Apparently, according to the lieutenant, if you have a search warrant for a specific residence, it’s essentially carte blanche to do whatever you want at any address you please. No need to actually follow the restrictions of the warrant.
It’s painful to watch him discuss the matter with the reporter.
“We had a warrant”. Not for that house, though. “We had a warrant.”
Best quote of the whole affair: when asked about whether the raid was a violation of Ms. Treat’s rights, the lieutenant says “Obviously, our legal people have to explain that to us.”
People probably need to explain a LOT of things to you, lieutenant.
a common refrain I hear from the victims in these raids is, ‘They didn’t even apologize’, as if their feelings are hurt by something a friend has done… As soon as people understand that these men are not our friends, they’ll be able to get educated. As it is, most of the victims sound like battered spouses.
You people are blowing this all out of proportion. Sure there are a lot of raids against people who use drugs. Sure they often wind up spending long terms in prison. Sure they will find employment very difficult after being branded as drug crime felons. Sure families are destroyed by it. Sure the drug war dispenses mega-misery on a galactic scale. Sure people’s rights are violated. Sure, we must sometimes be willing (enthusiastic in fact!) to sacrifice the occasional innocent if we, ourselves, want to continue to live in “the land of the free”.
While it might be a bad thing if we were doing this to Jews, it’s perfectly legitimate to do it to people whose lifestyles that are socially unacceptable (which is exactly why we are so much better than the Nazis).
While innocent people, like this woman, occasionally get caught up in it, we must remember that the cops who broke into her house are innocent, too. They were victims of circumstance just as much as the woman and yet that reporter was much more sympathetic to the woman than he was to the cops, clearly exhibiting unprofessional journalistic bias against the people who are the only thing standing between us and people society doesn’t like.
Yay! Let’s all cheer and show our support for law enforcement victims of isolated incidents by voting republican or democrat!
I second the Len’s praising of the reporter (statment #4). It was indeed good to see a reporter stand up to the cops, and do so logically and forcefully. (It’s at about the 2:00 mark of the video.)
The police say this incident is “under review”. Which means either (a) they’re going to investigate themselves and, lo and behold, find there was nothing wrong, just a few changes in their “procedures” in the future and/or, (b) they’re actually going to investigate the VICTIM to slander her and her family to get American dolts going, “Well that woman deserved it, anyway!”
Balloon Maker |
October 18th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Good on the reporter for describing the incident as a break-in, exactly what it was. More of this please.
Of course, any ‘investigation’ will clear officers of wrongdoing because they were jus doin therr jerbs. And did you see that ladies house? I’m sure she’s doing something illegal in there, right?
Yizmo Gizmo |
October 18th, 2012 at 10:09 am
So, if cops don’t like someone, like that jerk who hired a good
lawyer and got acquitted on his last charges, they can
get a warrant for a nearby house, raid the other house, and then claim “oops” and there’s no avenue for compensation?
I once thought the same thing… but I’ve changed my mind lately. I think our cops are too stupid to rationalize what they are doing. They will simply double down, bring more cops with guns and itchy trigger fingers.
Of course there is the ever present drones in law enforcement looming on the horizon. Which are unarmed… for now.
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you, military/CIA style drone strikes in the name of “officer safety”…
And I doubt they’ll apologize for blowing up the wrong house either, infact they don’t when then blow one up now.
Jack Dempsey |
October 18th, 2012 at 10:27 am
I’m glad they busted in on that family with an invalid warrant. I sure feel a lot safer for it.
This will end when the cops bust in the wrong house and leave in body bags. Not once, but every time.
If cops start leaving in body bags, I guarantee you that their response won’t be “oh I guess we should back off”, but rather “WE NEED BIGGER GUNS”. Maybe the use of tear gas as SOP will be next. If cops really start leaving in body bags, actual grenades will be eventually used as SOP. If history has told us anything it’s that usually violence begets violence.
And who has the greater capacity to use violence to “settle things,” people who want to end the drug war with violence, or the federal government?
October 18th, 2012 at 11:24 am
If cops start leaving in body bags, I guarantee you that their response won’t be “oh I guess we should back off”, but rather “WE NEED BIGGER GUNS”.
Yep. Homeowners do not win firefights with SWAT or similar tactical units who break down doors. Even if you kill the first officer coming in and can reasonably claim self defense by reason of surprise/police at wrong address whatever…it will be very, very long odds to get a jury to buy that at trial (assuming you survive the confrontation). Nine times out of ten, the jury will go for the law enforcement side of things. Americans by and large love the fiercely independent bootstrapping meme, but many of our fellow citizens have deeply pro authoritarian sympathies…and especially if they think that authority is using violence against people they disapprove of.
Gonna have to go with Bergman. If history has told us anything it’s that usually violence is coming one way or the other. There are non-violent solutions to some problems but others? Not really. I tend to think that there are legislative and educational responses to these situations, but until the problem is actually solved I also think that a lot of dead cops will guarantee that we, as a society, actually talk about it. Dead homeowners hasn’t produced much of a response.
Al Queda believed that if they killed enough Americans, the US gov’t would back down and leave the Arab world. Instead, there are more American bases in the middle east than ever before and we have near free reign to kill citizens over there without any serious opposition. Also, most of those guys are dead.
Let’s not employ that same tactic over here with law enforcement.
Boyd Durkin |
October 18th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
That’s why we need a case where it’s someone who loses half of their family in a bad raid AND who happens to take down most of them. A man who kills a bunch of bumbling cops who shot up his kids and/or wife with an invalid warrant would be a lot harder to prosecute successfully.
But really, who are we kidding here? Not even that would end it. The only thing that would end it is something like the Battle of Athens happening right outside the courthouse between the police union sympathizers rallying for the execution of the home owner and the citizens sympathetic to the home owner who defended his family.
#23- I thought Al Quaeda’s goal was to draw the US into a war and bankrupt us… I never heard anyone mention that they were trying to get us to back down. I could be wrong, though.
el coronado |
October 18th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
…”Let’s not employ the same tactic [Afghanistan] over here with law enforcement.”
Well, let’s take a look at that. Asking them nicely to ‘stop that shit, please’ ain’t working – it’s merely encouraged them. Trying to use the same legal & political system that’s been completely infiltrated and overrun by the cops and their extended families ain’t working – it’s merely encouraged them. The consensus here seems to be that ‘Shooting the cops when they bust in on you’ would merely encourage them.
That really leaves only two solutions. 1) give up and submit & grovel 2) The Solution That Must Not Be Named, Because Doing So Would Be Mean. Think about it: it’ll come to you.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
That was pretty decent reporting for a change. The reporter made that jackass Lt. squirm for a minute. Good for him! That rube seemed to imply that as long as his boys had some kind of warrant for somewhere near the residence that they would be in the clear. Unfortunately, he is probably correct. Carry on with the “mistakes were made” platitudes, Lt!
Also, they will never really apologize. They know they fucked up and now they will just slink off into the corner and think of ways to tarnish the victim’s reputation. Marty was correct in #3: These situations do kind of resemble battered spouse scenarios.
Americans by and large love the fiercely independent bootstrapping meme, but many of our fellow citizens have deeply pro authoritarian sympathies…and especially if they think that authority is using violence against people they disapprove of.
EXACTLY. This is why the agents of the Polizeistaat are usually careful to select “poodles” (People “We” Don’t Like) as targets. As long as it’s not the “mainstream” (i.e., brainless, compliant slaves Joe and Jane Sixpack) who are the targets of these raids, the sheeple majority won’t care or complain. But let the thugs run out of poodles, though, and start victimizing the sheeple mainstream, and things might change.
A man who kills a bunch of bumbling cops who shot up his kids and/or wife with an invalid warrant would be a lot harder to prosecute successfully.
That of course assumes a functioning justice system, the Rule of Law being operative, and the empaneling of a jury consisting of critically thinking, informed citizens willing to ignore fiats from the bench and nullify based on human decency, common law, and common sense – as opposed to the collection of pliant, brain-dead, functionally and legally illiterate knotheads that are all but guaranteed to be empaneled by the current State jury tampering system known as voir-dire.
No, the reality is that any man who managed to pull off even part of what you describe (killing a platoon of cops in justified self-defense) would simply be shot to pieces and/or incinerated inside his own home by the ARMY of reinforcements (and these would no doubt include state police and even National Guard/active duty military [Posse Comi-what?] if necessary) that would be called in to “liquidate the enemy.” And of course All the Sheeple would sing the praises of the “heroes in blue (and khaki/cammy)” who “defend their safety and freedom” from “domestic terrorists” like the victim of this hypothetical event.
That was pretty decent reporting for a change. The reporter made that jackass Lt. squirm for a minute. Good for him!
Odds are that this reporter, if he works for an Establishment “news” organ, isn’t going to last very long at his job. Standing up to authority, questioning the State, and exposing its agents for the criminal buffoons that they are isn’t what one can call “career enhancing” in the MSM.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
#18 Bergman: “If violence isn’t settling anything, you’re not using enough of it.”
Ah, sounds like you have a little Maoist in ya. Did you want to say that all power comes out of the barrel of a gun too? So are you personally going to go out there and “settle” things with the SWAT teams or do you think that folks in the trailer parks and ghettos should handle that unpleasant task for you. You know, those people with less to lose than a blog revolutionary like yourself.
History shows that the biggest shit-talkers are unlikely to get their own hands dirty when the violence really starts. They push other people (younger, poorer people) to do the killing and dying for them. Indeed, this is the logic of state officials. Does it make you feel superior to law enforcement when your thought process essentially mirrors that of a a war-mongering politician or a brutal cop?
This critique of “internet tough guy syndrome” is not a criticism of self-defense in general. I am in favor of self-defense. I would also disagree slightly with those who say the state always has more guns and will always win so don’t even think about it. If things really did get ugly and a native insurgency developed, the state may very well have it hands full.
But what would this insurgency do if they won? That is the question people must deeply consider if that time ever comes. A form of tyranny as offensive or more offensive than anything Americans have ever seen could arise from such an insurgency. If the insurgency’s motto is akin to ” If violence isn’t settling anything, you’re not using enough of it,” then I guarantee you the result will be horrific.
This is why I support evolution more than I do revolution. There are just too many Bergmans out there who will fuck up a revolution.
As the Industrial Workers of the World might say, let’s build the new society out of the shell of the old. Now doesn’t that sound more libertarian than trying to fight a tit for tat war with SWAT teams?
But Helmut, is there a time when resistance to a brutal oppression and tyranny is right? I mean at some point may not violence be the only appropriate response to a violant police state?
I don’t see it happening here anyway though. I think a financial crash and Soviet style implosion is much more likely than the America people taking arms to alter or abolish their form of government. But even then it would be a horrible injustice of our police get away with the things they’ve done so far. Hopefully there will be trials someday and at least some justice meted out.
That was a lovely little speech there, Helmut. Say, apropos of nothing, do you know offhand of any state-sponsored tyranny and/or thuggery and/or Police State Authoritarianism that’s been stopped by way of “evolution”?
I only ask ’cause, see, all the ones I can think of were stopped by revolutions and/or massive doses of violence against the tyrants.
How well do you suppose Gandhi and MLK, Jr. would have done had they been going up against a people/nation that had no problem with more….brusque methods of dealing with troublemakers? Let’s ask some Tibetans how well they think a Gandhi-like passive resistance would work against their Red Chinese occupiers. Let’s ask some Burmese how long MLK, Jr. would have survived had he been protesting the military junta running *that* country.
Or we could just ask the folks in the infamous recent photo how well passive resistance worked out for THEM. You know the one: where the kindly old-fuck cop is walking along, spraying pepper spray into their unresisting, nonviolent faces. Ya suppose THEY would classify their protest as “successful”? (especially in light of the fact that, IIRC, they all got arrested after being pepper-sprayed. Winning! Just like Teacher taught ’em! Yay, Gandhi!!!)
el coronado “Or we could just ask the folks in the infamous recent photo how well passive resistance worked out for THEM. You know the one: where the kindly old-fuck cop is walking along, spraying pepper spray into their unresisting, nonviolent faces.”
This is a good point. Non violence worked for MLK because the rest of the country was angered and outraged at the police violence of Bull Conner but clearly people today don’t give a fuck if hte cops beat or pepper spray or otherwise brutalize some smelly hippies or other unlovely “different from us” types. I think the thing that made non-violent resistance wirk in the case of Ghandi or MLK is missing today because the American people are generally very supportive of a violent authoritarian state.
I watched the Nova about forensics on PBS last night. They set up the issue of shaky science behind forensics pretty well with the fingerprint fiasco from the Madrid terrorist bombing and a mistaken dental imprint ID. From there they pretty much just went into “look, cool new technology makes it more better”, with a nod to improving evidence collection techniques as well. Quite disappointing.
Sure, improved technology is a good thing. But the single greatest problem in police forensics is the lack of proper scientific procedures, most particularly proper blinding. Every human on the planet has biases. It cannot be handwaved away by training or professionalism. The only way to control for our biases is to properly blind the testing of the data. The lab people cannot know anything about the suspects or the police theories of the crime. The crime scene techs, blood spatter experts, etc. should be given a clean-slate view of the evidence without input or influence from police, relatives, prosecutors, etc. to the greatest extent possible.
If we followed these simple and basic scientific controls, I think we’d very quickly find that the confidence level in current techniques would drop precipitously. Which is a good thing – because then we could begin to actually improve our system.
I seem to remember a guy standing up to a heavily armed force that conducted an illegal raid held them off for weeks, while the government lied, denied and falsified reports and he won in criminal court then civil court. What was his name oh yea Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge.
It cost him dearly, but he did show that it can be done.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
El Coronado: “That was a lovely little speech there, Helmut. Say, apropos of nothing, do you know offhand of any state-sponsored tyranny and/or thuggery and/or Police State Authoritarianism that’s been stopped by way of “evolution”?
I only ask ’cause, see, all the ones I can think of were stopped by revolutions and/or massive doses of violence against the tyrants.”
Oh I’m not the one giving empty speeches here, El Coronado. People like you and Bergman are trying to rev people up for a blood-letting from behind your keyboards. If that’s the way you feel then leave YOUR cozy home office and put YOUR body on the line. If not, then shut the fuck up and consider alternative methods.
Mattocracy mentioned MLK and Ghandi and you just mocked him. And mocked them. By doing so you showed that you do not understand the history of the movements against British Imperialism and Southern Apartheid. King and Ghandi showed how you can use civil disobedience to get the public on your side. Their actions led to some evolution in their respective countries.
Think about the word evolution. It means that the process is ONGOING. We can build on the example of MLK and Ghandi. Today, people all over the world are using their cell phones to capture misdeeds of police and other officials. Others use hacking to punish government for oppressive actions. These methods of civil disobedience are ways of informing the public so that they will turn against oppressive government officials.
In other words, these evolutionary actions help to gradually build an insurgency. Then, if governments continue to crackdown, more people will be willing to resist. If this means violent resistance, then the prior use of civil disobedience should ensure that more people are ready and willing to take it to that level.
MLK taught many Americans about the value of non-violent civil disobedience. But he also had armed men that protected him at many events. Malcom X criticized King and advocated resistance “by any means necessary.” What I am advocating is a mixture of the two philosophies. This is something quite different then simply employing “massive doses of violence.”
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
#35 JLS: “But Helmut, is there a time when resistance to a brutal oppression and tyranny is right? I mean at some point may not violence be the only appropriate response to a violant police state?”
Of course. I never said I was a pacifist. Homeowners subjected to out of the blue no knock raids certainly would be justified in repelling the invaders with violence. Or look at some of the incidents of police brutality we see on The Agitator or YouTube (UC-Davis, Kelly Thomas, etc). If people went to intervene in these kinds of incidents WHILE THEY ARE IN PROGRESS, their actions would certainly be justifiable. See how I emphasized IN PROGRESS. I think this is the difference between me and a few of the other commenters here. I advocate self-defense, not blood lust and vengance. I do not advocate random attacks, attacks on peoples families, etc. I’m not sure you can say the same about a few others commenting today. But they will have to speak for themselves.
“How well do you suppose Gandhi and MLK, Jr. would have done had they been going up against a people/nation that had no problem with more….brusque methods of dealing with troublemakers?”
What are you talking about? That is what King was up against. I mean seriously, he was murdered. That is a rather brusque method. Despite being dead he still won in the end. So I don’t feel as though I have been proven wrong.
Look at Mendela and South Africa. He rotted in prison, was released, and became president of a country. While crime and race relations are not great in SA, it was still considered a nonviolent revolution when Apartheid ended.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
#36 | el coronado | October 18th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
I only ask ’cause, see, all the ones I can think of were stopped by revolutions and/or massive doses of violence against the tyrants.
Does the end of the British Raj ring a bell?
Gandhi not only espoused non-violence in his quest to rid India from the tyranny of England he also practiced the together we stand divided we fall doctrine in order to unify India’s Muslims and Hindus to face their common enemy the Raj.
Other tactics used by Gandhi and his followers to rid the Indian subcontinent were non-cooperation and peaceful resistance.
Was there bloodshed and violence in India’s quest for freedom? Yes
Would the bloodshed and violence have been orders of magnitude greater without the use of non-violent, non-cooperative, peaceful resistence tactics? Yes
Disclosure: I’m currently reading:
An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with the Truth by M.K. Gandhi
This quote is on the books back jacket:
“I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills.” ~ M.K. Gandhi
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Good catch. I don’t know what El Coronado was thinking when he typed that nonsense out. I mean police and the KKK were essentially one in the same in many areas of the south at that time. And he doesn’t think their “methods of dealing with troublemakers” were “brusque” enough. Ever heard of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner for fuck’s sake. I mean, that statement alone shows a profound ignorance of civil rights era history.
I guess this is how people talk when they think violence is like some Jerry Bruckheimer movie or a video game. These are the same people who will be shitting themselves at the first sign of real violence.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 18th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Another voice of reason. Thank you very much.
Even if violent insurrection is the only ultimate solution, first there’s going to be a long haul of convincing the general public that it needs and deserves a competent, benign justice system.
If you’re going to argue that violence isn’t optimal, I don’t think it entirely works to claim that the people who call for violence aren’t violent enough themselves.
I’m sure some of the people who call for violence want other people to do the dangerous painful stuff while they get to enjoy the drama. Especially if this builds, expect some of the people who call for violence to be police provocateurs. However, I bet that some of the people who call for violence really like violence themselves and are building a context where they get to engage in it.
It’s important to note that nonviolence can also work from the inside of unjust institutions. Like the Stop & Frisk video posted on here a week ago, we saw some police who don’t want to participate in or are willing to push back by sharing info against an unjust and oppressive practice. If that number of resisting police can reach critical mass with regard to that or other policies then some people may just stop utilizing violent SWAT raids, on department at a time, or stop arresting users who just want to get high.
A one man violent insurrection is a nutjob, signifying nothing. 10 guys in a violent insurrection is a cult, also signifying nothing.
50 million on your side? They call that a civil war.
150 million? Now you don’t need violent insurrection anymore, because you just vote the bastards out. What’s needed is a way to skip from the 1-15% range we are in now all the way to the 60% range. Maybe our charismatic and well-spoken President can take up the cause as soon as he’s finished with all the important work of saving Big Bird and Planned Parenthood.
#19 while you may be correct, the inevitable calculus is that only unmitigated force has ever changed anything of this nature. When a privileged class, in this case police, operate free of negative consequences for their actions as well as exist within a culture of license and impunity their actions will only become more extreme unless met with continued, sustained opposition. I think The Zimbardo experiment sheds a bit of light on the psychology, however in this case you have a subset of the population drawn to police work because they are authoritarian to begin with. The only other alternative is to bombard the culture with the true nature of policing, constant villification of the chronic misdeeds on the media, day in day out then there might be some policy changes with meat on the bone. But this will not happen because the police are there to serve the same interests and protect the same class that own and control the media. So insurgency may be the only real remedy. Im not advocating for that simply pointing out what I view as a truism.
Mike Williams |
October 18th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
This reporter will be encouraged to leave town soon, and the most unapologetic cop in the group will receive a commendation.
Helmut “WHILE THEY ARE IN PROGRESS, their actions would certainly be justifiable. See how I emphasized IN PROGRESS. I think this is the difference between me and a few of the other commenters here. I advocate self-defense, not blood lust and vengance.”
Yea I definitely agree abou the in progress being justified but I don’t think that going after the guilty is just vengence or blood lust. It’s like bringing those Nazi war criminals to justice after decades. Tp a lot of their victims it wasn’t just revenge but a matter of justice. I think it’s the same way for our current police. Hopefully there will be a way to bring them to justice someday but when people are denied justice I don’t think that violent revolution as a last resort to change an intolerable situation is necessarily morally wrong.
October 18th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
I appreciate and agree with much of what you say. I caution however that many of the RedState folks who are growling loudest about the need for Civil War 2.0 are also likely to be the same folks who have abusive cop shoe polish on their tongues. You cannot assume for one minute that (and I sure as hell hope it doesn’t come to this) if another mass insurrection starts that the people on the rebel side will be even remotely be on your or my side.
Again…they love the idea of coercive governement power as long as it is used to enforce their favorite cultural mores and keep undesirable (meaning people with brown skins) people in their place.
@ Celtic point well taken. This is one of the places were I think a coalition can possibly be built #55 Seems Obama is mainly concerned with removing the civil liberties of peasants via robot death machines.
#14 Croaker – I realise I’m not the only one to say this, but let’s say your scenario happened and an Upstanding Pillar of the Community type gunned down a cop or two. Would that lead to people rethinking current policy? No way, it would lead to demonization of the guy and cops who were even more heavily armed. Fast forward a few more times, the only thing that would change is a way more aggressive policy – they’d claim that announcing themselves was giving people time to arm themselves (the same rationale they use for No-Knock raids now). The only thing going to change this is a change in liability that results in several really big payouts for victims. Big payouts b/c of screw ups hurts the promotion ladder. Once it’s tied to their own self-interest, the brass will start demanding they show some restraint b/c they don’t want to risk suits.
But keep in mind we had Rodney King and countless others and even with all the exposure and money piad out, things have gotten not better but worse. The worst thing that could happen is more dead cops.
We’ve already heard a bunch of hand wringing about a fake war on cops. Let there be a bunch of crying wives and kids (and when it’s the cops’ families, there’d be no shortage of media sympathy) and that would be used to ramp up the violence. All that would do is result in a lot more dead dogs and dead or hurt civilians. In fact comments like yours (and no, I’m not saying you can’t say such things) are frequently cited by cops in such situations as ‘proof’ of the hostility they have to deal with. And it takes one such comment to be the focus of a story on the news to get all the PoliceOne types salivating and finger pointing (although I make no pretense that they wouldn’t do so otherwise – they’ll grab anything they can hang on to to justify their hostility toward the people they supposedly represent.
#55 Nancy Lebowitz – here in SC, the Bar Lobbied really hard to have Cameras installed in all cop cars and demand all DUI arrests be fully taped. THis made a huge difference b/c Defense attorneys have strong grounds to show that there wasn’t really an illegal lane change or other traffic indiscretion. It’s made a huge difference here and law and order types bitch about it to no end, claiming ‘were not serious about protecting our kids from drunk drivers” but they always sign that tune. Cameras aren’t a perfect solution, cops can do quite a bit off camera as we’ve seen here at the Agitator many times, but it does cut the surface area for abuse and help provide a out for people wrongly treated. Currently, there’s still a lot of disappearing video tape in cases where abuse is alleged, but in many cases missing tape means the case goes in the crapper (and since every time cops beat people up they arrest them for resisting arrest, its better than nothing). Honest cops like the cameras as they feel the cameras protect them from dishonest claims and bad cops hate them – currently, I think the more monitoring of cops that happens, the better.
#47 Arensen- Very well said. I remember reading that Ghandi criticized German Jews saying they should have just completely rolled over – in his case when his people weren’t heading to the gas chamber and faced no chance of it – it’s very easy to be an absolutist. But I can say for certain that with a Thuggish government that’s not afraid to hurt and kill people, NonViolence will get them nowhere (not saying violence will either – the mixture depends on the situation largely). You wouldn’t do the Ghandi/MLK route in say Syria or Saudi Arabia. Wouldn’t get you very far in Cuba or many other places. Might work here but you’d need a lot of people and a sympathetic media – and the media is very selective about their outrage over Police Abuse – the last thhing they’d want to do is empower those who aren’t totally in love with a Leviathan.
I’m sure that if Gandhi had been a Jew under the third Reich, he would have put more thought into the question.
Boyd Durkin |
October 19th, 2012 at 11:42 am
But I can say for certain that with a Thuggish government that’s not afraid to hurt and kill people, NonViolence will get them nowhere
There are many forms of non-violence as every term gets usurped today. But, the idea here is for the people to move…which is one of the most important reasons that states should allow free movement of people.
Yes, the state can keep people from moving. This is more commonly known as “imprisonment” and “immigration restrictions”. Also, “professional courtesy” among authoritarians.
tried non-violence against Hitler, got nowhere and died in the hands of the Gestapo.
This might be the hardest philosophy for western minds to understand…but easiest for them to condemn without actually defining what “success” means. Did 1 person being murdered by the Gestapo have any result? Did 6 million? At what point is a difference made?
Not a proponent of non-violence (I’m more NAP), but I don’t condemn it. Principles are tested during hard times, not the best of times. And, the US failed miserably to adhere to the principles it champions during just about every test.
Nancy, Gandhi put a lifetime (several) of thought into non-violence. Need a reminder of the brutality of British colonial rule?
As long as the vast majority of Americans think LEOs are their friends and ‘heroes’ as gets pounded into their heads daily on the local TV and print news, and unquestioningly worship the global interventionist/occupation US military, the abuses by domestic LEOs will only increase, and any real individual resistance will be met with fury by state power and approval by the boobs. With few exceptions, We’re all ‘Good Germans’ now.
Boyd Durkin |
October 19th, 2012 at 11:56 am
It seems more and more that comments are leaning toward support of violent responses to police brutality. Some thoughts:
1. The state has the most and the biggest guns. Whatever you have, they have a bigger gun. They can bring more violence to the fight than anyone or anything. You lose this fight.
2. The problem with assassinations is that it seems the wrong people always end up getting assassinated. It won’t work.
3. The state welcomes civil unrest. The state greets it with calls for bigger budgets, more security, reduction in privacy (also freedoms/rights), and even more rabid patriotism which fuels the state with such hubris as to act even crueler. Unintended consequences.
4. Violence against police is at historic lows…and the cops are still justifying the murders they commit by saying they felt threatened (and that line is being bought by the courts no matter how absurd). Ramp up the actual violence and I have no idea how you would even get a day in court, let alone a chance to win.
5. Peace through violence doesn’t work.
Hollywood has been making huge profits off “revenge” movies (like “Taken/Taken II”) for decades. These movies appeal to the 15 year old in people and play on the exact emotion that getting “revenge against the cops” does. Don’t seriously consider adopting a philosophy that is against all your other philosophies to satisfy a 15-year old’s idea of settling the score. That doesn’t seem like it would work.
FTA: The new Citizen Safety Law will prohibit “the capture, reproduction and editing of images, sounds or information of members of the security or armed forces in the line of duty,” said the director general of the police, Ignacio Cosido.
Citizen Safety Law, my ass. Luckily for us, this kind of thing can never happen in the land of the free…
Let’s just focus on your point #4, “Violence against cops is at historic lows…and the cops are still justifying the murders they commit by [spouting the bullshit they learn to spout in the academy]….”
Then you tell us, “#5: Peace through violence doesn’t work.”
This _immediately_ after you just told us, in #4, that ‘peace through appeasement and submission doesn’t work’! Dude. Your whole post was a fine list of the problems of the instant, (“Because gravity will always suck”), but not so much as a hint of what you might think *would* work or ought to be tried, at least. WTF?
@boyd 68 – ‘The state has the most and the biggest guns. Whatever you have, they have a bigger gun. They can bring more violence to the fight than anyone or anything. You lose this fight.’
Tell that to the Afghanis.
Barring that, it would seem our fate is to just keep taking it, no matter what. The ‘justice’ system protects the State and its agents first and always, so no relief there, and responding with like violence will just piss ’em off more and then they’ll REALLY REALLY come down on us, as opposed to just coming down on us like they do now.
I agree that Gandhi’s achievement was amazing. I don’t think there’s been any significant improvement in techniques of wrangling governments since his time. (Social media are just a way of making Gandhi’s methods more efficient.)
However, he was an expert on Indians and the British government in India. There’s no way he could have had that sort of intimate knowledge of the Third Reich.
As bad as the British were, they weren’t in love with killing the way the Nazis were.
Getting back to the current situation, we’re up against a problem which is easier in some ways and much harder in others. The way that it’s easier is that police violence is sporadic and local. I’m not worried about Radley being assassinated.
The way that it’s harder is that what’s needed is as much a change of attitude as a change of laws.
Helmut O' Hooligan |
October 19th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
#66 Dave Krueger:
Yeah I saw that earlier today. Is it Franco’s ghost or have they been chatting w/ some buddies from the American FOP?
“As bad as the British were, they weren’t in love with killing the way the Nazis were.” No just Burma, Hong Kong, The Opium Wars The Mau Mau rebellion,The Boer War,The Zulu Wars, The Lucknow rebellion, Rhodesia,29,000,000 Indians dead due to deliberate policy of famine,The Tasmanian Genocide,The eradication of the Maori, but NAZI’S were the very worstest genociders they threw babies into ovens while we merely turned entire cities into ovens. #yawn. This kind of absurd reductionism is nothing but narcissism. It has no place in a serious debate.
1. You’re assuming they can be everywhere with those big guns, those big guns cannot be made inoperable, or stolen and used against them. You are ignoring overall numbers and you don’t take them head on.
2. Yes, because forcing them into their green zones won’t control them or cause some to rethink their motives for sticking with the gov team.
3. As long as they can hold it all together through propaganda and actually being able to protect people. The more they tighten their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.