Cop tasers woman in front of kids for not speeding on cellphone by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Cop tasers woman in front of kids for not speeding on cellphone

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Monday, August 17, 2009 07:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1174
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:29 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

The slaves are gittin uppity.

video: www.infowars.com/cop-tases-mom-as-her-children-watch/

Charges dismissed, cop's patrol car taken away from him.

This is why every person must learn the basics of winning in traffic court without a lawyer. Don't argue or talk to a cop on the side of a road. Buy a copy of the video before trial, or wait to see it for free at trial by ambush.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Harmon was charged with disorderly conduct". That catch-all charge has GOT to go!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 9:53 AM

TRAVELER

It only shows that police are human. I have known some officers personally and also professionaly. I have been pulled over and had the officer not only treat me with respect, but also just give me a warning and send me on my way. Then I have had officers pissed at me for the smallest of infractions. I swear the the officer made ne sound like Dillenger and then did not bother to write a ticket because the infraction was so silly. I just took his abuse as having a bad day and letting off steam.

This incident with the woman was truly a bad policeman with an attitude. And I am not surprised the charges were dropped. If he is still on the force, I suspect his chances of promotion have reduced. I would also not be surprised if charges of excessive force were not issued on him. This could be pending and thus the department can't speak of it for legal reasons. It is sad that men like this give the police force a bad name.

We just had two of our officers shot down when they walked up to person matching the discription of someone who was theatening people in the area. The guy pulled out a gun and fired two rounds into each officer. Fortunately neither were killed, but one was stuck in the head and I believe will have permanent eye damage from the wound. So I am not anti-police. They do risk their lives when they patrol our streets.

That is the difficulty the police officer faces. What may seem like a routine traffic stop could end up with a gun shot in your face. They have to make quick decisions and pray they make the right ones.

So I hope this incident goes farther then just a reprimand. You can't have officers representing you community behaving like this. He needs to be removed. This was one bad decision followed by worse ones to cover-up the first. He could have backed off and taken a breath and resumed proper procedure.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:43 PM

HKCAVALIER

This one is just too baffling for words. I've seen a lot of these kinda videos now (thanks RWED!) and all of 'em 'cept this one have one thing in common: heat. Y'know, the encounter is heated--at least a little. But any way you look at this one, there's no heat. The cop pulls her over for the slightest infraction, she's a, pardon me, dumpy older woman with two kids in the car and clearly NO THREAT WHATEVER to the officer, makes no threatening moves, calmly TURNS AWAY from the officer to get back in her vehicle and the guy suddenly decides at that point to forcibly pull her from her car just so he can taser her?

What if being a cop is just bad for you? But like cigarettes, it takes a real long time to destroy a person and some people never seem to show ill effects at all?

I see the fundamental problem with being a cop as being paid to carry a gun every day. The only sane reason for a man to carry a gun is that he fears for his life. Performing the actions of a fearful person, day in and day out, eventually makes you a fearful person.

Even you guys who CC don't carry the gun everywhere, do you? And you don't do it as part of a job, 5 or 6 days a week, do you?

I too have had perfectly pleasant encounters with police, but in EVERY SINGLE bad cop experience I've ever had the officer in question fairly REEKED of (groundless) fear. It's just not good for anybody. No one should be a professional gunslinger.

But yeah, I know. The world isn't ready for sanity yet. Lock & load.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:44 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:

I have been pulled over and had the officer not only treat me with respect, but also just give me a warning and send me on my way.

We just had two of our officers shot down when they walked up to person matching the discription of someone who was theatening people in the area. The guy pulled out a gun and fired two rounds into each officer.

That is the difficulty the police officer faces. What may seem like a routine traffic stop could end up with a gun shot in your face.

Don't feel sorry for this cop. The last time I got a cop busted to desk jockey, he got elected to county commission.

When cops don't write a ticket, its because they already met their illegal quota for the month. So somebody else did get tickets from those "good" cops.

Every cop does illegal things every day as condition for employment. When they get shot its the same as any other criminal who gets shot -- nobody cares, except the other criminals.

If cops cared about highweay safety, or their dangerous job, they'd quite suing traffic tickets. The most dangerous part fo a cop's job is standing on the side of the road with an ordinary motorist to sue a ticket, then gettign hit by passing cars BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO STAND ON THE SIDE OF A BUSY HIGHWAY 2 FEET FROM HIGH-SPEED TRAFFIC.

If Big Bro cared about highway safety, it would replace all traffic cops with ambulance crews.

It's all about THE MONEY.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Don't argue or talk to a cop on the side of a road.

Bullshit, if you don't stand and deliver when you're NOT in their custody, in their control, you surrender half the battle on the spot.

Fuck that, cause then you'll face THIS - even if you're innocent, cause despite the myth of "innocent till proven guilty", what we PRACTICE is a de-facto variation on Napoleonic Law where one must in fact prove their innocence.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/33095.html

Quote:
"Harmon was charged with disorderly conduct". That catch-all charge has GOT to go!

That one, "Failure to Obey an Officer" and most especially "Resisting Arrest", since I could fill pages with folk arrested for resisting arrest, which is a complete paradox on the face of it, and yet courts let it happen all the time.

Quote:
Even you guys who CC don't carry the gun everywhere, do you?

Actually I do, HKC, but I don't have that *mentality* about it, any more than I do the spare in the trunk of my car, which of course goes everywhere I drive, no more than the cellphone or toolkit which also goes every single place I do and are never more than an arms reach away, even at home.

I dunno, maybe it's cause I don't really feel "fear" in the conventional sense, which carries it's own problems, lemme tell you - but yes, the fear-aggression thing is a big problem with the bluesuits, and a damn lot of it comes from terribly bad, nonexistent, or completely counterproductive "training" that teaches an aggressive response to EVERY situation, backed up by a nearly complete lack of consequences for their behavior.

We should NOT let this crap slide, cause the end result of it is just too obvious to deny anymore, they should be held to a HIGHER standard of behavior, not a lower one, as should anyone who's actions, personal and professional, carry the power of life and death in the respect of bearing a firearm.

Again, the only difference between the badge bearing kind and any other street gang, at the end of the day, is perceived legitimacy.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:04 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually I do, HKC, but I don't have that *mentality* about it, any more than I do the spare in the trunk of my car, which of course goes everywhere I drive, no more than the cellphone or toolkit which also goes every single place I do and are never more than an arms reach away, even at home.

Yeah, I don't doubt you, Frem. I've been trying to puzzle this out, 'cause I know you don't have to be a paranoid freak to carry a gun, it's just that so many cops seem to end up thataway (and please, folks, I'm not trying to say that all non-cops who carry guns are good people).

I keep coming back to the fact that it's part of their job, while for you it is absolutely a personal decision. No one is paying you to protect yourself. Having something be your job tends to take away a level of conscious choice and in these life and death decisions, conscious choice is of grave importance. You made the conscious choice to live as you do. You didn't just fill out an application for "anarchist" and get a "job description" on your first day.

In some ways, it looks to me like "following the rules" is the single most self-destructive act of a conscious being (oh no, the anarchy debate again--I'm advocating running mad in the streets!). I'm not talking about courtesy, or honoring agreements. Those aren't psychically destructive acts--quite the contrary. I'm talking about taking orders. I'm talking about doing a thing BECAUSE I was told to, without having a personal reason other than "I get paid to do it."

Not to get crass, but it's the difference between being a prostitute and merely being promiscuous. The one degrades a person and the other merely defines the person's actions.

There's something that happens to a person's psyche when what they do becomes "official."

"I'm an official gun-toter."

"I'm an official sex-haver."

It seems that there needs to be at least two separate categories of actions: those things which it is okay to do "officially" and those things which must always be a personal choice. And carrying guns and having sex need to be in the latter category.

Marriage comes to mind--the ritual that makes love "official" instead of voluntary. You no long are choosing to love your wife as her husband, it is your "official" duty. Hijinks ensue...

Quote:
I dunno, maybe it's cause I don't really feel "fear" in the conventional sense, which carries it's own problems, lemme tell you - but yes, the fear-aggression thing is a big problem with the bluesuits, and a damn lot of it comes from terribly bad, nonexistent, or completely counterproductive "training" that teaches an aggressive response to EVERY situation, backed up by a nearly complete lack of consequences for their behavior.

How the f**k does that happen, Frem? I mean I know how it happens, but the way you put it that is some seriously f****d up sh** (sorry, folks, self-censorship has always held a perverse fascination for me and sometimes I can't help myself).

Quote:
We should NOT let this crap slide, cause the end result of it is just too obvious to deny anymore, they should be held to a HIGHER standard of behavior, not a lower one, as should anyone who's actions, personal and professional, carry the power of life and death in the respect of bearing a firearm.

I really don't understand how people maintain this prejudice that goodness, being good, is so hard that no one can be expected to really do it.

I just saw an adaptation of Little Dorrit on TV, one of my favorite Dickens novels. Dickens is one of the few authors who wasn't afraid to tell stories about truly decent people. And we look down on him and say the characters aren't realistic, "too good to be true." Where do we get that, folks? Who among you truly finds it too hard to be decent and do the right thing when you're aware of it?

Quote:
Again, the only difference between the badge bearing kind and any other street gang, at the end of the day, is perceived legitimacy.

And I'm starting to think that "legitimacy" can only be "perceived," that it is unreal, a self-destructive agreement with our fellow humans to believe in a lie. It is a serious, serious problem and should, as much as possible, be avoided.

Anyway, I think you/I/we have hit on something here that bears discussion. Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:09 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Not to get crass, but it's the difference between being a prostitute and merely being promiscuous. The one degrades a person and the other merely defines the person's actions.

Quote:
There's something that happens to a person's psyche when what they do becomes "official."

"I'm an official gun-toter."

"I'm an official sex-haver."

It seems that there needs to be at least two separate categories of actions: those things which it is okay to do "officially" and those things which must always be a personal choice. And carrying guns and having sex need to be in the latter category.

Marriage comes to mind--the ritual that makes love "official" instead of voluntary. You no long are choosing to love your wife as her husband, it is your "official" duty. Hijinks ensue...

Well, I disagree with the prostitute bit (strongly), and you marriage comparison doesn't seem to work, because husband and wife are not jobs in the same way that being a police officer or prostitute are. But, I just got back from a concert, and I could be misunderstanding what you're getting at. I'd really appreciate if you elaborated on all this, because this is the first time I've found myself thinking, "Damn, that's so wrong!" about something you've posted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:01 PM

HKCAVALIER

I'm sorry, Yinyang,

I don't know what we're disagreeing about. Do you imagine that I'm denigrating sex workers because I think the work they do is hazardous to their mental health (that's how all the prostitutes I've known feel about it)? I know there's a myth within the sex industry that prostitution is some kind of sex-positive empowering choice, but I've never seen anything to support that idea.

I was suggesting that sex is not something that should be sold and compared it to administering deadly force as something that shouldn't be sold either.

And I was simply thinking, connecting the dots, as it were, and marriage seemed to have some of the same psychological pitfalls. The correlation isn't exact as I've described it, but I'm thinking that there is a correlation, though it's hard to put my finger on it.

Something to do with this idea of "legitimacy" and "following the rules." Getting paid to do a thing, places one's volition at one remove from the doing of it. The thing you're doing suddenly becomes, in your mind, a means to an end. You're mind can pretend that you're not really doing it--it's the rules that MAKE you do it, or your boss--you've given over your volition to some impersonal authority. It can allow you to do things you would not otherwise do. You know, you're not really having sex, you're putting food on the table. And you're not choosing to taser total strangers, you're doing your duty.

It's a complex nasty bunch of evil and it's not just the money. It becomes something you "owe" someone, and that is the connection I saw with marriage, love ceasing to be something you chose to act on and becoming something you're obligated to act on. The marriage contract places you at a a remove from your love, and that's the connection I was making. Please understand, I'm not saying that married folk don't, or can't love each other--only that the marriage contract interferes with our experience of our own volition. Money has a way of putting us at a remove from what we do to the point that a lot of capitalism-loving conservatives hereabouts cannot imagine doing ANYTHING in society without money as the central motivation. I find all that pretty sickening.

Anyway, I thought what I said in my last post was clear, if not particularly conclusive. I was fishing for a conversation, really. Perhaps you can elaborate on what it is that feels so wrong to you about what I said.

Thanks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

One thing I've not seen touched on but have observed in a fairly long life is that jobs like policeman, soldier, etc.--in other words, jobs where one has power over ofthers--tend to attract people with "power complexes"...people who LIKE throwing their weight around. Which is precisely the wrong reason they should be in that position.

I am definitely NOT saying that of all cops, or even most cops, or even perhaps "many" cops. But it's something I've noticed. Even little power like moderators, I've observed that a lot of those who voluntarily take up the job seem to get something out of nit-picking and using their power. It's sad, but often true, in my experience.

THIS instance absolutely makes smoke come out my ears. To leave those children alone, if nothing else, is practically criminal in my view. The rest seems wrong as well, but that one point really seems abhorrent.

I don't see the need to get rid of "resisting arrest", as there are times it is perfectly true. Perhaps stricter parameters for same or something, and of course there's always the court to apply to if we think it's wrong.

However, yes, I do think it can be utilized as an excuse to exercise power where none is needed. That goes back to the Gates thing, as well, in that my opinion was both blew it, but that Crowley let Gates get to him and used getting him out where he could say a "crowd" was "scared" by Gates' hollering in order to arrest him.

It's got to be hard to be a policeman and keep one's temper, decide what is the right and wrong course of action, and of course as they're human, to be able to separate one's feelings in a heated moment. But I do think it can be abused, I just don't have the answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:08 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One thing I've not seen touched on but have observed in a fairly long life is that jobs like policeman, soldier, etc.--in other words, jobs where one has power over others--tend to attract people with "power complexes"...people who LIKE throwing their weight around. Which is precisely the wrong reason they should be in that position.

That is so true. I would include teacher among such jobs--some teachers take their "power to determine the rest of their student's life" and run with it.

Quote:
I don't see the need to get rid of "resisting arrest", as there are times it is perfectly true. Perhaps stricter parameters for same or something, and of course there's always the court to apply to if we think it's wrong.

Of course there are times when "resisting arrest" is perfectly true, but that doesn't make it a crime. I'd say it was human nature to resist when a man with a gun is involved. And as has been said, how does being arrested for resisting arrest make any kind of sense? Why the heck are we allowing any police officer to arrest a person for reacting to a situation the police officer created himself?

When we criminalize "resisting arrest" we simply criminalize fear and distrust. We criminalize emotion and reaction. We criminalize human nature and habituate a people to casual tyranny. Would you support a criminal charge of "Distrusting an Officer of the law" or "Inconvenient Fear in the Face of a Gun" or "Disobeying the Man Who Could Very Legally Shoot You Dead?" If you assault a cop, fine, get arrested for that, but disagreeing with the cop and saying so, or simply blowing the cop off when he's behaving like a jackass, these should never be crimes. Even if you're wrong, and in the final analysis, the cop was in the right or you only thought the cop was being a jackass, when we criminalize mere misunderstanding and fear, we endanger our humanity.

Quote:
It's got to be hard to be a policeman and keep one's temper, decide what is the right and wrong course of action, and of course as they're human, to be able to separate one's feelings in a heated moment.

This is precisely why "resisting arrest" must be stricken from the books. It's like this: when the cop observes a possible crime being committed, she's still an observer with some level of detachment, but once she's engaging with the would-be criminal, she's lost that detachment, she's too close and her own fear and mistrust can distort her perception.

I think, in a way, the problem with law and with authority is that it proceeds from the premise that society can and should be absolutely orderly. Deviations from that order are then criminalized. But I observe that there is a baseline lack of order in human nature--not total madness and chaos, but not all order and obeisance. Good policemen walk the line between order and chaos with discernment and self-knowledge. Bad policemen have no respect for disorder and use it as an excuse to exert authority and dominion.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hmmmm...valid points, all of them.

I guess I'm thinking resisting arrest should only come into play when one is resisting an actual ARREST--like a criminal who fights back when caught in the act or something. Some kind of legal protection for the police...which probably wouldn't be a deterrent anyway in the heat of the moment. Oh well, I give up...I think you're probably right.

And yes, teachers too. Many occupations with power, and WITHIN many occupations, like supervisor, manager, HR person, etc., eh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:18 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

What's interesting is this soccer mom didn't take no crap from a cop. She was clumsy and illiterate, but at least she didn't just biatch about it.

Perhaps the best legal defense against alleged "resisting arrest" is to immediately make a citizen's arrest on the cop. I met a lawyer who did this twice while being illegally served with a parking ticket against his will.

I always file criminal charges against cops in traffic ticket trials, which is an Equal Protection defense under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. If a cop is not prosecuted, then I can't be prosecuted. That's THE LAW.

An essential element of resisting arrest is that it's a "LAWFUL arrest".

When a cop gives an illegal order to me, I tell him immediately that it's an illegal order, and the cop backs down. All soldiers are taught this fact of law in military training. Here's video of this actual situation:

http://one.revver.com/watch/244981

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
In some ways, it looks to me like "following the rules" is the single most self-destructive act of a conscious being

Not quite, but it can be - if you follow them ONLY because you are told to.
That... does something... to a person, none of it good.

Quote:
I'm talking about taking orders. I'm talking about doing a thing BECAUSE I was told to, without having a personal reason other than "I get paid to do it."

Yeah, that, exactly that.
One must remember that since prettymuch the beginning of my own self-awareness ain't nobody EVER been able to 'make' me do anything, not without one hell of a fight - most people obey rules that make sense cause they want to, cause it makes society run smoothly, but when the rules no longer make sense, when they become exploitive, counterproductive, or unreasonable, that is where the trouble begins.

In the end prohibition wasn't broken by any great grand act of resistance, but rather society itself condemned the whole idea, forced on them by a tiny minority for religous reasons, as unreasonable, oppressive and in fact every bit as ludicrous as a brick sandwich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raines_law
"Jacob Riis wrote in 1902 of saloon keepers who mocked the law by setting out "brick sandwiches," two pieces of bread with a brick in between, thus fulfilling the legal requirement of serving food."

Thing is, too MUCH of that and the whole social fabric begins to unravel, resulting in abject chaos (which is a *different thing* than Anarchy) and much tribulation, and it was in desperate defense against this that Prohibition was repealed, although they've been sneaking back at it via the tax code and other judicial abuses, particularly regarding tobacco.

MOST people obey the rules because of, as you say, reasons other than compulsion.

But those who obey the rules just because they are "the rules" - are dangerous, destructive, malicious in ways they don't even understand.

The defining characteristic of humankind which elevates them from the rest of the species running around on this ball of muddy water is free will and self realisatin - and the defining characteristic of THAT, is the ability and willingness to commit Heresy.

You ask me, it's our very best quality, and will one day be our saving grace.

Quote:
How the f**k does that happen, Frem? I mean I know how it happens, but the way you put it that is some seriously f****d up sh** (sorry, folks, self-censorship has always held a perverse fascination for me and sometimes I can't help myself).

I am not sure which of the statements you're questioning, here ?

The former is related to a combination of genetic tendancies with an environment that "pulls the trigger" and activates them on top of a personality type loaded in that direction anyways.
An MAOA loaded gene sequence backing up an ISTP personality type is already a pre-loaded risk-taking behavioral set, and when you marinate it in a toxic, traumatic environment for a couple decades you wind up with someone who simply isn't capable of feeling "fear" even in a self-preservation sense.
If you're really LUCKY, and they retain enough human empathy, they can feel some vague level of it for others, but that's about all you'll get.

The latter comes from Authoritarian culture and behavior, almost it's inevitable result once you remove consquence from the behavior of Authoritarian people, causing the same good old fashion lords and peons dynamic which dates back to the Feudal system, something that despite its known abuses and flaws, we've never successfully pulled completely away from in a social-behavioral fashion - the pecking order is still there, for those unwilling to blind themselves to it.

Quote:
I really don't understand how people maintain this prejudice that goodness, being good, is so hard that no one can be expected to really do it.

Comes from a perversion of the Darwinistic viewpoint, that all us humans are just beasts who need to be controlled "for our own good" - almost without fail expressed by some person or collective therof offering to DO that controlling for us, out of the supposed goodness of their hearts.
*sneer*

I favor a Rosseau/Kropotkin outlook on it myself, people are basically decent folk, when it comes to it, with a few noteable exceptions, and it's that very decency that allows those noteable exceptions, using the above myth, to climb to power over them and exploit it.

Especially grating is that folks who do "good" in a time and manner that breaks social rules get outcast and scorned for their troubles, leading to the old saw that no good deed goes unpunished - and countered by the philosophy of the Knight Errant, who is willing to help a community they are not, and in all but the rarest cases never will be, part of.

My mother was fond of giving me such books, for reasons of her own.

Quote:
And I'm starting to think that "legitimacy" can only be "perceived," that it is unreal, a self-destructive agreement with our fellow humans to believe in a lie. It is a serious, serious problem and should, as much as possible, be avoided.

I've thought THAT ever since I was about ten years old - one of the benefits to growing up with an outsiders view of our society, I guess - and if you can get through to and really connect with children, you will realize that a great deal of the so-called aberrant behavior on their part is caused by them trying to reconcile the lies we ram down their throats with what their natural instincts are telling them.

And our response is to force them to deny those instincts by any means necessary, punish them, medicate them away, or in extremis, send them to the camps and MAKE them, even if it kills em.

That dynamic, from "rendition" out of ones own home by a "teen transport agency" to the "enhanced behavioral modification" and resultant effects, has been with us far, far longer than GITMO and Abu Gharib, we just never applied it to "people" (i.e. adults, since we, socially, consider children and teens subhumans) up till now and thus there was little or no outrage about it.

And of COURSE you get gleeful abusers who were once themselves victims, riding the power trip of being on the OTHER end of the transaction - where the hell else does anyone think these happy little torturers, both of the badge bearing, and uniform wearing varieties.. come from ?

It's NOT that complicated, for those who can see the truth of it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 3:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

HKCav ?

Regarding your above post, William Grigg has two VERY relevant blog articles I think you'd do well to read - one about the fear factor you were discussing and the other about the right to resist.

Praetorian Presumptions
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/07/praetorian-presumptions.h
tml
Bobbing in the puddle of pathos created by the editorial staff's lachrymosity can be found this lump of congealed hypocrisy: "[T]ough guys don't pack firearms. Fearful guys do -- people who see everyone around them as a threat and think the worst of faces they don't recognize. Guns don't showcase strength, they showcase weakness."

I found that comment as laughable as he did, myself.

I might not LIKE people, but when I look at them, even admitted, acknowledged enemies, you know what I see ?

Potential reinforcements, if I can just convince them to be.

And the other bit

Restoring the Right to Resist
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/02/restoring-right-to-resist
.html

Mr Grigg is apparently unaware that, using a completely BIZARRE interpretation of the law which left even other judges scratching their heads, Michigan more or less threw out the idea of resisting even an illegal arrest back in Jan 2008, alas.

That said, this *is* Michigan, and given the chances of Sudden Custody Death from a bad case of that mystery disorder "Excited Delirium" even if you DO happen to be innocent, especially around the Detroit PD which seems to be notorious carriers of said infliction....

Even the infamous DPD tends to be perhaps a little more circumspect in pushing matters with someone they suspect might be armed when the matter is less than cut and dried, as a general rule, cause everyone knows the score - once you've capped that first shot at Johnny Boy Blue, considering your inevitable fate at that point, might as well make the most of it.

So barring really rare incidents, they're generally a lot more polite and professional when they *know* you're packing - amazing how that works, isn't it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 4:04 AM

CHRISISALL

LOL- and peeps consider this a free country. That's hilarious.
If you're not cop, you're little people.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 17, 2009 7:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
If you're not cop, you're little people.

Spoken like a true blade runner.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE