Gangsters in Blue

Their lives already are deemed, by law, to be more worthy than yours. In most, if not all states, there are special penal code sections for assault or battery on an officer, as opposed to assault or battery upon an ordinary person. Similarly, there are special penal code sections for killing police officers. You know, because writing traffic tickets and busting people for drugs is so noble a profession that all police officers are clearly a higher order of human being.

They have a right to kill people as long as they utter a few magic words – “I feared for my life.” Killings of innocent, harmless people almost always go unpunished as long as the offending officer claims that he was scared for his life – no matter how unreasonable, cowardly, or absurd the circumstances. Even if the victim was a half-deaf, hobbling, disabled old man.

Although many Americans are still deluded and patriotic enough to believe that Americans are free, and subject to a somewhat functional justice system in which people are “innocent until proven guilty,” this simply isn’t the case. The lives of the powerful and hallowed police, the foot soldiers of the state, are protected with harsher criminal laws, and their violent behavior is protected with qualified immunity. Because of course, while ordinary people should be personally accountable for negligence and personal injuries they cause, it would be simply absurd to hold the same standard to police.

Police, who are supposed to uphold the law and “protect” people, also have the right to arrest people for absolutely no reason. As it currently stands, in the vast majority of the states, police have the legal right to arrest people for no reason. Don’t even try to guess the reasons for that one – they are all bogus. “Oh, we have to be exempt from the law to properly execute the law. We have to arrest you to protect you. We have to break the law to uphold the law, etc.”

Despite all the very real ways in which police are subject to greater legal protections, and possess stronger, greater, legal rights, this is not enough.

There are now legislators who seek to make it illegal to annoy cops. I’ve often hyperbolically referred to police as “gods” in the past, since people illogically feel it is justified for police to be subject to different laws, and maintain greater power than the people they allegedly serve. Now it hardly seems like hyperbole or exaggeration in the least.

New York legislators are attempting to make it a felony for an individual to “annoy, harass, or threaten” a police officer. Offenders could be imprisoned for up to 4 years. Oh boy, that sounds like a great idea. I can’t possibly think of any First amendment or due process concerns there. That law definitely won’t be used by police to imprison, frame, harass, or silence random people they don’t like.

As justification, the legislators claim, “Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state…” More here.

As far as I can tell, injuring and killing police officers in unjustified situations are already illegal. Thus, the point of this law cannot possibly be to prevent that from happening, as there are already laws in place for that purpose. This would the same as saying that a law against annoying/pestering/harassing women should be passed, because too many women are being raped and killed. The former simply has nothing to do with the latter.

Secondly, police officers may put their lives on the line occasionally. Or everyday. I really don’t give a fuck. But for the most part, it has little to do with protecting people. They do what they do for a paycheck, like everyone else. Every day they show up at work, they tell themselves and each other, “officer safety first.” They do whatever they are told, whether it be shooting disabled old men, tasering children and half deaf women, beating teenagers for loitering, shooting Sunday school teachers in parking lots, shooting firemen in court, killing parents who smoke weed, stealing peoples’ property to pad their paychecks with civil asset forfeiture, or a slew of other less-than-noble pursuits.

They do good things sometimes too – fine. There are even cops that do good things all the time. I get it. But they are not gods. They are not infallible. They are human like everyone else. They want that paycheck, like everyone else. They do what their boss tells them, like everyone else – except when they do taser children and shoot old people, they don’t get fired, because they have a myriad of laws protecting them, and your endless taxpayer dollars to fund their endeavors.

So for christ’s sake, stop treating them like gods. If it isn’t illegal to annoy, pester, or irritate the guy who builds peoples’ homes, the farmer who feeds people and prevents starvation, and the millions of other fine folks without whose expertise people literally would not be alive – then it sure as fuck should not be illegal to annoy the police.

New York Legislators Seek to Make it Illegal to Annoy Cops is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Submitted by Jeremy McInnis

I live in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, in Eastern Canada. I work 7 days a week and adhere to the laws to the best of my ability. On the weekends I get up at 6AM and travel into the city (Halifax) to operate a small booth at a weekend market. Among other things I sell swords and knives, all of which are shipped into the country legitimately. I pay all duties, brokerage, taxes, etc. Customs is able to check these items at will, and they usually do.

On April 13th, 2013 three police officers entered the weekend market and told me that my knives “looked to be prohibited.” They had no search warrant but removed me from the booth and proceeded to search from one end to the other. I was patted down and my SA pocket knife (legal) was taken. I told them I use it to open packages, boxes, and such. The knives in question, that got their manties in a bunch, were 23 folding knives with a spring assisted opening, 9 novelty pocket knives with a 2” blade in which the handle looks like a bullet, 2 Cane Swords, and 13 Kubotans.

In the end they left with 40 items, all of which they deemed weapons. I advised them the law indicates a knife or any other object is not a weapon unless it can be proven it is meant to be used as a weapon. I told them the knives were not prohibited weapons as they are listed in the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency – basically out ATF and homeland Security wrapped up into one) Memorandum D19-13-2 as being EXEMPT from being prohibited.

They confiscated the 40 items and told me they would be in contact to let me know if or what the charges would be. They walked out the door with $1,600.00 worth of my products. That’s not just pocket money or mad money. That’s my mortgage payment, car payment, groceries, power bill, etc.

Over the next week I studied the Criminal Code of Canada, The CBSA (Federal Police Agency) Memorandum D19-13-2,  and conducted research to ensure I had not broken the law. I spoke with 4 CBSA Agents, one of which is the Eastern Canada, weapons and prohibited weapons specialist. I also spoke with 2 criminal law attorneys. Both advised me that under these circumstances, there is no way I could be charged.

Relieved, I contacted the officer in charge and advised him of the law. I sent them copies of the Criminal Code with the related laws highlighted, a copy of the D19-13-2 with the related parts highlighted, and even a copy of a case file from Ontario where the exact same thing happened to a man and the Judge found that the man did not do anything illegal and that the knives were in fact not illegal.

I still had not been charged with anything at this point. People tell me to leave it alone, but I am unable to. We shouldn’t live in a police state. If I allowed this to happen, what’s to stop them from walking into our homes and taking whatever they want?

The next day, I received an e-mail from the officer advising me that I was being charged and should turn myself in. I went into the station and was put in a cell. I was printed and photographed and placed in an interrogation room. An officer advised me of the charges, gave me a court date, and told me that if I did not show up a warrant would be put out for my arrest.

The charges are as follows:

• Concealed Weapon 90(1) CC – refers to carrying a “weapon”, prohibited device, concealed. I concealed nothing on me or in my shop. The knives were on a shelf behind my counter.
• Possession of Prohibited Weapons 91(2) CC – refers to unlawful possession of prohibited weapons. None of the items are prohibited under the Canadians Criminal Code and are actually listed as exempt from being prohibited in the CBSA D19-13-2. That said a knife in of itself is not by definition a weapon unless it is proven that this is its intended use.
• Possession to Traffic 100(2) CC – This one scares me as it appears that if the court somehow finds that these knives are prohibited it states that the minimum punishment is 3 years in prison.

