the people’s faith in the goodness of monopolized authority is being challenged. Last spring after many provincial governments threatened tuition hikes, university students took to the streets in protest. Police brutality ended up showing its ugly head as riot police arrested as many as 85 protestors. These students, who naively saw themselves as entitled to a college education paid for by pilfered funds, were served a taste of what government really looks like. To quote H.L. Mencken, the students believed in the sanctity of democracy and got it “good and hard” as they witnessed the truth that government amounts to no more than a riot shield, a billy club, and the trigger of a gun. In Europe, austerity measures have evoked similar objection as many nonviolent protests have been upended by police crackdowns. Though the anti-austerity crowd generally wants their perspective governments to shower them with entitlement benefits, their childlike desire of something for nothing is not deserving of a tax-funded bludgeoning.
As the state grows in size and scope of authority so must its enforcement apparatus. The forced taking and distributing of wealth is not a trait found in a peaceful society. With every ratcheting up of government intervention into civil life comes growth in the police state. The perpetual War on Terror has only exacerbated this trend as many Americans have shamefully allowed for their inner-most private moments to be violated in the name of feeling safe. Likewise, prominent governments the world over have bowed down to America hegemony and the sheer arrogance through which a policy of extra-judicial murder and the silencing of criticism is conducted. As LRC columnist and author Fred Reed explains:
People speak of the onrush of the police state. I think that many do not understand how fast it comes, or how thorough it will be.
The political framework falls rapidly into place. Few or no safeguards exist, and probably few are possible. A growing authoritarianism rapidly erodes what protections we had. The courts allow random searches of passengers of trains and subways without probable cause. Warrantless tapping of personal communications is rampant, or done with secret warrants from a secret federal judge. TSA has Viper squads that stop cars at random for searches. In many places it is against the law to video the police, who everywhere become more militarized and less accountable. For practical purposes, citizens have no recourse.
It’s quite easy to understand why law enforcement, as a vital enforcement arm of government, uses its authority so recklessly and with little impunity. The state, as anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Herman Hoppe defines it, acts as “the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict.” Whatever issue a citizen has with an enforcer of government law, it must be heard and dealt with by another state official; thereby making bias inevitable. Should a judge declare whatever claim you make against the police as void, the process comes to an end. There is no appeal to a competing authority. Law, instead of being concrete and based on moral principles, is bent and formed to fit whatever the enforcers in the state deem necessary. Instead of protecting person and property, law enforcement seeks to protect itself and the power it has accumulated. In other words, “protect and serve” does not apply to society but rather to their employer known as the state.
Questioning of monopolized, violent, and easily corruptible authority is not a radical stance by any means. Believing that society is incapable of functioning without living under a gun is not only a radical view but also one that hides a hatred of humanity. It is a view based on the ideal that only might makes right and that peace and liberty are impossible conditions for man to prosper in.
The state’s monopoly on violence ultimately acts as a hindrance to social cooperation and rising living standards. It is regressive in the sense that monopolies have no incentive to meet the needs of consumers. Government law enforcement is legalized force shielded by the threat of even more force. There is little accountability or repercussion for police brutality except in some extreme cases. If a victim is unable to illicit support from a media establishment intoxicated with its position as the government’s court reporter, misdeeds go unpunished. Perpetrators are then more emboldened to commit the same, and even worse, acts in the future.
In the end, law enforcement in its current form should not be looked to as a friend of peace but merely as another branch of the state’s institutionalized thuggery. There is little justice to be had if one group of individuals operates outside the rule of proper and moral law. Freedom comes not from a badge and gun but of a recognition that man has an absolute right to not be coerced against his wishes. Anything else amounts to repression of body and spirit with social degeneration as the final outcome.
»
- 18065 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Another recent story:
A Christian guy, patriot, who does some talk radio. He spoke one day as a guest on another program about similar things as things article discusses. He was calm and very relaxed and refrained from anything violent. Nothing hyperbolic with him, as ever. Later that day two cops come and pick him up at his house. They take him in and hold him for an involuntary psych evaluation. He just played along and cooperated fully. Next day he is allowed to leave, but only the condition he agrees to go for further psych evaluation and treatment, and is given an appointment. His diagnosis was "Psychosis".
Turns out that a single anonymous person had heard him on radio and called the cops to report him as a "danger". That was all it took. But it gets even better...
I mentioned he was a Christian because the reason for his diagnosis of psychosis, in writing, was: for being religious. That's all they had, but the police states wheels kept turning. The nurse, after looking at the papers said, "So you're here because you're religious?" Yes, maam.
