Don’t Stop Recording: Meet James Brown

Friday, January 27th, 2012

By Ian Freeman, blogger at FreeKeene.com:

Back in 2010, on a visit to the NH Attorney Genital’s office, we met “investigator” Dick Tracy. More recently, Copblock’s Ademo and I were in the area so we dropped in again with some more questions, this time meeting “investigator” James Brown. Neither man was interested in speaking on the record and Brown attempted to intimidate us into not recording. We did not stop. Here’s what happened:

Remember, it is supposed to be your right to record government bureaucrats in public places. Though, we know they don’t care about what your rights are, so there’s always a chance you could be aggressed against and caged. Sometimes it can be scary when they threaten you, but if you have backup also willing to not back down, your odds of walking away without being caged increase.

Just say NO – to demands you quit recording them.

Escape Banner 03 Don’t Stop Recording: Meet James Brown

Don’t Stop Recording: Meet James Brown is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Actually yes, ignorance of the law is an excuse

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

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 On the other hand, we rarely hear news about laws being repealed.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

Defensive or Offensive? That is the Question…

Friday, January 20th, 2012

Recently I was found guilty in my Chalking 8 trial, while highlighting those bogus charges we (Pete and I) met Frank and Mike, who took this video of Manchester Police Officer Murphy. The video went viral and received attention from several news outlets. Instead of taking a serious look at the actions caught on tape the city went into defense mode.

pixel Defensive or Offensive? That is the Question...

The Police, school and local government officials sought to criminalize Frank, Mike and myself. They expelled Frank from school, charged Mike as an adult (over a teenage fight) and charged me with three counts of wiretapping. Crimes the state says justifies caging me, at your expense, for 21 years.

I’ve been through this before in Greenfield, MA and am confident I can present my case, logically. The problem I face in Manchester that I didn’t have in Greenfield is the personal vendetta those in Manchester seem to have for me. After all, I was given the max sentence (with 10 months of it stayed for 2 years good behavior) for ‘resisting’ my arrest.

With that in mind I’ve thought long and hard about how I’d like to tackle this case. I’ve done all the homework, reading up on New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, talking with lawyers, brainstorming ideas with fellow activist and more and it’s come down to one thing, funding. Which is why I made this video asking for your help.

As stated in the video, I think a lawyer would be beneficial to ensure I have fair pre-trial hearings and ‘proper’ (in their eyes) procedure during trial. Considering this will be an expectation of privacy trial – and that public officials have none – it will be more difficult that my Greenfield trial. Yet, a win here could do wonders for activists in the “Shire” attempting to change coercive government actions.

That being said, I also know, and appreciate, the offensive tactic as well and when done properly, is mightier than the current justice system. In terms of risk, I end up taking more with this tactic, as these actions will be done outside the court room. The best part of this strategy is that the actions the government is trying to distract you from – excessive force, deletion of evidence and criminalization of those who question government – will be front and center. As this issue goes further back than just one phone call, the Manchester police have gotten away with murder (literally) for a while now.

Regardless of how this fund raiser goes, I’ll be in court, speaking the truth and defending my position on filming, recording and monitoring public officials. I would greatly appreciate you donating to either cause as it would help me (and other activists) further the message of police accountability. You can also buy CopBlock.org swag, which help funds our CopBlock activities, or contact me for video intro/outro’s and power post. For those unable to donate, sharing CopBlock.org content and social networks is just as good as FRN’s and I need/appreciate your support as well.

Thanks in advance.

pixel Defensive or Offensive? That is the Question...

—–

Ademo’s First Hearing (video) – CopBlock.org
CopBlock Founder faces 20 years – Photography Is NOT a Crime
Ademo Responds to Charges by CopBlock
Manchester’s Chalking 8 by Cop Block
High School Student Catches Excessive Force on Video by Cop Block
Video shows West High student’s arrest by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
West High student arrest video goes viral by Kathryn Marchocki in the Union Leader
Teen on school arrest: ‘I was goofing around’ by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
Manchester students say videotape of arrest was not planned by Shawne Wickham in the Union

 

Defensive or Offensive? That is the Question… is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Hudson, NH Police Commander Sets an Example For Other Police Agencies To Follow

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Adam Kokesh of Adam vs. The Man and I went to the Hudson, NH Police Department to file a criminal complaint against former House Speaker and presidental candidate Newt Gingrich’s security agent who assaulted Adam earlier the previous day. When we were there, Adam was filming, and was threatened with arrest.