I’m a 41-year-old who stands to lose everything. If I end up with a criminal record because of a cop’s conscious disregard of the law, I will not be able to travel outside of the country for at least a decade after my probation, as these are indictable offenses. I could end up in prison for 3 to 10 years.

Honestly, I think this whole thing has happened because the cops are pissed off that I called him out on their bullshit. It has nothing to do with enforcement of the law for them. It has nothing to do with protecting the public.

Cops are corrupt, egotistical, megalomaniacs that for the most part border on sociopathic tendencies. They are corrupt and lie even when they know you haven’t done anything wrong. Cops are the real criminals. As far as I am concerned, 3 police officers committed armed robbery when they entered my store and stole my property. They simply used their uniforms and lies about the law as their cover.

I will now be aggressively promoting your organization and website. It’s terrible the things that people are subjected to in the name of “the law”. But it’s nice to know that I’m not alone in standing up to it.

Harassed by Police and Charged with Crimes for Legal Possession and Sale of Knives is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Submitted by Dustin McCaskill, of Oklahoma Cop Block

Mar. 2013 – Audit of O.S.B.I. Finds Employees Working On the Clock To Raise Money For Cruise Ship Vacations

An audit of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation has revealed that agents used state resources and time to raise money for Non-Profits associated with the agency and then declined to release documents to the state auditor.

One of the non-profits was “The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Employee Association.” This Association spent $10,000 to take 11 employees on a cruise.

OSBI spokeswoman Jessica Brown, who is president of a non-profit group associated with the OSBI – said she hadn’t read the audit and declined to give any comment on the findings.

Contact Oklahoma Cop Block at OklahomaCopBlock@gmail.com

Audit of Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Finds Agents Working on The Clock to Raise Funds For Cruise Ship Vacations is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews is claiming his tough tactics are the reason for a 70% drop in DUI related deaths in the rural South Carolina County. 70% decline sounds like a major victory for this former DEA agent and is being used by the sheriff and his media guru wife, Heather Hoopes, to tout what a great thing he has done for the county … but things are not always as they seem.

Last year, there were 4 DUI related deaths in Kershaw County, out of 62,000 residents. The sheriff claimed there was an epidemic of drunk drivers in Kershaw County, even though the numbers clearly show that there is little problem relative to the total of residents in the county. This year, there are a total of 4 DUI related deaths and yet the sheriff wants to ignore two of those and claim a great reduction. This is just a tactic used by law enforcement to justify their actions and their jobs. If we see a drop from 7 to 5 deaths the percentage drop is great even though relative to the total population it is insignificant. State wide there were 26,000 DUI arrests out of a total population of 3.2 million which is 0.008125% of the population; hardly an epidemic, but it does make some great headlines for the government propaganda machine.

DUI deaths fluctuate with each passing year as does the total number of highway deaths, which can be attributed to many factors including weather, what day a holiday falls on, or even how many squirrels are on the roads – but there is little to prove that anything the sheriff or SCHP does effects these numbers. For fun, let’s take the 12 deaths in Kershaw County from last year and divide that by the number of residents within the county, 62,000. This easy math problem shows that the percentage of residents killed in accidents is 0.0001935% of the entire county population. The sheriff says there was an epidemic of drunk driving deaths, but with a total of 4 alcohol-related deaths, the percentage of residents killed is small, around 0.0000645%.

Of course Matthews, along with almost every other law enforcement officer, will never talk about these numbers because it makes their jobs seem insignificant and the cost benefit does not add up. That is why they use the total number of deaths, whether higher or lower, as the starting point because any change at all gives greater credence to either how good a job they are doing or why they need more money, cops, and heavy-handed tactics to battle a boogeyman that really does not exist.

This is not to say I advocate driving while intoxicated; it is merely to point out that law enforcement plays with the numbers in order to justify anything they do and secure more funding. The fact is, drunk drivers are a very small percentage of the overall population and law enforcement, along with all their proponents, have created an illusion that there are drunks in almost every vehicle on the road.

Politicians, media, and law enforcement use statistics to baffle the public with bullshit.

It is important to recognize that whenever government itself enters into policy debate, it has the ability to drown out all other voices, and has done so in the law enforcement arena here.

As the NHTSA website shows, law enforcement is well versed in these tactics. They use them for great effects when talking about drugs, DUI’s, rapes, robberies and many other scenarios. The federal government is law enforcement’s best friend providing anything needed to sway public opinion, influence judges, and even prosecute cases.

Sheriff Matthews and his media propaganda are touting his use of aggressive tactics as a reason for lower death rates and a great accomplishment, even though they know it has nothing to do with law enforcement in general. Had the number gone up Matthews would be touting an epidemic and calling for more money and cops to defend against the tide of DUI’s. Every media outlet around Kershaw County promotes the law enforcement line while all voices in opposition are ignored or demonized as radicals or extremists.
Whenever you hear law enforcement use statistics grasp a large box of salt to take with what is being espoused because hidden behind these statistics is the underlying truth. They are playing with the truth to promote their own agenda. Remember, it is a game for money and power and it is that plain and simple.

“We’re out to change behavior”, Matthews said,” We’re not out to ruin someone’s day.”

The administrator of the KCSO Facebook page said the following about checkpoints. Kershaw County Sheriff’s Office @ Tim Taylor:

I am not a fan of those checkpoints, but the courts have ruled them legal. Not the old drug checkpoints which are not, but the DUI checkpoints are. I don’t even like the term “checkpoints.” It has a sinister connotation. I would rather have officers out patrolling.

Then, in an article on the KCSO page, SC trooper Kelly Hughes states, “We will have a lot of DUI checkpoints; we’ll have saturated areas where we see most DUI crashes occurring and we’ll have some nighttime safety belt enforcement.”

Matthews has never denied the use of checkpoints, just said that he does not like them. His deputies regularly participate in partnership with the Highway Patrol in order to give him some sort of plausible deniability.

Fear is the tool of law enforcement and Matthews’ officers are under “orders” to make traffic stops for any infraction no matter how minor and to gain the driver’s permission to search the vehicle. This is done by intimidation and threat. Usually, the officer will say something like, “do you mind if I look inside the vehicle?” If the driver questions the officer, the response will be along the lines of, “If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you want me to look in the vehicle?” They may even say something like, “it will be a lot easier on you if you cooperate.” They may even threaten the driver with a warrant, but the whole stop was in fact made to garner a contact and make a search – what is known in the realms of the DEA as” fishing for gold.” The idea is twofold, first to make every person afraid of police and second, increase tickets and arrests to make it look like they are really making a difference and raise revenues. These tactics borderline on terrorizing the population, in particular, the youth of the county, and should not be tolerated.

If we are going to tolerate these kinds of actions, then why not have checkpoints at all intersections? Why not install breathalyzers in all vehicles? Remember, if it is fair to all and it is for the safety of all, why should you mind if every time you get in your car you must blow into a tube before starting it? Now that is going too far, you say? What’s the difference between checkpoints and in car sobriety checks other than the frequency of the check? And, would it make the roadways even safer? And, if you don’t drink and drive what do you have to hide? Is there something that you are not telling us?

“I have been stopped many times,” stated one 19 year old man, “They always want to search my car. I have gotten only one ticket and that was for a seatbelt, but it always comes down to the search.”

“I refused to let them search my car and the guy started threatening me and yelling” said another young driver, “they target all us young people. All my friends hate them.”

One older man from Kershaw County stated, “Matthews and his goons have a rob and pillage policy. They claim that all this ticketing saves lives but people still speed down the interstate and they keep writing tickets. I think it is about money and power and less about safety.”

“All he wants is his face on the TV,” said another. “He cannot prove that his gestapo tactics have changed anything except people don’t trust them anymore,” the 40-something mother of three said.

“Matthews won’t even talk to someone who complains, he has some guy named Templar that runs interference for him. His town hall meetings reminded me of something that the Nazis would have. You had to submit written questions and the sheriff went through them and only answered those he wanted to and ignored the others. He is a coward; I think he is a small man scared of his shadow.” stated yet another Kershaw County resident.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants no matter if it is for good or evil.

To place a population in a perpetual state of fear is the mark of a tyrant and to force those same people to pay for its application is despotism. With every passing year, the American surveillance police state becomes increasingly powerful and overreaching. Each time the public allows these tyrants another encroachment on the rights of individuals, the Constitution fades in its importance.

Each and every step of the way, the excuse given is that it is all for the safety and security of all and we, as individuals, must give up a little more of our rights in order to protect us all.

Where do we draw the line in the sand? When is enough, enough? The past one hundred years has seen the growth of a police force that looks and feels more like an occupying force rather than a sheriff elected to protect the rights of the individual from majority rule.
We have become a nation in living in fear, promoted and kept alive by those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rights contained within. Government and law enforcement have partnered together, each standing to gain power and control, at every infringement of individual rights, and grow their respective organizations.

DUI related deaths in Kershaw County are not down 70%, yet the sheriff is painted as a hero; but the king has no clothes.

Their lie is they are providing security; the truth is they are taking away freedom.

Sheriff Matthews has been well trained in police state tactics, as his web site shows, including media propaganda and public information training (Edward Béarnaise would be proud) from the DEA as well as airport Interdiction at the NWO’s Denver Airport again under the DEA. Matthews and his lovely wife, Miss Heather, are now seeking a major increase in funding as he continues to use the federal playbook to justify his vision of a world of safety by force.

In what can only be characterized as self-promoting conceit, Matthews blames county council and the people themselves for not providing him with everything he wants for his police state.

“The powers that be and the public have allowed this problem to increase over time and now we are faced with an expensive fix,” Matthews wrote in an article in the Camden based Chronicle and Independent, a longtime supporter of Matthews. The “expensive fix” he is referring to is revealed as he compares his department with the adjacent county of Lancaster who has 12 deputies per shift while Kershaw County has either 6 or 4 depending on the time of day.

He writes that both departments responded to “approximately” 43,000 calls for service over the course of last year. “They (Lancaster County) have about 10,000 more residents. The difference is they handled this with 12 deputies per shift. As a result Lancaster’s response times are significantly shorter and ours remain unacceptably long. Lancaster can prevent crimes while we are relegated to simply responding to them after they occur.”

There are many things about this statement that are revealing, so I will take each in order.

First, Matthews plays on words when he writes 43,000 calls for “service.” As 911 calls come in, they are routed to the proper service (law enforcement, EMS, or fire) and one may respond while another may not; in fact most calls are for EMS services according to sources in the Kershaw County Emergency services department. So the truth is, Matthews has exaggerated the case load of both departments to again push his agenda.

Second, Matthews claims the Lancaster is able to prevent crimes even though they respond to the same amount of “calls for service.” How does Lancaster prevent crime? Are the phone calls coming in coming from psychics or do they have some kind of pre-crime squad intervening? The fact is, cops rarely (very rarely) prevent anything. Response time is rarely critical as by the time a call comes in the crime has already been committed and the police are there to clean up and make a report.

Matthews wants a massive increase in funding estimated, if fully implemented, to be a $2.5 million increase in addition to the doubling of the KCSO budget since 2009, which was primarily funded through a solid disposal waste fee passed by Kershaw County Council in 2012 raising $1.5 million half of which went to the KCSO.

Sheriff Matthews may actually believe his rhetoric; after all, he has spent his entire adult life within the halls of the federal government’s law enforcement indoctrination centers and has been trained in the art of propaganda. Matthews is a government agent, one of the best, and he is doing his masters bidding.

Slowly, one step at a time, hidden behind the cloak of safety and security, Matthews is building, with the help of his friends, the Fed and local politicians, a brutal, massive, expensive, police state.

Matthews is not alone. Across the nation police departments and sheriff offices are being infiltrated with federal agents like Matthews. They come in on white horses, armed with honors galore and once in office they start to build their little part of what will ultimately become a full-fledged totalitarian police state where citizens will be subject to stop at any time day or night.
They promise security, but what you get is tyranny.

As the New Year begins, Kershaw County citizens, as many across the nation, will be forced to pay for their own enslavement by those who claim the opposite. What is up is down. Lies have become truth and right has become wrong.

The people will be subjected to another massive propaganda assault by the government and promoted by media outlets across the land.

Will the people be fooled again? Of course and Kershaw County residents will move one step closer to 1984. The big question is, how much more will they take? The sad answer appears to be, whatever their masters dictate.

Feel free to make your own voice heard by contacting the Kershaw County Sheriff’s Department. Their contact information is listed below:

Kershaw County Sheriff’s Office

Sheriff Jim Matthews

803-425-1512
This article was written by Jeff Mattox and shared via CopBlock.org’s ‘submit‘ tab.

Kershaw County Sheriff and Federal Agent Jim Matthews Claims Tactics Save Lives; Continues to Build Police State is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Transcript used in the video:

Howdy y’all, Pete here from CopBlock.org.

Recently a couple of friends shared with me an article entitled “Know Your Place”, which was posted to PoliceMag.com by William Harvey.

I thought it important to weigh-in on.

Specifically, I hope to share some thoughts with current law enforcement employees, as that was the intended audience of the original article.

Please do familiarize yourself with Harvey’s piece, so you can see that I’m not trying to distort his main thrust, which advocates that law enforcement employees defer to their superiors, especially when in the presence of “citizens”.

Failure to do so, Harvey worries, can cause “citizens” to view your specific agency or the institution of law enforcement itself, with less respect.

A few points made by Harvey that caught my attention:

The prolific use of the word “citizen.”

In seven paragraphs it’s used eight times.

Why, you ask, did this stand out to me?

Because viewing a person as a “citizen” infers that there’s another group, which I’m pretty sure Harvey would identify as LEOs.

So what’s the big deal?

If one creates such distinctions, and operates with such a paradigm, people are viewed according to a category.

It only creates and perpetuates division, which doesn’t set the stage for a harmonious coexistence.

Moving on.

Harvey claims that “law enforcement is stepped in para-military tradition” – assuming that’s a factual statement, which I don’t, though the trend has become so – is that a good thing?

