Gangsters in Blue

In 2006 a group of students at Georgia State University went on a leisurely drive – their vehicles traveling abreast at 55mph on I-85 in Atlanta. Their end-result, A Meditation On The Speed Limit Cast & Crew, showcased just how arbitrary is the “law.”

The folks depicted in this video made their point by following what is purported to be the “law,” when in reality, it’s just man-made legislation.

Clearly almost everyone on the road – prior to these college students constraining their speed via their rolling roadblock – chose to travel faster than 55mph. The ability and competency of almost all drivers to operate their vehicles in a safe manner despite the dictates put-forth by such folks makes clear that blindly following proscribed constraints isn’t always best.

Think about it – if the “law” is absolute and objective, how can it hinge on an arbitrary political boundary or on the whims of some self-proclaimed authority?

RELATED:

• The Myth of the “Rule of Law” by Brainpolice
• The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas

Art by Dave Dixon

Speed Limit Showcases Ineffectiveness of “Law” [VIDEO] is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Submitted by Captain Six

From Station.6.Underground

What is Jury Nullification? You won’t find it defined in your dictionary or described in your encyclopedia. You weren’t taught about it in school, and indeed it is even considered a crime to tell other people about it in some circumstances. Imagine that for a moment – it is a crime to inform a citizen as to their right, even the scope of their duty while serving on a jury.

According to the Wikipedia entry:

Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions as to the law. 

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment…

Most Americans have never even heard of such a doctrine. Thanks to numerous TV shows and real-life judges telling us that the only function of the jury is to render a decision based strictly upon the facts of the case, a key tenet of the justice system envisioned by the Founding Fathers has been lost. You see, it is not only the job of the jury to weigh guilt or innocence against the letter of the law, but also to judge the just nature of the statutes themselves. In this way, The People ultimately retain power over the government, rather than the government dictating to The People what is and what is not justice. This tenet is instrumental in protecting ourselves, as The People, from tyrannical laws and cronyism. This is why we have a jury system in the first place, not simply to act as a cog in the wheel of the justice system, but to be the justice in the system.

Let us imagine for a moment, that you live in a city where the Mayor makes soda-pop illegal. So illegal that he actually signs into law a criminal statute that makes it a jailable offense to dispense soda-pop. He makes a public campaign to warn about the evils of soda-pop, how detrimental it is to your health, while being crowned king of national doughnut day, and holding a vast amount stock in the city’s number-one importer of iced-tea.

Fascist Food and Nutrition Nazis

Now let us imagine that you are sitting on the jury for a criminal trial of a single-mom arrested for selling soda-pop to her neighbor, which had been “smuggled” in from outside of the city limits, and that the transaction was captured on an audio-video recording by police. You see that she is plainly guilty of violating the law, technically, but can’t in good-conscience send her off to jail for a year. You, and other jury members voice that dilemma to the judge, who then instructs you to render a verdict based strictly on the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and that all other considerations have no bearing on your duty to render a verdict. What do you do? It appears that you have no choice, and you find her guilty.

But if you had actually been a FULLY INFORMED JUROR, rather than just listening to the instructions of the judge who owed his career to the Mayor, you would have known that you did have an alternative. That it was not actually illegal for you to ignore the judge’s instructions, and that you could have rendered a verdict based on your conscience rather than a law in a book. You would have known that Jury Nullification not only gives you this right, but that it is your duty as a juror to render your verdict in such a manner. In this way, you see, not only have you protected the accused from overzealous and tyrannical prosecution, but you have also struck a blow against cronyism. Cronyism by the Mayor who stands to make a profit from the law he made, in relation to the company stocks he owns and the companies that own him. Cronyism by police and prosecutors who turn a profit on the backs of the taxpayers for every arrest and prosecution they make, maintaining their job security and giving the United States the largest prison population in the world in the process.

Imagine how many ridiculous laws would be suddenly rendered obsolete. Imagine how many frivolous prosecutions would be avoided. Imagine how many people would not be sitting in prison today for victimless crimes. Imagine how much lower your taxes would be if you didn’t have to pay for all this nonsense. Imagine how powerless the government would suddenly find itself, in the face of a population that was no longer going to take any of their shit.

Maybe that’s why the principle of Jury Nullification is the most taboo subject in our justice system today, and has been continually eroded in landmark decisions by the courts since 1895, as time has distanced us from the core principles of liberty on which this nation was founded.

In 1794, the case of Georgia v. Brailsford was being heard before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The court’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, established precedent that the Common Law practice of Jury Nullification was valid in the United States. He wrote, in part…

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old
rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on
questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must
be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable
distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we
have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of
the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the
best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the
court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are
lawfully, within your power of decision.”

That precedent held, unmolested, for 99 years. Prior to the Civil War, the Fugitive Slave Act made it a Federal Crime to help escaped slaves, but jury nullification was instrumental in undermining that law and bringing an end to slavery America. Jurors refused to render a guilty verdict against those who had helped escaped slaves. But in 1895, the Supreme Court of the United States struck it’s first blow against the Common Law principle of Jury Nullification. In Sparf v. United States, SCOTUS held in a 5-4 decision that federal judges were not required to inform jurors of their inherent right to judge the law in a case.

In the 1969, the Fourth Circuit upheld in the case of U.S. v. Moylan that a court could refuse to allow instruction to a jury regarding nullification, yet hypocritically upheld the jurors inherent right to nullify. In other words, they were denying the right of the juror to be informed of their right, while still maintaining the validity of Jury Nullification stating,

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of
the jury to acquit.”

In the 1972 case of United States v Dougherty  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit maintained that the courts could deny the defense a chance to instruct a jury on their right to nullify.

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge’s answer was upheld on appeal. Another judge did dissent however, and cited United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439 – Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1980, that the panel had unanimously decided “In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position.”

In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). There have even been instances of jurors being removed and mistrials declared after informed-jury activists distributed literature near courthouses.

Now here’s one final gut-check for the uninformed public. We often assume that it is the job of the defense attorney to defend their client to the best of their ability, with all of the knowledge at their disposal. This is not true, however. Attorneys, including defense attorneys, are an Officer of the Court. This means that their first duty is to the law, and not their client. With a sworn oath to uphold the law, they are forbidden from advocating jury nullification. Your lawyer works for the court, not you.

If you ever sit on a jury, remember one important fact. You do not work for the court.

Lawmall.com

A History of Jury Nullification

The Straight Dope
stationsixunderground@gmail.com
Yes

What Is Jury Nullification? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

It is no secret that police, and their bootlickers, believe themselves to be a higher order of human than the rest of us. For instance, in many states, assault on an officer carries a higher penalty than assault on a lowly peon such as you or me. In many states homicide of a police officer also carries a higher sentence than homicide of the rest of us.

Police shoot people’s dogs All. The. Fucking. Time. If those 4 links were not sufficient evidence of their penchant for killing dogs, see more here and here. The last link there is particularly fun, involving a situation wherein police raided the wrong house, shot the family dog, and handcuffed the children next to their dead dog. Super compassionate, and not to mention classy. Over and over, these dog-killing police are cleared of wrongdoing or found to have been justified in their actions. On the other hand, the same standards do not seem to apply to them. If you so much as resist against their violent and horrifying K-9s, your ass is going to jail.

Forget the dogs, how about our fellow human beings? As long as cops accompany all kinds of murder with 5 magic words – “I feared for my life” – they’re pretty much home free. They are free to murder people running in the other direction; unarmed people laying down on the ground; hobbling, half-deaf elderly people; people lawfully carrying weapons; etc.

Not so long ago, 16 New York City police officers were arraigned in connection with over 1,600 counts of ticket fixing,  wherein these cops made traffic tickets magically disappear for their friends and family. The hallowed police were apparently incensed that they (supreme beings, obviously) were being  forced to abide by the very laws they swore to uphold, and a whole horde of them protested violently at the courthouse.

Every time any innocent person suffers at the hands of police abuse, or every time a pet dies, the police and their goddamn supporters respond with the following (or some variant thereof) -

• It was a necessary measure to get the job done
• The victim had it coming, because he was doing ________ [insert some petty transgression here, e.g. drinking in public, jaywalking, smoking weed, etc.]
• The law is the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
• You don’t know how hard it is to be a police officer, so STFU!
• Just doing their jobs. Go take it up with a legislator.

Thus, you can imagine that I wasn’t very sympathetic when these fuckers got a taste of their own medicine in more than one instance of blatant “injustice” recently.

An Indiana police officer and his wife are facing jail time for rescuing an orphaned deer. The deer was badly injured, and out of the goodness of their hearts, the Councellers nursed back to health. However, an Indiana Conservation Officer stopped by their home to advise them the deer should be euthanized. Further, Jeff Counceller, a police officer in Connersville, and his wife, were charged with unlawful possession of a deer. This charge is a misdemeanor which could result in 60 days in jail time and cost up to $2,000 in fines (more here).

LOL!

Now, let’s repeat to the good Officer Counceller what he must have said to every innocent victim he has ever ticketed and/or jailed for stupid shit -

• It was a necessary measure to get the job done
• You had it coming, because you were doing something illegal!
• The law is the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
• You don’t know how hard it is to be an Indiana Conservation Officer, so STFU!
• Just doin’ my job, brah! Go find your local legislator! Don’t know one? Tough luck.

Make no mistake – this would be no laughing matter if it had happened to a mere peon, or my fellow man, and I certainly do not support criminalization of helping local wildlife. However, this should give police and their supporters pause for thought with regard to their habit of violent enforcement, which usually falls disproportionately on everyone else, rather than themselves.

In another laughable incident, an off-duty Hollywood police officer and an off-duty DEA agent got in a scuffle over a minor traffic incident. The DEA agent alleges the police officer grew unnecessarily irate because the DEA agent was speeding in his neighborhood. This resulted in the officer screaming “Yeah well I hope you die,” striking the agent in the face, and attempting to choke him (more here), according to the lawsuit filed by the DEA agent. The lawsuit also alleges that Hollywood police threatened to “set up” the DEA agent to get him fired, and attempted to cover the errors and crimes of Hollywood police.

So the DEA agent, a guy who dedicates his life to ruining the lives of harmless potheads (and other partiers, or drug addicts who need help), suffers at the hands of law enforcement himself. He is violently attacked, and the victim of framing and lies. Not so fun when it happens to you, is it? It’s probably too much to hope that these the law enforcement individuals involved here will learn a lesson and feel sympathy for the people they terrorize daily.

So I’ll just laugh instead.

How’s that medicine taste, buddy? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

On June 28th, 2011 Larken Rose published to CopBlock.org an essay titled When Should You Shoot a Cop, about which one commenter accurately stated:

Incredible article! I hope people take the time to actually read the full article after their brains shut down after seeing the “shock” title.

I realize, as Larken must have when he wrote the essay a year and a half ago, that some individuals will be outraged that this video was made. Yet it’s a conversation that needs to be had*.

If one cannot even talk about each person’s innate right to self-defense, then it shows just how far-gone is the conversation. How much the “protectors” have become those most tyrannical. I say this as an advocate of the non-aggression principle and of voluntaryism.

Unsurprisingly, Larken’s strike-the-root prose went on to become one of the most-visited pieces of content on the site, which thusly netted a lot of comments.

It’s been cited by at least two fusion center releases – the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center (Ademo Contacts Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center) and The Central Florida Intelligence Center (Central Florida Intelligence Exchange Promote CopBlock.org).

The mere act of “Liking” the article got two individuals rebuffed by their “party” colleagues, as detailed on the July 27th, 2012 write-up, Politicos Attacked for ‘Liking’ CopBlock.org Post:

South Carolina’s Republican Party is distancing itself from two local party officials who appeared to endorse violence against police officers on Facebook — a position that seemed to take anti-government conservatism too far for South Carolina’s Tea Party-heavy GOP. The party’s top brass called for their resignation from local party committees Monday night.

On October 6th, 2011, Larken Rose wrote the following in his post Federal Agents Visit Larken Rose – Mention CopBlock.org Blog Post:

A fascist came up to each front window and knocked. I rolled down my window just a bit, and a gray-haired, veteran fascist informed me that I was not being arrested. That’s nice. . . Out of the blue, the veteran fascist commented about the fact that I’ve posted things on my web site talking about killing cops.

On November 13th, 2011, Larken Rose expanded on his essay with a video uploaded to YouTube.com/LarkenRose:

In 2012, the legislation in Indiana mentioned by Larken around the 6-min mark in the video changed course. Instead of “law” existing that claimed that an individual had the right to use defensive force against anyone except those with badges, legislation “approved” self-defense against any aggressor, no matter their place of employment.

On March 3rd, 2012 post, When Should You Shoot A Cop – Round 2, Ademo Freeman penned:

Maybe with this law, cops will think twice about raiding a home for drugs? Maybe cops will stop working for the government and make their own agreements with their customers?

IMO, law didn’t need to be written for one to know when they can or cannot defend their life or property. It’s unfortunate people are taught to submit to police without question, yet to stick up to bullies, abusive husbands and any other non government connected persons.

On March 24th, 2012 post, Right to Resist now law in Indiana, cops show how evil they think we are, Edmond Dantes noted that:

Police really think people are that evil, that they will now just play real life Grand Theft Auto and start killing at will. Which begs the question, if people are really that inherently evil, why give so many of them the power of the badge over everyone else? It always appears to me that the worst of the worst are in gangs, whether it be Blood, Crypts, or Thin Blue Line.

But will people really just start killing at will? I can give you one fact, the law and/or a guy in a funny costume with a badge doesn’t stop me from killing someone. I don’t kill or use violence because I believe it is wrong morally. Even if murder were legal I wouldn’t kill anyone and most people wouldn’t either.

On a June 12, 2012 post, Indiana legalizes shooting cops, about the reversal of the “legality” of self-defense for Indianans, I asked:

Does this piece of man-made legislation really change anything for people living within the arbitrary political boundaries of Indiana? Or for that matter – do people living outside those arbitrary political boundaries of Indiana have any less of a right to defend themselves?

We all want to be safe and secure. The question is, how is that best accomplished?

Think for yourself. Question claimed authority.

Educate your mind http://copblock.org/knowledge

*I was inspired to create this video set to Larken’s narration after watching Message to the Voting Cattle – Larken Rose, which was edited by FreiwilligFrei.de.

P.S. Please keep in mind that Cop Block is decentralized so the perspective advocated on this post and the videos embedded does not represent all involved.

When Should You Shoot a Cop VIDEO is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

No one has to remind me that many Copblock followers take severe issue with the way American laws are legislated and executed. However we do have some regular Copblock readers who claim to support law and order, although it would seem they actually unconditionally support police officers – which is quite another matter entirely.

I was recently accused by such readers of “misusing Tennessee v. Garner” (a Supreme Court case regarding shooting fleeing felons dead) in my recent article on the police murder in Anaheim. It was further alleged that my “incorrect referene [sic] to Tenn v Garner only shows her D level understand [sic] of the law.”

This leads me to our legal discussion of the day on Tennesee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). I’ll be quoting the most relevant portions, but please don’t take my word for it – here’s the link to the full text, in case you don’t trust me.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice White, who prefaced the opinion as such,

“This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” [Emphasis added].

The facts in the case were as follows, as stated verbatim by the Supreme Court -

At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” Upon arriving at the scene they saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house.[1] She told them she had heard glass breaking and that “they” or “someone” was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent’s decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner’s face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was “reasonably sure” and “figured” that Garner was unarmed. App. 41, 56; Record 219. He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years old and 4*4 about 5′ 5″ or 5′ 7″ tall.[2] While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out “police, halt” and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture,[3] Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body.[4]

The Court went on to explain the background, “In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that ‘[i]f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.’”

Mr. Garner’s father subsequently brought suit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, for violation of his son’s constitutional rights.

The Court ultimately held that shooting a fleeing felon dead was constitutionally unreasonable (no shit). The Court reiterated that “whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person,” citing to the SCOTUS opinion in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. And thus, “there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.”

The Court explained that shooting a fleeing felon dead is constitutionally unreasonable because “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement….we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.” [Emphasis added].

The Court went on to say, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.” [Emphasis added].

Under the circumstances of the Garner case, the Court specifically pointed out that “Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner — young, slight, and unarmed — posed any threat. Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. The District Court stated in passing that “[t]he facts of this case did not indicate to Officer Hymon that Garner was `nondangerous.’ ” …This conclusion is not explained, and seems to be based solely on the fact that Garner had broken into a house at night. However, the fact that Garner was a suspected burglar could not, without regard to the other circumstances, automatically justify the use of deadly force. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others.”

And of course, the Court, being hesitant to take too firm of a stance against police, made this qualification with regard to the broad Tennessee statute -

“It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

The next portions of the opinion focused on common law traditions and how such “older and fading common-law view[s]” were a “dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute at issue” [read: regardless of what common law did or did not allow police to do - the point is, shooting an unarmed, fleeing, felon dead is unconstitutional]. Also note that O’Connor wrote a dissenting opinion, in favor of broad police powers to execute such fleeing felons (joined by Rehnquist).

While some legal scholars believe Scott v. Harris (involving a police shooting a suspect in a high-speed chase) limited Garner to an extent, the facts of the Manuel Diaz shooting bear strong factual similarity to Tennesse v. Garner, which continues to operate as law.

In applying these principles to my article on Manuel Diaz, we can see the police acted in an equally, or even more constitutionally unreasonable manner than the police in Garner. While the police in Garner were responding to a “prowler” after a witness had heard broken glass and someone breaking down a door, the police who shot Mr. Diaz did so because he saw them and ran (here and here). The police suspected Mr. Diaz was a felon (gang member, drug dealer, etc.), but he was not in the process of committing any crime as was the victim in Garner. While the police in Garner were responding to a call at night, in the dark, and actually speculated the suspect was armed, the police in Anaheim were operating in broad daylight, and news articles do not seem to reference that any officer believed Mr. Diaz was armed (which he wasn’t). While the police in Garner gave the victim a warning, shouting, “police, halt!” it is entirely unclear whether the Anaheim police gave Mr. Diaz any such courtesy before murdering him.

The Supreme Court explicitly held that responding to a report of a fleeing burglar in the night was not sufficient reason for an officer to believe the suspect was armed or dangerous. Manuel Diaz was standing in an alleyway in daylight, was committing no crime, and was also unarmed. If it is unconstitutional to shoot a fleeing suspected felon at night when police actually think he might be armed, then it is unconstitutional to shoot a fleeing suspected felon in broad daylight when he clearly is unarmed.

Like I said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Go read the damn case yourself. Better yet, go check out what lawofficer.com has to say about it. I don’t have to argue from my moral or philosophical grounds to conclude this shooting was wrong. I can argue on your terms, using your law, and you are still fucking wrong.

This isn’t rocket science here. If I’ve demonstrated a “D” understanding of the law, please explain how this is the case – but for some reason, I have a feeling you won’t. I have a feeling even if I was arguing 2+2=4, you’d accuse me of “misusing” and “misunderstanding” the facts if you thought that I was using arithmetic principles to malign your beloved, and indeed god-like police.

Tennessee v. Garner is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Excellent article by Julia Peterson. Celebrate independence day, know your rights.  As you hit the roads, beaches, parks or family gatherings keep this in mind. If you see something – film it. As always, remember to consult an attorney for any specific questions before starting any endeavour you aren’t sure about.

Don’t be caught uninformed and unprepared

When interacting with police officers, too many citizens are unaware of their legal rights, and often unwittingly tolerate illegal and unconstitutional behavior from police. Many police officers are also not as versed in proper procedure as they should be; so it helps to have reputable information at your fingertips at a moment’s notice. Here are a few mobile apps that can help you defend your rights in a peaceful and cordial way.

1. United States Constitution (Android, iOS)

Of course, this is the baseline for any conversation with police about your rights. The exact ramifications of the Bill of Rights in a legal context will require deeper study—exactly what constitutes “unreasonable search and seizure” for instance, has taken years of legal precedent to firmly establish—but if you want to be confident in your rights, this is the place to start. For your edification, the app also includes the Articles of Confederation, the Mayflower Compact, the Gettysburg Address, and more; but your main resource to prepare for encounters with police will be the searchable text of the Bill of Rights. (Cost: free)

2. PocketJustice (Android, iOS)

After you’ve memorized the Bill of Rights, it’s time to move up to Supreme Court precedent, where the nitty-gritty of police powers are found. Most of you have probably seen this video of a legal student defending his Second Amendment rights in Portland, ME; you’ll notice that his ammunition is Supreme Court precedent, not just the text of the Bill of Rights. PocketJustice offers searchable transcripts of over 100 Supreme Court cases, as well as some audio of the oral arguments (good for brushing up in the car or on the metro). Most of the landmark police-powers cases are covered here, but it’s not so dense as to be overwhelming. If you want to go deeper, you can download the Pro version, which has transcripts for over 600 cases, and 300+ additional hours of Supreme Court audio. For people who want a basic understanding of their rights without a law degree, this is a great tool. (Cost: free, $4.99 for Pro)

3. My Civil Rights (Android, iOS)

This app is not higher on the list because it is a relatively young app, so there are still display issues, but it provides almost exactly what we’re looking for: a comprehensive explanation of your rights, including FAQs and rules to follow in various situations (if you’ve been detained on the street, if you’ve been pulled over, if cops want permission to search your home, etc.) The app appears to have been intended for the iPhone originally, so you may see more bugs on some Android devices. It seems to work fine on Samsung cell phones. The only problem I’ve noticed with this app is a bit of bloat—I don’t really need an extra space to find my location and post phone numbers. (Cost: free)

4. FastCase (Android, iOS)

For the most part, police powers have been federally defined; but there are legal and procedural quirks that vary from state to state, and FastCase is an excellent resource for both state and federal case law. If nothing else, you should grab this app and do a little research on your home state. Like all the apps on this list, the case law in FastCase goes way beyond the scope of a traffic stop or warrantless search—it lays out precedent for landmark decisions in almost every imaginable category—but that’s where the searchable database become helpful. (Cost: free)

Julia Peterson
peterson.juliam@gmail.com

Julia Peterson is a writer for AndGeeks.com, a popular website that provides up-to-date news, detailed commentary, and unbiased reviews on cell phones and related topics. Julia resides in Galveston, Texas in a cozy little house in the country with her husband, young son, and their Labrador retriever, Darby

Smartphone Apps Make Sure You Know Your Legal Rights is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

I composed this document, and am having it laminated and will keep it in my vehicle. Upon being stopped, my plan is to hand this the the officer. Can anyone provide me with some feed back on it..first, are my points correct? Second, what do you think the officer’s reaction will be?

To the Law Enforcement Officer who has stopped this vehicle, please read if you like, I will read this aloud for your dash camera.

I am assuming you are stopping my vehicle for an alleged traffic violation. I will be providing a current driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance upon your request. I will answer no questions regarding the traffic violation that may violate my Fifth Amendment rights. (example: do you know how fast you were going?). State your allegation and I will sign the citation agreeing to appear in court at the designated time and place.

Please do not ask my passengers for identification. They have no reason to identify themselves.

To protect my Fifth Amendment rights, I will not answer questions about the origin or destination of my trip.

To protect my Fifth Amendment rights, I will not answer questions regarding my passengers or the contents of my vehicle.

To protect my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, I give no express or implied consent to search any part of my vehicle.

Please do not take this personally, I am simply insuring that my rights are protected.

Thank you for your cooperation.

- RLM

Thoughts for RLM? And if you’re looking for more police information/outreach materials, head to CopBlock.org’s propaganda page. To submit a story to CopBlock.org click here.

Something to read to the police when stopped is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Published almost four years ago, The Myth of the ‘Rule of Law’ by Brainpolice is a damn solid write-up. That said, it’s almost certain that some readers may take issue with the article’s stated premise: there is NO ‘rule of law.’ But why?

Is Brainpolice wrong? Or might some readers unthinkingly default to a support-the-current-system stance based on their lifetime of pro-State rhetoric peddled in public schools, via the lamestream media, and from talking heads?

One point of clarification that’s more semantics than divergence is Brainpolice’s use of the word “law” – I’d use “legislation” to refer to anything man-made and “law” to refer to natural law, common law, or god’s law (take your pick, based on your preference). After all, those of us who point-out the bad actions of individuals wearing badges often are told “If you don’t agree with it change the law.” It’s not the law I seek to change (after all, I agree with the law, that I shouldn’t initiate force) but legislation. Why should you have a duty to pay attention to and abide by what some strangers write, especially as you’ve never signed or verbalized support of such dictates.

Of course we all want to live in peaceful, prosperous society where individual rights are safeguarded, but how is that best achieved? Through a top-down, centralized State, who’s agents create and interpret (allowing for double-standards) the rules or through an organic, bottom-up process? Children know it’s not right to steal, lie or hit, do we really need some strangers telling us how to behave?

————————————————————–

The theory of a republic is essentially that, in contrast to democracy in which there is tyranny of the majority and in contrast to monarchy in which there is the rule of a single man or oligarchy, the law itself is what rules rather than men. In essence, a republic is supposed to be a model for government that avoids being both both democracy and monarchy, and allegedly replaces the administration of men over men with the administration of the law itself over men. In a republic, the law is supposed to restrain the lay public from creating tyranny of the majority (I.E. a democracy) and simultaneously restrain the institutional agents of the state from functioning as an elite of rulers imposing their will on the lay public (I.E. an oligarchy).

But a basic understanding of how human beings work and a rational analysis of how the state functions as an institution, including so-called republics, renders this theory of government as a rather blatant absurdity. How can a law be self-enforcing? By definition, a governmental law is drafted by men and must be enforced by men. No political system can escape the rule of men, for all political systems are created and run by men. At the same time, no political system is the result of the decisions of everyone within a society, for at a fundamental level all political systems are oligarchies in which a small percentage of the overall population are those with direct control over the state apparatus, those who actually make and enforce the laws.

The absurdity of the notion that a piece of paper with words on it in and of itself will fatalistically or pre-emptively stop human beings (including those within the state apparatus itself) from engaging in certain actions should be rather obvious. In terms of the lay public, they may theoretically engage in such actions anyways and their actions may be rather unpredictable. A piece of paper isn’t going to restrain a mob. And in terms of those within the state apparatus themselves, they have most leeway of all in the matter, for it is ultimately they who make the laws and may choose to enforce or not enforce them. Since they are not really bound by any higher external 3rd party institution, they may theoretically function in a lawless manner. The law maker is effectively and seemingly paradoxically “above the law”. For since they have a monopoly on law, they may theoretically interpret it and defy it as they please. The law is not binding on them. Rather, the law’s content and applicability is actually bound to their whims as the ones with power.

So it would seem that an attempt at a republic will always reduce to some kind of oligarchy, most likely a representative democracy with a constitution. The constitution is merely an additional feature of the democracy that is meant to restrain both the people and the government. Except a constitution cannot really be effective in any consistent or long-term sense. It will not fatalistically restrain institutional agents of the state from using power and the lay public from engaging in majoritarian or mob behavior. As the decades and centuries pass, it becomes less and less meaningful and effective as a society evolves (or devolves). At best, it functions as a lame rationale to provide legitimacy to the state while its alleged function as a restraint is rendered meaningless by the ability of the state’s institutional agents to exercise their power. A constitution does nothing to actually restrain or take away the opportunity or ability for institutional agents of the state to use power.

The notion of the rule of law would only make sense if the state was an entity external to human interaction, as if it were not made up of human beings but was enforced through some natural or supernatural mechanism. But the state is quite clearly created and administered by acting human beings. It is not some sort of intrinsic mechanism of nature that functions independently of human action, or the result of the will of some deity. The only laws that can be said to rule all on their own irrespective of men are natural laws. But natural law is not something that political systems are based on, as political systems are the synthetic creations of men. At best, natural law is an independent standard of justice that currently existing political systems may be held up to and discredited with. While some early natural law theories were used to legitimize states, a properly formed and applied natural law theory can only be used to delegitimize states.

There is good reason to be quite skeptical towards the effectiveness of governmentally created laws to begin with. Not only is it absurd to propose that laws can rule on on their own, but the ability of human beings to enforce them is quite limited due to a certain factor of unpredictability in the behavior of human beings. That is, the mere existence of a law illegalizing certain actions and even the existence of an institutional apparatus that attempts to have humans enforce such a law and threatens punishment for defying it does not guarantee that people will not in fact defy the law and that people will not in fact get away with defying the law. While this has obvious implications with respect to laws prohibiting economic interactions (which are miserable failures in light of their own alleged goals), it is even true with respect to laws against basics that everyone pretty much agrees are wrong like murder, rape and theft.

The notion that most people generally don’t murder, rape and steal either solely or primarily because there is a governmental law against them is rather absurd if one accepts the premise of free will (at least some kind of compatibalism). The existence of a governmental law in and of itself is not the cause of good or ethical behavior, and some people do engage in the shunned actions in question despite the existence of a law against it. If someone is truly determined to engage in such an action, they are going to do it regardless of whether or not there is a governmental law against it. Criminals are criminals precisely because they have an extremely high time preference, I.E. they want what they want now regardless of potential negative consequences that may come about in the future. If someone does not engage in such an action, it is mostly likely primarily because they themselves find it ethically impermissible. Social convention itself, combined with the natural incentives towards social cooperation, is the primary reason why most people tend to generally be peaceful in interpersonal relations.

In a fundamental sense, a society truly cannot be planned or socially engineered in the long-run, even by laws. A society is the sum total of interactions between the individuals that make it up, and such interpersonal relations are so complex and diverse that it would be impossible for a single individual or organization to truly predict and absolutely control their behavior. No human being or group of human beings has the mental capacity, let alone the physical ability, to deterministically control and pre-empt the behavior of everyone within a society. They would have to be omniscient to do so. The mere fact that one can only be at one place at one time renders any attempt to efficiently exercise such control ridiculous and pointless. So it could be said that all government is fortunately limited by definition, limited by the natural limits of human ability and the unpredictability and diversity of human behavior.

Quite clearly, the law is not something worthy of putting much of one’s faith in, even with good intentions.

————————————————————–

For more:
The Myth of the ‘Rule of Law’ by John Hasnas [article]
Anarchy and the Law edited by Ed Stringham [book]
I’m Allowed to Rob You! by Larken Rose [video]

Brainpolice on The Myth of ‘The Rule of Law’ is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

There are countless laws. Literally.

Maybe not in the mathematical sense – it is technically possible to count the laws in existence, but based on a colloquial and general use of the term “countless” it is not really feasible for someone to count every law. Just this year, 40,000 laws were passed and are set to go into effect. On the other hand, we rarely hear news about laws being repealed.

At this rate, if it is a monumental task to even count the laws, certainly, one can never know all the laws. And then – even if one knows generally of many laws, it is further impossible to understand the laws with requisite detail so as to ensure compliance.

Yet, people are told over and over by police, prosecutors, and the justice system that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

To all the police, prosecutors, asshole judges, and other groveling subjects who insist on the “rule of law” –  actually, yes, ignorance is an excuse. Perhaps one would be viewed as disingenuous when claiming he or she did not know murder, theft, or rape was against the law. However, when 40,000 laws are passed each year, each with possibly hundreds of pages of details, it is a perfectly legitimate excuse to claim one is ignorant of said laws.

This is especially the case because most laws do not prevent murder, theft, or rape, which of course are the most obvious and justified prohibitions. Personal violations and property violations – that’s 2 laws. Total. It’s reasonable to throw in a few more for different degrees of personal violations (e.g. 2nd degree murder, voluntary and/or involuntary manslaughter, assault and battery), and different types of theft or property violations (e.g. fraud, embezzlement, petty theft, larceny, robbery, trespassing). That might get us to 15, and for the most part, that’s the bulk of the law that is reasonable or necessary. So where did the other 40,000 per year come from?

They are almost all useless or repetitive. They come from lobbyists, power-hungry politicians who want to appear to be “doing something” and from idiots who do not understand the meaning of statistical significance. One freak tragedy happens, and suddenly the relatives of the victim are lobbying, protesting, and demanding their local sleazeball politician to “do something” about any act, behavior, or substance remotely related to the tragedy, despite the fact that those acts, behaviors or substances are completely safe and hurt no one 99.99 percent of the time. I can almost guarantee you that if someone happened to run out of their house, slip on a banana peel, smash their face into a fence and die, that a committee of concerned citizens and responsive politicians will form to demand the death penalty upon people who litter banana peels, or to throw people in jail for running out of their houses.

If you visit this fun website by a couple of lawbreakers blogging their criminal activity, you will learn that it is illegal to peel an orange in a hotel in Los Angeles. It is illegal to fish while wearing pajamas in Chicago, IL. Playing an instrument with the intention of luring someone into a store is illegal in Indian Wells, CA. It is illegal in Globe, AZ to play cards with an Indian. Drinking a beer from a bucket is illegal in St. Louis, MO. Sleeping on a refrigerator is illegal in Pittsburgh.

I haven not personally verified the existence of these laws, but I can tell you with fair certainty about a multitude of other absurd laws that do exist. For instance, Alabama only legalized interracial marriage in 2000. Altruistic war veteran Antonio Buehler learned recently that spitting on a police officer is a third degree felony in Texas. When he observed an officer abusing a woman, he stopped to take pictures, and was attacked by police and arrested. Videos taken do not show him spitting police, but nevertheless, police accused him of doing so and charged him with harassment of a public official, a third degree felony (as a side note, spitting on a regular person would not nearly rise to a felony, because regular people aren’t gods, like the police are).

In yet another display of legal absurdity, a marine biologist faces 20 years in prison for violating an obscure federal environmental law. Nancy Black was in her research boat when killer whales attacked and killed a gray whale calf. Blubber floated to the surface, and the killer whales were getting ready to feed. Ms. Black threaded ropes through some blubber and lowered a camera under water. She has been indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (more here).

In many cities, it is de facto illegal to feed the homeless. And of course, in most states in America, due to the rise of the “Resisting Arrest” charge, people literally can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing.

Above all, the most important element to note is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” only applies to the peons of America. It does not apply to prosecutors, judges, police, or other powerful people.  Police have qualified immunity for various actions they take on the job. Prosecutors have even greater immunity. The Supreme Court held in Imbler v. Pachtman that absolute immunity of public prosecutors is “based on the policy of protecting the judicial process.” Thus, prosecutors face no recourse for even the most malicious of actions – knowingly using falsified evidence.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the issue of whether there is a Constitutional right to “not be framed.” (Yes, the system is that evil – they actually have to debate whether there is a “right not to be framed”). Judges also have absolute civil immunity, so if the Supreme Court decides there is no Constitutional right “not to be framed” they will not be held accountable, and all anyone can do about it is cry. (Read more about all these immunities here).

Next time you hear anyone talk about “the rule of law” or “ignorance of the law is no excuse” it’s worth pondering what exactly that means. In the context of America, it inevitably means oppression and arbitrary results from a system that operates off an extensive, random mire of nonsensical dictates decreed by tyrants.

Actually yes, ignorance of the law is an excuse is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Who has time to write actual book reviews?  Not me, apparently.  But this jumped out at me from Carol Tavris’s and Elliot Aronson’s Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), on the tendency of prosecutors to “miraculously come up with other theories” justifying the convictions of innocents, even in the face of DNA testing that exonerates them:

Self-justifications like these create a double tragedy:  They keep innocent people in prison and allow the guilty to remain free.  The same DNA that exonerates an innocent person can be used to identify the guilty one, but this rarely happens.  Of all the convictions the Innocence Project has succeeded in overturning so far, there is not a single instance in which the police later tried to find the actual perpetrator of the crime.  The police and prosecutors just close the books on the case completely, as if to obliterate its silent accusation of the mistake they made.  (p. 151-152)

Let’s see:  the guilty remain free, possibly to commit other crimes; the innocent lose years of their lives and their good name; if the victims were lucky enough to feel a sense of closure, it is a false one.

And from earlier in the book:

After a comprehensive study of criminal cases in which the convicted person was indisputably exonerated, law professor Samuel R. Gross and his associates concluded that “if we reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devote to death sentences, there would have been over 28,500 non-death-row exonerations in the past 15 years rather than the 255 that have in fact occurred.”  (p. 130)

Those are a lot of crimes to commit in the name of furthering justice.