You’ve seen that. Especially in 2020 you saw it scrawled everywhere when a BLM/Antifa riot took place. If by some chance you still don’t know what it means:

All Cops Are Bastards.

This is not true and grossly unfair. But we do have a problem, folks.

Those of you of a certain age remember The World at War: A BBC series about WWII and they devoted one episode specifically to the Holocaust. I recall that one of the people interviewed was a former camp guard who described how horrified he was when he first witnessed the gassing of Jews. What the story doesn’t go on to do is tell you that the man fled his post and started an anti-Nazi resistance. That story isn’t told because it didn’t happen. As the man was told by a more experienced hand, eventually you just get used to it. Very likely, the horrified young man got used to it. Maybe later he came to regret it. Maybe he regretted it all along. But the most important thing for the Nazi regime is that he went ahead and did it.

Now, why that particular Fritz became a camp guard, we don’t know. I suspect a lot of them joined the SS-Totenkopfverbande because it kept them out of the Army or the Waffen SS (though the Nazis did cull a division of soldiers out of the camp guards). And, once in, there were various pressures on them – especially anyone who didn’t immediately get enthusiastic about the work (some did: being such a guard drawing out latent sadistic streaks). You could, of course, get in simple trouble is you disobeyed. You could lose your job. Lose your pension. Find it hard to obtain other employment. So, almost all of them just went along with it. There are only few tales of concentration camp guards being at all kindly (hardly any tales of Soviet camp guards, either, and for the exact same reasons). But the main thing to keep in mind is that they weren’t drawn from the pool of wicked Germans – they were drawn from Germans, as such. They were just regular folks. People you wouldn’t look twice at.

I bring this up because a little before I sat down, word came out that the Canadian police are starting to crack down on the truck protestors. We don’t know how it will come out – maybe the truckers will still prevail. I have my doubts: they have no guns. There is nothing, that is, to scare the Canadian government with. The officials of government won’t go short of anything – they can wait out the truckers who will eventually have to go back to work to feed their families. And if the truckers do break, you can rely on it that they’ll be slandered and hounded by government.

But the real problem is the police. If there is a crackdown, the cops have to do it…and early reports indicate that the police are obeying orders. I’m sure all of them took some oath somewhere along the line where they pledged to defend the rights of Canadians. But what is that compared to the possibility of getting in trouble? Of losing your job or pension? Sure, maybe you’re horrified at it all – and maybe you even hold back and don’t make any arrests yourself…but you don’t stop it. Just like the Germans of yore, they’ll just go along with it, which works out to de-facto approval and assistance to oppression.

I’ve long had my doubts about our own police – especially the blue city police. Ever since Eric Garner was killed by the cops for selling “loosies” my understanding of the police has altered. I used to be Back the Blue. But am I supposed to back a blue which allows itself to be turned into tax collectors for upper class NYC busybodies who don’t want the poors to smoke? “The law says”. Sure it does. But you’re not supposed to care what an unjust law says. In the Uniform Code of Military Justice is it spelled out: no member of the armed forces is obligated to obey an unlawful order. This was inserted into US military law after WWII precisely to remove “I was only obeying orders” as an excuse for crime. Any cop who can’t or won’t see that putting a choke hold on a guy for selling untaxed cigarettes is an unlawful order isn’t worthy of being in any police force. Seriously: at most they should have ticketed the guy and moved on. But even that is ridiculous – real police who take an oath to defend the people would have told their superiors to get stuffed. They simply would not have enforced a stupid tax law about cigarettes.

But then you might lose your promotion, your job, your pension. You might get into legal trouble yourself. See the problem?

Any official organization has this fundamental weakness: those employed by it are at the mercy of those running the government. And we know what sort of people gravitate to government: the power mad and the corrupt. This is not to say that everyone in elective office is a psychopath, but a huge number of them are and all of them sat down one day and said to themselves, “you know who would be best to lead? Me!!!”: that right there is proof of at least a partially unbalanced mind. No fully sane person would ever think themselves fit to lead. So, what you’ve got in government agencies – all of them – are people who’s livelihood is dependent upon pleasing people who have a high propensity to lunacy. This is not a good thing.

