TheAgitator.com
My Fox column…
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008…this week is on the Ryan Frederic/Jarrod Shivers mess in Chesapeake.
51 Responses to “My Fox column…”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
One small nitpick:
“Frederick was arrested and has spent the last six months in a Chesapeake jail.”
That should read six weeks.
Shite.
Thanks.
Good article, Radley. I hope that you’ll post some of the troubling authoritarian emails that you’re going to get in response to it.
Yes, please post the responses. What I want to know is….where is the NRA in these cases? Seems to me that these cases are prime examples of gun rights and the Castle Doctrine, stuff that the NRA has been lobbying for for years. Their silence confuses and depresses me.
I was just coming here to say what David and Salvo said. I’d love to see what kind of reaction you get off that site, versus the reaction that’s been seen in the comments here and on Reason Hit & Run.
From reading your article at Fox, one would conclude that you bring a jaundiced view of police officers to the discussion. The cop who is shot dead is barely described, but you go to great lengths to humanize the shooter. So obviously you know the value of fleshing out the characters in a story and have deliberately chosen to present the shooter as a likable human being (just like us!) and the dead cop as just another dead cop. Although this is certainly not the same situation, the tactic of ignoring the humanity of the victim reminds me of Mumia defenders.
I think capital murder charges are overwrought considering the circumstances (not premeditated), but I think that there is an anti-cop mentality at play here. Certainly a reader would not be at fault for concluding that. I think that this is about drug legalization advocates trying to dehumanize and devalue drug enforcement officers because they don’t like the laws that the police officers are sworn to uphold and they see a propaganda value in presenting a dead cop as an inanimate cog in an immoral war.
Here’s a thought experiment if you think I’m wrong about my conclusions. If an ambulance crew on a heart attack call mistakenly tried to break into the wrong house and was shot through the door would you be treating the shooter and the dead EMT in the same fashion as you do in your Fox article, if you commented at all?
mikem — That’s about as silly a comparison as when the prosecutor asked what would’ve happened if a girl scout had come to the door, slipped, and fell into the door.
Firstly, this isn’t about drugs, at least in the comments I’ve seen. Its about the unnecessary use of these types of tactics to serve warrants when they’re going to do nothing but exacerbate the situation and increase the chance of violence.
Secondly, nobody has talked about this dead cop as being an “inanimate cog in an immoral war”. Almost every post I’ve seen here and at Hit & Run has expressed a great deal of sympathy for the family of the officer who was killed, and has talked about him as being a victim of the tactics as well.
And finally, an EMT on a heart attack call isn’t going to be breaking a door in.
mikem,
Good police work would have prevented this whole situation. The police are to blame for this situation because there are a number of ways that they could have minimized the use of force. A law enforcement professional should have been able to get this guy without a shot fired, especially in a neighborhood.
I grew up around older cops, and they despised these rambo idiots who don’t have the good sense to realize what kind of idiots they are for conducting a senseless raid in the middle of a neighborhood. What would have happened if the cops fired shots and they ricocheted and killed an innocent bystander? Again, a law enforcement professional should be expected to be able to take down a drug user or dealer like Frederick without a shot being fired, unless the guy is armed and snaps when confronted.
If Shivers and his colleagues were more professional and discrete in how they used force, they would have done it the old fashioned way, which is to stake out his place and arrest him as he pulled into the driveway.
Great job condensing a convoluted situation into a story people could follow. I’m still hoping the county will finally come to its senses and, at a minimum, let this kid out of jail if not drop the charges completely.
MikeM, the officer in this case is a victim, but a victim of his own making. If they would have taken the time to do just a modicum of actual investigating he’d still be alive and this kid would still be a productive member of society. This story can be boiled down fairly simply…”officer doesn’t do his job and ends up dead”.
Tokin42,
You’re wrong, the victim is actually Ryan Frederic. The person that messes up is not the victim. Frederic is in jail and will most likely spend a lot of time in jail and/or get the death penalty when, under his circumstances, he justifiably defended his home. How is he not the victim?
I’m 72 years old and I mention this because I grew up through the Nazi Gestapo years…. the years when they smashed in doors during the night to terrorize people before actually arresting them. This paramilitary mentality our present SWAT teams have adopted is very similar to the Gestapo tactics. I admire and even approve of our dedicated and brave SWAT teams but I do not approve of their tactics against citizens “suspected” of non-violent crimes. The nighttime raids are designed to terrorize the victim and too many times the raid is conducted without enough investigation as to who, where and what. I have read too many instances of SWAT teams breaking into a house, terrorizing the occupants, trashing their house to find drugs and other contraband, only to find out that they have the wrong house! There too many cases of people dying because of these poorly investigated or evaluated “targets!”
This is nothing but pure bullshit in a free society!
We live in a violent society and unfortunately, violence begets violence. Both Ryan Frederic and the police officer are victims here. Citizens as well as officers of the law are on pins and needles, which can produce knee jerk reactions. Law abiding citizens put pressure on authorities to stop the rising random violence that we experience every day. In turn, this is reflected in the “IN YOUR FACE” tactics employed by the authorities. Everyone is afraid! Something needs to change in this country and I’m at a total loss as to the solution. In this case it was a tragic mistake for which Ryan should not be tried.
Your article is informative and paints a good picture of the situation: how someone is faced with a life or death situation and needs to respond in a split second. It is often times difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys during a chaotic situation. Please remember this the next time there is a questionable police shooting. An officer has a split second to determine whether or not his life is in danger and respond accordingly. Tragically accidents do happen and people like you do not always give ALL people the benefit of the doubt. You apply your reasoning selectively.
So do the laws and those who enforce them, Matt. Hence the difference in the way the Frederick case and the Strickland case are being handled. Mind you, those applicationa of selective reasoning will have far more serious consequences than perceived bias in a blog post.
How can I help this young man? He does not deserve to be in jail. Please continue to post updates.
can i get a punch in on mikem too?
Strickland happened in my adopted town. I will state here what i wrote to the paper there. The deciscion to send in a SWAT team, they have another name for their SWAT Lite team who was used, is a premediated deciscion to add non necessary violent variables to a situation they need not exist in to begin with. the Strickland case was for an x-box, here we have a suspected grow operation, neither of which can be flushed.
The problem with the police that they never in a million years would admit to, they are looking for any and every opportunity to dress up, grab their toys and play jack Bauer, heck, I would too if I could justify it to myself. However, like the previous poster said in paraphraseing, gestapo tactics have no place in the U.S. NONE!
I have a brother in-law who’s a retired Sheriff, another brother in-law who’s a retired D E A agent, and another brother in-law who’s a Superior Court Judge.
They all agree that the dead cop (Shivers) screwed up horribly.
I agree with Salvo, where is the NRA???
This man did nothing wrong. Why is he in jail? While I feel bad for the cop, he created his own dangerous situation. Anyone, and I do mean anyone has a right to defend himself with deadly force if he or she percieves his or her life to be in danger. Why didn’t the cops knock? Is someone growing a few (alleged) plants in his house a violent threat to society? I think not and I hope in the end he turns it around and gets millions from the city that locked him up. This is still America and we have the right to be secure in our own homes.
The NRA is nowhere because it is useless and too in-bed with police depts.
The real question is: Where are rest of the groups (like GOAL)?
mikem-
Regarding the EMT on a heart attack call situation you mention, remember that the EMT would not be trying to catch someone off guard. The EMT would be running the siren to clear the road. The homeowner would not be mistaking the situation for a criminal breaking in because he would have plenty of time to react to the disturbance(remember also that in the Frederick case someone had broken in recently).
I think that raids on non-violent drug offenders is part of the testosterone fueled mentality that seems to be taking over law enforcement as a result of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Use of the word “war” is intended as an unrestricted call to action. For cops, it evokes the concept of a contest between them and us.
But militaristic raids also heighten the perceived seriousness of the crime. Drugs must be terrible if these kinds of tactics are necessary and those people who were just raided must have been dangerous people. Thank god the police nailed them. The raids serve a propaganda function as well as tainting the potential jury pool with the impression that all drug users are violent criminals and they permeate our community.
Sigh, I really can’t read these reports much anymore, I get too upset. Many claim violent video games, movies, drugs etc. are causing all this crazy violence. Sure, they can have an effect on some “bent” people but you know what incites me and many to extreme anger, protest and eventually violence? Its not killing nazis in wolfenstein castle, counter terrorists/terrorists in Halflife: Counterstrike or some mel gibson/danny glover buddy cop film revoking diplomatic immunities with witty comments, its stories like these. Where the cops/authorities have no morals, ethics or common decency.
Jim,
Perhaps, but only perhaps. I lived in Baltimore for many years and a siren never woke me up and I know from experience that they usually don’t run their sirens at night in neighborhoods. On the road yes, intersections yes, but not Pine Tree Lane.