Well, he has a savy lawyer who has tracked down the 'anonymous' phone caller and who gloats about knowing who it is already. No doubt a well known prick. Lawsuits will be forthcoming.
Point is, this seems to be the new "swatting" tactic... look it up if you don't know what that is. Basically, there are people who purposely call and report a lie about you anonymously, and if you perhaps meet a profile, it gets acted on by the low level swat team, or just cops, who may not know any better and just jump into action.
There is certain to be a tragic death from one of these types of incidents which will 'justify' more crackdowns. Try to guess what profile is being acted upon?
(I think this story was linked to Alex Jones yesterday)
Hey, 'Americans' can diagnoze you with obssesive compulsive personality disorder for simply outlining the consequences of 'Americanism'
See how far 'Americans' can go?
Ummm, well, by the way, what have the other 'Americans' done wrong? They have acted like you do.
Can no longer bear it when 'Americans' behave the 'American' way? Want to be the only 'American' in town?
Yes, Chicom blob-up. America is becoming more like mainland China every day. But I firmly believe we will never, ever salivate at the sight of a puppydog.
Police Misconduct has gotten so bad that the Cato Institute has started a website to track it:
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
Actually the site used to be injusticeeverywhere.com and was started by some guy 4-6 years ago as the National Police Misconduct and Reporting Database.
He could no longer do Cato hasn't been doing this sort of thing already .
Botched Paramilitary Police Raids
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
The point is, some random guy deserves credit for doing what the DOJ doesn't have the guts to do.
The other sad thing is that there are at least 10 police felonies PER DAY but often more.
Made me laugh.
The police misconduct has not gone worse. It targets 'Americans' who are not used to being targeting.
As those ones are more profitable to be milked, one will see this kind of sites jumping on the business opportunity.
This kind of institute had their entire life to start this kind of stuff, police misconduct older than them.
But they only started when the targets became profitable or when they did not agree with the Police pushing on a selection of targets.
Chicom Troll speak from experience. If refuse to eat puppydog, get run over with tank.
James Miller doesn't have a fucking clue. Google him...compulsive masturbator and World of Warcraft extrordinaire-cum-libertarian windbag. I fucking guarantee it.
I deal with a lot of cops in my line of work. Yeah, some of them are hardcore dicks...but most are decent guys, who happen to be dicks when they're on duty. Definitely not the jack-booted paramilitary thugs that are portrayed by some of the feckless fools on here. Most limp wristed, demascualated, passive aggressive Americans simply don't know how to deal with Type-A personalities anymore...they're a dying breed.
You wanna know why cops are assholes? Most of the people they deal with are morons, repeat offenders, liars, and generally sub human animals. Would you be in a good mood if you knew you could never trust anyone, ever again?
You sound like a burned out cop. Get some help.
Will do, I'll start by gizzing on your mom's tits.
(not a cop, BTW)
good one moron-now go back to beating your wife and kids
Public servant = hardcore dick on duty? I think you've hit the nail on the head.
so quit- but quit pretending like we owe them a fuck!ng living
sub human animals
_________________
good one. New characterization of things. New category. 'Americans' are indeed innovative for certain stuff.
AnAnonymous, misdirecting and offuscating, said:
Made me laugh. That characterization is not new at all. It has been in use by Chinese citizenism citizens for thousands of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_china
Now tell us that they learned it from US citizens in the time before Christ.
The nature of AnAnonymousistic time traveling flying rickshawism is eternal.
good one. New characterization of things. New category. 'Americans' are indeed innovative for certain stuff.
There is nothing wrong with what you stated here, but you deserve to get down arrows just for who you are, POS.
You are what you do. Only a short change idiot would take that 'job', Tidybowl Man for the welfare state only less productive then scabbiest and saloon tenders that work with and for the same demographic.
I didnt read the entire article but I would have to agree with 'the cock'....If someone would for a second really put themselves in a cop's shoes you would have to agree with Respect TC.......
Especially in hard hoods where the humans are forced into sub-human existence not because they are lazy and surly, but you have to admit it's not a piece of cake out there and god forbid you are a minority.....
walk a mile in another's shoes...I would lose my patience with dirtbags too.....right away probably....that is why i choose to flake and perpetrate......
Bottom line....NOBODY KNOWS WTF IS UP WITH THESE GUYS......and shit, it has happened since time began we never knew about it!
the cock does have some good points.....however, most are unable to walk a step in another's shoes.....
"Would you be in a good mood if you knew you could never trust anyone, ever again?"
I wouldn't be in a good mood if my career choices had been narrowed down to being a cop. But I suppose that's someone else's fault, right?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/those-military-jets-overhead-practicing-for-the-rnc/1247515
Downtown Tampa is seriously locked down. Don't even look at a cop funny, and don't look at all the cameras all over the city either. Truly Orwellian.
It's a matter of protecting an Endangered Species: Republicans. Democrats will also benefit from similar, necessary measures.
LOL...I bet some Category 3 winds could unlock it...here's hoping....
It's real strange that they're not coming for our guns yet. What's holding them off?
The angel of death?
Government is closer to irrelevance than they get credit for. Don't worry about "them" coming for anything.
Observe the past 20 years of politics. They can't really do much of anything except shuffle paper around, mostly in the form of checks.
Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia or sluggish schizophrenia (Russian: ??????????? ??????????, vyalotekushchaya shizofreniya) was a category of schizophrenia diagnosed by psychiatrists in the Soviet Union to justify involuntary treatment of political dissidents. It was defined as a special form of the illness which supposedly affected only the person's social behavior, with no influence on other traits: "most frequently, ideas about a 'struggle for truth and justice' are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure", according to Moscow Serbsky Institute professors.[1] The diagnostic criteria were vague enough to be applied to nearly anyone, as desired. The dissidents were forcibly hospitalized and subjected to treatments which included antipsychotic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy.
Cops are trained to treat every situtation like one that will end with gunshots. If you get pulled over now, not only will you need to wait for a second squad car for backup, the officer will approach you will his hand on his gun.
In towns with no crime, like where I grew up, many of the officers are burned out transfers from the ghetto or pathetic high school losers looking to turn the tables on the people who picked on them. They practice aboslute abuse of power.
My mother was pulled over, forcibly taken out of her car, and put under arrest. Her crime was driving a blue car while it was reported to the police that someone in a blue car was driving erratically. The officer was repremanded when it was found that my mother had not done anything wrong and the make of her car was not the type that was reported. A civil lawsuit against the police is still proceeding.
I wish that was the only grievance I could air about the police in my old town.
The author is a bit overblown in his critique, but the basic thrust is correct: as currently constituted, the law enforcement agencies of the United States are not on the side of the people they are supposedly sworn to protect and serve. This is not to say that the men and women of law enforcement are not, on the whole, decent people - but institutionally the law enforcement organizations have little actual interest in the law enforcement needs of the people. The reason for this can best be described like this - over the past 50 years or so, American law enforcement has shifted from being a crime-prevention effort to a crime-solving effort. The illustration is this: 100 years ago there was a cop on the beat in the neighborhood; now there is a cop in a car who whizzes past the neighborhood. The cop of olden days knew his beat and who was supposed to be there and who wasn't - and his physical presence prevented most crimes from happening for the simple reason that criminals are unlikely to commit crimes when there is a cop a block or two away; the cop in the car only shows up after a crime has happened...and he then proceeds to try and solve what never would have happened had he not been in a car to begin with.
The trouble with crime prevention is that it only serves the people - it doesn't serve the needs of police chiefs who want a larger force to command (with, of course, much higher salaries for the people running the police force); it doesn't serve the needs of DAs who want to be "tough on crime"; it doesn't serve the needs of union bosses who want more cops at higher wages so that more dues can be paid; it doesn't serve the interests of politicians who want union donations for electioneering; it doesn't serve the needs of contractors who are eager to supply the cops with body armor, machine guns, tanks etc. The "War on Drugs" only aggravated this - at the same time creating a whole, new class of crimes while also ensuring a plentiful number of bloodthirsty drug gangs who would commit all sorts of outrages thus further justifying high police budgets, expenditures on para-military equipment and ever more intrusive police methods designed to solve crimes. Add in all the absurd regulations we've put in place to cover "white collar" crime and you've got a nasty stew designed to turn the police in to a quasi-colonial occupation force.
The solution is to ditch the current system - turn the police back in to a crime prevention force (and fire any and all cops who don't want to do this); my favored route to this is to create a citizens militia to do most of the patrolling of our neighborhoods, backed up by a professional police force which will be called in when things get too hot for a militia to handle. However we do it, the ultimate result must be a cop on the beat...someone in the neighborhood who knows who lives there and what people's basic business is, but without a lot of snooping in to what are private matters in no way concerned with keeping the streets safe for the citizens.
This makes too much sense
Once agin, our in-house Id-e-O-log, Mr James E Miller, of the Mises Institute, has confused cause with effect...
to affect an attitude which takes agents of the state to task without asking first on whose behalf those agents misuse their position is like moaning about mosquitoes instead of asking after the whereabouts of their breeding grounds and taking the necessary steps to eliminate them...it's a false trail, a dead end, a waste of time.
A militarized, terroristic police force is symptomatic of a situation in which a polity has surrendered it's powers (of self management) to an usurping klique...in the kase of the USA&UK, to a kabal of khazarian kooks whose longstanding desire to korner the market on social kontrol has played out into the present moment with orwellian exactitude.
It's no accident that it was well into the middle of the C20th before the Briish Bobby was given anything more than a stick and a whistle with which to perform his duties.It's taken a long time to break down the social fabric to the degree it has been today!
The much maligned Anglo-Saxon peeples have been betrayed by their "leaders" over time, the korruption of whom has been the signal effort of the moneypower, which has been welding together technology, medicine, and kommerce into a triumvirate of terror since the beginning of the C19th century{cf. the "Mind Loom" of Bedlam fame!}to use against our peeples...and now the 'police' are nothing more than mind-washed robots who do their bidding.
Does Mr, Miller concern himself with who has built and now runs these robots? No. Does he have a plan to deal with the path of destruction they have created through our society? Nothing, other than privatizing everything that could act as an effective check upon their korruptive influence. This type of article is akin to a philosophic discussion amongst prisoners, waiting in their dank cells for the tumbrils to come and carry them to their final public appearance! Useless, counterproductive, and hopeless.
I've come to the conclusion that there is indeed a role for 'the state' and it's agents...searching all those with public sinecure for possession of israeli passports...the evidence of which dual citiizenship will be deemed an act of treason.
Difficult to comment, you post. "The much maligned Anglo-Saxon peeples" have a long history of being very law-abiding. IMO astonishling law-abiding. I'd say this is a cultural trait, and I think you could make the argument that this is shared in some degree by all germanic peoples, with strong "shaming" checks on those who don't abide to the social pacts. And those checks might be breaking down in some areas, and so starting a moral crisis.
I'd say the crux of the matter of the article is the privatization (of armed and) police forces. Private soldiers and private policemen do lead to a different society.
On the other side, the militarization of the police forces could have another, bigger driver: arms salesmen and large budgets. Nobody makes great money on a bobby with a stick, but if the sheriff can have armoured vehicles, SWAT teams and so on it's good biz. I have great faith in the principle of "follow the money" - aka cui bono?
Zerohedgers will most likely be at the top of the list to get "black bagged" in the near future.
I hope any " black bags" meet all relevant occupational health and safety, and flammable clothing regulations.
Or I will feel compelled to file a complaint with the relevant government department....
It surprises me how few people understand that police are unconstitutional.
Police represent a military venue. Wherever you have police, it's a military venue (or "jurisdiction" if you prefer that term).
City police simply means the city is a military venue.
Why is it unconstitutional? Because military venues are not allowed by the constitution.
There is a difference between police and the county sheriff. The county sheriff is a constitutional elected office.
Police are not. They are mercenaries, legally, practically, in every other sense.
If you really wanted to get back to the constitution you would have to dissolve all city governments and their police forces.
You might argue that people vote to establish a city government.
Yes, but if we had real constitutional courts, such a vote would be struck down and the city government dissolved by court order on the grounds it is unconstitutional.
People don't actually create it anyway. State government issues a charter forming the city government.
It too would be struck down as unconstitutional. If we had real constitutional courts.
But there's a reason we don't have real constitutional courts anymore. The constitution doesn't apply anymore.
When did it stop? The Civil War.
In the Civil War, the federal government conquered the states. No, not just the southern states. All states.
From that point on the federal government ruled all of America, and the constitution was dead, because the federal government conquered the states who had enacted the constitution.
Yes, the federal government created by the states later rose up and conquered them.
I'm surprised how few people know that too.
I live in a area free of police. We do have a sheriff, but he is so far away that any crime would be long over by the time he or his deputies arrived. If they showed up at all. Often they get lost.
Are we racked with crime? Well basically no. Except the druggies and the growers. The druggies are all from neighboring cities. I am amazed they are willing to drive so far out into the country for their meetups. I mean really how stupid can one be?
and I'm a bit surprised at your comment. what is the constitutional difference in the US between a city (with a government that appoints/commissions policemen) and a county (with a sheriff) again? In my ignorance I thought the US county is just derived from the English county (without the Earl/Count). I thought there was no constitutional framework for this because the whole setup was from the beginning "the way it is".
More cheap propaganda.
Police misconduct has been existing for a long time in 'American' countries.
But priorily, the Police targeted a certain kind of people and they had the full support of the 'American' middle class to push on that certain kind of people.
'Americans' middle used to cheer at this police behaviour, calling it well deserved for the victims.
The trouble is that the Police is an 'American' middle class institution and thus are suffering from the same situation of scarcity of resources the 'American' middle class is suffering.
The Police can no longer support itself by chasing down small fry. They have to go for something bigger and that something bigger is that segment of the 'American' middle class that is increasingly insecure in their middle class status.
It is just a matter of numbers. On this site, one article was posted on how 'american' cops in one state were encouraged to search cars from other states in hope to find cash and seize it to be redistribute among the cops. It adds butter on bread and it is more and more the most efficient way to add butter.
The final point is that the 'American' middle class, due to their own principles, have long lost their capacity to moan about the Police's actions and their lifelong support to the Police.
For 'Americans', the situation is clear: either they work at staying on the right side of 'Americanism' or they exhibit their sore loser nature.
In America we can still discuss these issues more or less freely and, since we've kept our guns, will soon rectify the situation. In the land of puppy-eaters, not at all.
There is no doubt we have problems in many parts of the USA with police violence. But if you've read Brandon Raub's facebook posts, you'd probably agree that somethingwas going to happen. He posted on his facebook pages things like "I'm sharpening my axe and heads are going to roll". With things like the Fort Hood shooting fresh in the fed's minds, they are trigger happy to rush in and save us. Raub should have known better not to put so much violence into his posts. But the treatment he got is ridiculous, and unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used, and that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
Saying "heads will roll" does not meet the "imminent" requirement, though it advocates the "lawless". Both requirements must be met in order for the authorities to act. Not to mention the threat was ambiguous and not directed at a specific person.
lrn2freespeech
Cops may be thugs, but we can still trust teachers.
Teachers want collective bargaining so they can fight for things like smaller class sizes and good materials to help kids learn
This morning we discussed the Dutch elections with my eight year old son in the car. (Actually my wife was discussing it). w=wife and s = son D= dad (That's me)
S What can you vote for?
W for the government who make up all the law and regulation
S But what can you vote for?
W Imagine there is a group who wants to increase the number of traffic lights, if a lot of people vote for them, they win and we get more traffic lights.
S You wouldn't want to vote for that party, right mama?
W No, but it is important to vote, because we vote for the people, who rule us. They tell us what we can or cannot do, what is legal and what is not. What is forbidden and what is allowed.
S Turns to me and asks, what do you vote for dad?
D Libertarians
S What do they want?
D They want to get rid of the government
S [Puts his little thumb in the air and turns a wonderful boyish grin on his face, eyes twinkling] that is the best choice dad
D I think so, yes (Admittedly my grin in reply is boyish too)
This anecdote is 100% true. How wonderful the mind of a child that has not yet been drilled and manipulated in school to believe the government is your savior on this planet and mankind would be lost without her. A child knows this instinctively. I did not influence his views, because he simply is not interested in daddy talking too much (Which happens when I talk about economics, politics and the state of the world), when I do his eyes glaze over and he starts to gaze into the distance. He usually interrupts me a little later asking something about a character from Ima Zuma 11 or Pokemon. Fortunately he does not understand, what our collective governments and banks have prepared for his future,. He'll be working to pay off the debt and liabilities of sovereigns and banks deciding they could spend more and take more risks than they could afford.
If banks and governments want to dive of a cliff, by all means I’d be willing to give a little push to those lagging the guts, but don’t drag these children along please. Thanks.
"WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS IN SOUTH CENTRAL L.A., NOTHING HAPPENS, IT'S JUST ANOTHER NIGGA DEAD.......FUCK THE POLICE COMING STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON"
LAW ENFORCEMENT... are many of them incompetent? Yes. Are most of them pro-government zombies? No. I hate bad cops as much as the next guy, but we are going to have to work with the good ones, and the good guys in the military during and after the MASS ARRESTS... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/
In other to prevent a government monopoly on the use of force, there must be several private citizens militias -- ready to defend its members and the constitution. Get one of your own elected Sheriff of your county. Use the common law powers of the Sheriff to create a posse and have every federal idiot and rogue cop arrested and arm all posse members to the teeth. Something like what Sheriff Joe Arpaio does.
Failing that, just get as many people together with guns that you can find. Form a militia, either formal or informal. And every time this shit happens, you boys will be ready to respond with equal or greater force.
You have the power, now start exercising it and make it happen!
Obviously the author is Caucasian, this sort of behavior would not shock anyone in the hispanic community.
For an interesting perspective on police brutality read the history of the Pinkerton organization and other 'private' police organizations that were on the payroll of criminal gangsters like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Then segway to Blackwater - oh, pardon me, Xe.
I think this is a good place to stick this....
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685
http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm