When The Law Breaks The Law

credit: Universal Network News

When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law at all - just a fight for survival.
- Billy Jack, (played by Tom Laughlin) in "Billy Jack"

I saw that quote rephrased today: "When the law breaks the law then there is no law."

There is wisdom in this idea, but it is simplified. It accepts, at least superficially, that laws are good, and that they apply to everyone, including cops. Now I do believe that cops need to have their rights treated the same as other citizens and not be treated as supercitizens, but many of the laws they force are victimless, rights violating, self serving, evil, or collectivist.

But in its simplicity, the requirement that police, politicians, and bureaucrats be held to the same legal standards as other citizens are is gaining popular support. Even if we accept the manufactured (unnatural) laws as they are, then the least we can do is expect those self-styled supercitizens fall under the same blind gaze that the rest if us "enjoy."

Happy friggen day when you see something like this, but it was long time in coming - according to the indictment. If they are innocent, then I hope they get their friggen day in court, but I bet they're guilty of at least a little corruption. Cops get a free ride, when it comes to petty and felonious abuses of fellow citizens' rights, so it either takes a camera, a gaggle of witnesses, or racketeering to snag cops for violating the run-of-the-mill (victimful, natural) laws.

credit: NY Daily News

Las Vegas Copycatish Shooting - And Reaping What You Sow

I'm not big on collective guilt, and that is an understatement, but when "the police" shit everywhere, then they attract people with a bone to pick (to mix metaphors mercilessly).

Here's my point and prediction, which I was afraid to make for months, for risk of appearing to promote "blowback:" The abusive behavior of police in our country will lead to more fatal attacks on police. People can only put up with so much shit, and I am surprised that more LEOs have not been justifiable killed by their victims or bystanders (while police stole from, assaulted, and murdered fellow citizens), but the pipers call needs a payer, and too many LEOs are tooting their horns begging for blowback.

In no way do I endorse premeditated murder, or political killings. But the madness of cops running around with a false belief in an entitlement to run roughshod over other civilians' rights, "forcing" statutory and ordinance rules, and a false faith in the rule of (manufactured) law will lead to more LEOs deaths - and an even more entrenched bunker mentality among them. And this is even more ironic, because law enforcement is NOT the most dangerous job in America.

Clearly those two beasts in Las Vegas chose an enemy to facilitate their own destruction, but cops are too often making themselves false demigods. They have drank the professional LEO KoolAid that they are separate from other civilians, that they are the sole legitimate practitioners of violence, that they can use violence to force rules for victimless crimes, and that noncompliance with their demands is a crime - to name just a few outrages.

Individual cops do themselves a great service, when they treat others with respect, focus on real crimes, and question others up the chain of command that demand enforcement of victimless "laws."

I want to reiterate my opposition to collective guilt, despite the fact that it is probably true that the sentiment might not be mutual. But cops need to understand that bad eggs and institutional-moral decay with reflect poorly on them - individually.

They aren't all pure as the driven snow when it comes to protecting individual rights, but here are a few organizations that address police violations of rights - and the Constitutionality of police and government actions:

Cop Block
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
National Rifle Association (NRA)

Obama Blindly (or Recklessly) Reaps What He Sows

The mounting irony is: If Congress won't act, then the courts and the states will. How's that for Obama reaping what he sows.

Obama's executive orders and drive to implement his agenda is compelling act for the opposite ends. Hows that for irony - and justice?

And once again, Obama sounds like he is on opposite sides of the fence on executive power - and separated by time AND unified by his struggle for relevance. This time Obama has flip-flopped on  immigration - or at least he flip-flopped about his willingness to use his executive power.

Let's see how the courts and the states, and hopefully Congress, react to Obama's renewed willingness to act like a dictator.

No Genealogies

If I recall correctly, there is a directive in the New Testament to suppress an "Old Testament" practice of making priesthoods ("rabbihoods")  hereditary. Has the Catholic Church - and protestant denominations, for that matter - replaced biological genealogies with bureaucratic ones?

And do we celebrate civic genealogies, also?

Private Policing: A History of Policing

My goal in this exercise is to develop a private-policing system concept.

As I vaguely remember, Critical Issues In Policing (an early edition), places the genesis of policing at the development of the position of sheriff in England. The "shire reeve" was the chief law-enforcement official for the king in a county.

Whether that book presented that origin, or my selective memory did, there are many problems with that interpretation of the origin of policing. For one thing, it's impossible, because humans were policing themselves on the tribal level and as illustrated in religious texts - the evidence cannot be ignored. Defining policing as descending from a king denies the natural rights of man and replaces them with the "rights" of kings - something that the Magna Carta, Parliament, congresses, communities, and gobs of stand-up individuals have fought against.

I've heard that policing and courts in Ireland existing as a free market, before England put the kibosh on Irish culture and self governance.

NEXT: Defining Policing

Fascist This, Fascist That: "Friendly Fascism"

It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.

- from Bertram Gross's Friendly Fascism, former presidential advisor to Truman and Roosevelt, as quoted in John Whitehead's Government of Wolves

It's so hard to call our present system "fascism," for all the usually negative connotations. "Friendly Fascism" at least acknowledges the subtly of our present creeping totalitarianism. And it is "ours," whether we like it or not.

Happy Independence Day. And read the Declaration - and not just the blasé preamble "meme."

Sherlock Holmes and Names

There is something obsessively compelling about Sherlock Holmes and names.

Sherlock - sure to lock up the guilty.
Holmes - sure to home in on his quarry.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - [need to pick this one apart]
Benedict Cumberbatch - [and this one]
Dr. John Watson - [and this one]
Martin Freeman - [and definitely this one]

Anti-Federalist's Argument Against Collectivism

The present moment discovers a new face in our affairs. Our object has been all along, to reform our federal system, and to strengthen our governments--to establish peace, order and justice in the community--but a new object now presents. The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. Of this, I think, I shall fully convince you, in my following letters on this subject. This consolidation of the states has been the object of several men in this country for some time past. Whether such a change can ever be effected in any manner; whether [such a change] can be effected without convulsions and civil wars; whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country--time only can determine. [emphasis added]

- Federal Farmer, no. 1, 8 Oct. 1787

Well, holy crap.

Federal power (and arguably a desire for martial glory and blood cleansing) did lead to Civil War I - Federal power that turned the country against itself by allowing one side to impose its economic order on the other side.  Is federal power handing the reins of power to those that favor one side over the other, again?

Are the statists - those who want to progressively use government power to force their belief system on others - begging for a Civil War II (or, realistically a Civil War III, if the Revolutionary War is included in the count)? Are the libertarians begging for the same? Should the Federal government acquiesce loss of power to states rights and individuals, in order to preserve some kind of union?

It is simple to state that our form of government has gone beyond the strictures of the Constitution, but as so many anarchocapitalists, anarchists, and libertarians have implied: The Constitution invited the overstep of its specific limits to power, because government power begets more government power.

One unfortunate problem with the aims outlined by the Federal Farmer: a belief that strengthening the governments was legitimate.

Global/Personal, Environment/Backyard, Healthcare/Wellbeing

We are living in a bipolar world. Collectivist push for an environmental policy. The individual pushes for protection of personal property - your backyard. Collectivist push for healthcare policy.The individual   pushes for protection of the body - your wellbeing. The examples go on. But we are in a cultural battlefield that pits the wants of the collective verses the "wants" of the individual.

The collective gives us the ridiculous gift of "corporate personhood," which brings a clear example of what collectivism offers - the false promise that groups can have clearly defined wants, and needs, exclusive of the desires of the individual. Oh, wait. I mean in place of the desires of the individual.

I love Star Trek, but Spock's quote, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one." begs the question: Can a group feel, and need, and think?

It is easy to think in terms of sweeping problems and solutions. THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES DEPENDS ON IT. But our existence is based on the individual, individual choices, individual rights. And when we abdicate responsibility of every problem - even the ones that could benefit from "collective" action - the the government hammer treats every perceived problem as a nail. Rights get violated, and problems multiply.

Most Elegant Rifle, Most ...

This most-list will be restricted to smokeless-fed cartridge firearms, for no particular reason.

Most Elegant Military Rifle

photo: Wikipedia.org

Karabiner 98 Kurz (aka Mauser 98k). The Mauser has a "whittled" sling attachment in the stock, has a cleaning rod that looks in place, and looks streamlined, while still being made out of wood and steel. And it looks oh-so-more proportional than the original Gewehr 98.

Most Steampunk Military Rifle

photo: Wikipedia.org

L85A1, (aka Enfield bullpup). It has plastic parts, so it is not truely steampunk, but the SA80 family of weapons just look like they are cobbled together with an assortment of parts to make bullet engines.

photo: IMFDB.org

Most Elegant Military Pistol

photo: AustriaArms.com

 SIG P210 (aka Pistole 49). The machined lines of this pistol are just awesome. And look even more beautiful, when you hold it in your hand. Like the CZ75, it has internal rails. I should have said the 1911, or the Luger. But the 1911 is too rounded, when you are holding it. And the Luger is too menacing. Of course, the P210 is handicapped, because the original military grips are not too attractive. And its profile is hampered by that giant trigger blade. But trust me, when you handle it, it is a marvel of machining.

Most Steampunk Military Pistol

photo: Wikipedia.org

Mauser C96 (aka Broomhandle). This pistol just screams Victorian Era. On a modern pistol, the slide would recock the hammer, if a modern pistol had a hammer. The C96 has a BOLT instead. The integral magazine and pencil barrel combined with the "broomhandle" just screams steampunk. And what other gun with scant modifications could serve as Han Solo's blaster?

photo: Tested.com

TO BE CONTINUED