And, really, its been in front of us all along. Think about how many police scandals you’ve heard of in your life. Military scandals. Bureaucratic scandals. People taking and giving bribes. Committing and covering up crimes. Giving special deals to political cronies. On and on it goes: because the people who actually work the levers of power are beholden to people who are often insane and just as often corrupt to the bone. And, of course, to rise to the top of the bureaucratic structure, you proved ages before that you play ball – that you know who is to be allowed to skate, what corrupt deals you are to turn a blind eye to.

Our problem is that these sorts of people – weak willed subordinates with police power, corrupted senior officials and lunatic/thief elected officials – have at their disposal local law enforcement, State law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, Homeland Security…on and on and on like that. They have the power to snoop, harass, arrest. To not use these powers against regular folks who question them they’d have to be positively holy. How many Saints do you think work for our government at any given time? The temptation to abuse power is enormous, the fear of crossing it immense.

Think about what they are doing to the 1/6 detainees. Think about that poor SOB they arrested after Benghazi. Think about the number of innocent people who have been sentenced even to death by corrupt law enforcement officials. And then add to this an MSM which is a mere propaganda arm of this class of people – in other words, no matter how wicked they are, they can rely on the MSM to cover it up, at least as long as possible, and then downplay it if it happens to come out. You start thinking of yourself as brilliant and bulletproof in that situation.

And, so: ACAB.

An unfair accusation in the specific sense, but all too apt in the general. If we were confident that even 60 percent of the police wouldn’t obey an unlawful order, we’d be ok. But how many of us have that level of confidence? Remember we used to think the FBI was made up of stalwart patriots who were ruled over by corrupt political fools…but, if so, where are the FBI agents resigning over the corruption at the top? Coming forward to spill the beans not against the latest target of Ruling Class ire, but spilling it about those inside the FBI who are corrupt? It doesn’t happen. And, sure, I’ll bet when a fresh-faced FBI agent first comes across the garbage he’s horrified…but, you can get used to anything after a while. If you don’t join in the corruption then you ignore it, take on protective coloring, fade into the background and simply don’t look at the dirt.

Our Progressive friend’s battle cry was “Defund the Police”. What they really meant by that – most police being controlled by Progressives – was “move cop money to this or that grift I’ve got going”. Our cry must be “Abolish the Police.” We need to entirely rethink how laws get enforced and how public safety is maintained. One thing certain is that we know we can’t afford a large, professional, permanent law enforcement bureaucracy. It is incompatible with morality and liberty.

I’m not entirely sure how we do this, but my preliminary thought is to place primary law enforcement on elected Sheriffs and city Marshals. Elected, never appointed. Term limited. With only a small professional staff. Oregon is one of the least policed States with approximately 1.6 copes per thousand residents. I think we’re going to have to reduce that by a factor of about ten. So, instead of New York State having a total of 62,000 copes, make it 6,200 full time, paid professional police. The people who will be charged with investigating crimes more than preventing crime – the preventing, I think, is going to have to be something we, the people do. Some sort of volunteer or part-time citizens militia which patrols its own local communities (seriously: me and a few other guys from my development here in Las Vegas take it in turn to patrol nightly): it is the patrols which keeps crime at bay, anyways. The thought of a cop a phone call and five miles away doesn’t deter a burglar nearly as much as shotgun-armed Joe Blow passing by that house every few minutes while he patrols his neighborhood. And you’d still have a small, professional police force to provide backup…so if Joe Blow sees a guy breaking in and feels he can’t take them, he’d call for police backup.

Whatever we do, we can’t continue as we have. Our lives and liberties are at too high a risk under the current system. New times call for new thinking – and Back the Blue is fully obsolete.

16 thoughts on “ACAB

  1. Amazona February 7, 2022 / 12:10 pm

    Your thread post just illustrated one of the problems the Right faces in dealing with the Agenda Media…you cited a false media report, and opined on it as if it were true.

    You wrote: Ever since Eric Garner was killed by the cops for selling “loosies”. but that is a gross misstatement of what happened. You state, unequivocally, that he was (1) "killed by the cops" and (2) that this was a punishment for selling loose cigarettes.

    You wrote: Any cop who can’t or won’t see that putting a choke hold on a guy for selling untaxed cigarettes is an unlawful order isn’t worthy of being in any police force. But there is no evidence that the officer did apply a choke hold.

    The overall context of your post is that the police just followed orders and went along with the crowd, acting in an inhumane and cruel manner. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    I don’t expect everyone to be familiar with the case of Eric Garner, but I do expect someone who bases a lengthy commentary that implies a similarity between NYPD officers and Nazi prison guards has a responsibility to look into the case if he is going to cite it. It took me less than a minute.

    Officer Daniel Pantaleo was one of the many arresting officers who subdued
    Eric Garner, a large, 6 ft 2 in, 350-lb male (Murray, Marcius, & Parascandola, 2014).
    According to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and police at the scene, Eric Garner
    was breathing when it was decided to transport him to Richmond University Medical Center

    (Baker, Goodman, & Meuller, 2015). During transport, he went into cardiac arrest.

    Eric Garner was the subject of a QOL action originally designed for storefronts. The
    enforcement action against Eric Garner for selling untaxed cigarettes in an open-air market
    was initiated by 311 complaints4 and QOL complaints. Most such complaints come from
    legitimate storefront owners who lose business to illicit street sellers. The 311 complaints
    are monitored by different management levels of the NYPD Patrol Bureau and the Chief of
    Department. The Chief of Department presents specific QOL issues during the weekly
    Compstat meetings. Eric Garner’s activity was specifically brought up at a Compstat
    meeting, and the 120th Precinct Commander was directed to address the issue (Daly,
    2014). If the Chief of Department specifically indicates a QOL condition, it is expected that
    the commander will address it immediately.

    The arrest of Eric Garner was not a summary arrest initiated by an individual police
    officer, but a coordinated effort to enforce laws against QOL violations
    . Similar operations
    involving Eric Garner occurred without incident. On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner decided not
    to submit to arrest willingly after requests by several police officers. The police officers
    used physical force to handcuff Eric Garner and place him under arrest. During the brief
    struggle, police officers brought Eric Garner to the ground and handcuffed him. While
    resisting the attempts to handcuff him, Eric Garner said “I can’t breathe!” 13 times
    (Goodman & Baker, 2014). Also during the struggle, Police Officer Pantaleo placed his arm
    in the neck area of Eric Garner.

    The placement of the arm, which lasted for less than 10 seconds, was deemed
    unacceptable to most observers and was the major focus of attention by critics. Actions by
    the rest of the officers did not receive as much scrutiny as this one. The uniformed Police
    Sergeant who was on the scene and appeared not to take any significant supervisory
    action eventually received department charges. While the EMTs had the primary
    responsibility for medical assistance, the police officers were responsible for reasonable
    medical assistance up to the moment the EMTs arrived. There seemed to be a lack of
    enthusiasm or urgency until this point. As well, the EMTs also seemed unenthusiastic after
    their arrival, doing the bare minimum. Except for the further appearance of a tepid medical
    response by the police officers, apart from the slow response of the EMTs, no other officers
    were subjected to inquiry for their actions.

    After being handcuffed, Eric Garner was rolled onto his side to promote free breathing,
    per NYPD policy. EMTs from Richmond University Medical Center arrived and quickly
    checked for breathing, a radial pulse, and a carotid pulse per FDNY guidelines. The actions
    of the EMTs in the video indicate that they had determined that Eric Garner was breathing,
    had an adequate pulse in his wrist and neck, and was stable for transport.
    The police
    officers and the EMTs placed Eric Garner on a gurney and removed him to Richmond
    Andrew J. Costello

    University Medical Center. Eric Garner arrived at the hospital and was pronounced dead
    there 1 hour later (Queally, 2015).

    A clinically obese man under extreme stress—the emotional state that compelled him to resist arrest after complying with prior arrests, the stress of being arrested, plus the physical stress of being controlled and restrained—going into cardiac arrest is hardly surprising. Saying that the officers killed him, implying that they were obeying an illegal order, linking them to the odious acts of Nazi prison guards, are all very offensive. And believe me, I am not easily offended.

    • Mark Noonan February 7, 2022 / 2:18 pm

      You were bound to be offended and I do apologize because I have immense respect for you – but the bottom line is that there shouldn’t have been a law which required action against Eric Garner. The choke hold was ten seconds? It shouldn’t have been any seconds. The laws which Garner were violating were unjust. The stores were complaining? Their proper complaint was not against Garner but against the City Council. Garner would not have been out there selling loosies if the punitive (and thus unjust) taxes on cigarettes hadn’t pushed the price so high.

      And the comparison is apt – because what is the line that the police won’t cross? What law can be enacted which would result in mass refusal by the police? I don’t think there are any – at least, not for the overwhelming number. Might get a few going, “I just can’t do it”, but most would go along to get along. We just haven’t paid much attention because in our world, our interactions with the police are polite. But the Ruling Class wants to impose a social credit system on us. They want to make us pay taxes and annual registration on our guns; to tax our ammunition very high; to work out that spreading “misinformation” is against the law…they’re coming for us. And will the police refuse?

      I don’t see how anyone can bet on that. And, so, the police have to go. And we should have figured this out ages ago…for the reasons I listed: those in government are heavily of the insane/crook variety and those who obey their orders are always going to be unwilling to risk their pensions for a principle.

      • Retired Spook February 7, 2022 / 5:07 pm

        I don’t think you can’t paint all law enforcement with such a broad brush. Our previous local Sheriff was an establishment guy, former State Police. Not a bad guy, but probably would have gone along to get along if push came to shove. My cousin is a deputy with at least 10 years with the department. He told me back in 2013 that EVERy SINGLE deputy told the Sheriff that if he ordered them to begin disarming local citizens, they would ALL QUIT. That included several that were close to retirement.

      • Mark Noonan February 7, 2022 / 5:46 pm

        Down at the local and rural level we can probably have more reliance – which is why I suggest that is the way forward for professional police forces. But they have to be small and strictly under local control. Other than that, all we’ve got is an army of occupation ready to hand for any tyrant who comes along.

      • Retired Spook February 7, 2022 / 5:53 pm

        I guess we won’t know until we know, but I’d bet that police forces will be a red state/blue state thing just like so many other aspects of our society. Interesting that a national divorce movement is beginning to form on the Left. As long as bright red states can expel Leftists from the little blue cysts that dot virtually every red state, I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Of course that would mean that bright blue states could expel Conservatives, but I think most would relocate voluntarily.

    • Amazona February 8, 2022 / 12:23 am

      But it wasn’t a choke hold. If you read the investigative report you saw that the hold attempted was what is called a “seat belt” hold which has one arm over the shoulder and the other at the waist, to unbalance the suspect so he can be taken down. Picture the placement of a seat belt.
      The officer’s arm slipped from over the shoulder to across the neck, very briefly, as the suspect struggled. The suspect was a stout man, and it is easy to imagine the front of his body, his chest and belly, being so round that an arm would easily slip upward as he fought the officers.

      And he was breathing when the EMTs got there, and when he was put in the ambulance. If he had been choked, he would not have been breathing immediately afterward or for several minutes after that.

      Disagreeing with the law is fine, but misstating the facts to say “was killed by the cops for selling “loosies”. is just wrong. He died after a scuffle with the cops, without any evidence the police did anything wrong, and the scuffle was not for selling untaxed loose cigarettes—the issue was not that they were single cigarettes but that they were untaxed—–but for fighting with the cops. The report says he had been arrested in the past without putting up a fight.

      It’s this casual acceptance of false narratives and repeating them that has led to much of the conflict we see today.

      • Mark Noonan February 8, 2022 / 1:01 am

        We can always rely on the MSM to get the facts wrong – but the fact I’m harping on is that there was an interaction, at all. There shouldn’t have been. There should have been no law. There should have been no police officer who would enforce such a law. And that leads to the question: what orders will police not obey? Spook points out that on the local level, there are some solid cops. Great. But the overwhelming bulk of them would obey orders. Any orders. Remember, a 25-30 year old police officer is just as educated as any 25-30 year old out there for the most part…which means they don’t even know how tyranny creeps in. They wouldn’t even realize what they’re doing.

        Our safety lies in disarming the government – before they disarm us. The police have to go in very large part. They have to become small, local organizations entirely under the thumb of the people. And they need to be opposed by a much larger citizen militia which can set at defiance, instantly, any unconstitutional law or order.

        Perhaps we can start to educate – create police academies which will explain Communist, Fascist and Nazi tyranny and how they all developed. Relentlessly hammer home to them that their job is to protect the people. That in all times, their job is to make sure the people are free…free from the oppression of criminals and tyrants. That there job isn’t primarily to uphold the law but to protect the people: to stand in front of the thug or the tyrant with equal facility and willingness to fight. Maybe then we can have police we can rely on. Right now, we don’t.

      • Amazona February 8, 2022 / 1:31 pm

        There should have been no law.

        The law is that cigarettes have to be taxed. The law that was broken was that untaxed cigarettes were being sold, and sold outside stores where cigarettes cost more because they were taxed, which affected the revenue of the stores. The stores complained that the law was being broken. In other words, the scofflaws were affecting the revenues of those who followed the law.

        Are you saying there should be no law requiring taxation of cigarettes? Or are you saying that when a law is broken nothing should be done?

        If we give the ability to decide which laws will be enforced and which will not, isn’t that a dangerous policy? How can you claim the police have too much power and at the same time say they should have the power to pick and choose which orders to follow and which laws to enforce?

        Instead of surfing along the surface of the event and becoming indignant because a man was being arrested for what you claimed was merely selling loose cigarettes, I think you should look a little deeper. In this case, into the details of what goods are taxed, as well as reasonable penalties for violations. A simple misdemeanor charge for selling a few untaxed cigarettes seems like a very reasonable penalty to me. The man in question had been through this process before, understood that he had to be taken to the police station to have the charge filed, yet for some reason he chose that day to escalate the situation by fighting the police.

        I think the emotional content of a man dying after being arrested, combined with the Agenda Media distortion of what happened during his arrest, have combined to overshadow the basic issue—that is, that the legislature chose to tax cigarettes, that a law without a penalty is the same thing as no law at all, that law-abiding citizens were being damaged by the actions of those who were breaking the law, that these law-abiding citizens approached law enforcement to deal with the problem, and that law enforcement did what they were supposed to do.

        I would be much more concerned with a police force that took it upon itself to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, which citizen complaints to respect and which to ignore, than with a police force that tries to follow policy rules on arrests and does not assume ultimate authority on what laws have to be enforced.

        The problem is not with police. The problem is with the use of taxation as a weapon or tool to force people into doing, or not doing, things deemed acceptable or not acceptable by government. Cigarettes are highly taxed because, for one reason, there is the belief that costing more will lead to less consumption—it’s a social engineering ploy. And there is the greed factor—cigarettes, and liquor, are considered “luxury items” for which people will pay more because they impart pleasure, to they are easy to tax. Those are legitimate issues to discuss and argue.

        But misstating an important fact is very wrong—- claiming that a man was “killed” when in fact he was alive after his encounter with the police and there was zero evidence that their actions, other than possibly inflicting the mental and emotional stress of being arrested, led to his cardiac arrest. Claiming that he was “killed” for selling loose untaxed cigarettes when in fact the arrest was based on his breaking of the law. Claiming that this all somehow indicts police in general, for the reasons you gave.

        I can respect an argument against high taxes for luxury items. That is one thing. I can’t respect the idea that police officers, of any rank, should be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce. And I can’t respect libeling the officers who did nothing wrong, just because they enforced an unpopular law and their actions may—or may not—have led to stress levels inducing cardiac arrest after the event.

      • Mark Noonan February 9, 2022 / 12:59 am

        It is a quandary – how can they choose? But, in the end, they must choose. And since they must choose, the laws must be just…but just in case they aren’t and just in case the police refuse to choose, we have to remove or at least sharply reduce the police.

        It is all well and good to say the police didn’t deliberately kill Garner. Of course they didn’t. Just like they didn’t deliberately kill Floyd. And, yes, the chain of events starts with someone deciding to break the law (Garner selling smokes, Floyd passing funny money). But the men did end up dead after a police encounter. You know me: for years I’ve said that any time you decide to do something outside the law, you are betting your life on the outcome…and a lot of times, people who make that bet, lose. This isn’t a plea for sympathy for ne’er do wells…but especially in the case of Garner and others very much like it, it is a plea that unjust laws enforced by police who won’t choose to do the right thing is dangerous.

        Earlier today, I saw a video from Canada where a little old man (very little and clearly frail) was roughly manhandled by the police nearby the truck demonstrations. He was just there. He wasn’t doing anything. But his crime? He refused to provide his ID to the police. Another video was of a man who had been pulled over: he claimed he didn’t know why other than he was driving a large pickup truck near the demonstrations. As he waited for the police who were back in their car to do their thing, another police car pulled up in front of him and then started rapidly backing up towards his truck…he tried to move out of the way and in so doing he clipped – lightly – the bumper of the police car. He was on the ground and in cuffs in seconds. The police *caused the crime*. On purpose. So they could make an arrest of a protestor…who will now likely be called a violent terrorist in the MSM.

        This is what I mean – there are unjust laws and police are all too willing to enforce them. We know we cannot trust those in charge of our government to respect our rights. We know we cannot trust the MSM to tell the truth about us. We know that the police are human and so subject to normal human pressures – peer, political, social, economic – which can make people choose poorly. Even choose against their best interests. Where is our defense? How do we defend ourselves against this?

        Capture the government with our votes? We did that in 2016 and then everyone except one guy came out against us…and they used the full power of government and corporation to malign our man and us and to steal his power away from him and from us. Now, we all have learned some lessons and the rising generation is very much infused with a fighting spirit. But will it be in time? Will it be enough? We can’t be sure. We also can’t be sure that even if we do really capture the power of government that we won’t lose it at some future point…our only safety lies in making sure that the government doesn’t have the physical power to oppress us. Not for nothing did the Founders dislike standing armies. Well, the police forces of the United States are a standing army…ready to hand for any tyrant who comes along. They have to go. Or we do.

      • Amazona February 9, 2022 / 11:33 am

        Not a fan of condemning an entire large population, whether it is the military or police forces or political groups or any other group, for the bad acts of a few.

  2. Jeremiah February 8, 2022 / 2:45 am

    I agree, Mark.

    I know places around, where the police hand out tickets like they throw candy to children in the parades. It will surprise you how much money they rake in. I know one place that takes in close to a million bucks, and instead of using the money to build up the community, like investing in creating places of employment, and parks/recreation centers for young people they use it to build an ever larger police force.

    It’s a pity that more people don’t investigate to see where their communities funds are being allocated, and correct misappropriation if it’s found.

    They could use money like that to build small houses for the poor, and help get them back on their feet. Make places where they can work, instead of resorting to selling drugs, stealing, rummaging through garbage cans, etc.

    I think that’s a lot of the problem in America. You see that stark contrast with a powerful law enforcement force in communities where there is nothing, it’s dead, people are walking the streets, no home, no clean clothes, no work. While the police force and the mayors are living high in the hog. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t do their job of investigating and prosecuting criminal activity, sure … but, take the money to better the community, something to make the residents and tourists proud and appreciative to be in and come to.

    • Mark Noonan February 9, 2022 / 1:06 am

      The problem stems from why we have organized police to begin with: they were built first and foremost to sit on the poor. I mean, think about it: in my middle class neighborhood of working people, who the heck is going to commit a crime? I mean a real crime – not some white collar BS. I’m not afraid of one of my neighbors breaking into my house or stealing my car or assaulting me. I do have a bit of fear that those who live about ten miles away might decide my house is a juicy target. That’s what the police are for: to keep them away from me. But that was wrong – backwards. The people who live in the high crime neighborhoods don’t want to live in high crime neighborhoods. What the police always should have been is identifying the law abiding in every locality and pulling from it some who would be willing to keep watch for everyone else. But back when police forces were made, this would have meant providing jobs and support (and legal authority!) to despised people. Noting doing.

      But that is the way it must be – we, the people, must become once again Citizens of the Republic. And that means doing the things Citizens do…not contracting out our dirty work to others.

      • Amazona February 9, 2022 / 11:36 am

        “…..why we have organized police to begin with: they were built first and foremost to sit on the poor”

        Wow—you are really on a tear here. I had no idea you were so anti-cop. But this comment takes the cake.

        “to sit on the poor”? How about to protect the poor? Today in every blue city we are seeing the poor bear the brunt of the reduction in police forces.

        Arrgghhhhh. This is thread is beyond salvation.

      • Amazona February 9, 2022 / 2:37 pm

        What the police always should have been is identifying the law abiding in every locality and pulling from it some who would be willing to keep watch for everyone else.

        That worked so well for George Zimmerman. And Kyle Rittenhouse. And the couple that only showed weapons to thugs who broke into their gated neighborhood and threatened them. And Bernhard Goetz. And every other person who has had to fight for his or her freedom after defending against crime.

        Given a choice I think most of us would prefer to call on trained officers who have to answer to superior officers and local government than some people who are just “willing to keep watch for everyone else”.

      • Mark Noonan February 9, 2022 / 5:02 pm

        It is a problem – and I knew I’d get torched for this one. And most likely by you! But its all good.

        If I had to boil it down, I’ll go with an axiom I’ve come to very firmly believe: anything worth doing is worth doing badly. We don’t have experts choose our spouses, right? That’s about the most important decision a man or woman can make. No chance we’d let someone else make that call for us – but, honestly, especially for younger folks, who is more likely to make the wise choice: the 19 year old or their parents after 20 years of marriage? Still, knowing that – you’re still going to come down hard on the side of the individuals doing that all on their own and God bless and let’s keep our fingers crossed.

        If we want to be genuine Citizens of the Republic, we’re going to have to start doing lots more things all on our own. Self organized on the local level. We’re going to have to defend our own country. Defend our own community. Decide what is going to be legal and illegal. We’re small government Conservatives, right? I think we’ve lost sight of what that fully means…a small government is the government close enough for us to kick it. It is, well, us: right there in our immediate area, deciding for ourselves what will be.

        If we contract out national and local defense to professional agencies then that is a trade off. There are no solutions, right? I think we made a mistake in the trade off. I fully understand the logic of professional police forces…but I think that now we’ve got more than a century of experience with it, we can see the flaws. I’d rather have a militia made up of my neighbors in charge of basic security than a professional police force. My neighbors I can talk to. Reason with. Come to some sort of working arrangement. The professional police? No such luck.

        Outside of that, there is also the danger: a professional police force beholden to elected and appointed officials does not and cannot have first loyalty to me. Their first loyalty is to their pay-master. And if that pay-master is a tyrant, then I’m in deep trouble.

        They go, or freedom goes. To me, it is as simple as that.

      • Amazona February 10, 2022 / 3:20 pm

        To support your criticism of some police officers and departments, there is this:

        The beating of an unconscious Trump supporter by a DC Metropolitan Police Department officer on January 6 was deemed to be “objectively reasonable” after an investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, The Epoch Times has learned.

        The Internal Affairs investigation was opened in September 2021 based on a complaint filed by a Texas man who assembled video evidence of the officer striking an unconscious Rosanne Boyland with a steel baton and a large wooden stick at the entrance to the West Terrace tunnel at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

        The woman died.

        Officer Morris, who had just reached the front line in the West Terrace tunnel, is seen on bodycam video picking up what appears to be a walking stick or a tree branch. She raised the weapon over her head with both hands and struck Boyland at least four times in rapid succession. The stick broke at one point. Morris continued to strike at Boyland until other officers pulled her back.

        It’s not a matter of policy: “Members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) shall value and preserve the sanctity of human life at all times, especially when lawfully exercising the use of force,” the policy states. “In situations where the use of force is justified, the utmost restraint should be exercised.” The policy is sound.

        It’s a matter of leadership, and of consequences. The officer who killed Ms. Boyland—and in this case the word is correct, she WAS killed by the officer—…was hailed as a hero after Jan. 6. She was feted as a guest of honor at Super Bowl LIV in Tampa.

        Clearly Washington DC needs a police department, but just as clearly if not more so it needs a police department with competent and humane leadership and rigid application of its policies.

        I don’t condemn the system, just those who abuse it. That should be “systems”—plural. Here we see failure of the Metropolitan Police leadership system and then a gross failure of its Internal Affairs Bureau.

        Flip the races—-if Boyland were black and Morris were white, is there the slightest chance this would not have sparked race riots and gotten the officer fired, charged and convicted of murder?

Comments are closed.