Do you really want to live in a militarized society?

Do you want your kids to grow-up in a community where fear is used as the rationale to erect a police state?

Harvey makes a couple of statements that show to me, his underlying motivation – the control of perception.

A couple of phrases he used: “diminishes his position in the citizen’s eyes” and “how we are judged by the public.”

It seems Harvey is concerned not with reality, but in window-dressing.

He goes on:

“I know that there are times you may despise your supervisor. You don’t want them around you but due to assignments or situations they’re going to be there. If you don’t respect them as an individual, respect the rank and uniform they represent. If you disrespect the rank by showing this disregard for your agency’s leaders, you’re setting yourself up for problems.”

To summarize: never criticize – it’s dangerous!!

In fact, criticism, constructive criticism is healthy and necessary to any effective relationship – be it among lovers or colleagues – and to any endeavor.

Being admonished for questioning the so-called “leaders” seems just a bit dictatorial.

If such a structure is good for law enforcement, as Harvey claims, then why not apply the same self-censorship to all aspects of life?

That would be a pretty grim world.

When this video was recorded Harvey’s article had netted only a couple of comments, but they were insightful.

In one, Marc notes that if an action wrong for a “citizen” then it’s wrong for a LEO.

I’d agree – but think Marc fails to take his point to its logical conclusion.

If one would agree that theft is wrong but support law enforcement, as it’s currently structured, they’re lying to themselves, as the institution and its actors operate based on theft.

Law enforcers today claim a “legitimate” right to initiate force – to steal the wealth created by others in their community, to then protect them.

Seems a bit paradoxical, don’t you think?

Following orders is NOT an excuse – by James Schlitt at http://punklovedesigns.com

The second commentor – Jeffrey – notes that “A bad order is a bad order, but as long as it’s not illegal, immoral or unethical (and most aren’t) then we have an obligation to follow it.”

But is that true?

Again, every action taken by law enforcement employees today is ultimately couched on the fact that the good supplied – security or safety – was facilitated through the use or threat of force.

Is that ethical?

True, Harvey’s goal – mutual respect – is admirable, but real respect is not gotten through orders.

Might there be another way that goal could be accomplished other than repeatedly denoting just how critical it is that subordinates obey rank so that the reputation their department not be tarnished?

In fact, I’d argue that putting anything – be it a person or an institution – up on a pedestal and ignoring or actively sidestepping wrongs, creates a bad situation.

Most now employed as police are not bad people, but they’re caught-up in a system built on a flawed foundation.

Instead of telling police employees that they should act a certain way, might it be better if the provision of law enforcement had such incentives built-in?

I encourage you to check out the resources housed at CopBlock.org/WelcomeLEOs to consider how law enforcement could be supplied like any other good or service, via consensual interactions.

Thanks for your time. I appreciate you exposing yourself to other perspectives.

Text of original article

by William Harvey, published to PoliceMag.com on Dec. 18, 2012

“Hey, buddy” is not the way to start a conversation with a superior officer. Introducing your watch commander to a citizen as “Wild Bill” is far too informal and diminishes his position in the citizen’s eyes. This happens far more than you think. Matter of fact, I was on the receiving end of both of these. Let’s get the decorum lesson behind us.

Law enforcement is steeped in para-military tradition. Rank structure is a key to our successes. You are taught this in the academy, some of us lived this in the military and structure must be adhered to. I’m not talking about calling a commander by his rank if you two are out fishing. There can be friendships, despite the strict fraternizing policies of some departments.

William Harvey, author of “Know Your Place”

When you introduce your supervisor to a citizen with their proper rank, you set the following standards. First, you show respect toward the department and what it stands for. If the citizen has a problem, complaint or this incident requires somebody from a higher pay grade, they should know it.

This high rank is there to be a problem solver or solution provider with this circumstance. No offense, I’ve known a few cops named Bubba and Snake. And I’ve been referred to as Wild Bill (don’t know how I ever got that nickname). However, the informed citizen knows circumstances can require someone from higher up the flagpole.

To meet and greet the supervisor who will cure their situation will reek to no end if they are called Wild instead of their respective rank. Also, this informal name will assure the citizen that the fix is in. If the supervisor is on a first named basis, the citizen may believe they won’t get equitable treatment. The flip side of this is that when interacting with citizens, the commander must use the proper title for their staff as well. This shows the outsider that we have mutual respect for each other, exhibiting professionalism. It is all based on respect of the system.

I know that there are times you may despise your supervisor. You don’t want them around you but due to assignments or situations they’re going to be there. If you don’t respect them as an individual, respect the rank and uniform they represent. If you disrespect the rank by showing this disregard for your agency’s leaders, you’re setting yourself up for problems. I’ve seen this disdain later set the stage for a charge of insubordinate behavior, which is serious at any department and should never be tolerated. If you let your anger or disdain bubble up, you’ll let it slip out at the most inopportune time.

How we treat each other and the respect we show our agency is often how we are judged by the public. If we act like professionals without causing citizens to suspect hooliganism, then we will be seen as professionals. If we lower our standards of respect, we are no more than a group of workers. Keep our vocation at a professional level.

Know Your Place: A Response is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The war on “terror” will never be over, it will just change locations. Like the war on drugs, prostitution, pornography, and the many others that will follow, it is a war on humanity. These wars will never be won; the State will just keep creating new boogiemen to frighten us with. The sheep will anxiously anticipate the next fall guy the State offers up as a sacrifice for the war on whatever happens to be next. Be careful, the next pawn could be me or you. - Mike Wasdin

On November 21st we posted here at CopBlock.org a write-up by Eric Freerock, Ohio Cop Block Admin Jailed For a Shipping Error, which communicated that Jacob Frost, plead “no contest” to a watered-down agreement of guilt in a situation that involved personnel from from “homeland security” and a substance some claim is “illicit”.

From Freerock:

Frost, has been sentenced to a ‘community-based corrections facility’ after pleading no contest to a charge of ‘attempted possession’ for having been shipped the banned substance methylone.

The kicker?

He didn’t actually order methylone.

To be clear – Frost did not order methylone. He ordered another substance (synthetic marijuana) that – as adverse to it as many have already commented they are – is not deemed “illicit.” Thus, he did not violate arbitrary man-made dictates conflated to be law.

Shouldn’t then, Frost’s receipt prove from his online purchase show that the substance shipped was an error on the vendors side? Yes.

Another component of this story that too negates Frost’s guilt was that the chain of custody for the shipped substance was totally compromised. Prior to Frost receiving the package it had been accidentally delivered to the wrong address, and the person there opened the package.

Shouldn’t then, the case against Frost have been thrown-out due to this factual inability to account for the contents of the shipment? Yes.

But Frost took a plea deal. He plead “no contest” because the alternative he faced – four or more years in a cage – was not for him worth the risk.

Frost is now housed at the Western Ohio Regional Treatment and Habilitation Center – or Worth Center – in Lima, OH.

This text is from the Worth Center’s stated mission:

Prison is only one sentencing alternative. Other alternatives, less expensive to the tax payers, are possible and provide a more measured response. . .

W.O.R.T.H. will address positive values such as self-esteem, self-reliance, and human dignity, and make an effort to create a sense of belonging as if in a family structure, to promote stability so that an environment is created where the individual can internalize positive change.

As residents progress through the W.O.R.T.H. Program, privileges will be earned as individuals become more responsible for their lives. Conversely, if negative behavior warrants, more controls can be imposed and privileges can be restricted in a progressively intrusive manner to the point of probation revocation and sentence to long term incarceration in a state prison institution.

Frost called me on Wednesday, December 5th from the Worth Center.

My recount of our conversation, first shared with his friends in Ohio Cop Block, is below:

We’d only ascertained Frost’s whereabouts a couple days prior thanks to his bud and fellow Ohio Copblocker Kane Newkirk, who tracked down that info.

Two days prior to receiving that call from Frost I’d called the Worth Center, after which I shared this update with those in Ohio Cop Block:

First off and most-important – should Jacob in that situation? Should he have his choices and freedom of movement restricted?

Nope. There was no victim.

It’s clear to anyone familiar with this situation that Frost’s treatment has nothing to do with “justice.” He harmed no one. He’s just a number, another case, to be run through the system by his captors.

Those who targeted Frost acted according to the perverse incentives inherent in the top-down monopoly for which they work. They have an incentive to create criminals where there are none.

Those responsible – the men and women with badges who kidnapped and caged him, the “prosecutor”, “judge”, those who transported him, and those now supervising every aspect of his life – likely went about their interactions with him as a matter of routine.

Looking throughout history, when institutions are created that by their very existence make more-likely the subjugation of the rights of another individual, it doesn’t lead to good outcomes. Instead, unthinking individuals cause real harm, all the while assuaging their own conscience by saying, “I’m just doing my job.” (Apparently though, for many such folks, their conscience is never completely muted as the “profession” of law enforcement suffers from the highest or one of the highest rates of alcoholism, domestic abuse, and suicide).

While I personally don’t have interest in smoking synthetic marijuana (and in fact I encourage people not to use it per a negative experience I had myself back in 2010 when in Vegas), the fact that Jacob smoked it or at least in this instance, ordered it, doesn’t make him a criminal.

I favor free trade in drugs for the same reason the Founding Fathers favored free trade in ideas: in a free society it is none of the government’s business what ideas a man puts into his mind; likewise, it should be none of its business what drugs he puts into his body.
- Thomas Szasz

Even if all readers of CopBlock.org, or all those supposedly controlled by a gang of people who collectively dub themselves the “State of Ohio”, agreed that synthetic marijuana was harmful, that still doesn’t preclude Frost’s right to ingest it, or any other substance he chooses.

If I don’t have the right to tell you what you can or cannot ingest I can’t suddenly gain that ability if I was part of a larger group who advocated as such. Rights are not created by groups. The same is true were I to add a badge to my attire or have a fancy title.

If Frost harms himself, that’s his fault. If he harms someone else, he’s responsible. That is true whether one is sober or not. Synthetic marijuana is not the issue.

The real issue is ideas, and specifically, the fact that so many people actively or tacitly perpetuate the bad idea that a stranger has the right to dictate one’s life.

That bad idea gives credence to flawed legalese (conflated to be “law”) and absolves personal responsibility for those men and women who actually acted in the wrong (who tracked Frost’s package, which again, was a consensual interaction he had reached with another party), and who broke into his residence, stole his property, kidnapped, caged, and threatened him.

Those factors, again reliant entirely on a bad idea, meant Frost was confronted with a situation in which was on the defensive. Rather than risk his chances in legal land (which, as anyone who has been entwined there knows, is the epitome of arbitrariness) he essentially threw-up his hands and plead no contest. He saw the threats levied at him – wrong as they are, and knew that they could be implemented since so many have yet to ignore the claims made by self-described “authorities.” It’s simply been peddled so much through gun-run (public) indoctrination and mainstream  media. Thus, Frost opted for a lesser “punishment.”

Was that the right choice? Perhaps you or I would have pursued another avenue – maybe pointing out that we hadn’t in fact ordered methylone or that the package had been intercepted – but it was Frost in this situation and he acted as he best saw fit.

And unfortunately, other individuals (you? someone you care about?) will continue to be harassed for non-violent, non-victim actions until we each conclude that such treatment is not ideal, and we change the way we think and act.

The surest way to make that happen is for us each to really consider the structure of the failed criminal injustice system and conclude that we can do better.

Safety can never be had through people who first steal your money. Security will never be gotten when there’s no recourse for accountability or check on claimed abilities. Those admirable goals will happen only after we each reject the bad idea of external arbitrary authority.

Ideas have consequences.

Being intellectually honest means exposing yourself to different ideas and allowing yourself to modify your own when presented with those better.

For some potentially paradigm-shifting ideas, see:CopBlock.org/Knowledge

.

Hopefully each of us can draw from this our own lessons.

If you’re so-inclined, please write to Frost, I’m sure he’d love to hear from you:

Jacob Frost
Worth Center
PO Box 5305
Lima, OH 45802

In a recent Adam Vs the Man episode, Cop Block’s own Ademo Freeman joined the conversation, which after a call from Luke McKellar, touched-on Frost’s situation (23:00) and later on plea deals (24:33).

So Jacob Frost Took a Plea… is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The following article was submitted to us by Eric, who originally posted it at EricPetersAutos.com.

Cops are the enemy.

A harsh – and global – statement, certainly.

But: Is it true?

Consider the nature of the job. It is to enforce the law. By definition. It is not to protect any specific individual – you or me – from harm. It is certainly not to serve – other than as automata who . . . enforces the law. Whatever the law is, it must be enforced. The cop will tell you so himself. He is merely doing his job – and his job is . . . to enforce the law. Period. “The law is the law.” We have all heard it. It does not matter whether the law is itself outrageous, or simply stupid. He may even freely confess it.

But he will nonetheless enforce it. He is required to enforce it.

Consider that for a moment.

In a doctrinal way, the cop is exactly like the people who were – rightly – strung up at Nuremburg after WWII, who stated – truthfully – that they were just following the orders issued by the lawfully constituted authority. They were not merely thugs. They were duly appointed thugs. They did not do the awful things they did at random, on their own nickel - so to speak. They were told to do it – agreed to do it – and went ahead and did it. Any questions they may personally have had about the rightness or wrongness of what they were doing were put aside.

Orders are orders.

And it is no great leap to go from abusing your fellow man in a small way to doing it in a big way. The principle of the thing is what matters. And the principle is now very well-established indeed.

The rest is merely follow-up. A cop who will pull a gun on you for refusing to wear a seatbelt will do much worse when the time comes. When he is ordered to.

When the law demands it.

So, what sort of man volunteers for such work? Who chooses to enforce the law – whatever the law happens to be?

The answer is – must be – a thug. A person who is both unthinking – and brutal. But worse than merely a thug, because a mere thug beats you up because he wants your money – or just for the pure sick joy of it. What sort of person does the same things because he’s told to do them? Who does them, even when he personally may not want to? When he has doubts about the rightness of the thing? But who is nonetheless willing to literally kill a fellow human being over – if the law tells him he must?

Place yourself for a moment in a cop’s shoes – as distasteful an exercise as that may be.

You are told to man a “safety” checkpoint at which it will be your job to threaten everyone who happens to be on that particular road with lethal violence if they do not stop their vehicle, produce identification and submit to an interrogation as to their comings and goings. These innocent people – who have given you no reason to suspect them of having done anything wrong – must submit to your orders, must obey your commands. If they passively decline to do so – if they merely assert their ancient right as human beings to be left in peace – you will apply force. You will bash open their window if they decline to roll it down. You will drag them through the window if they refuse to comply with your orders to exit the vehicle. If they in any way attempt to fend off your brutal, unprovoked assault – you may kill them.

You are told to break up a “protest” – even though the “protestors” are entirely peaceful and merely exercising their right to air a grievance. Yet you join the thug scrum, with billy clubs and truncheons.

You are ordered to kick in the door of a private residence and drag the occupant out of his bed at gunpoint – because this person is alleged to be in possession of a substance the state has arbitrarily declared to be “illegal.”

You will shoot him to death if he “resists.”

You spend several hours each day manning a radar gun, issuing your fellow human beings stiff fines you know many of them cannot afford, which will place a great burden on their ability to pay the rent or put food on the table for their families, for conduct you yourself do routinely (e.g., “speed”) and which you know perfectly well to be harmless. But if they object, you will pile on.

What sort of person signs up for such work?

The foregoing is merely a small sampling of countless scores of similar examples we’re all well-familiar with. A cop’s work is to arrest and cage people who do not obey the law. Nothing less. Their human rights be damned. If they object, if they resist, the cop has license under the law to assault them.

To kill them.

It is a fair summary – as awful as it may be to deal with it, emotionally – even intellectually.

It is simply not possible for a morally decent person to choose this line of work – or at least, to continue in this line of work, having come to grips with the nature of the work. Because it is a line of work that requires the surrender of one’s humanity – of the thing that makes a human being other than an animal. That is, your ability to choose to do the right thing – and to do it.

To become a cop is to give that up. To become an enforcer. To do as you are told. To become a sadist, if need be.

If the law so commands it.

Just as the law commanded in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. As it is commanding here.

A guy might be a friendly neighbor – and seem like a good person. In a way, he might be a good person – to his family, those he knows personally. But when he puts on that costume, he will threaten harmless, innocent fellow human beings with lethal violence, cage them, rob them of their dignity, violate their rights as human beings – if the law so commands it.

This person, this cop, will demand immediate submission to a literally endless litany of tyrannical edicts – or else. Exactly like a a member of the GRU, or the NKVD.

And such people are lauded by this society as heroes for this! (Just as they were lauded as heroes – literally – of the old Soviet Union.)

For abusing middle-aged women half their size. Old men. Shooting people’s dogs in the name of “officer safety.”

Would it not be heroic to refuse to do such things?

To decline to enforce the law when the law is at odds with natural law? Even if it meant the loss of one’s paycheck? Even if it meant becoming yourself the target of law enforcement – for having declined to enforce the law?

Of course, few cops are willing to step up in this manner. To be real heroes – by taking a stand for what is right, and with their fellow human beings as opposed to being the strutting – but simpering – tools of a malevolent system they are too afraid to question.

…Much less take a meaningful stand against.

A system that rewards them for brutalizing others.

Do cops do some good (honest, morally clean) work? Certainly. But it is increasingly incidental. It does not negate the everyday abuses they routinely commit. If an abusive husband who beats his wife daily one day rescues her from a burning car, does that make him any less a cretin?

I, like many others, instinctively want to support police. Rather, I want to support those who try to keep the peace. The police were at one time at least nominally in the peace-keeping business. To a great (or at least much greater extent than today) they left people who were not actual criminals (thieves, those who committed physical assaults, murderers, etc.) alone. There were, of course, petty infractions one had to mind – but generally, the average person could live his life with little, if any, significant worry about the law – or its enforcers. It took quite a bit to justify a cop unholstering (much less using) his weapon. People did not get threatened with lethal violence for politely declining an order to “buckle up for safety” – because such an order would have been inconceivable in the America of the not-so-distant past. Anyone much over 40 will remember this rapidly receding world. Cops had some sense of proportion – and would have felt ashamed to do the things they are now called upon to do routinely.

And which they do all-too-willingly.

Imagine: A Fourth (and Fifth) Amendment that was respected by the cops – and if not by them, then by the courts, certainly. Cops used to have to have a reason – not a hunch, but a specific cause – to stop you, much less force you to submit to a search. If they could not produce a substantive reason, then they had to leave you alone – and if they did not live you alone, then whatever they did to you would have consequences. For them.

Now, it is the reverse.

The courts have conferred upon cops essentially limitless and unaccountable authority – which means, open season on us. They are empowered to do literally anything, for any (or no) reason at all, beyond their desire to do so. Beyond, it is the law. The cop is merely doing his job.

And if we have nothing to hide, why worry?

Heroes…Not is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The following post was written by Ann Freeman at OhioCopBlock.org.

“If the system turns away from the abuses inflicted on the guilty, then who can be next but the innocents?”― Michael Connelly,

Many are faced with issues of police brutality, as reported across the United States. As to give you an idea of how this can occur, it is my goal for every American to be warned of the police officer, and the working personality. I will explore the reasons behind this, as well as show how this can occur. This is every citizen’s nightmare, to be faced with a brutal officer, regardless of gender. No officer is immune to this problem, however, it is a choice that one makes.

To get a better picture of what this really means, we will investigate this through JEROME SKOLNICK’S THEORY of working personality. Jerome Skolnick, a criminologist, wrote a book in 1966 called, “Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society,” and the focus was on police work, in a very challenging time. This book came about when violence was at its peak, against civil liberties in the United States, in the 1960’s.

As it is explained “Jerome Skolnick’s theory originated by looking at the subculture of police and its effects on police deception. He began by analyzing the three elements that create the policeman’s “working personality”; they are danger, authority, and efficiency (Skolnick, 1966). Skolnick explains there are “distinct cognitive tendencies” in police as an occupational grouping. This analysis can be found similar among departments across the country and across the world (Skolnick, 1966). This “working personality” creates the subculture of the police, which Skolnick continually refers to.”

This theory can be most shocking to those who have witnessed, been a victim of, or read many police abuse stories across the United States, recently. You will find that any attempts to curb this problem have failed, and the problem continues to flourish today. This can be most dangerous to citizens within any community where their departments have exhibited this type of behavior.

Let’s take a look at these elements: “The “working personality” develops with the element of danger. This makes the policeman constantly aware of those who may break the law. This results in the policeman becoming a suspicious person. This causes them to be less likely to develop friendships with any civilians who they may see as a potential lawbreaker.

The element of authority combined with danger can isolate the policeman. Authority can cause the citizens that the officer must protect, to see him as an outsider to their community” (Skolnick, 2000).

This can be very dangerous, because police officers are to have the connection with the community to help provide information on crimes that happen within the community. However, when an officer of that community has committed acts of violence against citizens, and gets away with it, then the community has lost all respect for the officer, and the department within that community. This poses a problem for more crime to be committed with the lack of public outraged. Far too many citizens are afraid of their own police department.

As Skolnick further states, “Deception is considered by the police to be acceptable in many aspects of their job. A cop learns to back up the stories colleagues tell to superiors and investigators; in turn he is confident colleagues will back him up (Skolnick, 2000). This is sometimes referred to as the “blue wall of silence.” A police officer may find himself stuck between the “blue wall of silence” and the need to notify his or her superiors of any police misconduct. An officer does not want to tell on another officer and be labeled a “rat”. This label can follow an officer for the length of his/her career if he or she would choose to reveal information about a co-worker and their misconduct. Skolnick states that the blue wall of silence can cover-up and possibly encourage violations of civil rights and small less extreme incidents of violence and abuse. These actions may only be uncovered if there is pressure from an internal investigation or the threat of prosecution (Skolnick, 2000).”

We have seen this common appearance far too often in many court cases across America. The most famous case of our time is the case of Daniel Harless who berated a citizen, and threatened the citizen with death. This officer was never convicted of his crime, and was fired, however, is still trying to seek his position back. The City of Canton, the City Council President, as well as other officers justified this officer’s actions, until the citizen was acquitted. Daniel Harless’ partner even lied on a sworn statement, and if was revealed during Mr. Bartlett’s trial, though he wasn’t charged with perjury. This shows the deception between these two men, and how far they would take it. Daniel Harless is a true example of working personality, as well as his partner in law enforcement. We see officers every day that commit verbal abuse, disrespect of the citizen, seeing all citizens as criminals, and ultimately police brutality. If Daniel Harless was not removed from the police force, it would be evident that he would have committed a very serious crime, by abusing his victims, or possible murder.

These officers have been seen all across the United States, and it is still the police policing their own. If the department is corrupt, and covers these types of incidents, then the community is still unsafe from their own officers. It’s hard enough to protect yourself against criminals, but to have your police department partake of criminal activity is even more frightening. It is up to the citizens to demand accountability of the officers, the department, and the City as a whole. Without citizen accountability, these acts of violence shall continue, and more innocent citizens will be found at the mercy of officers with working personality. Officers can lie about what had taken place during an investigation, or police call, and the Prosecutor will hold that Officers word over any citizen, regardless if its truth or not. We have found this to be true when the Stark County Sheriff arrested a victim of rape, and stripped searched her after her arrest. This was the case of Hope Steffey. As Hope Steffey had settled out of court for what has taken place with her situation, Mr. Bartlett is now in Federal Court for his lawsuit against the city.

More needs to be done with officers who exhibit signs of such, and it is only psychological evaluations that can provide this information. I believe that all police officers should have to take continued psychological evaluations during their career to safe guard the community against such officers who have found themselves with this problem. It is vital for the police departments to hold their officers accountable by the code, and ethics they have sworn by, and to remove those who pose harm to innocent citizens. However, the only way that this can happen is by the community coming together, and demand accountability within their communities departments.

After all, it is the citizen’s tax dollars that pay out because of these horrific crimes by police officers. It is this writers belief that not only should the City be held accountable, but also the Department, as well as the Officer. Why should our tax dollars pay for crimes that were committed by the Police Department? And why aren’t many of these Officers charged with their crimes? These are the questions that the citizens should demand answers for, among many other questions. There are many low cost methods of Community involvement that can help reduce these problems, but you won’t find these in certain cities, such as Canton, Ohio. As long as this community does not take action against the problems with their departments, then this will continue, and we might even see an escalation in violence by the Officers.

Programs that the department can implement are Community Watch Programs with meetings with the citizens. Another great program is “Community-Oriented Programs with the Goals: To provide a 24-hour a day liaison between police and the community to prevent crime. To change the image of police, so they would be viewed as people who can help those in trouble and as people who can be trusted. This can bring back the relationship of the department and the community. Unit Beat Policing and their Goals: To promote closer contact, deliver better service, improve information flow, overcome the shortage of officers by combining resources, and create a new challenge for officers, particularly younger officers” (Trojanowicz , Pollard , Colgan & Harden, 1986). Another great program is Citizen Review Board. This concept allows selected citizens to sit on the board to hear situations of Police Officers misconduct. All of these concepts, and more, are great to bring the community back to having a relation within the police department. However, the lesson learned is that once the community has lost trust with its own department, it is very difficult to build that trust again.

Reference

Skolnick, Jerome H. (1966). Justice without trial. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Skolnick, Jerome H (2000). Code Blue. The American Prospect. 11(10) March 27- April 10

Trojanowicz , R. C., Pollard , B., Colgan, F., & Harden, H. (1986).

Community policing programs a twenty-year view . NATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FOOT PATROL CENTER Publications, Retrieved from http://www.cj.msu.edu/~people/cp/20year.html

The Working Personality of Police Officers is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This video gives an analysis of the pamphlet Bounty Hunters & Child Predators: Inside the FBI Entrapment Strategy published on May 29th, 2012 to by b. trevan to crimethinc.com.

The post included this short blurb and .pdfs:

Over the past month, the FBI has initiated a spate of entrapment operations designed to frame anarchists as “terrorists.” Significantly, they have not targeted longtime organizers, but rather people who are relatively peripheral to anarchist communities.

In response, we’ve prepared a pamphlet suitable for a wide readership explaining how this entrapment strategy works, and an analysis exploring why the FBI has adopted it. Please circulate these widely.

Reading PDF [550kb]
Imposed PDF for Printing [550kb]

The documents were uploaded to Scribd.com/CopBlock to get the information in front of more eyes.

Inside the FBI Entrapment Society [pdf for reading]
Inside the FBI Entrapment Society [.pdf for printing]

The post (including relevant pictures) is below in its entirety.
Inside the FBI Entrapment Strategy – by CrimeThinc

Below is the post from b. traven on Crimethinc in its entirety:

The Latest Trend in Repression

Not so long ago, it seemed that the FBI focused on pursuing accomplished anarchists: Marie Mason and Daniel McGowan were both arrested after lengthy careers involving everything from supporting survivors of domestic violence to ecologically-minded arson. It isn’t surprising that the security apparatus of the state targeted these activists: they were courageously threatening the inequalities and injustices the state is founded upon.

However, starting with the entrapment case of Eric McDavid—framed for a single conspiracy charge by an infiltrator who used his attraction to her to manipulate him into discussing illegal actions—the FBI seem to have switched strategies, focusing on younger targets who haven’t actually carried out any actions.

They stepped up this new strategy during the 2008 Republican National Convention, at which FBI informants Brandon Darby and David McKay, Bradley Crowder, and Matthew DePalma on charges of possessing Molotov cocktails in two separate incidents. It’s important to note that the only Molotov cocktails that figured in the RNC protests at any point were the ones used to entrap these young men: the FBI were not responding to a threat, but inventing one.

Over the past month, the FBI have shifted into high gear with this approach. Immediately before May Day, five young men were set up on terrorism charges in Cleveland after an FBI infiltrator apparently guided them into planning to bomb a bridge, in what would have been the only such bombing carried out by anarchists in living memory. During the protests against the NATO summit in Chicago, three young men were arrested and charged with terrorist conspiracy once again involving the only Molotov cocktails within hundreds of miles, set up by at least two FBI informants.

Undercover informants “Mo” and “Gloves” (aka “Nadiya”)
from the NATO entrapment casesNone of the targets of these entrapment cases seem to be longtime anarchist organizers. None of the crimes they’re being charged with are representative of the tactics that anarchists have actually used over the past decade. All of the cases rest on the efforts of FBI informants to manufacture conspiracies. All of the arrests have taken place immediately before mass mobilizations, enabling the authorities to frame a narrative justifying their crackdowns on protest as thwarting terrorism. And in all of these cases, the defendants have been described as anarchists in the legal paperwork filed against them, setting precedents for criminalizing anarchism.

Why Entrapment? Why Now?

Why is the FBI focusing on entrapping inexperienced young people rather than going after seasoned anarchists? Isn’t that just plain bad sportsmanship? And why are they intensifying this now?

For one thing, experienced activists are harder to catch. Unlike anarchists, FBI agents work for money, not necessarily out of passion or conviction. Their reports often read like second-rate homework assignments even as they wreck people’s lives. Agents get funding and promotions based on successful cases, so they have an incentive to set people up; but why go after challenging targets? Why not pick the most marginal, the most vulnerable, the most isolated? If the goal is simply to frame somebody, it doesn’t really matter who the target is.

Likewise, the tactics anarchists have actually been using are likely to be more popular with the general public than the tactics infiltrators push them towards. Smashing bank windows, for example, may be illegal, but it is increasingly understood as a meaningful political statement; it would be difficult to build a convincing terrorism case around broken glass.

Well-known activists also have much broader support networks. The FBI threatened Daniel McGowan with a mandatory life sentence plus 335 years in prison; widespread support enabled him to obtain a good lawyer, and the prosecution had to settle for a plea bargain for a seven-year sentence or else admit to engaging in illegal wiretapping. Going after disconnected young people dramatically decreases the resources that will be mobilized to support them. If the point is to set precedents that criminalize anarchism while producing the minimum blowback, then it is easier to manufacture “terror” cases by means of agents provocateurs than to investigate actual anarchist activity.

Above all, this kind of proactive threat-creation enables FBI agents to prepare make-to-order media events. If a protest is coming up at which the authorities anticipate using brutal force, it helps to be able to spin the story in advance as a necessary, measured response to violent criminals. This also sows the seeds of distrust among activists, and intimidates newcomers and fence-sitters out of having anything to do with anarchists. The long-range project here, presumably choreographed by FBI leadership rather than rank-and-file agents, is not just to frame a few unfortunate arrestees, but thus to hamstring the entire anti-capitalist movement.

How to Destroy a Movement

As we saw in the Green Scare, FBI repression often does not begin in earnest until a movement has begun to fracture and subside, diminishing the targets’ support base. The life cycle of movements passes ever faster in our hyper-mediatized era; the Occupy phenomenon peaked in November 2011 and has already slowed down, emboldening the authorities to consolidate control and take revenge.

As anarchist values and practices become increasingly central to protest movements, the authorities are anxious to incapacitate and delegitimize anarchists. Yet in this context, it’s still inconvenient to admit to targeting people for anarchism alone—that could spread the wrong narrative, rallying outrage against transparently political persecution. Likewise, they dare not initiate repression without a narrative portraying the targets as alien to the rest of the movement, even if that repression is calculated to destroy the movement itself.

Fortunately for the FBI, a few advocates of “nonviolence” within the Occupy movement were happy to provide this narrative, disavowing everyone who didn’t affirm their narrow tactical framework. Journalists like Chris Hedges took this further by framing the “black bloc” as a kind of people rather than a tactic—despite even the Chicago Sun-Times comprehending the distinction. Hedges led the charge to consign those who actively defended themselves against state repression to this fabricated political category—in effect, designating them legitimate targets. It is no coincidence that entrapment cases followed soon after.

-

a recent Fox News article advancing the FBI agenda, we see the authorities parroting Chris Hedges’ talking points—“they use the Occupy Movement as a front, but have their own violent agenda”—in order to frame the black bloc as a “home-grown terror group.” The article also describes the Cleveland arrestees as “Black Bloc anarchists,” without evidence that any of them have ever participated in a black bloc.

The goal here is clearly to associate a form of activity—acting anonymously, defending oneself against police attacks—with a kind of people: terrorists, evildoers, monsters. This is a high priority for the authorities: they were able to crush the Occupy movement much more quickly, at least relative to its numbers, in cities where people did not act anonymously and defend themselves—hence Occupy Oakland’s longevity compared to other Occupy groups. The aim of the FBI and corporate media, with the collusion of Chris Hedges and others, is to ensure that when people see a masked crowd that refuses to kowtow to coercive authority, they don’t think, “Good for them for standing up for themselves,” but rather, “Oh no—a bunch of terrorist bombers.”

To recapitulate the FBI strategy:

-divide and conquer the movement by isolating the most combative participants
-stage-manage entrapments of vulnerable targets at the periphery
-use these arrests to delegitimize all but the most docile, and to justify ever-increasing police violence.

-

What Comes Next

The authorities are explicitly announcing that there will be more of these “sting operations” at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa. We can expect more and more “unsportsmanlike” entrapments in the years to come.

For decades now, movements have defended themselves against police surveillance and infiltration by practicing security culture. This has minimized the effectiveness of police operations against experienced activists. However, it can’t always protect those who are new to anarchism or activism, who haven’t had time to internalize complex habits and practices, and these are exactly the people that the FBI entrapment strategy targets.

Three years ago, we called for a collective security culture that could protect even newcomers against infiltrators. In a time of widespread social ferment, however, even this is not sufficient to thwart the FBI: we can’t hope to reach and protect every single desperate, angry,vulnerable person in our society. Infiltrators need only find one impressionable young person, however peripheral, to advance their strategy. These are inhuman bounty hunters: they don’t balk at taking advantage of any weakness, any need, any mental health issue.

If we are to protect the next generation of young people from these predators, our only hope is to mobilize a popular reaction against entrapment tactics. Only a blowback against the FBI themselves can halt this strategy. This will not be easy, but there is no better alternative.

Don’t stop speaking out, organizing, and fighting—that won’t stop them from repressing us or entrapping people. Retreating will only embolden them: we can only protect ourselves by increasing our power to fight back, not by withdrawing, not by hiding, not by behaving.

The best defense is a good offense. So long as capitalism is unstable—that is to say, until it collapses—there will be repression. Let’s meet it head on.

Further Reading

What Is Security Culture?

Towards a Collective Security Culture

Cleveland 5 Support Website

Lisa Fithian’s Experiences with FBI Informant Brandon Darby