I told the shift commander that he was absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire law due to a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied qualified immunity to Boston, MA Police for making a similar arrest.

It is okay to be wrong… every human is wrong about stuff all the time. It does take, however, a big man to admit that he was wrong, and Lieuteant Dyac of the Hudson, NH Police proved to be a big man. Of course, it would have been preferred that he knew the law ahead of time, but we all know that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for US, but IS for state agents.

I am going to write a letter to Hudson, NH Police Chief Jason Lavoie praising his commander for his willingness to admit a mistake. I’d respectfully ask you all either do the same or call to quickly ask that the Chief be told that his Lieutenant is a step above many law enforcers we’ve encountered being wrong about the law. By taking the time to research the issue before taking action, Lieuteant Dyac saved his department from civil liability. He clearly is an asset to that agency.

Photography Is Not A Crime‘s Carlos Miller has done an excellent piece on this story, and his commenters seem to agree with my praise of the Lieuteant:

Joshua

Bravo to Lt. Dyac, he is the epitome of a good LEO. If only more cops could be more like him.

Interestingly, the Boston Police Department has finally come out and admitted that their officers were wrong to arrest the man who created this case law which I cited to the Lieutenant which kept Adam from being arrested.  Getting the government to apologize seems to only take five years and a federal lawsuit.

I believe positive encouragement for police accountability is as important as negative.  If you agree with me and want to praise Lt. Dyac for taking the time to research what I was saying and ultimately admitting he was wrong, Chief Lavoie of the Hudson Police can be reached here:

Chief Jason Lavoie
1 Constitution Drive – Hudson, New Hampshire 03051
Business line: 603-886-6011

Hudson, NH Police Commander Sets an Example For Other Police Agencies To Follow is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Gang attacks homeowner, media solicits donations for fallen gang members, public laments gang member death.

Saturday, January 7th, 2012

Some people out there, even our regular readers, get squeamish when we liken police to gang members. I’ll stand by that analogy, which I elaborated upon in another article -

Mostly, this comparison is based on the fact that police, like gangs claim ultimate dominion over a particular territory. They stake out these particular territories, and demand “protection money” for reasons mostly out of the control of local residents. If their demands are not met, they resort to violence.

They swear an oath of  loyalty to each other, and will cover up for each other’s gruesome crimes at the expense of good sense and morality. Officers have purposely failed to take reports, covered up evidence, and even turned a blind eye to sexual battery and torture by their fellow gang-members (see here). Those who do not abide by the code of loyalty are ostracized or otherwise punished (see examples here and here). They even have a gang color – blue.

See the full article here. As long as government police exist in their current form, I will never retract my sentiment in this regard. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume police are ordinary human beings like the rest of us. Fair enough? (More than fair, in my opinion).

When was the last time the public got their panties in a bunch when 5 armed men in dark clothing were shot because they were mistaken for intruders after they busted into someone’s house?

Probably never.

How about if the homeowner at issue was suspected of growing marijuana plants, and the armed men, dressed in dark clothing were allegedly there to “protect” the public from a dangerous weed smoker? If you still think it was an evil tragedy the armed men were shot, then it’s because you’re still thinking about police. Think harder.

Imagine your friend Joe has been growing a little pot in his living room. Imagine a bunch of your neighbors, against all scientific evidence, believe that because Joe smokes weed occasionally, he is a dangerous individual. Instead of knocking on Joe’s door, talking to Joe about his “problem” or asking him politely to refrain from smoking, or engaging in about a million other peaceful and civil ways of addressing the issue, at least twelve of them decide to dress in all black, arm themselves, and kick down Joe’s door to “solve” this frightening problem of weed propagation. They declare to you they have a piece of paper that gives them such authority and will present it to Joe as proof they have a right to seize his little plant. They kick down Joe’s door at night. As a result, Joe mistakes them for burglars and opens fire, killing and injuring several of them, while also receiving injuries himself.