Despite the protestations of “silly comparison” and the risible comment from someone that EMT’s would not force entry (wait for someone else, I guess, while the old lady dies on the floor) the fact is that an attempted entry could be a cop or an EMT and probably others.
It amazes me that there is not one other commenter here who thinks the shooter did anything wrong while the best the dead cop gets is that he was a victim of himself/themselves (stupidity, having testicles, arrogance, Gestapo-ism…No Godwin’s Law for that?). That tells me that a lot of this is anti-cop and not just drug legalization naivete.
Frankly the comment section just drips with anti-cop. Not everyone, but a good portion.
MikeM,
it’s not a victim of himself… it’s a victim of departmental policy… of a lack of doing actual legwork to justify the violent variables that are set in motion the instant the deciscion is made to send in enough firepower to sweep a city street behind human beings under stress and pressure, a volaitile mix that need not exist because all people make mistakes no matter how professionally trained they are… and more to the point… able to cover up their own mistakes through their own authority and cooperation of their partners in CRIME…. the DA’s!
mikem,
I’m always frustrated at the libertarian crazies who comment about how awesome drugs are and how horrible cops are. The libertarian movement simply has too many people whose political ideology is born of teenage angst, and that’s the reason I’m reluctant to identify myself as a libertarian. However, pointing out that Ryan Frederick did something wrong goes to Radley’s point, not yours. The first question should be “Did Frederick behave with criminal negligence?” I think the answer is no for the obvious reasons. Now given that, why is it good policy or smart policing to encourage the unpredictability that comes with beating down a man’s door while he’s sleeping? Until that question is answered in one, just one, of these cases, I’m going to assume that the SWAT teams are playing cowboy.
Alex:
Let me set you straight. It’s not drugs that are “awesome” it’s personal liberty and self-sovereignty that are “awesome.” It just so happens that the right to grow, manufacture, distribute, and ingest the substance of your choice is a necessary corollary of a meaningful right of personal self-ownership.
And to the extent that Cops swear to uphold laws that are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral, and even worse, to uphold those laws in needlessly dangerous and life-threatening ways — yeah, they’re pretty terrible. Because doing terrible things makes you a terrible person, even if it’s because you accepted a terrible job.
“And to the extent that Cops swear to uphold laws that are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral, and even worse, to uphold those laws in needlessly dangerous and life-threatening ways — yeah, they’re pretty terrible. Because doing terrible things makes you a terrible person, even if it’s because you accepted a terrible job.”
That such a blatantly vicious attack on our entire police forces rates such high approval (+6) from the regular readers at Balko’s website tells any non anarchist all they need to know about Balko and his fellow cop haters. Don’t you dare pose as freedom loving people when you are spouting such slanderous generalities.
mikem:
Two things.
First, I missed the part where you actually explained the flaws in my reasoning, as opposed to spouting inane generalities (oh noes, I hates freedoms!!). I strongly suspect this is because, well, I’m not guilty of any. I just took widely accepted moral principles and, crazy of crazies, applied them to cops like I would to any other human being! Gasp! People who violently enforce unjust laws are bad?! Say it ain’t so!
Second, you certainly don’t have to be an anarchist to believe the above. Martin Luther King Jr. was no anarchist, even though he believed, as did Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all.” The Founding Fathers were no anarchists, even though they believed that laws were not self-justifying by the fact of their enactment, but had to be tested against independent moral truths. Nobody with any lick of sense believes that “because some pointy-headed government bureaucrat says so” constitutes any kind of legitimate moral argument. That would be silly.
I think you are serious. That makes you obtuse, perhaps, rather than a cop hater. Here’s a taste of your logic.
To the extent that a President swears to uphold laws that are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral, they are terrible people.
To the extent that an Attorney General swears to uphold laws that are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral, they are terrible people.
To the extent that a judge swears to uphold laws that are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral, they are terrible people.
All of them.
According to you all cops (and all law related oath takers) are terrible people because they swear to uphold the law. That’s not a freedom loving position. In fact, it’s loopy and inviting of a “judge, jury, executioner” police force. Screw the law, just do what you think is right.
Cop killers love hearing that kind of justification for what they do. So do gangs and other might makes right groups.
mikem:
Er, yeah — upholding petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral laws is a petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral action, by definition. And any human being that acts in such a way, is such a person, regardless of what position they happen to hold in the government. Simply pointing to your favorite public official and then (implicitly) arguing “well, how can THEY be bad?!” isn’t an argument (hate to break it to you). Again — please locate the fallacy in the argument.
By the way, “Cop-killers, pedophiles, terrorists, and the Devil himself love arguments like that!” is _also_ not a legitimate argument, because my position is either true or false on its merits, regardless of what third parties happen to think about it.
You are right, buddy. It’s should be up to the individual President, Attorney General, judge or cop to decide which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore. (Miranda laws, for one, are a drag for cops.)
Your logic is, indeed, flawless.
mikem:
Apparently, you misunderstand. The test isn’t whether a law or rule makes your job easier or harder (a “drag”) but whether it’s right or wrong. When you find yourself arguing on behalf of Bull Connor instead of Martin Luther King, you should probably take a step back to evaluate. And since you still haven’t bothered to point out the fallacy… well, speaks for itself.
Bull Conner/ Martin Luther King.
I never knew that about myself. My God, I’m crushed. You are the man!
The situation is sad and my condolences are with all those involved. However, the tactics as stated (and if true) used by the police were inexcusable. Forced entry procedures can be terminally dangerous therefore you always tip the scales in your favor upon entrance it lessen’s the chances of something like this happening. There are a ton of other things that arguably went wrong and are quite possibly being covered up. Did the CI break into the residence to determine probable cause? If so, is the DA pleading ignorance of that fact through the application of charges that will/would result in the nullification of anything the defendant has to say? Unfortunately quite often police officers (and their supervisors) are general issue and because of this they’re not necessarily the best at what they do. That fact gets covered up through statements like “followed routine procedure” and “we are currently conducting intensive training to correct any possible shortfalls.” Hopefully the PD will do the right thing, man-up, and treat this like what it is, a horrible accident. But of course I’m sure that won’t happen, like as not, we’ll hear things like “This crime cannot go unpunished, the lawless cannot be allowed to dictate the actions of the police” and other tough guy posturing. Before anyone asks..did 20 years mili and 15 years SWAT…I’ve seen my share of teams that had no business being armed and I’ve also seen officers/teams so professional and motivated that you tried your best to be like them. Hope this works out.
JJH2,
“Let me set you straight. It’s not drugs that are “awesome” it’s personal liberty and self-sovereignty that are “awesome.” It just so happens that the right to grow, manufacture, distribute, and ingest the substance of your choice is a necessary corollary of a meaningful right of personal self-ownership.”
What does that have to do with the libertarians who think drugs are awesome? I don’t understand how a fundamental belief in personal freedom and unregulated markets leads so many to the belief that the hundreds of thousands of meth addicts in this country are rational actors engaging in carefully thought out risk assesment. I have both a philosophical and pragmatic aversion to locking them up, but just because the government answer is wrong doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be asked.
Alex:
I think you’re swinging at a straw man. I don’t know any libertarians that think “drugs” per se are “awesome.” Some of them may think that particular drugs are awesome like say, Advil or NyQuil or perhaps marijuana. I’m sure there are even libertarians out there who think heroin or meth is “awesome” but I’m not really convinced they’re actually making that into some kind of argument for you.
I think it’s a pretty gross parody of libertarian views to say that they really believe in the whole “rational actors” “risk assessment” nonsense. Just because you believe in personal liberty doesn’t mean you’re some kind of economoid reductionist who thinks everybody views everything in terms of a dollars and cents cost-benefit analysis. More likely, it just means that you believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own life, even if you disagree with the decision that they’re making, wouldn’t make it for yourself, and think it’s actively harmful for them.
So I’m not sure what “question” it is that you think needs to be asked. If it’s about individuals questioning whether, for themselves, taking drugs (whatever drugs they might be) is something they want to do, with an understanding of the risks. Well yeah, I have no problem with that. If the “question” is whether third parties should violently coerce them for deciding differently than they would — well I don’t see why that’s even a question.
I typed the first paragraph of a well-thought-out response before rereading everything you’ve said. After doing so, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re an idiot.
” If the “question” is whether third parties should violently coerce them for deciding differently than they would — well I don’t see why that’s even a question.”
When your 18-year-old loses 50 pounds and pawns everything he owns in a couple months and you sit back and do nothing because you’re a third party and you shouldn’t “violently coerce” him, tell me about how drugs aren’t a problem. Until then, grow the hell up and quit hating everyone who’s well-intentioned but doesn’t agree with you. I mean, honestly, it really takes a lot for someone to speak poorly enough of cops to be a blip on my radar, but calling them all “petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral” manages to actually offend my rawhide-thick sensibilities.
BTW, the “question” is this: What should we as a society, or I as an individual, do to help those hopelessly addicted to hard drugs?
Only a fanatic would instictively believe all help would necessarily be violent and/or coercive.
Alex:
It’s entirely possible that I didn’t understand your “question” (which is why I asked about it, since it wasn’t entirely clear to me what you were angling at).
I think you might be misunderstanding my position. I certainly DO NOT think that people should never try to help those who are addicted to drugs. I think there are lots of things that a caring, responsible person could do in such a situation that is perfectly consistent with respect of the drug user’s individual autonomy. You could, for example, try to talk to them and convince them how badly their addiction is screwing up their relationships and personal life; you could try to convince them to go into rehab; you could even offer to fund in whole or in part the costs of rehab yourself. What you cannot do, at least legitimately, is toss then into the prison-industrial complex. And since THAT is what cops do, which is manifestly coercive and unjust, it makes ALL of those who engage in such acts manifestly coercive and unjust human beings themselves.
Alex, I think another important distinction to libertarians is that the *government* should not be the one coercing people into staying away from self-destructive choices. If you as a private citizen want to use coercive tactics on a loved one, that is inherently more justified (whether it is right or wrong), in the logic of libertarianism, than it is when the government does it out of an obligation to enforce some law.
Don’t forget, the founding fathers were raging libertarians to a degree that can only be created through a knee-jerk reaction to what were blatantly oppressive government policies. The whole idea in the founding of our country was to err on the side of limiting government power, even when all objective minds would agree a specific act was good, because the next time the government will act in a way that is bad - similar logic to why free speech protects disgusting offensive speech along with “good” speech.
So you can’t look at libertarian ideals as just being pro or con certain things irrespective of government intervention and coercion. I imagine nealry all libertarians would support communities investing in dug education, and treatment, because drugs are often bad, but they see intrusive government programs as wrong in principle and often times MORE costly than drugs themselves. The case of Shivers/Frederick is a good example of how the War on Drugs is more costly to society than drugs themselves sometimes.
And, mikem,
“It’s (sic) should be up to the individual President, Attorney General, judge or cop to decide which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore.”
Umm, welcome to America, dumbass. It IS up those individuals what laws they will enforce and which they will ignore. They make those decisions every day. (Ever read a penal code? You think EVERY law on the books is enforced? Oh please say yes). The Presdient is *supposed* to be able to ignore and not enforce laws he doesn’t like (as is the design of an executive branch) and Congress can in turn, not fund different things the President does if they don’t like them. That’s what rules about America, there’s all these little things called checks and balances, and they are all supposed to move in the direction of LIMITING government authority and power and enhancing personal freedom. So a cop could choose not to “enforce” Miranda. It would be antithetical to a free society (deliberately undercutting the rights of the private person) but he could do it.
Do you honestly not recognize this? Or is that you’re opposed to people JUDGING those government officials for which laws they enforce and which they ignore? Either way, you are not very bright.
Oh and one last thing mikem, you’d be pleased to know that i work in a criminal courthouse and almsot all of the judges there regularly ignore the Constitution and the Laws (:I know what the law says, I don’t agree with it”) in the interest of locking people up and “being tough on crime.” I call them assholes, I bet you’d think they’re cool, but oh yeah, you wouldn’t judge.
So.. because I object to a smear on oath takers as being terrible people, that means I think it is cool when they break their oath. OK, how can I argue with libertarian logic.
“Oh and one last thing mikem, you’d be pleased to know that i work in a criminal courthouse and almsot all of the judges there regularly ignore the Constitution and the Laws”
And what a courageous guy you are to stand up for the victims of such judicial abuse by whistleblowing here under your own initial instead of grandstanding as a moral person at work.
I salute you, Sir.
MikeM… you haven’t argued the point that SWAT teams are being sent to the homes of non violent offenders to serve warrants… you haven’t acknowledged that sometimes, being human, they get it wrong and come to the home of the wrong people… shooting their dogs doing exactly what dogs do when there is a threat… and simply getting away… with suspension with pay…
With my own eyes, i’ve witnessed police exhibiting belligerent,
“I’ll find something to lock you up for” behavior against two of the most courteous people I grew up with, both current PHD’s, one
a current professor at Harvard. Common courtesy and respect have been replaced by thuggish behavior.
Todays Customs agents post 911 are the worlds biggest jackasses.
Police take a close second. I want my Mayberry back and it’s not societys fault, it’s Departmental policy.
livingpre,
I don’t argue with those points because I know that they are realities. Cops do make mistakes, they do hit the wrong door sometimes and so on. I came into this discussion talking about the way that Balko’s anti-cop feelings come through in his posts. The shooter is you or me, flesh and blood. The dead cop is, apparantly, the enemy and not worthy of any description at all, just a cop. It is the well proven tool that a propagandist uses to dehumanize the target of his anger. Certainly there are a lot of commenters here who just hate cops. Just look at what garners high ratings. It seems that the more bitter the hate, the better the rate. I honestly think that the way-over-the-top cop haters (not Balko) would like nothing better than to have an “excuse” to shoot through their door and hit a cop.
Anyway, you bring up good points and there is nothing wrong with discussing them. It’s just not what I was commenting about. I’m sure cops have discussions about those issues also, they just don’t start it with an acknowledgement that they are terrible people for swearing to uphold the law, as one wag determined.
The dictionary of Mikem:
“Cop Hate” = The radical notion that cops should be held to the same standards as every other human being on the planet.
Heh. From the dictionary of JJH2
Black cop: A Bull Conner advocate
Mikem:
You’re very bad at this game - here’s why. The point of the exercise was to tease out the plain-language implications for a particular moral view. That’s what I did. What you did, on the other hand, was to use my simple moral reasoning (defensible in itself, as I note you have not bothered to actually criticize it on its merits) to ascribe a _prediction_ of how _actual people_ (or hypotheticals of actual people) will relate to a historical figure. Since my position isn’t predicative (and shouldn’t be, since people often act in ways which are contrary to their stated beliefs), your reply makes no sense. Even worse, you try to smuggle in an implicit argument via race to make your nonsensical point.
You see, the whole point of noting that your position on the justification of enforcing petty, venal, cruel and unjust laws would, if you were to remain consistent, have you supporting Bull Connor over MLK — was my faith in your humanity. I would expect you to feel JUST THE OPPOSITE; recognizing that Jim Crow laws were odious and illegitimate, and that no human being in good conscience could either support those laws or justify their enforcement. If, in fact, you DO feel that way — how can you possibly support both the position that Jim Crow laws are odious, unjust and immoral, while maintaining that _enforcing those laws_ (and by necessary implication — those enforcers of the law) is NOT odious, unjust and immoral? The only way that I can possibly see is a naked double standard whereby the actions of our sainted government officials are treated by a different standard than everybody else on the planet.
Have you always been this childish? You introduce Bull Conner/ MLK to the discussion, aggressively, and then whine and whimper about me “smuggling” race into the same discussion by using a black cop as your Bull Conner fan. Get a life.
You smear all law enforcement people by stating that since there are all always some arguably unjust laws any oath takers who swear to uphold the law are terrible people. And all this hate is supposedly brought out, not by inarguably unjust laws like Jim Crow, but by drug laws that you have decided “are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral”. As if only a hatemonger and sociopath would think that crack, meth and heroin shouldn’t be legalized.
I note also that there are a lot of libertarian bloggers/commenters who employ this type of B.A.M.N. argument. Which is why, I guess, that such over the top rantings and vicious generalizations get such high approval.
You’re such a putz. You spit invective, employ Bull Conner comparisons and vicious stereotypes and then try to pretend that you have been an intelligent reasonable person all along and all that viciousness was just a test of my humanity. And it was I who failed the test!
LMAO. You are the present and future of libertarianism.
Mikem:
A dozen posts in and this is the closest you’ve come to saying anything substantive about your position. Could you clarify?
So do you think that it’s perfectly just for the police to enforce inarguably unjust laws? Arguably unjust laws? Or is it unjust for the police to enforce inarguably unjust laws? Arguably unjust laws?
Are your problems with the justice of enforcing unjust laws, or simply my characterization of drug laws as inarguably unjust?
You seem to waffle between some of these positions, while keeping your actual views deliberately obscured to prevent them from direct criticism (evade, evade, evade).
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “BAMN argument” - what exactly do you think I’m advocating? And if you think I’m advocating something, why don’t you first spell out what it is, and second, spell out why it’s wrong?
Help me out here — it’s hard to argue with someone who deliberately obfuscates their position to insulate it from criticism.
Some drugs *are* awesome. Some cops *are* a**holes and should have their guns and badges taken from them. As I’ve said before, I have a lot of sympathy for Officer Shivers’ family but even more for Ryan Frederick, because what the cops have done and are doing to him is hateful and pointless. He should be set free *immediately.*