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.

4. & 5.

See post #67 by el coronado.

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.

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.

OK, stop this train, I want off.

Spanish Police Look to Ban Photos, Videos of Police

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?

Spain Looks to Ban Photos, Videos of Police

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…

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.

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?

C’mon, get real. You think these sworn, decorated officers are going
to abuse their power or violate the law?

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.

This gave me a lot of hope that he’d work to promote civil liberties, which he hasn’t. On the other hand, I still think that if the public had cared about the subject, he would have.

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.

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.