What would you think about these neighbors? You would think they are insane. You would think they are fucking stupid. You would wonder why it takes twelve (or more) grown, armed men to give your friend Joe a piece of fucking paper. You would think they are juvenile, violent, self-righteous assholes who mirror something out of Lord of the Flies, who think reckless use of violence and guns is some sort of game (you’d half expect to find Piggy with his smashed eyeglasses lying amid the bloodshed). If you are a bit of a judgmental prick, you might wonder why Joe keeps such offensive plants if the consequences can be so severe, but even so, if you are a reasonable person, you would not blame Joe for opening fire in terror upon seeing twelve or more armed men in his house after having his door broken down.

On the other hand, because the juvenile, violent, self-righteous assholes who don’t know how to mind their own damn business are police, the public is horrified, and the media is soliciting donations for the fallen and injured police officers gang members (see full story here). This is a travesty. The media literally is soliciting funds and sympathy for a bunch of aggro psychopaths whose careless indiscretions created the entire situation to begin with. Meanwhile, the victim of all this is being changed with crimes, and will likely suffer draconian legal penalties.

No one forced these officers to enforce bad laws. No one put a gun to the heads of these upstanding members of society and said they had to arm themselves, put on dark clothing, and kick down someone’s door to “serve a warrant” because the suspect had a certain plant in his living room. They did it anyway, and as a result, 6 of them were shot and 1 died.

This is not to say that any of them deserved to die, or that death is an appropriate punishment for burglary, but really – what is there to be so sorry about? If they were ordinary people, Americans would be flabbergasted at why these idiots believed rounding up a gang of armed people to solve a non-violent situation was necessary. Americans would rightly question the intelligence of those who claim drawing guns and breaking into houses at night in furtherance of eradicating a plant somehow makes society safer.

Anyone who feels truly terrible for these wounded/killed officers, without acknowledging the officers’ own stupidity, recklessness, and unwarranted aggression that brought on these consequences has unfortunately bought into the police state mentality – that police can do whatever they want because different – or perhaps no moral and legal standards apply to them.

 

Gang attacks homeowner, media solicits donations for fallen gang members, public laments gang member death. is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Tip to all cops: if you feel like murdering someone, be sure to do it on duty and in uniform

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

In the past couple of years, CopBlock has covered a wide range of stories involving police murder.  John Williams, a half-deaf, disabled, hobbling Native American man was basically executed in the streets of Seattle by on-duty officer Ian Birk. Birk was never criminally charged. Westpoint and Duke graduate Erik Scott was executed at Costco for no legitimate reasons when police were called to the scene. His killer of course was found to have been “justified” in the murder.

Trevon Cole, an unarmed father-to-be was shot and killed in his bathroom during a mistaken drug raid. Grandfather of 12, Eurie Stamps was similarly unarmed and killed during a botched drug raid. Former Marine Jose Guerena was shot multiple times by police during an alleged drug warrant entry by police. He lay dying for over an hour until he bled to death because police refused medical care. Allen Kephart was tasered to death for honking his car horn at police. Douglas Zerby was shot and killed for holding a garden hose spigot which police purportedly mistook for a gun.

The list goes on and on, but a girl can only maintain so many murder victims’ names in her head before going insane. At any rate, without exception, police involved in these murders were found to have acted reasonably or were determined to have been justified in their murder. Even before they were found to have behaved in a “justified manner,” they were not immediately arrested or charged (or ever arrested or charged).

On the other hand, in recent news, one Officer Dayle Long had the misfortune of murdering someone and actually not getting away with it. Long was drunk at a bar when a bystander ribbed him for not being good at playing darts. Long responded, “That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do.” Things got heated, and Long ended up shooting and killing a third man, Sam Vanettes, who was attempting to break up the fight. Surprisingly, Long was actually arrested and held on $1 million bail. This is a good thing. Barely, though (yay! A cop was actually treated like a normal person, for once!)

Long had one part right. Police pretty much can do what they please. They get away with murder with much more success than ordinary people. They certainly get away with more innocuous violations they engage in almost daily, such as driving while talking on cell phones (illegal in California, apparently except for the police), parking in red zones, parking in handicapped zones, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

The part Long failed to take into consideration is that the key to this distinction is the badge and the uniform. People don’t care about murder when it is committed by police in uniform. The response is usually, “well then [the victim] shouldn’t have disobeyed/talked back/drank alcohol/[insert petty violation here].” People most definitely don’t care when police in uniform break traffic laws, because of course police are just “doing their jobs” and “keeping people safe” by speeding, parking in fire lanes, and talking on their cell phones while driving. But when the uniform comes off, to a certain extent, they are viewed once again as regular old losers like the rest of us.

Regular old losers can’t jay walk, speed, or murder with impunity. You have to have a uniform and a badge to do that. Long’s mistake wasn’t murder; his mistake was committing murder out of uniform. And as a side note to all you regular old losers out there, regardless of uniform, never honk your car horn at a cop or challenge his dart skills – someone could end up dead.

Tip to all cops: if you feel like murdering someone, be sure to do it on duty and in uniform is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Batesville, MS Police Brutality

Friday, December 30th, 2011

This came out in the paper today and has been the talk of the town of these two cops who obviously don’t respect people’s rights.

A suit was filed in federal court Wednesday against the City of Batesville, BPD officer Greg Jones and Sgt. Shawn Dalton by parents of a minor who was apprehended Halloween night after curfew hours and in possession of toilet paper.
Plaintiffs Sally and Stacy Simmerman are seeking a jury trial, that a Halloween curfew be declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, compensatory damages for their minor son and reasonable attorney fees and expenses.

Ron Lewis of Oxford is the attorney for the Simmermans.
Court documents state that the Simmermans’ son, his girlfriend and her mother as well as another group were at Walgreen’s purchasing toilet paper “. . . in preparation for a Halloween prank on one of (the group’s) cousins.”

When two members of the group returned to the cars with toilet paper an officer approached the Simmerman minor asking if he was “deaf” for not responding to the policeman.
The minor was handcuffed and taken into custody according to the document which noted that the juvenile was being apprehended for not coming when the officer summoned him.

Although the parent of his friend would later ask to take the minor home, the policemen refused, the court document states.
The Simmerman minor was then taken to the police station according to the document which claims Dalton did not put a seat belt around him and then drove erratically to the police department.

The suit also claims that the minor’s cellphone contents were searched while at the police station before his parents arrived.
The document claims that the curfew was not properly created therefore void and questions why, when there were seven children in the parking lot, only one was apprehended. The suit cites erroneous procedures when the curfew law was adopted.

The suit also claims physical damage and continued suffering by the minor.
Additonal claims include that the city as well as officer Jones are liable for wrongful arrest and detention, and Dalton is liable for use of “ . . . unnecesary, unjustified excessive force, false imprisonment and unlawful warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone.”

The complaint filed in federal court in Oxford reflects only one side of the incident and attorney Colmon Mitchell who represents the City of Batesville said last week the matter had been turned over to the city’s insurance company who would handle the claim.

- Anonymous

 Batesville, MS Police Brutality

Batesville, MS Police Brutality is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Obvious Unfair Justice System in Marion County, WV

Friday, December 16th, 2011

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

There are so many people who have said that Marion County, West Virginia’s Justice system is one of the worst places to find yourself in trouble. I agree, based off my own past and current experiences. They seem to do what they want here and ignore where they are wrong.

I was arrested, in January of 2011, on a Malicious Assault charge in which there was no thorough investigation on both parties; there was only consideration on the alleged victims behalf. The alleged victim had no witnesses to the said crime and I, as the defendant, did. How was I accused of Malicious Assault when I was the one who took the alleged victim to the hospital and I signed their hospital release form? What is the definition of MALICIOUS? I was released on bond one month afterwards. I was later arrested again, around 49 days afterwards, for Violation of the Restraining Order. I saw the alleged victim in one store as I entered my appointment in another location. I did not approach or speak, and kept a maximum distance between me and the the alleged victim. The alleged victim wrote in their statement that I had no reason to go into the place I went, when actually I had proof that I did have a reason; in writing and on another document. I was again released on bond. Two months later we went to court for my Bond Revocation which was continued and the “IDEA/SUGGESTION” from an “OUTSIDE SOURCE” to place me on Home Confinement, to “SHUT the ALLEGED VICTIM UP”, was granted in court that day although it was ABSOLUTELY NOT ORIGINALLY part of either one of my bond conditions.

In June of 2011, we went to Family Court and none of us were sworn in! The alleged victim stated that they lived with me in their original Order of Protection court document, yet lied in Family Court stating that they did not live with me prior to and during the alleged criminal accusations filed against me in January of 2011. I was accused of making more than three times more than I did at my job, which I indicated was WRONG. I had documented proof from my legitimate job. Changes were made in Family Court after our hearing and during my absence concerning the Final Court Order. It seems the Judge made a seemingly audible biased cheer toward my absence. I purchased the Family Court DVD Transcript and all I have mentioned concerning that case is on that DVD.

To brings things up to date, the alleged victim has been trying to contact me. They told the Prosecuting Attorney what they were doing, then went as far as filing a Court Petition to dismiss the charges. The Prosecutor was furious more so at me and said I was already indicted and that the State had taken over the case. The Petition to dismiss charges against me by the alleged victim was, of course, denied. What also seems wrong to me, is that the Prosecutor told me that we both violated the restraining order even if she approached me. I also think that it is unfair that if the alleged victim admitted breaking the restraining order, directly to the Prosecuting Attorney, then why didn’t the alleged victim get arrested?

There is more to this case. As with many other cases here, if there was an investigation by the RIGHT authorities or people, they would find so much police misconduct, unjustified cases, violations of ethics, violations of human rights, abuse of power, improperly investigated cases and a lot of  unprofessional conduct within the Justice System in Marion County, West Virginia.

I have filed an appeal in my Family Court case in June of 2011, and haven’t heard anything. I am also still waiting to go to court for my Malicious Assault case. I have a court appointed lawyer whom I had doubts about until recently. I think mine and other’s cases, who obviously seem to get no justice here, need to be urgently looked into and these unfair authorities need to be exposed. I have been trying to get direct and useful help (here and elsewhere online), but haven’t been able find any. Please help us here in WV! Thank you and thank you for this site.

 

Obvious Unfair Justice System in Marion County, WV is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Last week I interviewed Brad Jardis about an event he planned for December 9th at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire. To quickly recap, Brad wanted to carry a gun on campus with his friend – Tommy Mozingo – in direct violation to University “law(s)” but was kept from doing so by restraining order. Brad claims the University’s rules are illegal because New Hampshire law states that political sub-divisions canNOT enact laws restricting gun rights of individuals – again see this interview.  Today Brad and Tommy will be in court pleading to a judge for their natural right to protect themselves.

The video above is from the event, including several clips that weren’t seen in the mainstream media coverage . Like outing another undercover police officer, who was conceal carrying (and helps cage peaceful marijuana smokers), and the obvious police state. Pete and I went around asking officers to comment on the double standard being presented that day. While Brad and Tommy (along with anyone associating with them) were banned from conducting their protest by the government, via court order. That same government also sent atleast 30+ officers (from all over the state) to protect the campus with FIREARMS. Once again proving that the rules are subjective and rarely apply to those working for big brother. While police will be the first to tell you, “to fight more crime you need more cops.” Yet, they reject the idea that an armed society is a safe society.

And to those that just don’t like guns and fail to see their value in preventing crime – something police claim to do yet fail miserably at – look at this issue from a property rights perspective. Plymouth State University is subsidized by the government, via taxpayers, and therefore is considered “public property.” There’s no way 300 million people would ever agree on a single set of rules for such property. Not to mention the irony in making someone pay for something but limiting their ability to protect themselves – like they can on all other NH public property. Which is why public property must be ended.

If Plymouth State was funding itself by providing the best possible higher learning atmosphere, then the owner(s) of the school could make the decision as to who can carry guns there. Until then, the government will do what’s in its best interest – gain more control of the people by claiming to act in the public’s best interest while slowing stripping you of any means to protecting yourself.

What do you think? Is an armed society a safe society? Why?

FinalCB.orgBanner1 CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest

CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

If you support government police, you support institutionalized rape, murder, and plunder

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Part 2 of a series on how Florida’s most despicable police officers continue to remain on the job is both enlightening and frightening. A Herald-Tribune investigation found that thousands of Florida officers remain on the job despite arrests or evidence of crimes that would result in incarceration for any ordinary person.

Reprehensible behaviors by these “rogue” officers (thousands of them, actually) include sex with prisoners, rape of teenage girls, and domestic violence. In each of these cases, state law enforcement officials allowed the officers involved to retain their badges. Other activities these heroes in blue have engaged in include less concerning crimes of extortion, drug trafficking, and attempted murder (read more here).

The Herald-Tribune investigation further found such behavior was not isolated. One in 20 active law enforcement officers in Florida had committed moral character violations (drugs, violence or other crimes) “serious enough to jeopardize their career.” It is interesting the Herald-Tribune phrases this fact in this manner. It should be revolting enough that police are engaged in such activities at all, but the focus of the issue seems to be on the fact the behavior is so bad that they could actually lose their jobs (which quite frankly, doesn’t happen very often – read more here).

The Herald-Tribune article, reflecting the attitudes of most people, fails to acknowledge police are always breaking the law. They break the very law they swear to uphold on a daily basis – jaywalking, speeding, parking in red and handicapped zones, talking on cell phones while driving, running stop signs, etc. People see police doing these things everyday, but are not concerned because police are allegedly “doing their jobs” and “serving people.”

Somehow, people believe that even though speeding, talking on cell phones while driving, and parking in fire lanes are all illegal for the protection and good of the people, it is ok when police are break laws because 1. they deserve some leniency for the good work they do and 2. they need some leniency in order to properly do their job – i.e. police need to break the law in order to enforce it sometimes, and need to behave dangerously in order to prevent danger.

So why should we care if police are raping, trafficking drugs, or committing extortion? If the logic was correct to begin with, there’s no rational reason to draw the line arbitrarily at parking and driving violations. If  ”protecting people” is furthered by breaking the law once in a while, and “doing your job” is an excuse for breaking laws, then surely the same applies to rape, drug crimes, and extortion.

If one’s knee-jerk reaction to people (such as us here at Copblock) bitching about cops breaking parking and driving laws is, “shut up and get a life hippie! He’s just doing his job! He’s out there risking his life to protect you” – that very same response should apply when people like us bitch about cops raping teenagers, beating their wives, and abusing their kids.

In other words, many of you people out there who claim to be shocked and horrified when police are out raping people and beating kids are pretentious assholes. You actually think it’s ok. I know this because you are the type who vomits up the same platitudes over and over again about how police need some leniency because their jobs are difficult. You are same people who go, “hmm, that makes sense” when you hear of a cop murdering someone, and receiving a lighter sentence because the judge took his past “service” into account.

You are the same people who pretend to feel bad for these tragic victims of police violence, but then turn around and say, “but of course, we need government police! The world would be chaos without them” even as government police everywhere are beating, killing, violating civil and/or constitutional rights, and committing crimes. Even though basic logic dictates that government police by definition will always lack accountability, and be far more open to corruption and abuse because government police cannot easily be fired, replaced, or punished. This is also demonstrated by the Herald-Tribune report.

The Herald-Tribune reported the number of serious violations is far higher than state records would reflect, as  local agencies failed to report cases and faced no consequences for neglecting to do so. (What a surprise – you mean the government doesn’t want government agents to look bad? It can’t be!) In fact, the Union County Sheriff’s office hasn’t reported a single instance of misconduct in about 26 years.

Further, it was extraordinarily difficult to fire officers who repeatedly misbehaved. One Frederick Currie had a history of domestic violence, and was even arrested for child abuse. He was also involved in stalking an ex-girlfriend, as well as sexual battery. Officials attempted to fire him twice, but were unsuccessful, because of of police union power, and state laws which clearly favor police officers over ordinary peons. Some of the crimes by police may be occasional or rare, but the law and the system’s preferential and lenient treatment of murderous, violent, and criminal officers is not an accident.

Currie may only be one man, but remember that thousands of officers were exposed by this Florida report, and that in one agency, not one case of misconduct had been reported for 26 years. This is not a freak occurrence. This is not a case of a few bad apples. This is an institutional and intentional result of government monopoly over protection services.

Thus, anything short of calling for complete abolition of government police, is a pathetically apologetic stance toward police brutality. Anything short of advocacy for the end of government police is in effect sympathy for institutionalized rape, murder, and plunder.

If you support government police, you support institutionalized rape, murder, and plunder is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights