Execution By Firing Squad: The Militarized Police State Opens Fire

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“It is often the case that police shootings, incidents where law enforcement officers pull the trigger on civilians, are left out of the conversation on gun violence. But a police officer shooting a civilian counts as gun violence. Every time an officer uses a gun against an innocent or an unarmed person contributes to the culture of gun violence in this country.”—Journalist Celisa Calacal

Legally owning a gun in America could get you killed by a government agent.

While it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed.

This same rule does not apply to government agents, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons to shoot and kill American citizens.

According to the Washington Post, 1 in 13 people killed by guns are killed by police.”

Just recently, for example, a Minnesota jury acquitted a police officer who shot and killed 32-year-old Philando Castile, a school cafeteria supervisor, during a routine traffic stop merely because Castile disclosed that he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a lawful conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times as he was reaching for his license and registration. Castile’s girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter witnessed the entire exchange.

Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Florida police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.

Continuing its own disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Supreme Court recently acquitted police who recklessly fired 15 times into a backyard shack in which a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sheltering. Incredibly, the Court ruled that the shooting was justified because Angel was allegedly seen holding a BB gun that he used for shooting rats.

What these cases add up to is a new paradigm in which legally owning a gun turns you into a target for government sharp-shooters.

Ironically, while America continues to debate who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—little has been said about the greatest perpetrator of violence in American society: the U.S. government.

Violence has become the government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents.

You want to reduce gun violence? Start with the government.

The government’s arsenal of weapons makes the average American’s handgun look like a Tinker Toy. Under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, more than $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990.

In the hands of government agents, whether they are members of the military, law enforcement or some other government agency, these weapons have become accepted instruments of tyranny, routine parts of America’s day-to-day life, a byproduct of the rapid militarization of law enforcement over the past several decades.

This lopsided, top-heavy, authoritarian state of affairs is not the balance of power the founders intended for “we the people.”

The Second Amendment, in conjunction with the multitude of prohibitions on government overreach enshrined in the Bill of Rights, was supposed to serve as a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

To founders such as Thomas Jefferson, who viewed the government as a powerful entity that must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” the right to bear arms was no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution: it was intended to stand as a bulwark against a police state.

As I explain in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, without any one of those freedoms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

Writing for Counterpunch, journalist Kevin Carson warns that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would “lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.”

This is exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared: that laws and law enforcers would be used as tools by a despotic government to wage war against the citizenry.

Now don’t get me wrong.

I do not believe that violence should ever be the answer to our problems. Still there’s something to be said for George Orwell’s view that “that rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

The Second Amendment serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property.

Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well.

As Adolf Hitler noted, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “endanger the German population.”

In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being 20 years in a concentration camp.

The rest, as they say, is history. Yet it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.


Stormtrooper Tue, 06/20/2017 - 23:14 Permalink

Rule #1: Do not answer the door at 1:30 am.Rule #2:  If someone bangs on your door at 1:30 am, seek cover and have your weapon at the ready, with lots of extra mags, in case someone decides to burst thru the door.Rule #3: Do not stop firing and reloading until the invasion has stopped.Rule #4: Collect all intruder weapons to add to your cache.Hint #1: A .308 round or larger will put anyone in a world of hurt, even when wearing a "bulletproof" vest.

luky luke (not verified) TheRunningMan Tue, 06/20/2017 - 23:51 Permalink

If the USG can bomb at will any country it wishes, do you think you're exempt?


When they evicted the Palestinians,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Palestinian.

When they destroyed the Middle East,
I even cheered;
I wasn't an Arab.

When they came for me,
they sent a firing squad;
I had no gun.

Hindsight: I didn't deserve freedom.

In reply to by TheRunningMan

Insurrexion (not verified) Stormtrooper Wed, 06/21/2017 - 00:08 Permalink

Storm is right.However, the tone and langauge of this Bullshit article is misleadingCastile was a dumbass negro, smoking marijuana in front of a five-year-old girl in the backseat. Apparently, he was reaching for his gun license. Cop thought he was reaching for his gun when he was ordered not to. Blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, blam, dead. Prior to the shooting, the cop was looking for two individuals who were just involved in a robbery that fit the description of Castile. (Go figure). Prior to the shooting, Castile had been stopped by the police 52 times for minor traffic infractions.  How any times have you heard this story? Life and death are much harder for the stupid. Here is the dashcam footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ac7Zblqyk .    

In reply to by Stormtrooper

Vatican_cameo Bes Wed, 06/21/2017 - 00:52 Permalink

 The Cops are just on the front side of the learning curve.Rule#1  "Violence Solves Everything". This is why we have Wars. The Cops have the right to come home after every shift, the Mantra that justifies everything.  Much like all Racial Epitaphs and Stereotypes, they are not unfounded and the offending group usually earns the attitudes garnered toward them.  The Police are no different.  The big problem is they aren't improving their image, they're improving the Stereotypes.

In reply to by Bes

Abaco Vatican_cameo Wed, 06/21/2017 - 10:36 Permalink

Imagine what it would be like if firefighters had the same mantra the police do. If their first priority was to come home alive at the end of their shift every fire would burn the building to the ground and no one would have any respect for them. Police are supposedly paid to protect the community. If that takes second fiddle to coming home at the end of their shift they deserve less respect than any non-police civilian who does whatever is necessary to protect themselves because thy are not doing the job they are paid to do. That mantra makes police use excess force and justify unwarranted fears that lead them to kill people and pets for no real reason.

In reply to by Vatican_cameo

Benito_Camela Insurrexion (not verified) Wed, 06/21/2017 - 01:32 Permalink

52 times for minor traffic infractions doesn't sound fishy to you? Mmmmkay. How many times did he "match a robbery suspect"? What is it you think you see in the dash cam footage that indicated he disobeyed any reasonable instructions and just what exactly should a person do in that scenario when the cop is out of his mind giving conflicting orders? You're fucking stupid.

In reply to by Insurrexion (not verified)

Benito_Camela tmosley Wed, 06/21/2017 - 18:22 Permalink

Oh, look - another moron. You think it was FIFTY TWO separate cops that pulled him over, or do you think he might have been targeted over and over in a gross violation of his civil rights by a FEW select cops or departments? You must be one of those people without the ability to use your imagination. But if you had been pulled over 52 times and not cited or ticketed in your ENTIRE LIFE, would you chalk it up to bad luck or out of control pigs looking for someone to arrest and/or murder? Now imagine those 52 times were in the span of a year, or three. Yeah, you'd be bitching like a little cuck and you know it. 

In reply to by tmosley

Abaco Benito_Camela Wed, 06/21/2017 - 10:25 Permalink

He was stopped 52 times.  Was he fined or punished in any way 52 times?  If they didn't find anything on him that warranted more serious charges that nmber alone seems to strongly indicate harrassment and targeting. Doesn't sound fishy to me.  It sounds like a gross abuse of civil rights leading to state excused murder.We need to do away with the "I was scared for my life" and ask if the fear was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. The fat that a particular cop is a pussy, and too cowardly to be given a gun, should not justify that cowards execution of a person who is poses no threat. 

In reply to by Benito_Camela

SweetDougisaTwat Insurrexion (not verified) Wed, 06/21/2017 - 08:42 Permalink

Thank you for being the voice of reason.  It is truly appreciated.  Any time a Negro is involved in any type of altercation with Authority all bets are off.  I liked your embellishment of "dumbass" to describe the Negro, but it is unnecessary--all Negros are dumbasses (and uncivilized scofflaws) by genetic design.Negros are a monkey man unsuited for any cognitively-inspired society. 

In reply to by Insurrexion (not verified)

FrankieGoesToH… Tue, 06/20/2017 - 23:21 Permalink

"I do not believe that violence should ever be the answer to our problems"So I will assume you are a pacifist.  So why the long article about the importance of gun rights? odd.

Tall Tom (not verified) FrankieGoesToH… Tue, 06/20/2017 - 23:35 Permalink

    While I may be a pacifist and do not believe that violence is a solution... i do believe in the right to defend myself from violence when necessary. And I most certainly believe in your right to make your own personal decisions and your right to own as many weapons as you damned well see fit....and use them to defend yourself if the need arises. And that makes perfect sense. That is not odd at all but reasonable.  

In reply to by FrankieGoesToH…

Tall Tom (not verified) Billy the Poet Wed, 06/21/2017 - 00:32 Permalink

   I am here Shakespeare. I took a break. I lurked a bit. I refreshed. i was writing over on YouTube a bit. I got a little burned out, here. it happens. ZeroHedge. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave. There are others here who may announce my untimely demise if that is ever becomes necessary. Or not.  

In reply to by Billy the Poet

Tall Tom (not verified) Billy the Poet Wed, 06/21/2017 - 01:34 Permalink

  I think that i have a better mindset now. Even when you are dealing with the public inderstand that a full one half of the people that you deal with will have Double Digit Intelligence Quotients. It is by definition. It is no different here..Oh there are very bright people here. And conversely there are many more that are not as bright as you. And then I ran into a video that described why people reject valid logical arguments because they become emotionally operant when hard core beliefs are challenged. It changed my perspective. Case in point? Look above. I got junked on an argument which clearly advocates Personal Liberty. LOL It came from someone that I have pissed off. There is no doubt about that. There is no logic to it. And if they post a written response advocating totalitarianism then they will get trashed by many here. So it is emotion driven. it is actually kind of funny. So I understand your headache. God bless...although I know that you do not buy into that. (Rest peaceful. That is how you can interpret it.) Although i still have hope. ;>)

In reply to by Billy the Poet

El Vaquero totenkopf88 Wed, 06/21/2017 - 00:13 Permalink

If IL and Dallas are indicators of what the future of police pension funds are going to do, plus what the groups like antifa and pslweb.org think of them, a lot of cops are going to turn against the system.  I think there are probably a lot of bad cops who are decent people - i.e. they don't participate in the abuse, but they turn a blind eye to it.  I know that hiring and training can be huge issues when it comes to how departments function, but I think there is another issue that needs to be delt with, and that is a lack of community involvement.  The best police unit that I know of in my area  participates in a lot of community events.  Being part of the community means that they stop viewing everybody as potential criminals or potential revenue. 

In reply to by totenkopf88

Billy the Poet El Vaquero Wed, 06/21/2017 - 01:32 Permalink

potential revenue.  Security agents should look to their clients as potential sources of revenue just as any other business would do by making sure that those customers are satisfied customers. Imagine how much more effective security services would be if you could fire the guys who mistakenly shot your innocent neighbor and hire an outfit with a better track record. Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly “Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.”  Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown's organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.  http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/09/call-anti-police-ending-st…

In reply to by El Vaquero

shamus001 Gods Wed, 06/21/2017 - 15:05 Permalink

My doorbell rang once around 3am...I grabbed my shotty and cautiously opened the door, rifle ready....it was a local cop who asked me if I could please put my rifle away (which I did, and apologised) he then informed me that I ledt my garage door open. I didnt die.The officer certainly was not surprised that a homeowner amswered the door with a rifle....a door with an NRA sticker....did he shit himself in sirprise that a gun was presented? He did not. Does my house say Im a middle class cop killer? Likely it dies not.52 traffic stops still doesnt paint thisman as a violent offender, armed and dangerous, and he certainly wouldnt tell the officer he was going to kill him had that been his intention. This officer is simply not qualified to wear the badge, and not mentally secure enough to be put in confrontational situations such as will arise in his profession.

In reply to by Gods

Flair1239 Tue, 06/20/2017 - 23:21 Permalink

The writer severely distorted the facts of the Castile case.

1. Castile was pulled over because he resembled a suspect in a armed robbery.

2. He and Diamond Reynolds (a known drug user and prostitute) had been smoking marijuana in the car. Meaning even if he had a carry permit, he was not legal to carry under the influence.

3. He did not exercise proper gun etiquette or comply with the officers instructions.

The person most responsible for
Castile' death is Castile.